Obama's Bold Iran Move
The Obama administration's announcement today that it will directly participate in meetings with Iran about its nuclear program is not appeasement or capitulation or kowtowing or any other unflattering term that holdouts on the right will deploy. Instead, it is an overdue move. It isn't America that's put on the spot by Obama's policy shift. It's Iran.
As the New Yorker reports this week, Iran is in ferment. With elections coming up, the religious hardliners are in a tough position. They can't simply reject Obama's overtures out of hand. In essence, Obama is calling the regime's bluff.
It was easy enough to depict George W. Bush as the devil incarnate. But Obama has made it clear that he doesn't regard Iran as the repository of evil, a malignant octopus with tentacles reaching everywhere that must be bludgeoned into submission. Rather, he wants to cut a deal with it, one that, presumably, would ultimately involve the restoration of official relations with Tehran, as he surely hopes to accomplish in the case of Cuba as well.
Whether Iran will strike such a deal is, of course, unclear. But Iran is not a monolith. It has a burgeoning youth population that views America -- at least American culture -- favorably. Furthermore, the lesson of the cold war is that detente rather than isolation and threats can work. Western Europe constructed a web of ties with Eastern Europe that eased suspicions and opened up previously closed societies. The same could happen in Iran.
If the mullahs balk, however, Obama will have made it clear that America wasn't the culprit. If Iran insists on going beyond the limit of being ready to construct a bomb and actually conducts a test, then all bets would be off. Despite the howls of betrayal that will undoubtedly emanate from the right, Obama is pursuing a toughminded course that is both in the moral and strategic interest of America.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Israel and the AIPAC driven fear mongering that is allowed to happen in the US media are the ones trumpeting the so called Iran threat. Iran and Ahmadinejad are no threat to the US.
The US needs to stop the foreign policy hypocrisy. Israel pre-emptively invades their neighbors, Iran does not.
Demonizing and warmongering for Iran to protect Israel is wrong. The Iran 'issue' is 100% Israeli.
Unlike Iran, Israel simply has too much to hide and wants to keep it that way.
When is Israel going to sign the NNPT and allow IAEA inspections ? Which Iran has done.
The US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency? Then Israel better be just as transparent.
America's silence about Israelis nuclear weapons and lack of membership to the NPT while maintaining such harsh rhetoric towards Iran's nuclear program, which is legally allowed to enrich uranium as a NPT member is an example of the kind of outright double standard BS that the United States has been following in its foreign policy.
Tehran and Isarel did business during the 1980"s, when Isarels interest was in weakening Saddam Hussein"s Iraq. That business " including sales of weapons and technology " was an extension of Israeli policy toward Iran under the shah.
When Iranian nukes are mentioned the double standard with Isarel should be immedietly pointed out.
I wouldn't put it so simplistically as an "either or". There are complex issues behind Obama's overture and deep mistrust behind Iran's cagey response.
America is allied with a country in the Middle East that has over 150 nuclear warheads pointed at Iran. This same country encouraged the U.S. to invade Iraq, and now there are U.S. troops on every side of Iran, and this "ally" just conducted a brutal, irrational and disproportionate attack on a defenseless people stuck in a hermetic, open-air prison. There's a heck of a lot to mistrust when the foreign policy of the most powerful country in the world was hi-jacked for so long by another country with a hostile intent towards Iran.
I think it's unwise to reduce negotiations to either/or and ultimatums. I think it's better to air all the mistrust and resentment for past mistakes and hostility, take steps to distance American foreign policy from Israeli foreign policy, and then build on trust with gestures on either side.
However, even if diplomacy is exercised by this administration without the meddling of the "ally", Iran knows perfectly well, that Congress cannot be trusted to completely support the President's agenda.
Unfortunately even on the Democratic side there will be betrayal, and unless ALL Democrats support this President's vision, how on earth can anyone expect Iran to trust Obama's words? It's not Iran that will balk...it's Congress, many members of which are subservient to a foreign lobby.
Ya what do you call that Branch of the United Nations, is it IAEA? Its leader from the U.N. said last year that Iran would have to throw the inspectors out and then it would take them 6 months to build a BOMB. I do trust that MSM stuff from a Mna who says "he" would resign if war started over it.
