A most illuminating insight into the wishful thinking that guides and has long guided so much of American policy. "Giving Until It Hurts," by Barry Rubin for the GLORIA Center, October 8 (thanks to Looney Tunes):
In response to a casual question, U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates dropped a historical bombshell, an offhand remark telling more about how the Middle East works than 100 books. And a former Marine commander adds an equally big revelation about long-ago events quite relevant for today.Almost thirty years ago, President Jimmy Carter tried to show what a nice guy he was by pressing the Shah not to crush the revolutionaries. After the monarch fell, National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski met top officials of the new Islamist regime to pledge U.S. friendship to the government controlled by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. At the time, I wrote that by approaching some of the milder radicals, the administration frightened the more militant ones. U.S.-Iran relations must be smashed, they concluded, lest Washington back their rivals. In fact, as we'll see in a moment, the Carter administration offered to back Khomeini himself.
Three days after the Brzezinski meeting, in November 1979, the Islamist regime's cadre seized the U.S. embassy and its staff as hostages, holding them until January 1981. This was our introduction to the new Middle East of radical Islamism. Carter continued his weak stance, persuading the Tehran regime that it could get away with anything.
So we've long known that undermining U.S. allies, passivity toward anti-American radicals, and inaction after a massive terrorist act against Americans didn't work. The hostages were only released because Iran was suffering desperately from an Iraqi invasion and feared Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, as someone likely to be tougher.
The lesson of being strong in defending interests and combating enemies has not quite been learned. Today, the opposite is the mainstream prescription for success and the United States may be about to elect a president whose world view parallels the way Carter worked.
Here's where Gates comes in. On September 29, while giving a lecture at the National Defense University in Washington DC, someone asked him how the next president might improve relations with Iran. Gates responded:
"I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years." Then Gates revealed what was actually said at Brzezinski's meeting, in which he participated, summarizing Brzezinski's position as follows:
"We will accept your revolution....We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah....We can work together in the future."
The Iranians demanded the United States turn over to them the fugitive Shah, who they would have executed. Brzezinski refused. Three days later Iran seized the embassy and forever changed the Middle East. The road thus paved led to the Iran-Iraq and Iraq-Kuwait wars, the power of Hamas and Hizballah, September 11, 2001, and a great deal more. Many thousands would die due to American timidity and Iranian aggressiveness.Had the United States been a mean bully in its treatment of the new Islamist Iran? The On the contrary, Washington did everything possible to negotiate, conciliate, and build confidence. We'll do almost anything you want, Carter and Brzezinski offered, just be our friend. Far from being appeased Iran demanded such a total humiliation--turning over the fatally ill, deposed Shah for execution--even that administration couldn't accept it.
Far from persuading Khomeini that the United States was a real threat, the U.S. government made itself appear a pitiful, helpless giant, convincing Tehran--as Khomeini put it--America couldn't do a damn thing. His revolution and ideology was too strong for it.
So why should we expect such a tactic could work today? How long does it take to get the message: this is an ideological revolution with huge ambitions to which America is inevitably a barrier. Appeasement, talks, apologies, confidence-building measures won't convince Tehran that America is its friend, only that it's an enemy so weak as to make aggression seem inevitably successful.
The only U.S. precondition has been that to get a high-level dialogue, Iran must first stop its drive for nuclear weapons, at least temporarily.
Gates understands what happened: "Every administration since then has reached out to the Iranians in one way or another and all have failed....The reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a very long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship."
This situation is quite parallel to efforts to have reasonable preconditions with the Palestinians--stop terrorism, incitement, clearly accept a two-state solution--or with Syria--stop sponsoring terrorism, cease trying to take over Lebanon, and accept normal relations with Israel as the outcome of peace. Similar bargains have been offered Hamas and Hizballah. Yet even this is too much for the other side and too much for those who continue trying to undermine any Western leverage on radical forces.
If the other side won't give anything, they insist, merely offer more. And if the other side takes those concessions, pockets them, gives nothing in return, and continues their behavior, this merely proves you have to give still more.
Here's more evidence why that's wrong. Former U.S. Marine Colonel Timothy Geraghty was Marine commander in October 1983 when suicide bombers attacked the barracks of U.S. peacekeeping forces in Beirut, killing 242 Americans. He now reveals that a September 26, 1983 U.S. intelligence intercept showed Iran's government ordering the attack through its embassy in Lebanon. The timid response to that operation set a pattern leading directly to the September 11 attack.
