Svart said:
The new kinder gentler policy of diplomacy seems indistinguishable from European appeasement that has helped them get this close to having a nuclear weapon. If anyone thinks them getting the bomb will end well, you are far more optimistic than I.
Who says they even have a nuclear weapon?
They don't have one yet... otherwise there would probably be a glowing crater where Tel Aviv was. We actually started the Shah moving on a peaceful nuclear energy program but after the revolution in '79 those programs using western sources fell into disfavor but they have continued working on developing their own fuel cycle.
I can't prove something that hasn't happened yet, nor can I definitively prove intent. All we can do is observe their behavior and draw our best conclusions. They have reason to be distrustful of the west going back to the '50s. Their refusal to follow the nuclear inspections protocol now is inconsistent with their claims that they are not operating surreptitiously.
I truly hope you are right but looking at the history of so many other isolated nations, there is a compelling desire for a bigger gun, for more influence and respect from their neighbors.
Our government who always has an agenda? I would have thought that we have learned something from the previous W.M.D. BS that we're still paying for at this moment.
I have posted at length about this.. so won't waste bits again.
I think some folks need think about what it is like to walk in someone else's shoes for a while. While we are busy installing governments in other countries, Iran is pondering the frightful possibility that we are getting ready to invade it as well. I know if I was living in a small country then I would be fearful of a larger country deciding that it didn't like my leader/wants my oil/whatever the true reason is for invading and killing/destroying everything that I have worked for. I would expect nothing less of Iran to puff itself up like a cat and talk a lot of tough talk and hope that it scares the bigger monster away. It's called bluffing.
The US does it all the time.
Iran is very aware of how thinly we were spread between Iraq and Afghanistan. If anything they were taking advantage of that situation trying to provoke us into some kind of military incident with boats in the gulf, and were directly traced to supplying weapons and IEDs used in Iraq, killing US and Sunni. Iran is pretty friendly with Iraqi Shia in the South, but have old scores with Sunni in Baghdad and Kurds in the North.
Let's not forget that Iran gave the Coalition Forces the intel to connect to the Taliban's enemies in Afghanistan
What just recently happened in Iran? They had a terrorist bombing. Why hasn't Iran had more of them like a lot of the other Islamic countries? Because they seem to stand on the side of the terrorists(which is against the USA). Why? because it keeps the peace for a while, that's why. Iran isn't just bluffing in an attempt to scare the USA away, they are also bluffing to scare the terrorists away too. The terrorists(TM) want ALL governments that don't see 100% eye-to-eye with them to be destroyed. Look at Pakistan. It has an Islamic government but the Taliban wants to destroy it anyway. Why? because it's not the Taliban's version of government. Iran does not want the Taliban rolling into town and setting up shop. Remember, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Who do you think is the major supporter of terrorism (r) in the region. Hamas, and Hezbollah get major funding and arms from Iran. I just googled that terrorist bombing in Iran and the report is bizarre to say the least. They claim it was a US backed group linked to al-Qaeda. I find it hard to accept that is remotely Obama's foreign policy for Iran. I suspect it is likewise some left over Iraqi Sunni extremist group causing trouble for Shia in a region of Iran bordering on Pakistan and Afghanistan and reportedly a major opium trafficking route.
So I have to ask, why can't we try to be friends with Iran? It's obvious that the Iranian people want to be friends. It's obvious that the theocracy in Iran has secretly made gestures to the US for a peace deal but the Bush administration brushed it off due to ego and ignorance. The theocracy is actually surprisingly moderate compared to places like Saudi Arabia, so what IS so bad? Is it simply because their "president" talks a lot of shit and they say that they don't like the USA? Are we going to continue the "I don't like you because you don't like me" 3rd grad-ish games for the rest of eternity? I certainly hope not. It takes balls to step up to your enemy and show them that we DO care and that we don't want to bomb the shit out of them for whatever reason. Once they see that we are legit, they will almost certainly change their tune somewhat. Iran just doesn't want to be seen as weak and then be overrun with terrorists without the help of someone like the USA.
In international relations, especially troubled one's, it is not so much what leaders (or representatives of the leaders) say publicly as much as what they do. Iran's behavior is why they are perpetually on the wrong side of UN resolutions.
Regarding what they say, I watch a lot of middle eastern news and there is quite a lot of variance between Achiminijads speeches at Columbia or the UN for western consumption, vs. his speeches for domestic consumption. But like I said even about our politicians, don't listen to the words, look at their feet.
Before someone spouts the obvious response of "Ahmadinejad is a dictator and the theocracy is evil" or whatever, take a look at some of the countries that we are "friends" with, like (again) Saudi Arabia. Their belief system AND their religious law is far worse on the people of that country than Iran's is on their people. Iran allows women to vote, work alongside men AND go to school(all the way through college too!). They allow women to marry who they want AND have divorces too. They aren't treated like property.
Our government is doing the right thing I think. You can't shake hands if you both have fists clenched.
This is more old news but indeed our past foreign policy was based on simple self interest. Even the Shah in Iran was set up by a CIA coup. Our relationship with the Saudi's is transparently about their oil.
One noticeable change made by your BFF George Bush, was to be more consistent about applying diplomatic pressure on all totalitarian regimes to improve personal freedoms and human rights in their countries. We had more influence with them as business partners than not, but there is clearly a problem with women's rights and religious freedom in most of the middle east. The changes in Saudi Arabia are small and far from finished. I was apprehensive about our alignment with Musharef in Pakistan but he finally delivered a free election, while the new government is marginally strong enough to control their whole country. I am optimistic about their recent focus on the north, instead of pointing all their rifles at India on their southern border. To that end, Obama got criticism for making his speech in Egypt because that country has yet to truly open up it's democratic process. Speaking there is a tacit endorsement of that government's ongoing oppression.
In my view the world is more like 42nd street and times square, before Disney cleaned it up... a dangerous place where shaking hands with strangers could get you mugged. The world is a dangerous place.. it's Ok to trust... but verify. If someone refuses to verify (IAEA protocols), I refuse to trust.
JR
