This ticks me off to no end. Today, our JCS Chairman, Admiral Mullen, testified to congress that "irresponsible actions" by Iran's Revolutionary Guard "directly jeopardize" peace in Iraq. Okay, I don't dispute that Iran has played a role in Iraqi affairs and in a hostile manner as evidenced by their recent shellings in the border villages in the Bashdar region, northeast of Sulaimaniya. At no juncture do I consider Iran an innocent bystander. But, what completely irks me is the mixed messages we send. Or, rather our complete inability or unwillingness to at least talk to them, and our ignorance of the Middle East.

As I noted in a prior post we outright dismissed a golden opportunity...

In that meeting, General Soleimani "was deeply concerned" and "promised to stop arming groups in Iraq and to ensure that groups halt activities against US forces," according to a description given by a US official to the Monitor.

Soleimani gave Mr. Talabani a "message" for US Gen. David Petraeus, too. He noted that his portfolio includes Iraq, Gaza, and Lebanon and that he was willing to "send a small team" to "discuss any issue" with the Americans.
[...]
The top two US officials in Iraq [Petraeus and Crocker] dismissed Soleimani's words as an Iranian bid to become an "indispensable power broker" in Iraq as part of a "brilliant tactical game" meant to keep the US and Iraqi governments "off balance" and to spread Iran's influence in Iraq, according to the US official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Our leadership in Iraq and the WH completely blew the man in charge of those Revolutionary Guards off! Arlen Specter raised a good point at the hearing...

Sen. Arlen Specter, a member of the panel, said he is most concerned about the Bush administration's refusal to fully engage Iran in diplomatic discussions...

Specter, a Republican, said past talks with the Soviet Union, Libya and North Korea proved helpful and that similar progress could be made with Iran.

If the government refuses to engage Iran, "we're missing a great opportunity to avoid a future conflict," Specter said.

Even former Centcom Commander Adm. Fallon advocated...

"This constant drumbeat of conflict...is not helpful and not useful. I expect that there will be no war, and that is what we ought to be working for. We ought to try to do our utmost to create different conditions."

"Tehran's feeling pretty cocky right now because they've been able to inflict pain on us in Iraq and Afghanistan." So the trick, in Fallon's mind, is "to try to figure out what it is they really want and then, maybe -- not that we're going to play Santa Claus here or the Good Humor Man -- but the fact is that everyone needs something in this world, and so most countries that are functional and are contributing to the world have found a way to trade off their strengths for other strengths to help them out."

Now, as I've mentioned in prior posts as we move forward, it helps if the candidates are aware of what needs to be done and who to talk to. It seems to me that McInsane is still clueless...

KLEIN: According to most diplomatic experts, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is the guy who's in charge of Iranian foreign policy and also in charge of the nuclear program, but you never mention him. Do you, you know, um, why do you always keep talking about Ahmadinejad since he doesn't have power in that, in that realm?

MCCAIN: I respectfully disagree. When he's the person that comes to the United Nations and declares his country's policy is the extermination of the state of Israel, quote, in his words, wipe them off of the map, then I know that he is speaking for the Iranian government and articulating their policy and he was elected and is running for reelection as the leader of that country.

Really? He's the leader of Iran?

MCCAIN: I mean, the fact is [Ahmadinejad’s] the acknowledged leader of that country and you may disagree, but that’s a uh, that’s your right to do so, but I think if you asked any average American who the leader of Iran is, I think they’d know.

Umm, Maybe I'm not the 'average' American, but, I do know Ahmadinejad is a titular leader and answers to the Supreme Leader Khamenei... Now, why would he be named so, oh yeah, that's right, he's the Supreme Leader...

*sigh* Can we afford four more years of this ignorance...?