Doing it the hard way with IranJohn Bolton, America's recent U.N. ambassador, brags in his new tell-all memoir about thwarting efforts by his successive bosses, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, to open a dialogue with Iran over its nuclear program.
If you're disturbed to read about U.S. diplomats backstabbing one another while our nation drifts toward yet another Persian Gulf war, then don't pick up Esquire's November issue, because it features a story that will make your blood boil.
Titled "The Secret History of the Impending War With Iran That the White House Doesn't Want You to Know," John Richardson's tale recounts the years-long efforts by two senior National Security Council staffers to trigger engagement with Iran that would serve America's strategic purposes throughout the Persian Gulf. Now out of government, Middle East experts Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann fear we're headed toward military strikes that will engulf the entire region in flames.
Read on at KnoxNews.
Read on at Scripps Howard.
| Permalink |
Comments (6)
Dr barnett,do you think Russia playing the same role as China played
with N.Korea?
Posted by farhad | October 27, 2007 3:12 PM
I know nothing of the facts of the matter, but Mike Rubin doubts the story.
Posted by dan tdaxp![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/nav-commenters.gif)
|
October 28, 2007 2:15 PM
Tom,
It seems like it is way to late in the game for the Bush Adm. to carry out such a provocative attack. You don't really believe they would just launch an attack without all the elaborate UN security council run-up do you?
I believe they are just going to run out the clock. Perhaps grab Bin Laden at the last minute, but that's about it.
Posted by SR | October 28, 2007 5:14 PM
It looks like were about to get a third big bang in the Middle East. The first two being the 67 War and the invasion of Iraq. If an attack on Iran occurs and the ME goes up in flames why would this necessarily be a bad thing? How can the progress resistent ME move ahead into the future of free markets and political liberty unless it's dragged kicking and screaming? Unless it suffers its way into it. The mullahs are absolutely hell bent on joining the nuclear club and Bush's opposition is equally absolute. If the mullahs don't abandon their nuclear ambitions they will have no one but themselves to blame if Bush attacks.
Posted by Bruce Sterling | October 28, 2007 11:38 PM
SR, I'll be interested in your take on the "elaborate UN security council run-up" in a month, say around Nov. 29th.
Tom is seeing what many are seeing. Fallon controls the regional message, State has a window that is approaching deadline, there are meetings already on the UN schedule in Nov., and thanks to delays in FY08 Defense Budget and rhetoric from the admin, all the scheduled rotations are stalled and building in a que.
When the defense budget passes, the fury of activity will be notable, but it will also be business as usual because of delay. The side effect is it will insure plenty of force in region for 08.
Posted by Galrahn | October 29, 2007 8:31 AM
Barbara Slavin was on C-Span this weekend addressing this issue. She dismisses Rubin's claim that the proposal at issue here was drafted by the Swiss Ambassador and not by Iran. Like Dan, I know nothing of the facts, but the suggestion that the Swiss Ambassador was actually running this thing does seem pretty far-fetched. You can view Slavin's interview on-line on the C-Span archives.
Posted by stuart abrams | October 29, 2007 9:32 AM