Obama to Iran: a new start
Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has demanded concrete policy changes from the US as the price for new relations between the two states.
Speaking in the holy city of Mashhad, Ayatollah Khamenei said: "If you change your attitude, we will change our attitude."
Click below to hear former US ambassador William Luers's analysis of President Obama's video message to Iran.
(broadcast on The World Tonight, BBC Radio 4, 20 March 2009)
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~11~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
By seeming open to change and reasonable, President Obama is laying the political groundwork for the inevitable coming war with Iran. Iran is on a collision course with the rest of the world. Its goal is to re-establish its ancient Persian empire real or imagined and rule a Shiite Caliphate that encompasses the entire region. Not only won't the US or Israel allow this to happen, neither with the Arab states who are privately probably scared to death. The tone of US policy may have changed, but the substance hasn't budged one inch in Iran's direction and won't. Europe will sit mute and helpless on the sidelines and criticize the US loudly as usual, what it does best.
Complain about this comment
It was nice to hear that USA wants to settle the dispute of Iran through negotiations and I'm hopeful that dialogue would start very soon between these two countries.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
we expect that tense relations between these two countries will soon become normal as USA is adopting or preferring to negotiations.
Trace cell phone number
Complain about this comment
Robin:
I think that it would be a wonderful thing that ALL sides would make the effort and, start talks at the lowest level between the governments....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
The raw between Iran and USA should be ended as early as possible as it would be in the best interest of not only these two countries but also for the rest of the world.
Trace cell phone numbers
Complain about this comment
Obama administration has taken a good step to resolve the problems through negotiations rather then through war as Bush did in past.
Reverse phone look
up
Complain about this comment
we expect that ice on poles will melt soon and every issue would be resolved through dialogue for betterment of humanity.
How to save yourself time and money
Complain about this comment
This reply from the arrogant Ayatollah is so typical of everything we see from the Muslim standpoint.
They never seem to want to concede to any reasonable offers unless it is entirely on their terms.
This shows in their craven fear of letting their muslim peoples see into any aspects of any other religions and creeds.
But they are never slow to embrace the benefits of any of the technology of the Western World
Complain about this comment
CinCCO
You're right. The ironic image is that of the al Qaeda terrorists using cell phones, lap top computers, and jet planes in a grand scheme to return the world to the 11th century as it existed in Islam. Wait until they get their hands on an atom bomb. Do you think then our leaders will realize what a disasterous mistake they made not using our capabilities to have stopped them as soon as we knew they'd gotten started no matter what it took?
Complain about this comment
Although Obama's words are encouraging he now needs to back them up with action by lifting the sanctions. Iran should reply by offering military and political assistance in Iraq and Afghanistan.
A lasting truce can only happen by the peaceful solution to the Israel-Palestine problem - and that, IMHO, is the return of the pre-1967 borders.
Complain about this comment
dceilar,
I belive the truce you are talking about is a truce between Israel and the Palestinias? It must be as there is no state of war between Iran and the USA. I see your commitment to the Palestinian cause, however not every blog is about that.
I believe that a softening of the tone towards Iran is a good thing, however there is a long way to go before Iran offers assisstance in Afghanistan or Iraq (if the Iranians really mean to do so). When we see Iran and the USA together rebuilding Afghanistan, then I would know that the era of 'world peace' has really arrived.
Complain about this comment
American control over Iran as a client state failed. American support for Saddam Hussein's offensive on Iran failed. American sanctions on Iran have failed. American covert attempts to overthrow Iranian Government have failed. American propaganda about Iranian nuclear weapons has failed - and disproved by the IAEA. The system of government and Ayatollah remain - Iran will not return to a a pro-American Shah.
So now they are left with talking to Iran - which is exactly what Iran offered many times in the last 20 years and been snubbed by USA - mainly to maintain 'an enemy' in the minds of the American public.
