Iranian President Hassan Rouhani wants constructive dialogue and to end rivalry with the US

voyger2

muse7
We don't negotiate with terrorists

a perfect «terrorist» proposition.

a good discussion about this topic here

amazingly w/ only 1Flag like this one... it makes you think in what ppl really care... horror, drama and blood!

edit on 20-9-2013 by voyger2 because: (no reason given)

It's because of the American people are getting sick of our people coming home in bodybags fighting other people wars.

buster2010
reply to post by majesticgent

 

Here is what I think. I think that Russia, Syria, Iran, and maybe even China is trying to sway the world's opinion against US foreign policy to make the US look like the aggressor in these conflicts.

You need to think again. In these conflicts the US is the aggressor. What did Afghanistan do to warrant an invasion by the US?

Now America wants to bomb Syria without any proof of the government being in the wrong. How can anyone say America is not the aggressor.

I read what you're typing, but take a look at the combatants in Afghanistan:

The following nations were involved in the War in Afghanistan:
Victor side:
NATO: United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Canada, Poland, Netherlands, Turkey, Australia, Spain, Romania
Afghanistan

Opposition side:
Insurgent groups: Taliban, al-Qaeda, IMU, HI-Gulbuddin, HI-Khalis, Haqqani network, Lashkar-e-Toiba

Source: wars.findthedata.org...

With Syria, none of those countries are willing to fight like they were with Afghanistan. The most glaring was the UK not wanting to strike Syria. Hence furthers my point on the majority world view of the US as being the aggressor.

thesaneone
reply to post by majesticgent

 

I do believe that if their supreme leaders were out of the picture Iranians would be happier.
My godmother use to tell me how beautiful Iran was during the late 50's and 60's.

I agree. Religion in modesty can be a good thing, religion in zealous is normally not.

buster2010
It's because of the American people are getting sick of our people coming home in bodybags fighting other people wars.

This is true and the main reason. Another reason is the ludicrous spending with these wars when the US infrastructure is crumbling, the education system is failing, the higher education system costs rise more and more each year, and the healthcare system is declining.

With all the trillions spent on these wars and pointless bureaucracy these problems cannot be resolved.

Where does my tax dollar go? I'll stop now; for I fear I'm straying too far off subject...

reply to post by majesticgent

I read what you're typing, but take a look at the combatants in Afghanistan:

And what nation started the war on terror? What nation said if you are not with us then you are against us?

reply to post by buster2010


The US is the aggressor, but it did not act alone... That is changing in Syria. Seems like if the US strikes it''ll go at it alone, maybe with the support of France.

This kind of blows my mind, I was literally just talking with a friend earlier today about how I bet middle eastern countries are going to start trying to play the "good guy" (not implying they are currently the bad guy, I hope you get what I mean)

My rationale was that, with pretty much the whole world against intervention in Syria, with not only other world leaders but also citizens of many countries really standing up against the US federal government (I refuse to refer to them as "the US" anymore, they are a separate rogue entity) it would be a good time for other nations to come out, instead of with threats, but with a desire for peace and cooperation. Maybe Sryia was the first domino that will get the ball rolling for people, whatever nation or a race, to stand up to the fed bullies.

How bad does it make the fed look, if many countries considered enemies, start wanting peace, and the fed refuses? That makes them the bad guy.

Whether or not Iran's recent actions are sincere, or just a ploy to make the fed look bad, I do not know. But it works in favor of Iran either way, on one hand they get peace, on the other, they make their enemy look bad. Smart. Are you paying attention, NK kim?

I just found it funny that I was just telling my buddy that if I was a middle eastern "enemy" state I'd start to propose peace with the US at this very moment, as it would be a great move. Politics are getting so predictable.

I think Iran has likely reached the same point, albeit for some very different reasons, as Gadaffi did in 2003 when he just called up the right people one day, seemingly from nowhere and said "Hey, you all want to come clean up my toxic WMD mess and take the weapons with ya?? Please?".

There is absolutely no winning for Iran. None. No matter the outcome..and I've been hoping against historic precedent that ONE nation would eventually stop the pee contest long enough to think clearly on this.

