This timely article by John Tirman, executive director of MIT's Center for International Studies, nicely touches on many of the "issues" discussed on bigsoccer in relation to Iran. And frankly echoes many of the points I have made before. As Tirman notes, America's approach to Iran is and has been marked with attempts to coerse Iran into changing its policies. And continuing that approach: Tirman goes on to note concerns about Obama's foreign policy team among many diplomats and policy analysts in light their links to anti-Iran positions in the past. As the Tirman goes on to note, however, Dennis Ross may not get the job after all. Indeed, it does appear that the source of rumors about him getting the Iran portfolio were the very same groups that have tried to hijack US policy towards Iran again. Nonetheless, even admitting that it would be a hopeful sign if Dennis Ross is not the person chosen to lead a the diplomatic engagement with Iran, it still remains true that Obama could have chosen a much better team. Indeed, as long as you share the view that a reapproachment with Iran is the most important foreign policy objective that Obama could achieve, then it is sad that he has picked a team so deficient for that purpose.
You're right Mr. Successful Lawyer, your 2 spots higher than Peru in per capita GDP, and you've got Suriname firmly in your sights, a couple of spots higher. How can I describe the great and mighty Iran as poor? I was wrong. Were you one of those guys who had a license plate spelling out "Persia ESQ" or something like that? At bottom, IM, my problem is not with Iran, it's people like you, tribalists like some of the israel supporters that come on here, who care not a whit about living breathing human beings, but abstract conceptions of glory, righteousness, nationalism, and patriotism. I think you are all relics of the past. The fact is we live in an increasingly interdependent world. Borders are becoming progressively meaningless -- your practice of law in Southern California is a fine example. I would love it if different parts of the world would work on holding on to their culture in the face of the onslaught of western pop culture, without the dreams of imposing it on others. Your pride in Iranian culture, and what the place means to you, is admirable. Your delusions of a mighty imperial Iran are destructive -- and self-destructive I might add. This is my problem with you. What's funny is that you have a lot in common with American neo-conservatives, Bushies, and Israeli settlers on a psychic level, you just apply yourself differently. But it's all of you who cause so much suffering and destruction. That's what I reject.
You can make any point you like, but I would prefer that you stick with the facts and not say things that are misleading. I have not bothered checking how Iran's per capita rates compared to the countries you mention. But unless you are using an index (e.g., GDP per capita in nominal US dollars) that is irrelevant in understanding the true economic conditions of the people in a country, more so a country under US sanctions, Iran's real GDP per capita is around $12,000. That is not great, but it is far from destitute, even though even that figure underestates the true facts as Iranians are not prone to report their incomes accurately. Let me put it to you this way. Iran's state budget allocated around $250 biillion dollars in expenditures each year. Those are in nominal US dollars. Yet, Iran's nominal dollar GDP is estimated at the same rate, as though Iran doesn't have a private sector as though Iran defies the laws of economics and the multiplier effect of spending in terms of GDP. An average 3-bedroom apartment in Tehran costs around $300-$500 thousand dollars. A luxury one much more. In the poorest neigborhoods in Tehran, an apartment still costs more than $1,500 per square meter. Even in provincial cities, such apartments right now cost no less than $100-$200 thousand dollars. In Iran, most people's homes and apartments are purchased and with very little financing involved. While real estate prices in Iran are right now declining, there is no way for a country with the kind of incomes you believe prevail in Iran to sustain these kind of prices. I know that for me to be able to have a comfortable life in Iran, I need around half a million dollars in cash. Not to buy a mansion; just a simple apartment the likes of which hundreds of thousands of the residents in this city own. This is the truth. It is not all that relevant to any point I wanted to discuss in this thread, because per capita income is not the measure of whether the US should or should not open talks with Iran. After all, even today, China's per capita is much lower than Iran's and certainly in the 1970s, it bore not relationship to Iran's per capita income. As for Iran's future, lets just say I disagree with you. And certainly even the US government seems to disagree as well, if you go with their "Global Trends 2025" report.
This is exactly what I'm talking about. You don't care about people. You care about the relative performance of your "team" or "country", whatever you like.
Oh, and ps, here's a little article about the country you take such great pride in having a higher GDP than. It's about the terrible poverty in China. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/13/asia/poverty.php
(1) Iran certainly does NOT have a higher GDP than China. It has a higher GDP per capita. (2) You think everything is about taking "pride". What I said is that is the merits of whether the US should or should not engage in finding a reapproachment with Iran is no more dependant on Iran's per capita income than the merits of the opening to China was based on the latter's per capita income. (3) Nothing in the US sanctions, and the myriad of other policies pursued by it, helps the plight of Iranians. Indeed, its specific intent is to hurt Iran's economy.
That's right, that's one reason why I don't vote for Bush, that's why I by and large do not support my country's middle east policies. Since my interest is the welfare of human beings, and not to prove which country is the bestest in the whole wide world, I am capable of saying that. You, on the other hand, spend your days and nights figuring out how to convince a bunch of soccer fans that IRan is the next superpower. Civilians be damned.
