VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
WoW! Trita Parsi Makes Sense!
28-Nov-2011
While I have had my disagreement with NIAC's mission and tactics, I have always liked Trita Parsi personally, and as well intellectually. Honestly, I think it might be the suit. It always seems 2 sizes too big. And maybe the hair. I think outside of 1977 (which in fairness he is too young to relate) a slicked back Tony Manero is completely uncalled for. In case he agrees, and to head that off in advance, so is a Tony Montana.
Personally, I have met Trita many times and found him to be genuine, polite, caring, and just an all around nice guy to talk to. When he does, he has a warm smile.
Intellectually, I think he's a genius. I think the correct technical term would be "Freaking Genius". I've read all his books and listened to him speak, and there is little doubt in my mind that this is anything other than a great man and mind, trapped in a little body, in a bad suit, with a bad choice of hairstyle.
Really. NO, Really.
Case in point, on an extremely well rounded discussion with Neil Conan on NPR's "Talk of the Nation", Trita perfectly exemplified everything I just said, sans the negative visual metaphor, given it was a radio program.
The topic? That which is currently on everyone's minds (save the folks in EVIN), namely "Can Sanctions End Iran's Nuclear Ambitions?"
I mean this is the perfect question, No? If well analyzed and better answered, this is like the Holy Grail of the greater US-Iran question that, let's face it, commands the attention of those of us obsessively gnawing at the water drip of sanity this site affords us, like Hamsters hydrating just enough so we can get back on that wheel.
And Trita, the Trita I know personally and intellectually did not disappoint.
Here are just a few quotes that I think best explain why I at once love him, and get so frustrated with the lack of results from NIAC so far.
On what the US and Iran need to do:
"...I think the least bad option is to actually give diplomacy a real chance. The diplomacy that was pursued by the Obama administration in 2009, I think, was genuine, but it was very limited, and Obama administration did not have the patience and stamina to stick with it, partly because there was so much pressure, both from Saudi Arabia, from Israel and from Congress, to abandon diplomacy before it even had had a chance to show any results.
"That's the least costly option, and that's also the only option that we have been able to use in other cases successfully, preventing states from pursuing nuclear weapons."
Brilliant. Bloody Brilliant. It gets better.
"... There's very limited political will, certainly right now in Washington, mindful of the elections that are upcoming. There isn't any interest in giving diplomacy a chance. Rather, we see the Obama administration almost trying to position itself to the right of the Republicans on this issue.
"In Iran we have a similar issue, not necessarily for the same reasons but because of their very factional politics and infighting that currently takes place in Iran; it's very difficult to see them in the short run having the political will to sustain diplomacy.
"But when the question is which one is the least bad option, then this clearly is the least bad option. In fact, I would say it's a pretty decent option."
On why sanctions don't work (my point too)
"... I think it's very important to note that if there's anything that has delayed and made sure that the Iranians actually progress with their program, it's the sanctions policy. We're talking now again about additional sanctions, and we see that the IAEA report says that the Iranian program actually is continuing.
"After more than 15, 20 years of sanctions, we have absolutely no indications that the sanctions are affecting their nuclear program in such a way that it would change its trajectory or in such a way that the regime would change its calculation. Yet that's the option that we will be going forward with in the next 12 months or so because not - not because it has any significant chances of a result but because it's the least costly option from a political standpoint.
"It takes the least amount of political capital and the least amount of political risk, but when it comes to actually doing anything about the issue at hand, it really doesn't do much at all."
Awesome.
On whether Iran should have the right to get a Nuke (Those of you who have suggested "things" take note of this exact quote carefully):
"... I absolutely don't think that the Iranians should be getting a weapon. The non-proliferation treaty, which they have signed, essentially means that they're foresworn weapons. The problem is that it's not necessarily weaponization that we're focusing on right now.
"For the last decade or so, the United States' position has been to not permit the Iranians to have enrichment, which is a very preliminary step, but is also a step that is used to produce fuel for peaceful purposes.
"I think that we should proceed and through diplomacy, make sure that we get maximum amount of inspections and verification and insight to the program to make it next to impossible for the Iranians to diverge anything that they're doing toward a military direction. And by that, also ensure that we limit the amount of enrichment that they're doing.
"I think that remains a possibility, but if we continue to waste time by just going forward with sanctions, unfortunately, that opportunity may also be lost."
