Week in Review
President Reagan made a joke once during a sound check before a radio address. He said, “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.” News of this joke leaked out. And reached the Soviet Union. And the Soviets did not find it amusing. Instead, they put the Soviet Far East Army on alert. You see, our enemies did not think much of Reagan’s comedic abilities. For with him they did not know when he was joking. Unlike President Obama (see Iranian general: Obama’s threats are ‘the joke of the year’ by Marissa Newman posted 3/4/2014 on The Times of Israel).
“The low-IQ US president and his country’s Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of ‘the US options on the table’ on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, especially the children,” General Masoud Jazayeri said, according to the semi-official Fars News Agency.
Jazayeri was responding to the US president’s interview in Bloomberg on Sunday, in which Obama maintained that the Iranian leadership should take his “all options on the table” stance — including the warning of a potential military strike — seriously…
The Iranian news agency Tuesday published a political cartoon mocking the US president, calling it: “All Options on Table.” This Time for Russia.” In a jab at US non-intervention in Ukraine, the cartoon portrays Obama peering forlornly into an empty paint can with the label “Red Line” while Russian President Vladimir Putin walks away saying, “I think you used it all on Syria…”
Under an interim deal clinched in November, Iran agreed to curb parts of its nuclear program for six months in exchange for limited sanctions relief. The agreement came into effect on January 20.
“The (nuclear) negotiations are going well … I’m hoping by the first deadline (July 20) we will reach an agreement,” Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif told reporters on the sidelines of an event in New Delhi on February 28…
“I can tell you that Iran’s nuclear program will remain intact. We will not close any program,” he said, according to Reuters.
President Obama is raking up the honors. A Nobel Peace Prize in 2009. The Lie of the Year in 2013. And now the Joke of the Year in 2014. Pity he hasn’t won some of the awards most Americans want him to win. The Best Economy of the Year award. And the Most Respected World Leader of the Year award. Two awards President Reagan did win. His outlawing Russia joke was really funny, though, and he should have won Joke of the Year, too. But here President Obama has him beat.
The Iranians will not close any nuclear program? If not why then did we lift those sanctions? It makes no sense. Unless President Obama is going after yet another award. The Most Naïve World Leader of the Year award. Where he’s been a perennial favorite to win every year since 2009.
Tags: all options on the table, Iran, joke, joke of the year, nuclear program, President Obama, President Reagan, sanctions, Soviet
Week in Review
The economic sanctions are making their mark in Iran. The people are suffering the economic consequences. But so far it doesn’t look like it’s encouraging any change in official Iranian position on their nuclear program. At least, not yet. For the Iranian regime is beating back the protestors (see Iranian discontent rises as riot police fight protesters by Robert Tait, David Blair posted 10/3/2012 on The Telegraph).
Security forces used tear gas and batons against demonstrators angered by a dramatic collapse in the national currency, the rial, which has lost about a third of its value against the US dollar since Sunday. The hour by hour decline of the currency provides vivid evidence of the damage wrought by international sanctions, which were imposed because of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
There were voting irregularities in the 2009 Iranian elections. Protests erupted throughout Iran. And the Iranian regime suppressed them. President Obama did not support the protesters. Nor demand that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad step down. Even though the Iranian regime is an enemy of the United States. They are an active sponsor of terrorism. And a threat to regional peace. But when the Arab Spring reached our ally, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, President Obama demanded that he stepped down. Even though he didn’t use his army to suppress his people. Now the country is run by the Muslim Brotherhood. And is moving closer to Iran.
With the invasion of Iraq Libya made peace with the United States. They were no longer a threat to the United States. Or regional peace. Yet President Obama committed military force to support the opposition in their civil war. When the Arab Spring moved on to Syria, an Iranian ally, supporter of terrorism, home of Hezbollah, President Obama made no move to support the opposition. And Syria has degenerated into a bloody civil war. Sending refugees across borders. And causing cross-border incidents. The very thing the Obama administration warned of in Libya. And used to justify their support in that conflict.
American foreign policy these days may appear a bit confusing to our friends and allies. The U.S. is supporting sanctions against Iran to get them to abandon their nuclear programs. Which probably would not have advanced as far had the Iranian protests in 2009 led to a regime change. But the U.S. did not support the protestors. Unlike in Egypt and Libya. Nations that weren’t enemies of the United States. Like Iran is. So it will be interesting to see where these new protests may lead to. Hopefully they will end well for the Iranian people.