Complain about this comment
Just spotted there's a R4 prog about Iran tonight (Monday) at 20.00hrs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00j6lfk
Complain about this comment
12. Richard_SM wrote:
"American propaganda about Iranian nuclear weapons has failed..."
I'm sure you weren't talking about this:
"The declassification of key judgments from the new US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran has significant implications that far outweigh those of its substantive content. Whatever its merits, the report's conclusion that Iran "halted its nuclear weapons program" over four years ago effectively eliminates the possibility of an American military strike against Tehran."
http://www.mideastmonitor.org/issues/0801/0801_7.htm
I guess that wasn't the "propaganda" you were thinking of.
"- and disproved by the IAEA."
Evidence, evidence.
You appear to think of Iran as some kind of benevolent, democratic, enlightened country. I'm not sure why.
Iran:-
*Funds, arms and train international terrorists, especially those who murder Israeli civilians.
*Has threatened numerous times to destroy Israel.
*Supports the insurgency in Iraq.
*Commits "judicial" acts of murder against its own citizens for "sexual crimes."
*Last, but not least, see MarcusAureliusII's point about the Caliphate at the top of the page.
Complain about this comment
#11
I'm talking about a truce between Iran and the USA. You don't have to be at war to have a truce - language too can be hostile and aggressive. And besides, the US sees Iran as an enemy and I sure the feeling is mutual from Iran.
I reiterate that the key to all this is the Israel-Palestine problem. This needs to be solved peacefully based on the pre-1967 borders IMHO.
Complain about this comment
Of course, the number one thing disturbing the Middle East is Israel.
Only if loyal US citizens take back control of their policy toward Israel will that very disturbing element regress to its proper dimension.
The Supreme Leader of Iran is no fool. Russia and Iran are natural foes and only if the USA makes an ally of Iran can the strategic position in the region become stable.
Obama is, quite correctly, making overtures to the population of Iran. The mullahs are able to perceive in this the potential end of their power.
Patience and intelligence will be required.
Complain about this comment
Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with Iran directly. It's a side show every Moslem leader uses to divert his population's attention and the world's attention away from the cruel corruption of their failed despotism and the misery it has wrought. Iran is in desperate straits right now with a failed economy, low oil prices, high unemployment, and a lot of people out of work. It is completely isolated. It could hardly be in a weaker position. It's nuclear program will not make it stronger, only vulnerable to a pre-emptive strike to destroy it, possibly a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Iran didn't just threaten to destroy Israel but has said it wants a world without America. That sounds like a direct threat to me and one that cannot be ignored. Any rational human being including a rational Iranian should be hoping the Islamic revolution will fail and come to an end. It is the single greatest menace right now on the planet.
Complain about this comment
Marcy:
Israel and Palestine has nothing to do with USA directly. It's a side show every USA leader uses to divert his population's attention and the world's attention away from the cruel corruption of their failed "War on terror" and the misery it has wrought. USA (and rest of world) is in desperate straits right now with a failed economy, low oil prices, high unemployment, and a lot of people out of work. It is the single greatest menace right now on the planet.
Could be another interpretation of the situation.
Complain about this comment
17. MarcusAureliusII wrote:
"Iran didn't just threaten to destroy Israel but has said it wants a world without America."
Yes, the "big satan" and the "little satan."
16. luosquery,
I have an idea what Israel's "proper dimension" would be in your eyes.
If Russia is such a "natural foe" of Iran, why is Russia assisting Iran in its nuclear ambitions and covering for it at the UN?
18. paulcrossleyiii,
Your "interpretation" only makes sense to those who intend to drive the entire planet back into darkness and "religious" intolerance. You are easily fooled.
Complain about this comment
TT, crosseyes is not fooled. He wants to return the world to the 11th centruy. Iran is Russia's ally because it cn use Russia's help now but believes it will one day conquer Russia and the rest of the world without America around. It needs to eliminate Israel and America becaue only they have the political will to resist the form of subversive aggression Iran poses. The other countries do not. For this reason, without America they will succumb to Iran just as they would have succumbed to Hitler without America. History will repeat itself. Iran is a nation of chess players and its gambit is clear. We'll see if Obama and Natanyahu are naive fools or sly foxes who will muster enough political allies to stop this dangerous force before it is too late.
Complain about this comment
20. MarcusAureliusII,
Too true.
Complain about this comment
Marcus
When was the last time Iran invaded another country?
As a right wing American nut you're the expert on illegal invasions. This century is barely through its first decade and the US has already invaded two countries and continually supports a country that kills civilians for political purposes.
Don't judge Iran by your warmonger standards.
Complain about this comment
Marcy, we've been here before, Tuetrue, maybe you're new to this: Implying what you perceive about me as fact really does make you sound pretty dumb.
TT: "You are easily fooled" No I'm not.
MA "He wants to return the world to the 11th century" No, I don't
I respectfully ask you keep your speculations about me to yourself.
As I think you both know (it was pretty obvious after all), I was just making the point that a lot of the guff MAII spouts about Iran could just as easily be levelled at the USA.
Don't get me wrong, I don't actually believe that the situation is anything like either my tongue in cheek version or MAII's original, sad, words. If only things were as simple as Marcus implies, then we really would be able to solve the world's problems very quickly.
Complain about this comment
"Russia and Iran are natural foes and only if the USA makes an ally of Iran can the strategic position in the region become stable."
This is obvious to those who know history and are able to read maps.
The short-term picture is distorted by Israel's angst and AIPAC's intense propaganda, together with varous forms of insurgency.
Medium-term, the US fears Iran dominating the most critical areas, in place of the US efforts to do so.
Arguably, the US is on its way out. Who will fill its place? Shia Iran is a
strong counter to Whabbi and Salafist insurgencies- movements that could succeed.
Iran then becomes the buffer against the known insurgencies and Russia.
Israel has allied itself with Iran in the past (under the Shah), in recognizing its own interests.
Complain about this comment
~18 Paul
Could be another interpretation of the situation.
Or rather the more accurate interpretation than that given by MostlyErronousII and TT
;-)
Complain about this comment
23. paulcrossleyiii,
Point taken. But you have not explained what you found inaccurate about Marcus' take or mine. There is no equivalence between Iran and a modern Western democracy. The two are simply not comparable.
As I recall, Israel has never attacked Iran. Yet Iran's hands are bloody from holding the shaft of the spear thrust at Israel, with Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic jihad at the point. I don't know why everyone carefully tiptoes around this obvious fact in these debates.
It's equally obvious that the only Jews (and Christians) the Muslims of the Middle East will tolerate will be those living as fearful, dhimmi minorities in predominantly Muslim countries. And that low threshold of tolerance is not even guaranteed. Jordan is Jew-free. So, of course, is Saudi Arabia. Iraq probably has no more than a few dozen Jews left.
This is why the majority Jewish state of Israel is such an affront to the Muslim world. Absorb that fact, and much of the history and current events fall into place.
So I guess it depends what you want to prevail in the area - democracy and freedom or enslavement to a dark past.
Complain about this comment
TooTrue, ok what I find inaccuarate about your take:
TT: "Your "interpretation" only makes sense to those who intend to drive the entire planet back into darkness and "religious" intolerance. You are easily fooled."
To explain further; just becasue I disagree with some US foreign policy (which could be seen as relgion-endorsed intolerance anyway), it doesn't mean that I agree with all those who oppose the USA.
Some more:
TT: "There is no equivalence between Iran and a modern Western democracy. The two are simply not comparable."
You should be right, but unfortunately you're not. Despite the USA being a democracy, it still manages to cause problems (as well as bringing good) inthe world. It's War on Terror(!) and medalling in Israel can be debated until the cows come home (with zero effect) but they have undoubtedly had many negative effects outside of that country's own borders. Weigh that against the negative effects of Iran outside of it's own borders. That was the point of my original post.