Iraq failed. Saddam was a megalomaniac on steroids and paranoia pills. Gadaffi was a loon...and so were the Taliban in a VERY different way. They too were given the chance to not die. They refused the terms to avoid the war and told Bush to bring it on. Well.. ahem... errr.. As much as Bush came to regret saying that in Iraq? I think it's safe to say no one in their right mind among the Taliban STILL thinks that was a good sentiment to send to Washington.

Iran's "side" could win by Chinese and/or Russian intervention and direct help....but in the bigger picture? That's US vs. those two World Powers and the nation forming the stomping ground it's done over, won't survive the experience ...whomever survives globally. That's my opinion anyway.

It sounds to me like Iran is following their Persian blood and good sense to simply change priorities and focus elsewhere without either claiming victory or conceding a thing.

Obama ought to give it a chance to see, anyway.

reply to post by muse7


You would be amazed what's coming...

Economically Iran misses 10% of their gross national income.Due to sanctions . When there's stability between Iran Syria and other middle east countries, The US trade relations and economy will rise and that will create more jobs.. That's what I think they aiming for?

Sorry, the bankers and defense contractors that run our country don't believe in "constructive dialogue".

Only death, and profit.

Sounds like Quark from deep space 9..

James1982
How bad does it make the fed look, if many countries considered enemies, start wanting peace, and the fed refuses? That makes them the bad guy.

Whether or not Iran's recent actions are sincere, or just a ploy to make the fed look bad, I do not know. But it works in favor of Iran either way,

That is something along the lines I was saying. They want to make US foreign policy look bad.

I think Iran will have to concede a lot to get those sanctions lifted.

reply to post by thesaneone


They probably would have been better off if we hadn't toppled their democracy and installed an absolute monarch in 1953 in order to facilitate milking their oil wealth. Perhaps then it wouldn't have blown back into our face with an Islamic revolution in 1979.

The people of Iran will change the regime for the better in their own good time. They have done it before. The less we rattle the sabre and threaten them the faster its likely to occur.

I think what your looking at is Irans response to the way Russia has treated Syria. When the chips were down the cards on the table Russia gave up Syrias chemical weapons to the West. Without any hope of real Russian support in a conflct with the West gone Iran might as well make a deal on its own instead of letting the Russian sell them out when because Russia values its ties to the West far more than theirs.

Most people view Iranian society and politics as pretty straight forward but it is in fact very complicated and is interwoven with deeply held religious convictions and interpretations of Twelver beliefs and The Mahdi.

The more conciliatory stance that is emerging from Iran was inevitable given the success of Ali Khamenei's favoured candidate, Hassan Rouhani, in the recent Presidential election.
It signified the victory of the more traditional revolutionary old guard over those with radically different views over The Mahdi and his re-emergence.

It is rumoured that The Hojjatieh Society had infiltrated most levels of Iranian government and military and posed a real threat to the power and influence of The Supreme Leader and The Guardian Council.
The Hojjatieh Society believes in manipulating events to bring about and to hasten the return of The Mahdi and the subsequent 'apocalypse'.
The society's leader is generally regarded to be Mesbah Yazdi who is also recognised as Ahmadinejad's spiritual advisor and inspiration.

However, it is rumoured that Ahmainejad and Yazdi had a major falling out with the recently departed President beginning to increasingly believe in a more millenarian viewpoint which believes all religious and political leaders preceeding The Mahdi's return will be viewed as redundant thus greatly reducing their present authority and standing.

Though holding opposing opinions on how The Mahdi will return both Khamenei and Yazdi opposed Ahamdinejad's favoured Presidential candidate Esfandiar Mashaei who was effectively barred from further office.
Many more of Ahmadinejad's supporters have been imprisoned or removed from office.
All this resulted in Ahmadinejad being ostracised and becoming nothing more than a lame duck President.

Whilst all this has been going on Iranian society has been increasingly affected by sanctions with ordinary Iranian citizens facing increasingly harsh circumstances - discontent has been brewing.
And so Ahmadinejad is seen as the ideal scapegoat - it's his policies that have resulted in Iran becoming a pariah in the international community.
Rouhani can disassociate himself from Ahmadinejad's policies and present a more conciliatory approach to 'The West' without discrediting The Supreme Leader and The Mullah's.

Rouhani is vastly experienced in negotiating with 'The West' and has extensive knowledge of Iran's nuclear programme - he has a certain amount of credibility both domestically and internationally.

