Can't we just talk about it?

[applecorped]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.073ba2ee2f1f00668848a4655420fed c.411&show_article=1

"US President Barack Obama's offer to talk to Iran (http://search.breitbart.com/q?s=iran&sid=breitbart.com) shows that America's policy of "domination" has failed, the government spokesman said on Saturday. "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed," Gholam Hossein Elham was quoted as saying by the Mehr news agency."






See! We told you! Obama fails! It's all over now!



:boxedin:;)

[KingMerv00]

Funny, I thought it is the result of a peaceful democratic transition to a new administration. Call me crazy.

[Thunder]

I hope that Ahmedinajad uses this final opportunity to shut down enrichment. I know Obama wants to appear as the peacemaker, but I also don't think he wants to appear as the appeaser.

[Texas]

I hope that Ahmedinajad uses this final opportunity to shut down enrichment. I know Obama wants to appear as the peacemaker, but I also don't think he wants to appear as the appeaser.

What gives you that idea?

[TheRavingSceptic101]

Sounds like the typical bombastic rhetoric we've become accustomed to under Ahmadinejad.

I know it wont necessarily change the broader dynamic of Iran politically speaking, but I really hope the Iranians vote Ahmadinejad out in June when Presidential elections take place.

[Darth Rotor]

Sounds like the typical bombastic rhetoric we've become accustomed to under Ahmadinejad.

I know it wont necessarily change the broader dynamic of Iran politically speaking, but I really hope the Iranians vote Ahmadinejad out in June when Presidential elections take place.

Mahmoud isn't the core problem. The clerics in charge are.

[TheRavingSceptic101]

Mahmoud isn't the core problem. The clerics in charge are.

Oh, I know. I'm just hoping the Iranian people see Ahmadinejad for the failure he's been and don't allow him the chance to squeak out a victory in June by trumping up anti-West and anti-Israeli rhetoric to take the focus off his failures at home.... Guess we'll see.

[Tin Foil Timothy]

Mahmoud isn't the core problem. The clerics in charge are.

This is why the Western BS Propaganda about Armedinejad doesn't work on those who know how the Iran politics is set up. All this nonsense about Armedinejad wanting to Wipe Israel of the face of the planet and Holocaust denial means nothing. He didn't say either of those things and besides He hasn't' got any power over the Iranian military and Nuclear program

[Tin Foil Timothy]

I hope that Ahmedinajad uses this final opportunity to shut down enrichment. I know Obama wants to appear as the peacemaker, but I also don't think he wants to appear as the appeaser.

Why should one country not be allowed to have nuclear power and even nuclear weapons and another country be allowed them?

No one is going to launch a nuclear attack on anyone else? Why? Because there is no incentive to do so. If Iran launched nukes on Israel, as the propaganda would have us believe then Israel and the US would flatten Iran with a return volley of nukes. Both Iran and Israel and surrounding areas would be nuclear wastelands and no one, not even Iran wants that.

People need to stop listening to the crass propaganda. An excuse is needed to attack Iran like an excuse was needed to attack Iraq. And that's why the spin about Iran's nuclear program is being pushed as often as possible.

[Pardalis]

This is why the Western BS Propaganda about Armedinejad doesn't work on those who know how the Iran politics is set up.

What is the Iranian Islamic theocrats' stance on Israel?

[Texas]

Oh, I know. I'm just hoping the Iranian people see Ahmadinejad for the failure he's been and don't allow him the chance to squeak out a victory in June by trumping up anti-West and anti-Israeli rhetoric to take the focus off his failures at home.... Guess we'll see.It still makes no difference. As Darth said it is the Mullahs that rule Iran and Ahmadinejad speaks for them if he wants to live. The Iranians may elect a "moderate" but it will be a moderate approved by the Mullahs before hand and he will only be a moderate in domestic affairs. Foreign policy is the sole realm of the Grand Ayatollah and "moderate" or not he will only say what the GA tells him to say.

[TheRavingSceptic101]

It still makes no difference. As Darth said it is the Mullahs that rule Iran and Ahmadinejad speaks for them if he wants to live. The Iranians may elect a "moderate" but it will be a moderate approved by the Mullahs before hand and he will only be a moderate in domestic affairs. Foreign policy is the sole realm of the Grand Ayatollah and "moderate" or not he will only say what the GA tells him to say.

And I'm aware of all of this... I'm not saying "I hope they elect someone other than Ahmadinejad for our sake.".... I know not much will change. The only thing I hoping for is they kick him out for their own good. They need someone who is a little better apt at solving economic problems, and if you've been keeping track of Ahmadinejad's proposals and how well those have done over the years, you'd know he certainly isn't a capable President in that regard.

[Texas]

And I'm aware of all of this... I'm not saying "I hope they elect someone other than Ahmadinejad for our sake.".... I know not much will change. The only thing I hoping for is they kick him out for their own good. They need someone who is a little better apt at solving economic problems, and if you've been keeping track of Ahmadinejad's proposals and how well those have done over the years, you'd know he certainly isn't a capable President in that regard. His successor is still going to have to deal with lower oil prices and sanctions so it will be tough to effectively deal with the economy but if he at least fights against stoning raped girls he will be a huge improvement on that we agree.

[Texas]

What is the Iranian Islamic theocrats' stance on Israel?
They want to be bestest friends with Israel.

[UnrepentantSinner]

As Darth said it is the Mullahs that rule Iran and Ahmadinejad speaks for them if he wants to live.

The bold part is incorrect. Presidents are allowed to speak their own minds even if it doesn't reflect the will of the mullahs, Revolutionary Council, Majlis, etc.

[gumboot]

My concern is what is presented on Iranian TV, not what the President happens to think. You tell people something for long enough, they believe it.

[lupus_in_fabula]

Lately I've been listening to Robert Baer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4808237683128534676&ei=63yFSd7ZJaSQ2wLU3OTuCg&q=robert+baer&dur=3), Tariq Ali (http://www.viddler.com/explore/frontlineclub/videos/231/), Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEvemuTkXNM&feature=channel_page). What's interesting about these people is that they come from pretty different backgrounds and political standings. Yet when it comes to the Middle East and Iran there seems to be more agreement than disagreement amongst them (although with different emphasis of course). Here's a few points worth considering:


Real talks between Iran and the U.S. is paramount, especially for the ordered withdrawal and overall stability of Iraq, and possibly for the region in toto.
Iran could turn out to be an important partner when it comes to help containing the emerging mess in Pakistan-Afghanistan.
It's better to be on better terms with Iran in the sense of lessening the importance of Iran-Russia ties.
Even though relations betweens Israel and Iran are confrontational, it seems unlikely Iran has a real desire to strike Israel (being in possession of a nuke or not).
Closer diplomatic ties to Iran is important in working towards a stable resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict (Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah included).

On a general note, what we definitely don't want to happen, is to having pushed Iran into a corner. Iran can make life difficult for particularly Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Israel, thus definitely leveling the world economy while they're at it, or what's left of it.

I think it's reasonable to think Obama is actually trying to follow Brzezinski's advise (http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2007/hrg070201a.html) (presented in 2007) for a new policy approach in the Middle East. The initial steps are already taken (in terms of changed discourse aiming for such effects as outlined in the testimony).

[Texas]

Lately I've been listening to Robert Baer (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4808237683128534676&ei=63yFSd7ZJaSQ2wLU3OTuCg&q=robert+baer&dur=3), Tariq Ali (http://www.viddler.com/explore/frontlineclub/videos/231/), Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEvemuTkXNM&feature=channel_page). What's interesting about these people is that they come from pretty different backgrounds and political standings. Yet when it comes to the Middle East and Iran there seems to be more agreement than disagreement amongst them (although with different emphasis of course). Here's a few points worth considering:


Real talks between Iran and the U.S. is paramount, especially for the ordered withdrawal and overall stability of Iraq, and possibly for the region in toto.
Iran could turn out to be an important partner when it comes to help containing the emerging mess in Pakistan-Afghanistan.
It's better to be on better terms with Iran in the sense of lessening the importance of Iran-Russia ties.
Even though relations betweens Israel and Iran are confrontational, it seems unlikely Iran has a real desire to strike Israel (being in possession of a nuke or not).
Closer diplomatic ties to Iran is important in working towards a stable resolution of the Israel-Palestine conflict (Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah included).

On a general note, what we definitely don't want to happen, is to having pushed Iran into a corner. Iran can make life difficult for particularly Saudi Arabia, the U.S. and Israel, thus definitely leveling the world economy while they're at it, or what's left of it.

I think it's reasonable to think Obama is actually trying to follow Brzezinski's advise (http://foreign.senate.gov/hearings/2007/hrg070201a.html) (presented in 2007) for a new policy approach in the Middle East. The initial steps are already taken (in terms of changed discourse aiming for such effects as outlined in the testimony).Brzezinksi and Scowcroft come form the Carter and Reagan years which placed greater emphasis on stability in the Middle East than on liberalising their governments. Both were also Arabists in that they advocated their causes to the President. Another prominent Arabist of that era was George Schulz.

I believe that if they have Obama's ear the advice they will give is to guarantee to the Iranian Mullahs that there will be no effort at regime change by funding dissidents and to tacitly accept that Iran will acquire nukes, try to get some assurances that Iran will not use them and look the other way when it comes to terroist funding. The Arabist view of the Middle East is one that does not rock the boat unless US interests are directly threatend.