Sensible advice. But the team Obama has picked is unlikely to be listening. Or will they? Can this team Obama has picked, especially those who will be responsible to open up talks with Iran (e.g., Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross et al), break with the failed US policies of the past? http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCa...090122?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=10112
The obsession with the US and involving a second rate little nation iran just keeps on going with im doesn't it? Buzzwords to expect from im: Pal. Confederation New Power etc....
@ IM There's already a thread concerning this topic ... so why do you open a new one? Btw: If you think that Obama is just a puppet, you're not only totally wrong but you also discredit him! Don't worry, he surely knows what has to be expected from your government and where diplomacy starts and ends... About advising Hillary Clinton to follow Henry Kissinger's diplomacy: I surely respect the latter (who is honorary citizen of my town, being born there), but that doesn't mean that I agree with every aspect of his former political decisions. Hillary Clinton is surely smart enough to know how to confront your regime! How I told you so often, it all depends on your country's willingness to cooperate. I don't think there will be any "grand bargain" as long as your government doesn't change its attitude concerning certain issues...
I don't mind if this is merged with the other thread. Although that one was based on Obama's comments on Iran, while this one is based on a commentary regarding what US policy towards Iran should be. Since I don't think just talking to Iran, if the framework for the talks is limited to things Iran does agree with, is much of a negotiation, I wanted the discussion here to focus only on 2 things: 1- Is looking for a Grand Bargain with Iran a good idea? And by a grand bargain, neither I the author of the piece, have in mind the US trying to force its ideas on Iran through "other means". (Hence, the "old wine in new bottle" part). 2- If it is a good idea, what can be done to put Obama on that path, as opposed to the path that Clinton and Dennis Ross will take him through?
No, a "Grand Bargain" with the current Iranian leadership isn't a good idea in my eyes (for many reasons). Let's wait up Obama's view... Everybody knows that you're playing for time in order to finish your A bomb project; but don't be so sure of achieving your goal... Nothing.
A "Grand Bargain" would not be capitulation for either side. But it would be based on finding a win-win formula that would make both happy. I believe the Israelis are very short sighted opposing the idea, as they do. At some point, you should tire of killing people and start thinking about how to live in the region, as an accepted part of it, instead. And a grand bargain with Iran could get you there. Even the compromises will not really be compromises; they would be better for both the Jewish people as well as the people with whom they have to learn to live in peace.
Here's a very interesting statement from a person called "speaker of the Iranian parliament" : http://www.iran-daily.com/1387/3324/html/national.htm And such ridiculous "politicians" want to be envolved in a "grand bargain"... And here's another interesting statement: http://www.iran-daily.com/1387/3324/html/index.htm Well, Mr. Bush will surely be proud to have 'consolidated' such a "front" by sacrifizing the lives of many GI's and also billions of US dollars for the war & Iraq's reconstruction. ) Ahmadinejad must rub his hands...
You still haven't told us what you mean by this so-called "Grand Bargain"... Does it imply the "2 states" solution and the abandonment of the Iranian A-bomb project in return for lifting the embargo against Iran?
Iran's nuclear program is non-negotiable. It is, in fact, a done deal. Iran and the US can discuss all their other issues, both those that separate them as well as those in which they may hold common interests, and in the process arrive at the proper conclusions. The purpose of the negotiations would be to find a resolution to the problems between the two countries, not to dictate its terms.
Here is a random article from last year about Larijani becoming speaker of the Iranian parliament http://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/29/world/fg-iran29 Iran's then nuclear negotiator, and current speaker of parliament, Larijani (left) meeting with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana (right)
Iran is clearly in control right now thanks to 8 years of Mr. Bush destructive foreign policy . It doesn’t matter for Iran if the US decides to take a different approach towards Iran and it hasn’t since the Islamic Revolution . Recently I been reading hard-line newspapers which is the mouth piece of the current administration and they seem to dismiss Obama’s talk of a different approach towards Iran and I have concluded that they could careless if the US wants to reopen relationship with them, in fact they are against it because its going to hurt their ideology But one thing is clear, the US needs Iran more than Iran needs the US. But I do hope that Obama does in fact take a different approach towards Iran and the Middle East. He needs to take a tougher stance against Israel and cut the free aid that’s funded by US tax payers because of the genocide they are committing in Gaza . Also , with his new executive order on lobbying , I would hope that it would minimize AIPAC influence on American politicians. He also needs to take a tougher stance against American allies who brutally victimize their citizens and act anything but Democratic. Its time to stop the double standards foreign policy towards the Middle East and hope for the “change” he keeps talking about. I never voted in any US elections but I did so this time because of all the things he promised and I hope he delivers his promises and doesn’t become the usual politician who makes empty promises.