Satisfied? I am.
On who's fault the current lack of US-Iran diplomacy is:
"... The Iranians have in no way, in my view, been particularly helpful when it comes to diplomacy, for various reasons, and it is not an uncommon thing. In every negotiation at some point, one of the parties, including the United States, will, for tactical reasons, try to waste some time.
"That's always the case, and we shouldn't be surprised by that. But the thing is if we want to succeed with this, we have to go in with the level of political will necessary to sustain diplomacy for the amount of time that it usually takes. And in a negotiation like this, it usually takes more than four years to actually get to a final settlement.
"That's the case when the United States negotiated with Libya, for instance. But if we are in a situation in which we believe that it is actually politically easier, less costly, to send off young American women and men off to war than it is to send our diplomats to go and negotiate, then I think we're faced with a much, much greater problem than the nuclear issue of Iran, per se."
Fair enough.
On what the real effects of sanctions are and why they aren't working:
"... the Iranian government is extremely unpopular as it is. I mean, we all saw what happened in 2009, when they stole an election, and there was massive human rights abuses taking places in front - the entire world could see what the regime was up to.
"But the problem with the current sanctions is that they're putting a lot of pressure on the economy as a whole, and the government itself usually has far better tools to be able to circumvent the sanctions and shift the cost of these sanctions and this pressure onto the population, and that has now taken place extensively, particularly when it comes to these financial sanctions that the Obama administration and the Bush administration also pursued.
"It's not really differentiating between an activity undertaken by the revolutionary guard or an activity taking place by an ordinary citizen. So everyone is being hit by it. And it's not led to the type of situation in which people will say oh, we have to rise up against the regime because these sanctions are so difficult. On the contrary, the effect that you're starting to see is that people are saying you all know, the entire world know that we're not happy with this government, so why are you putting pressure on the people? You should be putting pressure on the regime. Instead, the people are being punished, and now you're starting to increasingly see that they're starting to vent some of their frustrations towards the United States and not just towards the regime."
Is everyone Sheerfahm on Trita now? Will all the conspiracy theories about him stop? In my opinion no, mostly because of the suit and hairstyle. But quotes are quotes, and facts is facts, and what people say when asked difficult questions in a public, media amplified forum is telling.
Am I satisfied with NIAC's existing policy, mission, goal, objective, or pattern of ONLY talking to US politicians about effecting change in Iran? Of course not. It still baffles me, and doesn't make the slightest sense why you would not engage Iran, as directly, and more importantly as politely and within the bounds of shall we call it, "Lobbying", as you so easily and passionately do with the US.
I do not for the life of me understand why NIAC won't fax the same letters, email the same petitioned emails, and craft the same form letters for us to sign, and send them to the GODDAMNED GOVERNMENT OF IRAN AT THE SAME TIME!!!
To me there are 2 brats. 2 culprits. Certainly, it can be argued that historically at least, the US is one of them. But to pretend that Iran does not exist in the discussion, and that bi-lateral dialogue by NIAC is not possible is like novocaine. It makes me drool and mumble.
Funny enough though, talking to both sides? It's the very kind of diplomacy that you advocate in every 3rd sentence of your books, and speeches, and interviews for CHRISSAKES!!!
Again, I call for NIAC to shift gears in to 3rd please. Enough "Neem-Kelatching". You don't have to take it to 4th gear, but we're over the hill, we've been around the block, and there isn't much we can't handle around the curves. So stop acting like a teenage girl with a learner's permit, and open her up.
Let's see what the old girl can do while we're still breathing.
Oh and, Please.
| Recently by bahmani | Comments | Date |
|---|---|---|
| Argo Reform Yourself! | - | Oct 28, 2012 |
| US Iranians Should Vote Locally, Nationally we're moot. | 9 | Oct 28, 2012 |
| Mirkarimi Win Bittersweet for Iranian-Americans | 5 | Oct 10, 2012 |
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Reply to: MM
by bahmani on Mon Nov 28, 2011 02:40 PM PSTCertainly what you suggest could happen is true. Even likely and statistically probable and possible.
I would even agree we should not even waste time doing it.
IF ANYONE HAD EVER TRIED BEFORE!!!!
To date, no one like NIAC has in the same fashion as they do to the US government every day, EVER tried to talk to the Iranian government the same way.
Can't we even agree to try it just once?
Even though in the US anyone trying to get through to congress or the white House fails time after time, and we ought to be persistent if it failed first time out, right off the bat, but for now, that's all I'm asking.
Just once, same approach as they do to the US. Then we can see what happens. I'm betting "something" happens.
OK, I'll buy the drinks if it doesn't. But you buy dinner if it does!
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
That we would have the
by vildemose on Mon Nov 28, 2011 02:41 PM PSTThat we would have the audacity to use the freedom we are guaranteed here in the US to try and convince our fellow Iranians in Iran to stop bad policies that are only proving to endanger innocent Iranians and ironically as well as the very regime that is trying to hold onto power, yet makes mistake after mistake after mistake?
Is it so impossible and heretical to suggest re-directing a nimble, capable organization like NIAC to point it's loudspeaker in the direction of Iran and get them to reconsider these bad policies?
Are we that Ghaar with Iran that we cannot even attempt to speak to them?
why would anybody including Trita or NIAC et al be against talking to the leadership in Iran through their connections? We don't need to sign a petition. NIAC should at least condemn the recent warmongering of the Sepah or Khamenis moshaver, and their wish for martyrdom...
مشاور عالی خامنهای: ما باید جنگ را آغاز کنیم//iranian.com/main/news/2011/11/26
"It is the chain of communication, not the means of production, that determines a social process."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
Reply to: Anahid Hojjati
by bahmani on Mon Nov 28, 2011 02:32 PM PSTHi, thanks for your compliment, but that's not what I'm after. I am also not interested in that you plain agree with me or not.
To make this an actual productive discussion however, I am DYING to know WHY you don't agree with me and my approach.
Don't worry, don't sugar coat it, I can take it.
It is CRITICAL though to move this forward, that anyone who responds with a dissenting opinion, does so with an alternative offer that we (including me) can all consider instead.
Merely stating you disagree without a reasoned explanation doesn't count for shit, and is a waste of a response, and above all, unfortunately I resent that the most.
Care to restate your reasons for your disagreement with my approach or ideas? Make sure you back it up, and be very ready and prepared for any holes in your logic to be poked at, back.
Pretty-Please? :)
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
Reply to: Bavafa
by bahmani on Mon Nov 28, 2011 02:22 PM PSTI have never bashed anything and everything about NIAC. I disagree with their one sided conversation with just the US and would like them to talk the same way they talk to the US, with Iran.
The funny thing is, deep down, I think NIAC would like to do this too!
I'm just saying go for it. Let's see what happens. No one really knows how Iran will react.
I have been critical of NIAC's single dimension approach and unfortunately for us all, give the increase not decrease in sanctions, the results are in my argument's favor. So far.
AND Iran has not budged on a single one of it's many inflammatory issues.
Imagine if Iran calmed down a bit, as a result of NIAC's lobbying them for a change. Don't you think the US would calm down too?
My point is this, to get everyone to calm down, and avoid what is looking more and more like a certain path to war or at minimum a first strike by someone, we/NIAC need to be talking to both sides and "lobbying" both sides.
Not just the easier side.
Granted talking to Iran will be difficult at first, but NIAC has shown resiliency, respect and practical patience lobbying the US, so I am confident they will also have the same approach and maturity when dealing with Iran in the same manner.
I can't believe this is such a wacko idea to some of you?
That we would have the audacity to use the freedom we are guaranteed here in the US to try and convince our fellow Iranians in Iran to stop bad policies that are only proving to endanger innocent Iranians and ironically as well as the very regime that is trying to hold onto power, yet makes mistake after mistake after mistake?
Is it so impossible and heretical to suggest re-directing a nimble, capable organization like NIAC to point it's loudspeaker in the direction of Iran and get them to reconsider these bad policies?
Are we that Ghaar with Iran that we cannot even attempt to speak to them?
I hope not, because if we are that pissed off that we can't talk, then there is nothing more to talk about, and the US might as well start the bombing now.
Because I think you are suggesting that it is entirely and completely pointless to ever talk to Iran.
Is that really the way you feel?
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
I don't share some of Bahmani's ideas or even approach
by Anahid Hojjati on Mon Nov 28, 2011 02:22 PM PSTBut there is no denying that he has a gift for writing.
Reply to: vildemose
by bahmani on Mon Nov 28, 2011 01:59 PM PSTYour bet that Iran will eventually implode under the weight of corruption, has been one that many too afraid to take a stand have been betting for the past 32 years.
