Khamenei spits in Obama's face

[Neil]

Passes means a lot of things, none of them closely related with step (pas). The plural of faux pas is faux pas.

Yeah, but I mean in-context.   

[KRonn]

Obama offered the olive branch to the wrong people.  Ultimately, US policy is better-served by recognizing the divide between the Iranian government and its people than it is by pissing off the people by pretending that their government represents their interests.

Interesting and good point. Perhaps for the long haul especially, reach out to the people of Iran. I think maybe the Obama admin feels the need to work with the Iranian government on issues, trying to work short term relations as a means to some change, as problematic as that even is. Not that we should expect much, as Iran has its agenda and doesn't seem very amenable to deviating much from that agenda. In which case the idea of going to the people makes better sense.

[Sheilbh]

The Times read a lot of it, especially the repeated mention of 'opportunities' and that sort of thing, as being aimed at the commercial middle class.

[The Minsky Moment]

Obama offered the olive branch to the wrong people.  Ultimately, US policy is better-served by recognizing the divide between the Iranian government and its people than it is by pissing off the people by pretending that their government represents their interests.

This is both not an accurate characterization of Obama's presentation, nor is it a correct conclusion.

Starting with the latter, the entire policy of trying to talk directly to the "Iranian people" as an opposing element to their state has failed for three decades.  It has failed because the unfortunate reality is that there is no such thing - there is no Iranian civil society that presently exists as distinct from the state.  The assumption that the mass of people are alienated from the Islamic Republic (as opposed to individual leaders) is without any solid foundation.  On the contrary - the political collapse of the reformist movement suggests otherwise.  Moreover, the notion that the United States can have any credibility speaking to Iranians as a "people" while claiming to serve the interests of Iranians as against their own state is extremely dubious, given the historical reality of past Iranian-US interactions.

Put simply, addressing a message to the "Iranian people" achieves nothing other to make us feel good about ourselves, make us look like a bunch of fools to the majority of Iranians, and reinforce the regime's paranoid rhetoric about American subversion plots.  Yes a few elite Iranian bien pensants may lap it up in secret, but that is of neglgible value.

The plain fact is that the Islamic Republic has been in existence for 30 years now -- longer than the Shah's regime -- and it isn't going anywhere soon (assuming it doesn't trigger nuclear war and annihilate itself).  Much of the population may have misgivings about the regime generally and even more about thus  particular government, but their real concerns are things like jobs, inflation, educational opportunities and corruption.  They are just not sitting around waiting for their good American friend to tell them that now is the time to liberate themselves from oppression.  Many of them in fact have grave suspicions of America and its intentions - and just b/c the regime's crude propaganda tells them so.  At the same time, many Iranians crave the potential for international normalcy - and that is exactly the motivation Obama's message targets.

Obama's message is a signal that for the first time since the hostage crisis, our policy is shifting from self-delusional propaganda for US domestic consumption to acting like adults and getting something accomplished.  It is not in fact an extension of a olive branch to the present government.  Rather, it is a general outline of the process under which any Iranian government can begin the process of normalization of relations to the US.  As such - it is pitched to multiple recipients.  To Iranians generally, it signals that America is prepared to offer a path to normalcy that is not conditioned on impossible pre-requisites such as the overthrow of the regime.  That message in turn gives strength to the reformist elements (such as they are) who can now credibly argue that Iranian concessions on the nuclear issue may lead to meaningful reciprocation.  And it weakens the political appeal of hardliners whose appeal is based on pointing on unremitting US hostility.  Thus, the message is designed to have the effect of driving wedges into the heart of the Islamic Republic's convoluted power structure.

Khamenei's response indicates that the message indeed had its intended effect.  He did everything he could to minimize its significance - an obvious maneuver at spin control.  One spins only because spin is required.  At the same time, he did not have the courage to reject the message out of hand - a signal that he recognizes the real domestic political impact of the message.

Finally, the intended audience here goes well beyond Iran itself.  Obama knows the past admin's policy failed b/c they were unable to herd the European cats into a hardline on sanctions.  By making this sort of diplomatic appeal, he is giving European leaders domestic cover against knee jerk antiamericanism, and giving them a space to take a leadership position on the proliferation issue.  Thus setting the stage for an enhanced sanctions regime if the diplomatic effort fails.

