BruceMcF posted an excellent diary yesterday, questioning clinton’s contention that her aye vote on the kyl-lieberman amendment was a positive benefit for diplomatic relations for recommending the listing of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. specifically, from the campaigns’ spin department:
I was in the Senate that day, and was about to vote “no” on this legislation because it had language that President Bush could have used to justify military action against Iran. Working together, Senate Democrats reached across party lines to remove these sections. Only then did I and a lot of other Democrats vote for the resolution in order to pressure Iran by clearing the way for sanctions and pushing the President to get them to the negotiating table.
full text [sm. jpg]
because of the ramifications that have recently transpired as a direct result of that amendment, my response to that question became rather extended.
you can find it below the fold…
this comment is indicative of clinton’s hawkish attitude, and her perceived need to appeal to the 24%’ers who still support the neocon hegemonic concepts, which have glaringly been exposed as complete and utter failures, and ultimately, counterproductive. these precepts have not only created chaos in afghanistan and iraq, but have seriously eroded the us standing throughout the world, even among our oldest and staunchest allies, who, with the possible exceptions of the brits, and now, it appears, the french, are very unlikely to go along with a massive escalation of the sanction tactics. she has embraced the big stick version of diplomacy, whether it is through the projection of power…read: threats…the use of sanctions or, what is becoming the preference of choice among the ruling class, pre-emptive force.
the argument against sanctions as a precursor to negotiations, or effective strategy, can be readily seen by examining the history of the current conflict in iraq. iraqis suffered under a harsh series of sanctions following gulf war l, and look where that got us. it is the russians and the chinese who are not going to allow a resolution imposing more severe sanctions to go unchallenged at the un, and they will lobby hard against it, resorting to killing it by veto in the security council, if necessary. even un secretary general ban ki-moon has obliquely suggested that sanctions may not be in the best interest of the international community:
The UN Secretary General has reasserted that Iran’s nuclear standoff with the international community can be resolved through dialogue.
Ban Ki-moon said on Friday, “I hope that even with the change in negotiators, things can move forward. It is important to continue negotiating with Iran.”
“I have said with great urgency on many occasions that differences can be resolved through peace, through dialogue; a war or military action is not desirable in any way.”
putin, prior to the latest eu summit meeting over the weekend, issued a very clear message regarding the russian displeasure with the new us sanctions. sending an unequivocal message that embracing the concept would further increase tensions between russia and the eu:
Tensions between Russia and the West over sanctions against Iran will be laid bare today as President Vladimir Putin attends a summit with EU leaders in Portugal.
The Russian leader described supporters of tough policies as “mad people wielding razor blades” after the US imposed economic sanctions on the Islamic republic yesterday in an attempt to curb its nuclear programme.
Mr Putin, who is at the summit to discuss disputed trade issues with the EU, is expected to make further comments on Iran this afternoon after a senior American diplomat suggested that Russia was “aiding and abetting” the Iranian military.
Nicholas Burns, US Assistant Secretary of State, said that Russia should stop selling weapons to Iran, and China should stop investing in the Middle Eastern state. “They’re now the number one trade partner with Iran,” he told the BBC. “It’s very difficult for countries to say we’re striking out on our own when they’ve got their own policies on the military side, aiding and abetting the Iraninan [sic] government in strengthening its own military.”
and the chinese have issued their usual inscrutable warning as well:
China warns US on Iran sanctions
China has warned US over new sanctions against Iran, as international and Iranian authorities try to resolve Tehran’s nuclear issue.
“Dialogue and negotiations are the best approach to resolving the Iranian nuclear issue,” the Chinese Foreign Ministry said Friday in a brief statement.
Beijing informed the US that new imposed sanctions could only increase the tensions with Iran over the country’s nuclear standoff with the West, urging renewed dialogue with Tehran.
