What a surprising development. :-X
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29810371/
QuoteIran supreme leader dismisses Obama overture
Khamenei: 'We haven't seen any change' in U.S. policy toward government
updated 24 minutes ago
TEHRAN, Iran - Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei dismissed overtures from President Barack Obama on Saturday, saying Tehran does not see any change in U.S. policy under its new administration.
Khamenei was responding to a video message Obama released Friday in which he reached out to Iran on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian new year, and expressed hopes for an improvement in nearly 30 years of strained relations.
Khamenei holds the last word on major policy decisions, and how Iran ultimately responds to any concrete U.S. effort to engage the country will depend largely on his say.
Khamenei demands changes
In his most direct assessment of Obama and prospects for better ties, Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy.
"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.
In his video message, Obama said the United States wants to engage Iran, but he also warned that a right place for Iran in the international community "cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."
Khamenei asked how Obama could congratulate Iranians on the new year and accuse the country of supporting terrorism and seeking nuclear weapons in the same message.
Khamenei said there has been no change even in Obama's language compared to that of his predecessor.
"He (Obama) insulted the Islamic Republic of Iran from the first day. If you are right that change has come, where is that change? What is the sign of that change? Make it clear for us what has changed."
Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change too."
Severed ties
Diplomatic ties between the United States and Iran were cut after the U.S. Embassy hostage-taking after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which toppled the pro-U.S. shah and brought to power a government of Islamic clerics.
The United States cooperated with Iran in late 2001 and 2002 in the Afghanistan conflict, but the promising contacts fizzled — and were extinguished completely when Bush branded Tehran part of the "Axis of Evil."
Khamenei enumerated a long list of Iranian grievances against the United States over the past 30 years and said the United States was still interfering in Iranian affairs.
He mentioned U.S. sanctions against Iran, U.S. support for Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein during his 1980-88 war against Iran and the downing of an Iranian airliner over the Persian Gulf in 1988.
He also accused the United States of provoking ethnic tension in Iran and said Washington's accusations that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons are a sign of U.S. hostility. Iran says its nuclear program is only for peaceful purposes, like energy production, not for building weapons.
"Have you released Iranian assets? Have you lifted oppressive sanctions? Have you given up mudslinging and making accusations against the great Iranian nation and its officials? Have you given up your unconditional support for the Zionist regime? Even the language remains unchanged," Khamenei said.
Khamenei, wearing a black turban and dark robes, said America was hated around the world for its arrogance, as the crowd chanted "Death to America."
Toward engagement?
Obama has signaled a willingness to speak directly with Iran about its nuclear program and hostility toward Israel, a key U.S. ally. At his inauguration last month, the president said his administration would reach out to rival states, declaring "we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist."
"They say we have stretched a hand toward Iran. ... If a hand is stretched covered with a velvet glove but it is cast iron inside, that makes no sense," he said.
Khamenei said sanctions only served to make Iran self-reliant. Iran frequently boasts of achievements in various technological fields, including uranium enrichment, space technology, missiles and passenger and fighter plane production, despite sanctions.
"Sanctions benefited us. We have to thank the Americans in this sector. If sanctions had not been imposed, we would have not reached the point of progress and technology we are in now," he said.
© 2009 The Associated Press.
Well, Obama's gesture didn't cost anything, but it may be enough to convince the fence sitters that the Iranian regime is evil.
I don't know whether Obama is so Machiavellian or so well-meaning (and perhaps somewhat naive) but either way his message I think was a good move.
Plus not all Iranians are evil either - many of them resent the islamist regime, but are nonetheless proud of their ancient civilization roots - the fact that the regime leaders reacted so quickly actually imo proves how afraid they are of Obama's message.
Quotea video message Obama released Friday in which he reached out to Iran
Great way of insulting people. Iranians do know how to read.
Eh, what Khamenei says isn't all that significant. He is playing to the home crowd. What Obama needs to do is ignore the government and appeal directly to the populace, remembering that 60% of the population there is under 30, and the voting age in Iran is 16. Foreign policy via youtube is actually possible with that demographic.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:02:18 AM
Eh, what Khamenei says isn't all that significant. He is playing to the home crowd. What Obama needs to do is ignore the government and appeal directly to the populace, remembering that 60% of the population there is under 30, and the voting age in Iran is 16. Foreign policy via youtube is actually possible with that demographic.
