In the Arena

U.S. Releases Iranians

Hmmm. The U.S. has released five Iranian “diplomats” who have been held in Iraq for the past several years. They were taken and held in Erbil at the height of the insurgency, on strong evidence that they were actually Revolutionary Guards operatives involved in the traffic in shaped charges, the extremely powerful late-generation  roadside bombs that were riddling American convoys.

This is a particularly interesting move because the five were considered bargaining chips in the US-Iran negotiations. Their release was frequently mentioned by the Iranians as a possible quid pro quo for the release of Roxana Sebari. More recently, it was mentioned as a precondition for talks by several Iranians close to Ahmadinejad I interviewed in Tehran last month. It may be a sign that a breakthrough–or an Iranian concession–is imminent, or perhaps it’s part of a deal to release the British diplomats and western journalists being held by the Iranians. If the latter, it’s a waste of a perfectly good bargaining chip. The Iranian seizure of the British diplomats and a reporter from Newsweek is an outrage that should not be tolerated, much less appeased. If it’s the former, a precursor to talks, let’s hope the Obama Administration drives a hard bargain–clearly the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime is desperate for credibility after last month’s coup. The price of that credibility has to be nothing less than a full accounting, to the IAEA, of the history and present status of Iran’s attempts to weaponize the uranium it is now enriching.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Morning Must Reads: Secret

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    SAUL LOEB / AFP / Getty Images

    A Tale of Two Economies: Mitt Romney vs. Republican Governors

    The great recession has left the state of Ohio battered and bruised–and Mitt Romney would have you believe it’s Barack Obama’s fault. Writing in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer on May 4, Romney advised Ohioans that the President has delivered them “paltry results,” and that their state is in need of “a fundamental change in direction.”

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    I be wonderin’ if this be somethin’ th’ Iraqis were wantin’, t’ begin normalizin’ their own relations wi’ Iran now tha’ we be in th’ process o’ lowerin’ our profile there (Iraq)? Were it somethin’ Maliki asked fer, per’aps? T’ be givin’ ‘is own govt more legitimacy in th’ eyes o’ th’ Iranians? They do be havin’ t’ live next t’ each other, an this could be ’bout relations b’tween Iraq an’ Iran, an’ have nothin’ t’ do wi’ th’ US an’ Iran…
    .
    Just musin’…
    .
    Arrgh!

  • kbanginmotown

    You put the word “diplomats” in quotes, referring to the Iranians, but you did not refer to the British “diplomats” and western “journalists” in this manner. This double standard helps to perpetuate animosities.

    The bigger picture, I hope, is that we, the US, get out of the cold war habit of using individuals as bargaining chips to affect government policy. The tools of diplomacy should be negotiations, trade and sanctions, not kidnapping.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    kbang –
    .
    Are ye doin’ somethin’ special t’ be gettin’ yer paragraph breaks wi’out insertin’ some sort o’ character?
    .
    arrgh.

  • pintortwo

    JK- I agree that this move is a possible “precursor to talks” and therefore encouraging. However, if there is “strong evidence” that these Iranian “diplomats” provided advanced weaponry used to kill and injure hundreds (thousands?) of US soldiers, I doubt these men would be freed. Is it possible that there is no solid evidence and, therefore, these men are of little consequence?

  • cfukara

    ” .. -clearly the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime is desperate for credibility after last month’s coup. ..
    “clearly”?
    “credibility”? In whose eyes?
    “coup”?

    ” .. The price of that credibility has to be nothing less than a full accounting, to the IAEA, .. “

    Do I get an impression that “credibility” is dolled out begrudgingly by JK and coterie? By whom? [ Do the regimes or 'government'-at-gunpoint in Iraq and Afghanistan have "credibility"? Does Israel, which has as yet to submit a full accounting at the IAEA and the civilized world, have any "credibility" in the eyes of JK - or IAEA and the world?]

    [It is embarrassing to think of a time - during the MJ era - when I would read JK's writings breathlessly. And some do.]

  • pintortwo

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/babylonbeyond/2008/05/iraq-the-elusiv.html
    .
    There was something interesting missing from Maj. Gen. Kevin Bergner’s introductory remarks to journalists at his regular news briefing in Baghdad on Wednesday: the word “Iran,” or any form of it. It was especially striking as Bergner, the U.S. military spokesman here, announced the extraordinary list of weapons and munitions that have been uncovered in recent weeks since fighting erupted between Iraqi and U.S. security forces and Shiite militiamen.
    .
    (snip)
    .
    Not once did Bergner point the finger at Iran for any of these weapons and munitions, which is a striking change from just a couple of weeks ago when U.S. military officials here and at the Pentagon were saying that caches found in Basra in particular had revealed Iranian-made arms manufactured as recently as this year. They say the majority of rockets being fired at U.S. bases, including Baghdad’s Green Zone, are launched by militiamen receiving training, arms and other aid from Iran.
    .
    (snip)
    .
    A plan to show some alleged Iranian-supplied explosives to journalists last week in Karbala and then destroy them was canceled after the United States realized none of them was from Iran. A U.S. military spokesman attributed the confusion to a misunderstanding that emerged after an Iraqi Army general in Karbala erroneously reported the items were of Iranian origin.
    .
    When U.S. explosives experts went to investigate, they discovered they were not Iranian after all.