Of course I know him (it was "nice" to see him fool the EU representatives for so many times), but that doesn't mean that I also appreciate him! A politician who makes such silly statements like that one I quoted above, simply can't be taken seriously ... no matter what function he has. He may be considered Ahmadinejad's "rival", nevertheless they share the same ideology and are both hardliners (and enemies of Chatami's reforms)! Well, then there's really no need for Barack Obama to waste any time for talks with your leadership. Let's wait up the political, economical & maybe also military consequences for your country... Don't be so sure... Yep, the Iranian dictatorship (alias "islamic democracy") has all reasons to complain about such things... I don't think he promised to accept your pursuit of nuclear weapons, the violation of human rights in your country and your attempt to topedo the peace process between Israelis & Palestinians...
Iran has aleady made it crystal clear: it is not interested in "carrots" that the US may offer. It is not afraid of American "sticks". That there is nothing to talk about if the US wants to come and dictate terms. Regardless of whether the American president is called Bush or Obama. And, as Valanjak noted, many groups in Iran see no real need to negotiate with the US. They correctly point out that the US is after exactly those things which Iran considers non-negotiable, while even if by chance the US was willing to give up on those things, that would still be only because the US had no choice in the matter anyway. Hence, from their perspective, why even negotiate with the US? In this debate, ironically, Ahmadinejad is a moderate actually. He has steadfastly remained open to negotiations with the US, albeit not one that would invite American dictation, even when many others have not be as enthusiastic about its purpose much less its prospects. In the meantime, I don't want you to confuse my desire to see Iran and the US resolve their differences through arms length negotiations as being indicative of Iran being desperate for such negotiations. Iran can easily do without the US as it has the past 30 years, and while I see costs that Iran incurs from that dynamic, there are political groups that will see those costs outweighed by the benefits, if not for Iran them certainly for them. Their strength politically is in part premised on the US continuing its foolish policies regarding Iran and the US become suddenly reasonable is not going to be all that attractive for them politically. The fact that even Obama, who might have appeared at one point as someone who might present that "reasonable voice" for the US, was apparently coopted by pro Israeli groups to pursue unreasonable demands, is actually quite welcome in certain quarters in Iran. Incidentally, while Ahmadinejad and Khatami represent competing factions in Iranian politics, they each represent the kind of voice that managed to attract the majority of Iranians on their side. When all this nonsense with the US is done and over with it, the problems each alluded to in their respective campaigns, and the aspirations each represented for Iran, both need to be addressed. Which is why I actually like both these figures even if they don't like each other, and even if their political supporters (not the average Iranian who voted for both) hate one another. For me, it is in Iran's best interests to have a healthy competition in its politics, with a strong reformist as well as a strong principalist faction represented in its political debates. However, as long as the US continues on the path charted for it by Israel and its supporters, I am afraid that the reformists in Iran will not be able to represent the strong voice they might otherwise enjoy. There are many Iranians who, like me, supported Khatami but who would not have supported him when America was pursuing a bullying agenda against Iran. Sure, there are other Iranians who stopped supporting Khatami because they were all too eager for Iran to capitulate and had other agendas altogether and consequently steered into apathy or more radical demands, but the majority of Iranian are wiser than that.
I have come to the sad conclusion that Obama will offer nothing new. Anyone who understands the history of the US and how it has been controlling world markets and global resources, and blatantly lying to its people creating false propoganda to start wars, and support brutal regimes to overthrow " unfriendly governments " around the globe, will understand what I am saying. Do people really think that the way things have been going on since WW2 will just suddenly change because some smooth talking, charismatic brotha comes into office. WRONG !! Obama is nothing but a puppet used to regain the support of the American people. Think about it. If Bush or a Bush like entity like McCain were in power, people would be skeptical about his every move. With the love and respect Obama has in his country and around the world, mark my words, he could do the exact same thing Bush would do and have the peoples popular support. I really hope I am wrong, but I doubt it. Think about it. If Bush attacked Iran, there would be world wide outrage. If Obama attacked Iran, you can be rest assured there would be only a tiny fraction of outrage. The same American policies simply got a face lift. Obama is the new face to carry out the evil imperialistic agenda of the US. He will start a war with Iran. I doubt Obama even knows the hell he has gotten himself into. He will be lied to about intelligence, and when he goes along with the plans, most Americans will be behind him. Obama is a fraud. He is simply a high fashioned makeover of every other US president before him. What better way to get the young generation on board than give them a hip smooth talking black guy to follow.