Three decades after the miserable failure of the make-friends-with-Islamist-Iran policy--including offering Khomeini continued U.S. arms' supplies for goodness sake!--isn't it time to learn this simple lesson?
"We will accept your revolution....We will recognize your government. We will sell you all the weapons that we had contracted to sell the Shah....We can work together in the future."
-- from the article above, quoting Robert Gates' summary of Zbigniew Brzezinski's message to Khomeini and the Islamic Republic of Iran
Don't forget this the next time the egregious, nasty-faced, essentially stupid Brzezinski -- you'd have to be stupid not to have, in the last 30 years, given the role he played in abandoning the Shah and his regime (whatever its faults, its secularists were the best that Iran could hope for) and heling to turn over Iran, quite unnecessarily, to the dark reactionaries of Khomeini and his hysterical supporters.
And don't forget, too, Jimmy Carter, with his letter to Khomeini as a "fellow man of faith."
Finally, don't forget the "Iran expert" on the National Security Council at the time, the positively idiotic -- and dangerous -- Gary Sick who remains unrepentant, and of course uncomprehending of Islam, from his safe and presumably prestigious perch at Columbia, where he fits right in -- fits perfectly in fact -- with the likes of Hamid Dabashi and the rest of the MEALAC crew or retinue.
Unbelievable. And they say the meek shall inherit the earth. No chance.
Those who do not learn from history....
Islam has few, if any moderates. It is difficult to be moderate when the Koran is so clearly extreme. Iran's leadership is following the Koran closely, it only makes sense that few moderates are still alive. And the ones who are, they must be quite, OR ELSE.
Far from being appeased Iran demanded such a total humiliation--turning over the fatally ill, deposed Shah for execution--even that administration couldn't accept it.
and given the belief among irans mullah's that islam must dominate to world and if you dont accept islam you must accept dhiimi ant it would seem this aplys to nations and carter did not seem to understand that komaini would never accept carter as a fellow man of faith because carter belongs to a Christan sect but would want and expect the usa to accept dhimmi status paying the jizha
Far from persuading Khomeini that the United States was a real threat, the U.S. government made itself appear a pitiful, helpless giant, convincing Tehran--as Khomeini put it--America couldn't do a damn thing. His revolution and ideology was too strong for it.
unfortunately carter and co. and seceding us governments did not understand that they are dealing with a ideology that believes that islam MUST dominate and not be dominated, and considers dealing with anyone who is not a muslim as a equal equates to islam being dominated and not domminating
Society is blind to the path ahead of them.
A group causes problems for decade/centuries, and we are seeking ONE OF THEM to declare PEACE PEACE.
The more this group escalates their problem the more we seek ONE OF THEM.
At a certain point we will find ONE OF THEM and that ONE will speak PEACE, but will have decieved the world and the world will follow blindly. Until it is too late.
It is scary how our leaders are seeking ONE OF THEM and will Athenticate that person and will Elivate that person.
It sounds real familiar to the last chapter of a great Book that I read.
Three days later Iran seized the embassy and forever changed the Middle East. The road thus paved led to the Iran-Iraq and Iraq-Kuwait wars, the power of Hamas and Hizballah, September 11, 2001, and a great deal more. Many thousands would die due to American timidity and Iranian aggressiveness.
A great deal more.....does that include the Russian invasion of Afghanistan? Did the loss of an American ally embolden the USSR?
Not that it wouldn't have happened otherwise, but was this a contributing factor?
The Iran-Iraq war might never have occurred and Saddam Hussein might be alive and well and running Iraq were it not for Jimmy Carter.
He now reveals that a September 26, 1983 U.S. intelligence intercept showed Iran's government ordering the attack through its embassy in Lebanon. The timid response to that operation set a pattern leading directly to the September 11 attack.
Given that Iran was the founder of Hezbollah, there should be no surprise here.
As for the timid response of the US, what were we to do? The Cold War was in its death throes but no one could be sure of that at the time. The US response then was on a par with what some have recommended in Iraq: get out and let them all fight one another. Won't that be seen as timid?
If the withdrawal from Lebanon led to 9/11 (a doubtful premise) then what will the withdrawal from Iraq lead to?