  • pintortwo

    Per my above comment: Note that the pending display of “Iranian” weapons was generously, if not spectacularly, covered in the media; but the “misunderstanding” was relegated to the LA Times blog only. I’m just not convinced that “strong evidence” exists.

  • 53_3

    “The price of that credibility has to be nothing less than a full accounting, to the IAEA, of the history and present status of Iran’s attempts to weaponize the uranium it is now enriching.”

    I’m a bit more negative toward the Iranian regime since the Ayatollah went on record in support of Ahmadinejads’ rants, but all the same, I’m not going to worry to much about the history of the program.

    I want to know about the here and now. That’s what counts. The history may or may not be fodder for the ‘I told you so’ crowd, whom I definitely do not want to give any sustenance to whatsoever.

    One thing to consider is that the Bush Administration was not above trying to create a pretext as justification for military action, and these “diplomats” may actually be diplomats and that Obama is just making sure that the legal wheels turn as they should.

    Have you considered that aspect of it? I would, considering the Bush Adminstrations’ history…

  • kbanginmotown

    pirate wench: Nay! I be hittin’ the “enter” key twice-like,

    and th’ extra line not be goin’ away like in the past. Take a chance, matie!

    Arrrg!

  • kbanginmotown

    What takes longer getting used to is that we can now directly reply to comments, instead of tacking replies to the end of a thread.

    So, wenchy, I am replying to your comment here. But I “replied” to your question down at comment #9.

  • pirate wench (demwoman)

    Thanks, me hearty!

    I were takin’ th’ chance, and figured it out meself (I be truly havin’ t’ stop tastin’ th’ rum ration first thing o’ th’ mornin’!)

    This be a true swampland miracle…wonder if AS had anything to do wi’ it…supersecretholymoly powers used fer good?

    Arrgh!

  • pintortwo

    …history and present status of Iran’s attempts to weaponize the uranium it is now enriching.

    That statement is unfair given the copious propaganda of that era. The 2007 NIE suggests with “high confidence” that Iran has a nuclear weapons program prior to the fall of 2003. The report has faced much criticism. US Navy commander Jeff Huber writes:

    If an intelligence officer brought me a report that read like the latest National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, he’d be picking it out of his next morning’s constitutional. That NIE was one of the worst compendiums of unsupported summary judgment statements I’ve ever seen. Good golly; Charles Krauthammer supports his opinions better than that.

    And later concludes:

    I have no way of knowing what really happened in Iran in 2003. But I do know this: the Russians didn’t begin construction on Iran’s first nuclear reactor until September 2002, and the International Atomic Energy Commission concluded there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program in October 2003. So what kind of nuclear weapons program could Iran have possibly had at any time in 2003 that it supposedly halted?

    If it existed at all, I’m thinking, it must have been the kind that only exists on the back of a bar napkin.

    (Huber’s whole article is well worth reading)

  • Exiled_At_Home (formerly neo)

    During an era when the entire world seems to be, at least in their oratory, seeking expansion of alternative energy options, why is it that Iran hasn’t the right to pursue nuclear power capabilities? Their intentions can only be speculated on. While indeed it is desirable to see a halt to the production of more nuclear weapons systems globally, Iran has relentlessly claimed their intent is to obtain civilian nuclear energy and there has yet to surface any concrete evidence to the contrary.

  • spob

    But don’t question Obama’s patriotism . . . .

  • cfukara

    “”…history and present status of Iran’s attempts to weaponize the uranium it is now enriching.”

    That statement is unfair given the copious propaganda of that era.”

    Joe Klein’s approach with regard to Ahmadinejad, Islamic Council and Iran should be famililiar to those who watched how we went about demonizing Saddam Hussein, the Ba’ath Party and Iraq – by creating a situation whereby the invasion of Iraq and the ensuing carnage and war crimes were essentially inevitable.

    The strategy is to pose the question such that the victim is put in the untenable position of having to prove a negative.

    In Saddam’s case, we told him to prove to us that he did NOT have nuclear weapons. SO:

    - And if he did somehow show us some nukes, then we got our “AHA, he is a bad person AND there is more where that came from” moment and go in for the godly kill.

    - Since he didn”t show us some nukes [and of course we knew that he did not have them], then the duplicitous conclusion we proffered to a complicit world was that Saddam MUST hiding something – and so we invaded the country with the “shock and awe” of god-inspired orgy of rape, torture and slaughter of multitudes of innocent young and old Iraqi men, women and kids.
    The gratuitous razing of the ancient civilization was just the icing.

    And it was all good in Iraq – worry-free carnage.

    And now, a bloodlusting, coliseum-bred, anti-gentile blogger is raring to go at those muslim gentiles for seconds: The evil Ahmadinejad must prove to us and the world that Iran does NOT have nuclear weapons, that Iran does NOT have a history of nuclear materials development; and that Iran do NOT have nuclear ambitions.

    Yet our POTUS, the imminent scholar in constitutional law, announces to the world that Iran is a SOVEREIGN nation [and hence, so he affirms to the world, that sovereign Iran has as much RIGHT as the sovereign USA has, to pursue any nuclear option on behalf of its citizens.]

blog comments powered by Disqus