Smart diplomati! Irakiska bloggröster om ett eventuellt krig mellan USA och Iran

Det var ett tag sedan jag vände blickarna mot mina favoriter i den Irakiska blogosfären vars inlägg utgjorde en självskriven daglig blogg-dos för bara ett halvår sedan, men jag noterar vid ett återbesök att både Read Jarrar (som numera bor i USA) och Riverbend har nya postningar som bland annat tar upp ett eventuellt krig mellan USA och Iran.
Riverbend tar som vanligt avstamp i den Irakiska vardagen med syrliga kommentarer mot den struliga regimen i Bagdad och andra intressanta fenomen.
So while Iraqis are dying by the hundreds, with corpses turning up everywhere (last week they found a dead man in the open area in front of my cousins daughters school), the Iraqi puppets are taking their time trying to decide who gets to do the most stealing and in which ministry. Embezzlement, after all, is not to be taken lightly- one must give it the proper amount of thought and debate- even if the country is coming unhinged.

Men för att återvända till en eventuell konflikt med Iran. Riverbend har sin åsikt om saken klar:
The big question is- what will the US do about Iran? There are the hints of the possibility of bombings, etc. While I hate the Iranian government, the people don’t deserve the chaos and damage of air strikes and war. I don’t really worry about that though, because if you live in Iraq- you know America’s hands are tied. Just as soon as Washington makes a move against Tehran, American troops inside Iraq will come under attack. It’s that simple- Washington has big guns and planes… But Iran has 150,000 American hostages.
Raed Jarrar är betydligt mycket mer bekymrad. Som han ser det står fredrörelsen inför ett dilemma: varken en väpnad invasion av Iran eller ett Iran med kärnvapen är att föredra.
The administration would love to divert the anti-war movement's attention from opposing the concept of preemptive war and instead have us all debate whether such a war is appropriate or not for the specific case of Iran, as if attacking Iran is okay in some cases and not okay in other cases, as if Iran deserves to be attacked if it had a nuclear weapons program, as if Iran is the only country in its region with such programs.
Men det är framför allt hans förslag till vad som borde göras som jag finner mycket intressant, och för övrigt håller med om fullständigt.
I think the smart diplomacy should have started somewhere between 25 and 50 years ago. Oh, or maybe 53 years, since the US aborted Mosaddeq’s democratic regime in 1953. We have to have a smart diplomacy that gives the Iranians more options than either dying on the front defending their country or dying in a brand new Abu-Ghrieb run by brand new bad apples.

The remains of America’s credibility sank in Iraq’s quagmire. The IRI leaders are not interested in negotiations anymore. Ahmadinejhad informed the US of Iran’s lack of interest in any diplomatic discussions. The only options the world has on the short run are either to bomb the hell out of Iran and watch the oil prices go through the roof while Iran is destroying the US army and oil resources in the gulf and Middle East, or let the Iranians get their nukes while we’re planning for our “smart diplomacy” to create a new global atmosphere where Iran, Israel, and the rest of west Asia and north Africa can adopt diplomacy in resolving their own conflicts and give away their nuclear weapons.

When it comes to Iran, there is no dilemma. There is either a full scale war that will burn more trillions of our tax money, or a long term foreign policy change.

My conclusion in two points:
1- Iran should not be attacked, because the Iranians are strong enough to put up a fight. It’ll be a very expensive war that the US can't afford. Period.
2- We should start adopting a smart USFP to have a better world in the next decades were no more Irans would be planning on getting nuclear weapons.

Smart diplomati! Det låter bra, men vad är det ? Paul Kerr på har följnde definition av termen: "This means setting clear rewards for good behavior and sanctions for bad behavior. In Libya’s case, the Security Council suspended sanctions for fulfilling some of its obligations and lifted them when it fulfilled the rest. The United States also used the leverage of its sanctions to persuade Libya to comply."

Faktum är att det är precis detta som jag efterlyst när det gäller västs relationer med länder som tycks utgöra ett hot. Motsatsen är ständigt upptrappade konflikter med blodiga upplösningar. Som read skriver:
The USFP had given Iran one clear massage: Only the Strong Survive.
Iran is delivering its message as well: You reap what you sow.

Andra bloggar om: , , , , , , ,