IRAN-U.S.
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Play the long game
15-Nov-2010
Sometime in the next few weeks, if the parties can agree on a place and date convenient to all sides, Iran and the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany, known as the "P5+1," will meet for the first time since October 2009 to revive diplomacy over Iran's nuclear program. This is welcome news for U.S. President Barack Obama who, almost two years into his first term, has learned the hard way that diplomacy with Iran is neither quick nor easy.
The posturing has already begun. To create greater political space at home, administration officials have told the media that a new and tougher proposal will be presented to the Iranians. The United States will negotiate from a position of strength, the White House says, as a result of the surprisingly harsh sanctions that have been imposed on Iran, both by the U.N. Security Council and unilaterally by individual countries.
The Iranians are trying to sound equally confident: Sanctions, while biting, have not affected Iran's nuclear calculus, they say. In fact, Tehran contends that it is now in a stronger position due to its larger stockpile of low-enriched uranium, its progress on 20 percent enriched uranium, and the imminent activation of the Bushehr nuclear plant, which is only weeks from going online.
The reality is that neither side has gained the upper hand since 13 months ago, when the last round of talks commenced. The increased international pressure may have sharpened Iran's choices, but the Obama administration has no illusions that sanctions alone will cause the Islamic Republic to relent on its nuclear ambitions. Neither Washington nor Tehran has time on its side.
While the Iranian government has regained control after brutally suppressing pro-democracy protests, it faces growing isolation and dire economic realities. And while the failed talks in October 2009 strengthened the White House's ability to impose tougher sanctions on Iran, the same will not be true going forward. The value of greater international unity around sanctions will be marginal compared with the value of taking first steps toward a diplomatic resolution of the longstanding issues that fuel U.S.-Iran enmity. This time around, diplomacy must succeed for the sake of resolving the conflict, not for the sake of creating an impetus for more sanctions.
So what can be done differently this time around? The Obama administration should carefully study the failed negotiations of October 2009 and adjust its approach to take into account the lessons learned from that round of talks. Although Iran clearly bears a great deal of responsibility for the stalemate of the past 13 months, there is also room for improvement in the U.S. approach. Here is a list of the five lessons that diplomats should keep in mind before stepping into the room with Iranian negotiators.
1) Don't Let the Fuel-Swap Deal Hold the Negotiation Process Hostage
In October 2009, the United States expressed its willingness to discuss a range of issues with Iran -- but only after the Islamic Republic agreed to ship out 1,200 kilograms of low-enriched uranium in return for fuel rods to power Tehran's research reactor. The Obama administration saw this deal as a confidence-building measure and a necessary step to push back against domestic critics of diplomacy, reduce Iran's nuclear breakout capability, and create more time for dialogue.
The plan faltered when the Iranians did not -- or could not -- agree. But the fact that comprehensive diplomacy had been made conditional on the fuel-swap deal meant that much-needed talks on issues such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and human rights were then stalled, leaving all parties in a worse situation.
In the future, any potential iteration of the reactor deal should be treated as the tactical confidence-building measure it is, not a strategic sine qua non. Failure to cut a deal on this single issue should not mean that the entire agenda of U.S.-Iran negotiations grinds to a halt.
2) Get by with a Little Help from Your Friends
Iran's relationship with every one of the "P5+1" countries ranges from bad to worse. Particularly between the United States and Iran, habits developed over 30 years of enmity are tough to break. There is a huge reservoir of mistrust, suspicion, and hostility. Resolving the nuclear dispute through a mechanism almost completely void of trust is a formidable task. Although the Security Council process cannot be sidestepped, it can be complemented by relying on states that -- due to their cordial relations with both the permanent members and Iran -- can inject trust into the diplomatic process.
Turkish and Brazilian diplomats, who worked furiously from November 2009 to May 2010 in an attempt to breathe life into a fuel-swap deal, have spent more time engaged in diplomacy with Iran recently than the entire P5+1 combined. This experience strengthened their relationships with all relevant Iranian parties and gave them valuable insights into the Iranian perspective. If the negotiations are to succeed, the trust that Turkey and Brazil have built will be indispensable.
3) Talk to Everyone in Iran -- Directly
As the only permanent member of the U.N. Security Council that does not have a direct channel to Iran, Washington is at a significant disadvantage. Obama administration officials recognize that, on numerous instances this past fall, opportunities to salvage the fuel-swap deal existed -- if only the United States and Iran could speak to each other directly. Going forward, efforts should be made to quickly establish such a channel. And the belief that dialogue is only possible if a singular authentic channel to Iran is found must be discarded. Such a channel doesn't exist.
Rather, Washington should recognize that there are many power centers in Iran, all of which need to be included in the process. Just as no country expects to sign a significant deal with the United States without addressing the concerns of the White House, State Department, Pentagon, and Congress, no major decision is likely to be made in Iran unless a range of key stakeholders is brought into the discussion. This partly explains Turkey and Brazil's success in getting Iran to agree to the U.S. modalities of the nuclear swap. Their diplomacy with Iran was not focused on a single stakeholder in Tehran. Rather, these countries built confidence with and won support for their mediation from all relevant Iranian power centers.
If direct engagement with the Majlis, the supreme leader's office, and other political centers and factions isn't immediately possible, negotiators must be willing to give them time, so that these stakeholders' inclination to scuttle a deal that they were not a part of is neutralized. Pressing Iran's fractured political system to give a quick yes usually results in them saying no. A first step toward strengthening the diplomatic efforts would be to revise the "no contact" policy that prohibits U.S. diplomats from interacting with their Iranian counterparts.
4) Don't Forget Human Rights
Reducing 30 years of wide-ranging U.S.-Iran tensions to a single-variable negotiation is not a formula for success. As the agenda enlarges and the conversation continues, the United States must address the Islamic Republic's human rights abuses. The human rights violations committed by the Iranian government in the aftermath of the June 2009 presidential election were a clear violation of Iran's international obligations -- regardless of whether there was fraud in the election, regardless of who had won the election, and indeed, regardless of whether there had been any election. The Obama administration hasn't pressed the issue, both to protect pro-democracy activists within the country and to avoid seeming to interfere, something neither the Green Movement's leaders nor the government would likely be enthused about.
But the lack of an adequate response has done more harm than good. In the eyes of some in the Iranian Green Movement, Washington seemed so eager to secure a nuclear deal that it was ready to sacrifice the Iranian people's human rights in the process. The setup appears analogous to the state of relations that existed under the shah: a relationship centered on security at the expense of basic freedoms, and the cardinal sin that poisons relations between the two countries to this day.
A healthy, long-term relationship with Iran cannot be built if the current reservoir of American soft power among the Iranian population is squandered for the sake of a nuclear deal. Just as Iranians' respect and admiration for American achievements, values, and culture would be jeopardized in the event of a military attack on Iran, silence on human rights will likewise deplete this crucial strategic asset.
This is particularly important because an Iranian opening to the United States will likely be accompanied with a tightening of domestic restrictions as the government will not want its policy to be understood as a sign of weakness.
5) Play the Long Game
Obama shouldn't kid himself, or the American public: Diplomacy with Iran is hard, and it's going to get harder. Since Obama took office, political space in Washington to pursue diplomacy with Iran has consistently shrunk. This has primarily been caused by the actions of the Iranian government, including the election fraud and post-election abuses committed by Tehran. And, after the Republican midterm election victory, it's only going to shrink more.
The Obama administration must go into the talks focused on the long-term benefits of engaging Iran. It also must be willing to make the political investment necessary to give the process a chance to succeed. If the administration is going to retreat at the first sign of Iranian intransigence or congressional opposition -- which are both probably inevitable -- then it might be better not to embark on a new round of diplomacy to begin with.
An institutionalized enmity that has taken 30 years to build will not be undone through a few meetings over the course of a few weeks. Neither side should expect that its first offer will be accepted. A generation of officials in the United States and Iran has made their careers by proving how nasty they can be to the other side. It is very easy to slip back into old patterns if an attempt to break the deadlock doesn't yield immediate results.
Success will only come if diplomats are willing to play the long game, placing a premium on patience and long-term progress rather than quick fixes aimed at appeasing skeptical and impatient domestic political constituencies, whether in Tehran or in Washington.
This article originally appeared in Foreign Policy magazine.
AUTHORS
Trita Parsi is president of the National Iranian American Council. Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council and a former Iran desk officer at the U.S. State Department.
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 |
Q
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 15, 2010 03:59 PM PSTJust because you do not see the rest does not mean it is missing. You do not want to listen so all you hear is "IRI BAD". There is a lot more.
If you were reading.
Parviz
by MOOSIRvaPIAZ on Mon Nov 15, 2010 03:57 PM PSTyou say:
Am I putting the lives of ordinary Iranians at risk by saying no to negotiations with this regime or does the regime, you call reality, goes
beyond putting their lives at risk and actually kills them by their dozens for various(political and medieval) reasons every day?"
It's both. In a hostage situation will you turn away and ignore the hostage taker? No. you will have to deal with it, whether you like it or not.
"Why don't I see you pointing a finger at them or raise your voice to protect the people for whom you care so much?"
as a matter of fact, I do! but it wont change anything! wake up! they are dictators! what we can change is the way our governments in the west deals with the regime. now to solve the nuclear dispute its either war or negotiations. which one do you want? which one do you think helps the ordinary iranians in the long run?
Many Iranian exiles are immature and disturbingly selfish
by Q on Mon Nov 15, 2010 02:38 PM PSTSome of these people (many of them "anonymous" types like on this thread), are an embarrassment to the Iranian community. It's like nothing is more important than their own selfish expression of hatred for IRI. They are like immature children crying to a daddy (Uncle) without having any rational explanation or realistic solution.
The only thing that matters to some people is that they satisfy their own desire to yell IRI bad!
How should the nuclear standoff be handled with Iran?
IRI BAD!
What can be done to prevent war with Iran, which will kill many people?
IRI BAD!
Who are the best people to advance democracy in Iran, or reform Islam?
IRI BAD!
Do sanctions really work, or are we turning Iran into North Korea?
IRI BAD!
What is the reason behind perpetual regional insecurity and instability in the middle east which predates IRI?
IRI BAD!
What are the prospects that Iran can be "brought to its knees" through sanctions or even bombing? Realistically, what are the chances of any solution?
IRI BAD!
What would any self respecting national leader of any political persuation, even a fully democratic one, do in the face of being bullied by global powers? Would that person just give up national rights and expect to stay in power?
IRI BAD!
I'm not sure of any world problem that has ever been solved by pure arbadeh.
This the immature level of discourse we have on this site (which is a microcosm of Tehrangelesi mindset). I'm gald there are adults in the room now that can ignore the whining noise and present some rational options. IF these adults had to be imported from Sweden, it just points to the sorry psycho state of Iranians in the US.
afshinazad
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 15, 2010 02:33 PM PSTYes. Thank you for pointing this out Afshin. It is very important for diaspora and all opposition groups to be clear about this.
None of us view the Islamic Republic as legitimate. We shall not honor any treaties or contracts with this government.
WHO TO NEGOTIATE?
by afshinazad on Mon Nov 15, 2010 01:52 PM PSTwho is negptiating what and for whom, every day we have 70% sale sign on every thing we have; OIL,GAS,HUMAN LIFE, and more. who are these people negotiating for our country, are we represented by our own people? These people who are ruling our country are not Iranian and have no right.
We must have strong voice to tell the world stop negotiating and signing any contract with this regime and we must remind these countries any contract signed by IRI is not ligal and will be null and void.
Where are all these Leaders who are talking about freedom and human rights and country and democracy.
Sorry Anonymose. - Vildemose - I like to see a free Iran
by MM on Mon Nov 15, 2010 01:13 PM PSTIt is not about blindly supporting NIAC. No matter how loud NIAC screams about not negociating with Iran, the 5+1 and IAEA will engage in nuclear negociations with Iran. Now, I do support including human rights as part of these nuclear negociations, and if the negociations end with a UN human rights monitor in Iran, so much better for the opposition voice.
Responses
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 15, 2010 12:36 PM PSTafshinazad : Right that is just what I have been saying. Both sides are liars and do not give a damn about us.
doctor mohandes: Please let us not get personal. I am not out of my mind. If paper is worthless could we please tear up Golestan and Torkamanchai :-)
No matter; I had my say and am done for now. Good thing is that on one of importance gives a damn what I say ! Best of luck to Iran; we all need it.
NEGOTIATIONS ARE FOR SAVING IRI
by afshinazad on Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:55 AM PSTWe are getting false report about negotiations and always been negotiations between IRI and american either directly or indirectly and nobody is going to tell us what happend behind doors. this regime will give anything that could save them and western countries do not care about Iranian freedom and human rights and never been about our rights always been their rights who to stay in power and how much should western countries will get. we are the nation who understands all political games and we are not the nation willing to work together and come up with democratic regime that we acould share the power or atleast have a voice and we always try to destroy the otherside because we are not as patriotic as we think. we have a problem with regime for so many things and also we have a lot of problem among ourself and what is the solution for our problem comes first and regime comes second and foreign problems comes last. if we could solve our problem, there would be no problem going against regime or save our national interest.
VPK
by Doctor mohandes on Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:42 AM PSTAre you out of your mind or something? That is such a tall order of things to do or rather bend over for , for the iri. LOL. yaa right.
They have already made accusations that they are lying. How much farther can they go? What is in it for them? Where are the strategic benefits?
If, and that is one big if, any agreements are inked amongs them, if there arenegotiations, That means there will be direct supervision on who will come to power afterwards, And since we know everything in life is negotiable and rules and treaties are made to bent, there should be no problem in tearing a piece of paper and write up a new one. Migi na negah kon!
Doctor Mohandes
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:26 AM PSTI do not believe that negotiations will make any difference on what America does. Yes, we are in a bind but giving up the nuclear right does not help. They will just claim IRI is lying. Or that they have "secret" evidence that for "national security" reasons may not be revealed. Or maybe do a false flag thing and come up with a reason.
Here are some realities: Saddam destroyed all his "WMD" and Bush attacked anyway. Iran already gave away a lot of rights in the Caspian Sea. What did it get: big nothing.
IRI is going to go one of these days; but treaties will remain much longer. Ghajars are gone but we still have the damn treaties that removed so much of Iran. I oppose giving up more.
Here is what I do suggest: IRI put a muzzle on AN. Stop supporting Hizbollah and Hamas. Stop obsessing with Israel. These will go further to lower the risk than giving up Iranian rights.
VPK
by Doctor mohandes on Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:17 AM PSTI hate to do this to you my man But accoriding to the article:
Success will only come if diplomats are willing to play the long game, placing a premium on patience and long-term progress rather than quick fixes aimed at appeasing skeptical and impatient domestic political constituencies, whether in Tehran or in Washington.
So, as Mehrdad said, We are still Andar khame ye Kooche! What to do what to do? We don't want a swift gaz anbori attack cuz of the casualties and what not. Don't Negotiate with them, cuz they are whatever they are and what not. So really. what is/are the other choices we are left with here?
Mehrdad
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 15, 2010 11:06 AM PSTI will reiterate my main objection. I do NOT want Iran to give up a legitimate right to nuclear power to save an illegitimate government. There is no need for negotiations on this. US will not change its stance anyway. They will attack or not based on their own reason. Nuclear thing is "Bahaneh"; Red Herring; or whatever you want. If it was not that; they would pick on something else. The fight is over "lahafe molla (nasredin!).
So why bother with this farce anyway I ask you.
I want the regime gone and Iranian rights in tact. This is the opposite.
VPK
MM since u lumped me w/ ayatoilet u wont get a response from me!
by Anonymouse on Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:34 AM PSTEverything is sacred
MM: In the larger scheme of
by vildemose on Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:25 AM PSTMM: In the larger scheme of things, Nobody really cares about NIAC or Trita. Is supporting NIAC more important now than supporting what's in the interest of Iran and Iranians?
Ayatoilet1/Anonymose
by MM on Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:21 AM PSTNIAC, as an Iranian-American organization representing a small segment of the US Iranian-Americans, can call for:
A. No US negociations with IRI at all, even nuclear talks.
B. All out US/Israeli surgical attacks on Iranian nuclear sites (in bed w/ neocons/AIPAC while 70% of Iranian-Americans do not want a war w/ Iran).
