|
This is how to talk to Iran (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by cmay119
Assuming Obama is president for 2 terms, do you guys believe that real diplomacy could be achieved with Iran in that amount of time? I respect what Obama is trying to do here, this was one of my major reasons to vote for him. It would just be a sad situation if we haven't broken down many barriers in that amount of time, and the next president undermines all of Obama's efforts on this.
What do you guys think? |
I think it's possible, but there will be a lot of resistance from people both in this country (see: the17sss) and Iran (see: the Ayatollah). Popular opinion of the US is highest in Iran than anywhere else in the Middle East/South Asia part of the Muslim world. The citizens there love American culture. By appealing to them, it makes the ability of the government to maintain control through fear of the United States a lot more difficult.
By delegitimizing one of the fundamental reasons the regime uses to preserve power, we can go a long way toward delegitimizing the regime itself and putting the people of Iran back in control of their future. |
|
|
| tathi |
| i read from this guy on twitter "While calling on Iran to negotiate, our president just quoted Sufi poetry "the children of Adam are limbs to each other..." Rockin! http://twitter.com/AlexSteffen |
|
|
| Shakka |
| quote: |
Iran's View of Obama
By George Friedman
U.S. President Barack Obama released a video offering Iran congratulations on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, on Friday. Israeli President Shimon Peres also offered his best wishes, referring to “the noble Iranian people.” The joint initiative was received coldly in Tehran, however. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said the video did not show that the United States had shifted its hostile attitude toward Iran.
The video is obviously part of Obama’s broader strategy of demonstrating that his administration has shifted U.S. policy, at least to the extent that it is prepared to open discussions with other regimes (with Iran being the hardest and most controversial case). The U.S. strategy is fairly straightforward: Obama is trying to create a new global perception of the United States. Global opinion was that former U.S. President George W. Bush was unwilling to engage with, and listen to, allies or enemies. Obama’s view is that that perception in itself harmed U.S. foreign policy by increasing suspicion of the United States. For Obama, offering New Year’s greetings to Iran is therefore part of a strategy to change the tone of all aspects of U.S. foreign policy.
Getting Peres to offer parallel greetings was undoubtedly intended to demonstrate to the Iranians that the Israelis would not block U.S. initiatives toward Iran. The Israelis probably were willing to go along with the greetings because they don’t expect them to go very far. They also want to show that they were not responsible for their failure, something critical in their relations with the Obama administration.
The Iranian response is also understandable. The United States has made a series of specific demands on Iran, and has worked to impose economic sanctions on Iran when Tehran has not complied. But Iran also has some fairly specific demands of the United States. It might be useful, therefore, to look at the Iranian view of the United States and the world through its eyes.
From the Iranian point of view, the United States has made two fundamental demands of Iran. The first is that Iran halt its military nuclear program. The second, a much broader demand, is that Iran stop engaging in what the United States calls terrorism. This ranges from support for Hezbollah to support for Shiite factions in Iraq. In return, the United States is prepared to call for a suspension of sanctions against Iran.
For Tehran, however, the suspension of sanctions is much too small a price to pay for major strategic concessions. First, the sanctions don’t work very well. Sanctions only work when most powers are prepared to comply with them. Neither the Russians nor the Chinese are prepared to systematically comply with sanctions, so there is little that Iran can afford that it can’t get. Iran’s problem is that it cannot afford much. Its economy is in shambles due more to internal problems than to sanctions. Therefore, in the Iranian point of view, the United States is asking for strategic concessions, yet offering very little in return.
The Nuclear Question
Meanwhile, merely working on a nuclear device — regardless of how close or far Iran really is from having one — provides Iran with a dramatically important strategic lever. The Iranians learned from the North Korean experience that the United States has a nuclear fetish. Having a nuclear program alone was more important to Pyongyang than actually having nuclear weapons. U.S. fears that North Korea might someday have a nuclear device resulted in significant concessions from the United States, Japan and South Korea.
The danger of having such a program is that the United States — or some other country — might attack and destroy the associated facilities. Therefore, the North Koreans created a high level of uncertainty as to just how far along they were on the road to having a nuclear device and as to how urgent the situation was, raising and lowering alarms like a conductor in a symphony. The Iranians are following the same strategy. They are constantly shifting from a conciliatory tone to an aggressive one, keeping the United States and Israel under perpetual psychological pressure. The Iranians are trying to avoid an attack by keeping the intelligence ambiguous. Tehran’s ideal strategy is maintaining maximum ambiguity and anxiety in the West while minimizing the need to strike immediately. Actually obtaining a bomb would increase the danger of an attack in the period between a successful test and the deployment of a deliverable device.
What the Iranians get out of this is exactly what the North Koreans got: disproportionate international attention and a lever on other topics, along with something that could be sacrificed in negotiations. They also have a chance of actually developing a deliverable device in the confusion surrounding its progress. If so, Iran would become invasion- and even harassment-proof thanks to its apparent instability and ideology. From Tehran’s perspective, abandoning its nuclear program without substantial concessions, none of which have materialized as yet, would be irrational. And the Iranians expect a large payoff from all this.
Radical Islamists, Iraq and Afghanistan
This brings us to the Hezbollah/Iraq question, which in fact represents two very different issues. Iraq constitutes the greatest potential strategic threat to Iran. This is as ancient as Babylon and Persia, as modern as the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Iran wants guarantees that Iraq will never threaten it, and that U.S. forces in Iraq will never pose a threat to Iran. Tehran does not want promises alone; it wants a recognized degree of control over the Iraqi government, or at least negative control that would allow it to stop Baghdad from doing things Iran doesn’t want. To achieve this, Iran systematically has built its influence among factions in Iraq, permitting it to block Iraqi policies that Iran regards as dangerous.
The American demand that Iran stop meddling in Iraqi policies strikes the Iranians as if the United States is planning to use the new Baghdad regime to restore the regional balance of power. In fact, that is very much on Washington’s mind. This is completely unacceptable to Iran, although it might benefit the United States and the region. From the Iranian point of view, a fully neutral Iraq — with its neutrality guaranteed by Iranian influence — is the only acceptable outcome. The Iranians regard the American demand that Iran not meddle in Iraq as directly threatening Iranian national security.
There is then the issue of Iranian support for Hezbollah, Hamas and other radical Islamist groups. Between 1979 and 2001, Iran represented the background of the Islamic challenge to the West: The Shia represented radical Islam. When al Qaeda struck, Iran and the Shia lost this place of honor. Now, al Qaeda has faded and Iran wants to reclaim its place. It can do that by supporting Hezbollah, a radical Shiite group that directly challenges Israel, as well as Hamas — a radical Sunni group — thus showing that Iran speaks for all of Islam, a powerful position in an arena that matters a great deal to Iran and the region. Iran’s support for these groups helps it achieve a very important goal at little risk. Meanwhile, the U.S. demand that Iran end this support is not matched by any meaningful counteroffer or by a significant threat.
Moreover, Tehran dislikes the Obama-Petraeus strategy in Afghanistan. That strategy involves talking with the Taliban, a group that Iran has been hostile toward historically. The chance that the United States might install a Taliban-linked government in Afghanistan represents a threat to Iran second only to the threat posed to it by Iraq.
The Iranians see themselves as having been quite helpful to the United States in both Iraq and Afghanistan, as they helped Washington topple both the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. In 2001, they offered to let U.S. aircraft land in Iran, and assured Washington of the cooperation of pro-Iranian factions in Afghanistan. In Iraq, they provided intelligence and helped keep the Shiite population relatively passive after the invasion in 2003. But Iranians see Washington as having betrayed implicit understandings that in return for these services, the Iranians would enjoy a degree of influence in both countries. And the U.S. opening to the Taliban is the last straw.
Obama’s Greetings in Context
Iran views Obama’s New Year greetings within this context. To them, Obama has not addressed the core issues between the two countries. In fact, apart from videos, Obama’s position on Iran does not appear different from the Bush position. The Iranian leadership does not see why it should respond more favorably to the Obama administration than it did to the Bush administration. Tehran wants to be very sure that Obama understands that the willingness alone to talk is insufficient; some indications of what is to be discussed and what might be offered are necessary.
Many in the U.S. administration believe that the weak Iranian economy might shape the upcoming Iranian presidential election. Undoubtedly, the U.S. greetings were timed to influence the election. Washington has tried to influence internal Iranian politics for decades, constantly searching for reformist elements. The U.S. hope is that someone might be elected in Iran who is so obsessed with the economy that he would trade away strategic and geopolitical interests in return for some sort of economic aid. There are undoubtedly candidates who would be interested in economic aid, but none who are prepared to trade away strategic interests. Nor could they even if they wanted to. The Iran-Iraq war is burned into the popular Iranian consciousness; any candidate who appeared willing to see a strong Iraq would lose the election. American analysts are constantly confusing an Iranian interest in economic aid with a willingness to abandon core interests. But this hasn’t happened, and isn’t happening now.
This is not to say that the Iranians won’t bargain. Beneath the rhetoric, they are practical to the extreme. Indeed, the rhetoric is part of the bargaining. What is not clear is whether Obama is prepared to bargain. What will he give for the things he wants? Economic aid is not enough for Iran, and in any event, the idea of U.S. economic aid for Iran during a time of recession is a non-starter. Is Obama prepared to offer Iran a dominant voice in Iraq and Afghanistan? How insistent is Obama on the Hezbollah and Hamas issue? What will he give if Iran shuts down its nuclear program? It is not clear that Obama has answers to these questions.
