Diplomacy for show vs Diplomacy for real


Share/Save/Bookmark

Diplomacy for show vs Diplomacy for real
by Esfand Aashena
24-Feb-2012
 

This morning I was reading this article on Daily Beast that there may be behind the scenes negotiations about a compromise to avert this latest Iranian crisis.  I say latest because since 1979 there has ALWAYS been a crisis about Iran!  Nonstop!  I've spent all my adult life living with one Iranian crisis after another!

Anyway, in the article The Iran-Washington Conspiracy? they are talking about a possible breakthrough that Iran would agree to keep the enrichment to 5%, far below the weapon's grade enrichment, agree to stringent IAEA inspections and in return US and Europeans would agree to lift the sanctions and agree to security guarantees.

So I thought is this possible, will they agree to it?  Then I recalled the astute observations of our i.com political experts that will quickly say they tried this in 2009 with Obama's initiative and the Islamic Republic backed out.  So that's it?  back to square one?  What about the diplomacy?  While we are beating each other on the head for the past few weeks they were trying to find common ground afterall.

If diplomacy is just for show then why bother.  I say this considering the Islamic Republic, US and the Europeans.  Since Iran backed out in 2009 shouldn't US and Europe stop the diplomacy and instead prepare for war and let everyone know about it?  Why are they negotiating again.

The fact of the matter is that some groups in Iran, US and Europe will want war and no negotiations no matter what.  In my opinion we shouldn't concern ourselves with them.  Here in this piece of political analysis Davis Ingatius of Washington Post under his opinion Getting Iran to back down on its nuclear program is providing "two clear instances when Iran has backed down".  One was the shooting of Iranian airliner (though he said unintended) which led to Khomeini accepting the ceasefire and the second one in 2003 after the invasion of Iraq.  He does not say that first case was after 8 years of war and second one ended in disaster for US and success for Iran.

I'm talking to average Iranians and Americans who do not want war and won't take no for an answer.  Average people even with a lot of political knowledge and experience don't know what's going on behind the scenes.  It's not a disaster to struck a deal with Islamic Republic to avert war.  Striking Iranian nuclear sites will achieve nothing.  Not even turning the clock back for a few years when they can buy nukes on the black market.  It will not defeat the Islamic Republic.  Iran has a population of 70 million and a war will neither unite millions against the regime nor succeed with clear objectives.

Even if Islamic Republic says no to these proposals we still have to try and try again.  We are not in positions of power and classified intelligence to know about Iran's nuclear capabilities.  Another words we don't know jack shit and what we know are based on what media can find out or what the officials claim.  Diplomacy should be for real and not for show.  Those of you who say we should tell this to Islamic Republic, ok Islamic Republic do you hear me?  

Photo caption: apparent day trip by students in Ramsar, a Caspian sea city.


Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Esfand Aashena
 
Esfand Aashena

I don't see the option of enrichment being on the table.

by Esfand Aashena on

The option of euranium enrichment is not on the table, anymore.  The security council resolution and the ensuing sanctions demand Iran to stop the enrichment.

The only time I remember any high US official "allow" or agree that Iran has the right to enrichment was W himself when he once said "apparently every country has the right to enrichment based on international laws."

The point of this blog is diplomacy and what we don't see which is often said behind the scenes yet we"re preoccupied with what is on the surface and rhetoric.

I don't think with a diplomatic agreement and resolution, Islamic Republic will "turn" to more human rights abuses.  They've always been against human rights and all Iranians know it and have been living with it since inception.  If anything the nuke issue (excuse) will be off the table so they can concentrate on other issues, Iranian people I mean.

Thank you everyone for reading and commenting. 

Everything is sacred


MM

EA

by MM on

The general opinion of experts is that IRI has made the decision to acquire the know-how but they have not made the decision to actually build a nuke, regardlesss of how much IRI stockpiles the 5% fuel anywhere. Never mind the 20% stuff that was denied to the Iranians for the treatment of cancer.

As you pointed out, the west intends to negotiate on the nuclear issue. Now, if the negotiations are successful, then IRI will turn inward and really chock out any calls for freedom with impunity. But, if human rights are part of the negotiations, then Iranians may breath easier and better able to take care of this unjust regime. 

Unfortunately, folks here have their own talking points and unable to reason with evidence. Sometimes I think that many here are even closet-pro-war and will  argue pointlessly. That is why I don't get involved in these mudslinging episode too much anymore.  But, thanks for your blog and your reasonable answers.


Bavafa

I don’t know if I like the blog better….

by Bavafa on

Or the ensuing responses by EA!!!

But I do echo the sentiments and view expressed in this blog.  So, thank you very much for it and I will look forward to more stimulating conversation on the topic here.  Hope more join the conversation and hope it is kept civil and relevant to the topic.

 

'Hambastegi' is the main key to victory 

Mehrdad


vildemose

 EA: What I post as news

by vildemose on

 EA: What I post as news on a thread does not mean that I agree or disagree with the article. My only intention is to furtehr our understing of the situation from all angles.

You don't really know what you are talking about if you think I am pro-war and I don't feel a need to explain myself to you.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


Esfand Aashena

Vildemose I've seen those articles and interviews.

by Esfand Aashena on

You should formulate your own conclusions about the subjects at hand.  Anyway, things are not as they seem and a lot we don't know about.  I don't want any strikes in Iran no matter where.  Whether it is people's lives who are lost or buildings that are destroyed they are Iranian assets.

I don't want to build an imaginery Iran out of the ashes of the old one.  Islamic Republic is our own problem and the more people are educated and better off the more their expectations and the sooner Islamic Republic's demise.