Either:
You are right, and we are on the verge of Iran imploding any minute now.
Or, You are wrong and Iran ain't going anywhere.
Or, You are right, but it will take another 32 years or longer or shorter for Iran to run out of quick fixes and bandaids and temporary solutions using more and more oppression and suppression and violence and torture to hold onto the power you are suggesting it will eventually cede.
I'm not in agreement with that bet.
I would rather we shift away from the unproven and the cop out of waiting for fickle fate and destiny as our ultimate solution and salvation, and like any other people that have gained their own freedom by their own hands, switch to determination, logic, and yes, pragmatic negotiation.
Hameen!
I simply fail to see how NIAC's strategy of not talking to Iran, and only talking to the US, who typically only has the one form of "ultimate solution" parked on it's military bases, gets us there from here.
Keep in mind, that were Iran to back down an inch from it's current clearly threatening stances, what the US and the rest of the world would do in response.
Especially if it turns out that all of this posturing is really about money.
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
follow up on Ramin J. (or, is it myself?)
by MM on Mon Nov 28, 2011 12:15 PM PSTThe second problem is the amount of influence that a petitioner can have on a government. The IRI folks look up for their daily emails/phone calls, from up the bureaucray chain, to wash their !#$%ing behinds. Even if the real names were used to send to an IRI organization, the petitions would be dumped in trash after scanning the names of the petitioners.
Reply to Long Live Iran
by bahmani on Mon Nov 28, 2011 11:34 AM PSTThe one time I write an overwhelmingly glowing review and opinion of Trita's positions, statements, and opinions, and this is what you jump on?
Libel does not apply to a public person. We need to stop threatening each other with this. Part of being a democratic free people is being able to give and more importantly receive reasonable criticism. Before we are even free, here you are advocating censorship?
If by BOLDING your comment back to me you think you are being serious or threatening or ominous, get over yourself and stop the bullshit already. If you accidentally clicked on the bolding, then turn it off, it's annoying.
The minute you go on any national broadcast, or are the head of a public group like NIAC you are a public person. So Trita is fair game for anyone to comment or offer an editorial opinion on. If you think I was being negative to Trita in this piece, take off your conspiracy glasses and read it again. I know Trita personally and have had this conversation with him live for real. Including my opinion about his choice of suit and hairstyle.
We are merely disagreeing on tactics and strategy. As you can read above, I love (not in a romantic way, ... well maybe... if I was drunk...) Trita personally and think he is great and more than talented to do the job he has chosen. I have absolutely never had any problem with Trita personally, intellectually, or otherwise. I'm actually one of the first to have recognized Trita and NIAC years ago when they first started out. Yes, I am that old.
I merely feel (strongly) that NIAC should speak to Iran EXACTLY in the same way it speaks to the US government.
So stop being such an obvious pussy and weak and scared of critique, and get yourself a thicker skin or spine or backbone and try and explain back to me why YOU think I'm wrong. Because when it isn't working, and Iran-US relations are getting worse and worse and worse, suggesting that NIAC is right and no one should dare to question NIAC's strategy in all of this doesn't make you look too smart.
Again, stop blindly defending NIAC's position for one minute and YOU, or whoever Long Live Iran is, tell me to my face, why you think that NIAC's strategy is working, and BETTER YET tell me why YOU think my suggestion that NIAC should start speaking directly to the Iranian government too, is a bad idea and won't work. I'd LOVE to hear your explanation.
Don't worry, if you can't help yourself and find it necessary to insult me in the process, I won't consider it Libel. I will consider it lovely free speech by a lovely free Iranian and welcome it with a smile. And a grin.
And possibly an appropriate response of my own. ;)
Ready? Set? Go!
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
Reply to Ramin J:
by bahmani on Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:47 AM PSTI have never given my name or address to many of NIAC's letters.
If NIAC asked me to, I would most certainly give my name and address to ANY letter they care for me to sign and send to Iran.
The reason? The government of Iran already has it. And what else do we have left to lose?
Maybe if we all stopped being afraid, and stood up to oppressive power, it and not us would back down and reconsider the proposition.