Barack Obama will sit down with; he will negotiate with these murderous Iranian thugs. Even Bush sent our third ranking U.S. State Department official, William Burns, to negotiate with the Iranian Axis of Evil.
Both Bush and Iran are competing to see who can give the most aid to the Fatah jihadists.
(IsraelNN.com) United States President George W. Bush wrote the State Department Monday that American security demands the government waive Congressional restrictions against direct financial aid to the Palestinian Authority (PA). However, Arab sources report that the PA is receiving aid from Iran.
"The president ordered the direct aid the same day that the Middle East Newsline reported that Iran is assisting Fatah, whose leader Mahmoud Abbas heads the PA."
In the debate last week with Joe Biden, Sarah Palin promised "a two-state (final) solution for Israel."
A Palestinian terror state side by side a Jewish state. This will be a McCain - Palin priority.
"It's got to be a commitment of the United States of America, though. And I can promise you, in a McCain-Palin administration, that commitment is there to work with our friends in Israel," said Palin.
Like George W. Bush, McCain - Palin will work toward the dismemberment and the destruction of Israel. McCain - Palin will seek to establish yet another Muslim terror state in the region.
What is a conservative to do?
Now it is obvious why Jimmy Carter is such a beloved ex-pres. May allah bring him closer to His bosom. The sooner the better.
And don't forget, too, Jimmy Carter, with his letter to Khomeini as a "fellow man of faith."
Posted by: Hugh
Notice that POTUS after POTUS sells Americans out to the enemy. Weather it is out of ignorance or trechery is immaterial. These POTUSs and their families, feeding off of American's hard-earned tax-dollars, sell them out to the enemy. So much that Americans don't think much of it. Just wait for the next sell-out by the next POTUS. One can understand an occassional corrupt POTUS, but treason seems to be the trend, rather than exception. Americans suffering from Stockholm Syndrome, are just happy to protect their corrupt / sellout POTUS against Republicans/Democrats, as the case may be. All the while, their POTUS / Commanders play the hard-working, honest, tax-paying Americans for fools, leaving borders open for criminals to loot, rape and murder Americans; all the while living off of American-tax dollars; when they can't pay their mortgages, Americans have to cough out their mortgages so their families take away American jobs while criminals continue to loot, rape and murder Americans, including American police. Even when Saudi Students murdered 3000 Americans within hours, their POTUS told Americans that the murderers are from a 'Religion of Peace', thereby covering for his rich Arab masters. And Americans re-elect the same corrupt, sell-out traitor.
What does that say about American electorate?
Even when Saudi Students murdered 3000 Americans within hours, their POTUS told Americans that the murderers are from a 'Religion of Peace', thereby covering for his rich Arab masters. And Americans re-elect the same corrupt, sell-out traitor.
What does that say about American electorate?
Posted by: Alert at October 8, 2008 5:10 PM
We like traitors?
And don't forget, too, Jimmy Carter, with his letter to Khomeini as a "fellow man of faith."
Posted by: Hugh
When Saudi Students murdered 3000 Americans within hours, their POTUS told Americans that the murderers are from a 'Religion of Peace' Americans re-elect the same corrupt, sell-out traitor.
What does that say about American electorate?
Posted by: Alert at October 8, 2008 5:10 PM
We elect corrupt traitors, so long as they are self-professed Christians? Which leads me to ask, what is a true Christian? What is a faithful Christian? How are we to know?
Mr. Bush and Carter are self-professed, devout Christians. Sarah Palin is personable enough. How can one help but like her? Yet Palin is also a born again Christian who like Bush, McCain and Obama, is also committed to a Muslim terror state in Israel.
Where do we turn?
Actually, wild jew, I think that Bush, Carter, McCain and Palin are all just completely 100% ignorant about Islam. Of course none of them have looked into a Qur'an, or read a book by RS or others.
Their Christianity has nothing to do with it. Their ignorance has everything to do with it.
Maybe you are right Darcy. Unlike Mr. Bush, Sarah Palin knows her bible. I watched the video. She can quote scripture extemporaneously She does not need a speech writer, unlike Mr. Bush.
How do we know Governor Palin has not studied Islam? How do we not know Palin does not visit this site amongst others?
The point is, Palin knows the land of Israel was given by God to the Jews; to the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Did you know God gave the land of Israel to the Jews Darcy?
