Obama's idea of "unconditional dealing" with Iran set back

[Saddle Bronc 124]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_ele...008/7718603.stm

Obama quashes Iran's hopes for change

By Jim Muir

BBC News, Tehran

If anybody had hoped that Barack Obama's election victory would lead to a swift breakthrough in Washington's relations with one of its toughest adversaries, Iran, the honeymoon seems to be over before it even began.

Many Iranians, including some officials, were thrilled by the stunning election victory, seeing it as offering hope of a radical change in US foreign policy and relations.

The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since shortly after the Islamic revolution in 1979, and tensions have risen recently over Iran's nuclear programme.

Both Mr Obama and his future vice-president, Senator Joseph Biden, have in the past advocated unconditional dialogue with Iran.

That was one reason behind the excitement generated in Iran by their election success.

No 'knee-jerk' response

That excitement led the country's quixotic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to break with precedent and send a congratulatory message to the American president-elect.

But it swiftly became apparent that a whirlwind romance was out of the question, as political problems sprang up on both sides.

In Iran, both Mr Ahmadinejad's initiative and Mr Obama's cagey response drew fierce attacks from rival hard-line circles, where the political atmosphere is already heating up sharply in advance of Iranian presidential elections next June.

On the American side, while Barack Obama responded gracefully and personally to messages of congratulation from other world leaders, he held back from doing so with Mr Ahmadinejad, mindful of the political implications of such a gesture.

He said he would be reviewing the Iranian president's letter and responding appropriately, rather than reacting in a "knee-jerk fashion".

But Mr Obama made it clear that he will not be a soft touch when it comes to Tehran.

"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. We have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening," he said.

"Iran's support of terrorist organisations, I think, is something that has to cease."

The Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani - who has been sharply at odds with President Ahmadinejad over parliament's impeachment last week of the latter's interior minister - described Mr Obama's comments as a step in the wrong direction.

"It signals a continuation of the erroneous policies of the past," he said. "Change has to be strategic, not just cosmetic."

Hard-line Iranian newspapers on Sunday took up the theme of continuing American hostility to Iran and a common policy shared by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Some also pointed out that one of Mr Obama's first actions was to appoint as his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, whose background reportedly includes volunteer service in the Israeli army.

Reformist support

Some also criticised Mr Ahmadinejad directly for stretching out his hand to the American president-elect.

The right-wing daily Jumhouri Islami said his initiative was wrong on several counts.

If it was a prelude to reopening a dialogue with Washington, it said, such issues were of a magnitude which only Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was qualified to address.

(Bingo!)

Ironically, the main voices raised in support of Mr Ahmadinejad's overture came from the reformist camp, which favours dialogue with Washington and which is normally at loggerheads with the president.

The issue of opening a direct dialogue between Washington and Tehran is clearly a political minefield for both sides.

But that does not necessarily mean it will not happen.

As he pointed out in his remarks about President Ahmadinejad's letter, Mr Obama's hands are in any case tied until he takes office in January.

The economic and financial crisis will then be his obvious first priority.

But he has already singled out Iran and its pursuit of nuclear technology as a compelling foreign policy issue to be addressed, and he has not so far drawn back from the idea of direct talks, an approach long championed by Senator Biden.

Shark-pool

Back in Tehran, much will depend on the position taken by Ayatollah Khamenei.

His addresses are often very tough on the United States.

But some Iranian officials say that he is not against a direct dialogue, if it is without preconditions and Iran's dignity is respected.

There is even some speculation about who might be qualified and authorised to conduct talks from the Iranian side.

Only if a dialogue had the clear support of the Leader - who cannot be criticised - would it be likely to resist being torn to shreds in the shark-pool of Iranian factional politics.

If direct talks did get under way, it would clearly not be plain sailing.

Iranian officials and leaders remain adamant about what they see as their absolute right to pursue nuclear fuel enrichment, which they insist is only for peaceful power-generation purposes.

The Americans - apparently including Mr Obama - and others are convinced that Tehran is actually seeking to develop nuclear arms, and insist it must stop enrichment operations in exchange for imports of ready-enriched nuclear fuel and other inducements.

Some reformist leaders have suggested that the ascendant hard-liners don't really want normalisation with the US, on the grounds that continuing tension allows them to focus on external threats and silence their domestic critics.

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

iran didn't get the memo.

[Saddle Bronc 124]

iran didn't get the memo.

Oh, I think Khamenei GOT the memo--but relegated it to #301 on "top 100 things to deal with" list.

