Printable View
Ok, so last night I hear Bush talking about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Says all cards are on the table, but we hope for a diplomatic solution (I agree with him). Over the last few weeks, folks on this forum, in addition to the president, have criticized Obama for wanting to talk to Iran. What is the difference here? Am I missing something? I mean, if you are going for a diplomatic solution, don't you have to talk to them?
Andrew
At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm fairly sure Bush is referring to negotiating through intermediaries. I believe he thinks that formal discussions constitute an endorsement of the Iranian leadership.
“At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm fairly sure Bush is referring to negotiating through intermediaries. I believe he thinks that formal discussions constitute an endorsement of the Iranian leadership.”
Possibly, but wouldn’t direct talks be more effective? I mean, if I really want someone to do something, why talk to a third party about it rather than the person involved? Given that Iran holds elections, their leaders were “democratically” chosen. If we want to instill the sense of democracy in the region, don’t we have to recognize the elected leaders of other countries, not just the ones we like?
As an example, during the cold war, the US and USSR held direct talks. I highly doubt any US president during those years “endorsed” the USSR leadership. After all, Reagan called them an “evil empire”. Would it have done us any good to ignore their leaders and talk to a third party rather than directly? The Bush administration once dubbed North Korean as part of an “axis of evil”, yet has held formal discussions with their leaders over their nuclear ambitions.
Getting back to the ME, if we really want peace and stability in that region, we’ll end up having to talk to Syria, Iran, etc. I will admit, I don’t like the idea of talking to a terrorist organization like Hamas, but since they are the elected representatives, we will have to end up talking to them unless they are voted out of office. You really cannot expect to have peace in the region if you only talk to your friends.
Andrew
Andrew,
I didn't see the coverage your talking about but from what your saying I don't see the difference either? Interesting....I would like to know myself.
Not talking to folks really works, we havn't talked to Cuba since the 60s, and sure enough it disappeared.Were not talking to N Korea, and they are slowly fading into oblivion. What is a Syria? We ballyhooed free elections in Lebanon, and now we dont want to talk to the winners.
If I were the American President, I'd for sure have an intermediary do the talkin. Never know when one of them Suicide bombers might decide to take out two Presidents at once if given the chance. Only talkin about Presidents of Countries whose relationship with the US isn't too stable...
Really, with only 6 months of George W. Bush's term left before a new American President is to take over. I think the intermediary is a better choice to start the talks then move on to the new President. But by all means make sure the security is 100%, and not 99%....
[QUOTE=DJD;329943]Andrew,
I didn't see the coverage your talking about but from what your saying I don't see the difference either? Interesting....I would like to know myself.[/QUOTE]
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1813490,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics
Link to one story on this. You can google up others if you are interested.
Msgmills, I would not expect a face to face meeting of presidents at first. More of a sec of state type meeting. Though, I really don't think a leader of any country would play the role of suicide bomber. Either way, how is Bush suggesting diplomatic discussions any different than Obama suggesting the same?
Andrew
The deal is this.... Although no formal Diplomatic relations exist between the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI) and the United States, communications between the two nations have been going on through back channels since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. This is done mainly through the Swiss who act as an intermediary between the two. Beginning with the fall of the Shah in January of 1979 formal relations between the two deteriorated, culmination with the complete cessation of relation as a result of the Iranian Hostage crisis that began in December 1979. The reason for the suspension of formal relations is quite obvious... Iranian "students", under direction from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, stormed the US Embassy and held American diplomats and a handful of Marines hostage for 444 days. Following their release, both governments refused to resume relations for a number of reasons. The US claims that the Iranians are a state sponsor of terrorism, are in violation of the Nuclear Non-proliferation act, and a chronic abuser of human rights, are cited as the reason for refusing to resume these relations. The Iranians claim that the US continues to meddle in regional affairs as well as the continued US support for Israel as major reasons for their refusal to talk to the US. One needs to be reminded that while no formal state to state relations exist between the two the both interact in the UN as well as other International Organizations. Therefore to think that no communications exist between two is erroneous.
That being said, I for one do not favor the resumption of normal diplomatic relations, nor the notion of a face to face sit down between the two governments, as circumstances exist today. The reason for this being that Diplomatic relations are creatures of compromise. Whenever two nations sit down to formal negotiations, especially between the heads of state, both come prepared to make concessions to the other. The question is, who will give up more. In the case of the US / Iranian negations, the US should not be prepared to concede one thing to Iran because of the nature of the disagreement. The Iranians continue to peruse nuclear weapons through the guise a civilian power generation, something they vow to never stop. Any concession short of complete abandonment of the program will leave some elements of the program intact and functional. This is not acceptable to the US or its interests. As for the terrorism aspect of the equation, because of the clandestine nature of Iranian support, no agreement can be verified or policed, therefore making any agreement by the Iranians to cease sponsorship of terrorism a moot point. The use of terrorism as a means for exporting the Islamic Revolution is deeply engrained in the overall operational strategy of the IRI mainly because of its effectiveness in bringing about the 1979 revolution. This drive to export the revolution is ingrained in their "constitution" and remains a major facet of its regional, and international foreign policy (see Hamas and Hezbolla). To resume diplomatic relations with such a duplicitous and dangerous regime would only serve to elevate the legitimacy of the government and the actions it has taken in the past. To do so would only reinforce the power of their government and elevate its stature as a regional and burgeoning world power.
