Iran: Engagement, Finally

Like Hannes, I am simply blown away by this news. I really don't know what to say, the turnabout is so huge, so significant. It's almost a Nixon-goes-to-China moment. (For reasons of realpolitik I doubt it, however, as Bush just isn't as shrewd a statesman as Nixon, for all his other faults, was.) The fact that this administration, which only a few months ago seemed to be ready to bomb the Iranians back to the stone-age is now not only not denying the news coming out of Tehran about an interests section but discussing it publicly, especially in the context of 'people-to-people' exchanges a la ping-pong diplomacy is stunning. Really, I know there are a lot of emphatic words here, almost superlatives, but it's a shocking turnabout. And one I, in particular, am thrilled to see happening.

I know Iranians and have friends who live there. I've visited the place, as you all know. As I have said, time and time again, engagement with the odious regime in Tehran is the key to its downfall, not 'regime change' by force. I made the argument time and time and time again on the radio with Jack Riccardi and Chris Duel and Col. Ken Allard. The key, I would always say is "to engage the regime like we did the Soviets get them to put there money where their mouths are, in a sense. Engagement will bring about the downfall or moderation of the regime once they feel less threatened." This occurred with the Soviets and my bet is, if this can be pulled off and there is still a lot of doubt, that the same can happen with the Mullah regime in Tehran. I feel tremendously vindicated, just as I did when the Bush administration finally talked with the North Koreans. While serious and substantive issues remain, it appears as if full and verifiable inspections will be a reality in Pyongyang. Of course, they (and right-wingers in general) argued I was wrong. But that's by the by now.

It's simply the most unadulterated good news to come out of this administration ever. Dare I say they've done something right?

Lastly, Obama (and Edwards even more so for calling the War on Terror the fraud it truly is) is to be applauded by having the courage to call for negotiations with the 'baddies' and thus open up this key, critical domestic space. Were it not for Edwards and Obama I doubt we'd be where we are.

If things continue in this fashion the war in Iraq might even be over much sooner than we think and in a fashion many of us could scarcely have dreamed possible.

Much remains to be done, but for some reason imagination and courage seem to have temporarily triumphed over narrow ideology.

Comments

[FloridaGeek]

And of course it turned out to be a complete waste of time, as predicted by the Administration was well

[Michale32086]

Everyone has been dancing around the subject, yet no one has the balls to declare themselves..

Is a nuclear armed Iran, a nuclear armed Hamas and a nuclear armed Hezbollah in the best interests of the region or the world?

The answer is obvious....

Hell no....

And the follow-up question is equally important..

What steps are appropriate to prevent Iran et al from possessing nuclear weapons..

The answer is equally obvious...

Any and all.....

Michale.....

[Sean-Paul Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

A nuclear armed Hamas? A nuclear armed Hezbollah? Are you kidding me? Why would Iran ever do such a thing? It's not in their national interest. It's stupid and typical right wing hysterics to even suggest such a thing. It's all about fear mongering.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}Why would Iran ever do such a thing?

Oh gee whiz... I dunno.. What would Iran support Hamas or Hezbollah in the first place?? Why would human wave attacks using children to clear minefields be part of their military doctrine??

}}}}}It's not in their national interest.

And of course, Iran's leaders would NEVER do anything against their national interest, right??

Iran's leaders are religious fanatics whose stated purpose is to Islamify the world. That's not fear-mongering, that is fact.

But let's get back to my questions..

Do you think that the world should do ANYTHING it can to prevent Hamas or Hezbollah from acquiring nuclear weapons?

Michale....

[mjc]

It is okay of course to have a nuclear armed Israel amongst all those Arab states who have not yet acquired nuclear power and weapons. We should be talking to the Iranians and it is actually too stupid for words that we are just now thinking about it. Nuclear weapons in the Middle East COULD be a deterrent IF there was more than one nation with a nuclear weapon.