To read more bahmani posts visit: //brucebahmani.blogspot.com/
Destroying others characters is called Libel!
by long live Iran on Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:23 AM PSTIs not it better to improve your character instead of destroying others` character? Do you know what the author has writen here is called Libel and legally considers as tort. I do not know why the author with such a picky way describing Trita? I know none of them. But reading this text gave me the idea that the author has a personal problem with Trita and insteat of posing the problem with him just trying to destroy Trita`s character in childish way in his absent. I feel pitty for the author.
Trita is WRONG
by hass on Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:15 AM PSTSorry, there's zero evidence that the elections were "stolen" (there would be no need for the regime to "steal" elections when Mousavi has himself a regime-insider who was pre-approved to run for office by the same regime) and Iran's nuclear program continues to be massively popular. Furthermore, Iran has already made signficant concessions and compromise offers - including suspending enrichment entirely for 3 years - and the US has been the side that has ignored all potential diplomatic resolusions. So, trita is wrong on those counts, to name a few.
Too much
by MRX1 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:07 AM PSTwaste of time and enegy for no reason. People who make real decissions in U.S do not care what Trita or others like him think and say.
If you are interested in satire and mockery…
by Bavafa on Mon Nov 28, 2011 09:28 AM PSTYou will find it here, so read on!!!!
If you are interested in Iran-America affairs, the whole interview is still on the net and a link was posted in the news section. You can listen to it in entirely and make your own judgment.
The obsessions of Mr. Bahmani, along with a few others dedicated to bashing anything and everything about NIAC only has lost any meaningful disagreement they may have with NIAC/Titra. Only if they would have dedicated/redirected some of their anger towards the regime in Iran, they may have had gained a bit credibility.
Now keep on with the one track mind
'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory
Mehrdad
Old comment but worth
by vildemose on Mon Nov 28, 2011 08:43 AM PSTOld comment but worth reposting:
"This article lacks substance...by Parthian on Tue Oct 28, 2008 05:21 PM PDT
The article, along with all the supportive commentaries it has received lack substance. It is become a tactic to frame any issues (especially those benefiting the regime) as something that will ultimately benefit the Iranian people, and might even led to regime change. This is an absurd assertion at best.
Fallacy 1 (Economic appeal): Free market forces will eventually open up the political process. This argument is wrong at many levels. First, let' assume there is free market in Iran; there is never been a scientific correlation made between free market and political reform. Indeed, take a look at China, there was a lot of hope that economic progress would lead to a more democratic China. Not only that has not happened, but Olympic organizers this past year admitted that in some instances HR situation is been getting worse. Why? Because countries such as China, and Iran who provide the world with an important commodity (Labor, and Oil respectively) even in free market are shielded from political forces that may accompany the free market forces.
Now, let's look at the alternative which is the reality in Iran, there is no free market in Iran, but it might eventually come as a result of lifting the sanctcions. Iran has been under sanction for the past 30 years to some extent, although the extent of these sanctions have been variable. In the last 30 years, the economic situation has consistenly deteriorated, and although, several privatization plans were drawn up, none of the governments(reformers, conservatives) have truly and genuinely implemented these plans. Deep down IR knows that free market would mean their down fall, understanding this important fact, they will not allow the free market to take hold. Just as democracy is only practiced among the oligarchy, free market is only practiced at that level, and not below. IR wants a dependent population, that is how governments seize power, and create influence. We don't need the lifting of sanctions to have internal free market.
Fallacy 2: Sanctions only hurt ordinary, and poor Iranians (emotional appeal). None sense. All the important economic leverages are in the hands of the oligarchy. There is absolutely no evidence that sanctions would open up more opportunities for the ordinary poor Iranians. Here is a good example: With Oil revenues above 100 billion dollars annually, some 35 billion dollars has gone missing (according to IR's own accounting). Even cash (the simplest of economic tools) has not trickled down. Iranians are poorer today than they were before the rapid rise of oil prices. As a matter of fact, Oligarchy has stolen more, invested more abroad i.e. in South Africa. What makes these folks so sure that lifting of sanctions wouldd somehow be allowed to trickle down to the most needy in Iran? If you believe in this, you have to believe in Reaganomics theory of trickle down. Absolutely nonsense!
