This week, after 30 years of low-profile, back-door meetings, the United States government is openly meeting with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
A relationship that never ended is publicly renewing its vows to much fanfare, but the main topic at hand, and the circumstances surrounding this new willingness to publicly "engage," are set to lead the Obama administration down the same path as his predecessor, a path at which the awkward Obama-Sarkozy-Brown media spectacle in Pittsburgh hinted: futile threats that hurt the Iranian people far more than the Iranian government.
But perhaps there's the rub.
By meeting at this time, and with a government whose electoral legitimacy is doubted by significant numbers of its own electorate, the Obama administration and its allies are indicating that they will look the other way at the dire circumstances of the Iranian people because Iran's strategic importance and regional influence are sorely needed.
It's not Obama's fault that Iraq and Afghanistan happened, but it will be his fault if he rushes into a threat-laden, pseudo-engagement with Iran at this historical crossroads in US-Iran relations.
This summer's significant events in Iran -- rife with authorized gang rapes of young street demonstrators, imprisonments and killings of suspected dissidents and threats to their families -- have undoubtedly impacted the Obama administration's plans for engagement with Iran. To overlook this and instead maintain the pre-Iran-election engagement time line is not prudent, and worse, it is dangerous.
The now weakened and openly factionalized Iranian government, courtesy of the blood and tears of millions of Iranian people, was a gift to America's Iran policy. Balancing on one leg, the Iranian government was wavering on a significantly reduced footing of regional and international legitimacy and support. Recall that even many of Ahmadinejad's allies were hesitant to congratulate him on the election. The Iranian government's biggest and most threatening opponent was no longer the US government, but the Iranian people.
Instead of grasping this opportunity to stand by the Iranian people and to position itself as a wiser, more legitimate, and less threatening regional authority, the Obama administration has stepped in to reinvigorate the Iranian government's most appealing scenario: that of the formidable opponent of modern-day Western imperialism. And not just any imperialism, but one which targets some countries' nuclear programs while ignoring other countries' nuclear bombs.
Ahmadinejad is back to square one, and it has emboldened him, to the dismay of so many Iranians who poured into the streets this summer.
This week's meeting, overshadowed by threats of "crippling" sanctions and Iranian isolation, will be Obama's gift to a government that -- despite all appearances -- is desperately in need of a power boost of exactly the nature that George W. Bush handed it for 8 years: antagonism, isolation, and America's behind-the-scenes pleas to negotiate Iran's help with its pesky neighbors.
Obama should have adjusted his timetable, and re-evaluated the current situation in Iran.
Economic sanctions and war will continue to hurt the Iranian people, not its government, instead perpetuating a waning government whose bid for existence has a shaky moral compass. Further, these threats will not configure into any enduring solutions to regional problems.
An undisputed and law-abiding Iranian government can, as it once was, be a helpful ally to the United States in the region. Iran's current problems, thus, lie more in the fact that it has little regard for international law, than in its nuclear ambitions.
The best and most effective answer to the Iran problem -- as it has always been -- is wise diplomatic pressure that doesn't isolate Iran and its nuclear program, focusing more on the international laws and guidelines that Iran is not following, rather the nuclear ones that it is. This type of substantial and beneficial engagement non-threateningly respects Iranian sovereignty, while also requiring the Iranian government to meet its obligations to international law, including in areas that apply to the inherent rights of its people, if it intends on being a participant rather than an outcast in world affairs.
De-roguing Iran is possible without sanctions and war and impossible without openly addressing Iran's failure to behave like a legitimate and law-abiding member of the international community.
Today's Obama has the moral authority to do this -- certainly moreso that his predecessor ever did.
Obama must now pause, reflect and take advantage of this summer's events to not only make way toward actual regional solutions, but to resolve one of his biggest problems: a fanatic Iranian government whose answer to Western imperialism is ideological expansion.
Americans are under the illusion that their have freedom in the US, this only seems so .
Americans are very submissive to their government and have been good consumers and very malleable supporters of the Military Industrial Complex and their very profitable wars.while handing over all their constitutional rights to the Oligarchy that controls America.
As soon as Americans wake up to their sheeple status and begin to protest, we will see on American soil the same oppression by the police and army as in Iran !
The Patriot Act and the Repeal of the rule against use of the Army on American soil was just preparation !
As for rhetoric, yes they use some strong rhetoric, the US government does the same on an almost daily basis as does Israel. Both the US and Israel have the ability to wipe Iran off the face of the Earth. At most Iran would be able to inflict a small amount of damage.
