Monday, March 6, 2006

Hitchens on Iran

"Just a thought", that is what Christopher Hitchens whom I have ultimate respect for, ends his article with.

It was a good read until he started talking of "Nixon Goes to China" diplomacy.

That is where I stopped in shock and awe, scratching my head. I couldn't believe what I just read so I read it again not once but twice.

That is where I got disappointed!

Unfortunately, the thing that Hitchens misses is that this regime of terror and fear is depended on chaos and crisis and its existence depends on these elements.

The article is also ignorant of other factors (Actually I know it might have been his dreams, or some sort of daydreaming) but Christopher Hitchens forgets that:

1- This is a terrorist regime, how the hell does he expect the US gov't to negotiate with a terrorist state?

2- President Bush has called several times that his administration wouldn't negotiate with the terrorists

3- Mr. Hitchens fails to address the hopes and fears of those Pro-America Iranians he met while staying in Iran in case of a US-Mullahs direct talks. Does this not turn them into America Haters and leave them with the feeling of being betrayed to?

It is a complicated situation right now, where the useless nuclear negotiations has failed, pro-democratic forces are suppressed by the regime security forces and there is little hope for a change in Iran in the short run.

I know that it has made all of us, who are concerned with this crazy regime, desperate and frustrated but the way out of this deadlock is not giving them any chances to feel strong.

This is not a regime that can be trusted. I am sorry, Mr. Hitchens, it is not in the best interest of the innocent Iranian people to have their theocratic regime to speak with the US government at a time when the US is actively trying to deal with the mullahs.

Indeed, it is time to isolate the regime leaders, freeze their assets across the globe and start talking to the Iranian people and democratic forces to find a way out of this crisis.

Once again, I know this was your own thoughts and you might be very frustrated too but trust me, this is not what the majority of Iranians want under this current regime.

However, Condi Rice and Pres. Bush are not that dumb to dismiss their own statements regarding Iran and travel to Iran for handshakes and photo ops.
I just sent the above article to a Conservative friend of mine in the States and my friend said "well, but you see, he is left-wing. You can't forget that, It's the same for Dershowitz!"
And I said, "Yeah, they can't hide their nature" and we both laughed.
But let me tell you one thing Mr. Hitchens
The only language the Mullahs understand is the language of force and power.
So let's keep it this way!


Anonymous said...

The left wingers despite their alleged stance on human rights and supporting the voiceless, have shown nothing but callousness, willfull ignorance and disinterest in the plight of Iranian nation.

irandokht said...

با درود به تمام مبارزان راه آزدی. یاران دبستانی عزیز منشور آزادی ایرانیان (مانیفیست جنبش آزادی ایرانیان) با امضا’ بیش از 900 دانشجو و فعال را در وبلاگ مطالعه نمایید. و با نظرات گرم و دستان پرمهرتان همراهمان باشید. در ضمن وعده ی ما در 17 اسفند و چهارشنبه سوری را فراموش نکنید. روزگار غریبی ست نازنین . تنها با یاری و اتحاد و کمک تمام یاران دبستانی است که می توان امیدوار بود : ایران هرگز نمی میرد. در این راه عظیم یاریمان کنید . ( جنبش آزادی ایرانیان - جنبش مستقل دانشجویی )
پاینده ایران.

chester said...

It's hard to understand how someone as intelligent as Hitchens could ever think that talking to the mullahs would have any more affect than talking to Pol Pot or Saddam (whom he admits was a waste of time talking to).

How do you reason with & trust terrorists, Mr Hitchens? How do you trust & reason with mass murderers? How do you trust & reason with torturers?

If Hitchens understands the WOT, (and for the first time I'm beginning to doubt he does), if he understands why Saddam had to go (and I question his understanding here, too) then he would never have suggested another "Nixon Goes to China" scenario.

He's been a big defender of the war in Iraq. It really is very dissappointing to read this article.
Even though we're all aware that he's still a socialist at heart.

Richards said...

May be he was on his last shot of Whiskey or Brandy when he was writting this

dave murphy said...

"This is a terrorist regime, how the hell does he expect the US gov't to negotiate with a terrorist state?"

You seem to forget that most western states have used terrorust tactics when it suits. The French bombed the unarmed rainbow warrior; the US has supported terrorist means and fascist states in its various wars (Iran / Contra for example, most of the military dictatorships of south america, recently where a venezuela military group tried to stage a coup against the elected government; in Chile when pinochet overthrew the elected government; in Iran when the CIA overthrew the elcted Iranian government; British SAS agents assassinated alleged IRA in gibralter etc etc etc.

Trying to apply a moral standing to the foreign policy of the US is just naievety at best and humbug at worst.

Governments do what governments do, and ethics and morality rarely play much part.

Most governemnts in the west apply the palmerston dictum 'Britain (for which read governments) does not have friends, only interests'

James M said...

The problem with Hitch here isn't that he's a leftwinger or that he doesn't take the war seriously enough.It's that he genuinely thinks that a rapprochement, on this one issue, is the best way to deal with this battle.He may even be right, although I lean toward your stance, for the very reasons you gave.

Military action probably isn't feasible, except in the last ditch, because most Iranians, even those hostile to the mullahs, will not welcome our troops as liberators the way the Iraqis did.The ststus quo of ostracizing the mullahs without deposing them will likely lead to mullahs with nukes.

In a speech he gave recently in my town, he acknowledged that his plan for a tactical retreat on Iran could fail, but said that it was worth trying anyway, in the hopes of keeping Iran nonnuclear.