Way to go Barack!
Israel is not worried that Iran will develop a nuclear weapon; besides they would need delivery systems as well and that will require testing which makes it even more difficult. Iran would never risk the fallout which would cause numerous Palestinian casualties or risk destroying one of the holiest sites in Islam, the Dome of the Rock. Iranians would never put themselves in jeopardy of serious retaliation from Israel and the U.S. or risk their reputation with the Muslim world...it's just plain ludicrous.
Israel knows this perfectly. What Israel is afraid of is losing their bully status in the Middle East and America normalizing relations with Iran. This is Israel's biggest fear. Then the pressure to give up the West Bank would be impossible for them to sustain. Israel is using Iran as a distraction from the peace process. They want to create another conflict so their conflict with the Palestinians will be ignored, abandoned and the two-state solution will be postponed AGAIN. They are very worried that their waiting game will be over, and they will be forced to deliver the goods. Victimhood can be a great asset as it promotes sympathy and sympathy begs support...billions in support. They dread losing their status and their power.
Iranians should evaluate their own realities by deliberating on their achievements, their outrages, their blindfold, vain and vane circling around themselves, their bragging, their talking all the time about politics, specially during the last one-hundred and fifty years (1860 to present time). They should become silent and rethink for few years, all of them living anywhere on the earth. They should build up their skills, their arts, their literature, become polite to each other, spend less and work more and carefully watch other nations see how they struggle for better. One source of their learning is to compare themselves and see who is ahead and why. They should bring about explorers, inventors, mathematicians, painters, poets, musicians, writers, great engineers, create great engineering works, great businesses. They should not dishonour each other in front of the world. They should not commit treason against their own interests, surreptitiously join to enemy agents or overtly do stupid unwise actions, which amounts to loss of national interests in long run or short run, whether it is Los Angeles Iranians or Iranian oppositions or Mr Khaameneh'ee. Silence does not kill. Dear Iranians please be quiet.
Peter Jones
Obama has made a good overture towards Iran, but something more will be necessary.
There is a history here, which the residents of Iran know very well, even if the residents of the USA are largely ignorant of it: the USA engineered the overthrow of a democratically-elected government in Iran in the 1950s, and then put the Shah in its place. It took a bloody revolution in the late 1970s to get rid of the USA puppet.
So the people of Iran lived for two decades with a government that was imposed on them by the USA.
Hence, in order for Iran to agree to maintain a position of relative military vulnerability, there has to be a reciprocal recognition from the USA government that, in fact, an apology is due, and that it will not happen again. Perhaps it will require a treaty of some sort, acknowledging previous wrongdoing and establishing some independent monitors that will help to prevent it from happening again.
From Iran, the apology required is obvious: embassies are not to be taken hostage, no matter how heinous the actions of the government that placed it there. If relations break down enough, then diplomatic staff may be expulsed, but not held hostage.
It remains to be seen how serious Obama and the Iranian government are about normalizing relations. It is almost impossible to have normal relations between a state that foments the overthrow of the other's democratically-elected government, and another that turns diplomats into hostages.
In our real world Israel will NOT allow any peace between US and Iran to take place. When it comes to Iran, Israel"s interests and American interests do not overlap. Since Iran has been isolated from American Businesses, the big gainers have been mainly China, India and Russia. At the time American businesses were prohibited to do business in Iran, Chinese and Russian businesses have been signing multi-billion Dollars contracts. If US-Iran relations are ever improved, Iran would make a strong and effective US ally in the Middle East and US may not have to rely on Israel so much. Consequently there would be no longer any incentive for billions of Dollars of annually financial and military US aides to Israel. Therefore every time there is a chance that there could be some improvement in the US-Iran relation, the process is sabotaged directly by Israel or indirectly via Israel"s special interest groups such as AIPAC &Associates. To dig this further, one has look into "who" inserted Iran"s name in the GWB 2002 States of Union Speech with other "axis of evil" just before he delivered his speech!!!!!
It is correct and proper to negotiate with some enemies. Not all. In case of Iran it is smart to negotiate.
The pattern should be the same as with Soviet Union and China: subversion of the oppression from within and without. Iranian theocracy should be carefully guided towards its inevitable collapse.
