Comments on: A Dialogue With Mr. Frankie Sturm on Iran http://mistermoleman.com/2009/03/01/a-perfect-sturm-of-appeasement/ Thoughts on politics, unions, and this and that Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:39:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: Iran: Same Old Debate, But the Clock is Ticking « Mister Moleman and his Friends http://mistermoleman.com/2009/03/01/a-perfect-sturm-of-appeasement/#comment-315 Iran: Same Old Debate, But the Clock is Ticking « Mister Moleman and his Friends Tue, 22 Jun 2010 13:39:03 +0000 http://mistermoleman.wordpress.com/?p=240#comment-315 [...] See “A Dialogue with Mr. Frankie Sturm on Iran” here. [...] [...] See “A Dialogue with Mr. Frankie Sturm on Iran” here. [...]

]]> By: Rene Girard, scapegoats, and the next holoaust « Mister Moleman and his Friends http://mistermoleman.com/2009/03/01/a-perfect-sturm-of-appeasement/#comment-221 Rene Girard, scapegoats, and the next holoaust « Mister Moleman and his Friends Sun, 16 Aug 2009 01:40:27 +0000 http://mistermoleman.wordpress.com/?p=240#comment-221 [...]  Geo-political “realists” of course argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could be deterred from attacking Israel by the threat of retaliation.  This was true of the Soviets, they argue.  And it may be true of Iran, too, if the realists are correct in discounting the theology of radical jihad.  If Islamist terrorists really don’t believe their own rhetoric, and are simply trying to bluff their way to some position of regional hegemony, then maybe Shoah Two will be indefinitely postponed.  (See my Conversation with Frankie Sturm of the Truman Project here.) [...] [...]  Geo-political “realists” of course argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could be deterred from attacking Israel by the threat of retaliation.  This was true of the Soviets, they argue.  And it may be true of Iran, too, if the realists are correct in discounting the theology of radical jihad.  If Islamist terrorists really don’t believe their own rhetoric, and are simply trying to bluff their way to some position of regional hegemony, then maybe Shoah Two will be indefinitely postponed.  (See my Conversation with Frankie Sturm of the Truman Project here.) [...]

]]> By: Mister Moleman http://mistermoleman.com/2009/03/01/a-perfect-sturm-of-appeasement/#comment-62 Mister Moleman Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:27:24 +0000 http://mistermoleman.wordpress.com/?p=240#comment-62 Now I get it. Sturm und Drang. Good one. I haven't put much reliance on the various publications' assertions regarding military feasibility, nor sought counter-examples. That may be why I (somewhat snarkily, I confess) referred twice to the Atlantic Monthly. I find it hard to take seriously the idea of James Fallows conducting war games. But I appreciate Ottolenghi's addition. Now I get it. Sturm und Drang. Good one.

I haven’t put much reliance on the various publications’ assertions regarding military feasibility, nor sought counter-examples. That may be why I (somewhat snarkily, I confess) referred twice to the Atlantic Monthly. I find it hard to take seriously the idea of James Fallows conducting war games.

But I appreciate Ottolenghi’s addition.

]]> By: Emanuele Ottolenghi http://mistermoleman.com/2009/03/01/a-perfect-sturm-of-appeasement/#comment-61 Emanuele Ottolenghi Thu, 02 Apr 2009 19:03:12 +0000 http://mistermoleman.wordpress.com/?p=240#comment-61 According to Mr Sturm, available reports on the likely consequences of a military attack on Iran's nuclear program rule it out as unfeasible. Please see this report, which indicates otherwise: http://www.transatlanticinstitute.org/medias/publications/477.pdf. Sturm relies on heavily politicized publications, especially the silly report by the Oxford Research Group. According to Mr Sturm, available reports on the likely consequences of a military attack on Iran’s nuclear program rule it out as unfeasible. Please see this report, which indicates otherwise: http://www.transatlanticinstitute.org/medias/publications/477.pdf. Sturm relies on heavily politicized publications, especially the silly report by the Oxford Research Group.

]]> By: Mister Moleman http://mistermoleman.com/2009/03/01/a-perfect-sturm-of-appeasement/#comment-60 Mister Moleman Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:31:41 +0000 http://mistermoleman.wordpress.com/?p=240#comment-60 Drang? I don't know. I'll ask. But I do know that Mr. Ledeen has been a leading voice in unmasking "foreign policy realism" for the appeasement that it often conceals. Drang? I don’t know. I’ll ask.

But I do know that Mr. Ledeen has been a leading voice in unmasking “foreign policy realism” for the appeasement that it often conceals.

]]> By: michael ledeen http://mistermoleman.com/2009/03/01/a-perfect-sturm-of-appeasement/#comment-59 michael ledeen Thu, 02 Apr 2009 18:14:25 +0000 http://mistermoleman.wordpress.com/?p=240#comment-59 Mr sturm keeps referring to the Iranian "offer" of 2003 as a potential turning point, even though it seems to have been at least as much the product of a zealous Swiss diplomat as of the Iranian regime. But he never refers to the negotiations of 2006, involving top US and Iranian diplomats (certainly Burns and Larijani, perhaps Rice as well). It was documented by the BBC a few weeks ago. We agreed, or so we thought, to lift sanctions in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment. And other things would follow, the usual goodies like enhanced cultural exchange, sports teams traveling back and forth, etc. We agreed. We even issued three hundred visas over a weekend, when the Iranians sprung the request on us. The Iranians never showed up. Burns & Co. sat around New York for days, waiting for Larijani. Instead we got the usual Ahmadinejad and the usual insults. I wrote about it on NRO. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzNlOGM2MmY3YzViNWNlNTI2MWJmM2ExYTY4MTM3Nzc= The documentary in question is on the BBC site. OR was, as of a week ago. You might ask Mr Sturm. Unlike the story about 2003, this one has Burns on camera confirming the essential elements, and I was able to confirm most all of it. cheers Michael Does he have a co-author named Drang, btw? Mr sturm keeps referring to the Iranian “offer” of 2003 as a potential turning point, even though it seems to have been at least as much the product of a zealous Swiss diplomat as of the Iranian regime. But he never refers to the negotiations of 2006, involving top US and Iranian diplomats (certainly Burns and Larijani, perhaps Rice as well). It was documented by the BBC a few weeks ago. We agreed, or so we thought, to lift sanctions in return for a suspension of uranium enrichment. And other things would follow, the usual goodies like enhanced cultural exchange, sports teams traveling back and forth, etc.

We agreed. We even issued three hundred visas over a weekend, when the Iranians sprung the request on us.

The Iranians never showed up. Burns & Co. sat around New York for days, waiting for Larijani. Instead we got the usual Ahmadinejad and the usual insults.

I wrote about it on NRO. http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NzNlOGM2MmY3YzViNWNlNTI2MWJmM2ExYTY4MTM3Nzc= The documentary in question is on the BBC site. OR was, as of a week ago. You might ask Mr Sturm. Unlike the story about 2003, this one has Burns on camera confirming the essential elements, and I was able to confirm most all of it.

cheers

Michael

Does he have a co-author named Drang, btw?

]]>