So, we've had two so-called face-to-face meetings between the
American State Department representatives and their Iranian counterparts in
However, a much more influential and vocal group see any reduction of tension in the region as anything but desirable. In this group we can include our neocons and their Zionist masterminds and cheerleaders who dragged us into the current quagmire in the first place, as well as the increasingly more active Christian Zionists, the highly influential buffoons who want to speed up the arrival of the End-Time and the Biblical Armageddon, purely for religious reasons.
On the Iranian side, an understandably similar situation
prevails. The hardliners gain further legitimacy as threats of aggression and
new sanctions against
Iranian leaders, whether clerical or secular, who see the nation's best interests in a meaningful and productive rapprochement with the United States, are clearly handicapped by the current of events we have been witnessing in recent years.
If, in fact,
If, on the other hand, we are truly interested in a reduction of tensions and hostilities and prefer a diplomatic solution to an explosive encounter with its predictably unpredictable consequences, neither our Administration's policies at home, nor our apparent behavior half-way around the world, indicate that we are on the right track.
Understandably, there are distinctly two separate plains upon which diplomacy plays its roles. One is at the actual negotiating table away from the press and the public media, where chest thumping, saber rattling and propaganda rhetoric are checked at the door, and honest concerns over the issues of contention are expressed and discussed. Once back outside, and before entering the stage of the public domain, what was checked at the door is retrieved and the propaganda game is resumed.
US Ambassador to
The Iranians, headed by Ambassador to Iraq, Kazemi-Ghomi, on the other hand, did their share of playing the propaganda game for their own public by putting all the blame on America's military presence in Iraq for the problems in that country, while privately sounding off positive comments about the trilateral meeting.
The Iraqi representative at the meeting, however, gave very optimistic statements about the results of the negotiations. To quote the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Zaberi, "This meeting has been challenging but productive and we feel it has produced some real results."
If we believe the propaganda side of these statements, clearly tailored for public consumption, we must conclude that the meeting between the representatives of the two governments was nothing but pure hogwash and a total waste of time and effort! Many in the mainstream media here had already predicted that this meeting or any others that might follow would be a waste of time. Their position has always been that hoping for any negotiated settlement of issues with the Iranians is a pipedream, and that the only thing that the Islamic Republic regime might understand and respect is force.
We can clearly see that this mindset is reflected in the presidential campaign rhetoric by the front running candidates in both political parties. While the Republicans advocate the use of military force, the Democrats prefer to begin with economic and diplomatic strangulation of the Iranian nation to bring about a soft or velvet revolution and regime change.
In short, it seems as though they all agree that dialogue with
this "designated" enemy is simply a charade, showing to the international
Whether this conclusion is true or false is one thing, but the ramifications of such pronouncements by the media and our officials to the public do, however, have profoundly more consequential effects.
The public perception of the goings on between the United States and what has been portrayed as America's arch enemy, Iran, is so effectively established that any attempt to rectify that image is viewed with great suspicion and skepticism.
The Iranians, on their part, feel the economic pressures and
fear the consequences of some military strike, whether accidentally initiated or
intentionally planned, by
There wouldn't be any doubt that a retaliatory attack on
What the Israeli regime and its supporters in the American administration stand to gain by fanning the fire of instability and strife in the region has been the subject of much of what I have written and spoken about, and is outside the topic of this article. The reader can access my articles in my web site, www.intellectualdiscourse.com
The invasion of
This seemingly copasetic development has proven to be more problematic than expected.
Looking at this situation objectively, the problem is not the
uncomfortable reality that
However, why the historical and religious connections between the Shi'a Iran and the resurgent Shi'a power in Iraq is today such a worrisome concern for the United States, should be the subject of careful, dispassionate study.
Is there, in reality and not just in the propaganda saturated
public playing fields, some cause for concern over
Based on official rhetoric,
The same folks have succeeded in creating a sense of
uncertainty and fear among the Sunni Arab regimes in the region, convincing them
to purchase billions of dollars of American weapons to defend themselves against
a potential Iranian assault. Apparently, we are to believe that the formidable
American task force in the
Sanity dictates that this charade is the superficial manifestation of realities that must have much deeper roots.
Behind all the fašade and disinformation, there lies the core
of our problems. We have created, by design or default, an
Here lies the problem: In this turbulent ocean of negative propaganda and in the face of the prevailing public mindset on both sides of the planet, how could the policy makers engage in a meaningful dialogue to initiate a rapprochement between the antagonists. Can such a dialogue be open and in plain view of the public? When final decisions have to meet the acceptance of people's representatives in the American Congress or the Iranian Parliament and be approved and implemented by respective Cabinet officials, how could these folks speak or vote counter to the rhetoric that they have been singing all this time?
It would require some kind of divine intervention, some miracle or a diplomatic magic act, to overcome such obstacles and pave the way for a mutually acceptable and beneficial cooperation between the two administrations. The primary prerequisite is, of course, finding and focusing on mutual interests and common concerns.
As Ambassador Crocker has said, both the
Let us look at what a democratic
Stability means a lessening of internecine bloodshed and
sectarian feud between the various faction, meaning a further isolation or
marginalization of the Sunni insurgencies and, above all, the elimination of Al
Gha'eda nests, something that both the
For the United States, a stable Iraq equates to a gradual reduction of American forces and their possible replacement ultimately by a United Nations peace keeping force stationed in the several strategically placed military bases in Iraq we have erected at a cost of tens of billion of US dollars.
The reduction of hostile rhetoric and threats of attack or
regime change, followed by lifting of the economic and diplomatic sanctions
Finally, how could one not wonder what forces are at
work and whose interests are involved in pushing the United Stets toward a more
aggressive stance against
I personally doubt that very much.
... Payvand News - 7/30/07 ... --