Presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain has repeatedly accused Barack Obama of wanting to negotiate with Iran's infamous President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, hoping to paint a picture of the likely Democratic presidential nominee as naive because of his willingness to open dialogue with U.S. adversaries.
Obama's speech at AIPAC last week may have put McCain's claim to rest. Obama, in an effort to move himself from the left to the center of Democratic Party, told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon -- everything." Yet he still maintained that he would like to see the United States "open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress." He clarified his position on discussions with Iran by stating that "as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing," with emphasis on "the appropriate Iranian leader."
Yet, the actions of each nation's president do not necessarily reflect widely held views within those nations. The general perception is that negotiations with Iran mean talks with Ahmadinejad, whose series of controversial remarks about Israel and the Holocaust have angered many Americans.
In Iran's political system, the president is second in command to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Ayatollah is the commander in chief and has the last say in foreign policy, law reform, nuclear programs, defense doctrine, and even cultural and social policies.
Ahmadinejad and his supporters may actually fancy a U.S. military strike and continuation of Bush's confrontational policies through a McCain administration, in hopes of strengthening their power within Iran by rallying all factions behind the flag.
Prior to the invasion of Afghanistan in 2002, it was Khamenei who allowed Iranian diplomats to sit side by side with Americans in Germany to talk about the future of Afghanistan. However, in return for this cooperation, Iran was inducted into the "axis of evil" club.
It was Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, who authorized three rounds of direct talks between Iranian diplomats and Americans over the security issues in Baghdad last year.
Again, this January, it was Khamenei who expressed willingness to restore diplomatic relations with the United States as soon as hostilities between the two nations abated. "I would be the first one to support these relations," state radio quoted Ayatollah Ali Khamenei saying. "Of course we never said the severed relations were forever."
Negotiations are unlikely to occur before Iran's next presidential election in 2009 for fear that Ahmadinejad could use them to his advantage in a re-election campaign.
Khamenei does not seek these negotiations because he desires U.S.-Iran relations, but rather he seeks them more out of necessity. Iran's economy is fragile: It suffers from the highest rate of inflation in the Middle East and a lack of foreign investment. It is stymied by the threat of an American attack, and increasing pressure from Arab countries concerned about Iran's growing regional power. Iranians cannot count on their Arab playing cards (Hamas, Hezbollah and Iraqi militia groups) forever. Iran's Shiite allies in the Middle East identify themselves as Arabs (rivals of the Persian Iranians) first, and then as Shiites, indicating that their support of Iran will only be lukewarm. In order to overcome these domestic and regional obstacles, Iran must end the no-peace-no-war situation with the United States. Otherwise, the consequences could be disastrous.
Obama's willingness to open talks with Iran suggests that he, unlike McCain, recognizes this reality -- and that his foreign policy approach is far from naïve. By opening a dialogue with Khamenei, the next U.S. president could seriously undermine general international perceptions of Ahmadinejad's power, while bringing Iran and the United States closer to reconciliation.
First published in the San Francisco Chronicle today.
Follow Omid Memarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/omid_m
If negotiators have a negative attitude, don't believe their success is possible, then, of course, they will fail. I feel certain that someone, somewhere will be able to come up with concrete ideas. If both sides see that it is imperative to cooperate, then it is possible. Mutual annihilation might be a deterent for any thinking individuals from any country.
The U.S. should know by now that "Cooperation" is not a dirty word.
Attitude and Respect are both words to be capitalized. The Middle East is a very proud country, with a certain code of conduct, just as China and Japan. We Americans need to learn to conduct ourselves with a bit more 'class' when doing business with these countries. Our previous communicative abruptness is just plain rude, in their opinion.
Have you ever read any of the work by Gertrude Bell in Iraq the early 1900's ? I began reading her work in college, as well as Freya Stark, both women exploring and writing about the Middle East.
Very interesting - very anthropological - which is what I studied for my Bachelor's and Master's.
...but the corporate media are doing their best to perform their journalistic duty to correct this misperception. Aren't they?
"Many Americans are upset by Ahmadinejad's words...."
1. Assume that there are 3 million Jews in America.
2. Assume that there are 200 Press People in Washington who publicly blindly support their Israel stance.
3. Assume there are 1000 such newsies in New York.
4. Assume across the entire Nation another 1,000,000 persons sharing such views.
Total: Under 5 millionin a population of over 300,000,000 persons. Hardly "...many Americans..." as stated above, and hardly a plurality upon which to threaten War against a Sovereign Nation.
let Israel stand or fall on its own. Leave americans out of it.
Khomeinei told Ahmadinejad to shut up. And Ahmad meekly obeyed. He's now keeping his comments strictly for internal Iranian consumption.
At the last international meeting two clowns of international politics: Mugabe and Ahmadinejad were excluded from most activities.
International diplomatic community doesn't suffer fools like Ahmad easily.