US policies against Iran only got worse under Bush. But there are a myriad of sanctions against Iran, and a myriad of obstacles that are placed on the path of Iran (including obstacles to Iran freely exploiting and finding customers for its huge natural gas reserves) that predated Bush. And so far even Obama has promised to enhance those sanctions, unless talks with Iran cause Iran to give up its enrichment program. I respond to those, like you, who come out with statements to put down Iran. Often, saying things that are honestly wrong and clearly biased. Otherwise, I don't recall trying to compare different countries, mine included, much less put down others. I believe Iranians, as well as the Middle East as a whole, will witness an improvement in their plight and do so for generations to come, if Iran achieves what is its potential and promise. I am not here to convince anyone that will necessarily happen; my crystal ball is no more dependable than yours. But I am here to tell others they have no right to try to prevent Iran from achieving that objective. Not by virtue of claiming that it can't get there just because, while they their government does everything in its power to make sure it won't be able to. Nor by virtue of anything being so unjust or wrong with Iran's aspirations in that regard, as the political landscape in the Middle East does require changes. Changes that are best brought about by a country within the region as opposed to one without. Much less one allied to Israel.
Of course you do! I've read enough statements from you that prove it. Well, that wouldn't surprise me ... since your tactics are well-known in the meanwhile. At least, your regime will get the chance to avoid serious consequences. Don't underestimate the determination of the International Community... Without him, you wouldn't show the pretentious comportment of these days. But be careful not to cross a certain line ... since imperial dreams can be over pretty fast.
The Iranian establishment doesn’t want peace or any diplomatic relationships with the United States. Their slogan is “death to America”. They have been able to convince people for 30 +years that the US government is up to no good ( which has been true ) In regards to Iran and that’s one of the reasons why they have survived. But with Obama getting elected the mullahs in Iran are just paranoid right now . Obama is different than all past US presidents . Its going to be a lot harder for the mullahs to keep their slogans against the US when and if Obama changes US policy towards Iran and tries to talk to them but the last thing the mullahs want is talking to the US .
I am reasonably sure that you are not a fan of the mullahs, so that said, if Obama follows through with what he said, and I for one think he will, how will the mullahs react to this? If Obama comes out with changing US policy and engaging Iran on a wide range of issues and tries to open relations how far will he really get? And if the mullahs reject it, what kind of reaction can we expect from the people of Iran?
They have already started their campaign against Obama. They have talked about his connections to AIPAC and have kept running clips on the state run news agency of him talking about supporting Israel. Before Obama got elected, most Iranian politicians didn’t believe a black man could get elected in the United States. But now that he has been elected they are saying he is no different than Bush in terms of policy towards Iran. Some of them have said Obama doesn’t have the power to have a different approach towards Iran. I think when and if Obama does engage Iran the mullahs would try everything in power to stop Obama from doing that. This includes rephrasing slogans such as “wiping Israel off the map” so that Obama would have a harder time at home to try to convince American politicians engagement is the right thing towards Iran.The mullahs will make it look like that they US rejected engaging Iran because they know most Iranians would love to have relationships with the United States. I don’t expect any changes because Iran doesn’t want any changes. Previous administrations in the US made life for the mullahs a lot easier by not want to engage Iran but like I said the mullahs in Iran right now are going paranoid because of Obama’s talk of change . It will be interesting to see how all of this plays out .
That's an interesting statement. I think we know why they are interested in fueling conflicts and allegedly looking for talks with the US these days: In order to distract from their very advanced A-bomb project. And we also know that the current regime in Tehran is under growing internal pressure, so nuclear weapons would not only give them the opportunity to threaten other countries and improve its imperial ambitions ... but also to get "immune" against the growing number of critics in Iran and a possible second revolution à la Eastern Europe. Instead of continuing the careful reform process under Mr. Khatami, Ayatollah Khamenei and his clerics decided for confrontation with the West by installing the current caliph of Tehran. And they will dig their own graves if they are that silly to believe they can cause a "clash of cultures" (many Iranians surely won't be very sad about this)... They should have better listened to this person: http://amontazeri.com/farsi/default.asp http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Ayatollah_Hossein-Ali_Montazeri
That pretty much echoes what I was thinking. I agree that Bush and others made it easy for the mullahs by there actions and words. Now given that the population of Iran is essentially of a different mind towards relations with the US then that of the mullahs, and I am sure the populace has the means to see Obama's words unedited, how long will they stand by and let the mullahs sabotage the process? I don't underestimate the ability of the people in Iran to invoke a change in Govt. there, they did so in 79, but do they have a strong enough leadership to oppose the mullahs and call them out on any change? It will certainly be interesting times in the near future for the people of Iran. http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed1/idUSTRE50Q23220090127
Obama was quoted a long time before he got elected that there's 2 things which are not negotiable: 1. The security of Israel / "2 states" solution 2. No nuclear weapons arms race in the Middle East (knowing about the problems with terrorists and growing fundamentalism - Pakistan is warning enough). That's also the European position. If the Iranian regime doesn't make concessions regarding these 2 points (and it looks like this at the moment), we'll probably see a severe confrontation even under Obama! The Mullahs think they have the ability to challenge the USA these days because of diverse "trump cards" they believe to possess right now ... but how mentioned so often, they shouldn't overestimate themselves!