C. If the US talks with Iran to settle the nuclear issues, please include human rights as part of your negociations.
Well my friends, it looks like the 5+1/IAEA will definitely talk with IRI over the nuclear issues, w/ or w/o anyone else's blessing. So, what is wrong with asking for human rights to be included as part of the negociations? As I said earlier, In 2009, NIAC Ensured human rights were on the agenda when the U.S. began talks with Iran. This has, hopefully, led to the recent 2010 boycott of the 8 Iranian officials with the worst human rights record. Many folks here cheered when Clinton announced a human rights-based sanctions on the 8 Iranians and we all called for more Iranians to be included in the boycott. A small step, but nonetheless significant in a sence that it sends a message to IRI that if you torture/kill/repress Iranians, we will remember you, you will not be able to come and go with impunity and your assets that you probably stole from Iran are frozen.
Again, if there was a human rights monitor in Iran and things improved a bid vis-a-vis the voice of the opposition, how long do you think IRI would last if she allowed the opposition to speak freely or come out and demonstrate?
To all nay-sayers including ayatoilet1
by Bavafa on Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:19 AM PSTApparently some folks have plenty of time babbling and repeating the same thing over and over without ever hinting at any possible way forward.
In the current impasse between US and Iran, the way I see it choices are:
1- negotiate a solution
2- go to war with Iran
3- accept IRI as it is
4- Sanction Iran to maximum extend to bring IRI to its knees
Now Aytoilet1, did I miss any other possible way forward? Do you have any offer of wisdom in this regard?
I am all ears and last time I offered that, did not hear a beep regarding any possible solution or ideas only but the usual rant that NIAC is not a representative of you.
Mehrdad
P.S. Mahmoudg and Fred, you can spare me with your wisdom. We all know what you are after and that is death and destructions in Iran.
Mehrdad
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Mon Nov 15, 2010 10:19 AM PSTYou ask a valid thing from me:
I am not supporting war; I am basically saying two things:
Regarding #1: The whole USA and IRI positions are based on Israel and Palestine: what is good for it vs. what is bad for them. I do not give a rat behind about Israel or Palestine. I have an Iranian centric position. Iran is not doing anything illegal. It has a legitimate right to nuclear power. It happens that Iran is being run by an illegitimate regimes. A military junta that is holding the population hostage. The "negotiations" want to trade Iran's valid right to nuclear power to legitimize the Mollah. I reject this plan. If these negotiations go on we can forget about human rights in Iran. I rather see IRI for what it is not some sugar coated furry version make to look good. They have to go; no negotiations. Mollahs go; nuclear power rights remain.
Regarding #2: I know USA is not our friend and do not want it to "help" us. Nor do I want Nato or the rest of the gang to be involved. However I fully expect Mullahs to be removed from power by Iranian people at some point. It will be violent and hard. When people get a chance there will be a lot of scores to be settled. Mollahs better run or else.
If West is going to help why not start by confiscating the personal wealth of IRI goons. How about Rafsanjani wealth in Canada. Or Swiss banks brimming with Iranian stolen money. But no: that is not to be discussed; just Esraeel and Felesteen. F*** them both.
I hope this explains what I am saying.
Aytoilet: Great points. Why
by vildemose on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:44 AM PSTAytoilet: Great points. Why do you think the US realists have calculated that supporting IRI should trump a democratic and secular government for Iran? Beside, having a lulu to justify arm sales, what other reasons the US has to prevent its downfall?
MM - people are getting killed every day!!
by ayatoilet1 on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:41 AM PSTFor god's sake, its not enough to simply put human rights on the agenda. People are getting killed everyday. Young kids, students...its horrible. Its nasty. Its tragic. Its not something that can be postponed, or simply put on an agenda for talks, or for a boycott of some of IRI's leadership (who can simply switch their names on their passports for travel)....its nonesense. You don't get it, you live in your comfortable apart. in md, and then have no concept of the tragedy...the utter despondence. For god's sake wake up.
Beyond death, they are torturing people - cutting up their backs, raping them ...not just rebel students, but the clergy that disagree with them. There are 2 million addicts - assisted by the Pasdar's open, widespread, horrific smugling of literally 100's of Metric tons of drugs across the border from Afghanistan, they are cutting people up and selling their organs ...
What are you talking about. Human rights on the agenda for talks? Are you crazy? Do you understand? Do you get it? Its far worse that you can even imagine. You really can not comprehend the extent of the tragedy. Its horrific. Wake up.