[nowhereman 1]

Just right wing propaganda. Obama isn't saying he will sit down and have tea & crumpets with countries like Iran. He is merely promoting the DIME approach vs. the Bush doctrine. If you don't understand the difference you don't have an informed opinion on this topic.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Just right wing propaganda. Obama isn't saying he will sit down and have tea & crumpets with countries like Iran. He is merely promoting the DIME approach vs. the Bush doctrine. If you don't understand the difference you don't have an informed opinion on this topic.

IRAN got a slap in the wrist. "GOTCHA!"

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

What's the point of this thread?

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What's the point of this thread?

What's the point of any thread here??

[nowhereman 1]

What's the point of this thread?

What's the point of any thread here??

What's the point of Bush eating corn?

[IAMX 3,055]

I say we just send all the pro-war supporters over there so they can deal with it in their fashion.

Of course, without the "conditions" of support.

Edited November 10, 2008 by SRVT

[nowhereman 1]

I say we just send all the pro-war supporters over there so they can deal with it in their fashion.

Of course, without the "conditions" of support.

You shouldn't be Pro-War or Anti-War... it is a necessary evil but should always be a last resort.

[S and S 12]

Its not only about the nuclear enrichment, it is also about all the weapons and fighters Iran sends into Iraq. Both of those areas need to be addressed. Not sure if Iran would be willing to stop both, though I highly doubt it, even with direct talks. Then again, sitting silent for all these years hasn't improved relations. I would like to see some kind of progress to work these issues out.

[Ban Hammer 13,645]

I say we just send all the pro-war supporters over there so they can deal with it in their fashion.

Of course, without the "conditions" of support.

how generous of you.

[S and S 12]

I say we just send all the pro-war supporters over there so they can deal with it in their fashion.

Of course, without the "conditions" of support.

Some of the pro-war supporters are already fighting Iran in Iraq so we pretty much got that one covered unless you are suggesting an invasion of Iran?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its not only about the nuclear enrichment, it is also about all the weapons and fighters Iran sends into Iraq. Both of those areas need to be addressed. Not sure if Iran would be willing to stop both, though I highly doubt it, even with direct talks. Then again, sitting silent for all these years hasn't improved relations. I would like to see some kind of progress to work these issues out.

Well its not like the Iranians have any reason to trust the "goodwill" of the US, given that we are essentially responsible for the way that country turned out.

Of course as far as Iraq goes - it illustrates the bone-headedness of the politicians who supported the war. When you recognise that Saddam's regime, distasteful as it was, was ideologically opposed to that of neighbouring Iran - it becomes clear how delicate this situation was and how running around like a bull in a china shop has done more harm than good.

It amazes me to be honest - that we've basically put Iran in a position where they have been able to do much damage to our interests. The insurgency is the reason this thing has dragged on so long, along with the political disagreements between the different factions in the coalition government. Iran has been behind a good portion of the non-AQ insurgency - bogging us down in Iraq at huge expense of manpower and money, while the US' fiercest competitors (Russia and China - both of whom have investment in Iran) watch and laugh.

I rather suspect that when the US does eventually withdraw - the new Iraq will become an ideological partner of Iran and bolster, rather than discourage the anti-american sentiment in that region.

Edited November 10, 2008 by Paul Daniels

[Saddle Bronc 124]

Its not only about the nuclear enrichment, it is also about all the weapons and fighters Iran sends into Iraq. Both of those areas need to be addressed. Not sure if Iran would be willing to stop both, though I highly doubt it, even with direct talks. Then again, sitting silent for all these years hasn't improved relations. I would like to see some kind of progress to work these issues out.

Well its not like the Iranians have any reason to trust the "goodwill" of the US, given that we are essentially responsible for the way that country turned out.

Of course as far as Iraq goes - it illustrates the bone-headedness of the politicians who supported the war. When you recognise that Saddam's regime, distasteful as it was, was ideologically opposed to that of neighbouring Iran - it becomes clear how delicate this situation was and how running around like a bull in a china shop has done more harm than good.

It amazes me to be honest - that we've basically put Iran in a position where they have been able to do much damage to our interests. The insurgency is the reason this thing has dragged on so long, along with the political disagreements between the different factions in the coalition government. Iran has been behind a good portion of the non-AQ insurgency - bogging us down in Iraq at huge expense of manpower and money, while the US' fiercest competitors (Russia and China - both of whom have investment in Iran) watch and laugh.

I rather suspect that when the US does eventually withdraw - the new Iraq will become an ideological partner of Iran and bolster, rather than discourage the anti-american sentiment in that region.

One thing that actually kept the Iran-Iraq war going was the hatred of Iraqi Arabs (even Shi'as) for Iranians.