As for Marcus, well the majority of what he writes comes across as either offensive, inaccuarate or irrelevant. He occasionally slips in some facts or pertinent points but they just tend to get lost in the background noise.
I'm not going to argue about Israel for two reasons, you know a lot more and seem to feel more strongly about it than me and it's not the subject of this blog.
Give me enslavement to a dark past any day (are we talknig Church of England?)
Complain about this comment
The comment of the BBC's Paul Reynolds brings home the need to bring in outside pundits. His "what Obama really meant" is too local and one-sided to be worth discussing in detail.
On the nuclear issue: Iran has the same right as any sovereign nation to nuclear arms- as does Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea.
To say that any of these lands is ruled by fanatics can be shown to be almost equally applicable and is irrelevant to their legal right.
As a religious matter, Iran's supreme leader has rejected nuclear weapons. That speaks to intent, rather than to capability.
Nuclear proliferation is inevitable.
The World must look to diplomacy and living together. Reynolds' commentary ignores this and reeks of macht and real politik.
There is a terrible injustice being done to the Palestinians, who are the victims of a religio/ethnic policy of cleansing. The Islamic world is fully aware of this and of the full complicity of the USA in these crimes.
Thus, the USA must be clearly seen to become neutral and honest in the Palestine situation. Reynolds says that it will never happen. If he is right, that does not bode well for relations with Iran or the Islamic world.
These are the two key issues. Everything else will follow from their resolution.
Complain about this comment
luosquery, what a dumb argument. There is no such thing as a "right" to have nuclear arms. If someone is trying to acquire them and they have threatened your existance, the only rational thing to do is whatever you have to to prevent them from getting them even if it means wiping them out. That's how the world is, kill or be killed.
The US is Israel's ally. It shares many of Israel's values and interests. It cannot be both an ally and completely impartial in a dispute. Yes the US government wants to see a Palestinian state but not at any price. And a Palestinian state run by Hamas is too high a price to pay because it would be a terrorist state run by terrorists. So for now all bets for a Pali state are off. Come back in a few centuries, maybe things will have cooled down by then. And then again, maybe not. Maybe they will have heated up. (heated up, not hotted up.)
Complain about this comment
Marcus, not so dumb as you sound....sure there's no right to have nuclear arms, but why should the west have a right to say who can bear them?
As for: "...the only rational thing to do is whatever you have to to prevent them from getting them even if it means wiping them out."
Well, surely another, more rational, thing to do would be to invest a little effort in investigating and defusing that threat to your existence, if for no other reason that exterminating large numbers of people in the name of defence tends to breed ever increasing numbers of people who threaten you.
Complain about this comment
#29 Mostly
But countries do have a right to have nuclear energy. In fact its illegal to stop them.
Iran and the overwhelming majority of other countries in the world have signed up to the NPT; when is Israel?
Complain about this comment
"sure there's no right to have nuclear arms, but why should the west have a right to say who can bear them?"
It doesn't. What is says is that the NPT is a mechanism by which those who want to use nuclear energy peacefully can develop it without alarming those who would feel threatened by the same people having nuclear weapons. If the treaty is flawed or ignored, all bets are off. There is no such thing when you get right down to it as international law. I've said over and over again the concept is a sham and it is only trotted out when someone wants to score political points. Then it is put back in the drawer and forgotten.
"Well, surely another, more rational, thing to do would be to invest a little effort in investigating and defusing that threat to your existence"
That's not possible when your adversary says your nation has no right to exist and should be wiped off the map. Fageddaboudit.
"...if for no other reason that exterminating large numbers of people in the name of defence tends to breed ever increasing numbers of people who threaten you."
I don't know about that. Wiping out Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki didn't lengthen WWII, they shortened it. When the last enemy combatant is dead or loses the will to fight, the war is over. That's how America saved Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, China, the Phillipines, Australia, Luxembourg, Norway, ....
Cecilia;
"Iran and the overwhelming majority of other countries in the world have signed up to the NPT; when is Israel?"
