Greg's Open Letter to President Bush
Apparently Ahmadinejad has sent a private love letter to GW Bush discussing nonsense about philosophy and history.
Here's my plan: We point our guns toward Iran. Overtly. Forget sanctions forget the UN and all the bullshit. We point our guns toward Iran and we tell Israel to get ready.
And then Bush makes a Nixon to China move. He goes an visits Tehran for one-on-one negotiation with the regime. The deal we offer:
1. Give up enrichment. The Russians will enrich for you, you will get the energy.
2. In exchange, we will publically end our policy of "regime change" and publically recognize the Mullah regime.
3. But all of this is contingent on the "behind the scene" deal - you must help us secure peace in Iraq - that means transition to a Constitutional government. Iran will help us quash the insurgency.
*******************
This will pave the way for future relations which will also be carrot and stick:
a) Bilateral trade agreements for Iran if they cease funding Hizbollah and Hamas.
*******************
The deal is this - we recognize the Mullah regime in Iran, we even help stabilize it, and make them feel secure, in exchange for their help securing stability in Iraq.
Reasons why this is better than alternatives - Yes, Iran is bad - but they aren't AS bad - yet - as Al Queda and other Salafist/Wahhabist Islamicists. Plus, we can't handle all this shit at once, so let's do it one at a time.
********************
Why Iran will go for it? I have a feeling when threatened with the existence of the regime, the Iranians are a little more saavy than Saddam. First, they know we'll go through with it, which Saddam had reason to doubt. Second, we can go into Iran kill as many mullahs as possible, and just leave.
It'll be a mess and a cluster fuck for us - but you know what - it'll be a much bigger cluster fuck for them. Plus, they asked for it.
4 comments:
So, you're advocating the same MidEast policy that got us into this ginormous mess in the first place? We're going to boost a tyrannical regime when it suits us and avoid dealing with the fallout 10 years later by boosting another one to "balance the region"? Surely a band of 1000 retarded chimps on typewriters could come up with a better solution.
like?
i'm all for candid discourse and criticism, but in writing class, your comments would not be considered constructive. i apologize for making a suggestion. but i'm happy to hear others...
and what is the ginormous mess in the first place refer to, exactly? does it refer to the mideast policy prior to 9/11. or the mideast post-iraq invasion. because they seem to me, to both be ginormous messes.
and, not to completely reveal my poker hand, but my idea is to stabilize iraq into a democracy, then, 10 years down the line, get rid of the mullahs if the iranians haven't done it themselves. and then, ultimately, not need to deal with the saudis for oil. there's the long term.
remind me again of your ideas?
You know, I had this huge response written up detailing US policy in the Middle East for the past 50 years, complete with case scenarios and scathing back-handed remarks about the role of globalization in the US' subservience to Saudi politics, but I'm not going to post it.
Because if you can't immediately see why invading--or even threatening to invade--Iran is an idea not even deserving of "retarded chimp" status, then nothing I or anyone else says will ever make it clear for you.
That's all. Peace in the Middle East--I'm out.
This reminds me of when kids say - "I have something really mean I could say, but I won't."
Usually that is code for having nothing to say.
And of course you would like to talk about the past 50 years of policy because there's no consequence or way of testing whether your ideas have any weight. It's idle speculation, used to avoid making any practical suggestions for the present that might actually work.
So what again is the problem - is globalization, or subservience to Saudi Arabia, or subservience to Israel, or propping up Saddam, or assisting with the british coup, or bombing nagasaki, or the spanish-american war? Or all of the above? Or just a general distaste of any American policy...cause that seems to me the only unifying theme.
So your policy ideas basically amount to - all of our policies in the middle east for the past 50 years have been wrong, and because so, we only have ourselves to thank for hamas, al queda, ayatollahs, eetc. Given that, we shouldn't do anything and anything we do - or ever will do - will also be wrong. If we let Iran have nukes, that's wrong. If we impose sanctions, that's wrong. If we invade, it's wrong. If we support efforts to internally overthrow the regime, that's wrong. Everything and anything we could possibly do - in your eyes - is wrong. Am I correct in understanding your position?
Post a Comment