Behind the rial’s decline lies a precipitous fall in Iranian oil exports, which have dropped from about 2.5 million barrels per day last year to 1.1 million barrels in August, according to the International Energy Agency. This has deprived Iran of billions of dollars of revenues and exposed the regime’s failure to avoid the damage caused by sanctions.
The collapse of the currency reflects a general loss of public confidence. The anti-government website, Kalemeh, cited eyewitnesses accounts that demonstrators demanded the overthrow of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
The collapse of the rial makes it far more expensive for Iranian companies to buy imported goods. Mr Kushner said the latest decline “means that most Iranian importers simply cannot afford to pay for goods if they must use the free market rate.”
Instead of trading with the West, Iran has tried to buy more goods from countries likes China, India and particularly Turkey. However, the fall in the currency raises the price of imports across the board, meaning that they could become unaffordable. “We will see a real financial crisis in the coming months because the economy cannot sustain this,” said Mr Kushner. “It is bad, but will become a lot worse.”
With the fall in oil revenues the state has to make up for that revenue by other means. And it looks like they’ve depreciated their currency. That is, they’ve printed rials. Making them worth less. Which can be hidden somewhat in a closed economy. But not with international trade. Because to buy foreign goods you first have to exchange your money for the foreign currency of your trading partner first. And when your currency is greatly depreciated it doesn’t trade for much foreign currency. Making those imports very, very expensive. Taking more and more rials to buy them. Putting them out of the reach of ordinary Iranians. Hence the protests. And the lack of public confidence.
The Iranian people are ready for change. Will they get it? Time will tell. Unfortunately for the Iranians, time didn’t treat them well in 2009.
Tags: 2009 Iranian elections, Ahmadinejad, Arab Spring, Civil War, demonstrators, economic sanctions, Egypt, Iran, Iranian, Iranian people, Iranian Regime, Libya, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, nuclear, nuclear program, protestors, rial, Syria
Week in Review
In the election cycle the Left typically campaigns on a recurring theme. That Republicans are anti-women. That they want to overturn Roe v. Wade. That they want to prevent access to birth control. And turn women into clones of Donna Reed and lock them in 1950s suburban America. Because Republicans hate women. At least that’s the meme. Now contrast that with a country that really hates women (see Struggle over what to wear in Iran by Jason Rezaian posted 7/21/2012 on The Washington Post).
Mandatory female covering known as hijab has been a defining element of Iran since the Islamic Revolution in 1979. Although the laws regarding proper cover haven’t changed, some women have grown bolder in interpreting the limits of what they can wear, creating a conflict that inevitably flares each summer as temperatures climb.
The government’s offensive this year has been marked by the stationing of mixed-gender teams of morality police in Tehran’s main squares.
In recent weeks, 53 coffee shops and 87 restaurants have been closed in Tehran for serving customers with improper hijab or for other gender-related offenses, such as permitting women to smoke hookah pipes. Concerts have been abruptly canceled because of inappropriate dress and too much contact between male and female fans. Approximately 80 stands at an international food fair were closed last month because, officials said, the women working at them were either breaking hijab rules or wearing too much makeup.
Those arrested face up to two months in prison or even lashing, penalties that have been on the books for years but have rarely been imposed…
Mostafa, a 46-year-old marketing consultant, described how his 16-year-old daughter was arrested in a crowded shopping mall. “They coaxed her into the police van and told her they just wanted to talk to her,” he explained. “Once she was in the van, the whole atmosphere changed, and they said things that made her cry.”
After a brief time in custody, his daughter, Banafshe, was released. “Do you know what her response was to the whole episode?” he asked. “She said, ‘Dad, as soon as I finish high school, I’m leaving this country forever.’ ”
Let’s hope she gets the chance to leave her country. So she can enjoy living free from oppression.
Morality police? You know, this is the kind of thing the Left says the Republicans will do if we elect them to office. Though after 8 years of Ronald Reagan, 4 years of George H.W. Bush and 8 years of George W. Bush that didn’t happen. Quite the contrary. The porn industry exploded during the Eighties. Sleazy topless bars became high-end gentlemen’s clubs. Television got cruder. Girls drank to excess on Spring Break and made amateur porn videos. Sometimes unbeknownst to them. No, women have been, and continue to be, free to do pretty much whatever they want. Even when we elect Republicans to office. Even if these Republicans would prefer that their daughters not dance at gentlemen’s clubs or go into the porn industry.