This weekend an Iranian movie is up for 2 Oscars.  That should say something about Iran and Iranian lives and how a movie ends up as an Oscar nominee under the watchful eyes of the Islamic Republic.   

Everything is sacred


Esfand Aashena

Ari jaan Ignatius is talking about the past.

by Esfand Aashena on

He is not learning from past and how we've gotten here. Last week an Iranian general said they're thinking about pre-emptive strikes themselves!  War rhetoric is meaningless now that we've seen what has happened in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel's so called 40 days war (or was it 60 days or something) in Lebanon with Hizbullah.

Islamic Republic's brinksmanship that he mentions was in the past and under different circumstances.  He is recycling the arguments that were used in the past for those who have no knowledge of those times and the details.  His audience are those who are desparately looking for something to defeat Iran with, no matter how small, no matter how trivial. 

Everything is sacred


Esfand Aashena

Faramarz jaan do you not treat your Waiter properly?!

by Esfand Aashena on

You know what they say, the way one treats a waiter is the way to find out about that person!  So you go to a restaurant and ask them to cook something outside the menu like you like it?  Order chicken marsala but add beef estrogonof to it on the side with a hint of lemon grass?!

The solution that I am ruling out is war.  I say it with conviction and not sweep it under the rug or mix it with human rights or Islam and such.

The reason US or Europe have not engaged Iran is because they have already had their ass kicked in Iraq and Afghanistan and realized they had taken more than they can chew.  Both Iraq and Afghanistan are now Iran's allies.  So if Iraq or Afghanistan was hard Iran is 3 times as hard.

So you ask the cops to look into your neighbor's garage and then tell you they can't give you more detailed information.  What do you do?  Get into a fist fight with your neighbor?

The sanctions have worked but they cheapen it when they talk about war or "surgical strikes" and crap like that.  The more people think these "threats" are good and should be on the table the further we get from finding a solution. 

BTW you don't offer any solution either.  As W said in his debate with Kerry, which I thought was the highlight of that debate, a litany of complaints is not a solution.

Everything is sacred


Ari Siletz

Interesting read.

by Ari Siletz on

Ignatius' analysis regardig IRI brinksmanship makes sense, but it's hard to maintain a believable war rhetoric without risking an actual war. As a specific example of this dynamic we see Republican candidtates using the war rhetoric to get nominated. As a result the public will want to go to war, and politicians will lose control--regardless of what they may have cooked up behind the scenes that we don't know about.  


vildemose

 EA: You might want to

by vildemose on

 EA: You might want to  Read this article:

 http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/blog/2199

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


Faramarz

Esfand Jaan

by Faramarz on

My problem with blogs like yours is that you have already narrowed the choices or the solutions to a binary set, it is either this or that, and then you build a case accordingly. In a way it is like going to a restaurant, and tell someone that they can choose anything as long as it is on the menu. I don’t see it like that.

The options regarding Iran is not to either let the Regime have the bomb or bomb the Regime. But let me start out by saying that we have passed the point of arguing about enrichment, to allow it or not to allow it. The folks in Iran have already figured out how to build centrifuges and how to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. That you cannot stop. The knowledge and know-how is there and you cannot bomb the knowledge.

But when they stockpile uranium way beyond their needs for one nuclear reactor in Bushehr that is partially operational and a small reactor in Tehran for medical and research purposes, you have to question their motives. That’s why the inspectors want to go to Parchin and check things out.

I understand that they have a right to enrichment, the same way you and I have the right to own AK-47’s in this country. But if I see my neighbor filling his garage with guns and ammunitions to the roof, I will call the police and have them come and take a look.

It is clear, at least to me that the Regime is trying to get to the point from the knowledge and the resource standpoint that it has everything lined up to make nuclear bombs in short order, if it decides to do so. And the rest of the world has a problem with that. So we are back to what the options are.

The more I read and the more I listen to people, it looks like that US, Israel and the west, for the time-being, have settled on stiff sanctions to weaken the Regime, use covert actions as in Stutnex and sabotage, use drones and other means to gather intelligence and finally remove Assad and other Regime allies to completely put the Regime in a box.

Now, if somewhere in there the Iranians rise up, so much the better, if not, well we just keep trying. I don’t see a negotiated way out of this at this point.


Esfand Aashena

Ridiculing Islamic Republic is easy and a sport!

by Esfand Aashena on

In between all the justified ridicules, laughters and sadness we have to find room to see the realities that drives the decisions of Iran, US and Europe, not to mention Russia and China.

When US attacked Iraq it was more than 10 years after Persian Gulf War I, which destroyed the Iraqi military and 10 years of round the clock US Air Force sorties and watch on the Iraqi airspace under the no-fly zone agreement.

So for more than 10 years they measured every square inch of Iraq and then they attacked an already defeated Iraqi military and in the end they left with not only no winners but plenty of losers and losses.

So in contrast Iran is no picnic and if it was as easy as Iraq looked in 2003 or Afghanistan earlier, they'd have done it by now.  Ten times over.  

Yitazk Rabin the assasinated Israeli PM once said; You don't make peace with your friends you make peace with your enemies.

Everything is sacred


Abarmard

Thanks Esfand

by Abarmard on

Good points here. I hope that they reach a compromise. I read the samething in Tabnak:

http://www.tabnak.ir/fa/news/228684


vildemose

Iran wants more U.N.

by vildemose on


vildemose

US Intelligence: Iran Not

by vildemose on

US Intelligence: Iran Not Making Bomb 16 US agencies agree that Iran stopped bomb program in 2003

http://www.newser.com/story/140396/us-intelligence-iran-not-making-bomb.html?utm_source=part&utm_medium=inbox&utm_campaign=newser 

 A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


FACEBOOK