Kissinger on Iran

I go to the site “A Daily Briefing on Iran” many times a day. It is a wealth of information on that state.

Tonight, they’ve posted an article by Henry Kissinger and his take on Iran.

Go Read!

Choice Quote:

In fact, the alleged conflict between conciliation and pressure is as unreal as it is standard. Diplomacy is about demonstrating to the other side both the consequences of its actions and the benefits of the alternatives. No matter how elegantly phrased, diplomacy by its very nature implies an element of and a capacity for pressure. One reason why European negotiators have made the limited progress they have on the nuclear issue with Iran is the implied threat of actions America might take in case of deadlock. The key issue between the United States and Europe should not be over the necessity of pressure if diplomacy fails but the definition of it, the timing, and precisely by what process that pressure is designed to lead to a non-nuclear Iran.

Personally, I think the US Administration knows it has to step lightly around Iran.

More importantly though, I think Iran is fully aware of its’ strange position. It is in a position of power relating to the rest of the world, but internally, it is fragile. More fragile than many think… I don’t think the Iranian people will be starting a new revolution any time soon.. they don’t have the stomach for violence.

Or, I may be wrong about that.. given another report from ADBOI:

Demonstrators were protesting against the lack of basic conditions and had gathered in front of the Governor’s Office when they were attacked by the special forces.

The situation has been reported as tense.

And… Germanys’ Foreign minister says:

If Iran behaves in an unreasonable way, if for example it restarts enrichment… then that would lead to the Security Council

Interesting times.

2 replies on “Kissinger on Iran”

  1. I think the first democractic election in Iraq is great news.

    However, does this really help the war on terror or only fan the flames?

    Now that Iran and N. Korea are calling the US’s hand, I have come to the conclusion the world is not safer. These guys DO have WMDs. But do you think President Bush has the military capital, political capital , economic capital to actually afford another war? I doubt it.

  2. The elections in iraq are indeed great news. (though they are not the first… simply the first since Saddam took power).

    As for the war on terror, I think the effect is still to be determined. There is no doubt that new Islamic “recruits” have streamed into Iraq to blow up Americans and try to take advantage of the power vaccuum, but there is no support among Iraqis for their extremism, so I think if the security situation can be stabilised, Iraq might be able to keep most Islamists at bay. As for the wider War on Terror. I think Iraq has been a sideshow… the terrorist cells are still around, I don’t think they would pack up and go to Iraq. There have been many arrests of terrorist suspects, and there have been just as many “alerts” to terrorist activitys. I don’t think this means either side is “winning” I think it’s just a function of heightened awareness.

    I think that even President Bush understands the folly of invading Iran, or even launching limited strikes on its’ nuclear facilities. There is simply too much at stake. Iraq was an isolated, weak, country. Iran is very much the opposite.

Comments are closed.

Discover more from Murkyview

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading