US offers Iran a 'new beginning

[salm]

Link to a BBC article and a video.

US offers Iran a 'new beginning'

US President Barack Obama has offered "a new beginning" of engagement with Tehran in an unprecedented direct video message to the Iranian people.

"My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us," Mr Obama said.

His message was released to coincide with the festival of Nowruz, when Iranians mark the arrival of spring.

Relations between Iran and the US have been strained over Tehran's controversial nuclear activities.

The US fears Iran's uranium enrichment programme is a cover to build atomic weapons, a charge Iranian officials deny.

A senior advisor to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad welcomed Mr Obama's message, but said the US president had "to go further than words and take action", AFP reported.

Ali Akbar Javanfekr said differences between the two countries were the result of the "hostile, aggressive and colonialist attitude of the American government" and that the US had to recognise its past mistakes if it wanted to engage Iran.

EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana described Mr Obama's appeal as "very constructive" and urged Teheran to pay close attention to it.

Warning

In his message, President Obama said he wanted "to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran".

He said his administration was committed "to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community".

"With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning," the message said.

But Mr Obama warned: "This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect."

"The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right - but it comes with real responsibilities."

Mr Obama's message was distributed to news outlets in Iran with subtitles in Farsi, and posted on the White House's official website.

The message is a dramatic departure from the policies of the George W Bush's administration, which described Iran as part of the "axis of evil", the BBC's Jonathan Beale in Washington says.

Earlier this year, President Obama said he was looking for "openings that can be created where we can start sitting across the table face-to-face" with Iran.

However, Mr Obama acknowledged in his message on Thursday that it would not be easy to overcome "the old divisions".

Mr Obama has talked of engagement with Iran but has not made clear how that might take place.

Shortly after coming to office in January, he said "if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fists, they will find an extended hand from us".

But earlier this month he extended sanctions against Iran for a year, saying it continues to pose a threat to US national security.

In another possible move towards engagement, the state department is said to be considering an overture in the form of a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei before the Iranian elections this summer.

Ah, some fresh wind in this dispute. Very good to hear that this age old conflict might finally find some progress.

[Force Lord]

Any chance of U.S.-Iran relations getting a breakthrough?

[Starglider]

Any chance of U.S.-Iran relations getting a breakthrough?

The Iranian regime finds the US very useful as an external threat they can use to justify suppressing internal dissent, as in the hardliners suppressing the moderates. The ambition for nuclear weapons is not going to go away any time soon, given that Israel and Pakistan have them, the arrogance of the Iranian leadership and the perceived security against US invasion it would provide. As 1990s Iraq showed, trade sanctions affect the population but not the leadership, so what exactly does the leadership of Iran have to gain by being friendly to the US?

[Kanastrous]

Somehow when I read the thread title I thought "new beginning" as in "bombed back to the Stone Age."

The USA is such a useful bogeyman for the mullahs that I doubt they'd give us up in that role any time soon.

[salm]

I don´t know. If the US keeps trying to improve the situation the Iranian population will wonder why the government won´t take a step towards the USA as well and this will at least put the government under preassure.

[Darth Wong]

Somehow when I read the thread title I thought "new beginning" as in "bombed back to the Stone Age."

The USA is such a useful bogeyman for the mullahs that I doubt they'd give us up in that role any time soon.

Iran is a useful bogeyman for the USA too. It's self-perpetuating, so someone has to break this cycle first. I'm glad someone is trying.

[Starglider]

I don´t know. If the US keeps trying to improve the situation the Iranian population will wonder why the government won´t take a step towards the USA as well and this will at least put the government under preassure.

The Iranian government is already 'under pressure', but there are two major factors that prevent this from resulting in much real change;
1) A large fraction of the population consists of fanatically religious nuts who always back the hardliners despite their insanity
2) Most of Iran is essentially a welfare state subsisting on oil revenues doled out by the government, and ultimately the hardline militarist elements control the taps.

A major sustained shift away from fossil fuels is probably needed to weaken the existing government enough for the moderates to have a shot at real power.

[Ziggy Stardust]

A large fraction of the population consists of fanatically religious nuts who always back the hardliners despite their insanity.

Interestingly, Iran is only about as religious as Alabama (which is, admittedly, quite religious).

