Obama victory offers hope to Iran
It has taken nearly two days to emerge, but the message of congratulations from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to US President-elect Barack Obama is almost certainly unprecedented since the Islamic Revolution.
Iran and the United States are more used to trading insults – the “Axis of Evil” versus the “Great Satan”.
So this message seems to open intriguing possibilities in US-Iranian relations.
You might have not guessed it from his rhetoric, but it is widely believed in Tehran that President Ahmadinejad is keen for some sort of reconciliation with the US.
This poses a big dilemma for Mr Obama’s new foreign policy team.
During the presidential election campaign, Mr Obama offered to talk with Iran without preconditions.
But any improvement in US-Iranian relations could hand a big prize to Mr Ahmadinejad, as he runs for re-election next summer.
It is something to distract Iranians from the disastrous state of their country’s economy and public finances, as crashing oil prices compound years of mismanagement.
Israel, on the other hand, is not exactly thrilled with Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran. Was Obama just playing to the crowd when he said he might not be so friendly to Iran?
Paddy o said…
“To the people of Iran from the Religious dictators, “Here is your approved list of candidates to vote for…”
ROFL”
To the people of the United States of America. Here are your approved, paid for candidates who took our funding from big business and vested interests, so they could pretend to say they represent your interests. Now you can vote or not, it makes no difference as we the big end of town, own your ass anyway”.
ROFL
Wonder how happy these guys are with Obama making his first appointment Rahm Israel Emanuel, who is Irgun.
#61. “Would WW3 have been preferable to the millions that Stalin had personally killed?”
actually, the millions Stalin killed were before WW2 (the engineered famines in the Ukraine) and during WW2 (the deportation and enslavement of hundreds of thousands of Germans, particularly POWs). the millions killed in WW3 would have been added to the massive heap.
so yes, it would be worse. And NOBODY wanted it. We had just got done fighting one war, and nobody was in the mood for another. Truman could have ‘demanded’ anything – but there was no way to make it happen. The Soviets had lost 30 million or so in WW2, and they were going to have their buffer states.
and Berlin was divided into occupation sectors by agreements signed long before Truman took office. so rushing troops to Berlin would have caused a bunch of unnecessary casualties to no end – the Russians were obligated to give us our share, and they did.
“No. Reagan sold arms to the Contras through Iran to fight communists in Nicaragua.”
um, no – Reagan sold arms to Iran through Israel (which actually had a good covert relationship with Iran during the Iran-Iraq war) in an attempt to persuade the mullahs to have our hostages in Lebanon released. Ollie North and his crew then channeled the resulting money to arms for the Contras.
that’s just history – look it up. Reagan could not bear the thought of Americans in the hands of foreign tormentors. the Lebanese had sent the US a tape of William Buckley (the Beruit CIA station chief) being tortured after he was kidnapped. Buckley was later killed.
one of the side-stories of the whole Iran-Contra affair that the Reagan-worshipers would like us to forget was Ronnie sending the mullahs a cake shaped like a key – to ‘unlock’ the relationship, you see. and also a Bible that he inscribed. Once the whole thing blew open, the mullahs disclosed these things, to the great embarrassment of the Reagan Administration.
#65 – I am not against Israel (I’m not insinuating that anyone here is), but I am also not keen to the USA continuing to be their lapdog either.
Obama is looking more and more like a puppet every day. Not good. I’m feeling better about not voting for him.
#68
RE: Iran Contra
Without sending the money to the Contras, the arms for hostages would have been nothing more than a publicity headache. The original plan wasn’t to negotiate with terrorists but to help fund insurgency in Iran. That eventually morphed into sending money to terrorists and that aspect was a mistake by people too focused on funding the Contras. It is not like Reagan changed his policy to begin negotiating with terrorists. The core of the entire scandal was funding insurgency in Central America when Congress explicitly forbid it.
#63 “I’m not thrilled with some of Obama’s ideas, but I thought his crack about Nancy’s seances was hilarious.”
Yep, real presidential and the mark of an educated man.
#70. “The original plan wasn’t to negotiate with terrorists but to help fund insurgency in Iran.”
Reagan claimed that they were trying to encourage “moderates” in the Iranian government, but at no time was their any claim that they were sending anti-tank missiles to Iran to somehow fund an insurgency in Iran.
none.
