Iran rejects US overtures

[rah]

I'm not the one expecting miracles, his followers are. I just expect him to do the things he promised to do. His record on those is pretty bad so far, and the honeymoon seems to be over.

I still am wondering what agreements you expected Obama to broker over the past several months.

One would be a start. And I don't count appeasing the Russians over eastern Europe.

[Felch]

I see nothing wrong with approaching Iran diplomatically, being rebuffed, and showing them for the blood-thirsty scum that they are. We're a majority Christian nation, and Christianity is all about peace and turning the other cheek. They're an officially Islamic nation, and Islam is all about conquest and sex with nine-year-old girls. It's about time we showed the world that we're not moral equals.

[Ramo]

One would be a start.

Be specific. What did you expect to see happen, but didn't?

Actually I think those in power benefit most by having the evil Satan out there to rally the people against. So until they feel that have no worry from the masses, there can't be any real progress.

It sounds like you're trying to make a convoluted argument, but I'm not sure what exactly it is. Elaborate.

[rah]

It sounds like you're trying to make a convoluted argument, but I'm not sure what exactly it is. Elaborate.

Not convoluted at all. Repressive regimes always use "blame all our ills on fill-in-the-blank" to keep the people in line. We fill that role for them. (justifiably so based on history) If they deal with us, then maybe that can't blame everything on us and their people may start actually blaming the government. So my point was that until their current regime stops fearing that the masses may actually step up and revolt, they need to keep us as their boogie man. So all talks are doomed to failure in the long run until things change there.

[Ramo]

Why do you think that insisting on preserving Iranian nuclear weapons, after the US offers to facilitate peaceful nuclear power and ease economic sanctions, makes the US look like the boogyman? This is a totally bizarre argument.

What allows the US to be portrayed as a boogyman, BTW, is refusing the meaningfully engage the Iranian state.

[Ramo]

If they deal with us, then maybe that can't blame everything on us and their people may start actually blaming the government.

Have you been in a coma for the past few months?

[rah]

No, that's why they need a boggie man now more than ever, since there people are starting to blame the government. DUH. It's better for them to not engage us in any discussion and just sit back and call us the evil satan and blame us for everything.

[Ramo]

rah, think through your argument.

The status quo is that the Iranian economy has been having some serious economic issues, and the unpopularity of the government is in large part based on this. It also faces a crisis of political legitimacy in the aftermath of the coup. The Iranian state is having serious issues reasserting its grasp on society, and is looking for ways to bolster its position. This is in the context of the US being portrayed as a boogieman for the past three decades, particularly the economic sanctions and military actions of the past decade.

The position of the Bush Admin was that they would have to unilaterally capitulate before we ease our pressure, and that was perceived as an unreasonable demand. But we don't look like a boogieman if we're exploring compromises to allow both sides to achieve their economic and security interests. So they get a lot less mileage out of these efforts due to Obama's public diplomacy (remember the time after the coup when the most credible villain the Iranian establishment had was the UK) and enrichment offer. And the upside to engagement is much greater precisely due to Iran's shakier position; its public diplomacy in the Arab world is shot (which has impacts, i.e. in Syria), its credibility in most parts of the world is far lower, and Iran needs to stabilize its regime.

This period is a better time period than just about any other to cut a deal. Consider that most of the opposition figures (i.e. Mousavi) are fans of the nuclear program. And negotiations over the program don't make a ton of sense after its completed. So it's not like we can put this off indefinitely.

[snoopy369]

Rah's saying (and I agree, with some caveats) that Iran's best way to stabilize the regime is to NOT play ball, and force the US into the position of continuing sanctions and putting pressure internationally. That allows the (state-run) press to show the Iranian side of the argument positively ["We just want what we have a right to - self-defense, and nuclear power, like all other great nations"] and the US side negatively ["They're bullying us and trying to destroy the Iranian people"]. They don't have to show the positive US side; and while plenty of people there have access to the internet and can see for themselves... why are you assuming that Iranians are any smarter than Americans? Look at all of the Americans who fall head over heels for government propaganda, and we have a far freer press, and are far more used to questioning the government, than Iranians...

Cutting a deal means they can no longer blame the US for sanctions, and no longer put quotes from Hillary in their paper as examples of an evil woman trying to demonize poor Iran... hence why it's a bad idea for them. Also, why we're making the offer - it does make us look better and them look worse. I just think they don't believe it's enough.

[Ramo]

1. The credibility of the Iranian government is at its lowest ebb since the revolution, and the credibility of the US leadership is far higher than its been in years.
2. This is a deal that was debated in the Iranian parliament. It's not like the government tried to crush any mention of it.
3. Cutting a deal (or multiple deals) means no more sanctions. Without popular legitimacy, economic performance becomes much more salient. Like most places in the world right now, a job is a far better motivator to support a government than a mild quote from some politician in another country.

I'm not saying that Iran would cut a deal. Just that it's a more opportune time than any in recent history.

[rah]

Look how they officially answered.

TEHRAN -- Iran's supreme leader, spurning what he described as several personal overtures from President Obama, warned Tuesday that negotiating with United States was "naive and perverted" and said Iranian politicians should not be "deceived" into starting such talks.

This is promoting continued EVIL SATAN thinking.

[fed1943]

That words from Iran's supreme leader are already a victory to your President.

[Zevico]

I see nothing wrong with approaching Iran diplomatically, being rebuffed, and showing them for the blood-thirsty scum that they are. We're a majority Christian nation, and Christianity is all about peace and turning the other cheek. They're an officially Islamic nation, and Islam is all about conquest and sex with nine-year-old girls. It's about time we showed the world that we're not moral equals.

The Americans have been in talks with Iran for nigh on 8 years now.
Also, I don't think Islam is "all about" anything anymore than Christianity is.

[Felch]

Damn, barely any takers on my troll.

I need more practice.

[Lorizael]

I chuckled.