Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq

[RMNIXON]

08/04/2008 21:43 WASHINGTON, April 8 (AFP)

Obama calls for talks with Iran over Iraq

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

The Illinois Senator battling Hillary Clinton called for more pressure on the Iraqi government to embrace political reconciliation and a regional "diplomatic surge that includes Iran."

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stablize the situation without that."

IC Publications


While I agree with the pressure on the Iraqi government, I have issue with that latter part. It sounds to me more like nice sounding talking points prepared for the media by a Presidential Candidate in the spotlight. Rather naive when we know that the interests of Iran in the Middle East are quite contrary to our own. We have seen the results of talking and countless UN Resolutions over the last 60 years. Diplomacy works only if both sides have an interest in a peaceful resolution and I don't see that coming from Iran any time soon. They have no interest in a growing Democracy movement in the Middle East. Quite the reverse. And we need to be ready to face this reality, not just try to whistle a happy tune and "hope" everything works out.

[motivez]

How can you disagree with the latter part when Iraq is a Shiite majority nation and will have to have trade and a relationship with its neighbors?

Iran is a natural ally of their country now that Saddam is no longer in power, and we've given them massive influence simply by removing him.

They shouldn't be forced to operate on what's best for America just because were foolish enough to wage a war that overthrew Saddam.. What's best for Iraq and what's best for the US can differ, and Obama is exactly correct in saying they should do what's best for them to stabilize the country

IMO, that includes reconciliation with Iran, trade, etc.. which would hopefully, in time, bring some measure of normalcy (though a theocratic normalcy that will differ from the secular nation they were used to under Saddam) back to their people by legitimizing the government

It's arrogant to think we're going to solve all the problems by ourselves by merely wishing something were true, that seems to be the Bush-McCain doctrine though.

[santiago]

You should read about the history of Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, at least going back to the 1980s to understand why things are so messed up in that region.
The U.S. supported jihad against the Soviets and encouraged the rise of Islamic governments, realizing that this would put oil producing nations at odds with the atheistic attitudes of Russian communists. The U.S. government sold weapons of mass destruction to both the Iraqi and Iranian governments during the Iran/Iraq War. It was only when Saddam Hussein began to negotiate a peace treaty and tried to normalize relations with Iran that he became "a negative influence in the region". Then using a border dispute between Iraq and Kuwait as an excuse to cripple Saddam Hussein's army, the administration of G. Bush Sr., set the theater for an invasion of Iraq. Unfortunately for Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfield, Bush was not re-elected to a second term and they would have to wait eight years for Bush Jr. to get into power before they could finish what they started with operation desert storm.

As for the attack on Sept. 11, 2001 that really was Clinton's fault, he should have made sure the intelligence community had their act together before leaving office.