" . . . According to their deeds . . . "
I'll be brief. "The idea that is America" is obviously vulnerable to the interpretation of foreigners. In Dissent, Ms. Slaughter suggested the U.S. engage Iran:
"On nuclear weapons, the United States should be willing to offer Iran assurances that assuage its legitimate fears. These assurances might include a negative security assurance—a promise not to attack Iran except in response to Iranian military action or direct Iranian support of a terrorist attack against the United States, Europe, or Israel."
Now it wasn't so long ago that the U.S. attacked next-door Iraq with precisely this justification. Not long before that, the U.S. abetted Iraq in attacking Iran. Moreover, such acts are not anomalous in U.S. history. I would say they are routine. So who is she kidding? One suspects it is not the Iranians.
I keep seeing Madeleine Albright in the mug shot. It must be the scarf.
[N.B.: this post originally appeared in the Coffee House section of TPMCafe. For the original post and comments, click here]
I'm not entirely clear on what Max thinks the US policy towards Iran should be, if offering a non-aggression policy is not part of it. If everyone assumes the US is dishonest and aggressively imperialistic and nothing can be done to change these convictions (or the American policies that give rise to them), then we may as well just recall our ambassadors, go home and cry, no?
I'm no supporter of Slaughter's bombastic American rah-rahism, but I don't see what purpose is served by attacking proposals for reorienting US foreign policy towards peaceful diplomatic engagement on the grounds that nobody would ever believe us.
Accumulating Peripherals
June 19, 2007 6:56 PM | Reply | Permalink