Warning: Constant ABSPATH already defined in /home/public/wp-config.php on line 27
No Big Deal? — Why Now?
On-line Opinion Magazine…OK, it's a blog
Random header image... Refresh for more!

No Big Deal?

The President of Iran, Mahmoud Amadinejad, sends a long letter to the President of the United States, breaking 27 years of silence between the two governments and the price of crude drops about $1.50 a barrel before anyone knows what’s in the letter, but Shrubbery and Company dismiss the letter, apparently because it isn’t an unconditional surrender.

So now, Iran looks like a responsible country trying to resolve a dispute through diplomatic means and the US is a rude bully. That’s how it is going to look to the rest of the world and the US can kiss the UN resolution good-bye.

I doubt there was anything worthwhile in the letter, but after 27 years you don’t reject a diplomatic opening out of hand. Refusal to talk to other countries does not work.

The other problem is that Brazil has just officially started its first uranium enrichment facility, and Iran will use that to highlight the difference in treatment. Brazil has had atomic weapons aspirations in the past, and the Brazilian Navy helped to construct the new facility. Brazil has also limited the access of IAEA inspectors, without being hauled before the Security Council to face possible sanctions.

I view the current leaders of Iran as dangerous zealots who oppress their people, but the Shrubbery is making them appear reasonable by comparison to the US government.

BTW, nice play by “Darth” Cheney. The Russians might have been convinced to abstain on the Iran vote, but Cheney has pretty much guaranteed a veto to any resolution the US wants. Smooth, really smooth.

Update: Here’s an English translation of Amadinejad’s letter. The French newspaper Le Monde provided the translation because apparently no one in the US media took the trouble, or had the resources to do it.


1 Rook { 05.09.06 at 9:58 am }

If their desire is war, they sure are going about it in the right way. I suppose we could make the statement that in one thing the Bush/Cheney administration has successfully performed is constant war.

Could you imagine what the consequences would have been with BushCo™ at the helm during the cold war?

2 Bryan { 05.09.06 at 10:39 am }

It is doubtful it would have remained “cold” for any extended period with this crew in charge.

This does reduce the possibility for any UN cover for their plans which is helpful. Maybe the Democrats will find the spine to vote against the next war.

3 Van { 05.09.06 at 11:59 am }

You raise a good point by stating that this letter likely contains little substance, but is an opening for diplomatic relations.

I doubt that the Bush Administration will persue diplomacy in this case though – they need an October suprise for the November elections.

What I’m wonder is, where are the Democrats on this?

4 andante { 05.09.06 at 12:54 pm }

Congratulations, BushCo, on blowing a perfect opportunity to at least come out smelling like a rose.

Condi could have at least sent them a chocolate cake and Bible signed by GeeDub.

5 Bryan { 05.09.06 at 12:58 pm }

In much of the world symbolism is extremely important. If you want to do business in Asia you need to print tons of business cards, because the exchange of cards is part of the procedure. There are a lot of formally that must be pursued before anything of substance is even brought up. If you want an agreement you go along, because they are not going to approach anything important until they can claim to know something about you.

This was apparently a wide ranging discussion of a lot of issues, to which there should have been a measured American response, not a quick dismissal. In much of Asia and the Middle East, the way in which the letter was handled was tantamount to a declaration of war. You don’t order sovereign nations around, they get really defensive.

The real problem for the US is that other nations are going to view what happened as American arrogance and begin aligning with Iran.

6 Michael { 05.09.06 at 1:16 pm }

Does your trackback module not work, Bryan? Tried to give you one for riffing off of this post at my place this noon, but I can’t seem to find anyplace that gives me a URL to ping.

7 pissed off patricia { 05.09.06 at 2:32 pm }

I think bush wants another war and he wants it in Iran. The only times his poll numbers have gone up were when he started a war. They must think that ploy will work again. I don’t think even the dumbest bastards will support him on this one.

Guess he been chatting up god again and hearing that god wants more killing.

8 Bryan { 05.09.06 at 2:43 pm }

Michael, the trackback is essentially the regular link with /trackback/ tacked on the end, but it doesn’t matter because I read your blog and if you link to any post I get a notification on the dashboard. The link is in the gray block at the end of the post above.

All a trackback does is add an automatic comment to the post on WordPress.

Andante, would you eat a cake from Condi? Not very nice bringing up Iran-Contra.

9 Michael { 05.09.06 at 3:15 pm }

That’s the link I clicked on, but all I got was the post: no trackback URL to point to. Oh, well!

10 Bryan { 05.09.06 at 5:29 pm }

POP, we know war is the only thing he thinks can save him, but the reality is that he really needs to do something right.

I’m going to test it, Michael.

11 Why Now? { 05.09.06 at 5:34 pm }

Monthly Post…

Testing the trackback of the new blog, second attempt…

12 Bryan { 05.09.06 at 5:39 pm }

The trackback for any post is just trackback/ on the end of the regular permalink, for example, the trackback for this post is:


13 andante { 05.09.06 at 7:23 pm }

Not very nice bringing up Iran-Contra

Since most of the old Iran-Contra cast is back in the saddle, I don’t see why not.

14 Bryan { 05.09.06 at 8:20 pm }

Because they would try it again. Don’t give these idiots ideas.

15 Steve Bates { 05.09.06 at 11:14 pm }

As one who in all ordinary circumstances agrees with Churchill that “[t]o jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war,” and who also thinks that, to this point, our relationship with Iran counts as “ordinary circumstances” (i.e., they may be nuts, but they won’t nuke us tomorrow or even next year), I have to say that BushCo™ is following the same course toward war with Iran as it did with Iraq. Ignoring the letter, blustery though it may be, is just a sign to a mistrustful world that our so-called leaders have no intention of allowing diplomacy to work, no matter what. That ought to assure noncooperation by the UN, whatever else it does or does not accomplish. “Fool me twice… won’t get burned again,” the other UN Security Council members are surely saying to themselves.

I really thought, and hoped, I had seen the last of those people once Reagan left office, or at least when Poppy Bush was defeated. No such luck.

16 Bryan { 05.10.06 at 12:42 am }

Actually, Steve, the march to war in Iraq figures large in the letter.

If people read it, they will realize that it lays out the history of US interaction with Iran, and it isn’t a rant. It is a bit snarky in its constant call for the Shrubbery to act like a Christian.