Fallacy 3: sanctions give the regime excuse to blame foreigners (political appeal). So what people say here is that Iranian people are too stupid to recognize the real root cause of their problems. They know the system is rotten, the government is rotten, and run by a bunch of thieves, yet they would blame the U.S for their misery. I can see American goods being priced out of the market because of sanctions, how about the execution of teenagers? What does that have to do with sanctions? If Iranian people are too stupid to recognize the real root cause of their problems, American foreign policy should not change to correct that. American foreign policy, including its economic leverage is there to advance American interest, not to educate the Iranian masses. "
//iranian.com/main/2008/remove-sanctions"It is the chain of communication, not the means of production, that determines a social process."-- Robert Anton Wilson
Very Interesting
by JahanKhalili on Mon Nov 28, 2011 08:27 AM PSTWhy doesn't anyone lobby the Iranian government?
There were people doing that in the beginning, right after the revolution, when Jebhe Meli, Nehzateh Azadi and even Hezbeh Tudeh enjoyed at least permission to exist and to send letters to the parliament.
They would have meetings, sitting and discussing events. It was somewhat pitiful, because they had the illusion that they were somebody and were actually making a difference.
They were very self-important, those intellectuals.
Then they all got swept aside as if they never existed.
Right?
Who cares whether he makes
by vildemose on Mon Nov 28, 2011 08:47 AM PSTWho cares whether he makes sense or not.. He is irrelevant and the US adminstration couldn't care less what NIAC says or does...
In fact, he does not make any sense given the facts on the ground. Grand bargain is no longer on the table...with the militarization of IRI. Even Khameni's position is unstable (//iranian.com/main/news/2011/11/27-6)
given the many fissures in the government. The government of Iran is unstable and the US has the upper hand. No need to give IRI a grand bargain anymore.
"It is the chain of communication, not the means of production, that determines a social process."
-- Robert Anton Wilson
.... be the change you want to see...
by Mohammad Ala on Mon Nov 28, 2011 08:10 AM PSTMost Iranians know very little about their history. Trita is an old Persian name. No matter who we are, will be in life; we are nobody without our roots…. Imagine a tree without its roots… never look down at people who look different . To me appearance (dress and hair) has never been important.
It is easy to criticize someone… as the saying goes… be the change you want to see. I do not remember who said the following, but never forget the land (khaak) that brought you to life and the people who contributed to your growth.
Ajab nist az khaak agar gol shekoft
Ke chandin gol-andaam dar khaak khoft
(Don't be amazed if flowers grow out of the soil
Since there are so many flowers buried under the soil)
About 2009
by Anahid Hojjati on Mon Nov 28, 2011 07:31 AM PST"...I think the least bad option is to actually give diplomacy a real chance. The diplomacy that was pursued by the Obama administration in 2009, I think, was genuine, but it was very limited, and Obama administration did not have the patience and stamina to stick with it, partly because there was so much pressure, both from Saudi Arabia, from Israel and from Congress, to abandon diplomacy before it even had had a chance to show any results."
This is the most troublesome quote since it goes against NIAC actions itself. I distinctly remember NIAC writing a letter in summer of 2009 and asking Obama not to engage in negotiations with Iran because of the elections and its aftermath. Now Trita is saying that Obama did not have patience to stick with diplomacy in 2009. Thi sis really weird and warrants an explanation by Trita for this inconsistency and the fact that Trita is now criticizing Obama for what he advised him to do in 2009.
well I have met him too
by Fesenjoon2 on Mon Nov 28, 2011 06:01 AM PSTand I found him to be an opportunist.
Trita
by BacheShirazi on Mon Nov 28, 2011 05:17 AM PSTTrita is honestly one of the ugliest names I have ever heard of in my life
simple answer
by Ramin J on Mon Nov 28, 2011 05:01 AM PSTIn 2009, I asked a friend of mine who is a NIAC member why there wasnt a letter campaign targetting Khamenei requesting a revote.
My friend gave a very simple answer: He had been told by a NIAC officer that for letter campaigns to be effective, they must be signed by a real person with a real address. Now, in the midts of the killings in Tehran, how many Iranians do you think would register their views, giving the regime their full name and address????
Yes, that's right: EXTREMELY FEW!
i had never thought of that, but when he explained it to me, it made perfect sense. In fact, when I went and protested outside of the Iranian embassy in London, most of us covered our faces. Forget about giving the embassy personell our full names! It's not because I was afraid what the regime would do to me - nothing - but what it could do to my family in Iran.
So Bahmani, the problem may not be with NIAC not wanting to, the problem may be with ordinary iranians in large numbers not DARING to.
On the hair, I am with you. On the suit as well. Surprised you didn't knoch his goatee though.