Prove me wrong Who said the Iranian government is complaining. You should be complaining and so should others who listen to America talk about spreading Democracy . Its hypocritical of the US government to preach the world about Democracy and claim to be the “leader of the free world” when they deal and are good friends with governments such as that of Saudi Arabia and Egypt who are anything but Democratic and free. Thanks for giving me a good laugh. Felt like read a page out of comic book. Now I am pursing nuclear weapons? Now that’s funny. But to counter your comical claim I would like to point out the same government claimed to have the “smoking gun” evidence that Iraq was developing nuclear bombs and thousands of lives later where are the nuclear bombs? Let me give you some sound advice , be smart, don’t believe everything you read, this world is not that simplistic. And now Israel’s genocidal acts against Palestine is Iran’s fault? Let me remind you peace didn’t exist in that part of the world long before the Islamic Republic came to power. Israel doesn’t want peace , they want more to build more settlements . A prosperous Palestinian state would be nightmare for Israel. And yes Iran doesn’t have a good human right record and it hasn’t in its modern history. I am not supporting the Iranian government , they have a lot of flaws and I am more concerned about those flaws than anything else. But let me remind you Shah also didn’t have a good human right record so where was the outrage back then? Or is there a law in the US foreign policy manual which states that friends of America don’t have to abide by human rights principles . Carter had the audacity to come to Iran and applaud Shah for protecting human rights while the CIA was training the Savak on interrogation and torture methods. Additionally , the US itself has violated human rights during the last 8 years. Didn’t Obama officially ban torture just a couple days ago?
It is amusing to read about Obama being a fraud after less then a week in office. I am glad to see that a realistic approach is being considered here. Anyway I look forward to seeing how the US wrestlers do in Iran. That should be good. As for US and iran relations. Who cares. It is a small issue in the US. One that doesn't even register for most of us here. We have bigger issues to take care of. Ask Cuba how long we can hold a grudge.
Broadly speaking, and in general, there is a lot of truth in what you say. There are valuable cautionary points in your message as well. But I don't consider the special interest groups that strongly influence the US political landscape as being the only voice in town. They are the most important voice, but while they might be able to get the US to do stupid things when the costs are not that high, going to war with Iran is not going to be an easy sell even to American generals. Never mind the American public. What these special interest groups can do easily is to torpedo any sensible policy that Obama might have wished to pursue if left to his own, force the debate into an angle that essentially boxes Obama into the same failed US policies of the past. Hence, I am not optimistic that Obama can take the bold steps necessary to change things in the relationship with Iran. Not optimistic at all. But I am not too worried about Obama leading the US into war with Iran, even if it was possible to sell the idea to him. War with Iran comes with a huge price tag, possibly even serving a death blow to the US/world economy as we know it, and America is in no position to afford such price tags at this juncture. To be sure, there is a chance, however slight, that America can be misled into making a horrendous mistake it cannot afford to make. But I think the chance of the US making that mistake and going to war with Iran, while there, is not that high.
"Dictate terms"? Can you explain that? Well, then why is your government so desperate for negotiations...? Oh, that's really a big compliment... So tell us these "unreasonable demands"...
So what "new things" did you expect him to offer? Do you expect him to say "dear Iranians, I don't mind avoiding a peace process between Palestinians & Israelis and I also don't mind seeing a nuclear arms race in Middle East"? Isn't it enough to offer the stubborn Iranian government a dialogue and to promise an improvement in relationship if it's finally willing to cooperate instead of searching for confrontation...? In your eyes... Well, if you think so... That's really possible. All depends on the Iranian government... LOOOL. I think we all know who is a fraud these days...
I don't need to do that ... since you may see it with your own eyes. Actually you're right. But sometimes it's better to avoid democracy in order to prevent radical fundamentalism (the Gaza strip is the best example)... I'm delighted to have entertained you. Yep, it's very funny... The liar Bush isn't in power anymore, so this topic isn't interesting right now. It's all about Iran ... and everybody knows the true intentions of Mahmoud, the calif of Tehran. If he wasn't keen on getting nuclear weapons, he'd surely have accepted the generous European offer... Yep, it is. If you really think so, please tell me why Hamas is so silly to support Israel? Ok, then I'm relieved to hear that. Pity that you haven't heard of all those student protests in many cities of the world... Yep, that's true. Unfortunately. And they got seriously criticized for that and have damaged their reputation. Thankfully he did.