The Republicans didn’t like this. They fought against some if it through legal channels. But the liberals and their lawyers won these contests. Moralize as they may have tried nothing changed. But one thing the Republicans never proposed was having morality police stop 16-year old girls in the malls. At most some religious people told some that they would burn in hell if they stayed on their current wayward paths. Strong words but not quite the same as being locked up by the state. Or getting whipped. Makes living under a Republican administration sound a whole lot freer than life in Iran. And given a choice I’m sure any woman would choose to live under a Republican administration rather than choosing to live in Iran. And if that’s the case than Republicans can’t really hate women, can they?
Tags: anti-women, gender-related offenses, hijab, Iran, Left, morality police, Republican, Republicans are anti-women, Republicans hate women, women
Week in review
First they wanted to develop nuclear power to generate electricity. Now they want to make nuclear-powered merchant marine ships (see Iran parliamentary committee approves construction of nuclear-powered merchant ships by Associated Press posted 7/15/2012 on The Washington Post).
A Iranian parliamentary committee has approved a bill requiring the government to design nuclear-powered merchant ships and provide them with nuclear fuel, an Iranian news agency reported Sunday.
The bill appears to be a symbolic gesture to bolster Tehran’s argument that it has a right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. The West suspects Iran’s nuclear program is aimed at developing weapons technology, a charge Tehran denies.
Nuclear-powered vessels other than warships are rare, and the International Atomic Energy Agency has said in the past that nuclear-powered merchant ships would be uneconomical…
The West has raised concerns that Iran might cite submarine and other nuclear-powered vessel construction as a justification for producing weapons-grade 90 percent enriched uranium.
A nuclear-powered merchant marine ship? Gee, I wonder how much the Somali pirates would get for one of those?
I would not allow an Iranian nuclear-powered ship of any kind anywhere close to U.S. territorial waters. Imagine letting a nuclear reactor melt down in a U.S. harbor. That would bump Three Mile Island, Fukushima and Chernobyl down the list of worst nuclear ‘accidents’. I put ‘accidents’ in quotations because with the Iranians it probably wouldn’t be an accident.
This would just give the Iranians an opportunity to work on nuclear propulsion systems. If successful (and if they have the funding and the resources) they will transform that technology into a warship. Or a submarine.
Or perhaps they won’t do any of this. They may just develop a nuclear weapon under the guise of producing weapons-grade material for ‘peaceful’ purposes. And once they have it they’ll put it in a bomb.
The real question is how long are we going to let the Iranians down this road? Far enough that they can threaten Israel, the U.S. and our friends and allies with a nuclear capability? This is what we worried Saddam Hussein would do if left in power in Iraq. He wanted to stay in power. At any price. So he could oppress his people. And perhaps his neighbors. What’s scarier with the Iranian leadership (NOT the Iranian people) is that their main goal does not appear to be in this life. But in the next. Which means nuclear retaliation and annihilation may not dissuade them. Not if they get to take out their enemies first.
Perhaps the greatest foreign policy failure of the Obama administration was not helping the Iranian people during the Green Revolution following the 2009 Iranian presidential election. It’s particularly sad because we didn’t help these good people but we did help the Muslim Brotherhood rise to power in Egypt. And helped al Qaeda rise to power in Libya. The so-called Arab Spring. Which was more about the rise of Islamism than the rise of Democracy. While we did nothing to support a real Democracy movement (the Green Revolution) in Iran. One shudders to think of the consequences of this foreign policy blunder. Especially now that the Iranians are aggressively pursuing a nuclear program.
Tags: enrich uranium, foreign policy, foreign policy blunder, foreign policy failure, generate electricity, Green Revolution, Iran, Iranian, Iranian people, nuclear power, nuclear propulsion systems, nuclear reactor, nuclear weapon, nuclear-powered merchant marine ships, weapons-grade material
Week in Review
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is stirring up trouble in the Middle East. Again. He’s got his eyes on some strategically located islands that just might come in handy in some future plans (see Gulf states schedule special meeting over Iran-UAE island dispute by Alexandra Sandels and Ramin Mostaghim posted 4/13/2012 on the Los Angeles Times).
Foreign ministers of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states are scheduled to meet in the Saudi capital of Riyadh following a visit by Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to a disputed island earlier this week in a move that has sparked a diplomatic spat between the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Iran…
Abu Musa is one of three islands that both Iran and the UAE claim. Iran took control of the islands of Abu Musa, Lesser Tunb and Greater Tunb — all located near important shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz — back in 1971, as the Gulf emirates gained full independence from Britain and British forces were withdrawn.
