February 09, 2005

How Long is "Now"

Posted by Niki

A squirming Donald Rumsfeld made the rounds on the Sunday talk-shows a few days ago, broadcasting familiar platitudes about the situation in Iraq and West Asia in general. But he refused to answer questions about whether Iran represented the biggest threat to the U.S. and to the region, despite the fact that Thomas Friedman was killing himself to put words in Rumsfeld's mouth to that effect. But Rumsfeld dodged the issue even when pressed by the other co-host that he was avoiding the question, deferring instead to Bush and Rice and claiming that the U.S. was on a diplomatic path with Iran.

What explains Rumsfeld's reticence on the issue? Has he acquired a sense of tact? Lost his characteristic belligerence? Gained a new found respect for diplomacy?


More likely is that he is simply on pause mode as Rice makes overtures to NATO and "old Europe" and pushes for a united front against Iran. In the meantime, the rest of the Bush administration has to maintain a façade of awaiting the co-operation of their allies.

The nauseating spectacularization and fetishization of the recent Iraqi elections seems to have hoodwinked many into casting away any doubts they may have had about the U.S. project in Iraq (and I am not speaking here of the U.S. public alone, the majority of the Euro press shared in the uncritical praise of the elections). Rice has to act quick to get support for the next U.S. invasion before the Iraqi election results are announced and its disastrous consequences unleashed.

The latest negotiations between Iran and the Europeans begin this week. The Results of the Iraqi elections are due out in the same period.. On February fourth, Rice proclaimed that an U.S. attack on Iran was not "on the agenda now".

In a handful of days, we will find out how long "now" lasts.

February 9, 2005 07:04 PM | TrackBack

On the other hand Iran could simply abandon it's nuclear ambitions. That would be nice. If I am not mistaken they feel that nuclear weapons would be a deterant. This reasoning is badly flawed and needs to be reconsidered immediately. The ball is in Iran's court. let us hope they choose wisely.

Posted by: nur at February 10, 2005 02:34 PM


Posted by: TIM at February 10, 2005 08:15 PM

mr bush: we we iranian people love you and pray to attack iran as soon as possible.you are our only hope in iran for freedom and democracy.
viva bush-down with mullah

iranian young

Posted by: iranian guy at February 10, 2005 08:21 PM

Then again, how died and made the Americanski god of the planet. So its ok for the "good" guys to have the bomb, but no one else is allowed because why again? Me thinks everyone should have the bomb, then everyone would think twice if not three times about invading his neighbour. Gee wonder why the Americans don't push the Chinese or the North Koreans around... hmmm. Because they have the bomb. Wonder why the Empire needs to develop their defensive shield... its not for protection, its really for conquering the rest of the nuclear powers of the world, with impunity. God be praise and pass the butter.

Posted by: malystryx at February 10, 2005 08:56 PM

can u tell me u r worry 4 what in iran when america attach to iran?! haan negaran chi hastid? chizy monde ke betarsim az dast bedim? ... NO WAR ! NO WAR ! ... SHOMA FAGHAT KALAMATI RA BALGHOOR MIKONID KE AZ BACKGROUND -E- AAN KHABARI NADARID!!!

Posted by: dariush at February 10, 2005 11:03 PM


Posted by: DARIUSH at February 10, 2005 11:07 PM

i see ur photo gallery 4 no war on iran!
do u know that is very very benefit and usefull 4 a IRIB Show! with this title "حركت انقلابي و كاملن ابتكارانه جوانان ايراني براي مخالفت با سياستهاي جنگ طلبانه آمريكا"
wait 4 it!

Posted by: dariush at February 11, 2005 12:39 AM

Darioush is absolutly right, the opinion that really matters is the opinion of those living under the rules of the Mollahs and who will suffer ultimatelly from a potential war.

Lets hear them.

Posted by: Ali M at February 11, 2005 11:38 AM

To my young friend "iranian guy" I say, we understand your pain, but W. Bush is not the answer. I know you're frustrated, disillusioned and many other adjectives. We should abandon this dangerous mentality of waiting for the "savior." There's no savior. We are the ones that should save ourselves from the grips of tyranny. W. Bush and his neo-con gang of thugs will not bring freedom to our land. They have never done, they will never do. People back home might think, yeah, it's easy for you since you don't live in this hell hole. We may not be living in that "hell hole" which by the way is our beloved home, but it gives us the perspective to look at things differently.

Posted by: Jahangir at February 11, 2005 08:28 PM

in response to Ali M,

I am afraid it is naive to believe that Dariush represents all those 'living under the rules of..' and I can assure you the US is not that stupid to rely on 'guys' like him...

Dariush and the likes of him are no more than weak and isolated lunatics who know nothing but sitting and moaning for 'everything' to improve. whatever that means.

the fact that a fellow Iranian can even suggest a foreign nation attack his country, is making me vomit; I used to feel the same when reading the history of the past 2 centuries in Iran with all the treasons which would have not been possible to happen without the presence of Dariush and his likes.

I am surprised how this is all tolerated by you. May be you are not man enough to understand the extent of humiliation or may be you are too far from this land to know the realities.

Posted by: MK at February 13, 2005 04:20 PM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?