Rebuilding the U.S. public image is a reasonable goal for the first 100 days of a presidency. But soon it will be summer, and the openings Obama has made will have to be walked through, with tough bargaining. In the case of Iran — one of the toughest cases of all — it is hard to see how Washington can give Tehran the things it wants because that would make Iran a major regional power. And it is hard to see how Iran could give away the things the Americans are demanding.
Obama indicated that it would take time for his message to generate a positive response from the Iranians. It is more likely that unless the message starts to take on more substance that pleases the Iranians, the response will remain unchanged. The problem wasn’t Bush or Clinton or Reagan, the problem was the reality of Iran and the United States. Only if a third power frightened the Iranians sufficiently — a third power that also threatened the United States — would U.S.-Iranian interests be brought together. But Russia, at least for now, is working very hard to be friendly with Iran. |
|
|
|
| Magnetonium |
I hate it when I am dam right. So this is how the fantastic Iranian regime is looking forward to some fruitful relations with the Obama administration! :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
So far it seems that the Iranian hardliners don't want to be peace and friendly with USA.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8006413.stm
| quote: |
Case tests Obama's Iran agenda
It started with a young woman arrested for allegedly buying a bottle of wine.
Now the case of Roxana Saberi could become the first big test of relations between Iran and the new administration of President Barack Obama.
For nearly three months, Ms Saberi has been held in Evin prison, Tehran.
It soon became clear the bottle of wine was only a pretext. She was accused of operating as a journalist without a valid press pass.
Then, in a space of barely 10 days, she was charged with the much more serious offence of spying, tried and sentenced to eight years in prison.
It is a tough sentence, even on such a grave allegation.
The evidence has never been published, the trial was held in secret and her father claims she was tricked into making a false confession.
Suspicions raised
It all raises deep suspicions over whether this case has been hijacked by hardliners within the Iranian government, eager to sabotage any reconciliation with the United States.
Ever since President Obama started reaching out to the government of President Ahmadinejad, it has been clear that the government here is sceptical of his intentions, and confused about how to respond.
The Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has suggested there is no difference between President Obama and his predecessor, George W Bush. Sometimes it seems as if the government here pines for the certainties of the Bush era.
In one recent demonstration, government approved protesters chanted "Death to Obama" for the first time.
Ayatollah Khamenei
Ayatollah Khamenei suggests there is no real change in US leadership
The confusion is understandable.
Here they chant "Death to America" on state occasions, just as one might repeat God save the Queen, Vive la France or God Bless America.
But if Roxana Saberi's sentence is a political manoeuvre, it could be more complicated than simply an attempt to sabotage new talks.
Already through this case the Iranians have moved the agenda from the nuclear programme that the United States would like to focus on.
They have a bargaining chip to use in talks, perhaps to use as they press for the release of Iranians still held in Iraq.
Or perhaps the Iranians are preparing for a show of mercy, ready to dispatch Roxana Saberi back to the United States.
But for the moment this case is moving Iran and the United States back into conflict, before reconciliation even had a chance to begin. |
|
|
|
| Halcyon+On+On |
| quote: | Originally posted by Clovis
The Iranian leadership and the Iranian people are two different things. |
Funny how one might say this very same thing about the US... |
|
|
| Krypton |
| Iran and the US have a lot more in common than one might think. Let's go back to 2008. Both were run by conservative religious governments. Both were essentially pariah governments. Both economies went into the ter. Both governments were unpopular to their own people. |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
Iran is just trying too dam hard to obtain nuclear technology - apparently the fact that the Russian company is building the Busher nuclear power plant is not enough. Attempts such as the one below can only bring up uncomfortable questions, and expose the true nature of Iranian alleged peaceful nuclear energy goals.
| quote: |
Toronto man accused of nuclear ties to Iran
April 18, 2009
The Canadian Press
TORONTO (Apr 18, 2009)
A Toronto man is facing charges after allegedly trying to send nuclear technology to Iran, a country under intense international pressure to curtail its nuclear ambitions because of fears it wants to produce a bomb.
The RCMP, after a joint eight-week investigation with the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security, allege Mahmoud Yadegari tried to procure and export pressure transducers, which are used in the production of enriched uranium.
The UN Security Council banned exports of nuclear-related technology to Iran in 2006, because of what it considers efforts to build nuclear weapons. The hand-sized transducers have a legitimate commercial use, the RCMP said, but can be used for military purposes.
"They're critical components used in a larger device in order to enrich uranium for weapons-grade product," RCMP Inspector Greg Johnson told media yesterday.
The man bought 10 transducers from a Boston-area company for about $1,100 each. Police wouldn't name the U.S. company that sold the transducers or name the company owned by Yadegari, a Toronto businessman in his mid-30s. |
|
|
|
| sean5 |
i'm just curious...
how many people posting in this thread have actually been to iran and have spoken with people there?
