Scott Ritter: Once more unto the breach

[muriel_volestrangler]

From the Guardian "Comment Is Free" blog:

...
While the IAEA's report has underscored Iran's disturbing disregard for responding to the concerns of both the IAEA and the UN security council, it does not certify Iran as a clear and present danger, requiring a strong and immediate response from the international community. And yet the IAEA report has generated rhetoric from both the United States and Europe that seems well beyond that which the content of the report seems to merit. The British foreign secretary, Jack Straw, has joined US officials in condemning the Iranian government for its failure to halt its nuclear enrichment efforts, and has called for the UN security council to "increase the pressure on Iran". Many officials in Europe have echoed the UK position, believing, it seems, that such action represents a manifestation of President George Bush's stated objective of resolving the Iranian matter "diplomatically and peacefully".

Just how naive can Europe be? While public sentiment against the US-led invasion (and ongoing occupation) of Iraq remains high, manifesting itself in the reduction of the original "coalition of the willing" to pathetic levels, Europe ("old" and "new") continues to behave as if the current conflict with Iraq and the potential of future conflict with Iran remain two separate and distinct issues.

It is shocking to see European officials, skilled in the heavily nuanced world of EU diplomacy, accept without question the sophomoric equivocation by the US secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice that "Iran is not Iraq". This phrase has been used repeatedly by Rice to deflect any query as to whether or not there are any parallels between the current US "diplomatic" stance on Iran and the "diplomacy" undertaken in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq, which has widely been acknowledged as representing little more than a smokescreen behind which the Bush administration prepared for a war already decided upon.

Iran may not be Iraq, but these two nations are inextricably linked through the Machiavellian machinations of a US national security strategy that not only embraces the legitimacy of pre-emptive war, but also the notion of America's inherent right to pursue a policy of "regional transformation" in the Middle East, a policy that has as its core operational thematic pre-emptive military action to remove the regimes of so-called "failed" and "rogue" states. In the 2006 version of this national security strategy, Iran is named 16 times as the leading threat to the national security of the United States. I would hope every European diplomat has read this document, and takes its contents to heart. The national security strategy of the United States, circa 2006, can leave no doubt as to what the true intent of the Bush administration is regarding Iran: regime change. The current "crisis" regarding Iran's nuclear ambitions represents nothing more than an emotionally-charged facilitator for war.
...
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/scott_ritter/2006/05/post_62.html

[necso]

1. Strong piece by Mr Ritter.

But I don't think that European "leaders" are naive, I think they're cowardly -- puffed-up, powdered, pampered, pretentious, weak, effete, fearful, cowardly, submissive poseurs, prostitutes and pimps.

A group less prepared to deal with the egomaniacal, obsessed, single-minded, psychotic bullies of this administration is hard to imagine.

And this abject kowtowing by the three stooges to our very own Il Dolte gives an unfortunate, badly-timed degree of "diplomatic" cover to what is nothing more than another feeble farce of diplomacy, a transparent pretense for more unnecessary, foolish, futile, counterproductive and catastrophic military action.

I would suggest that Urkel, Noodle and Poodle should be ashamed of themselves for their contemptible cowardice. But I know all too well that they are long past feeling any shame.

Isn't it possible to (politically) bring down at least one of these so-called governments in a timely fashion?