[Starglider]

Interestingly, Iran is only about as religious as Alabama (which is, admittedly, quite religious).

In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis made heavy use of minefields. The standard Iranian tactic for clearing them was to send waves of untrained troops in front of their main units to clear a path. This worked because there was a seemingly inexhaustible supply of young fanatics convinced that a martyr's death would guarantee them a place in paradise. In a way this is even worse than suicide bombers; they weren't even taking out the enemy, they were dying for a fleeing tactical advantage.

Now, the residents of Alabama may be just as willing to self-identify as 'highly religious', but are they just as willing to be used as low-cost minefield clearance by their nation's army?

[Guardsman Bass]

Keep in mind, too, that we've tried being nice before, back when Clinton was in power, and it didn't really yield a lot of fruits. The US government did things like opening up cultural connections and even some business connections, plus Albright apologizing for the Mossadegh coup in 1953, yet the Iranian hardliners under Khamenei overruled what Khatami was doing and differences hardened again.

In any case, here is the basic Iranian response:

Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has demanded concrete policy changes from the US as the price for new relations between the two states.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said he had seen no change in America's attitude or policy, singling out US support for Israel and sanctions against Iran.

But he also said that if President Barack Obama altered the US position, Iran was prepared to follow suit.

President Obama on Thursday offered "a new beginning" in relations with Iran.

He made the offer in a video message to Iran's leaders and people seen as a dramatic break with the approach of George W Bush's administration.

Relations between Iran and the US have been strained over Tehran's nuclear activities.

BBC Iranian affairs analyst Sadeq Saba says that a minimum requirement for Iran would be a move by Washington to ease US sanctions.

'Words not enough'

Speaking to a large crowd in the holy city of Mashhad, Ayatollah Khamenei said Iran had "no experience with the new American government and the new American president".

One gesture the US administration could make would be to ease some sanctions on passenger aeroplanes and spare parts

"We will observe them and we will judge," he said.

"If you change your attitude, we will change our attitude."

In the speech, which was carried live by Iranian television, he said Iran was yet to see such a change.

"What is the change in your policy?" he asked.

"Did you remove the sanctions? Did you stop supporting the Zionist regime? Tell us what you have changed. Change only in words is not enough."

Sadeq Saba analyses Iranian response'

The BBC's Sadeq Saba says the Iranian supreme leader may be acting to prevent any internal division between moderates and hardliners over how to react to President Obama's offer.

The demand for the US to withdraw support for Israel is clearly unrealistic, he says.

But any easing of bilateral sanctions or a freeze on Iranian assets could signal to Iran that the US is serious, he adds.

'Mutual respect'

Mr Obama's offer came in a direct video address to mark the Iranian New Year.

In the message, Mr Obama said he was seeking engagement with Iran that was "honest and based on mutual respect".

Obama reaches out to Iran

"My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us," he said.

The address was distributed to news outlets in Iran with subtitles in Farsi, and posted on the White House website.

Mr Obama's approach - prefigured in his inauguration speech - was seen as a clear departure from the approach of the Bush administration, which described Iran as part of the "axis of evil".

In another possible move towards engagement, the state department is said to be considering an overture in the form of a letter to Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei before the Iranian elections this summer.

Even so, a week ago Mr Obama extended sanctions against Iran for one year, saying it continued to pose a threat to US national security.

The US fears Iran's uranium enrichment programme is a cover to build atomic weapons, a charge Iranian officials deny.

At least from what I've read, you really need to get the timing right when doing diplomacy with Iran. There were moments in 2002 and 2004 where Iran reached out to the US government for co-operation on things like Afghanistan and Iraq that might have led somewhere (or possibly not, but it would be worth trying).

[DrMckay]

It occurs to me that President Obama is being pretty damn smart about this. Here's what the gets from sending them this greeting:

1) Keeps campaign promise to talk to Iran-retains appearance of integrity.

2) Further isolates Iran from the rest of the Middle East, and here's why- His Muslim relatives make him relatively popular in the Middle East. (More so than Bush anyway.) especially among the moderates.

The Iranians have responded with a list of ridiculous demands that make them look MORE irrational and unreasonable.

3) Obama loses nothing by making the attempt, and in fact GAINS regardless, even if it is only credibility for trying and more respect for America abroad.

All in all an intelligent and well-calculated manuver.

[Patrick Degan]

It occurs to me that President Obama is being pretty damn smart about this. Here's what the gets from sending them this greeting:

1) Keeps campaign promise to talk to Iran-retains appearance of integrity.

2) Further isolates Iran from the rest of the Middle East, and here's why- His Muslim relatives make him relatively popular in the Middle East. (More so than Bush anyway.) especially among the moderates.

The Iranians have responded with a list of ridiculous demands that make them look MORE irrational and unreasonable.

3) Obama loses nothing by making the attempt, and in fact GAINS regardless, even if it is only credibility for trying and more respect for America abroad.

All in all an intelligent and well-calculated manuver.

An NPR analyst was commenting much along these same lines on the morning news show today. The piece on Morning Edition played a quote from a young Iranian who was impressed that Obama knew when their New Year, Nawaz, was and that he took the trouble to address the Iranian people with his offer of a new opening, and didn't quite understand the rebuff issued by the leadership.

[Ziggy Stardust]

In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis made heavy use of minefields. The standard Iranian tactic for clearing them was to send waves of untrained troops in front of their main units to clear a path. This worked because there was a seemingly inexhaustible supply of young fanatics convinced that a martyr's death would guarantee them a place in paradise. In a way this is even worse than suicide bombers; they weren't even taking out the enemy, they were dying for a fleeing tactical advantage.

Yes, the Ayatollah had brainwashed children that he used for a variety of despicable things, one of which was clearing minefields. Twenty years ago. How does this translate to a vast majority of the population being fanatic nuts?

[Ekiqa]

Yes, the Ayatollah had brainwashed children that he used for a variety of despicable things, one of which was clearing minefields. Twenty years ago. How does this translate to a vast majority of the population being fanatic nuts?

From what I know, via an Iranian friend and his contact with his family back home, there is very few religious fanatics there, probably similar levels as in the US.

Persian New Year was banned by the Ayatollah, because it wasn't a Muslim holiday, but it is still the most widely celebrated holiday there. It seems to be the opposite of the US, religious in name, secular people.

[Samuel]

In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis made heavy use of minefields. The standard Iranian tactic for clearing them was to send waves of untrained troops in front of their main units to clear a path. This worked because there was a seemingly inexhaustible supply of young fanatics convinced that a martyr's death would guarantee them a place in paradise. In a way this is even worse than suicide bombers; they weren't even taking out the enemy, they were dying for a fleeing tactical advantage.

Yes, the Ayatollah had brainwashed children that he used for a variety of despicable things, one of which was clearing minefields. Twenty years ago. How does this translate to a vast majority of the population being fanatic nuts?

His point was that despite Alabama's claim they are devout, it is unlikely to the extreme that they would give up their children to be used in such a way- in short that they are not as fanatical. Of course, Jonestown proved that Starglider is wrong- you can get Americans to be that religiously fanatical and with an outside threat there to destroy the nation...

[Ender]

In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis made heavy use of minefields. The standard Iranian tactic for clearing them was to send waves of untrained troops in front of their main units to clear a path. This worked because there was a seemingly inexhaustible supply of young fanatics convinced that a martyr's death would guarantee them a place in paradise. In a way this is even worse than suicide bombers; they weren't even taking out the enemy, they were dying for a fleeing tactical advantage.

Yes, the Ayatollah had brainwashed children that he used for a variety of despicable things, one of which was clearing minefields. Twenty years ago. How does this translate to a vast majority of the population being fanatic nuts?

His point was that despite Alabama's claim they are devout, it is unlikely to the extreme that they would give up their children to be used in such a way- in short that they are not as fanatical. Of course, Jonestown proved that Starglider is wrong- you can get Americans to be that religiously fanatical and with an outside threat there to destroy the nation...

Jonestown was in California, not Alabama. Further, it was an international cult that met there, rather than being an American phenomena. I don't make any particular claims about what Starglider said, but your counter example fails to serve its purpose.

[Solauren]

You know, if you look at response articule carefully, there's something very reasonable in there;

One gesture the US administration could make would be to ease some sanctions on passenger aeroplanes and spare parts

If Iran is actually saying that, that is. Ease the sanctions on spare parts as a initial gesture, and on older aeroplanes as well.

Nothing big, nothing serious, but start the ball rolling. Spare parts isn't really that big a deal.