Actually, from the partially-viral campaigning style we saw during the presidential elections, I'm surprised that he
hasn't gone that route. More foot dragging from the west wing, perhaps?
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 21, 2009, 09:10:21 AM
[Actually, from the partially-viral campaigning style we saw during the presidential elections, I'm surprised that he hasn't gone that route. More foot dragging from the west wing, perhaps?
I dare say he has bigger things on his plate right now.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:14:18 AM
I dare say he has bigger things on his plate right now.
Like Fried Chicken.
Also the Iranian regime seems to have been far more confused how to respond to Obama. Initially they didn't say anything, then this happened and then there was another response saying Iran is, of course, willing to work with America if they make changes.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:02:18 AM
Eh, what Khamenei says isn't all that significant. He is playing to the home crowd. What Obama needs to do is ignore the government and appeal directly to the populace, remembering that 60% of the population there is under 30, and the voting age in Iran is 16. Foreign policy via youtube is actually possible with that demographic.
I've determined that your kind of argument is for suckers years ago. Wake the fuck up already.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:02:18 AM
Eh, what Khamenei says isn't all that significant. He is playing to the home crowd. What Obama needs to do is ignore the government and appeal directly to the populace, remembering that 60% of the population there is under 30, and the voting age in Iran is 16. Foreign policy via youtube is actually possible with that demographic.
I've determined that your kind of argument is for suckers years ago. Wake the fuck up already.
CountDeMoney! :)
Quote from: CountDeMoney on March 21, 2009, 01:07:00 PM
I've determined that your kind of argument is for suckers years ago. Wake the fuck up already.
Man, we missed this kind of ignorant babble while you were gone! :hug: Monkeybutt tried to fill in, but his schtick really didn't make up for the loss, and Gral just cannot carry on your position with any cred.
Welcome back.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:02:18 AM
Eh, what Khamenei says isn't all that significant. He is playing to the home crowd. What Obama needs to do is ignore the government and appeal directly to the populace, remembering that 60% of the population there is under 30, and the voting age in Iran is 16. Foreign policy via youtube is actually possible with that demographic.
Unfortunately Obama did the opposite by failing to draw a distinction between the gov't of Iran and the people of Iran. Obama in his message accepted that the gov't of Iran represents the people. Carteresque in its stupidity.
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2009, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:02:18 AM
Eh, what Khamenei says isn't all that significant. He is playing to the home crowd. What Obama needs to do is ignore the government and appeal directly to the populace, remembering that 60% of the population there is under 30, and the voting age in Iran is 16. Foreign policy via youtube is actually possible with that demographic.
Unfortunately Obama did the opposite by failing to draw a distinction between the gov't of Iran and the people of Iran. Obama in his message accepted that the gov't of Iran represents the people. Carteresque in its stupidity.
True enough, although Khamenei isn't technically part of the Iranian government. Not that the elected government is representative of the people either, given that only candidates approved of by the Guardian Council are allowed to run for any office.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 06:07:49 PM
True enough, although Khamenei isn't technically part of the Iranian government. Not that the elected government is representative of the people either, given that only candidates approved of by the Guardian Council are allowed to run for any office.
The government is as close a thing as there is. And that's making the assumption that the opinion of the Iranian people matters, which is arguable.
Quote from: Neil on March 21, 2009, 06:28:28 PM
The government is as close a thing as there is.
Not sure what you are saying.
QuoteAnd that's making the assumption that the opinion of the Iranian people matters, which is arguable.
It doesn't, which is the point. China is more "democratic" than Iran. Talk to people who have been there recently. Basically, the Iranian people (with some notable exceptions) pretty much dismiss anyone who is acceptable to the clerics as either a paid-for crook or a religious loon.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 06:33:09 PM
Not sure what you are saying.
That the Iranian government is more representative of the Iranian people than other governments. Especially Obama, who is scum.
QuoteIt doesn't, which is the point. China is more "democratic" than Iran. Talk to people who have been there recently. Basically, the Iranian people (with some notable exceptions) pretty much dismiss anyone who is acceptable to the clerics as either a paid-for crook or a religious loon.
