« Media Bias #67 | Winner & Associates’ Palin Attack And Ethics Rules »

September 22nd 2008     

Offers From Iran? A Big Horse For Troy?

Posted by: Laer at 07:20 am

I

n yesterday’s Sunday Scan, I referenced a Thomas P.M. Barnett article on 12 lessons we should (have?) learned from the war in Iraq, including one I didn’t agree with.

The redirect on Iran was a complete waste of effort.

Due to our strategic tie-down in Iraq and Afghanistan, America can’t stop Iran from getting nuclear unless we go nuclear. We won’t do that, meaning we should have welcomed Iran’s offered help in both locations and not wasted our troops’ lives in the meantime.

I protested that going nuclear is not the only option, and that welcoming Iranian offers of help is a risky business, like accepting large horsey gifts from Trojans Greeks (thanks, Bob). Behind my thinking on the risks of working with Iran is the utter failure of the European initiative to talk Iran out of its nukes. They’ve had five years to convince Ahmedinejad and the Mullahs to behave themselves and play by the most rudimentary of international rules, and have gotten nowhere.

I take that back: They have gotten somewhere, and it’s worse than where they started. The Europeans have been corrupted by the Iranians and are doing foul deeds at their behest - hardly a get tough policy on Iran’s nukes. Here’s what I’m talking about, from Spiegel:

Hoping to accommodate Tehran, [the EU] placed an Iranian dissident group on the EU list of terrorist organizations — and got the bloc’s agriculture ministers to rubber stamp the decision without any debate. Now lawyers from across Europe are accusing the EU of abusing the law.

Europe’s agriculture ministers had been bickering over the usual topics for hours: the reform of agricultural policy, the economic misery of many fishermen, the import of genetically modified varieties of soy, the distribution of fruit and vegetables in schools.

Then they had to deal with a particularly unusual point on the day’s agenda: the European Union’s new list of terrorist organizations. Following an “exhaustive examination,” according to the press release, the ministers voted unanimously in favor of the list.

However, those who took part in that meeting on July 15 recall that the submission was approved silently “without any discussion, without a single word being spoken and without a formal vote.” Most of those present had “no idea” what the document was about. The agriculture ministers could hardly have realized that their silent decision would lead two months later to a huge political stir.

Part of any reasonable Iran strategy is to encourage dissent within Iran, yet here we see the EU shoring up the corrupt and dangerous regime, by turning its back on a group that could attack the Mullahs from within - while getting nothing to show for it in return.

How did the EU decide to add the group - the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (PMOI) - to the terrorist list? Simple … and foul:

The decision that the agriculture experts made in their meek ignorance had been prepared and formulated by a group that meets in secret. The names of the members of the group is classified as is the location where they meet and the dates of the gatherings. Every six months they update the so-called black list, which currently contains 48 organizations and 46 individuals suspected of terrorist activities. Those on the list can have their accounts frozen, and it is illegal to donate money to them or to support them in any other way. The organizations in practice lose the means to support themselves.

The EU’s handling of the matter - slipping the measure through secretly while proclaiming a public process - shows how dangerous it is to trust the Europeans with sensitive diplomacy when issues of the magnitde of nuclear weapons are in play.

If the Europeans have failed so miserably with Iran, we cannot afford to blame it entirely on the wimpy vicissitudes of the Europeans; we have to also give the Iranians their due: They are set in their policy, they are unwavering; they don’t feel threatened; they are threatening. Are these the sorts of folks we should accept offers from?

Share this Logic Bomb with others: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • bodytext
  • Sphinn
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • De.lirio.us
  • Reddit
  • SphereIt
  • Technorati
  • YahooMyWeb
  • StumbleUpon
  • Facebook
Tags: , , ,

Posted in Climate change, EU, Foreign policy, Iran, Uncategorized | 2 Comments » | Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Recent Posts:

Trackbacks/Pings

    Comments

  1. Bob

    The Trojans accepted the horse as a gift, it was the Greeks that offered it . . .

  2. Laer

    Oh, that darn history!  Just keeps getting in the way of my points.  Sheesh - where is my brain? Thanks.

Post URITrackback URI

Leave a Reply

[The "Comment Box" is WYSIWYG except that you have to double space between paragraphs!
Type it the way you want it to look -- Just remember to double up those line spaces.]

Tags:
Separate individual tags by commas

« Media Bias #67 | Winner & Associates’ Palin Attack And Ethics Rules »

With Obama winning the presidency by seven percent, we can't blame the media. Their laudatory coverage and refusal to extensively probe into Obama's background and [lack of] experience was at best responsible for five percent of his vote, the pundits tell us. Here is a compilation of over 100 significant instances of pro-Obama/anti-McCain bias during the 2008 campaign.

For all 'Media Bias 2008' – Click Here