GCC chief Abdullatif al-Zayani has denounced Ahmadinejad’s visit to Abu Musa. In a statement, he called it a “clear violation of UAE sovereignty” and said it was “an irresponsible provocation and is not in line with the GCC policy of maintaining good neighborly relations with Iran,” according to media reports.
If you look at a map you can understand why Iran is causing all of this trouble. Lesser Tunb and Greater Tunb are in the shipping lanes proper. Abu Musa is on the far side of the shipping lanes from Iran. Ideal islands to have if you’re threatening to blockade the Strait of Hormuz. Which the Iranians are threatening to do if anyone tries to stop their nuclear program.
Iran is the bully of the Middle East. Always looking to start trouble. They were sponsoring attacks on U.S. service personnel in Iraq. They were inflaming the unrest on Bahrain. They’re close with the Muslim Brotherhood who is gathering political power in Egypt. They’re funding Hezbollah and Hamas in their attacks on Israel. And, of course, they want to remove Israel from the map. Which is just something their nuclear program can do. Even the other Arab states are sick and tired of having to deal with Iran. Who want to be the supreme power in the region. Just like the British were at one time. And who the Iranians condemned for it.
Iran it the greatest threat to stability and peace in the area. Which is growing ever more instable and less peaceful since the fall of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. We can’t let Iran be a nuclear power. For they won’t live in peace with any neighbor once they have it. And threaten nuclear retaliation for any attempts to limit her influence and power in the region. Or any action they take against Israel. There is no good way for this to end. Except, perhaps, the fall of the current Iranian regime. Which may be the only way to stop it. But after a decade of war who is going to start another?
There is a parallel to pre-World War II Europe here. Hitler got away with provocation after provocation because no one wanted a return to war. Not after World War I. So we negotiated and dithered. Even gave Hitler a sovereign nation. Czechoslovakia. Anything to appease him and avoid war. And we know how that ended. Once he had Czechoslovakia he attacked Poland. Launching World War II. Which was far worse than World War I. And any war Iran starts as a nuclear power will be far worse than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined. Which means only one thing. We can’t let Iran become a nuclear power. But will we?
Tags: Abu Musa, Ahmadinejad, GCC, Greater Tunb, Gulf Cooperation Council, Iranians, islands, Lesser Tunb, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Middle East, nuclear, nuclear program, Strait of Hormuz, UAE
Week in Review
Egypt is changing. And not the way the college students and protesters had hoped when they rose up against Hosni Mubarak. Much like similar protesters were to be disappointed during the Iranian Revolution (see Seeking support amid Islamist split, Egypt’s Brotherhood promises Muslim clerics say in power by the Associated Press posted 4/4/2012 on The Washington Post).
The Muslim Brotherhood’s candidate for Egypt’s presidency is lobbying hard for support of ultraconservative Muslim clerics, promising them a say over legislation in the future to ensure it is in line with Islamic law, as he tries to rally the divided Islamist vote behind him…
Giving Muslim clerics a direct say over legislation would be unprecedented in Egypt. Specifics of the Brotherhood promise, which Salafi clerics said Wednesday the candidate Khairat el-Shater gave them in a backroom meeting, were not known. But any clerical role would certainly raise a backlash from liberal and moderate Egyptians who already fear Islamists will sharply restrict civil rights as they gain political power after the fall last year of President Hosni Mubarak.
Unprecedented in Egypt, perhaps. But very much expected as it is exactly what happened following the Iranian Revolution. And not just a little like it but a lot like it. The Shah of Iran was a little too friendly to the West. So young college students and ‘reformers’ overthrew the ruthless dictator that was keeping them freer than they had the good sense to know. By preventing the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. The clerics kept promising that they didn’t want Sharia law. Until they didn’t have to promise it anymore. After they had subjected all Iranians to Sharia law. Those college students went on to miss that ruthless dictator. The Shah of Iran. And the freedoms they once enjoyed under him.
Salafis are the most hard-line of Egypt’s fundamentalists, depicting themselves as the “guardians of Shariah” and touting a strict interpretation of Islamic law similar to Saudi Arabia’s. Many of them see the Brotherhood as too willing to compromise on implementing Shariah and despise its political pragmatism.
