Comments on: Naivety, diplomacy and threats

By: Garrard

Garrard — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 02:48:13 +0000

Iran? Ah, yes, Iran. I’m an American living in Los Angeles. Right next to Beverly Hills, which is 20% Iranian in population! Yes! We don’t have to worry about Iran. We are Iran.
The nuclear problem: the Iranians aren’t dummies. They know very well that if they get the bomb, the Egyptians and Saudis will Immediately go on crash programs to match Iran. And, in due course, they will succeed. Then, the intimidation factor of possessing nukes evaporates. For all parties. Stalemate will be achieved.

Thus, I suspect Iran will do as the Japanese have done, and go right to the point where they can develop a bomb in a very short time. It is said that the Japanese can build multiple bombs in 6 weeks time. Plus, they possess delivery systems. Iran would do well to emulate the Japs.

But, I suspect if they have this in mind, they will adopt this plan with some serious understandings with the United States. Some sort of a …. what shall we call it? A…Cold Detente? Something on that order.
Obama has the smarts and the patience to achieve such an arrangement, whereby Iran will receive a big boost economically, which it sorely needs. And the old boy with the turban, Mr. K, knows that for sure. Regime change? I suspect the Mullahs are realistically more worried about an internal regime change, sans meddling from the U.S., as opposed to anything externally imposed.

Change is blowing in the wind.

By: Richard T

Richard T — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:24:17 +0000

There is a perspective which remains unanalysed – that of the Iranian government. Look at the picture from Tehran. To the east are two failed states, full of militant and radical sunnis, one of which has a nuclear capacity; north are the successor states to the Soviet Union; north west are the caucasian republics where Russia and the USA are playing diplomatic and military games for influence but where in Azerbijan there are cross border Iranian interests and where some have proposed NATO membership for Georgia; then there is Turkey a NATO member and potentially a US front and proxy but with a shared opposition to Kurdish nationalism; Iraq where ill judged US intervention has set up a Shi’ite majority government (a plus); finally across the Persian Gulf is Saudi Arabia another hostile state. Add to this Israel with a nuclear capacity. The theme music is US hostility and, excepting Iraq and Afghanistan, all the surrounding states have directly or indirectly a the nuclear bomb. Leaving aside the religious aspect, is it really surprising that Iran has developed its ability to enrich uranium and prepare itself? If you’re surrounded by 3 unstable states, great power games to your north west, 4 different nuclear powers within shooting range, a separatist movement which has been largely indulged by the US occupiers across the border in Iraq and a US government which as I understand it publicly spurned rapprochement, might you not seek ways to protect your integrity?

I’m not condoing their actions nor seeking to be an apologist for the Iranians but without turning the map upside down, you don’t get the full picture and you can’t begin to look at how both parties -the west and Iran – can get themselves off hooks largely of their own making.

By: Ed West

Ed West — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 09:42:00 +0000

She wasnt an ex-pat as such, had only just moved here, which is why it surprised me. I grew up in west London so knew lots of Persian shahists. The question remains – how do we help the Iranian people get rid of their government? The Iranian people like to moan but become all defensive when westerners attack Tehran and then start going on about the “Filistinians”.

By: Tori

Tori — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 07:08:49 +0000

What the regime in Iran fears most is engagement, not opposition. Why did Khamaneie respond so quickly to Obama’s message? Because he knows that many in the regime itself are interested in rapprochement with the US. And he definitely knows that his population is ready.

I don’t know what the options are for dealing with Iran other than diplomacy and engagement. Many of you talk about diplomacy allowing time for an enemy to arm itself. Well, yeah. But it’s not as though sanctions have helped. They have pushed Iran closer to China and Russia. It’s not as though we live in a unipolar world.

For those who think that bombing Iran’s facilities or people is an option, I ask what is the price we are willing to pay to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power? If it were as easy as bombing Osirak, don’t you think it would have been done already?

And why can’t we admit that Iranians have actual grievances with the world community? For those who only see Iran as an aggressor with no reason for arming itself other than the destruction of Israel, I recommend reading Borzou Daraghi’s 2007 article: 1987 chemical attack still haunts Iran.
(http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/19/world/fg-sardasht19)

Diplomacy is a tool that we should use. I dread the day that we have a nuclear armed Iran, which is why I think that the sooner we engage, the better.

By: Biff Larkin

Biff Larkin — Tue, 24 Mar 2009 03:30:27 +0000

Sophia writes:

“It makes no sense that any Westerner would turn on a nation supportive of Western values in order to embrace a totalitarian, repressive government -”

I am on your side Sophia, but your mistaken assumption is that all or even most Westerners support Western values. Actually, millions of Westerners despise the West and Western values (i.e. liberal democracy) and look to the declared enemies of the West for improvement and salvation.

By: Writing Prep School

Writing Prep School — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:48:30 +0000

I fancy myself sometimes at least, as a writer. But when I write something that is good or better still true.

Before fancying yourself a writer, at least learn the distinction between a clause and a sentence and that periods are punctuation marks that follow sentences not clauses.

By: David All

David All — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:42:12 +0000

Thanks you for reprinting these two posts by Tori Egherman & Kaman Ashtary. They have contained more sense than any dozon other pieces on Iran that have read during the past year.

Remember the Iranian regime has been around for 30 years now. If they were suicidal as some seem still to think, they would have destroyed themsevles and Iran long ago. Also remember Iran is not the leading country sponsering Islamic Terrorism. That honor goes to our so-called allies Saudi Arabia and its nuclear-armed sword bearer Pakistan.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:20:07 +0000

Cipriano

Fair point. But with Iran being some kind of figurehead of ‘anti imperialist’ resistance, e.g. Hugo Chavez’s posture toward that country,- as well as Iran being emblematic of Jihadi sentiment among the 20% or so of world population that is Muslim, I think it advantageous to call the religious extremists’ impotent bluff on the world stage. Ceteris paribus, the US has no need to rush into demonstrating its capacity to wipe out any perceived enemy.

By: Cipriano

Cipriano — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:57:14 +0000

Hugh -

I agree with every word. Just feel you may not have got my point: the jaw-jaw/war-war quote came from Churchill, who is largely famous for having known where jaw-jaw was no longer possible, and leading us to win the war-war.

By: Hugh

Hugh — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 21:41:00 +0000

Cipriano

I fancy myself sometimes at least, as a writer. But when I write something that is good or better still true. I don’t suffer from the delusion that what I have written completely describes me. But I still think writing is a jolly good thing!