Trump Administration Should Not Block The Iranian Foreign Minister From Speaking To The United Nations

The Trump administration is reportedly barring Iran’s top diplomat from entering the United States this week to address the United Nations Security Council. If true, that would be an entirely unjustified and unwise move. We host the United Nations and, as long as we intend to do so, we have an obligation to allow travel to the United Nations, particularly by the leading diplomat for a foreign country. We can restrict his movements in the United States, but this should have been approved immediately in line with our agreements.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif requested a visa a “few weeks ago” to enter the United States to attend a Jan. 9 Security Council meeting. Zarif has a more pressing interest now in speaking to the United Nations after the Jan. 3 drone strike that killed Maj. Gen. Qassem Suleimani.

We can always debate the long-standing question of our hosting of this body. I think it is a point of pride for our country. However, so long as we are the host, we cannot use that status to regulate who speaks to other countries. The United Nations was founded to allow dialogue and exchange, including between countries which might not otherwise speak directly.

139 thoughts on “Trump Administration Should Not Block The Iranian Foreign Minister From Speaking To The United Nations”

  1. Here’s something to get a kick out of.

    Senator Feinstein says Trump’s actions on Iran (Trump’s actions took place in Iraq by the way) may influence her impeachment vote.

    Setting aside the the current articles of impeachment were not about this matter, perhaps Feinstein would like to put a little effort into doing something about an open-ended 18 year old use of force resolution that she supported.

    1. what’s she saying, she likes it? probably does like it. i predict her billionaire husband does. they should be kissing Trump’s tuchus over it perhaps

      acc to what i’ve read, Sulemani helped Hizb’allah in their successful repulsion of the most recent Lebanon invasion by Israel, a few years back. likely, the Israelis are pleased with the assassination of such a rival.

      if you want an interesting read, study the history of AMAN there is a good book “Soldier Spies.” they have racked up quite a few impressive assassinations over the nation’s brief existence

      1. “they should be kissing Trump’s tuchus over it perhaps”

        Ha! Yes indeed. Thanks for the link.

  2. Mespo or anyone else. Does this missile attack by Iran remind anyone of the written work of Thucydidies where the Athenians send an armada of triremes against their enemy but spent a good deal of energy deciding how many triremes and how much power they should demonstrate. Too little and the enemy might take advantage. Too much and that might precipitate a war. The idea was to demonstrate a show of force sufficient to show strength without starting a war.

    Isn’t that what Iran seemingly did since to my knowledge no Americans were killed and missiles were not on target?

    1. Iran is weaker than Athens was in the day. And if there’s any similarity in my mind, it would be that America is more like Athens and the Russia–China is are more like Sparta, In various ways. sea empire versus land empire, more liberal versus more authoritarian, etc.

      Seems like Iran just fired some SCUDS off to appease their street level guys drooling for a strike on the great satan

      i hear they tipped off the Americans so to be sure nobody got killed. smart move!

      1. Kurtz, though I understand your point I wouldn’t make the same comparisons even though one can come up with similarities. It would be more confusing than helpful.

        I was trying to remember which battle I referred to because there was a lot more statesmanship involved than I presented. Do you remember?

        1. I don’t know, the only three naval battles I remember were Artemisium, coincident with Thermopylae, also Salamis, and then the third would be the invasion of Sicily, which was botched by the Athenians after they stripped Alkibiades of command. Not sure what you referred to but I’m going to look it up!

    2. Well, in the process it looks like more and more Iran blew up a Ukrainian airliner. They are refusing to cooperate with international authorities and hand over the boxes.

    3. You could say the so-called country of “Iraq” is as politically consolidated as the so-called country of “Greece” regarding the time period to which you are referring. Suppose some outside power came blundering in with the political objective of having a functioning “Greek” parliament of Athenians and Spartans, and decided to keep their troops in the middle of it until the situation was “stable.” The leaders of such an operation would properly be labeled morons.

      1. SteveJ, Iraq has existed as a political unit since 1920. The most intense secessionist vector would be the Kurdish parties, who are taking their time.

        1. The boundaries of the area were artificially drawn by outside powers after World War I. This was not a group of city states that consolidated and staked out borders for themselves. The only reason you didn’t see what you’re seeing now is that Saddam Hussein ruled with an iron fist. While he had some Shiites in his government, the heads of the departments were almost entirely Sunni. There were Shiites in the army, but they were used as fodder. The Republican Guard was run by Sunnis. Those people you see surrendering at the end of Gulf War I, the ones who were the sitting ducks — they were all Shiites.

      2. Steve, tell that to the Romans. Tell it to the British.

        I so happen not to want our troops in the Middle East and I think Trump is doing a good job in creating an environment where we can exit.

        The recent happenings in Iran were made possible by a build up in our military, our being oil independent, our economy thriving and a whole host of other things from Donald Trump including the fact that he seems to know exactly what he is doing and he is quite successful at it.

        The Athenians made a lot of mistakes but who doesn’t. Trump is hated by the Democrats because he won and his policies have been so successful he has left little room for the Democrats to claim as their own. The Democrats biggest claim is to be anti-Trump and anti-American. May they lose bad in 2020.

        As an extra there was some talk about how impossible it was for Iran to be involved with 911. I don’t think you were denying a link but some others were. This had to do with Pence’s statement which was true.

        1. There is a great deal in what you say about the vacuousness of the Democrats here. When Trump has initiated withdrawals, such as in Syria, the Democrats decided they wanted to be the war party, claiming a humanitarian cataclysm will result, as opposed to the disorder we helped create. They oppose it because Trump initiated it, and for no other reason. By withdrawing he’s a monster who doesn’t care about the humanitarian aftermath. But by initiating military action, he is a warmonger. There is no rhyme or reason to their objections to what he does.

          In formulating a strategy for our dealings with any of the groups in the region, I would be careful about labeling any of them “good” or “bad.” In thinking that a group is “good,” Nietzsche’s phrase “blessed are the meek for they have no claws” is helpful to remember. That includes how some view the Kurds. If the Kurds had sufficient military ability to reclaim Kurdistan, the would lap off a part of northern Iran, a northern part of Syria and a good chunk of Turkey, and they wouldn’t care who they killed in the process.

          1. Stevej, the headline says it all and makes it hard not to laugh: “CNN Attacks Babylon Bee: ‘The Internet Is Only Big Enough For One Fake News Site”

Comments are closed.