IRAN-U.S.
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
The question is why?
01-Oct-2010
The unrelenting diplomatic and geopolitical standoff between Iran and the United States is often blamed on the Iranian government for its “confrontational” foreign policies, or its “unwillingness” to enter into a dialogue with the United States. Little known, however, is the fact that during the past decade or so, Iran has offered a number of times to negotiate with the United States without ever getting a positive response from the U.S.
The best known of such efforts at dialogue, which came to be known as Iran’s “grand bargain” proposal, was made in May 2003. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-U.S. understanding, covering all issues of mutual concern, was transmitted to the U.S. State Department through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran. Not only did the State Department not respond to Iran’s negotiating offer but, as reporter Gareth Porter points out, it indeed “rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.”
Since then Iran has made a number of other efforts at negotiation, the latest of which was made by President Ahmadinejad ahead of his recent (2010) trip to the United States to attend the annual meeting of the UN General Assembly. Regrettably, once again the United States ignored President Ahmadinejad’s overture of meeting with President Obama during his UN visit.
The question is why? Why have successive U.S. administrations been reluctant to enter into a conflict-resolution dialogue with Iran, which could clearly be in the national interests of the United States?
The answer, in a nutshell, is that U.S. foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, is driven not so much by broad national interests as they are by narrow but powerful special interests—interests that seem to prefer war and militarism to peace and international understanding. These are the nefarious interests that are vested in military industries and related “security” businesses, notoriously known as the military-industrial complex. These beneficiaries of war dividends would not be able to justify their lion’s share of our tax dollars without “external enemies” or “threats to our national interests.”
Embezzlement of the lion’s share of the national treasury was not a difficult act to perform during the Cold War era because the pretext for continued increases in military spending—the “communist threat”—seemed to conveniently lie at hand. Justification of increased military spending in the post–Cold War period, however, has prompted the military-security interests to be more creative in inventing (or manufacturing, if necessary) “new sources of danger to U.S. interests.”
Thus, when the collapse of the Soviet system and the subsequent discussions of "peace dividends" in the United States threatened the interests of the military-industrial conglomerates, their representatives invented "new threats to U.S. interests" and successfully substituted them for the "threat of communism" of the Cold War era. These “new, post-Cold War sources of threat" are said to stem from the so-called "rogue states," "global terrorism" and “Islamic fundamentalism.” Demonization of Iran and/or President Ahmadinejad can be better understood in this context.
Now, it may be argued that if it is true that beneficiaries of war-dividends need external enemies in order to justify their unfair share of national treasury, why Iran? Why of all places is Iran targeted as such an enemy? Isn’t there something wrong with the Iranian government and/or President Ahmadinejad’s policies in challenging the world’s superpower knowing that this would be a case of David challenging Goliath, that it would cause diplomatic pressure, military threats and economic sanctions on Iran?
These are indeed the kind of questions that the “Greens” and other critics of Ahmadinejad’s government ask, rhetorical questions that tend to blame Iran for the brutal economic sanctions and military threats against that country—in effect, blaming the victim for the crimes of the perpetrator. Labeling President Ahmadinejad’s policies as “rash,” “adventurous” and “confrontational,” Mir Hossein Mousavi and other leaders of the “greens” frequently blame those polices for external military and economic pressures on Iran. Accordingly, they seek “understanding” and “accommodation” with the United States and its allies, presumably including Israel, in order to achieve political and economic stability. While, prima facie, this sounds like a reasonable argument, it suffers from a number of shortcomings.
To begin with, it is a disingenuous and obfuscationist argument. Military threats and economic sanctions against Iran did not start with Ahmadinejad’s presidency; they have been imposed on Iran for more than thirty years, essentially as punishment for its 1979 revolution that ended the imperial U.S. influence over its economic, political and military affairs. It is true that the criminal sanctions have been steadily escalated, significantly intensified in recent months. But that is not because Ahmadinejad occasionally lashes out at imperialist/Zionist policies in the region; it is rather because Iran has refused to give in to the imperialistic dictates of the U.S. and its allies.
