« The "Iran Bank Hack" story and the New York Times: propaganda and lazy journalism exemplified | Main | Chuck Hagel's nomination hearing: Does Iran have a negotiating parther in Hagel? »

January 29, 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I have to agree that whether there is an "enemy" one can convert to an "ally" is mostly irrelevant to the Iran conflict.

In fact, the opposite is true. We need to dump Israel as an "ally" - because they are actually our (and everyone else's) enemy - and re-align with Iran.

The Leveretts are such apologists for the regime, that it's almost sad.

Let's not forget these are the same people who think the Iranian regime has the support of the masses and that women's conditions have improved since 1979.

Oh yeah, and their "tour guide" is Prof. Mirandi....another well-known spokesperson for the regime.

I agree with Cyrus.

But the question remains, what is Iran to do? What would bring this matter to peaceful resolution and off the war tracks?

Those are the questions that must be answered.

The obvious parallel would be for the US to make Russia the odd man out through US - Iranian rapprochement.

Russia is the big military and territorial impediment to long term US global dominance. China is still on side. Japan and Germany are occupied.

But then there is the Zionist imperative. That wasn't a factor for Nixon in China.

Cyrus, you need to read more into Going to Tehran than you have. The object of the Leveret's policy advocacy is a realignment beyond the three power condition you've identified, with the US and Israel on one side, and initiate a realignment with the IRI.

They did provide additional motivations for Nixon/Kissinger's realignment with China that went beyond the Cold War.

You can remain skeptical this can be pulled off with Iran, but consider Going to Iran as having the similar effect on public discussion as Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Me In the Press