Moving On Iran

[Annie]

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/brookes.htm

September 13, 2004 -- THE Bush administration is actually pursuing a vigor ous, multilateral (yes, mul tilateral) policy for grappling with the growing Iranian threat — though you certainly wouldn't know it from the critics.
The Kerry campaign is (no surprise) probably the most fickle, moving from position to position to see which sound-bite gets the most traction.

Last December, John Kerry told an audience at the left-leaning Council on Foreign Relations: "The Bush administration stubbornly refuses to conduct a realistic, non-confrontational policy with Iran, even where it may be possible . . . As president, I will be prepared early on to explore areas of mutual interest with Iran, just as I was prepared to normalize relations with Vietnam a decade ago."

In March, campaign aide Rand Beers revised Kerry's stance on Iran with the announcement: "John Kerry is not saying he is looking for better relations with Iran. He is looking for a dialogue with Iran."

Most recently, Kerry foreign-policy adviser Susan Rice charged that "the Bush administration has stood on the sidelines while [Iran's] . . . nuclear program has advanced." Rice continued: "It is past time for the [Bush] administration to develop a tough and effective strategy for dealing with Iran — and to show real leadership when it comes to addressing the most dangerous threats this country faces."

So there you have it: The administration is too hard, too soft and has no Iran policy at all. What a bunch of hooey!

[...]
[...]
[...]

No doubt: Dealing with Iran is tough. The options are limited. But it's clear that the administration does have a comprehensive policy for dealing with the growing Iranian challenge.

Critics may carp about the Bush's Iran policy, but it has done more than any previous administration to contain Iranian power and threats to American interests and international security. And, fortunately, it's also the most likely to achieve the desired result — an open, terrorism-free, non-nuclear Iran.

Peter Brookes is a Heritage Foundation senior fellow. E-mail: [email protected]

 

[NATO AIR]

i would strongly disagree with the author's claim that the council on foreign relations is left-leaning. the CFR is quite centrist, and it has able-minded commentators on the left and right (max boot is my personal favorite), which happens to offend organizations which approach situations and problems from only one perspective (like the heritage foundation).

otherwise, a damn good article and i'm glad bush is dealing with iran the way he is. i only pray he will be successful because no one other than OBL and his ilk want to see a nuclear armed Iran and Israel play chicken with each other next year.

 

[Annie]

i would strongly disagree with the author's claim that the council on foreign relations is left-leaning. the CFR is quite centrist, and it has able-minded commentators on the left and right (max boot is my personal favorite), which happens to offend organizations which approach situations and problems from only one perspective (like the heritage foundation).

otherwise, a damn good article and i'm glad bush is dealing with iran the way he is. i only pray he will be successful because no one other than OBL and his ilk want to see a nuclear armed Iran and Israel play chicken with each other next year.

I agree with you about Max Boot, but the preponderance of contributors ARE left leaning.

 

[NATO AIR]

argh... its iraq isn't it? they DID start taking a more leftward tone than before once iraq started becoming a battleground in the WOT.

but then again, a lot of good publications and groups started going that way over iraq.

 

[Annie]

argh... its iraq isn't it? they DID start taking a more leftward tone than before once iraq started becoming a battleground in the WOT.

but then again, a lot of good publications and groups started going that way over iraq.

Actually, I've been reading CFR and International Foreign Relations for years, I would have to say that they have always had more left than right, thus pulling them off center. It's the nature of those in the field, mostly one wouldn't enter, much less write on these topics, unless one had 'faith' in international relations? It's the nature of the beast.

Now some become convinced over time, that reality must meet theory, then they become more conservative.

 

[NATO AIR]

i was a brat when bosnia was happening, what sort of tone did they have then?
were there a lot of interventionists or a lot of people who said "trust the EU and the UN"

i ask mainly because i'm trying to put my own revalations about international institutions in perspective (reality must meet theory indeed)

 

[Annie]

i was a brat when bosnia was happening, what sort of tone did they have then?
were there a lot of interventionists or a lot of people who said "trust the EU and the UN"

i ask mainly because i'm trying to put my own revalations about international institutions in perspective (reality must meet theory indeed)

I have to get ready for school, but I think you can find 'archives' on both.

check out these too:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/

and never forget:

http://carlisle-www.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/parahome.htm

and one more:

http://www.policyreview.org/jun04/

 

[NATO AIR]

thank you, sorry for thinking "lazy", should've thought to look.

be interesting to see what i find.

 

[Annie]

thank you, sorry for thinking "lazy", should've thought to look.

be interesting to see what i find.

Not a problem, if I had time, I'd be glad to run back on issues, though I tend to get lost there once I start!