[rwe2late]

The genie is out of the bottle. Mad science has developed the means of self-destruction, whether it be nuclear, biological, or chemical. And the US, most of all, continues to enhance those methods, and develop new ones.

Proliferation control seems to have two main paths. One won’t work. And the other won’t happen.

(A) The US establishes a world-wide police state to prevent unapproved governments, and every “radical” group that imaginably might employ mass destructive weapons, from gaining the “ability” to “develop” or “obtain” such weapons. That course requires the US to impose “stability” on an unjust and unstable world. This will, and already has, allied the US with reactionary and dictatorial regimes which rule over sullen and rebellious populations. Such alliances will only increase resentment and proliferate “radicalism. Nations threatened by US activities will be motivated to develop weapons in self-defense. US interventions and occupations will also create “radical enemies”, as well as ultimately ruin and bankrupt the US economy. Civil liberties and human rights will be trampled on in the process.

(B) The US and its allies, such as Israel, and the power elites that rule them, will agree to relinquish their monopoly of destruction and submit to real international inspection and control. Alliances and military support for with oppressive regimes will be terminated. The economics which have resulted in the top 400 billionaires possessing as much as the bottom 3 billion will be altered more equitably.

[Michale32086]

So, is that a yes or a no??

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

So much for "the talks"....

In talks, Iran says no to suspending enrichment.
GENEVA (AP) - Tehran on Saturday ruled out freezing its enrichment program, casting doubt over the sense of key nuclear talks between Iran and six world powers less than an hour after they began.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080719/D920T4AG1.html

I hate being right all the time.

I would have thought the Iranians would be smarter than this..

This is EXACTLY why "jaw jaw" doesn't work with psychotic leaders like those in Iran..

Michale.....

[Sean-Paul Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

Ah, yes, calling them psychotic is certainly the way to go. Just like those North Koreans, yeah?

As for the talks: what, did you expect a miracle on day one? Get real. These things take time. Grow up.

[Michale32086]

}}}}}}Ah, yes, calling them psychotic is certainly the way to go

I call them as I see them....

}}}}}}}}As for the talks: what, did you expect a miracle on day one?

No, but I expect them to at least show a modicum of diplomacy since that is what they are there for...

Michale.....

[rwe2late]

michale32086
your argument depends on other nations becoming LESS keen to develop nuclear weapons to defend themselves if they are threatened with attack and invasion.

At this juncture, Iran does not have nuclear weapons, and there is no evidence Iran is developing such weapons (though it is impossible to disprove such accusations). Iran's position is that she has submitted to inspections and treaty limitations, unlike the US or its allies, and that Iran has a right to develop a nuclear enrichment program. Thus, Iran is willing to negotiate about the control of the nuclear process, but not forego its right to enrich. Hardly a "psychotic" position.

[ApolloSpeaks]

How can "jaw jaw" work when we're at war war with hardened Islamic fanatics who infallibly believe that God and history will bless them with victory; and will intrepret the triumph of building the bomb as a divine sign that they are right.

[Lemeritus]

With all due respect to you and an implacable enemy, ApolloSpeaks, fanatics who believe their god will reward them with ultimate triumph are not limited to Islam (i.e., Erik Prince). I hesitate to say we give the "Islamofascists" (what a ridiculous term!) more credit than they're worth, but we cannot pursue our best interests by painting an entire country monochrome black.

[Lemeritus]

"I hate being right all the time."

Personally, I would be happy if you were right just once, Michale.

I doubt that this is the end of efforts, but your glee in dancing on the grave of diplomacy is unseemly, as is your know-it-all opinion of a country you know very little about.

[research]

Please list the last time Iran attacked another country without provocation.

[mjc]

No doubt Kelley could tell you better than I but would it have been one of the two times that Iraq and Iran went to war against each other? Using biological weapons or chemical weapons to boot?

[Michale32086]

Anyone who think that the Iranian leadership are the "good guys" in the world today are either completely ignorant of the facts or their hysterical anti-USA stance has warped their reality...