Anecdotal evidence is insufficient to convince me that Iranians are humans who are afflicted with a terrible government which has almost no support. The Iranians get the government they deserve, and it is the Iranian people who are our enemies.
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 06:33:09 PM
Quote from: Neil on March 21, 2009, 06:28:28 PM
The government is as close a thing as there is.
Not sure what you are saying.
QuoteAnd that's making the assumption that the opinion of the Iranian people matters, which is arguable.
It doesn't, which is the point. China is more "democratic" than Iran. Talk to people who have been there recently. Basically, the Iranian people (with some notable exceptions) pretty much dismiss anyone who is acceptable to the clerics as either a paid-for crook or a religious loon.
Precisely. Anyone acceptable to the clerics is somewhat suspect as a 'reformer'.
That being said, it's sad that Khatami dropped out of the elections, as he didn't want the reformist vote split between
two candidates.
I misread this as "Khamenei sits on Obama's face". Now that's "Absolutely Unacceptable!"
Quote from: Razgovory on March 22, 2009, 12:43:29 PM
I misread this as "Khamenei sits on Obama's face". Now that's "Absolutely Unacceptable!"
Talk about changes in foreign policy!
I heard on radio news that Chavez called Pres Obama an ignaramus? What's up with that?
Quote from: KRonn on March 22, 2009, 07:36:51 PM
I heard on radio news that Chavez called Pres Obama an ignaramus? What's up with that?
You know you've arrived once Chavez starts insulting you or accusing you of orchestrating coup attempts against him? :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on March 22, 2009, 09:04:02 PM
Quote from: KRonn on March 22, 2009, 07:36:51 PM
I heard on radio news that Chavez called Pres Obama an ignaramus? What's up with that?
You know you've arrived once Chavez starts insulting you or accusing you of orchestrating coup attempts against him? :unsure:
Hehe... true enough. So I guess Pres Chavez fears Pres Obama, after all, still the USA is out to get him (in Chavez's mind or otherwise), no matter the President.
So then, Pres Obama has arrived, enough to be a "threat" (really a foil, deflection, for Chavez, eh?), so congratulations to Obama!
Quote from: Hansmeister on March 21, 2009, 04:38:23 PM
Quote from: grumbler on March 21, 2009, 09:02:18 AM
Eh, what Khamenei says isn't all that significant. He is playing to the home crowd. What Obama needs to do is ignore the government and appeal directly to the populace, remembering that 60% of the population there is under 30, and the voting age in Iran is 16. Foreign policy via youtube is actually possible with that demographic.
Unfortunately Obama did the opposite by failing to draw a distinction between the gov't of Iran and the people of Iran. Obama in his message accepted that the gov't of Iran represents the people. Carteresque in its stupidity.
Let me guess: when the US did send olive branches to the USSR always started by insulting Soviet leadership. And I suppose Nixon started his honeymoon with Beijing by telling Mao and Chou En Lai that they were a couple of crooked, bloody tyrants hated by the Chinese people. Further and in the same vein I'm sure the first time Putin met Bush he opened the conversation by reminding him that actually most Americans voters liked better the other guy. Best way to break the ice in ages.
I don't know if Obama will succeed or fail regarding Iran. But in diplomacy you have to bite your tongue, all too often with clenched fists, smile and tell a pretty lie twenty times for each one you get to speak openly the ugly truth.
Regarding Internet and youth all over the world, 'youtube diplomacy' can succeed even where there is no ample access to the Net (actually even Khomeini with his voice recordings can be said to have used a low-tech version of this direct appeal to the masses trick) but don't take anything for granted, the potential for misunderstandings and fausses passes is huge.
[Note: 'faux pas' is singular, 'fausses passes' is plural]
Quote from: Alatriste on March 23, 2009, 06:54:45 AM
Let me guess: when the US did send olive branches to the USSR always started by insulting Soviet leadership. And I suppose Nixon started his honeymoon with Beijing by telling Mao and Chou En Lai that they were a couple of crooked, bloody tyrants hated by the Chinese people. Further and in the same vein I'm sure the first time Putin met Bush he opened the conversation by reminding him that actually most Americans voters liked better the other guy. Best way to break the ice in ages.
I don't know if Obama will succeed or fail regarding Iran. But in diplomacy you have to bite your tongue, all too often with clenched fists, smile and tell a pretty lie twenty times for each one you get to speak openly the ugly truth.
