DIALOGUE
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Time to talk
25-Apr-2008
NIAC: Washington DC - During a Senate hearing on the State Department’s 2009 budget, Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) engaged in a frank exchange with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice over US policy on Iran. In his address to Rice during the hearing, which was held by the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs, Specter called for bilateral talks with Iran without preconditions>>>
***
Senator Arlen Specter's Prepared Remarks, U.S Senate Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information Federal Services and International Security, April 24, 2008
"If you want to make peace, you don’t talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.” -- Moshe Dayan
Chairman Carper, Senator Coleman, members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to make remarks before you today on U.S. policy toward Iran. I am very pleased to be joined by my distinguished colleague from California, Senator Feinstein.
The world is anxiously watching the US and Iran as so many of the issues confronting the international community and our citizenries are currently held captive by our inability to work together to resolve them.
Terrorism, military nuclear capabilities, energy, Iraq, and the Israeli-Palestinian dilemma are all major issues confronting the US and the world. All of these challenges are intrinsically linked with Iran and none can be sufficiently addressed or resolved without an appreciation for Iran’s role in each.
This realization was confirmed by the Washington Post’s Michael Hirsh on July 1, 2007, following his discussion with Mohsen Rezai, Secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council and the former commander of the Revolutionary Guards. Hirsh stated that Rezai, “pointed out that his is the only country [Iran] that can help Washington control Shiite militias in Iraq, slow the Taliban resurgence in Afghanistan and tame Hezbollah’s still-dangerous presence in Lebanon all at once. ‘If America pursues a different approach than confronting Iran, our dealings will change fundamentally.’”
I believe that these challenges may have a better opportunity of being resolved with a rapprochement between the United States and Iran. Three decades of silence, broken only by a few whispers, which has categorized US-Iranian relations has not benefited either of our nations.
I am hopeful that the recent participation by both the US and Iran in international discussions to address stability and security in Iraq represents a positive step towards a thawing in the tensions between our countries.
However, the United States should be willing to negotiate directly with Iran. Success in diffusing the threat Iran poses will require multilateral assistance from other world powers, but our willingness to treat countries like Iran with respect could go a long way in disarming those nations militarily and diplomatically.
Undertaking this venture will not be easy, but in the words of Ambassador L. Bruce Laingen, the senior US official held hostage in Tehran for 444 days, “Diplomats should talk, even with our foes. That’s what we do. It doesn’t make sense for us not to talk to the Iranians. I’m not saying that I would confidently predict a breakthrough, but there must be some sort of dialogue.”
My Senate assignments on the Intelligence Committee and Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations have provided me the opportunity to meet with Syrian President Hafiz al-Asad, Palestinian Chairman Yasser Arafat, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, Cuban President Fidel Castro, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and others.
Those meeting have shown me that people are people, even at the highest levels of government. They are interested in a candid dialogue. They accept differences and disagreements as long as the tone is courteous. Regrettably, the worldwide “ugly Americans” reputation is encouraged, in my opinion, by our unwillingness to at least meet and talk one on one without preconditions.
Sun-Tzu’s advice to “keep your friends close and your enemies closer” is a good admonition to keep in mind as we approach our relationships in the world. Admittedly, it is difficult to accord respect and dignity to countries such as Iran, whom we have branded as part of the “axis of evil.” It is important to note, however, that President Ronald Reagan did just that when he invited Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev to a dialogue weeks after labeling the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire.”
During the Cold War, there was no greater threat to the US and our interests abroad than the Soviet Union. Today, in the words of Secretary Rice, “Iran constitutes the single most important, single-country challenge to... US interests in the Middle East and to the kind of Middle East that we want to see."
In his November 21, 1985 address before Congress following the US-Soviet Geneva Summit, President Reagan highlighted the importance of dialogue with the then-greatest threat to the US: "As you can see, our talks were wide ranging. And let me at this point tell you what we agreed upon and what we didn't. We remain far apart on a number of issues, as had to be expected. However, we reached agreement on a number of matters, and as I mentioned, we agreed to continue meeting, and this is important and very good. There's always room for movement, action, and progress when people are talking to each other instead of about each other."
This Administration has labeled Iran as part of the “axis of evil.” History has shown it is possible to engage in tough dialogue and, at the same time, work toward negotiations, no matter how difficult the adversary may be.
Perhaps irrelevant, my first assignment as assistant district attorney in Philadelphia was interviewing inmates for commutation of sentences to life imprisonment from death in the electric chair for first degree murder. That experience taught me that you can have a meaningful dialogue with anyone.
There is no doubt that Iran has been trying to flex its muscles since 1979 when the shah was deposed. Iran is a proud nation with a rich history. In asserting its right not to be restrained in developing nuclear technology, Iran seeks to be a world power, and its leaders think that status and respect can be achieved by becoming a nuclear power. A good starting point for US-Iran relations would be to treat them as equals for the purpose of negotiations. It does not give them the same status as being a nuclear power, but it could be a good step forward if mighty America would treat them with respect while negotiating.
My Efforts To Engage Iran
I have tried to visit Iran since the Iran-Iraq War ended in 1988. I have not yet succeeded. In lieu of traveling to Tehran, I have made several efforts to reach out to Iranians in hopes of fostering dialogue. I was the only member of Congress to attend the address by former President Khomeini at the National Cathedral. For many years, I have traveled to New York City in an effort to reach out to Iranians such as the former ambassadors to the United Nations in New York, Seyed Mohammed Hadi Nejad Hosseinian, Mohammad Javad Zarif, and Mohammad Khazaee in an effort to foster an exchange of visits by members of Congress to Iran and Iranian parliamentarians to the United States to try to open dialogue between our two countries.
I thought my efforts finally came to fruition in January 2004 when plans were made for US members of Congress to meet with Iranian parliamentarians in Geneva. Unfortunately, Tehran later rescinded the invitation, declaring it was “not on their agenda.”
On May 3, 2007, I spearheaded an effort, with support from Senators Biden, Hagel and Dodd and Representatives Lantos, English, Moran, Gilchrest and Meeks, to establish a parliamentary exchange with Iran. I believe that by opening and maintaining an active dialogue at the Parliamentary level we will preserve the potential to foster understanding and solutions.
On May 15, 2007, the Associated Press reported that “Iranian deputies were gathering signatures to try and form an Iranian-US friendship committee in parliament.” According to the AP, Darioush Ghanbari, one of the ten members who has reportedly signed the document, said Iranian parliamentarians were seeking to reduce tensions with American and that “In the absence of formal diplomatic relations, we seek to establish a parliamentary relationship with the US Congress and fill the existing gap of contacts between the two nations.” The AP quoted Ghanbari as saying, “This is our positive response to calls by members of the US Congress to establish contacts with Iranian parliamentarians.”
Last fall I called Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to discuss Iran’s nuclear activities and solicit his views on an exchange of parliamentarians. Following our conversation, he extended an invitation to me to visit him in Vienna to discuss further the issues surrounding Iran's nuclear ambitions.
On January 8, 2008, I met with the Director General in Vienna. He suggested that direct U.S.-Iranian negotiations should begin immediately to resolve the impasse. The U.S. and international community need to understand what the nuclear issue means to Iran with respect to its position in the region and the world, that there needs to be an understanding of the repercussions and that it must be done in a manner that allows all sides to save face.
We discussed Secretary Rice's precondition that the U.S. would only meet with Iran if they halt enrichment. He said there must be middle ground to bring the parties together on this issue. He emphasized that sanctions alone won't resolve the situation and only makes people more hawkish.
On numerous occasions, both on and off the record, I have urged Secretary Rice to undertake bilateral negotiations with Iran. The Administration has indicated they will talk with Iran provided they suspend enrichment activities. On April 9, 2008, I told Secretary Rice, “Frankly, I think it's insulting to go to another person or another country and say, ‘We're not going to talk to you unless you agree to something in advance.’ What we want Iran to do is to stop enriching uranium. That's the object of the talks. How can we insist on their agreeing to the object that we want as a precondition to having the talks?”
2003 – A Grand Opportunity, Neglected
The concept of dialogue between the US and Iran is not unfamiliar to this debate. Both sides have previously taken one step toward the table and one step back time and again. Unfortunately, this tentative shuffle has never amounted to anyone sitting down at the table at the same time.
Perhaps one of the best opportunities to engage in serious dialogue with Iran came during the Spring of 2003. Press reports have suggested the existence of a document that was passed to the United States through the Swiss Ambassador to Iran and later rejected by the Administration. The document laid out issues for the US and Iran to discuss and parameters for dialogue.
According to Michael Hirsh of the Washington Post, “Iranian officials used their regular Swiss intermediary to fax a two-page proposal for comprehensive talks to the State Department, including discussions of a "two-state approach" to the Israeli-Palestinian issue.”
In an April 22, 2007 response to my February 19, 2007 inquiry regarding the 2003 memorandum, Assistant Secretary of State (Legislative Affairs) Jeffrey Bergner stated, “In early May 2003, the State Department met with the Swiss Ambassador to Tehran, Tim Guldimann, who presented an independent proposal he had drafted with Sadeq Kharrazi, then Ambassador of Iran to France and former Deputy Foreign Minister. The State Department reviewed the 2003 communication carefully and discussed it with Ambassador Guldimann, but Department officials were not confident that Iran’s leadership had endorsed the plan. The Department did not at that time, and does not today, characterize the message as a serious offer from the Iranian Government.”
This characterization appears to run contrary to the views held by Secretary Powell, his Chief of Staff Larry Wilkerson, Undersecretary Burns and Flyntt Leverett, a member of the National Security Council under then NSA Rice.
Karen DeYoung, in her 2006 biography of Powell, Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell, confirmed Powell’s interest in dialogue: “Powell also urged a renewed effort to engage Iran, where the ruling ayatollahs were increasingly being challenged by democratic opposition. After secret, indirect talks were initiated with Washington in the early spring of 2003, Tehran sent a message through the Swiss government during the first week in May. Apparently approved by all factions of the divided Iranian regime, it recognized the need to address US concerns on a range of issues—including nuclear weapons, terrorism, and support for a two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In exchange Iran wanted an end to US sanctions and “axis of evil” rhetoric, and an eventual reestablishment of diplomatic relations. But as usual the administration was unable to agree internally on a response. Powell thought the possibility of talks was worth exploring, but the only official US answer was a rebuke to Switzerland… for ‘overstepping’ its mandate by transmitting the message. Any hope of dialogue with Tehran ended with the May 12 explosion of a powerful car bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, that killed thirty-four people, including eight Americans….Powell publicly suggested that the talks might eventually be resumed, but Rumsfeld pressed for a more decisive ‘regime change’ option and insisted that ‘our policy’ was not to deal with Iranian leaders at any level.”
Various reports also indicate that Secretary Powell’s Chief of Staff, Lawrence Wilkerson, took the proposal seriously and thought it was worth pursuing. According to a February 8, 2007 Newsweek article, “Wilkerson said in an e-mail that it was a significant proposal for beginning ‘meaningful talks’ between the US and Iran.” On January 17, 2007, Wilkerson told the BBC, "We thought it was a very propitious moment” to engage Iran “but as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the Vice-President's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil'... reasserted itself." This statement indicates that the memorandum was transmitted to the White House for consideration.
Former Undersecretary for Political Affairs, Nick Burns, confirmed that there was a paper presented by the Swiss Ambassador in 2003 concerning a purported offer made by Iran for what could be called a grand bargain. Undersecretary Burns said that while there was some skepticism about the paper, it was a matter which should have been pursued. Burns said in light of the extensive US-Iranian cooperation on Afghanistan, it would have been a natural flow to pick up on the 2003 memorandum especially given the United States’ considerable leverage which came as a result of the successful US military action against Saddam.
On February 14, 2007, The Washington Post reported, “Flynt Leverett, who worked on the National Security Council when it was headed by Rice, said a proposal vetted by Tehran's most senior leaders was sent to the United States in May 2003 and was akin to the 1972 US opening to China. In December 2006, Leverett, according to a February 8, 2007 Washington Post article, “charged that the White House orchestrated an effort by the CIA to demand significant deletions in an opinion article he had written on Iran policy on the grounds that the material was classified. ‘The single biggest rescission’ concerned his description of Iran’s 2003 offer’” according to Leverett.
When asked which officials knew about the 2003 offer, Leverett, in a February 15, 2007 Reuters report, “said he was confident it was seen by Rice and then-Secretary of State Colin Powell but ‘the administration rejected the overture.’”
On February 8, 2007, an article in the Washington Post, stated, “Last June, Rice appeared to confirm, in an interview with National Public Radio, that the White House had received the memo. ‘What the Iranians wanted earlier was to be one-on-one with the United States so that this could be about the Unites States and Iran,’ Rice said. State Department officials at that time did not dissuade reporters from interpreting her comments as referring to the 2003 fax.”
However, on February 27, 2007, when I questioned Secretary Rice on the matter, she stated, “I just don't ever remember seeing a paper of that kind.”
Given the ambiguity and differing accounts, it remains unclear what route the 2003 memo took and the ensuing chain of custody. However, it is noteworthy that senior leadership at the State Department and the NSC had acknowledged the existence of the memo. It is equally important to note that there was a sense at the upper echelon’s of the Administration that this was an opportunity to engage Iran.
Afghanistan - Recent Cooperation
While some cannot fathom the possibility of cooperation between the US and Iran, it was not so long ago where the Islamic Republic was very helpful to the United States.
According to a January 2008 report by the US Institute of Peace, “….Tehran’s cooperation with the United States during the 2001-2002 negotiations on Afghanistan is a case in point. At that time, the Iranians knew very well how they would benefit from the downfall of the Taliban and from its replacement by a government that did not subscribe to a radical anti-Shia and anti-Iranian ideology. Similar consideration should apply in the case of Iraq, where the Islamic Republic, in the interest of its own survival, shares the American aversion to a divided Iraq, and Iraq dominated by Sunni extremists, or an Iraq under a new version of Saddam Hussein.”