[garbon]

I thought Obama was simply doing a spinoff on how Mahmoud kept writing letters to the American people.

[grumbler]

Joan, I pretty much thoroughly disagree with you on the support the Iranian people have for their clerical leaders (and the government that serves them) and my research has shown that the Iranian people themselves believe that their own government, due to its inflexibility, corruption, and general incompetence, is the source of their joblessness and economic stagnation.  The "reform" movement collapsed because it was made up of crooks, not because there was not a populace avid for reform.

I don't know who you are debating about the " impossible pre-requisites such as the overthrow of the regime" - you started out quoting me, and then went on  atangent that had nothing to do with my points, so I will leave it to you and your mysterious debate opponent to go over that.  I will say that I agree with you that the regime will not be overturned in the short term, though I doubt it will last out the next decade.

The fact of the matter is that time is on our side in Iran, and US policy should recognize and exploit that.  Engagement with the current regime should be undertaken when the conditions are right:  when we can give something that the leaders of Iran, elected and unelected, see as in their own interests to accept, and can get something that it is possible for them to give up.  "Normalization" of relations in the larger sense simply isn't possible with the current Iranian regime, though we can certainly go through some of the motions.

[Alatriste]

Passes means a lot of things, none of them closely related with step (pas). The plural of faux pas is faux pas.

I know that... now. But when a foreigner is unsure about 'fausses passes' being correct or not, googles the words and finds references, is it surprising that he gets misled? Besides, 'faux pas' being singular and plural is no exactly the usual way of things in French...

Returning to the original and far more important question the thunderous silence about the supposed 'Carteresque' stupidity in Obama's message speaks volumes, I dare to say... I'm far from being an Obama fan and my opinion on him hasn't changed, I have serious doubts about his presidential competence; I fear his lack of experience will show and that the exaggerated expectations he has created will cause a nasty backlash against him in the near future because he has been sold (or sold himself) to the public as a bringer of radical changes when he's far from being that revolutionary.

But that's no reason to endure Hans' usual hamfisted approach at political criticism.

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, I pretty much thoroughly disagree with you on the support the Iranian people have for their clerical leaders (and the government that serves them) and my research has shown that the Iranian people themselves believe that their own government, due to its inflexibility, corruption, and general incompetence, is the source of their joblessness and economic stagnation.  The "reform" movement collapsed because it was made up of crooks, not because there was not a populace avid for reform.

The reform movement collapsed because it was impotent and could not exercise meaningful authority - its supporters becamed disillusioned

I don't know who you are debating about the " impossible pre-requisites such as the overthrow of the regime" - you started out quoting me, and then went on  atangent that had nothing to do with my points, so I will leave it to you and your mysterious debate opponent to go over that. 

I used your comment as a point of departure only.  It seems to me that any argument that states that we should be sending messages directly to the "iranian people" as distinct from the state assumes that regime change is a possible short-run outcome of some real probability.  IMO, it isn't.

I will say that I agree with you that the regime will not be overturned in the short term, though I doubt it will last out the next decade.

I've been hearing that same line since 1979. 

Engagement with the current regime should be undertaken when the conditions are right:  when we can give something that the leaders of Iran, elected and unelected, see as in their own interests to accept, and can get something that it is possible for them to give up.  "Normalization" of relations in the larger sense simply isn't possible with the current Iranian regime, though we can certainly go through some of the motions.

The current *government*, no.  But within the regime, there are elements that desire normalization as a way of ending sanctions, and think the hardline on weapons development is counterproductive.  This message strengthens their hand, and just in time for upcoming elections. 

And even if their is no change in policy, Obama has perfectly teed up a renewed tighter sanctions effort.  He has boxed out the Euroweenie opposition.

[The Minsky Moment]

the Iranian people themselves believe that their own government, due to its inflexibility, corruption, and general incompetence, is the source of their joblessness and economic stagnation. 

Come to think of it, you could change "Iranian" in that sentence to "American" and the statement would still hold.