Second, it is naïve to think that U.S. imperialism would be swayed by gentle or polite language to lift economic sanctions or remove military threats against Iran. During his two terms in office (8 years), the former president of Iran Muhammad Khatami frequently spoke of “dialogue of civilizations,” counterposing it to the U.S. Neoconservatives’ “clash of civilization,” effectively begging the Unites States for dialogue and diplomatic rapprochement between Iran and the United States. His pleas of dialogue and friendship, however, fell on deaf ears. Why?
Because U.S. policy toward Iran (or any other country, for that matter) is based on an imperialistic agenda that consists of a series of demands or expectations, not on diplomatic decorum, or the type of language its leaders use. These include Iran’s giving up its lawful and legitimate right to civilian nuclear technology, opening up its public domain and/or state-owned industries to debt-leveraging and privatization schemes of the predatory finance capital of the West, as well as its compliance with the U.S.-Israeli geopolitical designs in the Middle East. It is not unreasonable to argue that once Iran allowed U.S. input, or meddling, into such issue of national sovereignty, it would find itself on a slippery slope the bottom of which would be giving up its independence: the U.S. would not be satisfied until Iran becomes another “ally” in the Middle East, more or less like Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and the like.
It is ironic that Green leaders such as Mousavi, Rafsanjani and Khatami blame Ahmadinejad for the hostile imperialist policies toward Iran. For, as mentioned above, U.S. imperialism showed its most venomous hostility toward Iran during the presidency of Khatami while he was vigorously pursuing a path of friendship with the United States. While Khatami was promoting his “dialogue of civilizations” and taking conciliatory steps to befriend the U.S., including cooperation in the overthrow of the Taliban regime in the neighboring Afghanistan, the U.S. labeled Iran as a member of the “axis of evil.” This outrageous demonization was then used as a propaganda tool to intensify economic sanctions and justify calls for “regime change” in Iran.
In the face of President Khatami’s conciliatory gestures toward the United States, many Iranians were so outraged by its unfair and provocative attitude toward Iran that they began to question the wisdom of Khatami’s policy of trying to appease U.S. imperialism. It is now widely believed that the frustration of many Iranians with Khatami’s (one-sided) policy of dialogue with the United States played a major role in the defeat of his reformist allies in both the 2003 parliamentary elections and the 2005 presidential election. By the same token, it also played a major role in the rise of Ahmadinejad to Iran’s presidency, as he forcefully criticized the reformists’ attitude toward U.S. imperialism as naïve, arguing that negotiation with the United States must be based on mutual respect, not at the expense of Iran’s sovereignty. (For a detailed discussion of these and related issues please see “Reflecting on Iran’s Presidential Election.”)
In its drive to provoke, destabilize and (ultimately) change the Iranian government to its liking, U.S. imperialism finds a steadfast ally in the Zionist regime of Israel. There is an unspoken, de facto alliance between the U.S. military-industrial complex and militant Zionist forces—an alliance that might be called the military-industrial-security-Zionist alliance. More than anything else, the alliance is based on a convergence of interests on militarism and war in the Middle East, especially against Iran; as Iran is the only country in the region that systematically and unflinchingly exposes both the imperialist schemes of Western powers and expansionist designs of radical Zionism.
Just as the powerful beneficiaries of war dividends view international peace and stability inimical to their business interests, so too the hard-line Zionist proponents of “greater Israel” perceive peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors perilous to their goal of gaining control over the Promised Land. The reason for this fear of peace is that, according to a number of the United Nations’ resolutions, peace would mean Israel’s return to its pre-1967 borders, that is, withdrawal from the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But because proponents of “greater Israel” are unwilling to withdraw from these territories, they are therefore fearful of peace and genuine dialogue with their Arab neighbors—hence, their continued disregard for UN resolutions and their systematic efforts at sabotaging peace negotiations.
So, the answer to the question “why is Iran targeted?” boils down to this: because Iran has broken the mold, so to speak, the pattern of imperialist domination in the Middle East (and beyond). Iran’s only “sin” (from the viewpoint of imperialist powers) is that it tries to be an independent, sovereign nation. All other alleged “offenses” such as pursuit of nuclear weapons or support for terrorism have proven by now to be harebrained excuses that are designed to punish Iran for trying to exercise its national rights as a sovereign country.