Secretary Burns confirmed that Iran was helpful in cooperating with the United States on Afghanistan. They supported the Northern Alliance in combating the Taliban, participated in joint planning on potential refugee issues, cooperated on counter-narcotics and supported Hamid Karzai. Burns said in light of these extensive contacts, it would have been a natural flow to pick up on the paper which the Swiss Ambassador brought in 2003. Burns noted that at that time the United States had considerable leverage as to Iran since both those countries were worried that they might be next after the successful US military action against Saddam.
Secretary Burns noted that the meetings with Iran over Afghanistan and the subsequent meetings with Iran concerning Iraq have provided some significant precedents for multi-lateral meetings. U.S. Ambassador to Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has met with his Iranian counterpart at least three times since May 2007. While these sessions have not resulted in diplomatic breakthroughs, they hold promise for higher level talks in the future. It is my sense that there remains a compelling case for the US and Iran to work together on issues pertaining to Afghanistan.
Iran’s Regional Influence
Power politics seen in disagreements between Washington and Tehran over the nature of Iran’s nascent nuclear program seem to play out in Iran’s continued support of insurgents in Iraq. Iranian support for the terrorist organization Hezbollah has hindered the Lebanese government from consolidating power. A weak Lebanon has turned into a safe-haven for terrorists. Hezbollah’s terrorist actions against Israel have caused the Israel-Palestine peace process to stall, in the wake of which Hamas has strengthened.
When considering US policy towards Iran, one must consider the state of affairs in Iraq. We have seen the deeply concerning statements made about Iran’s involvement in Iraq. It is clear today that the US is paying a great price for its presence in Iraq: lives lost, money spent, and influence squandered. Many of the problems the US is encountering in Iraq have roots that spread beyond Iraq’s borders.
On March 8, 2008, The Economist reported “But it was not just Iranian mortars that may have preceded [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad’s [March 3-4, 2008] visit to Baghdad. The presidential visit—the first by any regional head of state since the American invasion five years ago—is only the latest sign that Iran is now the most influential of Iraq’s neighbors, pushing aside nearby Sunni Arab states from which Iraq’s Shia leaders still keep their distance. During his two-day visit, Iran’s president announced $1 billion in loans, as well as a clutch of trade pacts with his ‘brotherly’ neighbor.” Iran's ambassador to Iraq, Hasan Qomi said last August that Iran-Iraq trade in 2006 totaled $2 billion — 97 percent of that exports from Iran into Iraq. Iranian Commerce Ministry officials say they hope trade will rise to $10 billion in the next five years.
I would urge the Committee to consider the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group (ISG), led by Congressman Hamilton and Secretary Baker. This distinguished panel recommended, "Given the ability of Iran … to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq, the United States should try to engage them constructively."
I would further commend considering the 2004 Council on Foreign Relations task force report, co-chaired by current Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who was also an original member of the ISG. This task force concluded that, “it is in the interest of the United States to engage selectively with Iran to promote regional stability, dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, preserve reliable energy supplies, reduce the threat of terror, and address the ‘democracy deficit’ that pervades the Middle East as a whole.” While Secretary Gates’ role has changed since the issuing of that report, I would note his statements to Congress that, “no option that could potentially benefit U.S. policy should be off the table” and even “in the worst days of the cold war the U.S. maintained a dialogue with the Soviet Union and China.”
The Problem with Outsourcing Foreign Policy
The United States has responded to Iran’s challenge by correctly recounting Iran’s dubious nuclear behavior and disregard for the international community but has avoided direct dialogue with Tehran. I commend the administration’s change in course, deciding to deal with Iran through multilateral talks, and view it as confirmation that a change in our tactics is overdue. Prior US policy committed to deal with Iran via the UN Security Council and the Europeans. Prospects remain dim, however, for garnering support from China and Russia for a UN resolution with teeth. Russia’s and China’s significant energy, military, and political interests restrict their ability to support tough action against Iran and represent a significant barrier to a successful resolution vis-à-vis the U.N.
Although the Europeans are supportive of tough action against Iran, some are hesitant to continue down a path on which they feel the United States is not fully committed and not an active partner. Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), and the UN Secretary General have all indicated that the United States needs to be directly engaged in the Iranian effort.
Senator Chuck Hagel, with whom I have worked on this issue, highlighted the importance of US involvement: “US allies will support tough action against Iran only if they are confident the US is serious about achieving a negotiated, diplomatic solution. Continued unwillingness of the United States to engage Iran will make other states hesitate to support, and possibly oppose, these tougher measures.”
While sanctions are a tool this committee should take under consideration as part of the broader debate, they should not be confused as a panacea to confront this nuclear threat. Neither US nor UN sanctions have proven they can halt uranium enrichment. The fact remains that Iran, despite these sanctions, continues to move towards a nuclear capability. French President Sarkozy stated it well, “The threat of sanctions coupled with an offer of dialogue was the only way of avoiding a catastrophic alternative: an Iranian bomb or the bombing of Iran.” The US has pushed the sanctions portion of this equation but failed to include the necessary dialogue which is needed to equal success.
Periodically, I read the military options are some of these tougher actions that may be considered to confront Iran. Although the option should not be removed from the table, military engagement will do nothing to solve the litany of problems between our nations. We should only consider going to war when we have exhausted all options. Today, we are not there. In that light, I commend President George W. Bush for his May 24, 2006, statement that “our primary objective is to solve this problem diplomatically.” I believe diplomatic options remain, and it is precisely these options that can prevent conflict.
Why has it taken so long to consider talking to the Iranian regime? Richard Armitage, former deputy secretary of state, told Time, as reported in a May 22, 2006 article, “It appears that the Administration thinks that dialogue equates with weakness, that we’ve called these regimes “evil” and therefore we won’t talk to them. Some people say talking would legitimize the regimes. But we’re not trying to change the regimes, and they’re already legitimized in the eyes of the international community. So we ought to have enough confidence in our ability as diplomats to go eye to eye with people-even though we disagree in the strongest possible way—and come away without losing anything.
To be certain, we find ourselves in this position in no small part due to Tehran’s deceit and arrogance toward the international community. Nevertheless, US policy toward Iran has played into the hands of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the hard-line radicals in Tehran. Although the extent of Ahmadinejad’s power remains unclear, the US administration’s discussions of regime change and refusal to rule out using nuclear weapons against the Iranian regime have bolstered its position. Such US rhetoric, coupled with other policies, enhances Tehran’s ability to tap nationalistic sentiments to solidify support for a nuclear weapons program, effectively taking the focus away from its constituents’ discontent with failed domestic policies, most notably Ahmadinejad’s poor stewardship of the economy. To some degree, we are the distraction buttressing his position. In this perfect storm, Ahmadinejad’s rise on the wave of oil revenues and growing global discontent with US policies has afforded him the forum, confidence, and leverage to challenge the United States and the international community.
