Rice: Iran Is An Obstacle To US Goals
WASHINGTON - Iran is a major obstacle to the U.S. vision of a Middle East in which nations will “trade more, invest more, talk more and work more constructively to solve problems,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice says.
“The Iranian government is pursuing policies which are detrimental to the long-term interests of its neighbors, of the region, and of the Iranian people themselves. It need not be this way,” Rice said in remarks prepared for delivery Wednesday to a House panel.
The Associated Press obtained a copy of her testimony.
Rice’s testimony, before the House Foreign Affairs Committee, comes amid increased frustration by Republicans and Democrats alike that the Bush administration is not doing enough to deter Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Last month, the House passed, by a 397-16 vote, legislation aimed at blocking foreign investment in Iran, in particular its lucrative energy sector. The bill, sponsored by Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif., would specifically bar the president from waiving U.S. sanctions.
Rice said the administration shares Congress’ goal of making sanctions tougher on Iran, but urged caution.
“We simply want to be certain that our collective efforts do not undermine our multilateral strategy, where we will have a maximum chance of success,” she said.
President Bush says a U.S.-linked missile defense system is urgently needed in Europe to protect against a potential Iranian strike. Plans for such a system have strained U.S. relations with Russia, which estimates Iran’s capability to be less mature and has close financial ties with Tehran.
AP article by Anne Flaherty Here.
Be respectful of others and their opinions. Inflammatory remarks and inane leftist drivel will be deleted. It ain’t about free speech, remember you’re in a private domain. My website, my prerogative.
If you can't handle using your real email address, don't bother posting a comment.
What kind of Middle East do we want?
The present Republican administration contends that above all, a nation like Iran would not fit into our picture. The Iranian government would not accept our administration policy as the sole policy for the Middle East. The administration wants the natural resources of the area and a market where our corporations would sell our hardware and second-class arsenals.
Iranian potential to develop nuclear arsenals would be of minimum consequence to our national defense. US finds it much easier to deal with a single ruler than to deal with a whole nation. We just pretend to desire the concept of messy democracy for these nations, knowing well the hostility of the regional population to our American foreign policy.
Are we trying to make an example of Iran? Iran under Shah was incapable to produce a sewing needle; in contrast, Iran today is developing a strong population of educated men and women, a solid industrial base and national pride. Iranian democracy must develop from the Iranian base, a brand of democracy suited to the historical and cultural sense of the population. Like our American Republic, democracy in Iran will nurture with time, experiencing up and down until the Bill of Rights of Iran will be established.
If it is not about domination of the Persian Gulf countries, and exploitation of their natural resources, then what is that we want?
October 24th, 2007 at 9:14 am“What kind of Middle East do we want?”
The one Rice describes; “… a Middle East in which nations will “trade more, invest more, talk more and work more constructively to solve problems,”. What’s wrong with that?
“… The present Republican administration contends that above all, a nation like Iran would not fit into our picture.”
No. It “contends” that it *DOES* not fit.
“…The Iranian government would not accept our administration policy as the sole policy for the Middle East.”
The “policy” that Iran finds objectionable is our unwillingness to tolerate a state that actively sponsors terrorism and possesses a nuclear capability. The Iranians really could not care less about what people call ‘Palestinians’. If they did there could have been peace in the region quite some time ago.
“…The administration wants the natural resources of the area…”
Well of course we do. And we’re willing to pay handsomely for them. It would have been immensely cheaper in blood and treaure over the years to have just taken them long ago.
“… and a market where our corporations would sell our hardware and second-class arsenals.”
Do you understand nothing about economics? And I gotta argue that F-15s and F-16s are NOT second class.
“…Iranian potential to develop nuclear arsenals would be of minimum consequence to our national defense.”
Just you’re saying that doesn’t make it true. How do you reach THAT conclusion? The Iranians have already shown their eagerness to support and use terrorism as a means to further what they perceive to be their own national interest. Are you ready for the nuclear version?
“.. We just pretend to desire the concept of messy democracy for these nations, knowing well the hostility of the regional population to our American foreign policy.”
What is pretensious about preferring to deal with a democracy rather than a fascist regime? And that “hostility” is deliberately provoked by the fascists in the region; Iran and Syria primarily.
“..Are we trying to make an example of Iran? Iran under Shah was incapable to produce a sewing needle;…”
Cold War politics was very different. Using it as a prop for Liberal views is disingenuous at best.
“… in contrast, Iran today is developing a strong population of educated men and women, a solid industrial base and national pride. Iranian democracy must develop from the Iranian base, a brand of democracy suited to the historical and cultural sense of the population. Like our American Republic, democracy in Iran will nurture with time, experiencing up and down until the Bill of Rights of Iran will be established.”
Their present rulers are a fanatical band of theocratic nihilists with an apocalyptic worldview.
So they’d better hurry.
“…If it is not about domination of the Persian Gulf countries, and exploitation of their natural resources, then what is that we want?”
What it is “about” is what Rice said it is “about”. We have relationships like that with many former enemies from both WWII and the Cold War. Governments by the people and for the people.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:34 am“Iranian potential to develop nuclear arsenals would be of minimum consequence to our national defense.” That statement renders any logitimate discussion pointless. Let me guess, you’re a proud and distinguished Columbia graduate?
October 24th, 2007 at 11:43 amsully
“What kind of Middle East do we want?”
Please read the following link: www.wingtv.net/documentaries.htm
War Crimes and Treason: Israel’s Deliberate Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty:”After surveilling USS Liberty for more than nine hours with almost hourly aircraft over flights and radar tracking, the air and naval forces of Israel attacked our ship in international waters without warning. USS Liberty was identified as a US naval ship nine hours before the attack by Israeli reconnaissance aircraft and continuously tracked by Israeli radar and aircraft thereafter. Sailing in international waters at less than five knots, with no offensive armament, our ship was not a military threat to anyone.
The Israeli forces attacked without warning and without attempting to contact us. Thirty four Americans were killed in the attack and another 174 were wounded. The ship, a $40 Million Dollar state of the art signals intelligence platform, was later declared unsalvageable and sold for scrap.”
Please read: Hans Blix questions U.S. fears over Iran (http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/3122.
Our fear of Iran is a result of Israeli Lobby.
Thank you “sully”.
Based on our US document, published by the US Military
October 24th, 2007 at 3:26 pm““What kind of Middle East do we want?”
Please read the following link: www.wingtv.net/documentaries.htm”
That link does not work. It appears that wingtv is a ‘truther’ site yes? Don’t bother trying to fix the link then.
“War Crimes and Treason: Israel’s Deliberate Attack on the U.S.S. Liberty”
Wow…1967??? An attack that both Israel and the U.S. determined to be accidental? Man you really are a lover of conspiracy aren’t you.
Well, excepting the conspiracy that the Islamists want to saw YOUR head off apparently.
“Please read: Hans Blix questions U.S. fears over Iran”
No thank you. I’ve had all I can stand of Blix.
“Our fear of Iran is a result of Israeli Lobby.”
Uh…no. There is no “fear of Iran”. There is a very definite fear of the theocrats that run the place and their anxiousness to bring the twelfth Imam back.
Our concerns over Iran are the result of the Ahmadinejad lobby.
“Thank you “sully”.”
You’re welcome.
October 24th, 2007 at 4:07 pm“Our fear of Iran is a result of Israeli Lobby.”
umm does 1979 ring any bells? and how about the proxy war that iran is waging against us in iraq? we have captured members of the al quds force and know that they have killed american troops.. what the hell do you define fear as???
October 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pm