Under the influence of the hawkish Neoconservative pressure groups (representing the interests of the military-industrial-Zionist forces) the U.S. has cornered itself into a position that is afraid of talking to Iran because if it does, all of its long-standing accusations against that country would be automatically exposed as lies and baseless allegations. It is in the nature of lying that forces the liar to continuously tell more lies in order to cover the previous lies; more or less similar to the situation of a bike rider who needs to keep pedaling ahead in order to keep from falling down. Furthermore, the powerful military-industrial-security-Zionist interests need Iran as an enemy in order to justify continued increases in military spending and continued occupation of Palestinian land.
It is worth noting here that while the powerful special interests that are vested in the military-security capital benefit from (and therefore tend to advocate) war and military adventures in the Middle East, the broader, but less-cohesive, interests that are vested in civilian, or non-military, capital tend to incur losses in global markets as a result of such military adventures. Evidence shows that foreign policy-induced losses of the U.S. market share in global markets are huge. Militaristic American foreign policy is viewed by international consumers as a significant negative. Representatives of the broad-based civilian industries are aware of the negative economic consequences of the militarization of U.S. foreign policy. And that’s why leading non-military business/trade associations such as The National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) and U.S.A*Engage (a coalition of nearly 800 small and large businesses, agriculture groups and trade associations working to seek alternatives to the proliferation of aggressive U.S. foreign policy actions) have expressed disappointment at the recently expanded U.S. sanctions against Iran on the grounds that such sanctions would significantly undermine U.S. national interests.
Sadly, however, U.S. foreign policy decisions, especially in the Middle East, seem to be driven not so much by broad national interests as they are by narrow (but powerful) special interests, not so much by “peace dividends” as they are by “war dividends.” These powerful special interests, represented largely by the military-security-AIPAC forces, tend to perceive international peace and stability, especially in the Middle East, as detrimental to their nefarious interests. Instead, they seem to prefer an atmosphere of war and militarism in order to justify their lion’s share of our national treasury, or their occupation of Palestinian land. This explains, perhaps more than anything else, the unjust demonization of Iran and the relentless preparations for an all-out war on that country. If this argument sounds like a conspiracy theory, it is not because it is false; rather, it is because the U.S.-Zionist policies in the Middle East are so evil that they defy tender logic, civilized comprehension, or decent human intuition.
First published in www.counterpunch.org
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, author of The Political Economy of U.S. Militarism (Palgrave-Macmillan 2007), teaches economics at Drake University, Des Moines, Iowa.
Karla Hansen, director-producer of Silent Screams, is a social worker and peace activist from Des Moines, Iowa.
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 |
Islamist joke of the day
by AMIR1973 on Mon Oct 04, 2010 08:57 PM PDTOnce Iran does that, the effects will be so devastating to Europe and other western countries economy that their economy will collapse within weeks.
According to this particular West-residing Islamist jokester, the IRI can bring about the "collapse" of the economies of "Europe and other western countries" "within weeks". Oh yeah, keep smoking that Afghan opium, dadash. Keep smoking it. Cheers :-)
If Iran cannot sell crude
by M Ahmadinejad on Mon Oct 04, 2010 07:30 PM PDTIf Iran cannot sell crude oil and the sanctions start crippling the economy, i am afraid Iran will be forced into closing Persian Gulf and Hormoz. In addition these pressures will cause the executions of the political prisoners and the members of oppositions by the very hardliners.
Then west will have two choices, war or serious negotiations without one sided conditions. A fair negotiation that Ahmadinejad is asking for. It would be wise to do the negotiation now. Once Iran does that, the effects will be so devastating to Europe and other western countries economy that their economy will collapse within weeks.
Not mentioning that a war will make the situation even much worse for west and Israel. That will force Iran to get into Iraq and Afghanistan and bomb any other western ally in the region.
So the best option for the west would be to respect Iran's rights and start fair and serious negotiations before it is too late.
US at this time doesn't need to talk to Iran!
by Abarmard on Mon Oct 04, 2010 09:53 AM PDTI generally would agree with the analysis on this article, however the Islamic Republic would be dreaming if they think that external and internal pressures would decrease.
The economic problems with Iran will continue, however no one could assume the amount. If things go according to US plans, Iran will soon have trouble paying her bills. The Iranian system that now is relying heavily on security forces rather than democratic channels to control the country, will have more troubles than ever since 1979 revolution.