Analysts believe the White House attempts to fuel tension by further pressuring Tehran with new sanctions.
furthermore, don’t forget or dismiss the fact that the iranians were clearly and openly attempting to negotiate in 2003:
In 2003, U.S. Spurned Iran’s Offer of Dialogue
Some Officials Lament Lost Opportunity
By Glenn Kesslerwapo Sunday, June 18, 2006; Page A16
Just after the lightning takeover of Baghdad by U.S. forces three years ago, an unusual two-page document spewed out of a fax machine at the Near East bureau of the State Department. It was a proposal from Iran for a broad dialogue with the United States, and the fax suggested everything was on the table — including full cooperation on nuclear programs, acceptance of Israel and the termination of Iranian support for Palestinian militant groups.
But top Bush administration officials, convinced the Iranian government was on the verge of collapse, belittled the initiative….
.
.
.
While the Iranian approach has been previously reported, the actual document making the offer has surfaced only in recent weeks. Trita Parsi, a Middle East expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he obtained it from Iranian sources. The Washington Post confirmed its authenticity with Iranian and former U.S. officials.
.
.
.
Paul R. Pillar, former national intelligence officer for the Near East and South Asia, said that it is true “there is less daylight between the United States and Europe, thanks in part to Rice’s energetic diplomacy.” But he said that only partially offsets the fact that the U.S. position is “inherently weaker now” because of Iraq. He described the Iranian approach as part of a series of efforts by Iran to engage with the Bush administration. “I think there have been a lot of lost opportunities,” he said, citing as one example a failure to build on the useful cooperation Iran provided in Afghanistan.Richard N. Haass, head of policy planning at the State Department at the time and now president of the Council on Foreign Relations, said the Iranian approach was swiftly rejected because in the administration “the bias was toward a policy of regime change.” He said it is difficult to know whether the proposal was fully supported by the “multiple governments” that run Iran, but he felt it was worth exploring.
“To use an oil analogy, we could have drilled a dry hole,” he said. “But I didn’t see what we had to lose. I did not share the assessment of many in the administration that the Iranian regime was on the brink.”
Parsi said that based on his conversations with the Iranian officials, he believes the failure of the United States to even respond to the offer had an impact on the government. Parsi, who is writing a book on Iran-Israeli relations, said he believes the Iranians were ready to dramatically soften their stance on Israel, essentially taking the position of other Islamic countries such as Malaysia. Instead, Iranian officials decided that the United States cared not about Iranian policies but about Iranian power.
The incident “strengthened the hands of those in Iran who believe the only way to compel the United States to talk or deal with Iran is not by sending peace offers but by being a nuisance,” Parsi said.
clearly there is no reason to believe, based on the actions of the administration and congress since this information was revealed and authenticated that negotiations are the goal.
the kyl-lieberman amendment, which is clearly viewed by many as an overt move to ratchet up the bellicose rhetoric of the administration, has led directly to the singling out of the al-qud, a branch of iran’s military, 22 government agencies, 3 state owned banks, and an untold number of individuals in the latest round of unilateral sanctions, is unprecedented. this is not going to have a discernible, let alone positive, effect on tehran’s position, as their economy is not dependent with relations to the us. there is no reasonable analysis that l am aware of that posits any other conclusion regarding the ultimate goal of the amendment, which is to create a crisis mentality which will, ultimately, lead to the creation of a casus belli and subsequent open hostilities…occam’s razor comes to mind.
putin also made it abundantly clear to all parties involved that an attack on iran will be viewed as an attack on russia following the caspian sea summit last week.
The barely reported highlight of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s visit to Tehran for the Caspian Sea summit last week was a key face-to-face meeting with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
A high-level diplomatic source in Tehran tells Asia Times Online that essentially Putin and the Supreme Leader have agreed on a plan to nullify the George W Bush administration’s relentless drive towards launching a preemptive attack, perhaps a tactical nuclear strike, against Iran. An American attack on Iran will be viewed by Moscow as an attack on Russia.
in conclusion, the short answer is a no, it’s quite clear that clinton’s support and aye vote for the kyl-lieberman amenendment does not benefit diplomatic relations, contrary to the spin her campaign is attempting to apply to it…unless, of course, you’re closely associated with the military/industrial/corporate oligarchy…to them, it’s good for bu$ine$$…and clinton’s ties to the money men are well documented.
she keeps talking about leadership … if this is what it looks like, l’ll pass.
