Have We Already Lost Iran?
24-May-2009 (8 comments)

But this ignores the real reason Iranian leaders have not responded to the new president more enthusiastically: the Obama administration has done nothing to cancel or repudiate an ostensibly covert but well-publicized program, begun in President George W. Bush’s second term, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to destabilize the Islamic Republic. Under these circumstances, the Iranian government — regardless of who wins the presidential elections on June 12 — will continue to suspect that American intentions toward the Islamic Republic remain, ultimately, hostile.

recommended by Q



Ostaad, Re: Dennis Ross

by Q on

I wish I could be as optimistic as you about the 'Whitehouse' running the show. But who? Axelrod and Emmanuel?

At some point, it doesn't matter what Obama wants, somebody has to carry out his wishes and if that person isn't on board, it won't happen.



by Q on

I don't know. I edited this morning and tried to get some more text into the quote box. I also sent emails to the site asking for it to be featured. But it has not been.


how did that happen?

by IRANdokht on

You posted this last night right in between Niloufar's posts and the whole post and comments were moved up in the page! 

party-bazi shod? :o)



I wouldn't worry about Dennis a bit...

by Ostaad on

The whole Iran project is run from the WH. This is Obama's baby because "delivering Iran" will practically guarantee Obama's re-election. Dennis Ross at the State is busy doing what he is hired to do, which is traveling to Arab capitals to reassure them the US will not ignore their "concerns" about Iran. The news leak of Vali Nasr's trip to Iran reveals some solid indications about who's working with Obama on this project. I think the chain-of-command regarding the Iranthing goes from Obama to Jones, Holbrooke and Nasr.

Let Dennis do his assigned song and dance.



by IRANdokht on

what is hard about the Iran problem is not periodic inflammatory statements from President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or episodes like Ms. Saberi’s detention. What is really hard is that getting America’s Iran policy “right” would require a president to take positions that some allies and domestic constituencies won’t like.

That was a great article with a realistic analysis. It just tells it like it is, the background, current events and the conclusion are all done well. Great read.

Thanks Q



iraj khan

A realist's approach to Iran

by iraj khan on

This article has many good points but the conclusion is probably the boldest that I've ever seen published in New York Times in regard to Iran. It indicates:

  "To fix our Iran policy, the president would have to commit not to use force to change the borders or the form of government of the Islamic Republic. He would also have to accept that Iran will continue enriching uranium, and that the only realistic potential resolution to the nuclear issue would leave Iran in effect like Japan — a nation with an increasingly sophisticated nuclear fuel-cycle program that is carefully safeguarded to manage proliferation risks. Additionally, the president would have to accept that Iran’s relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah will continue, and be willing to work with Tehran to integrate these groups into lasting settlements of the Middle East’s core political conflicts."

Good reading, thanks for the link.

Niloufar Parsi


by Niloufar Parsi on

the underlying theme is that the US needs Iran. glad to see the liberal press waking up at last.



On Dennis Ross' idea of "diplomacy"

by Q on

from the article:
In conversations with Mr. Ross before Mr. Obama’s election, we asked him if he really believed that engage-with-pressure would bring concessions from Iran. He forthrightly acknowledged that this was unlikely. Why, then, was he advocating a diplomatic course that, in his judgment, would probably fail? Because, he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past “diplomacy” would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.

Iranian officials are fully aware of Mr. Ross’s views — and are increasingly suspicious that he is determined that the Obama administration make, as one senior Iranian diplomat said to us, “an offer we can’t accept,” simply to gain international support for coercive action.