Mr Bush said Iran's nuclear programme would cast the Middle East "under a shadow of nuclear holocaust" and said the regime was the "the world's leading supporter of terrorism".
He followed that up in May with a speech in Israel in which he labeled as an appeaser anyone who wished to find a diplomatic solution to the problem of terrorism, and compared these unnamed people to the Nazi appeasers of World War II.
From the New York Times:
“Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along,” Mr. Bush said, in a speech otherwise devoted to spotlighting Israel’s friendship with the United States.
“We have an obligation,” he continued, “to call this what it is: the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.”
This all fit in very nicely with Bush's saber rattling over Iran ever since his infamous "Axis of Evil" speech. Imagine, then, my shock when I read that Bush had reversed his position and that, as The Guardian reported:
The US is planning to establish a diplomatic presence in Tehran for the first time in 30 years, a remarkable turnaround in policy by president George Bush who has pursued a hawkish approach to Iran throughout his time in office.
My first thought, of course, was that George Bush must be reading my blog, since just last month I pointed out why I felt that his hard-line stance toward Iran was the wrong way to go.
The true reason for Bush's about-face is difficult to pin down. He may be trying to salvage some sort of positive legacy in the Middle East, since his "roadmap to peace" led absolutely nowhere, and his wars are at this point not at all likely to succeed in the long term. Or he may truly be interested in negotiation with Iran for its own sake, to improve the prospects for peace in the region.
Whatever the motivation behind Bush turning into one of the appeasers that he lambasted only a couple months ago, since the alternative is a march to war, this is one Bush flip-flop that I can live with.
.
5 comments:
Question: If Iran really is "the world's leading supporter of terrorism," how is it that the largest number of foreign jihadists and volunteer suicide bombers in Iraq, by a wide margin, come from Saudi Arabia? How is it that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, is the principal home of hate-teaching Wahabi madrassahs. How is it that the chief source of funding for terrorists is a collection of wealthy Saudi families, individuals and so-called charities?
IMO, this deliberately misleading focus shift reflects Bush family cronyism, oil business imperatives and typical George W. Bush disdain for truth and accuracy. It's the same kind of thing that had him and his people ID'ing Iraq as being in cahoots with al Qaeda and a major supporter of terrorists when neither assertion was true.
As for Bush's flip-flop on dealing with Iran, it could be a sign that, as with forming a Department of Homeland Security, which he initially refused to do, he's concluded he can't win and so might as well try to appear to be taking the initiative and leading.
I suppose the other possibility is that it's being done to give Bush some cover if he and Cheney do what they really want to do and launch an attack against Iran. As in: "Well, we sent diplomats over there to talk. They didn't get anywhere but we tried. . ."
S.W., thanks for the comment. I think that we need to remember that anything the Bush administration says about their war on terror has an implicit "except for the Saudis" appended to it. They will root out all evil-doers, except for the Saudis. They will not differentiate between the terrorists and the states that assist them, except for the Saudis. Etc.
As for Bush's motivation behind the Iran diplomacy gambit, we can only speculate. I don't think that he's interested in promoting peace or anything like that. Perhaps Big Oil has explained to him that now that they have US-backed contracts with the Iraqi government to begin exploiting Iraq's oil resources, they need access to Iran as well.
I only hope that we're too close to the end of Bush's term and the military is stretched too thin to start a military offensive against Iran.
MIKE, I am so excited to see a post! I may need to gather myself together before commenting! I am not sure what to think about this. Perhaps it is a legacy repair campaign. I do think he does read your blog because you are connected to my blog...ha! Though Obama is different in that HE himself would be the negotiator and not some unknown guy. Though the appeasement point is well taken. It may be timing and it may be for show...probably both. Politicians. oi. :)N
To your hopes regarding not starting a war with Iran, amen.
hey just checking in...hope you are doing some great writing and all is well with you! :)N
Post a Comment