Calling Palestinians "refugees" after anywhere between 60 and 41 years is an insult to the millions of Pied Niors and their children, the Silesian Germans and Anatolian Greeks, not to mention Alexandrian Greeks and many others who are also refugees or decendents of refugees....and the Israeli JEWS, all of whom are refugees or decendants of refugees.
YEAH RIGHT!
He may have the "last say" but Ahmadinejad will do whatever he wants to do, and that
is an indisputable fact.
Can you give one, single example of Khamenei reeling in the Armaggedon-minded Ahmadinejad?
No, you cannot because Ahmadinejad does and says whatever he pleases, and all that Khamenei does is make sure "Im-in-a-jihad" is Islamic enough.
Ahmadinejad truly beleives that the 12th Imam is coming soon, and if Ahmadinejad has to start a nuclear conflagration to bring it about, he sure the hell will...and you can take that to the bank.
Iran is to terrorism what Saudi Arabia is to oil. Iran is a terrorist state and has been since 1979. Iran backs more terrorist groups worldwide than all other countries combined. Iran is now where Nazi Germany was in 1933, and I do not believe for a moment that BHO would order a military strike against Iran if they develop and nukes.
BHO thinks he can use his silver-tongue to talk him out of it. All I can say is, "LOL!"
Saudi Arabia is where the "terrorists" that attacked us on 9/11 were from.
Kind of a goofy analogy!
Damn. Everything! I wonder if he's aware of the fact that everything includes "total obliteration."
By the way, grandiloquent, done-nothing rookie senator Obama does not want to "move himself from the left..." He wants to perpetuate the lie that he's doing so. This guy would say anything to get elected.
1. It is a true democratic country with well-defined borders and comprehensive constitution.
2. Does not have a military. Only a group of helpers who go to their neighboring territories to build shelters and save lives on daily bases.
3. Always promotes peace and has never developed any nuclear or other weapons.
4. Buys many hearts in the Middle Eastern countries. Consequently we end up with more friends than enemies and that leads us to have access to cheaper oil.
5. We dot need this money any way. We are very well off and have no budget deficit .All our citizens have access to comprehensive health care.
6. If there is a conflict, she will do the fighting on our behalf. Our young soldiers never have to go to war theaters.
7. She never interferes in our political affairs. Never maintain over 20 plus political groups with misleading names, promoting her interest in our country. Does not control our major media.
8. Never spies on us and there is no case of spying currently or in the past.
9. Never pushed us to Iraq War and has no relationship with Richard, Paul, Douglas and Ron.
10. And finally because it makes us feel good, like we are living in a fantasyland.
As to #8: CANADA spies on us. So does Mexico and every other country that can afford it.
#9 is in fact true.
The Iranian People want to meet with Americans. They want to establish trade relationships. Iran is a beautiful country with beautiful people. Their art, architecture, and poetry is well known and we as Americans need to recognize and focus on what is best in this country.
But then, maybe all of us Americans would like to be judged based on the news story of the Polygamous Prairie Prince and his Princesses in matching dresses.....
This is not to suggest in any way shape or form that Iran could ever get along with Israel, but simultaneously they seem to have a tenuous and shaky relationship with their Arab neighbors as well. So something to think about.
So why on earth do we give more money in "aid" to Israel (a third of the entire U.S. foreign aid budget) -- more than any other country on earth? 47 million people in the US do not have health insurance, our infrastructure is eroding, and yet no one says anything when we give our taxpayer dollars to one of the most prosperous countries in the world? Moreover Israel uses much of this money for strengthening its military and the oppression of the Palestinian people, yet it flouts international laws of nuclear power but we insist Iran does respect international law?
http://www.washington-report.org/html/us_aid_to_israel.htm#Taxpayer
Why the hell are we paying Israel so much every year, when our own citizenry is wanting? Someone please explain.
There is currently a debate right now about the reasons why we give so much aid to Israel in the form of direct assistance, loans, investments and etc. In the book "Israel Lobby", the authors' thesis is that it's due to Israeli lobby, of which AIPAC is the most powerful and influential. But others, like Noam Chomsky, believe that it's due to strategic interests. Either way, it's completely unjustified.
As for Obama's speech to AIPAC, I recently blogged about it on my weblog:
http://rationalleft.com/
When Ayatollah (finally!) realized the harm Ahmadinejad was doing to the Iranian image, he was quickly muzzled.
Unfortunately, Iran's exportation of radical Islam, oppression of its own people and hatred for liberal West and "pagan" Far East is hardwired into its very political fabric.
No negotiation will ever change this.
But there's absolutely no need for a war with Iran. Current Iranian regime will eventually fall, toppled by its own archaic structure and aims.
Iran needs the world more than the world needs Iran.
Therefore, the rest of the world would be wise to severely limit trading with Iran, impose stricter sanctions and impede the spread of Iranian government's religious intolerance.
Eventually, Iranian people will overthrow their despotic rulers on their own.
Patience.