There can be no negotiations with these bastards. There is no way to come to some sort of compromise with them. Its gone way beyond that point.
Rule number one in any negotiations is to know who you are dealing with. Do you know who these people are? Do you know Ahmadinejad's real bio (as a torturer, as a gun runner to the Chechens when he was ostandar in Ardebil, as the member of the IRGC??) Do you know?
MM I'm saying Islamic Republic (Iran) should negotiate w/ 5+1.
by Anonymouse on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:32 AM PSTIt is useless to ping this down to US or Europe or others. Seems like NIAC is still trying to get US and others to compromise with Iran while Iran itself is not willing.
I understand that human rights is just as important to NIAC as not having a war in Iran. However, the time has changed and some like Soraya Sepahbod-Ulrich have not changed with it and not only that they're digging in their heels more! The points in this article about negotiating with Iran is long and hard, is meaningless.
Even Karoubi and Mousavi have said that sanctions are the result of Ahmadi not knowing WTF his administration is doing and making "grand" statements. Even China and Russia have changed course. So what is there left to be said about 5+1 negotiating with Iran? 5+1 is not the problem.
Everything is sacred
suggestions to niac 1.
by hamsade ghadimi on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:30 AM PSTsuggestions to niac
1. make sense: as someone else said: “what crisis?”
2. don’t try to do everything by yourself: use membership money from the 3000-strong members to hire a competent editor. i don’t care if english is your first language, your writing stinks.
3. make your case: could you elaborate how obama “learned the hard way” of dealing with iran?
4. make sense, part 2: when “borrowing” phrases from other articles, make sure they make sense. “play the long game” similar to the obama article “playing the long game” (//www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=playing_the_long_game) have two different meanings. did you use “play the long game” as an imperative toward obama? as in “hey, obama, play the long game.”
5. have some shame: as others have mentioned, one cannot negotiate with rapists. although, it seems some would do just that even during the commission of the crime to their own family members.
6. don’t be so obvious: every article that has been put forth by niac advocates letting iri have whatever it wants. they’re chummy with the iri gov’t (as fred’s email trail between tp and iri official shows). and all the hardcore iri supporters, unashamedly, are also niac supporters (please note that doesn’t mean all niac supporters are iri supporters, that was for you a.h.).
7. get your priorities straight: the main beef that the “Iranian people” have with iri is human rights violations. as another commenter noted these violations did not start last year. it started from day 1 of iri. if your 3000 members don’t care about human rights in iran, please disregard this advice.
Negotiations with who? Again?
by ayatoilet1 on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:30 AM PSTI am getting very tired of this constant multi-year set of negotiations that obviously will not produce anything. There is no basis for negotiation on either side. The US and Europe are complete hypocrites telling Iran what to do when they sold Iran all the technology - inc. a reactor with Plutonium in it during the Shah's time - and then engineered the rise of the Mullahs in Iran and put them in power in iran with all this nuclear technology in their hands. How very irresponsible. On the Iranian side, Iran has a full right to do what they are doing; and can not be stopped - with meaningless sanctions or negotiations. It is clear that the problem or issue is not Iran's nuclear program or aspirations; BUT ITS THE REGIME STUPID. ITRS! ITRS! Until, the west understands that there is no basis for negotiations and that they do not have a leg to stand on - this nonesense will play out.
There are lots of interesting comments on the Foreign Policy website regarding this article too. Some of them alude to the fact that Parsi, the NIAC and I guess his new side kick (Reza) are all playing into the IRI regime's hands by trying to establish some basis for negotiations. The longer that plays out, the more the regime in Iran is supported. Protracted negiotiations serve them the most.
Finally, I am sure the West knows all this. They are keeping this program alive, and they are supporting the Mullahs - for whatever reasons they have. But let me just say, that Israel (specifically Netenyahu) do not appear to be scared or more willing to negotiate out of fear of Iran's nuclear program and assistance to Hezbollah and Hamas. This ploy of maintaining Iran as a lulu - has not really served US strategic objectives truly.
In the end, the West is losing a lot of real opportunities by protracting the downfall of this regime. That whole region could be a trillion dollar market that will far superseed any short-term billion dollar arm sales to the Saudis.
The regime must go. There is no basis for any negotiations.
