Yesterday I noticed an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times by John Hannah, a former assistant to Vice President Dick Cheney. Hannah — notable in the Bush years for being Cheney’s fixer, running over other Government agencies to ensure the Vice President’s will was done on issues from “enhanced interrogation” to rendition to Iraq — is now declaring his concern for the Iranian people, who will accept “additional hardships” to remove their regime. Fortunately, whereas his boss Cheney pressed in 2007 for the “additional hardship” of bombing Iran, Hannah is now merely talking about a range of damaging economic sanctions.
Once my temperature cooled, I could not bring myself to acknowledging Hannah’s piece by responding to it. Fortunately, Maryam from Keeping the Change can, in this effective decimation of the rhetoric and reality of Hannah’s proposal. Hannah’s original words follow her comment:
John Hannah Want to “Cripple Iran to Save It”
We have to admit: John Hannah’s op-ed in the Los Angeles Times (below) takes a clever approach to the old-line heard from most U.S. neo-conservatives on the need to confront Iran with “harsh sanctions” and/or “military action”. Citing to an anonymous group of Iranian activists with which he purportedly met while in Europe, Hannah argues in his article that the Iranian Opposition movement wants, but cannot openly call for, “crippling sanctions” against Iran. A provocative point — should we believe him?
John Hannah, one of the advisors to Vice President Dick Cheney trying to remake the world in the Bush years, looks to claim the Iranian protest movement as Dubya’s legacy. Writing in The Wall Street Journal, Hannah claims, “The reality is that large-scale anti-regime protests erupted on multiple occasions throughout Mr. Bush’s first term — the very moment when his Iran policy was most aggressive.”
Leave aside the fact that it is impossible for Hannah to envisage that protest was due to internal factors, since he shows no knowledge of Iranian politics or society. His article (unintentionally) upholds the charge that he and his fellow Bush officials undermined Iranian political discussion because they tried to tie it to the US Government’s aim of toppling Iran’s political system. Read the rest of this entry »
HOST GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Major milestone this week here in Iraq with the American troops pulling out of the cities. And I wonder if you can put the broader American mission in context. Are we in the process of securing victory or cutting our losses to come home?
BIDEN: Securing victory. Look, the president and I laid out a plan in the campaign which was twofold. One, withdraw our troops from Iraq in a rational timetable consistent with what the Iraqis want. And the same time, leave behind a stable and secure country.
And one of the reasons I’m here, George, is to push the last end of that, which is the need for political settlement on some important issues between Arabs and Kurds and among the confessional groups. And I think we’re well on our way. Read the rest of this entry »