"the government is different from the people" - is this something you've discovered yourself or something you heard on 60 minutes? |
|
|
| Alex |
| quote: | Originally posted by sean5
i'm just curious...
how many people posting in this thread have actually been to iran and have spoken with people there?
"the government is different from the people" - is this something you've discovered yourself or something you heard on 60 minutes? |
Well I don't think going to Iran would tell you anything really. There is no way you'd be able to interview all 70 or so million Iranians and then post the results.
All information needs to be taken with a grain of salt, naturally, but come on :p |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
| quote: | Originally posted by sean5
i'm just curious...
how many people posting in this thread have actually been to iran and have spoken with people there?
"the government is different from the people" - is this something you've discovered yourself or something you heard on 60 minutes? |
But it doesn't change the reality of things. Perhaps, just like in Soviet Union, many people in Iran are against their regime, deep down in their hearts. But Iranian regime won't crumble as easy. I believe so for several reasons. Primarily its because Islamic societies are much stronger and less likely to break than atheist ones, and because there's a lot more internal support and pushing external threat.
Religion is much too powerful of a force, no matter what people may say. Soviet Union is a great example. When you forcefully strip people of their culture and religion and force to deny their own roots, it will collapse like a house of cards. However, Iranian system is deeply rooted, their religion and values are appreciated, valued and are strong. Then there's the memory of the oppressor, the deposed Shah.
The Iranian government is different from its people, because Iran is made up of many ethnic groups and cultures, but that doesn't change the reality of things. We can't look at Iran and see a beacon of hope and democracy. We need to be rational, but at the same time respectable. Perhaps Obama's approach is the right one, and we might have to wait and see, but more involvement with Iranian people from our side is needed to bring out a change. |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | By Laura MacInnis
5 mins ago
GENEVA (Reuters) – Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a walkout from his speech to a U.N. racism summit on Monday when he accused Israel of establishing a "cruel and repressive racist regime" over the Palestinians.
The summit had already been badly undermined by a boycott by the United States and some of its major allies over concerns that it would be used as a platform for attacks against Israel.
The boycott left Ahmadinejad, who has in the past cast doubt on the Nazi Holocaust, as the only head of state in attendance. His speech produced the kind of language that the Western countries and Israel had feared.
"Following World War II they resorted to military aggressions to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering," Ahmadinejad told the conference, on the day that Jewish communities commemorate the Holocaust.
"And they sent migrants from Europe, the United States and mother parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine," he said, according to the official translation.
"And in fact, in compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine."
Dozens of diplomats in the audience promptly got up and left the hall for the duration of the speech.
"Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a U.N. anti-racism forum," said British ambassador Peter Gooderham, whose country chose not to send a minister to Geneva.
Norwegian Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store told the conference after Ahmadinejad had spoken that his words amounted to incitement to hatred. He said Iran had made itself the odd man out by undermining agreement on a conference declaration.
"Norway will not accept that the odd man out hijacks the collective efforts of the many," he said.
FEARS OF CONTROVERSY
Eight Western nations including the United States were avoiding the entire meeting, fearing it would be dominated by what U.S. President Barack Obama called "hypocritical and counterproductive" antagonism toward the Jewish state.
However, a number of the delegations that remained behind applauded Ahmadinejad's speech.
Arab and Muslim attempts to single out Israel for criticism had prompted the United States to walk out of the first U.N. summit on racism, in South Africa in 2001.
Although the declaration prepared for the follow-up conference does not refer explicitly to Israel or the Middle East, its first paragraph "reaffirms" a text adopted at the 2001 meeting which includes six paragraphs on those sensitive issues.
U.S. President Barack Obama, the first African-American leader of the United States, said on Saturday that Washington wanted a "clean start" to engage with the United Nations on the issues to be tackled at the meeting.
Rupert Colville, spokesman for Navi Pillay, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights who convened the meeting, said she deplored the language used by Ahmadinejad.
"This speech was completely inappropriate at a conference designed to nurture diversity and tolerance," he said.
Earlier Pillay had urged participants to do all they could to ensure the declaration is adopted at week's end.
She said this was necessary to restore confidence in the United Nations as a forum to address frictions that can explode into xenophobic attacks, as occurred in her native South Africa last year, when 62 foreigners were killed.
"We all should be mindful that a failure to agree on the way forward would negatively reverberate on the human rights agenda for years to come," Pillay said at the meeting's opening. |
SOURCE |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by sean5
i'm just curious...
how many people posting in this thread have actually been to iran and have spoken with people there?
"the government is different from the people" - is this something you've discovered yourself or something you heard on 60 minutes? |
Question, have you spoken to Iranians, and somehow concluded they'r all religious fanatics bent on world domination? |
|
|
|
|
