Mullahs' secret talks with their Iraqi shock agents
Independent newspaper (London, March 19, 2006) reported that Iranian MOIS agents held secret (no more) talks with their Shiite (Iraqi Badr and Sadr and Lebanese Hezbollah) proxies days before the mullahs announced in a statement to IAEA (March 09, 2006) that they could inflicte "harm and pain" on the United States. Present at this meeting in Tehran, were Moqhtadr Sadr and the Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah.
Now whether this reflects reality or was cooked up to muddy the waters remains to be seen, but what remains true is how the Iranian mullahs are using their sway and influence in Iraq to futher their regional hegemonic agenda and their nuclear strategy. It could be argued that the presence of Nasrallah was intended as a reminder to Israel of the mullahs' considerable influence in Lebanon and the occupied territories.
It is therefore ironic that amid these direct and indirect signals (read threats) by the mullahs, John Sawers, the UK Foreign Office political director, would write a letter to US, France, and German foreign officers a few days ago, suggesting that Iran be offered fresh incentives, if it suspended uranium enrichment activities, and a promise of direct talks with the mullahs. This so-called UK initiative, was followed by another UK official as having said in the Financial Times (March 21, 2006), "... we are not in the business of backsliding and rewarding Iranians for bad behaviour." Really? This UK Official should consult with John Sawers, it appears to us. What do Britains call their fool-headed approach during the last 2-1/2 years, in concert with France and Germany, in pursuing the "diplomatic" track with the terromongers in Tehran? Having British tea? Were they discussing WorldCup soccer with their fellow Cup participants from Tehran? If their appeasement of the mullahs during the EU-3 talks with them is not "rewarding for bad behaviour", we surrounder that we don't know the meaning of the phrase.
Now whether this reflects reality or was cooked up to muddy the waters remains to be seen, but what remains true is how the Iranian mullahs are using their sway and influence in Iraq to futher their regional hegemonic agenda and their nuclear strategy. It could be argued that the presence of Nasrallah was intended as a reminder to Israel of the mullahs' considerable influence in Lebanon and the occupied territories.
It is therefore ironic that amid these direct and indirect signals (read threats) by the mullahs, John Sawers, the UK Foreign Office political director, would write a letter to US, France, and German foreign officers a few days ago, suggesting that Iran be offered fresh incentives, if it suspended uranium enrichment activities, and a promise of direct talks with the mullahs. This so-called UK initiative, was followed by another UK official as having said in the Financial Times (March 21, 2006), "... we are not in the business of backsliding and rewarding Iranians for bad behaviour." Really? This UK Official should consult with John Sawers, it appears to us. What do Britains call their fool-headed approach during the last 2-1/2 years, in concert with France and Germany, in pursuing the "diplomatic" track with the terromongers in Tehran? Having British tea? Were they discussing WorldCup soccer with their fellow Cup participants from Tehran? If their appeasement of the mullahs during the EU-3 talks with them is not "rewarding for bad behaviour", we surrounder that we don't know the meaning of the phrase.
posted by Alborz Ledger at 2:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home