Regarding Internet and youth all over the world, 'youtube diplomacy' can succeed even where there is no ample access to the Net (actually even Khomeini with his voice recordings can be said to have used a low-tech version of this direct appeal to the masses trick) but don't take anything for granted, the potential for misunderstandings and fausses passes is huge.
I have no idea what point you are trying to make here. Obama was not trying to get Iran to do anything, so there was no particular reason to sweet-talk the Iranian government or the clerical overgovernment. A much more efective message for him to send would have been one to the Iranian people, explaining that he understood their aspirations, and that he recognized their frustration both with their own lack of voice, and with the previous administration's lumping of all Iranians into the "Axis of Terror."
Sweet words will not alleviate Khameni's or Amadinajhad's need to play the US as a great threat that justifies Iranian government oppression. At the same time, speaking directly to the Iranian people will not cause the Iranian government and overgovernment to reject cooperation with the US when Iranian interests direct it (as in Iraq and Afghanistan).
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.
Quote from: Alatriste on March 23, 2009, 06:54:45 AM
[Note: 'faux pas' is singular, 'fausses passes' is plural]
Faux pas is both the singular and the plural. 'Pas' is a masculine noun, and thus when using the adjective 'faux' it would have to be 'faux' and not 'fausse'.
Moreover, I don't think 'passes' actually means anything, at least I've never heard it used before. Maybe some kind of slang?
Passes means a lot of things, none of them closely related with step (pas). The plural of faux pas is faux pas.
Quote from: Neil on March 23, 2009, 07:57:22 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on March 23, 2009, 06:54:45 AM
[Note: 'faux pas' is singular, 'fausses passes' is plural]
Faux pas is both the singular and the plural. 'Pas' is a masculine noun, and thus when using the adjective 'faux' it would have to be 'faux' and not 'fausse'.
Moreover, I don't think 'passes' actually means anything, at least I've never heard it used before. Maybe some kind of slang?
Nothing like being both pedantic and wrong! :D
I have to disagree: searching for "Fausses passes" in Google throws 127,000 references, which seems a bit high for a supposed mistake (I know because I wasn't sure and I googled the term before posting :D )
The first one, for example, is
http://www.journalletoile.com/article-302451-Attention-aux-fausses-passes.html
'Attention aux fausses passes'
And I wasn't correcting anyone, Grumbler... I just tought some of our fellows wouldn't understand the term.
Now, won't someone think of the Iranians?
Quote from: Alatriste on March 23, 2009, 08:32:57 AM
I have to disagree: searching for "Fausses passes" in Google throws 127,000 references, which seems a bit high for a supposed mistake (I know because I wasn't sure and I googled the term before posting :D )
I have to disagree. All the dictionaries (paper or online) are unanimous in their assertion that the plural of faux pas is faux pas. See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faux+pas (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faux+pas) and http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faux%20pas (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faux%20pas), for instance.
QuoteAnd I wasn't correcting anyone, Grumbler... I just tought some of our fellows wouldn't understand the term.
I wasn't saying that you were correcting anyone, I was just pointing out that you were being pedantic. And that you were being wrong. Neil was correcting you (personally, I seldom bother with such things, as the meaning was clear).
Quote from: Alatriste on March 23, 2009, 08:32:57 AM
I have to disagree: searching for "Fausses passes" in Google throws 127,000 references, which seems a bit high for a supposed mistake (I know because I wasn't sure and I googled the term before posting :D )
The first one, for example, is
http://www.journalletoile.com/article-302451-Attention-aux-fausses-passes.html
'Attention aux fausses passes'
Those aren't social missteps, thoses are fake passes for a Montreal-area ski hill. 'Passe' is a feminine noun, and so you could use 'fausse' with it.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 23, 2009, 08:04:58 AM
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. :D
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 07:49:52 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 07:49:52 AM
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.
I thought Obama was simply doing a spinoff on how Mahmoud kept writing letters to the American people.
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.
Quote from: Oexmelin on March 23, 2009, 08:04:58 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 08:54:06 PM
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
QuoteI 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.
QuoteI 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.
QuoteEngagement 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.
Quote from: grumbler on March 23, 2009, 08:54:06 PM
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.