One proposal I urge the committee to consider is that offered by Russian President Vladimir Putin. As reported on October 18, 2007 by the New York Times, “Moscow proposed to enrich uranium in Russia for use in Iranian reactors, assuring that Iran would not produce the highly enriched uranium needed for nuclear weapons.”
During the April 9, 2008 Appropriations Subcommittee Hearing on State and Foreign Operations, I reiterated my support for Russia’s proposal with Secretary Rice. I was pleased to hear that the Administration is fully supportive of that approach and would urge all sides to continue to consider this option.
Deciphering and Reaching Beyond Tehran
It is still unknown what level of power and influence Ahmadinejad holds within Iran. Some accounts indicate that Iran’s elite, and even some hardline officials, are critical of Ahmadinejad’s aggressive handling of the nuclear issue, whereas others report that he has amassed significant power. Nevertheless, it is important to remember that much of the power in Tehran does not rest with the president, but with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the mullahs.
Notwithstanding Iran’s leadership, we must constantly remind ourselves of those over whom they rule. The United States should effectively communicate our desire for a prosperous Middle East, free of tyranny and oppression that respects human rights and rule of law and where governments represent and reflect the desires of those they govern. Further, we should be frank when conveying our concerns and those of the world to the Iranian people over specific problems threatening peace and security. Nearly three quarters of Iran’s 70 million people are under the age of 30. Placing our disagreements with Iran’s leadership aside, not letting these people know what we stand for and what we value would be irresponsible. The United States should focus on the emerging population and those who yearn for increasing freedom and reform.
According to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a 2002 poll, commissioned by Iran’s legislature, revealed that three quarters of Iranians favored rapprochement with the United States and that nearly one half believed US policy was “to some extent correct.” In typical Iranian fashion, the two pollsters were later sentenced to nine years for “publishing nonscientific research.” It is precisely examples such as this that fuel disdain amongst Iranians for their leadership. President Bush poignantly illustrated the plight and underscored the hopes of the Iranian people in a July 12, 2002, statement: “The people of Iran want the same freedoms, human rights, and opportunities as people around the world. Their government should listen to their hopes….As Iran’s people move towards a future defined by greater freedom, greater tolerance, they will have no better friend then the United States of America.”
When Ahmadinejad or any Iranian leader calls into question the virtue and value of liberal democracy, we should respond by touting its successes. We should talk about our commitment to rule of law, individual liberties, and freedom of press and speech. Are not freedom of speech, press, and association liberties that the Iranian people would enjoy? Would those incarcerated in Iran for criticizing the government not wish to be freed? Most importantly, liberal democracy has better arguments that theocracy, and we should not shy away from this debate. Perhaps a crash course in the history of authoritarian failures would be the best place to start.
Learning from Libya
In the 1980s, Libya was the leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi , was among the world’s most reprehensible individuals. Among the international pariah’s terrorist actions were the 1986 bombing of La Belle Discotheque in Berlin, which killed two American servicemen, and the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103, which killed 259 passengers, most of them American.
On December 19, 2003, Libya declared that it would surrender its nuclear program to international authorities. Why did this happen? Some indicate is was a reaction to US military action against Iraq. However, according to a May 16, 2006 Wall Street Journal, it was “largely secret talks [with US and British negotiators] that helped prompt Libya’s decision.” According to Duke University professor Bruce Jentleson, “It was force and diplomacy, not force or diplomacy that turned [Qaddafi] around…a combination of steel and a willingness to deal.”
I visited Libya in August 2006. By this time, Libya had relinquished its nuclear program, had begun working on reparations to the victims of its terrorist actions, and was expressing a strong desire to re-enter the international fold. Direct talks with Libya served US interests. Colonel Qaddafi agreed to cede Libya’s weapon’s program. The lesson to be learned is that Colonel Qaddafi agreed to do so during the course of negotiations—not before they began. Perhaps we can learn from this experience and apply it to our dealings with Iran.
What’s at Stake?
The United States is not to blame for Iran’s devious and deceptive behavior, nor their arrogance and defiance of the international community. The consequences of an Iran with nuclear weapons would be grave. Tehran does not seem willing to cease uranium enrichment. We are running into walls in the form of China and Russia in the UN Security Council, and it is apparent that the UN has not been able to alter Iran’s behavior. It is precisely Iran’s ambitions that may drive regional powers such as Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia to pursue nuclear ambitions. The Middle East is already a volatile neighborhood. The phrase “adding fuel to the fire” does not approach describing what the introduction of nuclear weapons would mean, not only for the fate of the region but for the world.
There is no greater threat to our national security than the proliferation of nuclear weapons. In dealing with aspiring nuclear powers, we have an obligation to exhaust ourselves on the diplomatic front before we consider alternative options.
No nation is a more capable conduit of peace than ours. We have a long and proud history of global engagement: bettering the lives of others while protecting our own national interests. In the modern era, we have witnessed assertive American engagement in the Middle East. We must not stray from this tradition. I urge this Administration and future Administrations to look back at the efforts of the United States to work towards peace and security.
Twenty-seven years of silence broken only by a few whispers, however, has not worked and has left us in the dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves today. All the while, the United States has been watching from the sidelines. Something has to give. Current US policy does not include direct talks with Iran with no preconditions. Certainly it is time to stop passing notes to Tehran via the Swiss and sit down and start talking.
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 |
Mehdi, whats mind boggling
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Fri May 02, 2008 03:57 PM PDTMehdi, whats mind boggling is the amount of justification you guys do for the actions of the fascist regime in Tehran which destroyed Iran and everything it stood for. No true Iranian would do that. Mehdi, my misguided and misinformed Iranian, your logic is astonishing. You have narrowed down the U.S- IRI conflict to a single incident in 1988! That is the most narrow minded thing I ever heard in my life. When a fascist regime act maniacal like that, innocent people pay the price. The conflict started in 1979 when your beloved Khomeni took power and declared war on civilization, that’s including the Iranian and U.S ones. The regime in Tehran is professional in provocation. The only difference between Hitler and Khomeini is that Khomeini uses a different type of tactic to try rule the world than direct occupation like Hitler did, that tactic is called terrorism. That tactic has brought many people to their knees, the first one of them Iranians. They paid the price of the longest war in the 20th century because Khomeni wanted to “export his Islamic khalifate” to Iraq. He was rapidly inspiring the shites in Iraq to stand up against Saddam and establish an Islamic regime like Iran. We all saw the result and what happened to our country. As for as the talks go, which universe do you live in? Where on earth did you get this piece of propaganda that “U.S wants Iran to surrender”? Is it Keyhan newspaper in Iran? Or the communist manifesto? I want the regime to surrender also; to the people if possible, if not, to the International community, just like Hitler and Milosovich and Rwanda and Charles Taylor and others…one day, very soon, Iran will be free and that day I don’t know how people like you and Soraya Ulrich and Anonymus 2 and others can look in the face of the Iranian people.
