Iran's foreign minister slams US foreign policy

[Ichingcarpenter]

Source: AP

STOCKHOLM, Sweden (AP) - Iran's foreign minister said Friday that the United States should conduct a "serious review" of its foreign policy after the presidential election—a signal that Iran is leaving open the possibility of improved relations with Washington.

The comments by Manouchehr Mottaki—in an interview with The Associated Press—extended no clear offer for greater dialogue and included numerous jabs about the U.S. role in the Middle East and its global standing.

But the undertones of statements are often just as relevant in the nearly three-decade diplomatic freeze between the two nations. Mottaki's suggestion that the November election could signal a new course for U.S. views on the Middle East could also hint that Tehran may be ready to soften its stance.

"We don't want to make a problem for the American presidential candidates, but this election is among a limited number of American presidential elections where foreign policy plays a key role," Mottaki said a day after a U.N. conference on Iraqi reconstruction held outside Stockholm.

"The American people need change," he added.

Read more: http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91080JO0&show_article=1

[danielet]

1. DOES MCCAIN UNDERSTAND IRAQ IN TERMS OF WAR ON TERROR

John McCain keeps making an issue of Iraq. So, is Obama, the Dem candidate, going to take him on, on Iraq?

McCain is really not working on all cylinders and is not sincere. The first is not his fault, the second certainly is. So he uses the typical Rove-Republican method of "talking points" in hoping to appear as if he has some sorts of rational logic for his sloganeering.

McCain has said that he can look at us in the face and tell us that we are winning in Iraq. But what does that mean? What does it mean to say that the "surge" is succeeding?

It is much like saying that we are "winning the war on terror?"....What is "the war on terror"?

Is the War on Terror the war on bin Laden?
If binLaden is dead, does that mean that we won the War on Terror?

Did the War on Terror subside as we "got him!"-- Saddam Hussein?

Will it subside when we say "we got him!"-- Osama binLaden?

If the war in Iraq is fought against alQaeda, then what does winning the war in Iraq mean to winning the War on Terror?

Our NATO allies want to abandon us in Afghanistan because they think that the way the Americans are running the War on Terror is so poor because of our Iraq obsession that they do not want to invest any further on the Afghan American venture. They would rather invest in fighting their own War on Terror as the European Union instead of as the American led NATO. The reason for that is, what they deem, the American mindless and pointless squander of assets in Iraq that can only serve Iran's interests at the expense of all America's Arab allies and truly to the detriment of Afghanistan and the global War on Terror.

But McCain rattles on about Iraq because his mind can only cope with one note at a time. A president has to conduct a global symphony and this alone raises questions about McCain's mental capacity-- here I mean it as a clinical term, not as a political one. So, if you ever encounter McCain, be sure to query him, NOT ON IRAQ (for you will only get propaganda from him whispered in his ear by minder Lieberman that you can't refute unless you are querying him from Iraq, for he will challenge your logic wit his visits to Iraq; but not on the relationship of Iraq to the War on Terror and to the alQaeda-Afghan issue because he can't. He will show his brain's deficit in his inability to integrate the two. He cannot relate one to the other as he has no idea how they relate to his campaign other than saying that we are fighting alQaeda in Iraq, we are winning there, and if we leave alQaeda will use Iraq as a base from which to attack us. But McCain has no idea what this line of tactical argument has to do with the overall strategic aspects of the War on Terror as whole and how "victory" (???) in Iraq will reverberate on our war against alQaeda. The developing instability in Pakistan totally passes him by; he cannot relate it to the War on Terror either.

Who walked what street on what day is a Potemkin Tour of Iraq without relevance. The real issue is what has McCain contemplated in terms of a strategy for dealing with the overall issue that he claims Iraq is a part. He has no plan, since Lieberman has yet to transmit to him in simple form what the necons grasp as their orders from Likud HQ in Israel, now that Netanyahu may become the next Prime Minister. But what McCain is not grasping is that, seeing Lieberman as his neocon "minder," people are wondering if under his presidency Israel will be an ally or America's foreign policy master?

