I’m not saying there can only ever be one chance. I just don’t think the present phone call portends the same kind of chance for a relationship with the people. Even if things go ideally for Obama/Rouhani and their successors, that’s just a relationship of governments, a highly authoritarian one on their side. As you say, the US has good governmental relations with several such regimes–not their peoples.
OK. Indeed, if we cozy up with the government in the wrong way, we’ll just alienate the people even more. We saw some of that in Egypt with Morsi and the MB.
But I think that the fact that we are talking to them gives us the chance to influence them more. I understand that diplomacy is all about the craft of communication, and that sometimes silence speaks louder than words, but complete and utter silence for 30 years is bound to produce distrust on the other side. I think we should always be talking to whoever is in charge. We don’t have to prop them up, or do nice things for them in return for nothing, but dialog is the starting point for progress.
By all appearances, this seems to reflect the will of a majority of the Iranian people. Seems that they want to move to something a bit less restrictive than stern theocracy. Lot of people like being preached at a bit, once in a while, but 24/7/365 gets on their nerves.
So back to the 1960s status quo it is, then. Erm… you yanks are not planning another coup, are you ?
Dunno, but it’s pronounced “U-235”.
Of course Iran wants the bomb. Every nation wants the bomb. And this is a perfectly rational desire on their parts. It is also perfectly rational for us to want them not to get it.
But in any event, people talking is always good news. If there’s a mutually-satisfactory solution, talking is the first step to finding it. And even if there isn’t, the fact that people are talking about it instead of fighting over it is a good sign.
“To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war.” - Winston Churchill
Well said. I understand the idea of the hardliners that sanctions and the threat of punitive military actions can & have been effective at discouraging particular policies, but that approach reaches diminishing returns, I think. So much better to back diplomacy with strength and a willingness to compromise.
And this is how that “disdain for process” I mentioned before becomes relevant. Rouhani, as explicated in his recent WaPo op-ed, has realized that diplomacy “is not a zero sum game” and that “cooperation and competition often occur simultaneously.” That’s a realization many in the current US Congress have yet to experience; a fact which may suppress this nascent detente.
On a relatively well-known news aggregator site I wrote a comment that got deleted:
“Israel must be choking in its own vomit reading this.”
However, it was available long enough for a few chuckle-worthy replies.
Hmm. Doesn’t sound like a productive exchange of ideas, really.
I think most Americans have a tough time thinking of our country as “the bad guys”. But we were, back when we put the Shah in power*, and while that doesn’t justify the behavior of the current government, especially towards the Iranian people, it should give us some sense of humility as we approach this matter. Iran is an important player in the region, and for that reason alone we need to be talking to them. We don’t have to sanction their anti-democratic ways, but I don’t see why we can’t treat them on par with Saudi Arabia or Jordan or China.
*It wasn’t only us, but it probably wouldn’t have happened without us.
You are staining my Board.
The most important fact about the potential detente is that it originates from the most favorable source, the ballot box. Therefore much less likely to be the same sordid bunch just adopting a temporary camouflage, but indicative of the people changing the government rather than the wrong way round. Power to the people. (Hey, that would make a good progressive slogan, I should write that one down!)
And if Iran can be brought around to accepting the right of Israel to exist, however grudgingly,that will go a long way to preventing a horror storm in the Middle East, our generations version of a damned fool thing in the Balkans. Then, perhaps, Israel can treat its Palestinian citizens with equal dignity, and fulfill our longstanding faith in her.
Don’t believe in much of anything, but I’ll pray anyway. Can’t hurt.
As Rouhani noted himself at the UN Assembly, the US (well, the West in general, but there again the US was a prime mover) having armed Iran during the 70s also armed and financed Saddam Hussein’s regime both openly and covertly during their tiff with Iran back in the 80s ; basically treating the region like a military-industrial piggy bank. Which of course led to a lot of bloodshed. Also chemical attacks on civilian populations.
So, yeah, it’s not like Iran’s mad-on for the US and the West in general, as figureheaded by Achmedinejad until recently, is/was incomprehensible or irrational. They’ve got more than legit beefs of their own.
If Rouhani (and, we can hope, through him the majority of Iran’s people) are willing to let those beefs slide, despite no doubt still raw feelings at home and about zero acts of goodwill on the part of the US as of recently, that’s a big olive branch indeed. I’m not sure what the US would have to gain by setting it on fire - as I’m sure many a braindead Fox pundit (but I repeat myself) will demand.
Nor what the US would have to lose by grasping it, really. Even if Bibi throws a shit fit, what is Israel gonna do, split from its one unconditional ally in the whole wide world ? Bomb Iran for trying to make nice ?
*Āshti *آشتی basically means ‘reconciliation, concord’, but it could also be translated as ‘détente’. The more specific term used in the vocabulary of international relations is تشنج زدایی tashannoj zedāyi. Mouthful of syllables, though. Literally means ‘getting rid of the spasm/cramp/twitch’. Think of how it feels to have a leg cramp, and then consider how good it feels to get it to stop.
Russia’s regional ambitions didn’t magically disappear with the fall of the Soviet Union. The Russians still intend to be the master of their own house, Western plots be damned.
Same thing with the Iranians. Their regional ambitions will remain intact even if the velayat e-faqih is replaced by secular rule. Same thing, too, with the country’s nuclear ambitions - which, mind you, predate the Khomeinist revolution by some twenty years.
The feeling that Iran a) should be the dominant force in the region, and b) has the right to develop nuclear power, is very, very strong down there, and not just among those presently in power.
Your Board is already stained.
You may not see exactly what’s going on so, perhaps, it’s time to - to use a cliche - pull your head out of your ass, no?
You have been here long enough to know that direct personal insults are not permitted.
This is a Warning to refrain from this behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
Gonna be tricky, no matter what. The MILF (Mullahs I Would Love to Fillet) will not go quietly. And nothing could serve their purpose better than a good ol’ down-home Holy War. Very dangerous bunch. In a very dangerous place, with more power than good sense.