To: Farhad Kashani
by Mehdi on Fri May 02, 2008 01:38 PM PDTIt was US president Bush senior who said after the shoooting down of the Iranian passenger flight that "I won't apologize for anything America did." Who was the fanatic then? Why shouldn't he apologize? And when is a mistake his men made is somethiing "America" did? The amount of treachary is mind boggling.
You say IRI is not willing to talk? I could be wrong but for the past year or so, all I hear on any media is that the US is unwilling to talk (unless of course if Iran surrenders completely first). What planet do you live on? Didn't you hear about the mullahs even sending a letter to the US asking for talks? haven't they constantly said they want to talk? It is the US that has said there has to be preconditions because "we have too much pride." You got it all backwards buddy!
The proponents of
by Farhad Kashani (not verified) on Wed Apr 30, 2008 04:22 PM PDTThe proponents of “non-conditional” talks on this site, amazingly to me, are not understanding these points: 1- History and logic have shown us that parties and groups that resort to dialogue to resolve their differences, even if ideologically as different from each other as it can get, such as U.S and USSR, Hitler and England, Israel and Egypt and Jordan, India and Pakistan and numerous others, are the ones who have at least the slightest amount of common sense and believe in acting for the benefit of their people, IN THIS LIFE! Even people on this site who strongly oppose each other, are the type who believe in some form or amount of dialogue. There is one exception to this rule: Religious fanatics, because they believe in an absolute and fundamentalist truth. For them, dialogue means buying more time to further their agenda. For them dialogue is a strong sign of weakness on behalf on the other party. So regimes such as the IRI and Taliban fundamentally do not believe in dialogue to resolve issues. This is how they were taught; this is their school of ideology. You have you accept this fact. That is the unfortunate truth. There is very very little we can do to change that, and the people of the world, and Iranians in particular, should not pay the price for the ignorance of these fascist fanatics. For them, human life is just a method, not that its preservation is the ultimate goal in all other ideologies such as communism, capitalism, liberalism, conservatism,,,,to reach to a higher goal of happiness in THE OTHER LIFE! 2- The Iranian regime is composed of 2 groups: A-Religious fascists such as Khameni, Mesbah Yazdi and others,, 2- Pragmatic fascist such as Rafsanjani, Tabasi, and others…both groups are protected by a single sect of society: the brainwashed young Basidjis and religious fanatics. The second group acts in public as if they are the first group, because the Basidjis and allies will only support a religious, Armageddon believing regime. So even if pragmatists such as Rafsanjani or whomever, want to start dialogue with the U.S, they are unable to, because they will lose the support of their base, just like Montazeri and Khatami and others did. The second group need the support of Basidjis to plunder the country and stay in power. So they cannot afford to act or talk pragmatic, but in reality they are. So it does not make a difference, the reality is the pragmatic group’s hands are tight. So any talk of “talk” between the U.S and IRI is merely a dream. The regime, even the pragmatist ones, have created close to 5-10 million basidji monsters whom they are, just like with Zahhak Mardoosh, need to feed propaganda to keep em motivated and have their support to stay in power. The anti American rhetoric of the regime is a fundamental base for the survival of it. That blind hatred has way passed any reason or logic. Even if Khamenei says “one day we will talk with U.S”, what he really means to his supporters is that day is the Armageddon. When we have won (Like Khomeni himself said, when the flag of Islam has been raised above the White House) and they have lost. Then we can negotiate the terms of their surrender. Whether that wish is realistic or not is not the point, the point is that they are acting as if it could happen. So please open your eyes for ONCE!
To: ali
by Mehdi on Wed Apr 30, 2008 01:49 PM PDTYou just quoted what Israel radio and the MEK broadcast daily. Take your lies to where you cam from and "fix" your own country.
DON'T LEGITIMIZE THESE BUTCHERS....
by ali (not verified) on Wed Apr 30, 2008 09:32 AM PDTwith all due respect, I would not rely on any democrat to save iran!
we're in the mess we're in mainly due to failings of no other that jimmy "peanut-farmer" carter!
the mullahs are the reincarnation of evil on earth! they have murdered millions of peace-loving iranians- thousand of brave officers on streets of paris and elsewhere!! people are hanged from cranes on the streets!! when the hell did we ever have such barbaric festivals before 1979??
anyone who claims to be iranian should be ashamed to be a proponent of extending the mullahs' brutal rule. they will be snuffed out soon, whether by force or other means.
MAY GOD FREE OUR HOMELAND SOON!
No such a thing as "Fruitless Discussions"
by Mehdi on Tue Apr 29, 2008 08:50 AM PDTBut please note that talking and exchanging rhetorics are two different things. Exchanging rhetorics, if it goes on for a while, will hopefully turn into talk, but by itself is not true communication. By talk, I mean real man-to-man talk. A discussion aimed at understanding not aimed at manipulating and arm-twisting. There has been many workable solutions put forward but the West has been unwilling to look at anything othere than "what we say goes." And that is NOT talk.
Fruitless Discussions
by K Nassery on Tue Apr 29, 2008 04:33 AM PDTThe Europeans have talke to Iran until they are blue in the face. Why else would they be the ones promoting more sanctions?
There have been discussions for years now. Just last week, an Iranian diplomat wanted "to begin" discussions. It seems to be a ploy for time to develop nuclear weapons.
Senator Spactor is a good man. I don't know what the answer to this problem is, but talking for the sake of talking is an Iranian thing. I believe in getting to the point. That's never going to happen with this Iranian regime, so it is a waste of time and effort to "begin" discussions for the fortieth time.
I am afraid pre-conditions = progress on war plans
by Mehdi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 05:10 PM PDTDon't you think so? Any pre-condition on talks means that we are going ahead with our war plans as we don't see any use talking anymore (i.e., we are going to follow the other option).
When Did I suggest Military Strikes ?
by Darius Kadivar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 03:03 PM PDTI suppose this is also a support for the US neo con's ? ...
//www.payvand.com/news/08/apr/1212.html
Again as I said I don't have any particular animosity to initiatives meant to ease tensions in the current conflict of words and threats on both sides. I just believe that we should not be naive in this approach. It should be a give and Take Process. How that can be negotiated in order to succeed for the best of not the Iranian regime but the Iranian people ? I don't know. So I think that a debate should be open on this issue and is unavoidable anyhow.
However I do have great reserves on the people with whom we wish to talk too. I don't mind speaking to key figures of Iran's leadership or political sphere like Mr. Khatami or some genuine moderates but I do have my reservations in regard those who are still accountable for their criminal past and yet present themselves as "moderates" aka "reformists".
Latest news by the Way ? Khatami said he won't be running for the Presidential elections ...
So who do you have in mind to negotiate with ?
Reformists like the one below ?
Look who is passing himself for the respectable chic poosh ? Iran's Taleyrand : Ibrahim Yazdi
//www.payvand.com/news/08/apr/1204.html
A man who sent some of our bravest to the execution squads ...
Rahimi:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpLGZy75Ars
Yazdi's explanation today on the incident:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zkvl2e3tS88
Yazdi's arguments regarding Hoveyda's execution:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qn7EoeJSzUo
Otherwise well go ahead anyone is free to sleep with them. I simply personally don't want to bring any support to this kind of khod forooshi if it has to take place.
