Subscribe to Canada Free Press for FREE

Ahmadinejhad’s visit reveals how Iraq Study Group gets it way


By —— Bio and Archives--October 2, 2007

Comments | Print Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

The US State Department continues a doomed policy through deception

As all the hoopla over Iran’s President Ahmadinejhad visiting Columbia University dies down, the mainstream media missed the real culprit in bringing the tin pot Hitler to an American university. To be sure, Columbia did the inviting and reaped worldwide attention to itself for it, but the real reason Ahmadinejhad was allowed to speak there was because of the US State Department.

Whereas Ahmadinejhad came to address the United Nations on what is considered international soil at the United Nations, he would not have been able to visit Columbia if the US State Department simply refused him access to
other US areas because of his financing and encouragement of worldwide terrorism. The simple truth is the US Diplomatic Security Service, or DSS, as part of the state department security apparatus, provided security for Ahmadinejhad the whole time at Columbia and at US taxpayer expense while American soldiers are being maimed by Iranian supplied ordnance in Iraq.

When the James Baker-Lee Hamilton Iraq Study Group report broke earlier this year the advice that America diplomatically engage both Syria and Iran in negotiations allegedly to solve the US Iraq insurgency dilemma and try to cool nuclear Iran’s nuclear intentions
was met with considerable derision, particularly from conservatives who follow what is happening in the Middle East. Mainstream media, too obsessed with Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton, never saw the connection now between US State’s following exactly what the ISG report recommended: Ahmadinejhad was allowed the bully pulpit of Columbia and to be treated by a major American institution as a formidable head of state. The State Department, with a strong union that doesn’t make removing staff that easy to do, tends to do whatever it feels like by treating any sitting president as temporary help and pursues a process rather than results ( as can be seen with no abatement in Palestinian terrorism after the Oslo peace accords in 1993).  However, the President still can wield formidable control—if he really wants to.

Politically speaking, President Bush handled Ahmadinejhad’s visit brilliantly from a public relations point of view by not taking any responsibility for it, as he pointed out how it showed America’s unremitting resolve for freedom of speech. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejhad’s televised speech at Columbia contained a cheering section of anti-Israel and anti-war in Iraq campus activists and pro-jihadists that made international broadcasts in Europe and the Middle East far different from what we in America saw here at home.

The ISG policy of allowing Ahmadinejhad to speak at Columbia may have opened doors to “diplomatic discussions” with Iran, and it may have shown the American public the face of a despot who denies persecution of gays, but it also played right into the hands of the Iranians who seek to align parts of the world against the US and reveals the problems with slipping the ISG policy in the back door this way. The Iranians are now making overtures to the Saudis that they have nothing to fear from Iran, and the James Baker/Saudi relationship continues on an even keel promoting such Iranian/Saudi strategy to continue sponsoring terrorism.  Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for US security or our troops in Iraq who are attacked by terrorists coming from and trained mainly from Saudi Arabia and Iran.

Also largely ignored by mainstream media, but related to ISG policy, was a meeting on May 28, 2007 between the US State Department and Iran regarding the security of Iraq. The US meeting sought peace and stability for Iraq while the Iranians have precisely the opposite goal, despite the stated reason for the meeting. While diplomats dawdled, American servicemen were being killed. Where is the term “unconditional surrender” as at Potsdam in World War II when you need it? The US-Iranian meeting was the equivalent of the allies conceding to the Axis what it accomplished up until that summit between Truman, Stalin and Churchill.

The Iranians sought three things at that meeting last May: 1) The release of five leaders of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards captured by US troops in January (Note how news reports now emerging of US state wanting to brand the Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization when this should have been done many years ago). 2) The Iranians sought through such a diplomatic meeting the US would begin ostracizing of the Mujahedin-e- Khalq (MEK), currently based in Iraq, that seeks both the overthrow of the current Iranian regime and has been a moderating force between Shiites and Sunnis in Iraq against Iranian ambitions to create another theocracy in the region. Incredibly, US State, to show the Iranians how “fair” they are to the Islamic leadership in Tehran, still classifies MEK as “terrorists.” The MEK is regarded by both the Bush administration and the US military in Iraq as providing indispensable help in combating Iranian supported insurgents in Iraq and providing information on Iranian nuclear capabilities.

Iran’ s third and most valued objective is of course to get the US military to withdraw from Iraq. This could potentially open up a Shiite corridor and encourage Iranian supremacy right through to US allies Jordan and Israel for later expansion for global Islamic rule. While the US shows weakness in “asking” Iran to stop supplying IEDs and other weapons and logistical aid to terrorists, the Iranians got to list out their demands. This is the equivalent to an American tourist bargaining with a vendor in a soulk; the Iranians know what they want and will never concede anything as the Americans keep negotiating against themselves.  When negotiating, and especially on the nuclear issue, Iran always has turned down US requests or ignored prior commitments. To the Islamic leadership in Iran, every concession by the Unites States is seen as weakness to be exploited for the final goal, the same complaint those who opposed the ISG report from the beginning advised. The only US bargaining chip is the military option against Iran, but the ISG Study Group Report policy makes that a non-issue.

Intelligence estimates are that Iran has as many as 32,000 Iraqis on payroll, many even in government positions including the police in a region where thebaksheesh talks. The Iranians are spending millions in supplying weapons and training to insurgents killing American troops. For the Iranians to see state department diplomats across a table requesting they stop a policy that is working and has clearly brought an invitation of their president to a major American university only encourages more of the same behvior. Iran sees itself as winning in the creation of an Iraqi Muslim state next door in lieu of an American inspired democratic state whose freedom of expression could one day spill over into the Iranian’s mullah-led state, something Iran’s leaders will never allow.

The US State Department blinked last May, and now with the invitation of Ahmadinejhad to Columbia and the continuation of the ISG policy toward Iran, it is clear the only ones being hoodwinked in the diplomatic game continually regarding Iranian nuclear capability and the murder of US troops in Iraq is the American public, particularly those people with sons and daughters serving in Iraq. This is being done by a US government agency that is at a loss for how to handle the Mullahs in Iran, seeking appeasement at all costs in lieu of war and abandoning that strategy like revealing a hand of poker.
 
Iraq (and the free word) can only be secure when Iran’s influence-paid insurgents
are disarmed and purged from Iraq’s government. The Mujahedin-e- Khalq should be openly supported and encouraged as a means to destabilize the Iranian regime’s goals both inside Iraq and inside Iran, as well. In any case, pursuing the ISG strategy of appeasement will only lead to more Iranian presence in Iraq and could ultimately lead to the very war with a nuclear-armed Iraq that the State Department thinks it is cleverly trying to avert.



Lee Kaplan -- Bio and Archives | Comments

Lee Kaplan is an investigative journalist. He is also a regular columnist for Front Page Magazine, the Israel National News.

Older articles by Lee Kaplan

Commenting Policy

Please adhere to our commenting policy to avoid being banned. As a privately owned website, we reserve the right to remove any comment and ban any user at any time.

Comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, anti-Semitism, or personal or abusive attacks on other users may be removed and result in a ban.
-- Follow these instructions on registering: