News

point #4 is noteworthy - don't forget human rights!

If the west only negociated the nuclear issue, the abuse of human rights in Iran will probably get worse, and no one will care what happens to the masses under IRI.  However, I look forward to the day in which the attorneys can breath easier for defending the accused, where protests are not crushed with impunity and the students are not hassled on a daily basis.

The above scenerio will practically be the end of IRI as we know it now.  Here is the whole #4 exerpt

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.

ayatoilet1

I have a feeling you and your friends were commenting on them.

all that is that this

all that is that this sidekick used to work for the State Department ....which makes me think once again that the Mullahs have always and will always be US stooges (who have now handed over Iranian sovereignty in the Caspian, made Iran the largest market for US backed Afghan narcotics, cooperated fully with Afghan and Iraq invasions ....) All this rhetoric, and then a series of hard cold facts..... Anyway, enjoy the comments.

Precisely. The US does not want a free, progressive, truly sovereign, independent (economically, technologically), prosperous government for Iran. The only way to guarantee those objectives is to forever support the theocratic backward clergy clientalist oligarchy in Iran.

ayatoilet1

I am not sure what US foreign policy is all about. Yes Islamic Republic has given away lots of Iranian wealth. However US would actually do better with n openly friendly regime. 

For one they would get another nation to outsource to. Cheap labor and educated work force. Not to mention a place to sell their stuff. We Iranians including myself are naturally mistrusting of other nations. With good reason mind you. The Russian and British did a number on our nation. However US does not work like that. US prefers to go the economic way. Both Russia and Britain wanted to enrich their nations at our cost. US wants to enrich its RICH at the expense of its POOR. That means Iran is better for its cheap labor.

In addition imagine if Iran was openly friendly to the West. They would "outsource" Afghanistan to Iran. I am not joking. Soldiers from Iran will have a much easier time getting along with Afghans. It will take a huge headache off hands of USA. This whole Islamic BS smells British to me.They unlike Americans really hate us.

Regarding Parsi: his position is well known. No point getting worked up on it. Your best bet is forming a rival organization that will promote an ideology you prefer.

Look at all these comments

Here's a link to all the comments on the foreign policy website, I particularly love a few of them: one says its strange how everything Trita Parsi says can be summed up in giving the IRI what it wants; and another that says that Trita Parsi has found a new sidekick to advocate for the IRI...the strangest thing about all that is that this sidekick used to work for the State Department ....which makes me think once again that the Mullahs have always and will always be US stooges (who have now handed over Iranian sovereignty in the Caspian, made Iran the largest market for US backed Afghan narcotics, cooperated fully with Afghan and Iraq invasions ....) All this rhetoric, and then a series of hard cold facts..... Anyway, enjoy the comments.

//www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/12/want_to_defuse_the_iran_crisispage0,5