What does this have to do with the Canaanites or the Amalekites or with Islam or with the Hitites? Israel belongs to the Jews. Doesn't it?
You think Sarah Palin is ignorant of this fact? It's in her bible. Palin can rattle off scripture by memory. I watched her speak to her church.
What does this have to do with Islam? Why does Palin support the dismemberment and destruction of Israel? Clearly this is a no-no in Palin's Bible. Isn't it?
Moderate Muslims are Muslims in name only, because a true Muslim follows Muhammad's example. Muhammad was a very devout Muslim, and in no way a moderate when it came to carrying out his evil deeds.
Let's not forget their are pro-western, anti-Khomeini dissidents too. But looking for the Muslim silver bullet is a waste of time.
Well my idea of starting my own country looks better all the time ;o)
I am incredulous at the passivity/stupidity in the above article, and what's taking place here and now. Both very different, but equally as scary.
What do these politicians and government people need to wake them up??? I mean, if Sept.11 wasn't a HUGE wake-up call, what do they need? Bombs dropped on Washington? Right on their offices???
I am embarrassed for them, and ready to see them all be jobless.
UGH.
Peanut brain Carter hasn't changed his ways, he likes to give Hamas leaders hip hugs & smooches on the cheek while berates Israel as the terrorist state. Considering all the clueless dhimmis the U.S. has had in leadership over the years, its amazing that my girlfriend isn't wearing a burka & I'm wiping my butt with only my left hand.
Unbelievable. And they say the meek shall inherit the earth. No chance.
Posted by: Dsinc
Meek doesn't mean weak in the bible btw. It means over obedience to God. Of course that means the God of the bible, not some fallen angel playing the part of allah.
So many traitors, past and present, to execute upon the instance of the next 9-11, so little time.
"I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years."
--Robert Gates
***********************
I'd like to wish Robert Gates the best of luck in his search. In addition, I also wish O.J. Simpson the best of luck in his search for the real killer of his wife and Ronald Goldman.
"Israel belongs to the Jews. Doesn't it?"
Yes! The world should be telling the Islamic Barbarian BULLIES to BACK-OFF of Israel. The Barbarians own ALL of the rest of the ME, but, somehow, they just HAVE to have tiny Israel, too. Disgusting.
*
I mean, if Sept.11 wasn't a HUGE wake-up call, what do they need? Bombs dropped on Washington? Right on their offices???
I'm afraid so, gymgal. Yes, it looks that way. Something HUGE is going to have to happen - like a Pearl Harbor.
I cannot understand how any Jewish American could vote for Obama! l can only be positive that their good senses they will vote for McCain
PMK:
"Three days later Iran seized the embassy"
One of the groups intimately involved in the taking of the American hostages was the MEK. The US now backs the MEK and FOX News even has an MEK member on their payroll. Do you think the US should back a terrorist group responsible for taking Americans hostages? Do you think FOX News should employ members of a group that took American hostages?
dave742,
What do you mean "three days later"?
I was talking about Lebanon, as the article shows:
Former U.S. Marine Colonel Timothy Geraghty was Marine commander in October 1983 when suicide bombers attacked the barracks of U.S. peacekeeping forces in Beirut, killing 242 Americans. He now reveals that a September 26, 1983 U.S. intelligence intercept showed Iran's government ordering the attack through its embassy in Lebanon. The timid response to that operation set a pattern leading directly to the September 11 attack.
Our diplomats had been home for more than two years. Try getting your timeline right.
AGAIN: What was the US supposed to do in response to the HEZBOLLAH ATTACK ON PEACEKEEPERS IN LEBANON?
We weren't the only ones attacked. The French were, too.
dave742,
I have it! We could have bombed IRAN! How about it?
We could have bombed the Palestinians in Lebanon!
How about it!
Hey, maybe we could have bombed SYRIA!
I don't know what any of this has to do with Fox News. It was a nice try, though.
When Obama is told to F-off during talks with the Iranians, then what?
Last nights debate made one think Obama was going to become involved in Military operations in Darfur, Pakcrapistain, Russia, and Iran. He even suggested increasing the armed forces. While getting out of Iraq and spending the "savings" on new social programs. He wants to partner with our "Allies" in Afcrapistain when they show every indication of surrendering and bugging out?