Actually that brings up something else I have wondered about. If it comes down to such a severe confrontation, and this is of course after Obama has pursued his stated course of open talks, I would say that would affect the level of support for action against Iran among not only those in the US, but also in the world. Seeing this, would the people of Iran continue to allow the mullahs to take them down such a path? I understand they are a proud people and will defend there country, but will they do so blindly or will they try to protect themselves and get rid of a terrible govt.?
The Iranian people or the current regime? Let's not forget what happened in Eastern Europe. Such stubborn regimes can collapse pretty fast even if they terrorize and threaten their own population with the help of cruel intelligence forces. We all know that the Revolutionary Guards are also trained for oppressing any internal opposition ... but let's wait up what happens when the situation of the population gets so hopeless that desperation is stronger than any fear. I experienced the happenings during the revolution in Romania, so I know what I'm talking about. How mentioned, the problem is that everybody in Iran who criticizes the Mullahs, has to fear serious consequences (the Revolutionary Guards got trained & "specialized" for such things). But I'm pretty sure that if the current regime in Tehran (which can only count on the support of these RG's and the ideologists/islamic fundamentalists) crosses a certain line, it will not only have to fear consequences from the International Community but also from inside. Ahmadinejad is already under growing internal pressure because he totally isolated the country (especially economically) with his confrontation style ... and that's one of the reasons for his aggressive foreign politics/imperial ambition (beneath religious/ideologic aspects).
Iran is not a monolith; there are plenty of people in Iran's government who strongly favor improved ties with the United States, even if there are others who don't. However, you are mistaken into believing that it will be difficult for Iran to reject the overtures that Obama is likely to offer. After all, Obama appears to tie all of his promises of improved ties with Iran on the condition that Iran give up its nuclear enrichment program. As long as that is the US position, Iran can easily reject Obama's overtures. And justify the decision to its people.
Iran has been there and done that. During the Khatami-Clinton era, the US did not appear to many Iranians to be making any "unreasonable" demands. Indeed, with the US even apologizing for its role in the 1953 coup, many Iranians were blaming the regime for the failure to find ways to resolve Iran's problems with the US. As such, if there was a time when the regime might have felt serious pressures to find a reapproachment with the United States, it was then. The current US position is at odds with what the majority of Iran's public supports. In other words, as long as the US insists that Iran must give up its enrichment program, the majority of Iranians will understand if Iran rejects such overtures. Similarly, it was one thing for the United States to be asking Iran to endorse the two-state solution during the Clinton era in the midst of Oslo; it is an entirely different issue for the US to insist that Iran endorse plans which today appear to be headed no where. In a climate where Israel, whose image had slightly improved under Rabin's efforts to make peace, is now perceived by many in the region as nothing but "evil incarnate".
So your regime knows what can happen if you oppress your own population and run down your country by isolating it and wasting billions for armor & for sponsoring terrorist actions instead of improving the economic situation of your people... Well, then it's a pity. Btw: It's not only the US position. Has your government told the population that it got 2 generous offers from the Russians and the EU? Can you explain why you badly need that enrichment program when you get such offers and can hope for even more amenities? Do you really believe in your parliament speaker's silly argument that the US invaded Afghanistan in order to attack Iran? And why did your crazy & stupid president make such incredible statements towards the state of Israel when you allegedly don't have any nuclear ambitions? Does your population know that the International Community isn't amused to get fooled day after day...? So the "2 states" solution (which is the only realistic alternative) appears to be headed no where in the eyes of the Iranians... C'mon, be honest and tell us that you are afraid of peace between the Palestinians/Arabs and Israel because it doesn't serve your ideological & imperialistic interests! But there will be peace soon, since your proxy Hamas gets forced to renounce violence and finally stop opposing Palestinian interests! And if they don't (because you order it to them), they will face a very tough time... Buenos noces.
I like how you use the word “your regime” , “your atomic bomb” as if IM is the one who is in charge of the regime and Iran’s nuclear program and everything else that goes on in Iran. You did the samething against me. Don’t expect anyone to take you seriously as long as you keep using the simple word of “your” to make an statement.
I Know there are plenty of people inside the government who wouldn’t mind reestablishing ties with the United States but those people don’t have the power or the credibility inside a government that only lets those who are loyal to the establishment take such steps. I don’t think it would be difficult for them to reject such an offer as they already have even before the offer was made it just would make them less credible when they chant “death to America”. The United States needs to first help the people in Iran. I am not saying they should help them politically but rather by economic and cultural means. They should let Iran buy Boeing aircrafts and parts since it only affects people. And the United States has put Iranian lives in damager by not letting Iran buy such products from the United States. They should let Iranians have easier access to get into Iran . They shouldn’t give Iranian athletes a hard time when they come to the United States. All of these steps plus a lot more will only make it harder for the Iranian government to convince people that the US are at fault which in a way they have been since the revolution but I hope with Obama being the president he tries a different approach like he promised.