As Keith Richards famously said: about the fall of communist states:" what brought it down? Blue jeans and rock 'n' roll.” Same here.
Anyone who thinks Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapon is ineducable.
Characterizing this move as bold is hard to justify. However it is probably the only move available to President Obama at this point. Further sanctions are futile because the present sanctions are unsupported and easily violated on a constant basis. There are too many international players who have an interest in Iran developing nuclear weapons or at least developing Iran as a client state.
Kinetic strikes have no support in this country and at best would delay by a few years Irans development of a nuclear weapon. Once Iran deploys the s-300's they bought from Russia it would become significantly more difficult for even the US to adequately strike the program, and impossible for Israel to do so. So the possession by Iran of nuclear weapons is, for all practical purposes a fait accompli.
I suspect that President Obama will attempt to develop Iran as a potential strategic partner in order to minimize the degree to which they are more closely aligned with Russia and China. Iran holds all the cards in this game so don't expect much. President Obama has few carrots and no stick: not the kind of scenario that leads to boldness. More likely we are going to have to get used to acting in ways that are dictated by others rather than ourselves, because that is how weak nations get by.
Of course IRan wants a nuclear weapon- its a crazy violent world .
ALways has been - always will be. There is evil among us.
Still - the USA is the best place to be-
- thats why folks risk their lives to come here.
Iran-China - Pakistan - No Korea - can't trust any of them.
No human rights - no compassion.
Most Americans do not trust Iran or Pakistan. However, we have to find some way to get
along in the world- rather than start more wars. I recall when the Ayaolah Komenni took hostages just prior to Reagan's election. The the Achille Lauro, when a Jewish man was thrown overboard- for no reason other than hate. THis still goes on all over the world- England has many problems in that area. Extreme people are willing to kill innocent people - for their ' cause ' That will not change.
So many wars fought in the name of religion- how ironic. We can be spiritual / religious, while
NOT following Church Doctrine.
The only religious issue here in fundamental Islam who is afraid of technology, and the future... i.e. control.
BTW, what's you definition of "Spiritual"? Sounds very Zen...
There are powerful interests for preventing any open communication and discussions with anyone that would change the posture of fear mongering in order to justify the statuts quo, to wit: The arms industry; Israel and of course the war mongers who believe bloodshed is inevitable and just a way of life, not to mention human engineering, eliminate the weak for they don't consume and consequently are no use to society..
I'd like to pose a question or two to the author and especially to Mr. Anderson in the New Yorker:
This author states Iran "has a burgeoning youth population that views America -- at least American culture -- favorably".
True, but what about Israel?
Regardless of what you think about the Gaza fiasco, or the Jewish lobby (full disclosure, I'm Jewish American), we have an election coming up in Iran that can bring about change. But are any of the candidates OK with 2 states? Or do they all believe in the conspiracy theory that Europe pushed the Jews to their land (doesn't that make the Jews a victim rather than an aggressor)? Of the candidates running, perhaps Mousavi is more "moderate", but can he be brought to the table to support a more constructive solution between Israel and Palestine?
Where is the Iranian youth on this?
Israel and Iran have shown cooperation in the past (e.g pre-Revolution and during the Iran-Iraq war. Isn't it weird that the US supported Iraq and Israel supported Iran?). The question for me is, can the people of Iran get behind a candidate that will end the beligerence and work toward a win-win for Israelis, Palestinians, and Iranians?
What about Israel? What about Pakistan? What about........... It is not just the people of Iran who need to get behind a candidate that will end the beligerence and work for a win-win for Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians, and Americans.
btw, what about the THREE American hostages currently being held in Iran? They just took an American journalist last week
dont know why we dont here about them in the news
Saberi is an Iranian citizen subject to Iranian laws. Similarly, if an American-Iranian was arrested in the US, she would be subject to US laws. These are not "hostages". At least Iran doesn't have a Gitmo.
as far as GITMO, they are closing it fyi
but would you rather see the "enemy combatants" thrown in general population at San Quentin? THAT would be cruel and unusual.
as far as Saberi, she has an American citizenship...and there are two other Americans being held currently that are NOT soldiers or "enemy combatants" of any kind
Supporters of Iranian police state are in da house. Thank you Hass.
Farscape
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