This is as morally intolerable for me at least as for calling on military strikes on our country Iran ...
But dialogue with Iran's leadership appears to me a necessity but it has also to be a two way process. It has to be Give and Take and not just Give ...
Its too late for me to develop my arguments tonight but maybe some other time.
In the meantime from Paris I wish you a Good night and sweet Dreams if you can after this post
DK
Talk to Iranians - They are beautiful
by Ahmed from Bahrain (not verified) on Mon Apr 28, 2008 02:52 PM PDTHow can they talk about peace if they do not want to talk to their adversaries? There are always two parties to any dispute and in order to settle a dispute the two parties must talk to each other. No good talking to the wall and expecting the problem to disappear or worst making attempt to make your adversary disappear. That will create even a bigger dispute.
Iran is a proud nation of 70 million. It is a fact of life. Ahmedinejad is a temporary head of state with not much following. He will go but Iran remains. Talk to Iranians and see how beautiful they are.
Talk is not "exchange of threats"
by Mehdi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:31 PM PDTI think most people who are against talk with Iran are considering talks as "exchange of threats" or "verbal manipulation" or some such thing. Talking doesn't mean that one side must accept something or legitimize something. Sure, by the very fact that you accept to talk ot initiate talk, you are giving certain amount of legitimacy to the other side. But one must ask how much? Is it more than what they alreay have? I am afraid when the US says that Iran is this or is that, the US has already legitimized it to that degree. The US is saying that Iran has these effects. The US has acknowledged that Iran has certain power to affect things. So there is no escaping that.
But I think that the proponents of talks and diplomacy are not talkning about an exchange of threat or an attempt to establish rights. They are talking about just exchange of ideas in an attempt to better understand each other. There is no need to give anything. It is really simple - two kids are fighting and an adult comes in and asks both sides what they are fighting for and then comes up with a solution that satisfies BOTH sides; or at least improves the condition (the fight) to a point where the fight is more limited. This doesn't require that adult to pre-agree to anything.
But the viewpoint that the US and its allies have, which is also reflected in what DK and others state here, is that we talk to IRI from a position of force and we tell them what we expect and that's how things are going to be and not listen to what they may want to say. "You must do this and that about human rights and about nuclear technology, and that's that! There! We talked!" Well, I am afraid that is NOT talk. That is just sayin, "I have force and I don't see the need to listen to you - I just run over you instead."
Talk is more like, "OK, why do you think it is necessary to have x number of executions per year? What needs to happen for this number to go down? What needs to happen so that you will agree to have representative of ten different countries to be permanently posted in Iran overseeing the production of nuclear materials? etc, etc." And then trying to come up with innovative solutions. And resort to force only when no cooperation is coming from the other side - which unlike the loud propaganda, is not the case right now. Iran has given more than enough signals that it wants to be part of the community and wants to normalize relationship with the US (and possibly Israel) and others. But the US and their allies are asking for unconditional "SURRENDER" which is a silly idea and is IMPOSSIBLE. There is ALWAYS conditions. Even Germany in the WW did not truly surrender unconditionally. It is just an illusion.
The only thing a war could do is to bring about a more reasonable state of mind in the opponent. It will never result in non-conditional surrender. Such a state of mind does exists today in IRI, despite what the loudspeakers of propaganda wants us to believe.
Mehdi Jaan
by Dariush (not verified) on Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:14 PM PDTThe point some people don't get is that all these claims by west toward Iran or any other country is not about human rights, peace, democracy or any of such issues. It is DO or DIE. Do as we say or die. Their peace is war, their democracy is tyranny, their love is hate, their help is slavery, their talk is lie and.....
One should look at their actions today and history not what they say.
DK: Why precondition?
by Mehdi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:30 AM PDTYou seem to be of the same or similar opinion of the US government that there has to be certain pre-conditions before these governments can talk. Why do you see that? Do you realize that if the Iran-US relationship were to improve, it would HAVE TO include human rights improvements? So what is the point of putting a condition on a talk about what you intend to improve? It's like saying, "We will talk to Iran about human rights in Iran only if Iran improves human rights in Iran first." What's the point of that?
Fredm masoudA: Why are you against peace?
by Mehdi on Mon Apr 28, 2008 11:26 AM PDTWhy are you two so heavily against any peaceful solution? You seem to only support military strike against Iran. Why is it? What is so dangerous about the US and Iranian government, and maybe even Israel government to sit around a table and just talk? And by talk, I don't mean bullying threats but talk like civilized human beings - like people who care about other people. What is so dangerous about that? Why you two allways are compelled to fight peace?
DK jan I don't agree
by Anonymouse on Mon Apr 28, 2008 08:36 AM PDTFirst of all I didn't understand you arguments about America acknowledging overthrow of Mossadegh and its relationship with this regime being legitimate or able to interpret the 1953 coup and ... what?!
In any event, most of the world IS ALREADY discussing and negotiating with Iran. The only 2 countries that don't have relations with Iran are US and Israel, which by the way have relations but under the cover.
The idea of giving legitimacy to the regime by talking to them or they are not representing the Iranian nation is a stagnant idea. America is already talking to China, Russia and Pakistan who all have bad human rights violations.
We are not living in a Star Trek world several centuries down the road where human kind has solved all problems. This is it my friend. The stinking, robe and turban wearing, sigheh marrying Mullahs who we all know about and knew about. We either play a role or step aside and let them play their game and fall at their own pace.
We all agree that this regime is going to change one way or another, it is only natural. The question is does any one want to play a role? Legitimacy means nothing to anyone if no one is there to claim it. Who is the legitimate representative of the Iraqi nation for example? Who is stepping up to be THE real candidate? When and how?
Anonymous-2: Enforcing Civil Society is the Key
by Darius Kadivar on Mon Apr 28, 2008 07:43 AM PDTThank you for your kind comments. I try to be open and encourage civil exchange on such issues because I think this is the best way of seeking and finding solution. I am not sure I am always tolerant but I try my best and sincerely to be.
The Key however in my point of view is to keep in mind that any type of dialogue with the IRI henchmen has to be with the adamance to improve civil rights and enforce civil society particularly in regard to the alerting conditions of not only basic Human Rights but also social rights and political freedom.
Personally however As far as such an initiative in holding talks the best I could do is quote Pons Pilate :
I will wash my hands in innocence… never will I offer their offerings of blood… ...
That said it is a long debate that deserves attention but also alertness and a sense of responsibility and loyalty to one's consiousness.
Best,
DK
Anonymous-2
by Dariush (not verified) on Sun Apr 27, 2008 09:28 AM PDTThank you for your truthful article. It couldn't be said any better. Governments come and go, but Iran and Iranians will stay.
I sent an e-mail to Hillary two days ago in this regard.
I wrote to her:
If Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Bobby Kennedy were loved then and are loved today was for their just and fair decisions toward others despite the overwhelming oppositions.
Iranians are a great nation. Start with winning their heart with fair policies not taking their heart out with threats of wars. And that I am disappointed.