This is how things come out when all you have to work with are, once again, the hyperbolas of the neocons through Lieberman. And this is dangerous to America's relationship with Israel that keeps asking for more and more and more money while calling for attacking Iran--->through Liberman---> and thus through McCain, for McCain's Iran policy is also whatever Lieberman whispers in his ear. But that too McCain has no idea how it ties in with the war on terror, other than saying that Iran runs terrorists that kill American soldiers in Iraq....But we run terrorists (so designated by the State Dept.) in Iran, who kill Iranians and are based in Iraq, supplied and supported by us, despite the protest of the Iraqi government. It seems that everything is a total muddle that McCain had better show some sign that he can disentangle and integrate into a global strategy for America's War on Terror. He can't do that, unfortunately, because it is like asking someone who knows only fractions to plot a variable trajectory-- you need calculus for that, just like you need more brains, not just slogans like a parrot, to play chess than to play checkers. McCain has never proven to have that; instead he proved to suffer a severe deficit in trying to handle the particulars at issue instead of parroting slogans.

Haven't we learned our lesson with a president who bragged at a Yale Commencement that he is living proof that "a C student can get to be president" and, at another Yale Commencement, bragged that Cheney is living proof that a "college drop out can be Vice President"?

Now, before we buy the McCain product, with all the mileage wear and tear, it might be good to ask McCain to demonstrate that this guy who came in at the bottom of every ranking he ever faced is good enough to be president by showing that he can integrate Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and the War on Terror into one strategic plan with a clearly defined mission and goals that others can pick apart and that he respond to them without he becoming apoplectic. So far, his answer to tough questions have been stupid slanderous "jokes" to which only he laughs and tirades that raise questions about exactly where those melanoma cells of his have traveled.

I offer you a brilliant article by Bruce Riedel-- from a very pro-Israel think-tank that focuses the issue of what our Iraq War did to our War on Terror:

http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070501faessay86304/bruce-riedel/al-qaeda-strikes-back.html?mode=print

AN E-MAIL I RECEIVED FROM MCCAIN
My Friends,

I have long said that this election will present the American people with a clear choice in electing our next president. The differences between my vision for national security leadership and that of Senator Obama's could not be greater, and this is why I am writing to you today.

I think you all know that this war has been long, hard and tough. And it has meant enormous sacrifice on the part of Americans in blood and treasure. But after four years of a badly mismanaged war, our new strategy is succeeding and we are now winning in Iraq thanks to the service and sacrifice of the brave Americans who are serving.

I have visited Iraq on many occasions because I think the most vital decision that any President of the United States can make has got to be about the security of this nation and the lives of the young Americans who are serving.

But I cannot say the same of one of my opponents, Senator Barack Obama. He has only been to Iraq once, on a trip two years ago. Senator Obama speaks openly about his willingness to sit down with our enemies and engage in open talks, but he hasn't gone to Iraq in over two years to meet with our leaders and see that progress is being made on the ground. Something is wrong with your judgment when you want to sit down unconditionally with Raul Castro and Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but you don't take the opportunity to sit down with General Petraeus and learn about the situation in Iraq firsthand. My friends, this is not the "change" we need in our next president.

Our next president cannot just talk about leadership; they must demonstrate it. Senator Obama is the chairman of an important subcommittee that has oversight of our efforts in Afghanistan. Yet he has not held one hearing on Afghanistan, a place where young Americans are in harm's way every day. When a chairman of a subcommittee can't lead, it's bad; when a president doesn't lead, it's unacceptable.

I am convinced that my experience, knowledge and every challenge I have confronted during my years of service to our country and its ideals make me better able to lead and ready to serve as our Commander in Chief on day one. That is why I am asking you to make a financial contribution of $50, $100, $250, $500, or any amount up to the limit of $2,300 right away. Our national security is too important to hand over to someone who does not have the knowledge or experience to make judgment calls on Iraq. Thank you.

Sincerely,

John McCain

P.S. My friends, it's clear Senator Obama was driven to his position on the War in Iraq by his ideology and not by the facts on the ground. He does not have the knowledge or experience to make the judgments necessary to keep our Nation safe, prosperous and strong. Presidents have to listen and learn. Presidents have to make judgments no matter how popular or unpopular they may be. I believe I am better prepared to make these judgments, leading our country as your next president, and I ask that you make a financial contribution right away to my campaign so that I am able to take my message of experience to the American people. Thank you.

[LynnTheDem]

2. Iran and the rest of the entire world.

Including a majority in America.

US foreign policy has been a total fuck-up for decades.