For 6 years a steady drumbeat of criticism has been heaped upon the cost of a 2 front war against Radical Islam by Obamas Party. Yet they only needed a few heart beats of time to give Wall St. even more money.
Does my understanding of Obama's comments during the debate belong on another Planet?
Is the MSM avoiding the ramifications that would result in a closer examination of what he said?
Wild Jew, darcy, et el...
If you don't mind, you guys are missing the point. What is critical is that 9/11 got the eunuch-POTUS to parrot this: http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010917-11.html
If this is not a victory for The ummah, what is? In a sane world, congress would remove POTUS, declare emergency, place this corrupt POTUS under house arrest, investigate Al-Bush family connection with Al-Sauds, thanks to which, 3000 Americans lost their lives. Yet, Americans, in Stockholm syndrome, nodded their heads as their POTUS warned Americans not to retaliate, provided safe passage to the very Saudi family that had murdered 3000 Americans. rASnd right after, shared cigars with his 'family' Bandar-Bush.
Next thing this puppet does is to tell Americnas what they wanted to hear and go after .. no, not Osama, but Saddam. Sharp and Alert Americans should have smelled the stench when POTUS covered up for Al-Sauds in 9/11 commission report and then, invaded Iraq under "war-on-terror" when neither terror, nor WMDs were in Iraq. Yet, congress not as much as questioned the POTUS ties to Al-Sauds nor stopped invasion of Iraq. Guess congress has it's share of eunuchs as well.
Anyway, then followed the lies about 'jobs Americans won't do' and 'family values' to leave borders open for the rich Republican-funding corporations, followed by banks giving loans an bank-accoutns on Metricula Consula cards... and now this.
Long story short, other than money abd votes, POTUS has loyalty to nothing, No wonder traitors like ACLU and CAIR are having a field day.
in many ways, Americans have to take their shar of the blame for not laying down higher standards for their corrupt leaders.
No, Democrats are not blameless either, but then, POTUS who sold-out America on and after 9/11 was not a democrat, if you see the point.
AGAIN: What was the US supposed to do in response to the HEZBOLLAH ATTACK ON PEACEKEEPERS IN LEBANON?
We weren't the only ones attacked. The French were, too.
Posted by: PMK
Yeah “The French were, too” and we responded just like the French and got the same results that the “French” always seem to get.
An AMERICAN response would be to seek them out, bomb most of them to their 72 virgin reward, then send in Marines to individually and VERY personally, shoot, blow up and bayonet the rest of them.
PMK:
“What do you mean ‘three days later’?”
The first line of your post on October 8, 2008 at 4:02 PM was this:
“Three days later Iran seized the embassy and forever changed the Middle East…”
This line that you quoted related to the Seizure of the American embassy in Iran. I quoted this line that you had quoted and I responded to it. I have my timeline right. I simply responded to a different part of your quote than what you wanted me to. I did not think I was restricted to what part of your quote, or the post, I could comment on. You have decided that this quote that you made is off limits, and is not allowed to be commented on. Whatever. You now want me to comment on this:
“What was the US supposed to do in response to the HEZBOLLAH ATTACK ON PEACEKEEPERS IN LEBANON?”
The classification of US soldiers in Beirut as “peacekeepers” is ridiculous. Israel, the US’s number one ally, invaded Lebanon with US weapons and support, and then the US shows up as “peacekeepers.” Lebanon and groups within it have every right to respond however they like, including bombing them. If, in the 1960’s, Cuba, Russia’s ally, invaded Florida with Russia’s help and support, and then Russia occupied Florida, I would support any group within the US that wanted to bomb the Russian barracks. Even if they were calling themselves “peacekeepers.”
I feel very uncomfortable when I see more and more Muslim women in the streets - identifiable by their head cover. It signals to me that Britain has accepted female slavery as a cultural norm. That is not the Britain that I know and value. It also signals that this demographic Jihad will one day spell the end of Western civilisation.
and now Brzezinski is an advisor for Obama.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates: "I have been involved in the search for the elusive Iranian moderate for 30 years"
Me too...any moderate Mohammadan. Of course I have not been looking as long as Gates, maybe thirty days...But in that thirty days I have looked everywhere, I searched upstairs, downstairs and out back, and could not find one moderate
Mohammadan. I beginning to think they don't exist.
If they do, they are hiding from Allah, who allows no moderate anything in Islam.