IRI as any other government has it's negative points and it's positive points. How can any government make any progress with all these pressure and threats. The war on Iran didn't end in 1988. It has been going on in one way or another till today. It didn't started in 1980 either. It started decades ago when they brought down Mossadegh and even before that when west and east split Iran.
But some people sadly think by taking side with west they are serving Iran.
Thanks Dariush
by Abarmard on Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:39 PM PDTSorry I haven't read the article yet, too long, but I will. Dariush thanks for the link, I will buy his book
Zionists / world / Iran
by Dariush (not verified) on Sat Apr 26, 2008 06:15 PM PDTUnderstand Zionists views and plans!!!
//www.informationclearinghouse.info/article66...
Please watch this!
by Dariush (not verified) on Sat Apr 26, 2008 05:20 PM PDT//www.youtube.com/watch?v=_S8Cxo0M8NM&NR=1
I highly respect Senator Arlen Specter
by Anonymous-2 (not verified) on Sat Apr 26, 2008 10:29 AM PDTI have watched and listened to the Senator over the years debate on issues which are of tantamount importance both on the domestic front and the foreign policy track that various U.S. Administrations have taken.
He does not speak out of ignorance, unlike many of his colleagues. He conducts his homework thoroughly and aims at bridging the gap of divide for both the interest of the United States and the world.
This is a man, who has high moral and ethical principles. He doesn't just speak the party line to appease the Republican Party but what he believes is the right thing to do.
Dear Dariush: Throughout your articles and various comments I have come to understand that you despise the IRI, and although you criticize you also maintain a sense of pragmatism and politeness in your language which unfortunately some don't.
My personal opinion is that no matter how much one despises the IRI; one cannot state that it is not the legitimate government of Iran. If this is the case many would have said the same thing about the Pahlavi’s when they were in power and others before them. In fact the Americans have the same right to say the same thing about the Bush Admin.
I believe that dialogue is of critical importance between both nations regardless of the regime in power. It is not only of vital interest between Iran and the U.S., the world, but the war thorn Middle East.
Of utmost importance is that we have to take into consideration the interest of the Iranian people, the future generation and Iran and not any particular regime. I have repeatedly stated that regimes come and go, but Iran will always stand and so will the Iranian people.
Nothing will ever be solved by not negotiating, by not opening up diplomatic channels to place on the table the grievances of both countries. This is the only civilized way to solve world problems. We need bold diplomacy instead of gun boat diplomacy; we need peace as opposed to a state of perpetual wars and destruction.
I don't agree with others who state that Iran has rebuked conversation from the U.S.
The issue is every time groups like Senator Specter, Chuck Hagel, Ron Paul, and Dennis Kucinich have opened up a crack in the door with the Iranians for dialogue others within the Bush Admin. who are opposed to dialogue and see only one way of solving issues, have undermined this process. Therefore, the Iranians, rightfully so are suspicious as to whether there is a real interest in dialogue or simply a group expedition fishing for information. This comes from mis-trust; and I am sure both sides feel the same. However, at one point the only way to remove this mis-trust is to sit together and have a dialogue based on mutual respect.
I have been involved in discussions with some Senators and Congressmen/congresswomen not through NIAC or any other organization but my own personal concern for my mother land as well as the down spiral of the U.S. which impacts all of us.
I have to say, there are many in the Congress who are totally ignorant about Iran in general; they try to wing their opinions not based on intelligence but because of their all mighty view of superiority. This type of language doesn't work for me, let alone an important country; Iran. You would be shocked to hear what some have to say - I cannot imagine any intelligent Iranian who wants the best for their mother land would not have walked out the door. But I had to cringe and listen regardless of how stupid and idiotic the conversations where. And they were stupid!! I can assure you a high school student studying history would have better knowledge than those representing us in the Senate and the House.
I like many of you, without a question of a doubt like a secular democratic country, with separation of state and religion, but we have to start somewhere; and that somewhere lies in ensuring that no harm comes to Iran. Therefore dialogue even if it is with the IRI is of critical importance.
Opening up an avenue of dialogue and a start of negotiations, would mean putting on the table; (1) the human rights issue of Iran and civil rights of the people; that is if the U.S. really wants to win the hearts and minds of the Iranian people - this demand and working toward that end, in my humble opinion will start tearing apart the foundations of IRI. It won't happen over night, but the process will start to take place. It is like peeling the skin of an onion one layer after another.
The issue for the U.S. you know it and I know it is not nuclear weapons.
Iran is not stupid or suicidal to want to build nuclear weapons to attack any country. However, if the U.S. continues to use the same tactics by using harsh rhetoric, continuously speak about a potential U.S. or Israeli invasion of Iran; toppling the regime, naturally, if I were the IRI I would also try to protect myself by developing nuclear weapons. The same way that North Korea has. As such, if Iran ever goes down that direction, I blame the U.S. for this.
Bear in mind from all of the reports produced by the IAEA, including the NIE, have demonstrated that Iran is no where close in developing a nuclear weapons program. As such, the U.S. has much time to ensure that Iran does not go down that path.
Neither sanctions or threats of war will stop this.
Iran is surrounded by nuclear armed states non-of which are signatories to the NPT, except Russia; it is surrounded by U.S. military bases and several U.S. warships with tactical nuclear warheads in the Persian Gulf.
Let's also make it clear America has no interest in bringing about a democratic government in any of the Middle Eastern countries; these are just slogans; and "pretexts" that no one in the region (Middle East) is buying off on.
With the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, unconditional support for Israel vis a vis Palestine, and the devastating war in Lebanon in 2006, which went without impunity; the U.S. is now the most hated country in the Middle East and so is Israel. Does America want to change it's image or wants the status quo?
America has lost the image of a country that was once a beacon of hope and democracy for the people of the world. It is looked upon as a country which has a one track mind of invasions to expand its control in the Middle East; and support of dictators that are friendly to the U.S. - there goes the U.S. credibility.
Iran whether you like it or not is a super regional force; all one has to do is look at the map. Its shear size, its population; its natural resources, its access to waterways, and its geopolitical position requires that U.S. deal with it diplomatically and with respect, and not with threats of annihilation.
Therefore, dialogue and negotiations are the only way forward toward a more progressive relationship between the United States and Iran; and definitely all for the benefit of the Iranian people.
Talk with Who ?
by masoudA on Sat Apr 26, 2008 08:52 AM PDTI always get a good laugh when I hear of "Unconditional Dialogue" with the Mullahs. Clear indication of not knowing what goes on in Iran these days.
Who exactly represents the mullahs ? who in the Islamic Republic can realy claim he is talking for this 1000 headed monster ? who in Iran can make concessions they can keep ? If you think Khamenei (the so called supreme leader) is that man you are sadly mistaking - the poor lad has to wear the palestinian scarf around his neck just to make sure his hired Palestinian bodyguards remain loyal to him.
