Reply to: Remembering Our Goals In Iran
By Andrew Lebovich The Washington Note May 25, 2010
By Con George-Kotzabasis
One can trace a masochistic pleasure in Andrew Lebovich. He often has a craving to replace facts with fictional occurrences to his detriment, like in this case “…breakthroughs with hostile countries often occur not as a result of threats or harsh measures alone…” Present then a factual example where this has occurred, as Nadine asks.
Professor Kupchan’s proposal is a ludicrous absurdity. In this moonshine diplomacy with Iran he will be asking the latter to replace its libido dominandi to be the major power of the region and of the Muslim world with carrots, i.e., of “curbing the drug trade …which flows into Iran” and with a “new security architecture in the Persian Gulf.” Is it conceivable to him that while Iran is risking even the great possibility of being bombed either by Israel or the U.S. in its determined pursuit to acquire nuclear weapons under whose carapace will render it supremacy in the region, it will negate this strategic goal by accepting Kupchan’s carrots?
This letter was sent to the USA President on March 21, 2006
Dear Mr. President
It’s admirable to see, that in your National Security Strategy you continue to stand like a Titan against your Democratic opponents and the rabble-rattlers of the media, in respect of your historically insightful strategy of pre-emptive war.
Humbly, I would like to make the following suggestions in regard to the great threat emanating from Iran in its determination to acquire nuclear weapons. I don’t believe that conventional realist diplomacy will convince the Ahmadinejad regime, especially when the latter can see the fraction that exists among the major nations that try to stop it from acquiring its nuclear arsenal, as exemplified by Russia and China, to change course and submit to the demands of this seemingly powerful combination of nations. I believe that only a diplomacy that is backed by the threat of an unequivocally resolute use of military action against Iran, if the latter does not conform to its dictates, and which makes it quite clear to its leaders that such action will not only target its nuclear plants, but, also, its political and religious leadership in toto as well as the higher echelons of the military. I think that such a “kiss of death” diplomacy pressed upon the foreheads of the triangular leadership of Iran, has the great potential to sow the seeds of division within it that could oust the radicals and replace them by moderates, who would be keen to accept the injunctions of this “armed” diplomacy.
Thus a “palace revolt” against the theocratic regime could be instigated by means of diplomacy, and usher your policy of regime change in the most peaceful way. And needless to say only the USA under your leadership could exercise this diplomacy. Of course such diplomacy will not attract multilateral support. This, however, will not be an obstacle to your resolute leadership. But you will have the support of the Coalition of the willing, and that will be enough on this high stakes issue. The probability of achieving this peaceful transformation of regime change is far from being a long shot. But if uncertainty, that rules in the affairs of men and beyond, uncannily plays its mischievous role and negates this probability, then you will have no other option but to resort to a pre-emptive attack against Iran’s nuclear plants and against its triangular leadership.
Mr. President, it’s a terrible and tragic burden to carry on your shoulders. But that is the price that statesmanship must pay in this most dangerous times that issues from the coupling of terrorists and rogue states armed with nuclear weapons.
By Con George-Kotzabasis
Everyone can observe, other than the mentally ‘disengaged’, how intellectually and politically insecure Clemons is with his original Obama “gets it right” position in regard to the building of the Mosque on Ground Zero when he continues serially to recruit cognitively nondescript people, like Glassman, and even Arab American Muslims, in support of the ‘maiden’ stupid statement of Obama.
In the context when even Muslims behind the project have second thoughts about its location and are considering its withdrawal, as reported in the left-wing Israeli newspaper Haaretz, Clemons’s dogged persistence to find supporters for this ‘crescent’ laden white elephant clearly emphasizes how mentally and politically disengaged Clemons is from reality.
To Clemons, sadly and tragically, 70% of Americans, who oppose the building of the mosque, are a lynching “mob.”