Here's one interpretation of Iran's response to Obama's overture... [UPDATE] [UPDATE II]

[UPDATE II]

[BUMPED]

here's a link to the full text of Khamenei's Speech courtesy of juan cole... believe me, it's a VERY worthwhile read...

-------------------------

i would expect the u.s. media to get all huffy about iran's not-terribly-warm response to obama's overture and to cast it in terms of iran's intransigence...

The Iranian leader's rebuff on Saturday to President Barack Obama's offer for dialogue was swift and sweeping: Words from Washington ring hollow without deep policy changes.

But Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's response was more than just a dismissive slap at the outreach. It was a broad lesson in the mind-set of Iran's all-powerful theocracy and how it will dictate the pace and tone of any new steps by Obama to chip away at their nearly 30-year diplomatic freeze.

"It's the first stage of the bargaining in classic Iranian style: Be tough and play up your toughness," said Abdulkhaleq Abdulla, a professor of regional politics at United Arab Emirates University. "The Iranian leaders are not about concessions at this stage. It's still all about ideology from the Iranian side."

For Khamenei and his inner circle, that means appearing to stay true to the 1979 Islamic Revolution and the political narrative of rejecting the United States. Any quick gestures by the ruling clerics to mend ties with Washington could be perceived by hard-liners as a betrayal of the revolution.

one other interpretation might be that iran, like so many other countries in the world, no longer has any trust or confidence in anything the u.s. says or does, and has no intention of being caught out again by jumping up and down and saying, "oh, boy, oh, boy, the u.s. wants to talk to us again"...

[UPDATE]

interestingly enough, juan cole shares my view...

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said Saturday, "Of course, we have no prior experience of the new president of the American republic or of the new government, and therefore we shall make our judgment based on his actions."

The US corporate media mysteriously interpreted Khamenei's words as a rebuff to Obama, but in light of the phrase I just quoted, I can't understand how they reached that conclusion. Certainly, he did say repeatedly that Iran has had a pretty horrible experience with the United States, and that it would take more than some nice words to change Iranian minds about Washington. You could say that this was a grumpy old man response to Obama's call for engagement. But you can't call it a rebuff, since Khamenei explicitly says that he has no basis for making a judgment about the Obama administration as yet, and will respond to its actual concrete policies.

Interestingly, the French news agency, Agence France Presse, got the story right, entitling their article, "Iran ready to change if US leads way: Khamenei."

And, the Iranian PressTV had an even more enthusiastic headline: "Iran vows response to real US change."

He said that the Iranian public would be offended if anyone addressed it with a discourse of carrots or sticks. That was when he immediately excused Obama from any such charge, saying the latter had a clean slate.

Elsewhere in the address he pledged, in AFP's translation, "If you change your attitude, we will change our attitude."

[...]

Khamenei also warned Obama to listen directly to Khamenei's own words: "Contemplate carefully my words. You must under no circumstances give them to Zionists to translate. Rather, consult with righteous persons." Well, the crack about Zionists is unfair, but Khamenei is obviously correct that his speech will be distorted by the Neoconservatives who desperately want the US to go to war against Iran.

I hope Obama will in fact get a good translation and analysis of the speech, which is far more welcoming of a potential change in Washington, and shows far more willingness to negotiate, than the corporate media in the US are reporting.

i didn't THINK i was trying to give a misguided interpretation to what i perceived to be the standard u.s. media propaganda spin...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Petraeus, the Iraq circus ringmaster, leads the chorus in indicting Iran

yeah, it's not only about making goddam sure the u.s. stays in iraq for the next 10,000 years, it's also about making goddam sure that every possible piece of groundwork is laid for our NEXT war against iran... bastard sons-of-bitches...

Army Gen. David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker were critical of Iran when they testified Tuesday before the Senate , barely giving credit for an Iranian-brokered cease-fire that curbed the killing after a week of Shiite-on-Shiite bloodshed in southern Iraq and Baghdad.

then we have THE SUPREME GRAND EXALTED BASTARD SON-OF-A-BITCH, JOE LIEBERMAN...

"[A]s I hear the questions and the statements today, it seems to me that there's a kind of 'hear no progress in Iraq, see no progress in Iraq' and most of all 'speak of no progress' in Iraq.

[...]

Hey, let's be honest about this. The Iraqi political leadership has achieved a lot more political reconciliation and progress since September than the American political leadership has. So we've got to give some credit for that."

[...]

Naturally, Lieberman was quick to inject Iran into these proceedings, dutifully asking the leading question, "Let me ask you first, are the Iranians still training and equipping Iraqi extremists who are going back into Iraq and killing American soldiers?"

then there's the voice of reason...

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Tuesday called for a "diplomatic surge" including talks with US foe Iran, to help stabilize the situation in Iraq.

[...]

"We should be talking to them as well," Obama told the top US General in Iraq David Petraeus and US ambassador to Baghdad Ryan Crocker.

"I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that" said Obama, adding that a plan for US troop withdrawals was needed to force Iraqi factions to work together.

talk...? why, THAT'S only for WUSSIES... REAL AMERICANS go to war...

Obama has taken fire from his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and Republican presumptive nominee John McCain for his offer to talk, if elected president, with the leaders of several US foes including Iran.

talking is free, easy to do, and might actually accomplish something, but since it doesn't feed the giant, gaping maw of the government-military-industrial corporatocracy, why the hell would we want to TALK, fercryinoutloud...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Speaking of the WaPo, here's yet another war-mongering editorial, this one about Fallon

only in the warped, parallel universe occupied by the bush administration and the washington post, could being an advocate for NOT waging war lead to war...