When it no longer feels threatened by murdering Moslem terrorists and the nations that back them...like much of Europe.
Complain about this comment
Any sovereign nation may withdraw from any treaty at any time.
Talk, if you prefer, of a World in which sovereignty is surrendered to a higher authority.
I would speculate that Reynolds has coffee with military types who still think that the Pax Americana can be imposed by force on the World.
Thus the need for outside thinking.
Complain about this comment
Marcy, luckily you're own president appears to think it is a worthwhile tactic to engage the enemy and defuse the threat.
WWII was fought against countries that had adopted particular ideas that led them to invade other's territories. On the other hand, the War On Terror(!), appears to involve invading or wiping out nations that might have been thinking bad thoughts against the USA.
So while defeating Japan (who had actually invaded other countries etc) probably deterred other countries from similar actions, wiping out Iran for no obvious reason will probably not have the same effect, especially when to some outsider the WOT(!) actually seems to be against a certain religion, securing certain assets or winning political support.
Complain about this comment
#32 MostlyErronousII
When the last enemy combatant is dead or loses the will to fight, the war is over. That's how America saved Britain, France, the Netherlands, Belgium, China, the Phillipines, Australia, Luxembourg, Norway, ....
Hyperbole and wrong again Marcus. You shouldn't underplay the role of US loans and trade to the allies prior to 1942. The Nazis bombing London and other British cities had the opposite effect of what was intended; and I'm sure the same could be said about the allies bombing German cities. The US atom bombs on Japan occurred when the war was effectively over anyway. The real reason IMO for the atom bombs was to show the USSR who's boss.
Re: Israel and NPT
So you think nuclear weapons will defend Israel from 'murdering Moslem terrorists' do you? These Nations you mention (I assume you mean Syria and Iran) have not been deterred by Israel's nuclear weapons have they? And these so called European nations that back them . . well . . I can only assume you have been smoking drugs - they can make you paranoid you know.
Complain about this comment
Several concepts are impinging here:
(1) Today's international law depends on treaties and treaties are valid only as long the parties thereto find them useful.
(2) The present and future role of military force in the World.
(3) Demagogic bluster vs. realpolitik. Will economics triumph over ideology? (Consider Bush, Amadadinijad and Sharon).
(4) The sociopathic paranoia of Israel.
People want to eat and make babies. Thus, if there is to be a long term, economics must overcome ideology.
Long-term, there is hope-if we can get over the short-term.
Complain about this comment
Cecilia
"So you think nuclear weapons will defend Israel from 'murdering Moslem terrorists' do you? These Nations you mention (I assume you mean Syria and Iran) have not been deterred by Israel's nuclear weapons have they?"
Actually they have. There have been no national armies attacking Israel since the 1973 war. It is believed in that war, when Israel looked like it might lose, it told the US that it would use nuclear weapons if it had to. At that point fearing escallation to global thermonuclear war with the USSR, the US sent vast amounts of aid very quickly to help Israel turn things around. And they did. The US also went I think to Defcon 3 or 4, just a step or two below war status. The entire US military was effectively on worldwide thermonuclear war alert. I was in France at the time. The world collectively soiled its pants in panic over what might happen. It hadn't come that close to the edge of oblivion since the Cuban missile crisis of 1962.
The history books written for public consumption in Britan, the rest of Europe, Russia, Japan read very differently from the way American texts read. Whether you know it or not, until the Americans came to town, the allies lost World War II. Your country was just an inch away from being invaded successfully by Nazi Germany.
Complain about this comment
#37 MostlyErronousII
Your country was just an inch away from being invaded successfully by Nazi Germany.
Wrong again. Typical trailer park view of the world.
The Nazi's blitzreig was contained and they begun their policy of Total War after their defeats at Stalingrad, El Alamein and failure of Operation Sealion. What saved the Brits was the Nazi invasion of the USSR and, of course, loans and trade with the USA.
BTW - Israel had nuclear weapons way before 1973. I'd say early sixties when JFK was POTUS!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS