Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Foreign Policy & News Bomb Iran

Democrats Support Bush’s Iran Policy
I don't think he had in mind using harsh language to persuade the Iranians to bend to the will of the US.

and we have Democrats criticize Bush's Iran policy, but theirs is almost identical In the current political climate I would suppose these people are couching their rhetoric to convey a message they differ from the administration, but the essence of what they say is clear, military action is an option. Considering that Iran apparently has no plans to end their pursuit of nuclear energy (they have been doing it for over 50 years), diplomacy has not chance of winning any concession from Iran. Why should it if they are pursuing conventional nuclear power?

DNC Chair hopeful, rporter? I'm sorry I wasn't more clear. I was looking for a contemporary quote, not a three-years-old quote. There's a favorite trick of the right wing dissemblers, you know the one? quoting what Dem's said back in the last century about Iraq? You get my drift. Current. Current.

As for the other quotes, yes of course many Dem's have made the claim that Iran must not "be allowed" to develop a nuclear bomb. But neither Edwards nor Clinton suggest, in the quote you supplied, that the Bush Administration is not being aggressive enough, as you seem to think. "What one does hear from the Democrats is a general, noncommittal assertion of the need to talk," says your Slate commentator. That's a far cry from hearing that the Bush Administration is not singing the McCain song loudly enough.

When ABC's Anne Flaherty claims that there is "increasing frustration" among Dem's that Bush "is not doing enough, I suspect what she means is that they are frustrated that Rice & Co. aren't talking more, not that they are egging on the Commander in Chief to "play the Cheney card".

What do you mean, diplomacy? Do you mean the kind of diplomacy that the IAEA employed to get inspectors back into Natanz? The kind of diplomacy the EU used to get Adhmadinejad to back down with the rhetoric? The kind of diplomacy Putin apparently used to get Iran to temporarily freeze their research?

Or are you talking about the kind of diplomacy employed by the Bush Administration? That is, the kind that is designed to fail? Again, this is exactly what the Dem's in Congress are complaining about - they want to see some real diplomacy. That's why they're grilling Ms. Rice. Because she's not doin enough.

Sorry but has he changed his mind?


I think the point is that if the Democrats are faced with a decision of either supporting the administration or facing the AIPAC repercussions, the Democrats will side with the administration and claim some lame excuse about national security etc. The only Democrat mentioned who has emphatically stated she is against military intervention is Pelosi. All the rest have stated repeatedly, all options are on the table. This is simple political expediency .... rhetorical pablum for the masses. It's a matter of perception and presentation ... the Democrats need to viewed as having a different platform than the administration (GOP) they have not committed themselves to actually answering any questions.


Obviously not talking about administration "diplomacy" if you can call it that but the real deal as you mentioned. But bottom line is what could possibly induce the Iranians to quit building their own nuclear power plants? Extortion? We will nuke you if you continue to try and build nuclear weapons? Under what conditions would the administration i.e. read that to actually mean Israel, be convinced that Iran is not building nuclear weapons? I haven't seen any answers to these questions but it is clear that without such answers the administration has done the job of bottling the argument in their favor.

My suggestion from several years ago has been denigrated by the administration and about that time apparently the Iranians rejected the Russian offer. Now there may be a possibility but still Israel must be convinced before the administration be back down on the nuclear weapons issue.

This of course still leaves the anti-Zionist issue which Israel will not back away from until some Iranian regime finally recognizes Israel. Thus as long as Israel perceives Iran as anti-Zionist, it will be a threat and thus must be neutralized. The administration and their neocon backers will continue to clamor for Iranian regime change in the mean time.

Hoping for the hardliners to give up their authority is a pipe dream neocons have which is shared among the hopeful that more conservative religious governments will fall. But if that is the hope then why not hope that the conservative Israeli government cede their authority to more secular voices.


I suspect she is doing all she is allowed to do. It would appear everytime she makes a remark which might suggest a diplomatic opening the administration closes the door. I believe she is on a tight leash but has some slack for appearances sake i.e. being used as Powell was in 2002.

There is some difficulty in determining what the "real" issues are. Ostensible nuclear weapons which threaten Israel is the long standing one, but with all known evidence that does not appear to be the case. The continued rhetoric from both Israel and the administration suggests a complication of determination. The Israelis may perceive that even if Iran were working only on conventional nuclear power that it would still give them an opportunity to enrich spent uranium and thus build nuclear weapons. The administration led around by the nose by their Israeli allies would accept that argument as valid and thus be drawn into the fray.

There are several reactors already running in Iran but the critical difference would be the conversion to a sole Iranian operation instead of reliance on foreign fuel. As petroleum consumption closes in on oil production in Iran, nuclear power appears to be the correct solution for the Iranians and thus maintain a small level of financial security by using more oil of export.

But as previously stated how would any change in Iranian nuclear policy convince the Israelis Iran is not a threat? I suspect the only "real" answer would be to deny Iran of the enrichment process guaranteed by the complete transparency of US-Israeli monitoring teams and Israeli recognition. As long as Iran maintains a religiously conservative government, their anti-Zionist policy will remain, so how do you diplomatically removed the source of power of their government? And even if Iran should agree to end their enrichment program, how will they guarantee it has ended in the face of Israeli accusations that it has not?

Whereas diplomacy may yields favorable results, it does not answer the very questions which are raised by the right Israelis or the neocons in this country. Can they be satisfied? My answer is no, I don't believe they would be, and as long as they are not satisfied the Israeli contention will remain. All of which brings us back to the original question of Democratic party support for the Israeli solution of the Iranian question.

Crude oil was $18/barrel when Pres. Bush took office. It's now $93/barrel and climbing. Any guesses where crude's price will be when Bush leaves office? Is $200/barrel possible?

Has the case to bomb Iran become more of a foregone conclusion than a question? Why? It's wrong and it's not American. What happened?

Joe

No, but the context has changed. What he was talking about in 2004 is not the same thing as what we are talking about now. I think that under current circumstances, Mr. Dean might have something entirely different to say. Something along the lines of "It would be sheer folly to attack Iran at this juncture. The American people could not be expected to support such a move."

That may be your point, and it is worthy of examination. However your contention that ABC was referring to Dem "frustration" that the Bush Administration wasn't being belligerent enough is still unsupported, and IMHO unsupportable.

True. But another thing it is not: it is not a quote to support the contention that Dem's are "frustrated" because the Administration isn't being belligerent enough. It is not a quote to support the contention that Dem's are joining with their Republican colleagues in a clamor to "play the Cheney card".

Well yes, they have bottled the argument in their favor. But, to make a metaphor, it's like "old coke" versus "new coke". The Iraq run-up was the "old coke", and people bought it even though it was bad for their health. "New coke" just didn't sell, and so rather than investing in a losing product, they simply stopped bottling it.

Any concession that Iran makes, real or imagined, can be "bottled" in the Administration's favor. You know that, rporter, you're a savvy cat. If the Russians work a deal with them, the Administration is perfectly capable of taking credit for it. If they want to.

Our job, as American citizens, is to provide the incentive for them to want to.

Indeed it does. So far, by your failure to dig up a single quote to show that a current Dem office-holder supports the "Israeli solution" - by which I take it you mean the title of this thread - you have shown that the Dem Party does not support the "Israeli solution".

I hope that this is just another internet rumor ,but if there's any validity to it, then we may be looking at a possible expansion of ME war to Iran and Syria (i.e. if the Chineese don't cancel our credit card). Agencies and bureaucracies sometimes reveal future Administration polices and congressional legislation by the training they give their employees prior to implementation. You'll see training for a particular thing and, lo and behold, legislation is passed and the trained personnel is ready. I suspect that this also applies to our institutions of higher education- grants, student co-ops, etc.- that may have a vested interest. At any rate, I believe that this- if it's true- is worthy of note and verification by our news media that watches out for us.

Joe

May not mean anything as apparently many times government prepares for a possibility only to abandon it later for any number of reasons.

More disturbing were the reports of a "bent spear" (mentioned in another thread which should be required reading for all who fear what has become of the US) associated with the Israeli strike in Syria. I suspect it will be many years before we know the truth of this operation, made ever more difficult by the current administrations rigid veil of secrecy.

I also suspect the administration is working on the appropriate foundation for attacking Iran by linking an Iranian attack with Iranian incursions in Iraq thus thwarting Congressional disapproval of expanding war in the ME. The Israelis would prefer a more immediate response, but political realities dictate that the administration measure the possibility they will not retain control of the WH in which case there are no guarantees that the new administration would continue to follow neocon thinkers (Israeli policy) and attack Iran, thus we can expect if the administration does it will be at the most opportune time to both effect an attack and at the same time leave a US response to an Iranian response for the next administration. If that administration reacts in a similar manner as the current one we can expect to be embroiled in a war in the ME which may have no good outcomes except under one circumstance which can not be named for political correctness.

Very scary stuff.

rporter314,

It's the U of MD that's making these preparations. Technically, or at least idealistically, speaking, a university isn't part of government, but....

I believe that the only reason this Administration doesn't bomb Iran before leaving is that they have assurances the next one will. It is very scary stuff.

Joe