One only has to read up on Operation Ramadan to know what kinds of barbaric acts this leadership is capable of...

Michale.....

[Sean-Paul Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

Who says they are good guys? Did I? No. But the fact is, you negotiate with your enemies. Life is kind of like that, sometimes you have nothing but bad choices, and you have to chose the best of the bad choices. This is one of those cases. Don't be so narrow minded and pull out the old, "we don't negotiate with baddies" garbage. Because that is what it is. Again, you miss the point: engage and the regime will have to prove itself to the world and to its own people and it will have the hardest time proving itself to its own people. They are the ones who want what the West has, prosperity, freedom, liberty. You can sense it when you actually, umm, talk to the man on the street in Iran. But most people never get this because they don't go over there and see for themselves. They are too easily persuaded by Fox News propaganda.

As for barbaric acts, well, what would you call Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram? Not too mention the black sites in Eastern Europe but barbarism?

[Michale32086]

}}}}}Who says they are good guys? Did I? No.

Kewl.. Common ground is a wonderful thing...

}}}}}But the fact is, you negotiate with your enemies.

Only if such negotiations have a reasonable chance of success and you are dealing with a reasonable regime that is negotiating in good faith...

Such is not the case with Iran on any count. Which is why the "talks" have already fallen apart...

}}}}}}}
Again, you miss the point: engage and the regime will have to prove itself to the world
}}}}}}}

We have... And they did....

}}}}}}
As for barbaric acts, well, what would you call Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo and Bagram? Not too mention the black sites in Eastern Europe but barbarism?
}}}}}}

Abu Ghraib was nothing.. You see more "atrocities" committed on college campuses during Hell Week..

Gitmo and Bagram. A reasonable response to the atrocity of terror...

I see nothing in the US's actions that come CLOSE to the atrocities committed by this regime... NOTHING comes close to forcing hundreds of thousands of children to walk into mine fields to make paths for tanks..

How many aftermaths of terrorist attacks have you been to?? How many twisted and gutted bodies of innocent men, women and children have you see made so by terrorists??

When Iran gives up support for terrorism in word and deed then AND ONLY THEN will there be a chance for diplomacy to work...

Not before.

Michale.....

[Lemeritus]

Operation Ramadan - 80,000 killed in action, 200,000 wounded in action (both sides).

Operation Iraqi Freedom - between 400,000 (Iraqi Health Ministry) and 655,000 (Lancet) Iraqi deaths; 1.8 million Iraqis displaced; 100,000 Iraqis fleeing to Jordan and Syria each month; 4,119 American deaths, over 30,000 Americans wounded.

I'll let the numbers speak for themselves. There's very little Iran needs to do to appear to be the "good guy" even against its traditional enemies ("The enemy of my enemy is my friend.")

[Michale32086]

I don't recall the US making human wave attacks and having children clear minefields.

If the ONLY evidence you have to try and make your case that the US is as bad as Iran, is casualty figures, then you have failed to make your case.

I am sure I could quote higher casualty figures for WWII, etc etc.. But they would be just as irrelevant as your casualty figures...

Michale.......

[fussygorilla]

Why is the regime in Iran to be changed by U.S. either force or negotiation, as the article states? Why is it any of U.S.'s business to change regimes in other countries? In fact, may be the regime change in U.S. is needed for world peace.

Secondly, why is the government in Iran referred to as the "Mullas"? How about the Israeli govenemnt being called the "Rabbis" regime? These are all anti-Iranian and deragotary tems that intelligent people should never use. Americans are not above other people especially with a 250 year culture, criticising a 7000 year one.

[Sean-Paul Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

Because Israel is a secular democracy, albeit with huge problems and Iran is a theocracy. It's a fact. Sometimes reality gets in the way of the liberal narrative. I know. But still, it is a fact.

[rwe2late]

Sean-Paul Kelley
Only on Fox News is ridiculing the "liberal narrative" considered to be a conclusive form of evidence.

Calling Israel a "secular democracy" is a bit of a stretch. It was founded for a religious group, it practices religious apartheid, it is expansionist, colonialist, militaristic, and has had a government typically run by ex-generals. Iran,"albeit with huge problems" is as much or more democratic than any of the US Mideast allies.

But more to the fussygorilla's main point, which you do not address. There is much unsaid. "Engage like we did the Soviets"? Does that mean you favor economic war and blockade? Do you favor covert military and CIA activities to topple governments? Do you favor supporting dictators who will supposedly deter the influence of "theocrats"?

In short, is it our business to use either so-called "soft" or "hard" power to try to topple governments we don't approve? Because once you accept that premise, the line between hard and soft power invariably becomes blurred and meaningless. After all, we will supposedly be doing whatever we do, for them, for their good, whether they understand it or not, no matter what sacrifices they will need to make. And of course, completely by coincidence (just ask us), there will be rewards in it for us too.

[billw8017]

This administration blusters and postures. They demonize minorities and foreigners. They really don't care for anything except power. As Dick Cheney so ably put it, "To the victor go the spoils."

Their war, their big expensive government, their reckless plung into deficit spending are breaking America. Just because they do the right thing in one particular after everybody else has been on their case about it for a couple years may be delightful and gratifying but it doesn't redeem them.

Senator Obama should be careful when he tries to protect his popular lead by fudging controversies. The exercise of power involves negotiation and compromise. So, the details must change, but at the last, there are right and wrong.

[JanP]

The Euopeans have negotiated with iran for years and years. What have the results been? Nothing? Nope: big wins by The Ayatollahs.

Iran now controls Lebanon, is the main sponsor of Hamas, and proceeds on the path to nuclear weapons.

Bush is now joining the charade. Maybe condi convinced him it would work. Maybe he did it to take an issue away from Obama. Maybe it is both reasons.

If you think oil prices are high now, wait until Iran lisghts off a test nuke.

In the meantime, our fine Democratic leadership is making sure that the Untied States really gets hit with high oil prices os that we can't afford fossil fuels. This is a really bright move.

I think I will work on having cars run by wind power: you know, sails like a big sailing ship.

[deminmo]

I hope that all this newly found feel-good for Iran
is the real deal. We don't need another war, certainly
not one that could rip our economy further apart, and
quite possibly be a nuclear exchange.
However, my inner voice keeps annoying me with
"Don't be so sure, it's smoke and mirrors".
It deserves some time to see how things pan out.

[marleysghost]

This is just another "Hail Mary" pass by a desperate administration suddenly realizing that nothing they have done has resulted in anything positive. At the last minute they want to be seen as using diplomacy in the place of the previous seven years of warfare as the general rule of engagement overseas. It's just a flip-flop, nothing more. too little and far too late in the game to be of any real effect. But nonetheless, they will point to it as a major policy initiative hoping we are too dumb to remember they created the mess we are in in the first place.

[hokulele]

Soooooooooooo, the white house brains (not GWB) are now following Obama. Gee, are they "appeasing" or something? And, yes, we DID create the mess in the first place. The Shah's sister had this great and garrish house in Santa Barbara. We paid for it. And we continue to pay with blood and money. Impeach Bush and Cheney. Why hasn't that couple been jailed?

[operdoc]

Do you really think the Bush Administration doesn't have a secret motive here? We should have learned by now, to NEVER trust these thugs on anything.