It might not be an easy sell ... but sometimes there's no other choice if you are confronted with stubborn persons. Me neither ... but that's not because of Obama but due to your regime. 1 year ago, I wasn't worried either ... as I thought that diplomacy would have a real chance. But these days, I think that everything is possible. I wouldn't be so sure. Wars are always the worst decision and cause a lot of suffering ... but sometimes there's no alternative. Unfortunately, diplomacy has limits sometimes.
If you genuinely understood what war with Iran would entail, you would not be saying these things. War with Iran could very well and quite easily deliver a fatal blow to the Western economies, including that of the United States. And there is no guarantee whatsoever that the United States would even prevail at the end. Iran is a big country, with tentacles all over the region and far beyond it, and a variety of means to hit back at anyone who gives it no other choice. It has the means to hit any country on earth, and hit them where each would be hurt the most. Iran's land based missiles can reach all the oil facilities and installations in the region and beyond, as well the American military bases all over the region. They can also hit the financial centers in the region, including in Dubai. Iran's anti-ship missiles can hit not just any tanker that might wish to pass through the Strait of Hormuz; they can sink America's naval vessels as well. Iran's cruise missiles, with a range of approximately 3,000 kilometer, can be delivered from various platforms (sea and air) and can hit targets even farther from Iran when delivered from platforms at sea or air or from bases closer to the intended target. Those targets could very well include major financial centers and institutions in the west. Iran's submarines can mine the waters of not just the Persian Gulf, but even other major outlets supporting the economies of the West. Iran's army and artillery can pound away at US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in cooperation with local allies, cut their supply lines, isolating them for the kill. Iran's allies, friends, and proxies can cause major upheaval throughout much of the region and beyond: from the Palestine/Israel and Lebanon, to Iraq, to the Persian Gulf (Bahrain, eastern Saudi Arabia et al), to Afghanistan, the Caucaus, Central Asia, Indian subcontinent, and other places. Iran can hit Israel so hard it won't know what hit it. And do so in a number of ways, both using its own missiles as well as those delivered to Hezbollah (including ones the group never used in its conflict with Israel). In a war with Iran, Tel Aviv, Haifa and other major Israeli cities; its political and financial centers, including the knesset; its military bases; its nuclear installations; its industrial infrastracture; will all be targets. And Iran will be able to keep enough in reserve in case someone has any funny ideas. On the other hand, the US/Israel bombing Iran's nuclear facilities will merely free Iran from the constraints that exist and which are the only ones preventing it from openly developing nukes. Otherwise, Iran's nuclear program is a done deal -- and its most important and sensitive installations cannot be taken out by any weapon.
the only reason the US doesn't want Iran to have nukes, is because that would interfere with their complete domination of ME oil. Plain and simple. This has nothing to even do with Israel or its safety. Israel wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for the West's desire to monopolize ME oil. Israel is every bit the US's proxy just as much as Hezbollah is to Iran. Iran is the only country in the ME that is not down with the US controlling its wealth, and once they have nukes, there isn't anything the US will be able to do about it. All the deception in the Western media is nothing new, just look at history. These are the same people who made Native Americans the savage evil people, while they were being killed off and forced off of their own land. If there is one thing you can learn from history. Do not believe who the government's of the West claim are the " bad people. " This is merely code for " they are in the way of our economic gain. "
@ Iranian Monitor Yep, Iran is so powerful that the whole world has to be scared shitless... Don't worry, there's enough experts who know how to struck the almighty Iranian army and its infrastructure such a heavy blow that you won't even have the opportunity to threaten others! And if there should be made the decision to avoid a war, you can be sure that your regime will face such serious economic sanctions that it has to pray to Allah for mercy against the fury of the population! @ vancity eagle You have no clue about politics, therefore I don't waste my time with you.
YOU ARE AN IDIOT. What do you know about the history of US foreign policy around all corners of the globe ? Do you know about all US military interventions either covert, or in the public eyes since WW2. Do you even know what drives US foreign policy ? What do you know about disinformation spread through the media ? What do you know about the hypocrisy of the US promoting peace and democracy around the globe ? What do you know about the US using dictators to further it's own economic goals, only to turn on them when they are no longer an asset and become a liability. I gaurantee you know next to nothing other than the same crap you've been told to accept. My knowledge of politics is far greater than your simplistic views on any world conflicts.