The ones who run the system today are thick headed and anti democratic that they are blind to the damage they are causing the system. This is a great benefit for the US and her allies to see Iran lose her status around the neighborhood and with their own citizens.
The harsher rhetoric from the Islamic Republic to the West and Israel is also expected because two simple minded strategies from the extremists plays in decision making process:
1- To deal with cash shortage, uncertainty might increase the price of oil
2- with a possible strike against Iran, domestic issues will go on hold for a good amount of time.
The US strategy is to put Iran where she is today, and Iran at this time, thanks to her own leadership, is losing the battle quickly. The question then is, why talk?
Iran at this time would be the only country that benefits from the talks. US has enough time to wait and see what happens to the Iranian economy and their domestic reaction.
Interestingly enough, the Islamic Republic is not backing down at the failing route that they have started since the election. Gradually all doors are closing to fix the possible collapse of the system, and similar to many power-blinded regimes, they fall before apologizing and changing direction.
Is there still hope for the system to bring the democratic forces back to its infancy stage?
The answer depends on cost and benefit that leadership recognizes as position of power vs weakness. This again is simplistic and idiotic but expected from a system that has pushed their philosophical minded leaders, who produce thoughts and direction aside for guns and absolute authority.
The answer is simple. If Iranian leadership ask the parties to join back to the system, based on mutual respect (what Iran asks US, do internally), and resolves the problems by pushing military out of politics, allow the constitution to be respected, and leader admits his wrong doing by pledging to listen to the voices of the people...The US will have no other way but to deal with a system that has people's support.
Can that happen? unlikely. However that would be least costly way to normalize the country and bring back (semi) legitimacy.
First start with releasing all the political prisoners...
well written
by Niloufar Parsi on Mon Oct 04, 2010 01:01 AM PDThowever a deal should be coing soon despite the rhetoric from both sides. a rough agreement to hold more talks in October was reached during ahmadinejad's recent visit to the UN.
jj: you are being one-sided. iran wants to negotiate with all key parties involved, but is not being given a fair chance. same as with iraq.
Peace
Very true analysis. Here is
by M Ahmadinejad on Sun Oct 03, 2010 08:28 PM PDTVery true analysis by Ismael Hossein-Zadeh. Here is more of it. I don't agree with some of Paul Robert's statement, but what he wrote about Military Complex and a few other issues are true.
//www.counterpunch.org/roberts12022009.html
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=akm3nYN8aG8
so much more evidence
by mahmoudg on Sun Oct 03, 2010 01:12 PM PDTthat the IRI only needs crises to survive as my good friend and cousin Guive so eloguently stated (good to see you back on this arirwave). But alas how can any sane government justify sitting down and talking with this regime, at the end of the day to do what?? that we will support it and help it thrive!!!!! i dont think any one wants that, so lets switch our thought process to solutions that will remove this regime i.e. harsh and I mean very harsh sanctions followed by surgical attacks on the assets of the Iranian regime. hit them where it hurts and I will guarantee the Iranians will rise up against this regime.
an article full of hot air!
by PArviz on Sun Oct 03, 2010 09:11 AM PDTInteresting article, and as someone mentioned earlier, full of intentional inaccuracies and errors.
The Islamic Republic CAN NOT survive without crises. If you look at its 30 year history, a shameful one at that, you notice that there has not been a day without crisis, mainly caused and pursued by the regime itself.
Under normal conditions the mullahs will not last many days. They always need an enemy (preferably a foreign one) in order to be able to operate by imprisoning, torturing, raping and killing anyone who questions them under the guise of "enemies of god" or "foreign agents".
So I say to the authors of this article: when all the water in the world can not cleanse the filth ruling Iran, what chance two regime sympathizers have? You can not make this regime look good by smearing the US.
Down with the ENTIRE Islamic Republic!
Pot calls the kettle black!
by Milan on Sat Oct 02, 2010 09:49 PM PDTWe know all about the u.s imperialism, etc. But doesn't Islam have its own brand of imperialism, attempting ever since the 7th century to spread its influence worldwide? Iri has been riding on this Islamic imperialistic wave for the past 30 years.
Annihilates Them You Say?
by Mola Nasredeen on Sat Oct 02, 2010 03:37 PM PDTWake up and smell the shit George Bush and Republicans have created for us, war in the east war in the west.
Spending trillions of dollars on endless wars while firing our teachers, closing our schools and bankrupting the nation.
Spending trillions of dollars on 3 aimless wars while 45 million people live without health insurance in the United States.
The audacity of the warmongers, really!
US will and should talk to Iran once the conditions are right!?
by Everybody Loves Somebody ... on Sat Oct 02, 2010 01:24 PM PDTUS usually talks to its adversaries after it annihilates them first. Two good examples in recent history are Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany in WWII.
In the former case, US nuked them into submission. In the latter case, a massive and sustained carpet bombing brought the Nazis to their knees. After those threats were removed US not only talked to the respective countries but also made massive and long term investments to transform those nations to the giant economies they are today!
Maybe US is waiting for the right moment to carpet nuke the IRR first and once the terrorists are destroyed then It will talk to Iran. Let's hope Iran will turn out to be a giant power one day!?
Molas & Rabis , Inc.
by Demo on Sat Oct 02, 2010 12:31 PM PDTIran & Israel have been acting as "Boogey (Mola & Rabi) Men" in the region in order for US to sell the Oil-Rich Arabs around them all the military junks from Pentagon warehouses for ages. Getting rid of Sadam & Taliban, the 2 main enemies of Molas in Iran & Saudis in Arabian Desert were only small gifts to them from US. Read the following news about the current Obama's efforts to sell Saudis the unprecededent 60 Billions Dollars worth of military hardware:
//current.com///www.mybloggityblog.com/w...
The age of ordering "Jump!"and expecting to hear back "How high?
by Mola Nasredeen on Sat Oct 02, 2010 01:21 PM PDThas already passed. This is the 21th century. There are new realities on the ground to see and observe. There are Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakisten where wars are raging and bankrupting USA economically and politically.
Gone is the age of ordering "Bend Over" and expecting to hear "How low?". This is the right time for USA to deal with Iran fair and square. The alternative is the no win stituations in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Writers of the above article believe USA is not treating Iran fairly.
WASHINGTON—The Obama
by vildemose on Sat Oct 02, 2010 09:47 AM PDTWASHINGTON—The Obama administration for the first time sanctioned a foreign company under new legislation targeting Tehran, and announced that four European energy firms have agreed to end all investments in Iran.
The companies are some of the world’s largest oil-and-gas producers. They include: Royal Dutch Shell PLC of the Netherlands; France’s Total SA; Statoil ASA of Norway; and Italy’s Eni SpA.
//online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704789404575524050147296646.html
You need to know the facts
by hmj2101 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:46 PM PDTBlaming AIPAC and the military industrial complex for the current Iran-USA acrimony is a tired, over-used and poorly reasoned argument by both extreme right wing Islamists and demoralized left wing communists.
This article is so full of historical errors and poorly reasoned that it is laughable.
Let's begin with 1979. The United States did not cut off diplomatic relations with Iran as a result of revolution. The US cut off diplomatic ties with Tehran regime months after the take over of the US Embassy in November 1979. The two writers are either unaware of that or did not fit with their propaganda.
Secondly, how about Ahmadinejad's inflammatory rhetorics? How about comments about wiping a nation that is a member of the UN off the map? How about his speeches that Iran will smack America in the mouth. As if he hadn’t done enough, he had to go before a world body and only blocks away from World Trade Centre and claim that September 11 terrorists attacks were orchestrated by Americans.
As a victim of human rights violations in Iran, I am offended that the likes of these two writers never mention a word about human rights abuses in Iran.