A Failing Campaign
By swearing off military action, a U.S. commander weakens the diplomatic offensive against Iran.

[...]

[I]t's more likely that Adm. Fallon increased rather than lessened the small chance of war by stating publicly during his travels in the region that there would be no U.S. attack. Not one for diplomatic nuance, the blunt-spoken seaman appeared unable to grasp that in the absence of a credible threat of force, the U.S.-led campaign to stop Tehran's nuclear program by peaceful means would not succeed, leaving war and acquiescence to an Iranian bomb as the only alternatives.

despite the disclaimer and the mention of diplomacy in the lede...

As we have said, we oppose an attack on the Iranian nuclear program by this administration.

absolutely nowhere in the editorial was a serious proposal made for direct diplomacy...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The view from Germany: "Bush's Half-Hearted Summit" is a ploy to gain support against Iran

when our nation's attempts at "diplomacy" and "peace-making" are met with ridicule and scorn by an ally, you know we've sunk pretty far...

spiegel...

Middle East Conference: Bush's Half-Hearted Summit
US President George W. Bush plays host this week to a massive summit aimed at pushing the Middle East peace process forward. Expectations, though, are low. Many doubt that Bush is truly dedicated to the project.

so, why bother to have it at all...?

In the White House, the Annapolis conference is increasingly regarded as an admission of weakness, especially in the influential circle surrounding Dick Cheney and the neo-cons. They grudgingly accept that a stronger US engagement for peace in the Middle East is probably the price that has to be paid for more help against an increasingly powerful Iran.

as they say in argentina, patético...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Merle Haggard's left turn

who woulda thunk it...?

• In the last 10 years, we've lost most of what we claim to be fighting for. We have a police state -- helicopters flying above houses, looking to see if they can see some marijuana. America has gone downhill.

• Radio doesn't want substance. If a song actually had an opinion, that's the first thing they'd throw in the trash.

• Anybody with the least bit of intelligence is going to say, "Maybe we need some diplomacy."

• [T]here are some conditions in the United States that don't resemble Americanism. Where are the people that care about freedom? We're overseas fighting for it and people are giving their life for it when it doesn't even exist here.

i repeat, who woulda thunk it...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The face of diplomacy: John Bolton in drag

where does bush come up with these people...?


Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition
Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates

Britsh MPs visiting the Pentagon to discuss America's stance on Iran and Iraq were shocked to be told by one of President Bush's senior women officials: "I hate all Iranians."

And she also accused Britain of "dismantling" the Anglo-US-led coalition in Iraq by pulling troops out of Basra too soon.

The all-party group of MPs say Debra Cagan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Coalition Affairs to Defence Secretary Robert Gates, made the comments this month.

The six MPs were taken aback by the hardline approach of the Pentagon and in particular Ms Cagan, one of Mr Bush's foreign policy advisers.

i don't indulge in personal attacks, but i can't help but observe that the outfit she's wearing seems somehow totally inappropriate to any situation where she would be representing her country... on a personal night out to, let's say, a dance club, well, maybe...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

The EU, Germany and Bulgaria show how diplomacy is done

from spiegel...


The accused -- five Bulgarian nurses
and a Palestinian doctor -- appear
in the dock of a Tripoli court.

The legal drama over five Bulgarian nurses and a Palestinian doctor -- earlier condemned to death in Libya for supposedly infecting hundreds of children with AIDS -- could be nearing its end. After months of tough negotiations, a diplomatic offensive by the German government and the EU has led to a breakthrough.

[...]

Not only has a crisis task force in Bulgaria been working for the nurses' freedom, but so too have high-ranking negotiators from the European Union and Germany. And the deal that could soon lead to the release of the Bulgarians is a textbook example of effective European diplomacy.

something bush should read and learn from, but of course he won't, or, more likely, can't...

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments

Flexibility...? In the Bush administration...?

a headline i didn't ever expect to see...

U.S. Flexibility Credited in Nuclear Deal With N. Korea

The six-nation deal to shut down North Korea's nuclear facility, four months after Pyongyang conducted its first nuclear test, was reached yesterday largely because President Bush was willing to give U.S. negotiators new flexibility to reach an agreement, U.S. officials and Asian diplomats said yesterday.

but, no surprise, the hard-ass neocons think bush wussed out, and the dems reflexively oppose it...

[T]he agreement came under attack yesterday, with conservatives labeling it a betrayal and Democrats charging that Bush allowed North Korea to become a nuclear-weapon state without gaining much improvement over a Clinton-era deal that collapsed during Bush's first term.

no surprise either that condi, barely treading water after being increasingly (and accurately, imho) labeled as worthless, wants to grab the credit...

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, a prime architect of the accord, said it is just the beginning of a long process. "This is not the end of the story," she said, calling it the result of "patient, creative and tough diplomacy."

if you believe steve clemons - and i do - it's this guy that did the yeoman's work...

I have written about Asst. Secretary of State for East Asian Affairs Christopher Hill before and surmised that if he was given some running room to construct a deal with North Korea, he could walk the situation back from the brink.

[...]

[S]omehow Hill has been able to successfully sideline and silence naysayers in Cheney's wing of the national security establishment and keep them from undermining his work.

but, steve concludes with this sober caveat...

One hopes today that Chris Hill has not succeeded in securing a positive arrangement in North Korea in some sort of quid pro quo that State will acquiesce to Cheney's desire for military action against Iran.

it's about friggin' time that "patient, creative, and tough diplomacy," supposedly the first and best tool of honest and sincere governments, was given a shot, and, even better, that it carried the day... why, then, i would like to know, is it not being given a chance with iran, syria, and palestine...?

Submit To Propeller
Tweet

[Permalink] 0 comments