Follow that up with "we've made a gesture of good will, so, let's open a dialogue up now."

This would force Iran into the corner politically, on all fronts. He did something they asked. Something fairly public.

[Ender]

You know, if you look at response articule carefully, there's something very reasonable in there;

One gesture the US administration could make would be to ease some sanctions on passenger aeroplanes and spare parts

If Iran is actually saying that, that is. Ease the sanctions on spare parts as a initial gesture, and on older aeroplanes as well.

Nothing big, nothing serious, but start the ball rolling. Spare parts isn't really that big a deal.

Follow that up with "we've made a gesture of good will, so, let's open a dialogue up now."

This would force Iran into the corner politically, on all fronts. He did something they asked. Something fairly public.

Pretty sure those sanctions are in place because those parts are easily re appropriated for other uses. Like how there is a ban on selling Playstations and X-boxes to some countries because you can take the parts from inside to do a major upgrade on missile systems. Welcome to the wonder of "off the shelf" military hardware.

[Adjudicator]

This is good news to hear. The US had already made the mistake of fighting on "many fronts".

(First Afghanistan, then proceeding onto Iraq without ensuring that Afghanistan does not have an insurgency).

This is something I would like to conjecture: Since Iran and Iraq (Under the old regime) are cold towards each other, I wonder if Iran will still be taking this hardline approach to the US, if the US never launched an invasion of Iraq in 2003.

[The Romulan Republic]

A major sustained shift away from fossil fuels is probably needed to weaken the existing government enough for the moderates to have a shot at real power.

If this is the case, shouldn't we want and actively encourage them to have at least civilian nuclear power? Unless their's some way to power the whole country on wind mills and solar panels or something.

[Ryan Thunder]

Interestingly, Iran is only about as religious as Alabama (which is, admittedly, quite religious).

In the Iran-Iraq war, the Iraqis made heavy use of minefields. The standard Iranian tactic for clearing them was to send waves of untrained troops in front of their main units to clear a path. This worked because there was a seemingly inexhaustible supply of young fanatics convinced that a martyr's death would guarantee them a place in paradise. In a way this is even worse than suicide bombers; they weren't even taking out the enemy, they were dying for a fleeing tactical advantage.

Now, the residents of Alabama may be just as willing to self-identify as 'highly religious', but are they just as willing to be used as low-cost minefield clearance by their nation's army?

Hey, you wouldn't happen to have a source for that, would you? I'd just like to keep it handy for certain other discussions...

[Samuel]

Jonestown was in California, not Alabama. Further, it was an international cult that met there, rather than being an American phenomena. I don't make any particular claims about what Starglider said, but your counter example fails to serve its purpose.

? Jonestown was in Venezula. My point was you could get Americans that crazy- it doesn't require all the members being American, just the majority. Admitedly a small group, but it shows that it is possible to get Americans more nuts than Iranians.

[Mr Bean]

If this is the case, shouldn't we want and actively encourage them to have at least civilian nuclear power? Unless their's some way to power the whole country on wind mills and solar panels or something.

The problem is we know their program aims to have nuclear weapons in mind when they made it. They could have accepted French improved designs, instead they picked a very inefficient design the Soviets cooked up that is only so so for production of power, but great if you want to produced bomb quality uranium and plutonium.

We know their eventual goal is nuclear weapons, who knows they might start laying down civil grade waste recycle happy power plants which are great for power generation but horrible for weapon production... Or they could keep right on building backup sites for nuclear research and small scale weaponry able plants.

[Master of Ossus]

? Jonestown was in Venezula. My point was you could get Americans that crazy- it doesn't require all the members being American, just the majority. Admitedly a small group, but it shows that it is possible to get Americans more nuts than Iranians.

1. Jonestown was in Guyana.
2. The headquarters was in San Francisco, and People's Temple had some other branches in various California cities.
3. I don't know why claiming you can get a small fraction of the US population to go crazy is in any way comparable to Iran, where the government structure itself is run by, and exclusively for, crazies.

[Ryan Thunder]

Good God. Will you people make your minds up already about which "Jonestown" you're referring to? This is beginning to sound like something out of a comedy skit. If you'd at least give some sort of context I might be able to go look it up myself, but it looks like nobody could be fucked...