[Trishjw]

It's good to find someone else who judges Iran by its people, its history and its geography. It is fantastic that Bush has decided to send someone to "negotiate" but with it under Bush's terms it will be futile. But I'm sure the Iranian gov't anticipates that. They, like Maliki in Iraq, are waiting to see who is voted in in November. You only mentioned Tehran. Were you able to see Isfahan, Shiraz and/or Persepolis??? If not, try and go again and see their art and history from the time of 600BC. The people are friendly and usually outgoing--moreso than Americans here. I even ended up with an insurance broker from Isfahan. Keep in touch with your friends in and from Iran and keep them talking of negotiating not using the bomb. (despite the fact they may never even have it or want it.) Check the op-ed in today's NYTimes for the writer's supposed "necessity" to bomb Iran via here since Israel doesn't have sufficient materiel. He's the fool!! Notice too how many "facts" are stated with may/might/­possibly!!­! Since when is "may" a factual statement?? Keep telling everyone of their good points in Iran. They outnumber the bad 100 to 1.

[Sean-Paul Kelley - Huffpost Blogger]

I was in Iran for several weeks and visited all of the country except Baluchistan.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Kelly's travels throughout Iran have given him zero insight into the perverse and dangerous spiritual dynamics that drive the dogmatic mullah regime. My guess is that he is way too secular minded and spiritually shallow to understand this. Or, as in the case of an Arainna Huffington, a woman with some spiritual depth, it is an inconvenient truth that would shatter his blind hope for a nonviolent collapse of the regime and peace in our time.

[MaryfromMontcoPA]

"...for some reason imagination and courage seem to have temporarily triumphed over narrow ideology..."

Reason, imagination, and courage... and an uppity Iraqi Prime Minister, VP, and the 2 biggest faction heads all joining the Iraqi Parliament, the Iraqi People, the US House of Representatives, and 70% of the American People, as well as Barack Obama in demanding a timetable! Oh, and then there's Afghani Pres Karzai refusing to let Bush/Cheney use Afghani airspace to attack Iran... and probably a couple of words from the Chinese who hold a huge amount of our foreign debt and buy Iranian oil... Just one or two "factors on the ground".

"Reality has a well-known liberal bias." -- Steven Colbert

[dragonmage06]

I'm cautiously hopeful about this, but it seems a bit out of character for the Bush adminstration. Rational, diplomatic action? Where's all the guns and bombs and "shock and awe" in that? I wonder if Bush will get bored with talking and want to play with his toys again...

[pitman]

Rather curious, nobody is talking about all of Israel's nukes. Of all the country's in the Middle East only teeny, tiny, little bitty Israel is the ONLY country that has or is allowed to have nukes. Hmmmm, bet that has Iran paranoid. NAW - not possible.

[JanP]

Let's not let any facts get in the way of our ideology.

No one seems to be afraid of Israeli nukes. Israel made no semi-overt threats against Iran until Iran threatened Israel.

Has Israel said that any country has to disappear?

Do you know when Israel made it's first nukes? It was int he few days just before the 6-Day war. And they told Russia that they ahd them - throughe use of a pro-Russian Israeli. They did this because of he plans by Russia to intervene directly in the war. Russia actually tried to land commandos in Haifa harbor but Israel drove them off.

[Michale32086]

Last time I checked, no one has threatened to wipe Iran from the map.

Oh wait.. Hillary Clinton did....

Michale.....

[Fein]

'Condi' just announced that : " talks can only occur after Tehran halts activities that could lead to development of atomic weapons." Iran meets this condition, as U.S. intellegence has confirmed.
This must be a real blow to the War Industry and it's supporters.

[ApolloSpeaks]

Is this the same US intelligence that told the Clinton and Bush administrations that Iraq had huge stockpiles of WMD? Why do you give this any credence? Because it fits into your pollyanna world view? Not only has the Bush administration ignored this blatantly politicized report it is rejected by the entire EU whose intell agencies see things differently.

[Lemeritus]

Ummm... I wouldn't go so far as to say "the entire EU" has intelligence that "sees things differently". That would be hyperbole. It would be sufficient and accurate to say that the EU-3 called for maintaining international pressure on Iran, pointing to the positive effects of the sanctions. They neither repudiated the report nor clamored to adopt it.