The US Government is in no position to tell the Government of Iran anything, not one single thing.
Iran must feel left behind not to have its own war against America.
I think we need to spread more wars to more countries and make the wars more unified. Simply fighting here and there in different countries isn't an efficient strategy.
Did Alexander the Great skip countries? Did the Romans? You can't just make wars in different countries and forget about the land between them.
This way, we can keep the supply lines going between our different wars. Only this way can we spread war more effectively.
I firmly believe that our natural ally in the Middle East is Iran and we should be working toward normalizing relations, cooperating with each other, and engaging in mutually beneficial economic actions. I agree that we should not be doing anything that empowers hardliners and stiffens its government's resolve to suppress domestic dissent. Isolating Iran is not only unwarranted and counterproductive, it's stupid.
There isn't any evidence that Iran is building a bomb and it has a legal right, pursuant to a treaty, to develop nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. The Bush-Cheney Administration knew about the "new" facility at Qom and didn't complain about it, so I'm willing to accept that Iran acted in good faith and will permit a UN inspection. I believe Obama abused the situation to look tough and distract the public from his embarrassing humiliation at the hands of General McChrystal and Secretary Gates who are publicly pressuring him into ramping up the war in Afghanistan and Netanyahu's refusal to yield on settlements
Yet another example of spineless and counterproductive behavior by Obama.
The Islamic Republic of Iran's ambivalence towards "international community" is borne by the latter's highly partial and chequered history in the region. When Iraq attacked Iran in 1980, the West and the USSR, spoke much but did nothing. In fact, they by in large supported Sadam with cluster bombs, chemical weapon ingredients, economic aid, and military intelligence. The 2002 invasion of Iraq on false grounds also demonstrates the inconsistent application of international law in the region.
Anti-Iranian policy is institutionalised in the United States across parties. It is decades old, dating from the US Embassy hostage crisis in Tehran, November 1979. The current Iran trade prohibition policy dates from the mid-1990s and was instated under Clinton.
You correctly state that ratcheting up the rhetoric will get the US nowhere. It is worthwhile mentioning that an Israeli or US military strike is completely against US interests in Iraq and Afghanistan and is now more than ever highly unlikely.
As Titra Parsi argues, the nuclear issue is the wrong card to play. Obama should hammer on about human rights, or complete lack thereof, in Iran. He should shine a light on the regime's terrible track record against its own people.
Iranians protested widely and created a lot of trouble for the rulers, who eventually got their way regardless but are still tainted by the aftertaste of the popular uprising. There is still a lot of dissent and these medieval mullahs don't like it.
What the Iranian leadership needs to do is rally popular support so they've got this building out in the desert with a target on the roof and as soon as it becomes a big news item, they pop off a missile test, basically a medium-range middle finger that can apparently reach Israel. The Israelis aren't known for putting up with that and will take out the inert building in the desert (like they did before) and Iran is now awash in flag-waving nationalism.
Just another day in the middle east.
President Obama wants to look cowboy tough so he tried to toe the line with Bush's "git da terrirsts" policies, and Iran seized an opportunity to show the world just how inexperienced and starry eyed Obama really is.
It worked.
Keep the change.
Hillary 2012
Nailed it.
You're still in my top five as favorite Huff bloggers, Shirin. Keep up the great work!
Also, we tried that with North Korea and it's gotten nowhere, whether in preventing their development of nuclear weapons, improving relations, or building a strong coalition against them.
And we've seen this movie before. Iraq, too, was accused of having a nuclear weapons program, and accused loudly and long. The accusations never stopped, even though the iAEA had been on the ground for years in Iraq, and just like Iran, found nothing. The only consequence of this unbroken streak of failure an a new and expanded list of inspections demands. When these too, came up dry, there were yet more demands.
We now know that this was because there was nothing to be found. Iraq was telling the truth the entire time, and it was our leaders who were lying when they claimed to have proof positive that the WMDs were there after all.
Now Iran's in the same boat. Logic tells us that it is impossible to prove the absence of anything, but nothing short of such a proof will suffice to call of the dogs. It's a perfect catch 22.
All this bombast would make the government stronger, not weaker.
The Iranian people are going to be thrown under the realpolitik bus.
If you are living in fear of the Persian people or the government of Iran, get help. You have a psychiatric, not a political problem.
So, you need to put up or shut up before you can start talking about Iran being appeased. The NPT, a treaty the US has both signed and ratified, guarrantees Iran the right to do what it is doing, period. Before you can find Iran guilty, you need to come up with at least one piece of evidence that a crime has occurred. You don't have one.