Often those in favor of the resumption of diplomatic relations with the IRI point to the successes of the Diplomatic negotiation between the US and USSR during the 1970's and '80's. This is not a fair comparison to make due to the nature and goals of the respective governments. The Soviets were rational players on the world stage who had a great deal to loose unless it was able to maintain respect amongst the worlds governments. The IRI is quite a different story. They have nothing to loose and everything to gain by engaging in negotiations with the US. Once the US says, ok you can have a small nuclear program, the proverbial cat is out of the bag because then they can come back in a few years and say well if a small nuclear program is OK then one a little larger must be Ok too.... on and on it goes. The US cannot allow the IRI to have a nuclear program of any size because of the threat it poses to the US and its interests across the globe. The statements made by the current leadership of Iran spells out their intentions better than any statements made by a dictator since Mein Kampf was written back in the 1920's, and we all know how that ended (unless you are the produce of today's public school system). Their intentions to destroy Israel and the US are unmistakable and real, and to ignore what they say is not only dangerous, it is deadly. To engage in face to face talks on any level, let alone a presidential level, is naive and irresponsible because of the leverage it gives to that régime.
sorry to be so long winded......
Keep on chuckin'
Stonewall, you appear to be a very ingelligent person with some degree of education . I on the other hand do not but, for the life of me I can not understand not sitting down with someone irregardless of differences and try to hammer a peaceful solution. I have no experience in politics or dealing with foreign contries but surely there is some common ground some where. Don't let my tree hugging opinion fool you when push comes to shove I have shoved with the best of them. I just hate to see the ground pounder take the heat for what a bunch of politcos should have tried to prevent first. whew I'm off my pupit now
Stonewall,
Appreciate the history lesson. Good to know the background for this stuff!
Andrew
So when trouble between Russia and the USA occurs Bush tells Rummy to pick up the Red Hot line Phone to the Russian President and to talk to the Ruskies?
Or maybe the US Ambassador to Russians can just pick up the hot line red phone anything he wants to talk to the the Russian President?
We found that during the Cuban Missile Crisis that it helps to have a direct phone line to Russia so that our President can talk directly to the Russian President to avoid misunderstandings. No intermediaries are using that phone line. That's why it was installed in the Oval Office not in our Embassy to Russia.
There is nothing wrong with talking directly to the enemy. In fact that's the way it has been done for millions of years.
Anyone see the movie "Heavens Gate"? In that movie the leader of the Christan Army {Jerusalem} rode out to the front line to meet with Saladin the leader of the Muslim army. They didn't send out a private to hold that meeting. They went out to meet in front of both armies. That's how its been done by Army Generals in the past. Man to man. This way there are no misunderstandings between the two leaders.
So far the Bush way has produced nothing positive. We may end up going to war with Iran if we continue Bush's way.
At least try a new way and see if it will work.
If not we will end up with Iran having nuclear weapons and the world may never be the same again. Who knows they may already have nukes from Korea.
[QUOTE=jcb;329874]At the risk of stating the obvious, I'm fairly sure Bush is referring to negotiating through intermediaries. I believe he thinks that formal discussions constitute an endorsement of the Iranian leadership.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Moose1am;330175]
Anyone see the movie "Heavens Gate"? In that movie the leader of the Christan Army {Jerusalem} rode out to the front line to meet with Saladin the leader of the Muslim army. They didn't send out a private to hold that meeting. They went out to meet in front of both armies. That's how its been done by Army Generals in the past. Man to man. This way there are no misunderstandings between the two leaders.
[/QUOTE]
We all know how that turned out for the Christians don't we....
Two points need to be made.....
1) Since the rise of the Nation State and formal diplomatic practices (Treaty of Westphalia, 1648), the days of general meeting general prior to a battle are over. Did Churchill meet with Hitler? Did Napoleon meet with Wellington? Did FDR meet with Hitler? Did Wilson meet with Kaiser Wilhelm II? The answer to all of the former is no. Someone who did meet with Hitler was Nevel Chamberlin, he gave the Nazis Czechoslovakia in hopes that that would appease the Germans, did it? No, as a result Hitler was emboldened and felt that the west would seek negotiations and discussion if he invaded Poland. The most costly war in the history of the world resulted. There are reasons that prevent belligerent nations from meeting. The world is a much more complex place, requiring thorough analysis of what effect negotiations will have on a nations interests. While I wish things were as simple as two leaders sitting down and hammering out an agreement, the complexity of world events makes negotiations difficult, even for a God-King like B. Hussein Obama. Simply look at the meeting held by Kennedy and Khrushchev shortly after Kennedy was elected. No serious preparations were made, and as a result Khrushchev sensed weakness in Kennedy. What happened as a result? The Soviets decided to install medium range ballistic missiles in Cuba, thinking Kennedy would do nothing about it. In the end we had to forfeit our strategic edge by removing our medium range ballistic missiles from Turkey. If Kennedy had appeared stronger to the Soviets perhaps things would have developed differently. His back must have been bothering him that day.
2) Again, the Soviets and the Iranian are two different animals. The Soviets were rational players on the world stage, something Iran has not demonstrated itself to be. To negotiate with them, or other nations like them (N. Korea, Venezuela, ect) will only serve to elevate their status in the world community. It will also give reason for other "rogue" states to demand negotiations with the US and demand some sort of concessions. There are reasons to shun SOME states, and reasons to talk with others. What makes one think that any negotiations will Iran will be respected by the Iranians when they ignore the will of the entire International community and continue to enrich nuclear material? Direct talks would serve as a reward for the Iranian regime because it validates their pursuits and demonstrates the desire of the US to give in to at least some of its demands.
One more point.....
Recorded civilization only extends back around 6500 years.... not "millions of years". Actually it was quite rare for direct talks between heads of state in ancient times. The time required to travel the great distances precluded it. Often an emissary would be sent to convey the sentiment of the leadership. One shouldn’t look to movies for a history lesson, often Hollywood distorts the facts.
Keep on chuckin'