H. Michael Jalili is a writer based in the Gulf.
From Shah's time they've wanted a puppet only!
by marhoum Kharmagas on Fri Oct 01, 2010 07:03 PM PDTUS/AIPAC desire for a puppet, only a puppet, in Iran is not a function of time:
Shah: ".. AAh I know, you would like me to be your stooge" (1976):
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCMftp2bdJA
Shah and AIPAC:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kySR3fpa5s
Why doesn't U.S talk to Iran?
by siavash1000 on Fri Oct 01, 2010 06:24 PM PDTThis writer used the same technique that stinky mullahs are using for last 31 years. The same garbage about "Imperialism", etc. "Imperialism" very colorful word that caught attention of many guilable people. Imperialism has been marked by Lenin as the last stage of capitalism leading to dictatorship of Proletaria where the labour class take over and impose their hegemony toward socialism. Stinky mullahs use this word in state T.V and media very frequently and cavaliary. They use it NOT because they are pro-Marxist Leninist or they beleive in dictatorship of Proletaria. NO, they use it because it benefits them to stay on power and continue to suck the blood of nation as they had done it during last 31 years. A bunch of the Islamic rag head by using lies and trick (such as setting fire in cinema rex in Abadan adn blame it on shah came on power) and they expect civilized country such as America come forward and talk to them. What a none-sense expectation.
Why can't they be like that HA!. Complained the crowd
by Mola Nasredeen on Fri Oct 01, 2010 05:46 PM PDT“What a wonderful world it would’ve been
If Iranians were like Saudi kings
did what they’re told
and said what they’re told "
Absortipbe capacity ...
by Guive Mirfendereski on Fri Oct 01, 2010 03:46 PM PDTJahanshah, a very good point- about IRI believing in error that it can absorb all the blows from sanctions. I add to that the following: There was a time that sanctions – arguably not very stringently imposed and enforced – made Iran a masterful merchant in the underground and informal international trading system, for arms, technology and other services and products. Some mistook that for self-sufficiency. That has run its course – now that myriad collaborating international company are packing up and leaving. Even the opportunistic and low-life Russian government is pulling the plug on IRI arms deals. My guess is that Rusians would not be happy until they run the day-today routine Bushehr plant all on their own, just like they ran the Shilat and other “Iranian” enterprises in the day of their hegemony on Iranian affairs. No Russian goverment would want an Iranian arsenal with atomic know how. These body blows – in political , economic, financial and trasmporation terms – that motor-mouth and his godfather believe Iran can absorb will eventually tax the tolerance levels of the glass-façade of the Iranian political face – I fear that the shattering of the regime will be the end of Iran as we know it and picture it geographically. The IRI needs to realize that getting too close to the flame will annihilate the butterfly, like the horse that playfully flew too close to the sun. And the anti-regime elements, inside or out, also need to realize that their doings too may contribute to a day when there will be no Iran, but a fragmented geography called one “istan” or another, bound only by a lingua franca, the name for which too is often debated in exclusionary terms. Before IRI comes to terms with America, it needs to come to terms with its own fate, as it wants it. Ahmadinejad - the closet mahdi, needs to declare if he wishes death to Iran just to make a pointless point in history.
Look who's not talking
by Jahanshah Javid on Fri Oct 01, 2010 02:27 PM PDTExcellent observations Guive.
You don't really have to be anti-Iran or pro-American to appreciate the incompetence and utter lack of will among Iranian officials to resolve the nuclear crisis. I look at the behavior and statements of Ahmadinejad and his diplomatic corps and the nuclear negotiators and Khamenei himself and the only thing I see and hear is: NO!
The Islamic Republic has no desire to sit down and negotiate anything either with the Americans, its allies, Russia, China, or the UN... they want to continue enriching uranium and they will do so for as long as they can.
Iran has the right to enrich uranium. If this is what Iran wants it can have it by employing diplomatic strategies that build trust, that build confidence in the peaceful nature of the program, with new security guarantees and safeguards. That's perfectly doable if Iranian leaders so wish. It's not nuclear science!
Instead we have an Islamic Republic that is threatening Iran's own nuclear future by raising fears and increasing tensions.
Do I see one sincere high-level Iranian negotiator who has the vision and authority to negotiate a deal as soon as possible? No. The Islamic Republic still pretends there's no urgency, that all the international pressures can be absorbed... that life will go on as usual, as it has since 1979. Who knows! Maybe it will.
None of what I said should lead you to assume that I agree with how the Americans and the rest of the international community is dealing with Iran. They're nuts too, in their own way. They are really blowing the nuclear issue WAY out of proportion. But here we are. We have a massive mess on our hands.