Dialogue Yes ! Sleeping with the Enemy NO !
by Darius Kadivar on Sat Apr 26, 2008 09:26 AM PDTI don't mind the idea of engaging dialogue with the IRI but not as far as giving up criticism and FIRM criticism particularly in regard to two issues:
1) Human Rights Violations
2) The Religious Nature of the Islamic Republic
On both accounts the IRI has NO Credibility. And I would add that as far as representing the Iranian Nation it has NO LEGITIMACY given the totalitarian nature of the regime and the election process that is common to all dictatorial systems to date where the hopeful candidates are more or less chosen by the regime and not the people and where the final results are known in advance ...
I should add that I have reservation and suspicions in regard to holding talks with Iran's leadership be it with the current unpopular president or future administrations including moderate elements which we like to call "reformists". Indeed If having talks without pre conditions means for instance that for US to OPEN AN EMBASSY IN TEHRAN then the US government should recognize what is considered as the 1953 CIA sponsored coup that overthrew Prime Minister Mossadegh government as Stephen Kinzer suggests.
In such a case I am TOTALLY OPPOSED TO such an Assessment.
Why ? Simply Because I don't think that the Islamic Republic has ANY CREDIBILITY OR LEGITIMACY to speak OR EVEN EXPRESS A DEMAND in regard to this historical event THAT IN ADDITION WAS AT BEST SECULAR UNLIKE THE 1979 Revolution and which took place far beyond our own generation particularly for anyone under 50 and who can hold some political responsability be it today or tomorrow in Iran.
Acknowledging the overthrow of Dr. Mossadegh's government is a historical reality, but interpreting its historical significance in particular the circumstances which led to the downfall of a named Prime Minister of a Constitutional Monarchy is something that should be left to public judgment of the Iranian people at large and naturally to historians but not the so called representatives of the current regime that is nothing else but a new Dynasty that Replaced that of the Pahlavis and exercises its power in a far more absolute and unpatriotic way that ANY Previous Dynasty in Iran.
How can somebody like Ibrahim Yazdi, Rafsanjani or even Ahmadinejad rightfully speak on this issue when they not only have blood on their hands but betrayed the SECULAR Ideals of Dr. Mossadegh. Were Shapour Bakhtiar or even the Forouhar couple alive, they could at least express their views given that they both represented and claimed to speak in the name of Dr. Mossadegh's political and moral legacy: One being a Constitutionalist ( Bakhtiar) the other a Republican ( Dariush and Parvaneh Forouhar). But by a strange coincidence both were assassinated by the death squads of the this Very Islamic Republic of Iran ...
In my personal and humble opinion we did NOT see a Revolution in Iran as such but the implementation of a new Dynasty where the Crown was replaced by the Turban. This turbaned dynasty derives undoubtfully from a Popular Uprising, but so did the Nazi's when they took power even democratically in Germany in 1933.
It is NOT because an uprising is Popular THAT it is Just.
The Islamic Revolution was a perversion of the rightful aspiration of the Iranian people for Democracy and Human Rights the roots of which go back to the Constitutional Revolution of 1906. An Event that happens to be considered as the ONLY Event that after more than a century seems to rally both Monarchists and Republicans as a major step towards the institutionalization of a secular society in our country and a parliamentary system of government that did not exist in 25 centuries of the Royal institution that survived regardless of which dynasty took over.
The nationalization of Iran's Oil by Dr. Mossadegh was a major historical event and a major step towards national independance since Dr. Mossadegh defended Iran's right over its national Ressources at the International Court at La Hague in 1952-53 and he won the case. However Regretful his downfall cannot be apprehended or understood merely based on on the rivalry between the Shah and Mossadegh albeit American Involvment.
We cannot reduce the debate over our democratic ideals between a short tenurship of Dr. Mossadegh however popular in his time and 25 centuries of an institution that regardless of what we think of it and its official overthrow in 1979 still continues to define our national identity.
It is not up to America or the current unpopular leadership in Iran to decide on the interpretation that must be given to the events of 1953 simply because this leadership is NO MORE QUALIFIED to speak in the name of ANY Iranian Patriot be it a Constitutionalist Monarchist or a Republican particularly if the latters ARE SECULAR !
It is equally absurd to reduce Republicanism to Dr. Mossadegh's political ideals given that if Mossadegh may have been a Republican the reverse is not necessarily true that is all republicans are not die hard Mossadeghi's. Mossadegh himself belonged to the long line of Aristocratic Qajar lineage. His lack of sympathy of the Pahlavi Kings is not to be proven but it is not certain that his intellectual and political legacy would have subscribed to the 1979 Revolution or even the Hostage taking of the US embassy spearheaded by a bunch of radical minded Islamic students and the help of Radical and Foreign elements like the PLO of Yasser Arafat ( already considered as a terrorist organization at the time).
Iranian Republicans and Republican idealogy in Iran has its historical roots not in 1979 or 1953 but at best in 1906 and ironically this is ALSO the Case for the Constitutional Monarchists ( as opposed to orthodox Absolute Monarchists) who equally share the same legacy.
Both seek their legitimacy in this historical event at the turn of the century which was far ahead of its time and shortly even preceded the first Russian Revolution of 1907.
It should be added that the constitution of 1906 is to a great extent copied word by word from the Belgian Constitution of the time which prevails to this day in Belgium ( A Constitutional Monarchy ) and has for more than a century has outlived historical and cultural divisions in this country.
The Constitution of Iran was simply never applied as it was drafted initially except during the 12 years during which the Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi perfectly respected his constitutional role by not interfering directly in the affairs of the State. THAT Changed with the overthrow of Mossadegh but if the Shah can be critisized for siezing power and therefore overlooking the Constitution, Mossadegh can equally be blamed of not handling his own constitutional role when he kicked the Royal family and the King who named him out of the country. As dramatic as they may seem these events can be seen and interpreted from two different angles ( Republican and Constitutionalist) each of which do find their legal and political justifications. History however should not be a hostage I think of political oppurtunism especially if the events in question are very far fetched in history. They can however serve as historical milestones and reminders of the errors that were made so as to avoid similar situations in the future.
In otherwords the dichotomy between the Republican and Constitutional Monarchy point of views, sensitivities and preferences should Only be examined in the context of a century old struggle between conservative forces and progressive ones and not merely through the already politically deformed spectrum of events of 1953 that seems to obssess many Iranian Nationalists regardless of their ideologies or loyalties many of which I believe even today share more common points with secular and democratic constitutionalists than the theocratic leaders and politicians of the Islamic Republic of Iran ...
Normalization and Dialogue with Iran's clerical regime should not be at the expense of the capitulation of our democratic ideals and demands for Justice !
My Humble Opinion
DK
Shooting itself in the foot
by Fred on Sat Apr 26, 2008 02:35 AM PDTIsn’t he basically saying that all his and his many colleagues’ many years long efforts to talk with the Islamist Republic’s representatives have failed because the Islamist refuse to engage in substantive dialogue? Is the Islamist lobby NIAC inadvertently shooting itself in the foot by highlighting this sort of reports which only goes to show the refusal of their Islamist client to talk with the US? This only plays into the hands of those who are advocates of military option.