Diplomacy and Iran, recipe for disaster

I thought the world was going to love us again? 

For the next four years the US will be the big dumb kid the smaller children tease and pick on, cause they know he is impotent.

He has definitely shown the "Softer" side of our country.

CharlesCS, diplomacy doesn't mean only sanctions. It also means talking, and opening dialogs. I served in the I.D.F., and Iran presents a terrible danger not only to Israel, but to the west as well.

I'd rather concentrate on a process with deadlines than on personalities and recriminations simply because the latter leads us nowhere and wastes valuable time. We should also remember that things may be going on that we are not privy to...maybe not.

There has to be a way to get through to these people and establish a way to prevent a nuclear weapon getting to a production stage, because I assure you that Israel will do what it must to prevent that. Iran has missile capability and no Israeli will not stand for an Ahmadinejad with a nuclear weapon of any sort.

I do not believe President Obama is a superman or anything but a person with superior intellect. I would suggest that we try to get to a peaceful solution, and that will require talking and overcoming decades of hostility.

Threatening and punishing haven't gotten us closer to anything but a showdown too terrible to contemplate. Two of my children live in Israel, and I would like to become a grandfather at some point.

It is hard to have an open dialog with a government hoping for the arrival of the Mahdi.

It may sound silly, but the same question was raised in the Dark Knight movie.  How to you reason with someone that their only goal is to instigate chaos in order to kill you?

Odd that you say this, because George Bush was a devout Christian who was waiting for the second coming of Jesus. And yet, while he had a tendency to bomb first and not ask questions of his employees, he did negotiate on occasion.

In addition, Iran's behaviour over the past few decades has shown that realpolitik is far more important than rhetoric in their decision-making process. The US faces a great danger in pushing too hard on this issue, because the harder they push, the more they force Iran to back up its words and spend the billions necessary to develop an effective nuclear capability.

If a bit of diplomacy can moderate Iranian rhetoric and give the president a way out without sacrificing national pride, then that's all for the good. It's not always a positive to be eager for war.

As Obama moves from one faux pas to the next, the people of other countries laugh at him while the leaders of other countries are coming up with ways to take advantage of him.

If only Obama would be as tough on Iran as he is with the Special Olympics. 

would you be referring to when he asked the Taliban to hand over Bin Laudin and they refused knowing the consequences?

-or-

The months of asking Saddam to comply with UN resolutions, which he refused knowing the consequence?

These "myths" that are spread continuously by the anti-Bush crowd are self-serving and simply not true.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad religius zeal = George Bush?  You are joking here?

Have you ever heard Mahmoud Ahmadinejad speek to the Irainian public and read the subtitles?  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says alot of thinks that never gets reported on CNN.

I have never heard George Bush preaching at the top of his lungs to a crowd chanting "God is great" and the US is the Great Satan.  I also can not remember the time when Bush asked God to wipe a country off the face of the earth just because it's not Muslim.

When was the last time you seen a Christian strap a bomb to themselves and try to murder others?

Bush may believe in the second coming of Jesus, but Ahmadinejad has said openly in his speachs that the arrival of the Mahdi will soon be at hand.

What's the alternative to trying to speak? Nuclear War?

I don't know how many of you folks have seen combat, I have and you should hope never to experience that.

As for "How do you talk to people trying to be martyrs?" type thinking...not every Muslim believes that. Moreover, even if you are speaking with one who does, there is even a greater imperative to find a way to dissuade him/her. The Culture of Death is insane, and there has to be a way to get someone to step back from the brink...children, grandchildren...whatever it takes to make life the choice.

Does that mean it has to succeed? No. But the price of failure is per some scenarios planetary devestation. Is that an alternative? Not to any sane person of any denomination or to atheists either. Certainly not to Christians and Jews and most Moslems.

We just have to find a way to convince the radicals of every stripe. The convincing, if ultimately violent will just cause more violence.

The question posed is "Are we doomed to repeat the pattern of violence endlessly or can we find an alternative?".

DrJBHL,

I understand you point. I also think the same way. There is gotta be a way to make this world a better place without killing the majority of the human population like most movies and TV shows about the future portray.

But I also accept the realities of life and in this case, there are some people who diplomacy escapes them and what's even worse, those they lead are either too afraid to stand up against them, too ignorant to understand the implications or too stubborn to find a peaceful middle ground.