Why doesn’t IRI (not
by Guive Mirfendereski on Fri Oct 01, 2010 01:29 PM PDTWhy doesn’t IRI (not necessarily, Iran) talk to America? I beg to differ. IRI constantly talks to America – albeit in tone or substance that is insulting and designed to antagonize. Every time the “motor-mouth” Ahmadinejad in Tehran or NY, or wherever he finds an idle microphone, he says things directed at America. Some outrageous stuff, some not so outrageous stuff. The fact that IRI doe not engage in face-to-face negotiations with America over pre-determined topics - like the nuclear file – it is because IRI knows that that is just the sar-e rismoun, the lead of the thread. There will be other issues, like human rights, which the US just foisted as yet another obstacle to any normalization of relations with IRI. There will be the issue of support for the Hezbollah and Hamas and other sundry groups in which IRI is making forward investments for the sake of proxy deterrence. The list of three things that the US wanted from Iran (non-interference in the Middle East peace process, coming clean with weapons of mass destruction, and stopping support for international terrorism) – all the issues raised during the Clinton years – are still on the table. IRI is no dummy. It knows the story of what if you give the mouse a cookie … qis alahaza! When it is all said and done – and IRI has surrendered to every issue on America’s platter, the US will ask for the following two things on top of everything else: (a) IRI to recognize Israel’s existence and right to exist within secure borders; and (b) IRI give up the governance of the country to a lackey acceptable to Washington – give up self respect, national dignity and other dirty things that get in the way of American say-so. Bottom-line: the US has no idea what it would do with a moderated IRI, and IRI has no need for negotiating with America to settle problems between the two because then IRI has no more excuses for keeping millions in bondage in an apartheid state, young and unemployed, with an economy that is going nowhere but even more down, under the eyes of the clerics who have established a brutal kingdom instead of the promised land of equity and justice – that means, settle with America and then watch IRI be swept under the current discontent of the masses arising out of daily national misery.
There is only 1 US President who knew how to talk to Iran
by Escape on Fri Oct 01, 2010 12:29 PM PDTand he is Dead..His name...Ronald Reagan.
Like him or not,that's just a fact.
From what I have gathered,it is because a few things.His religous integrity,his persona and persuasion and his Anti-Carter Iran policy.
why?
by Zereshk on Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:44 AM PDTBecause Iranians are not ready for it. That's why.
We seek Mahdi's guidance in a well in Jamkaran, and hold conferences on how to cover up women, lest our genitals make us lose our piety, resulting in earthquakes. Does it get any more backassward than that?
Relations with an advanced country is not for retards.
The Grand Bargain Proposal Illusion
by LoverOfLiberty on Fri Oct 01, 2010 11:29 AM PDTThe Grand Bargain Proposal Illusion
I think it is rather wishfull thinking that the so-called "grand bargain" proposal of 2003 could have ever gone anywhere towards serious negotiation between the US and Iran simply on the observation that proposal was not perceived by the US government as being a sincere proposal made by the Iranian government.
And, the following is an excerpt of an edited interview between PBS's Frontline and conservative Kayhan managing editor Hossein Shariatmadari that, I believe, supports this conclusion:
Frontline: "... Clarify from fresh reports in some of the Western media about a
supposed offer that came from Iran immediately after the invasion of
Iraq, May 2003, a fax sent by the Swiss ambassador to the State
Department outlining a series of discussion points for talks between the
U.S. and Iran. The Swiss ambassador claimed that this fax had been
approved by very senior officials here in Iran. Do you have any light
that you can shed on this story for us?"
Shariatmadari: "These types of issues, including negotiating with the United States,
are among the major policy issues, and according to the law, such major
decisions are to be made in the National Security Council of Iran. ...
The issues are debated there and should be approved and signed by the
Supreme Leader. Until such a process is followed, it will not become a
policy to execute.
I heard that story, too. Whoever wrote that letter was in no position
to do so. Such issues are of paramount political importance, and no
such thing was discussed at the highest levels."
Frontline: "Just to be clear: ... Are you clear in your mind
that it was definitely not approved by the National Security Council and
the Supreme Leader, or is there a chance maybe that it was, but somehow
kept quiet?"
