cross-posted from Dembloggers and A Faerie’s Farthing
With all the sabre-rattling over Iran, it should come as no surprise that the U.S. is now establishing a special office solely to deal with Iran. But even they aren’t foolish enough to make such obvious comparisons to the Iraq campaign; this one is called the “Office of Iran Affairs.” Sound familiar? It should:
The U.S. State Department is creating a special office to deal with foreign policy changes related to Iran and to promote a democratic transition in the Islamic republic, State Department officials said Thursday.
Traditionally, Iran has been dealt with as part of a larger grouping of Persian Gulf countries, but the officials said the new Office of Iran Affairs reflects a growing concern over actions by the Iranian regime and the need to devote significantly more personnel and resources to Iran policy.
…The office will deal with Tehran’s support for groups on the U.S. list of terrorist organizations and Iran’s alleged human rights violations. The office also will be involved in issues related to Iran’s nuclear energy program, which the Bush administration fears is designed to develop nuclear weapons.
Just replace “Iran” with “Iraq” and it’s just like we’re back in 2003. Even scarier: not much else about the plan, if they can be said to have one, is different from before either:
The U.N. watchdog group, the International Atomic Energy Agency, wants Tehran to take action to prove its nuclear energy program is intended for peaceful purposes. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has ordered the Islamic state to end its voluntary cooperation with the IAEA.
The creation of the Iran office comes on the heels of an announcement last month by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice of a $75 million State Department initiative to support democracy in Iran through intensified cultural exchanges, increased programs for democratic advocates and expanded broadcasting into the country.
When asked directly whether the office is being created to promote regime change in Iran, the senior official said the office is being created “to facilitate a change in Iranian policies and actions.”
Iranian Chalabis, propaganda, “regime change” – it’s the Iraq blueprint all over again. Since they seem to have so much confidence in these already tried and failed plans, can we take this to mean they truly do believe things are going well in Iraq? Did that experience actually give them confidence in their cockamamie schemes?
Speaking of cockamamie schemes, this one does have an added twist that I think explains a whole lot about shrubya’s insistence on the Dubai ports deal:
Several new positions are being created worldwide for the new Iran office. In addition to beefing up Washington-based staff working on Iran, <span style=”font-weight:bold;”>a regional center will be built in Dubai, United Arab Emirates</span>, to focus on neighboring Iran with four new foreign service posts and four local employees to do outreach. There will also be officers stationed in Germany, Azerbaijan and Britain to deal with Iranian expatriates.
“Frankly, there is an imbalance between Iran’s role in the world and its impact on U.S. diplomacy and the resources we are devoting to the portfolio,” the senior official said. “When you consider the fact that you have the terrorism problem, proliferation concerns, human rights, democracy issues and regional development, two officers is not enough. In order to pursue our broad agenda concerning the country, we’ve got to have more people doing it.”
I’ve got a bad feeling about this…
doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results? yah
Not happy to see it on CNN. Makes it official propaganda.
Well, they are psychopaths. No news there. No, the only news is whether they will actually try it this year.
It is lose-lose. There are no good scenerios and many, many bad ones.
Such as:
The US will be destroyed.
Not sure who else goes down with us.
It all depends on how the word ‘destroyed’ is defined. Changed beyond recognition? Probably, but not destroyed.
Several consequences will come about simply as a result of current actions by elected officials. The internet/telecom surveillance that is still not addressed will eventually drive people to unplug. Distrust of the govt and unnecessary hassles in the name of security will cause folks to drop further away from what’s being enforced. International travel will drop with rising oil prices, fewer travellers and increased risk. Sooooooo many people are going to be stuck with real estate at less than market value they will be stuck, or worse, widespread foreclosures with not many individual buyers…but whatever happens, it’s sure to be a great equalizer.
Sort of like when a racoon is run down by a truck and is changed beyond recognition . . . 😉
Seriously, survival may become a problem. Lay the best plans you can . . .
You raise a good point that deserves the fuller treatment of a diary: The internet may well become unsafe to use. What are the signs when this starts happening? Are there countermeasures? Or, as Jim Kundstler ?optimistically? opines, when the crisis hits, will the national government be hard pressed to answer its own phones, let alone spy on anybody? I don’t think I know enough to know which internet scenerio is likely: I see it as a race between competing trends but I don’t know which trend has the edge.
Meanwhile, the other week the media was going on about how unpatriotic blogs are. A sure sign that they are doing some good, but of course that also increases the danger . . .
It has been really unsafe since 2002-2003 when the covert surveillance/monitoring got into admin protection mode. How safe can it be when the private contractors conducting the surveillance are the same ones pleading guilty to criminal activities with politicians to get the contracts?
repeated itself. Sheesh! Not good but not unexpected. Will Korea make it before 2008? Or Syria?
for a fig leaf perhaps, but at least this group is located in State — tho as they reorganize aid in more explicitly political ways, that may be a distinction without a difference
& you’re spot on about Dubai & Iran, I suspect
(not to mention all the military service & private contracotrs already passing through there)