Actually, threatening to bomb Iran is not the solution

13 05 2009

Yesterday Dick Cheney was in New York City to watch his daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, debate American diplomacy with Iran with Ambassador Nicholas Burn, Professor at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government  at the Intelligence Squared Debate.  During the debate, Elizabeth Cheney said, “If they [Iran] believe the threat of military force is on the table that’s frankly the only thing I’ve seen that convinces them they’d better get serious about sanctions.”

At a dinner following the debate, Cheney imparted some of his wisdom, saying that negotiations with Iran are fruitless and simply a way to stall for time, and the only way to achieve success is for President Obama to threaten to bomb Iran.  He said:

“Everybody’s in a giant conspiracy to achieve a different objective than the one we want to achieve.”

Hmm really?  What is this “giant conspiracy”?  And this whole “different objective” schpeal?  What is this about?  Then he said that the negotiations are “bound to fail unless we are perceived as very credible” in threatening military action against Iran.

Take diplomacy and negotiation advice from Dick Cheney, quite the pro y’know – making a realistic military threat to advance one’s own interests is not only legitimate, but the only way for negotiations to succeed.  Hmph.  Let us revisit the United Nations Charter.  Article 2.3 states:

All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

Something tells me that threatening to bomb Iran goes against this Article… Perhaps the U.S. should try actual diplomacy instead of preemptive military force or threatening to blow up a country and kill innocent civilians.  Thank goodness Cheney isn’t in office any more.



One response

13 05 2009

You or I may not like it, but Cheney is, to a large extent, correct in assertion that only the creditably threat of overwhelming force will cause Iran to negotiate seriously and in something vaguely resembling good faith. The Iranian government – that would be the Ayatollahs as opposed to the elected shills – holds onto their power by being the US’ enemy; they cannot negotiate with us and keep their own power base intact.

Sometimes I actually wonder if the rhetoric coming out of Iran is a push towards the scenario where the US “forces” Iran to do what’s best for it and the world. That would allow the Ayatollahs and their officials to keep painting America as the “Great Shaitan” who forced and bullied them into a compliance that they may have actually wanted all along.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: