Nowadays, Mr Obama and politicians such as Mr Brzezinski are becoming the darlings of the IRNA and other news agencies of the Islamic regime of Iran (IRI). On Tuesday, an article by Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom, has pleased IRNA so much that it has immediately been translated and posted on IRNA’s web site.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom, in an article appearing in the Washington Post suggest that the White House should abandon “its calls for regime change”. The authors simplistically argue that carrots are offered to donkeys, and not to serious regimes. Nonetheless, they show a bigger “carrot” to the IRI. They argue that countries such as Brazil, Argentine, and South Africa - who surrendered their nuclear capability, would probably not have complied, “had the United States threatened to change their regimes”.
Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom, seem to have a temporary memory lapse. They forget that S. Africa’s capability was surrendered by someone such as Nelson Mandela, while Iran is ruled, and the world peace is threatened by a group of ideologically driven ayatollahs, who are after wiping Israel off the map, extending their hegemony over the Middle East, and training Islamic terrorists.
I do not support any sort of a military solution. I think any kind of military attack is illegal and against the wishes of the Iranian people who are themselves victims of the situation at hand. Nevertheless, it is so naive to believe the world could live in harmony and peace with an Islamic regime.
If one is not familiar with the names and backgrounds of the authors, one may be forgiven for concluding that the article has been written by a couple of university freshmen. They write “The United States could indicate that it is prepared to negotiate, either on the basis of no preconditions by either side (though retaining the right to terminate the negotiations if Iran remains unyielding but begins to enrich its uranium beyond levels allowed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty); or to negotiate on the basis of an Iranian willingness to suspend enrichment in return for simultaneous U.S. suspension of major economic and financial sanctions”. The authors ignore the very fact that all possible avenues have already been tried, all kinds of “incentive packages” have already been offered, a number of resolutions leading to “economic sanctions” have already been passed and implemented, but the ayatollahs are still playing the same tune, and ignoring the logical demands of the international community.
If Washington (the White House) agrees that the Islamic regime should “not be changed”, then the US should instead consider how to address “Iranian [regime] security issues”. The major threat to IRI’s security is, however, the people of Iran, who unlike the appeasing advocators, do want a “regime change”. What Zbigniew Brzezinski and William Odom fail to address in this article is the wishes of the people. It seems to me that in their opinion a government of “the people, by the people, for the people” is a good remedy just for the American people, while the Iranian people should be happy with a non-democratic government, so that “serious efforts to disrupt the flow of oil, at the very least generating a massive increase in its already high cost” would not occur.
This kind of irresponsible writing devalues diplomatic efforts, while encouraging the ayatollahs to ignore internationally accepted conventions such as the Geneva Convention or the policy of non-intervention in a neighbouring country’s internal affairs. IRI’s Quds Revolutionary Guards have been actively supporting and arming Iraqi insurgents, and the Mahdi Army of Muqtada Sadr. They have, as recently as yesterday, attacked the Ashraf Camp which is well within Iraqi territory and whose disarmed residents are protected by the coalition forces and the Geneva Convention. IRI does not deny its support for Hamas, Lebanon Hezbollah, and some fighting groups in Afghanistan. Any appeasing policy would not only nullify previous efforts to impasse the IRI’s advancement in the Middle East, but will also send a wrong signal to those who are very closely watching the USA behaviour.