Day: August 6, 2013
Moderate tones, but Iran needs the pressure
Newly inaugurated Iranian President Rouhani held his first press conference today. The tone was moderate, even if the content was essentially unchanged: Rouhani wants a negotiated solution to the nuclear impasse, one that includes lifting of sanctions as well as an end to threats and the “secret” American agenda (read “regime change”).
Rouhani was well aware that strict new sanctions on Iran had passed overwhelmingly in the House of Representatives last week, which he attributed to Israeli pressure:
so the interests of a foreign country are served and imposed on representatives in Congress so that even U.S. interests are not being considered…
Most of those hoping for a negotiated solution to end Tehran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons bemoaned this hostile signal in the run-up to this weekend’s inauguration of a relatively moderate president. The man hadn’t even finished naming his cabinet yet. The sanctions vote could have increased pressures in favor of more conservative “principalists” and undermined Rouhani in his declared intention of reaching a settlement that would relieve Iran of at least some of its economic burdens.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
You are not safer
There are many cock-eyed things about the travel alert the State Department has issued, along with the embassy and consulate closings it has ordered:
- They cover a very wide swath of the Middle East and Africa (19 countries, down a few from the original) and now a full week, making the travel warning essentially useless to anyone wanting to avoid an attack.
- The people the closings are supposedly intended to protect are those who serve abroad, most of whom live in well-known compounds often less well protected than the embassies and consulates they work in.
- It would presumably take little for the planners of an attack to postpone for a week or two.
- The warning itself is causing a good deal of the harm that an attack might cause–disrupting American diplomatic operations, convincing Americans on the home front that their government can’t protect them, casting doubt in the minds of our friends and allies about whether we are prepared the run the risks engagement on their behalf entails.
It makes me wonder: did this intercept pick up a communication Al Qaeda wanted to be heard, so as to cause damage without having to bother with all that messy bombing, maiming and killing?
RSS - Posts
