Comments on: Negotiations with Iran Would be a Sham

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 14:47:16 +0000

Zack - appreciate the response. I have to say that while I respect Kenneth Pollock's intelligence, I'm disinclined to believe any claims he makes regarding how any Middle Eastern situation will play out. For example, when cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq, Pollack claimed "The United States should thus be prepared to contribute several billion dollars per year for as much as a decade to rebuild the country. It could undoubtedly raise substantial funds for this purpose from the GCC and perhaps some European and East Asian allies dependent on Persian Gulf oil." Granted, he did warn that "The United States should thus be prepared to contribute several billion dollars per year for as much as a decade to rebuild the country."

"Several billion dollars per year."

Meanwhile, I'm not persuaded that any justification for a crackback would follow an auditable logic chain. All that fearmongering takes is fear - and as we've seen in this country in the last decade fear can quickly be used as a tool to shut down dissent.

I understand your concern over whether the US sends the wrong message were we to support the regime. But there's a big difference between continuing to negotiate with people who currently hold power if the timing dictates it (granted, that is a big IF at the moment, depending on one's acceptance of various forecasts of how long it would take for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons capabilities) - and say, having the Shah over to the White House for state visits while he was torturing dissidents.

There should be no rush to recognize the results of the election. In that sense, the US can't poison relationships with Ahmadinejad any more by holding back, but draws a bright line between ourselves and Russia, China, and India who are currently hosting Ahmadinejad at the SCO conference.

There are multiple ways this could play out. Aside from the ideal (Iraqi clerics rejecting the election and Ahmadinejad), those scenarios include having out-of-power dissent building into an organized movement/party that keeps pressure on the Ahmadinejad regime to moderate by publicly rejecting his anti-West/anti-Israel rhetoric ... as well as severe crackdowns where nationwide dissident leadership is all locked up while fundamentalist goon squads beat down anyone who tries to organize on a local scale.

I see the latter as being both the worst case, and as being far far more likely to result from too heavy-handed an intervention by the US..

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:56:02 +0000

ZacMorgan asks: "Besides, wouldn't it stoke anti-American anger among the dissidents if America stands back, tacitly supporting the hated regime?"

Yep. That happened with the Iraqi Shiites, after Bush 41 let their rebellion against Saddam be crushed. They never trusted us again.

"ottovbs" always likes to remind us conservatives about demographics. OK, I'll remind him that in Iran, young people make up a large percentage of the Iranian population. I'm much more concerned about what THEY think of America, than what Ahmedinijad thinks of America--or what those aging mullahs and ayatollahs think of America. They will be around long after Ahmedinijad is dead and buried.

That means that the U.S. should consider covert aid to the young Iranians, working with international Shiite Muslim organizations to deliver that aid.

By: sinz54

sinz54 — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 13:51:55 +0000

Obama should do one thing: He should state publicly that he won't meet with any Iranian leader whose very legitimacy is open to question. And he should suspend ALL--I mean ALL--attempts at negotiation.

If Obama continued to negotiate with the Iranian regime as if it's legitimate, it would represent a refutation of everything America is supposed to stand for.

Since "ottovbs" is such a liberal, I will remind him that after Kristallnacht, FDR blasted Hitler and recalled the U.S. ambassador. FDR wasn't worried that his statement might "provoke" Hitler into taking further action against the Jews. He knew better than to try to appease a fanatic.

I very much doubt that the students who are risking their lives to defy the Iranian regime, are worried that the regime will get even angrier at them. They're already being shot at. What else can the Iranian regime do--drop bombs on them?

By: ZacMorgan

ZacMorgan — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:59:22 +0000

Balcones,

I'm not convinced that American support for the dissidents would be as counterproductive as many claim. In "The Persian Puzzle", for instance, Kenneth Pollack noted that polling in Iran indicated half of Iranians supported President Bush's description of their nation as an "axis of evil."

Additionally, I'm entirely sure it would be believable to anyone involved if A'jad and Khamenei began calling Mousavi, Khatami, and (especially) Rafsanjani tools of the Great Satan. It's one thing to argue that "Bush wants to get us", it's another to argue a former PM and two former Presidents (and Rafsanjani was no Khatami-type leader) are supporting these protests and so is President Obama; therefore this is all a Western plot.

Besides, wouldn't it stoke anti-American anger among the dissidents if America stands back, tacitly supporting the hated regime?

And while this is not necessarily indicative of a wave of support, at least some students in Tehran are appealing to Western media for Obama not to accept the election result or they are "doomed": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BcFx380pFA

Also, during the 3/14 movement in Lebanon, President Bush was very open about his support for the protesters, with no tangible ill side effects.

To otto: I will certainly grant that it is possible that Obama openly supporting the protesters could backfire. I simply do not believe that would be the case.

Kindly do not equate disagreement with that as an indication that I am some sort of shadowy evildoer interested in provoking war. I simply want Iran to be free, and our President to stand with those fighting for freedom.

By: ltwpolitics

ltwpolitics — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 12:59:02 +0000

Classic chicken and egg question: Does being a neocon make you retarded, or does being retarded make you a neocon?
The last thing Iranian dissidents need is for leader of the Great Satan to "use his profound eloquence to make their case in the court of world opinion."
That would delegitimize the protests as foreign imperialist meddling and strengthen the regime's hand.
I'm beginning to suspect that neocons don't actually care about the fate of the Iranian people, but are instead just using these events as an excuse to score political points against Obama.

By: ottovbvs

ottovbvs — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:59:40 +0000

balconesfault
wrote 45 minutes ago
"If Obama steps forward more aggressively than he has so far, that gives Iran's government cover to crack back against the dissident movement "

.......This is obvious to a 16 year old but the agenda of folks like Morgan is to stoke US/Iranian tensions not to assist the Iranian people or promote US interests. Their transparency is total.

By: balconesfault

balconesfault — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:11:15 +0000

Right now, the only safe pathway forward for the Iranian dissidents is probably the US President not getting his nose deep into their process.

If Obama steps forward more aggressively than he has so far, that gives Iran's government cover to crack back against the dissident movement - because at that point, they can be labelled "puppets of the West", and thus "traitors to the Iranian Revolution".

Overplaying our hand right now would be the WORST thing for those brave people taking to the streets in Iran.