FOOLISH AND FUTILE IRAN SANCTIONS

This is a letter to The Oregonian regarding their
approval of the administration's sanctions against
Iran. (They didn't choose to print my letter.)

To the Editor: Your 10/26/07 editorial on Iran
sanctions makes no sense for two reasons: 1) you
echo uncritically an Economist report that "Iranian
President Ahmadinejad is pushing moderates out
of key leadership posts, reducing the chance that
cooler heads will prevail."

Since the nutty prez works under, and is overseen
by, the Supreme Council made up of top clerics,
does it really matter if his underlings are hard-
liners or not? And if not, what is the point of the
Economist report? Mr. A's function is largely
ceremonial: he controls neither the military nor
foreign policy. And he is neither a dictator nor a
tyrant, as the president of Columbia U. ignorantly
described him to his face.

2) You write: "The West has tried to address its
differences with Iran through diplomatic means,
only to be met with hostility." Sounds just like
Condoleeza Rice, and is just as misleading: By
"the West" do you mean the U. S.? If so, say so.
And that would be false. We, of course, have
steadfastly ignored all of Iran's many moves
to open conversation with us. Even a letter from
their president to ours, was simply ignored. No one
else in the West gets (or deserves) hostility from Iran.

The oft-stated policy of the U. S. is, and always has
been, regime change, pure and simple. That could
get some hostility! Referring to them in the "axis of
evil" doesn't promote understanding either. Nor
does branding a branch of their government a
"terrorist organization." Also, we have always
demanded as a precondition of any negotiations that
Iran permanently halt its uranium enrichment
program. That's likely? Reasonable? It's laughable!

While Iran has been training Iraqi Shia militias for
years, and has close ties of many kinds, including a
military alliance with the new Iraqi government, the
claim we are now making that the government of
Iran is supplying the insurgents in Iraq with arms,
is without proof. There is a great deal of smuggling
of weapons into Iraq across all its borders. (And
American weapons have turned up in Turkey.) But
while criminal activity is rampant, and officials are
often paid off to look the other way, our charge that
the Irani government is doing this remains that only.

Anyway, bottom line, we don't talk to terrorists,
remember? We hunt them down like rats, whomever
and wherever they may be. Is that next? Do we
really want or need to take on the whole Muslim world
of one billion, six hundred million people? Who in this
country wants that? On second thought, maybe
someone does!

jgoodwin004@centurytel.net