As reported in a New York Times article entitled "Panetta Urges More Time for Economic Pressure on Iran to Work" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/world/middleeast/leon-panetta-urges-israel-to-allow-more-time-for-iran-sanctions-to-work.html?_r=1&ref=world), US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, on his way from Tunisia to Egypt, is claiming that sanctions against Iran are having a "serious impact," and although this "may not seem obvious at the moment," the Iranians "continue to seem interested in trying to find a diplomatic solution."
Yeah, right.
You will recall Iran's threats last week against the US fleet in the Persian Gulf (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/iran-again-threatens-us-fleet-in.html). That's a peculiar way of showing interest in a negotiated settlement.
Then, too, there were the comments of the Chairman of the Iranian Parliament's Energy Commission, Massoud Mir-Kazzemi, who has just declared that "sanctions have been drawn without any knowledge of our country's capabilities and capacities and have no important impact on Iran" (see: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9104252231).
And for once, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei are in agreement. Netanyahu informed Romney during his visit to Israel that all of the sanctions and diplomacy have not set back the Iranian program by "one iota." Similarly, Khamenei stated last Wednesday that sanctions and diplomacy will not force Iran to end its nuclear program (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/25/iran-sanctions_n_1701581.html).
Thanks anyway for the misplaced optimism, Leon. This time I will control my temper and leave it at that.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wait a moment ... wasn't Hitler interested in ... diplomacy? Didn't he have diplomats? Weren't there countless signings, pacts, agreements, smiles and handshakes ... while .. you know what.
ReplyDeleteNow, I must add that I am no expert on Iran (I do know more about Hitler), but the country is run as ugly as it can be, so Panetta's babbling is idiotic.
To think that our top people think along the lines "Isn't that wonderful that this or that monster is interested in diplomacy? Let's "diplomate" is scary (I think I've coined a word). Now, maybe another neulogism is possible - "to panettate"
I used to be a listener of "Air America." Some of the hosts were sick, sick antisemites , but I listened to some others, more sensible, at least occasionally. One of them, a seasoned radio host, enjoyed talking about the need for diplomacy with enemies and was bringing an example of POST WWII diplomacy: "We negotiate with the Nazis." What she unable to understand was the difference between diplomacy with a defeated enemy and diplomacy with a strong, mad enemy. Is it possible that Panetta doesn't know the difference too?
ReplyDelete