Yes, it sounds very much like Rodney King, but it is a question the War Party never wants to answer as they do not want to play by the market’s rules as Jacob Hornberger has illustrated with regard to the U.S. government’s foreign policy of empire, militarism, and intervention.
Recently, Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov tried to be reasonable and praised Washington’s flexibility in dealing with North Korea’s nuclear program, but lamented that the U.S. was still “unwilling to normalize bilateral relations with Tehran,†which he said was slowing down efforts to convince Iran to suspend uranium enrichment.
“The same is needed in Iran’s issue … Why not live and let others live?†he said.
Lavrov also said Russia was willing to take part in helping bring peace and stability to Iraq, describing the U.S.-led military campaign there as a “project launched unilaterally.â€
But Russian involvement would require Washington to “radically change its policy in Iraq†by involving all major powers in the region and in the world, including neighbouring Iran, he said.
It is a question we should keep asking ourselves and something that George Washington wanted us to keep in mind when he suggested we “observe good faith and justice toward all nations. Cultivate peace and harmony with all…The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in extending our commercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible…Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.“
{ 3 comments }
“Live and Let Live” is possible only when others do the same. Iran is building nuclear weapons in order to project its revolution to the rest of the Middle East, and eventually the world, as well as destroy Israel. The rulers of Iran have stated these goals hundreds of times since the 1979 revolution. How far should we go in letting them achieve their goals?
Iran’s nuclear controversy was created as a response to the invasion of Iraq and subsequent threats about the neoconservative spreading of totalitarian “democracy” from there. Iran knows that it could be annihilated if it ever uses nuclear weapons aggressively – but without it, Iran cannot deter aggressors who don’t hide their ambitions to take control of this country (Israel and Pakistan knew this when they developed nuclear weapons).
Nuclear weapons do not “project” any revolutions… It is the tyrannical nature of many regimes in the Sunny Middle East (sponsored by the U.S.A.) that will provoke new revolutions (Sh’ia Iran can only serve them as an inspiration, not as a leader). However, there is no evidence that Iran is currently building nuclear weapons, as RogerM boldly states. After that fiasco with Saddam’s WMD – some neoconservatives still don’t understand that they cannot fool American people into another war based on a lie. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Iran WANTS to obtain the capability to produce these weapons (neocons can only make a case for another preemptive strike).
Anyway, Iran said that it will stop all works on uranium enrichment – if western countries do the same. Wouldn’t that be a perfect way to end a stand-off with Iran – to actually practice what you preach?
If you believe in international law, you cannot apply it selectively. The United States does not have a right to impose one set of principles on Israel and Pakistan and another on Iran. If the U.S. government has a compelling interest to prevent Iran from doing anything with its uranium resources – it needs to offer something other than threats to Iran. Threats will only convince Iranians that their government is correctly assessing the danger of the U.S. aggression.
Sasha: “Iran’s nuclear controversy was created as a response to the invasion of Iraq and subsequent threats about the neoconservative spreading of totalitarian “democracy” from there.”
Wrong! The Iranians have been working toward a nuclear bomb since the Iran-Iraq war because they couldn’t defeat Iraq.
Sasha: “It is the tyrannical nature of many regimes in the Sunny Middle East (sponsored by the U.S.A.) that will provoke new revolutions (Sh’ia Iran can only serve them as an inspiration, not as a leader).”
Wrong again! The US does not sponsor any Middle East regime. We deal with Arab regimes as they are. Iran has actively exported its revolution via the Hezb Allah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian territories. Every Sunni Arab country fears Iranian terrorism.
Sasha: “Anyway, Iran said that it will stop all works on uranium enrichment – if western countries do the same. Wouldn’t that be a perfect way to end a stand-off with Iran – to actually practice what you preach?”
That would be like disarming the police in LA in hopes that the criminals would follow their example.
Had the UK and France attacked Germany after Germany annexed the Czechs and Austrians, while Germany was still weak, they would have saved millions of lives. Had the UK and US attacked Japan when they invaded Korea and China, we would have saved millions of lives. But had we done either, people like you would have said that we were the agressors and that we had no proof that Germany and Japan had intentions of attacking other countries and killing the tens of millions of people they did. People like you also defended the USSR and China as they murdered tens of millions of their own citizens.
The Iranian leadership has made clear their intentions for years, as did Hitler and the Japanese before WWII. And by the way, so did Saddam Hussein. Hussein believed he had WMD, even though his scientists lied to him. We can take the Iranians at their word, as we should have with Hitler, or we can wait and hope for the best. If we wait, the chances are good Iran will get nuclear weapons and start a war with Israel. That’s exactly what Bernard Lewis, the dean of Middle Eastern studies, believes will happen. Millions will die, but at least we will be able to rest in our self-righteousness that we didn’t attack first.
If you want to be better informed about what’s really happening in the Middle East, turn off the MSM and visit these sites: memri.org and iranvajahan.net/english/
Comments on this entry are closed.