Like Saudi Arabia? Yeah, we wish. Saudi Arabia is a friend and ally of the U.S. whose interests in the regions are peace and stability. Yes, let’s hope that if Egypt goes Islamic that it is another Sunni Saudi Arabia and not another Shiite Iran. Who has but one goal. The destruction of Israel, the United States and all other Western interests that don’t condemn Israel or the United States. The Iranians support terrorist organizations that disrupt peace and stability. The Saudis don’t. Yes, Osama bin Laden’s funding came from the Wahhabi in Saudi Arabia. But the Saudis didn’t sponsor them. They feared them. For the Wahhabi hate the House of Saud as much as they hate the Americans. Which makes them very much unlike Iran. And far more preferable than Iran. For any government that is hated by extreme Islamists has to be better than an extreme Islamists.
Mohammed Habib, who was the Brotherhood’s deputy leader at that time, says the platform item was for a body of clerics simply to advise lawmakers, but that some in the group wanted it to have a more powerful role to vet legislation…
Tharwat el-Kherbawi, a former Brotherhood member who fell out with the group, said the council appeared similar to Iran’s system of clerical “guardians” over the elected government.
Goodbye Egypt. And hello Iran.
Tags: clerics, college students, Egypt, Egyptian, Egyptian government, Hosni Mubarak, Iran, Iranian Revolution, Iranians, Islamic law, Islamist, Israel, Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood, Muslim clerics, protesters, Salafi clerics, Saudi Arabia, Shah of Iran, Sharia law, United States, Wahhabi
Week in Review
What’s the difference between North Korea and Iran? The Iranian government is on a mission from God. The Stalinist government of the North Koreans just wants to feed their people enough to keep them from rising up and challenging their autocratic power. So they can continue to live in extreme comfort and plenty while the North Korean masses often mark time by the most recent famine (see U.S. announces diplomatic breakthrough with North Korea by Laura Rozen posted 2/29/2012 on Yahoo! News).
Under an agreement reached in direct talks in Beijing last week, North Korea has agreed to allow the return of nuclear inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency, and has agreed to implement a moratorium on long-range missile tests, nuclear tests, and nuclear activities at Yongbyon, including uranium enrichment activities, the State Department said. In return, the United States will provide North Korea with a large food aid package…
Arms control experts welcomed the signs of progress in U.S. efforts to engage Pyongyang. But U.S. North Korea experts and foreign policy hands advised high caution in assessing Pyongyang’s intent, given its track record of abrupt reversals.
“These steps are modestly significant,” Richard Bush, director of Northeast Asian studies at the Brookings Institution, said in a statement Thursday. However, he noted, they “are only what negotiators call ‘confidence-building measures.’ They could indeed be an initial step on a path towards serious negotiations … Or they could simply be a ploy to get nutritional assistance and meddle in South Korean politics. North Korea’s record suggests the latter, but we shall see.”
This is the little dance we do with North Korea. Their people starve. They play with their nuclear toys. And use their nuclear leverage. We come in and offer them food aid if they put down their nuclear toys. They do. We give them food aid. Then when the next famine rolls along they pick up their nuclear toys again. And we resume our little dance. It won’t be like this in Iran.
The radical Islamists have a plan. And it is a twofold plan. First they want to incinerate Israel. Then they want to reestablish their caliphate and rule the world. And they will use a unique form of gunboat diplomacy. Where they’ll back their diplomacy with the awesome destructive power of their nuclear weapons.
North Korea is dangerous. But more in a scenario where the supreme ruler might go crazy. Or get backed into a corner. Where he has no options to keep himself in power. And in a life of comfort and plenty. Then like a child who can’t have his way he will launch his nuclear weapons so no one can have their way. Of course the retaliation will be swift. And there will be no more Stalinist government left in North Korea. Hopefully without harming the good people of North Korea. The suffering masses. Whereas any retaliation against a strike from a nuclear Iran will be answered by an angry Islamist uprising in countries throughout the world.
So is a nuclear North Korea dangerous? Yes. But manageable. At least, so far. Is a nuclear Iran dangerous? Yes. So dangerous that we really don’t want to get to the ‘North Korea’ stage in Iran. Because radical Islamists don’t care about anything but their mission from God.
Tags: famine, food aid, Iran, Iranian, Islamists, North Korea, North Korean, nuclear Iran, nuclear leverage, nuclear toys, nuclear weapons, radical Islamists, Stalinist government
Week in Review
Iran is enriching uranium like there is no tomorrow. Putting them on a fast-track to build a nuclear weapon. Which they, of course, deny (see Iran rapidly expanding nuclear production, says UN by the AP posted 2/24/2012 on The Independent).