If Obama reacts in a similar vein then Rouhani and his supporters will be viewed as heroes back home in Iran thus further diminishing the reputation and influence of The Hojjatieh Society and the more erratic and unpredictable millenarians.
The suffering of the Iranian people will be eased and a ticking time bomb could defused - at least for the time being.

With Obama's dwindling reputation he would be a fool not to respond favourably to these overtures in what can only be a win / win scenario for most people directly concerned.

reply to post by muse7


Don't be foolish this guy is willing to meet US half way and talk in a room and layout it out on the table. Don't worry the US has done its fair share of throwing fuel on the middle eastern fire. Time for people to stop faning the fire as your comment.

reply to post by majesticgent


An interesting change of events...

I say we meet them out on the limb...

What else is left other than to talk? Maybe re-establish diplomatic relations?

I saw the IRG has openly warned the new Iranian President about establishing talks / ties / links with the US, so I don't think its a ploy on the part of the new Iranian government.

ETA -
Iran's president says Tehran seeks revived talks

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Iran's President Hasan Rouhani, speaking Sunday on the eve of a trip to New York to attend the U.N. General Assembly, said his country is "loyal" to its pledge not to seek nuclear weapons and seeks to resume talks with world powers to settle the standoff.

The comments by Rouhani do not break new ground - he has repeatedly urged the revival of the stalled talks with world powers since his election in June - but they take on added weight before his attending his first gathering with Western leaders.

Rouhani has said he wants to use the sidelines of the U.N. agenda to win agreements on restarting the nuclear dialogue, whose last rounds in April ended without any significant progress. Rouhani has insisted on the same concessions from the West as before: easing sanctions as a first step in bargaining.

Click link for remainder of article...


Iran warns its leaders to be cautious in dealing with US

statement over the weekend from Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps cautioned the country’s leaders to be skeptical in any dealings with the United States. The warning came ahead of a possible meeting between US President Barack Obama and his Iranian counterpart, Hasan Rouhani.

“Historical experiences make it necessary for the diplomatic apparatus of our country to carefully and skeptically monitor the behavior of White House officials so that the righteous demands of our nation are recognized and respected by those who favor interaction,” the IRGC said in a statement published by Iran’s Tasnim news agency.

The IRGC, distinct from the Iranian army, is beholden to Iran’s supreme leader and serves as the ideological guardian of the Islamic Republic. While the United States was fighting the insurgency in Iraq over the past decade, the IRGC supplied fighters , training, and logistical support for groups involved in killing American soldiers, according to reports.

What's interesting is the IRG warning when the Ayatollah has already blessed President Rouhani's plans.

Heres hoping for the best....

reply to post by Wrabbit2000

They refused the terms to avoid the war and told Bush to bring it on.

Where did this BS come from? They told Bush provide evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 and they would hand him over. Bush couldn't provide evidence he didn't have so we went to war.

buster2010
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

They refused the terms to avoid the war and told Bush to bring it on.

Where did this BS come from? They told Bush provide evidence linking Bin Laden to 9/11 and they would hand him over. Bush couldn't provide evidence he didn't have so we went to war.

Actually you are wrong... The Taliban refused to turn Osama over to the US. They wanted to turn Osama over to a 3rd party neutral country and to try him there.

So no, the Taliban did not tell the US they would hand him over.. They told us they would hand him over to someone else.


ETA -
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over

President George Bush rejected as "non-negotiable" an offer by the Taliban to discuss turning over Osama bin Laden if the United States ended the bombing in Afghanistan.
Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over." He added, "There's no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he's guilty".

In Jalalabad, deputy prime minister Haji Abdul Kabir - the third most powerful figure in the ruling Taliban regime - told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, but added: "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country".

Taliban Won't Turn Over Bin Laden

U.S. rejects latest Taliban offer


With that being said, is there any reason the US should not meet the Iranian President half way and at least talk to them? While I understand, given then 2 countries past, that it might be difficult, we should at least try. Best case we resolve the nuclear program issue and establish communications. At worst the talks fail and we end up back where we are currently at.

muse7
We don't negotiate with terrorists

After year of blood shed in the UK and Ireland. The UK government sat around a table with the IRA and peace ensued. Talking about your differences and problems is the most grown up thing to do.