“It is not like Reagan changed his policy to begin negotiating with terrorists. ”
policy is what you do, not what you say.
the Reaganites claimed that they were not negotiating directly with terrorists, but they were definitely trying to influence terrorists by helping out a terrorist-supporting nation.
#71 – Webfingers
>>Yep, real presidential and the mark of an
>>educated man.
Not quite in the same category as “At least I don’t plaster on the makeup like a trollop, you cunt” though, is it?
#72
Reagan’s claim was true from the outset. However, other people morphed the plan into sending anti-tank weapons to terrorists. The original plan was always to give the weapons to insurgency elements in Iran.
Reagan’s mistake in no way mitigates the strategy of not negotiating with terrorists.
#75. “Reagan’s claim was true from the outset. However, other people morphed the plan into sending anti-tank weapons to terrorists. The original plan was always to give the weapons to insurgency elements in Iran.”
ok, exactly WHAT insurgency in Iran was this?
note the wiki entry on it makes no mention of this claim, noting that:
“The idea behind the plan was for Israel to ship weapons through an intermediary (identified as Manucher Ghorbanifar) to a moderate, politically influential Iranian group opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni.”
no mention of an insurgency at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair
and the anti-tank weapons went to the Iranian Army, not to Hezbollah or any terrorist group. The Iranians complained about the poor quality.
while it is generally a good idea not to negotiate with terrorists, it should be done when necessary.
it turned out to be a good idea in Iraq, where Sunni terrorist groups have been convinced to turn against AQ, and are now on the USA’s payroll.
#76
What do you think “politically influential Iranian group opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeni” is? Insurgency does not necessarily imply armed revolution. Funding insurgents can simply mean foreign money used to influence groups that bring about a change in government.
Yes, eventually the weapons went to the Iranian Army. The original plan morphed into something far greater than what it was intended. Again, a mistake.
It is almost never a good idea to negotiate with terrorists because that emboldens them and other terrorists organizations to think that they can push you into negotiations. It would have been better to simply take out the Iranians.
By the way, when people discuss “negotiating with terrorists” they mean negotiations to return hostages or allay violence. Negotiating with one terrorist organization to eliminate another terrorist organization is not at all the same thing.
There’s a difference between what the Iranian government (ultimately controlled by the Ayatollah) wants vs. what the Iranian people think. The Iranians are more pro-American than other middle eastern countries, next to Israel. We still need to contain their government’s actions even as we attempt cooperation in certain areas. One thing militants and moderates in Iran both agree on, however, is that they have a right to pursue nuclear means. It’s an issue of sovereignty and only if the Iranian government sees its interests served will they freeze the program..and that likelihood is nil.
With regard to the Sunni terrorists, they were able to be co-opted because they did have specific concerns that could be addressed, and another enemy to turn against. Many were former Army officers who were let go when the original Iraqi military was disbanded, they were also part of a minority that didn’t think they would be adequately represented by the Shia majority now in power. Considering what Saddam and their own people got away with during his reign it’s no surprise they feared major payback once he was toppled. Iraq became the front line for Shiites backed by Iran and Suunis backed by Saudis and others, including Al Qaeda. Eventually Al Qaeda In Iraq became more of a liability and by co-opting the Sunnis via the Awakening Councils (and paying for the services) they’ve largely turned away from insurgency. It remains to be seen if it’ll stay that way once they’re fully under Iraq’s control and on their payroll instead of ours.
Contrast that situation with most other terrorist organizations, whose allegiances and grievances can and often do change with the wind. Many groups claim they’d stop if we stopped favoring Israel, allowed Palestinians the right to return, etc…doubt if they would if we did, they’d find other reasons to justify their attacks. There’s an interesting article discussing the the real reason why people join/work for terrorist groups, it’s worth a read:
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/10/the_seven_habit.html
#3 jim h said, “Even if they managed to build a nuclear warhead, they’d have to FedEx it, they have no ICBMs. And they don’t have enough frequent flier miles to send an invanding army.”
Unfortunately, the leaders in Iran aren’t stupid enough to use a nuke against the US in way that would be traceable to them.
A cargo ship into N.Y. harbor would do nicely.