Iran has rapidly ramped up production of higher-grade enriched uranium over the last four months, the UN nuclear agency says in a confidential report…
Iran insists it is not interested in nuclear weapons and says all of its activities are meant either to generate energy or to be used for research.
For someone who doesn’t want nuclear weapons Iran is doing everything necessary to make them. So is an energy-rich nation that literally has oil to burn just looking to build nuclear plants to generate electricity? Or could it be that they want to incinerate Israel? Well, they have said they would like to incinerate Israel. So you be the judge.
Tags: enriching uranium, Iran, Israel, nuclear weapon, uranium
Week in Review
Well the Egyptians have voted. And now begins the winter of their discontent (see Islamists secure top spot in new Egypt parliament by Marwa Awad and Lin Noueihed, Reuters, posted 1/21/2012 on Yahoo! News).
The Muslim Brotherhood won by far the biggest share of seats allocated to party lists in Egypt’s first freely-elected parliament in decades, final results confirmed, giving it a major role in drafting the country’s new constitution.
Banned under former leader Hosni Mubarak and his predecessors, the Brotherhood has emerged as the winner from his overthrow. Islamists of various stripes have taken about two thirds of seats in the assembly, broadly in line with their own forecasts.
The Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) has promised all Egyptians will have a voice in the new parliament, but Islamists are now set to wield major influence over a new constitution to be drafted by a 100-strong body parliament will help pick…
The Revolution Continues coalition, dominated by youth groups at the forefront of the protests that toppled Mubarak, attracted less than a million votes and took just seven of the 498 seats up for grabs in the lower house…
Only one woman was among the appointees which is likely to further disappoint feminist groups after women won only a handful of seats in the elections. Mubarak had traditionally used the quota to boost the representation of women and Coptic Christians.
So, only 7 of the youth who overthrew Mubarak in hopes of a better future will have a say in the new government. And only one of them is a woman. Kind of like the Iranian Revolution. When all those college students, men and women, overthrew the Shah. And how did that turn out for them? If you were a woman not good. They lost their freedom. That same freedom they once enjoyed while protesting the Shah of Iran. Much like the women who brought down Hosni Mubarak will no doubt lose as well. Based on the strong Islamist wins.
Who would have thought that all those who protested Mubarak and wanted a brighter future would have voted that very future away from themselves? For with the Islamists writing the constitution you can bet that the new government will be very Islamist. And much like Iran. Which no protester said at the time they wanted. In fact, the Muslim Brotherhood went out of their way saying that Egypt would not be like Iran. Despite their own personal desire for it to be like Iran.
Funny how history repeats.
Tags: Constitution, Egypt, Egyptians, freedom, Iran, Iranian Revolution, Islamists, Mubarak, Muslim Brotherhood, Shah
Week in Review
The Iranians love diplomacy. Because they see it as a sign of weakness and don’t respect it. They respect only one thing. Force. And the willingness to use it. Which they’ve seen of late. And have backed off of their shutting down the world’s oil supply rhetoric (see After threats, Iran plays down U.S. naval moves by Robin Pomeroy and Hashem Kalantari, Reuters, posted 1/21/2012 on Yahoo! News).
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps said on Saturday it considered the likely return of U.S. warships to the Gulf part of routine activity, backing away from previous warnings to Washington not to re-enter the area.
The statement may be seen as an effort to reduce tensions after Washington said it would respond if Iran made good on a threat to block the Strait of Hormuz – the vital shipping lane for oil exports from the Gulf.
The US said say all you want but that carrier will be there. And it will respond to any hostile acts such as blockading the Strait of Hormuz. As will their steadfast ally the Brits. Who sent a serious naval asset to the region. A Type 45 destroyer. A single ship that can shoot down anything the Iranians can throw into the air long before hitting any US, UK or other friendly target. And, of course, with that US carrier and its task force on station as well the response to that failed Iranian attack would have been devastating. The Iranians would have had their asses handed to them.
They’ll talk until everyone is blue in the face. To them diplomacy is unmanly and a sign of weakness. They simply don’t respect it. But project force and be willing to use that force and they will respect that. Which is the only thing they will respect.
Tags: carrier, diplomacy, force, Iran, Iranians, Iranians love diplomacy, oil, respect, Strait of Hormuz, willingness to use force
« Previous Entries