Shariatmadari: "No, I'm very confident that that was not the case. I'm quite aware of the Supreme Leader's views; those viewpoints are well known by the
public. Not at all. I'm quite certain that this did not happen. We are
even a bit suspicious that the Swiss ambassador wrote that fax himself;
we don't know it for sure. ... It was not an important issue, and I'm
sure the Supreme Leader and the National Security Council had nothing to do with it."
Source: //www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/interviews/shariatmadari.html
I'm tired of all this old
by vildemose on Fri Oct 01, 2010 10:51 AM PDTI'm tired of all this old tired pontification. Tell us something new. Isn't this what imperialist do after all? Where have you been?
Don't you get tired of your own nagging??
What is the solution? Is IRI going to change the Imperialist foreign policies?? How? By it's military might? or it's terror proxies? Or it's economic "leverage"?? How?? or its stupid PressTV, spanish Hizballah???how?
Does IRI have a better chance of beating the US at its own game or a democratic, prosperous and accountable to Iranians??
wow....
by shushtari on Fri Oct 01, 2010 09:04 AM PDTthese two commies take the cake!
calling the akhoond murderers 'victims'!!!!
you're trying to blame the US for the brutality of the mullahs- 32 years of murder, theft, oppression, instability, and every other misery imaginable for the iranian people at the hands of a bunch of illiterate, beevatans whi can't believe the luck of having the ability to plunder iran instead of rozeh khooney and begging for food and tips afterwards!
the only thing we can blame on the US is giving us JIMMY THE IDIOT CARTER.....who helped destroy shah's regime and ushered in the era of hell and destruction for iran and the rest of the world
Roozbeh jan,
by Mardom Mazloom on Fri Oct 01, 2010 09:00 AM PDTYeah, I agree "Birds of a feather flock together". No use to be overkill!
Just some precisions,
Iranians will come over this tyranny as they did since the last 1400 years (or even before).
Khosh bashi hamvatan!
Why doesn't the U.S. talk to Iran?
by Anonymous Observer on Fri Oct 01, 2010 08:36 AM PDTBecause the IRI is only interested in endless "safsateh" and no action, and no one has the time and patience for that kind of nonsense?!!!
I'd give you 20 for that answer if I were your teacher!
by Roozbeh_Gilani on Fri Oct 01, 2010 08:26 AM PDTMe the disciplined? I mean come on, I have difficulty every morning gettting out of bed at 6 am for work!
I dont mind you having a go at me, because you actually see the events the way I do. I thought i made it clear that my comments were towards the green leadership and not the brave people on the streets. I was actually there on ashura day and was amazed with the events, that is why I quoted it.
Ashura was a great oppurtunity missed.......
Again, this movement , with this current leadership is dead. Forget about the colour, it means nothing.
As for MKO, they are irrelevant really. Let's not even waste time discussing them.
Red for example? LOL
by Mardom Mazloom on Fri Oct 01, 2010 08:01 AM PDTHow do you expect to have "disciplined organized opposition" under a "Fascitic regime" as you say?
You as a member of a "disciplined, determined political party" have left the country!
People inside Iran, played the game against Fascistic mullahs and they beat them with their own rules. They fought fire with fire. In Ashura, the regime was on the verge to collaps. Some sepahis who jumped over the ship just after these events said that they saw the extinction of Mullahs'.
All these achievements have been done by people who are not indoctrinated by a false ideology, they did it and are doing it by their own.
If you cannot see all the things that have been done in the last past year, I'm really sorry for you.
In one year, Iranians did what no other "Organized, disciplined" party like MKO was able to do in 31 years. You shouldn't be jealous of that. In sum, Ezzr khod mibari vo zahmat ma midari
"Greens are stronger than ever"
by Roozbeh_Gilani on Fri Oct 01, 2010 07:42 AM PDTNo azizam, you are wrong!
the best chance the "Greens" had to make any impact was Ashura last year, and they failed despite the extreme bravery and courage of the crowds on the street, greatly due to the indecision and vision of their grey leadership
The only way to beat this fascist dictatorship who has zero respect even for their own ridiculous sham of "election" process is through a combination of well planned mass demos, strikes culminating in the knock out blow into the mouth of vali faghih himself. To do that you need a disciplined, determined political party led by disiplined deteermined men to lead the movement, not a bunch of disgruntled had been ex membere of regime.
Green is not a good colour anyway, you need a "primary colour"!