Preemptive diplomacy is a new term which has been given to describe Iran's President Ahmadinejad's seemingly crazy comments in recent months. Amir Taheri in the Jereusalem Post gives what he sees as Ahmadinejad's three-point plan:
While some in Washington still talk of "preemptive war" against "rogue states," Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is practicing what could be labelled "preemptive diplomacy."
The rules of his game are simple.
The first is to have a store of new and increasingly provocative ideas, to throw at anyone who might think of offering a diplomatic solution to whatever problem is at hand.
The second rule of the game is to puncture any trial balloon that a putative interlocutor might send up before it has risen above the ground. The aim is to prevent any possible compromise formula from even entering the so-called diplomatic channels.
The third rule is that, when, and if, you are forced to consider the idea of a compromise, to insist on methods of implementation that will leave you the sole judge of whether or not it comes into effect. source
Mr. Taheri gives examples of Ahmidinejad's behavior that support the three point theory and the full article is worth reading. He ends with this bit of knowledge, "The more one tries to appease Ahmadinejad the less he will be appeased."
Today there are "Widespread protests and demonstrations in Meshkinshahr" as reported in a statement issued by the Secretariat of the National Council of Resistance of Iran:
In the sixth day of uprisings in the Azeri speaking provinces, people took to the streets in protest to the death of a young man who was killed by State Security Forces (SSF). The protest continued well into the evening.
Violent raids by SSF and the special anti-riot units led to widespread clashes leaving a number of people injured and many arrested.
After yesterday’s expression of grave concern over the demonstrations in recent days by Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and other provincial officials, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in an interview with state-run Fars News Agency today, described the enraged people “defeated enemies” who want to ”undermine unity among the people through instigation.” ...
The Iranian Resistance again draws the attention of all international organizations advocating human rights and particularly relevant United Nations agencies, to condemn the brutal attacks by SSF and other suppressive forces on Azeri speaking people and demands urgent action to save the lives of those arrested. source
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "trying to consolidate power in the office of the presidency in a way never before seen in the 27-year history of the Islamic Republic, apparently with the tacit approval of Iran's supreme leader," according to Michael Slackman in the New York Times, saying, "That rare unity of elected and religious leadership at the highest levels offers the United States an opportunity to talk to a government, however combative, that has often spoken with multiple voices."
If the United States had any hopes that Russia would come around and vote with us in the United Nations, that hope was dashed today when "the chief of Russia's security council, Igor Ivanov, said Sunday that Russia opposes any use of force against Iran over its controversial nuclear program"
From Israel Matzav, "Ahmadinejad threatens Europe", according to the Jerusalem Post:
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Europe that it should support his country's nuclear program or "suffer the consequences." and ...
Today, Ahmadinejad said that the "international Zionist web" was trying to keep him from visiting Germany for the World Cup soccer match.
Ahmadinejad went on to say, "In the nuclear conflict, the Europeans "should stand on the side of Iran", Der Spiegel quoted him as saying. Otherwise "they will carry the damages from that." He did not elaborate. But Ahmadinejad added Iran was interested in improving what he called "already good relations" with Europe." via Irania
And the beat goes on ....
Linked with Stop the ACLU Memorial Day Linkfest.
I don't know, Gentle Cricket, but if we went to war for oil, it doesn't seem to be working, does it? ha That is really a silly comment but I have heard if many times from the libs. So silly.
As I wrote in another post, they should be careful what they say, because if they get their way, there won't be any country left on the planet to fight this war on terror. And it's not going away on it's own.
Posted by: Debbie | May 28, 2006 at 05:38 PM
Why is it that so many moonbats in America condemn their own country, saying that 'we went to war for oil', when it is quite the opposite. Furthermore, countries like Russia, France, and China that have lucrative oil deals with such despicable countries as Iraq and Iran are not shouted down?
Posted by: The Gentle Cricket | May 28, 2006 at 03:12 PM