The first thing you need to do is stopping thinking that everyone here who's opinion is opposite of yours is somehow some blood-thirsty death-dealing, vengeful, hateful, war monger. Most, if not all of us here would rather we just ignored each other, play a nice game of soccer or baseball to decided who wins or sit for months attemping to reach some kind of peaceful solution to all the worlds problems rather than destroying precious lives, bringing chaos to other countries, wasting money on weapons and making things worse with other countries who disagree with forceful methods. But most of us also except that people like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad do not react to diplomacy the way we would like him to unless we are somehow making ourselves the weaker country. He does not want peace, friendship, harmony. He wants death, destruction, power, control. And we all know what happens when someone wants more power and control and is willing to cause death and destruction to get it.

Saddam Hussein

Adolf Hitler

Joseph Stalin

Are we doomed to repeat the pattern of violence endlessly? Yes, because it is in our nature. Because we wish to have the freedom to be who we want to be, to do the things that we want to do and when we believe someone is invading our personal space, we want the freedom to do something about it. If violence must be removed from our human society, we will have to get rid of almost forms of entertainment (movies, music, sport, games, etc) and we will have to forget about history (which is full of violence since the age of man) and we will have to disreguard the concept of a God (since most religions dipict a time when their God either asked to kill people or God did it himjself), because all these things have violence. Where there is disagreement, there is violence and as long as our society believe if individual freedom, there will always be disagreement.

I would have to challenge that assertion as well.  Obama is an idiot without his trust teleprompter.

Appeasement and compromise with Radical leaders does not work.  The only think that happens is that the radical leaders get a free reign to consolidate their power over those who are not radical and portray us as a paper tiger.  What you have to do is give the moderates the tools to rise up.  You can't do that while showing your willingness to keep the radical leaders in control.

The EU has been trying to talk, without any threats, with these radical leaders for years.  Now they are considered a joke to the people of Iran.  A common joke that I heard in Semolina and on documentaries from Iran is "What do you call 100 French peace keepers?".  Answer "An arms delivery".

Does attempting to train moderate Somalia Volunteers how to be policeman in 1993 count as accreditation for me?  I had seen first hand how mishandling radical leaders can effect a moderate population.  I agree that their are non-violent ways to work around them.  But dealing with radical leaders is like feeding a Pitbull red meat stakes hoping for the day when the poodle will kick its ass.  The only way that will happen is when you stop feeding the Pitbull and he become sick enough for the poodle, maybe with a little help, take him down.  i.e. the end of the Soviet Union.

War does not need to be the answer, but dropping our support for Isreal just to have a seat at the table, is not the answer.  Because that is what the radical Iranian leaders demand this last week.  The only thing our resent diplomatic dealings we have had over Iran these last two months has done is make the Iranian Radicals Stronger.

A soldier understands the cost of fighting, and a fight should never be started without reason. This whole thing started because we supported the Shah, and the clerics didn't. So in effect they hate their enemies friend, even though the US does not feel this way to the Iranian people.

Iran could have ended this at any time. In fact if Carter would have shown some backbone in the 70's this whole thing would probably have been done with then and there. His weakness emboldened a nation that respects only power. Iran needs an enemy to keep their citizens in line. Look to any similar society in history for examples.

So tell me just how many times is it enough for us to reward their bad behavior with more gestures of weakness in the form of diplomatic concessions? How many more hostages should they take, how many more illegal export of weapons can they make? How much support for terrorist organizations is enough to make folks see these people don't subscribe to our idea of peaceful coexistence?

DrJBHL you don't want to see men and women die, and I applauder that. But ask yourself this. How many will die when Iran has a a nuclear device and is not afraid to use it? Israel is a small country in size, and can easily be transformed into a wasteland. Will that be enough dead to take action? And what would be the response? A nuclear attack on Iran? Is this acceptable?

Better to solve this now than to wait until the 400 hundred pound gorilla is 800 pounds. If not the ones you want to save now will only have their fate plus many, many more postponed. If this can be accomplished without war thats great, but Obama's overt display of weakness and submission will not reach those lofty goals. 

Mahdi isn't the anti-Christ; I'm not sure why his arrival would necessarily lead to war. I wasn't aware that you associated Ahmadinejad's anti-US rants with Mahdi and believe that other people would do so too.

If by Mahdi you were referring to the Iranian president's inflammatory statements, then yes, Bush has nothing on him. But being a devout Shi'ite is not the same thing as being pro-violence and pro-war.

Funny, after saying that, you enter this:

Ahmadinejad is a politician before everything else, and he isn't holding the reins of the military/foreign policy. Iran's President cannot stop the bomb-development process, nor will he be in any position to launch them if they existed. But on the other hand, Iran's President is also a good leader of the political will of the people. Iran's elections are coming in June, and such a show by Obama may actually tilt the outcome in favor of a more moderate candidate.