Is this really about
by vildemose on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:30 AM PSTIs this really about nuclear-readiness of the IRI??
I don't think so.
The will of the Iranian people will prevail irregardless of what US or NIAC/US/IRI desire.
Neither the US nor Trita khan care about the will of the Iranian people in Iran, period. Dokoonetono jam konid.
r u all saying that 5+1/IAEA should not negociate w/ Iran?
by MM on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:19 AM PSTAre you all saying that 5+1 countries / IAEA should not negociate with Iran over her nuclear ambitions? Now, that is different, and basically amounts to bombing the nuclear sites and assuming that they are for nukes. On the other hand, if IAEA/5+1 do negociate and achieve a nuclear deal, the rest of the world will not care a bid about the brutal repression of the Iranian people.
What NIAC is saying is that: while you negociate with Iran, do not forget about human rights and make sure that is part of your negociatetions, and force Iran to comply with the UN charter of Human rights which Iran is a signatory. Now, how long do you think IRI would last if she allowed the opposition to speak freely or come out and demonstrate? Wake up folks!
In 2009, NIAC Ensured human rights were on the agenda when the U.S. began talks with Iran. This has, hopefully, led to the recent 2010 boycott of the 8 Iranian officials with the worst human rights record.
Heavy sanctions only good if followed by heavy surgicall attacks
by mahmoudg on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:16 AM PSTthis regime understands nothing but brute force. It uses it to quell its own people, it WILL use it to destry the West and all the good it stands for. You can levy all the heavy sanctions you want, at the end of the day if you do not use heavy concentrated force to weaken the regime's resolve and grip, by which the people will find the reason to topple this regime, all else is talk and only reason to keep this Islamic Rapist regime in power and hence the reason for NIAC (regime's lobby) to continue to fool the rest of the population.
The closer we get to the 5+1
by iamfine on Mon Nov 15, 2010 09:06 AM PSTIf the IRI establishes a good relationship with the 5+1 countries through diplomacy and negotiation, the sooner the sanction will be removed and as the result the economy gets better. People will then be happy. Good economy is the key to a having a better life. The human rights will fall into place.
niac fools keep pushing for a deal with iran
by seannewyork on Mon Nov 15, 2010 08:42 AM PSTwhen the iranian people have rejected the leaders and system in iran, the trita parsi crowd keeps pushing for negotiations with the regime in iran.
when will they figure out they are on the wrong side of history.
trita and reza aslan use to say iran is a democracy, shows how much they know.
How Did NIAC diffuse Itself???
by Tavana on Mon Nov 15, 2010 08:02 AM PSTBy writting in "English for Idiots:"
"-- if only the United States and Iran could speak to each other directly. Going forward, efforts should be made to quickly establish
such a channel. And the belief that dialogue is only possible if a
singular authentic channel to Iran is found must be discarded ???. Such a
channel doesn't exist."
Such a sweet relief, at last !!!
VPK:
by Bavafa on Mon Nov 15, 2010 07:38 AM PSTIn the hopes to understand your point better could you please clearly this for me.
Based on our past discussion, I understood you were against a war with Iran and Iranians.
"The more powerful and violent the more Islam gets it. Negotiation will be useless. Because as others pointed out the Islamists are not reformable"
Now...do I read this wrong and conclude that you have changed your mind and now advocating war against Iran?
I mean there is either negotiation, war or just acceptance of current situation, as choices in regards to Iran-US relation. Your statement suggest war as the way to go forward.
Parvis:
Who do you envision to pay the price as the result of bombing?
What do you envision to come after the bombs?
Mehrdad
Trita’s Newly Played Lullaby
by Demo on Mon Nov 15, 2010 07:07 AM PST“The human rights violations committed by the Iranian government in the aftermath of the June 2009 presidential election were a clear violation of Iran's international obligations---“As a clear reminder to all the readers that the Most Honorable “Trita Khan” had been living in “Tora Bora” hideouts of Afghanistan till then & therefore has no clue about any such violations from 1979 to the June 2009 by the same government!!!!
PS: The Authors had been living all their lives in comfort outside IRAN & had never experienced “poverty” & living under IRI dictatorship. Therefore the phrase “60% of IRAN population live under poverty line" is “Chinese” to them. They also receive monetary compensations for their writings by the length of their articles.