The belligerence of the argument makes it evident that this guy is a former Bush official. The views expressed by Dennis Ross in another column, though having significant areas of convergence with this one, are more clear-minded. Yet, even Ross is more sceptical of Iran's intensions than is the objective reality, which leads many commentators to point out that he was a co-founder of AIPAC!
But, to come back to Burns, he writes " The next U.S. president will have little chance of securing peace in the Middle East if he doesn't determine Iran's bottom line on the nuclear issue through talks". Burns has still not grasped the reality that American hegemony is dead and buried. So, what the world expects is not for Obama to determine what Iran's bottom line is on nuclear weapons. What the world wants is to determine if Obama will still hang on to the idea of American exceptionalism and threaten to "bomb Iran back to the stone age??? if it uses its leverage of being capable of continuing to enrich unranium to the point where it could actually produce a nuclear weapon, in order to push its goal of a nuclear weapon-free Middle East and nuclear weapon-free South and Central Asia, and, further down the road, a nuclear-weapon free world?
Humanity wants peace. America has, during the past 8 years but also in Vietnam in the 1960???s and 70???s, tried to force the most barbaric militarism on the world and has had its nose bloodied.
It should by now have become wiser.
We Should Talk to Our Enemies
Email To A Friend
Please fill in the following information and we'll email this link.
SPONSORED BY
Discuss