Don't forget that Iran is a democracy too (in a very lenient interpretation of Democracy), so influencing the political will of its people should be considered when you are judging the President's policies.

Elaborate where that is funny? I like jokes but I don't get yours.

Interesting concept, considering you are one of many who like blaming the leaders of this nation for all the actions taken by this country yet in Iran, it's the people we need to convince? Talk about seeing things the way you want to fit your agenda.

Being a devout Shi'ite that believes in providing the signs for the return of Mahdi is violent.

The destruction of Syria, Baghdad bathed in red and taking by Muslims of all non-Muslim lands (Israel) are just three signs.  You know the whole wiping out of Israel thing.

While Mahdi is not the anti-Christ, his return is linked to the anti-Christ’s and the apocalypse.  All that stuff about the four horse men.  Mahdi return will be the second coming of Christ.

Ahmadinejad and many high clerics in the Iranian Government are reported to be members of the Hojjatieh Society.  You know, some of those nut jobs that are convinced the 12th Imam's return will be hastened by the creation of chaos on earth.  In a speech he gave on 16th Nov 2005, he was to "pave the path" to the events that will bring the 12th Imam (i.e. the apocalypse).  The rest of the speech is full of quotes coming from the Hojjatieh Society.

Because of the hypocrisie your argument was seething. You said that it's not right to call someone else bloodthirsty and wanting for violence just because he has an opinion different from yours, but less than too lines later you went and did the exact thing on Iran's policial leader.

You smoke weed or what? You don't even make the least sense. It's perfectly natural to blame leaders of a country when they act wrong, 'cause they are the ones making the decision. But if you want to make them change, you have to influence the electorate. It'll be easier to change a country's direction by changing the man at the wheel than convincing him to do something different.

So, while Iran's current president is perfectly in the wrong about many of his speeches regarding Israel/Jews/others, we should not inflict complete retribution upon the country that elected him 4 years ago if they seem willing not to re-elect him. And to add to this, trying to soften relation between Iran and the USA and making sure the Iranian population knows that they won't loose everything if they do elect a moderate president, because there is the possibility of diplomatic solving makes it even easier for them to go for the moderate approach to this conflict.

If Iran had seen no opening at all (and I can't call Bush's diplomacy any kind of "opening", it's "intimidation"), then they won't elect a leader that might make them being seen weak. It's a 2-man's game, and Obama did the right thing, since he's the Leader of the most powerful country of the confllict, to make the first opening.

my earliest childhood memories include preparation for imminent nuclear attack.  for decades my--and i suspect this is true of everyone who lived in what used to be thought of as 'the first world" from 1950 thru the mid-1990s, was more aware than, say, a rock or tree, and occasionally turned on the radio/tv, picked up a paper or went to movies--life was marginalized by constant anticipation of nuclear war.  which is not to say that i lived in constant fear or continously did things differently than i might have otherwise.  it's just that there never was a time during those years when it wasn't a possibility.

i don't believe i'm alone in looking back now and realizing just how easily it might have happened--by accident or intention--and realizing there was one constant that affected each situational equation throughout that time.  as close as we came to the brink at times, as badly as both sides hated and distrusted one another, as foolish, corrupt, malicious, egotistical and possibly insane as their cold war era leaders and our own may have been, they never stopped talking to each other.

had they stopped...?

you'd have a cave wall for a monitor.

try something and if it doesn't work immediately, discard it as failure? 

you generally resolve all your problems this way?

if so, your life must be such a longass wild ride it turns mr toad green with jealousy

Not even close, Iran is a Theocracy. People assume any country that allows voting is a democracy of some sort. Kim Jong Il just won re-election by winning 100% of the vote...democracy in action right?

Countries like Iran and North Korea attempt to legitimize their leaders in the eyes of the world  with the illusions. It's amazing how many people in the free world believe and perpetuate their hyperbole for them.

Perhaps, but in Iran, the voting process can actually produce different leaders. So it's not like Syria, where there is only one party presented in elections. Iran's system is more democratic than the Soviet Union was, or Syria is. But it is less than Venezuela's, for example.

Again, that is not true. The electoral process in Iran can shift the balance of power between factions. You are merely trying to diabolise this country in every way possible. While it's true that the religious governement (the Ayatollah) isn't elected, and thus the majority of the power of the country is outside of the elected body, you may draw 2 conclusions:

1) IRan isn't trying to be hypocrit. IT's president it really elected, it's just not holding most of the cards

2) Iran's electorate can have an influence on the country's direction. As opposed to Syria's