Iran
I am encouraged by recent news that the administration has offered to put an end to our twenty-six-year-old policy of refusing to speak with the Iranians.
We need to remember that decision-making power under Iran’s government is not all concentrated in the president. We are all familiar with the inflammatory rhetoric of President Ahmadinejad, but there are other governmental bodies in Iran that are more moderate and eager for dialogue. We have already spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a war in the Middle East. We cannot afford to continue on the path of conflict over dialogue and peaceful resolution. Unnecessarily threatening Iran is not in the U.S. interest and is not in the interest of world peace.
Unfortunately, the main U.S. precondition is that the Iranians abandon their uranium enrichment program. But this is exactly what the negotiations are meant to discuss! How can a meaningful dialogue take place when one side demands that the other side abandon its position before talks can begin? Is this offer designed to fail so as to clear the way for military action while being able to claim that diplomacy was attempted? If the administration wishes to avoid this perception, it would be wiser to abandon preconditions and simply agree to talk to Iran.
The charges made against Iran are unsubstantiated and, amazingly, sound
very similar to the false charges made against Iraq.
Ron Paul, “Iran: The Next Neocon Target,” U.S. House of
Representatives, April 5, 2006.
One would think promoters of the war against Iraq would be a little bit
more reluctant to use the same arguments to stir up hatred toward Iran.
The American people and Congress should be more cautious in accepting
these charges at face value. Yet it seems the propaganda is working, since
few in Washington object as Congress passes resolutions condemning Iran
and asking for UN sanctions against her.
Ron Paul, “Iran: The Next Neocon Target,” U.S. House of
Representatives, April 5, 2006.