A Failed Diplomatic Outreach to Tehran

From the desk of A. Millar on Wed, 2009-07-01 08:50

A few days ago Tehran expelled Britain’s diplomats and arrested some of the British embassy’s local staff. The semiofficial Fars news agency suggested that the latter had played a “significant role” in recent protests, inferring that Britain herself was fermenting unrest inside Iran. Britain’s Foreign Secretary David Miliband has responded, however, saying that the suggestion was “wholly without foundation.” And the Czech EU presidency has also said that, “The harassment or intimidation of foreign and Iranian staff working at the EU embassies will be met with a strong and collective EU response.”
 
Speaking last year at ‘The Second Stage: Building Democracy in a Posttotalitarian World’ conference [video] hosted by The Hoover Institute, Richard Perle remarked on the difficulty facing diplomats working in authoritarian regimes. “It is almost always the case,” he said, “that encouraging [human] rights where they do not exist will not improve the relationship [between the diplomat’s nation and the other] – at least not in the short term – but will complicate it and even worsen it, so there is a natural resistance to doing what needs to be done to encourage human rights on the part of the diplomatic establishment.”
 
Yet, Perle would have the US encourage human rights in other countries, regardless of such difficulties, and perhaps especially in Iran. Tehran, he observed, is “an unpopular regime,” and there is “potential” for real change inside the country. However, Perle also pointed out the lack of contact between the US and the Iranian dissident movement, calling the US’s broadcasting efforts “feeble.”

A year on, the West’s support for Iran’s dissidents has, at times, come close to pathetic. And NewsMax.com is even reporting that, “[…] the Obama administration […] has zeroed out funding for pro-democracy programs inside Iran from the State Department budget for fiscal 2010, just as protests in Iran are ramping up.”
 
President Obama has made his presidency about healing the supposed rift between the US and the so-called “Muslim world.” And to his credit, Obama did speak about human rights and even women’s right at Cairo last month. This was an undoubtedly bold move, and one that is to be welcomed. But his outreach has been largely, mistakenly, directed towards the regimes, rather than the people.
 
Earlier this year, he openly pushed for Turkey’s entrance into the EU, claiming that these had been brought together by “Centuries of shared history, culture and commerce.” Yet most Europeans would undoubtedly disagree that the connections between Turkey and Europe are anywhere near as significant as those that have linked current EU member states.
 
But, perhaps more importantly, Obama ignored the fact that the Muslim majority country is governed by the Islamist The Justice and Development Party (AKP), and that there is widespread concern in Europe over the possibility of the country joining the EU. Turkish citizens have also protested against their government’s push toward greater Islamification of the state, with its attempt to ban the selling of alcohol in some regions, and its annulling the university headscarf ban.
 
A few weeks ago Obama sent a letter to Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei, indicating the administration’s willingness to talk with Tehran.
 
No doubt partly as a consequence of such outreach, his response to the violent crackdown on peaceful protests was bewilderingly weak. Taking questions from the press early on in the crisis, Obama commented, “[…] I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran's leaders will be; [and] that we respect Iranian sovereignty […]” After which, comments about being “rightly troubled” by violence against civilians are more or less redundant. Tehran can only have got the message that the US poses no serious threat to the regime, regardless of its actions or genocidal ambitions.
 
But, by his own admission, Obama believes that the best way to prevent Iran from going nuclear is through “tough, hard-headed diplomacy – diplomacy with no illusions about Iran and the nature of the differences between our two countries.” Yet if overtures to Tehran have meant all but ignoring violence perpetuated against Iranian citizens, then being friends with the regime must mean acquiescing to a nuclear Iran, turning a deaf ear to threats to wipe Israel off the map, and to more and more accommodation of Islamic fascism.
 
Reaching out to dictators at the expense of those under their control that want democracy and freedom is a strategy that will not pay dividends, and, over the last few months, it has only put freedom further on the defensive. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s barefaced demand that Obama apologize for supposed meddling in Iran is no doubt an embarrassment to the US administration. But it cannot be a complete surprise, coming, as it does, on the back of Hamas and Hezbollah demanding more accommodation of their positions – on Israel in particular.
 
However, the West was shocked by the murder of music student Neda Agha Soltan [video], and by other scenes of violence against unarmed Iranian citizens. And as yet more photographs and footage of police and gangs of Basij thugs attacking peaceful protestors surface in the West, so Obama is afforded fewer and fewer options. His outreach to Islamic fascists looks increasingly like a failed policy.
 
“There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks,” Obama has said. “The violence perpetrated against [the protestors] is outrageous. We see it and we condemn it.”

Failed Diplomatic Outreach too ?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Fri, 2009-07-31 01:21.

On a not unrelated matter I find it interesting and somewhat hypocritical to see how Obama can turn a blind eye to recent events taking place at Camp Ashraf, when only a short while ago he was condemning the Ahmadinejad regime for perpetrating similar violence on the streets of Tehran.

 

visit: www.lvb.net  (English section).

 

see: Iraqi army raids Iranian opposition camp.   

Is Obamatopia only intended for some? The few and not the many? And, if that's the case, whose job is it to decide who the few shall be?

Re: Obamatopia

Submitted by atheling on Fri, 2009-07-31 04:23.

A911, Obama was very late in condemning Ahmadinejad, which was done only after a firestorm of criticism he received from the more conservative press and a vocal opposition. The siren songs of his Obamatopia policies put himself between Scylla and Charybdis: does he support the Iranian people, which would firmly alienate him from the Iranian government and end his quest for peace in the Middle East? Or does he support Ahmadinejad pursuant to the "dialogue" he opened right after he took office, in callous disregard for the will of the Iranian people?

In his naivete and historical ignorance, he was blindsided by the sheer brutality of this regime, rendering his empty promises during the campaign all the more absurdly unrealistic.

I have heard conflicting stories about Camp Ashraf, so I cannot make a judgment about whether he is correct or not in his silence. But then, foreign policy is not something he enjoys. He likes to focus on ruling at home. *pained expression*

@Atlanticist

Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2009-07-12 21:51.

Yes, I read your comment directed at KO. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain to me why you directed that comment at KO, and not me, the person who asked you for clarification on this matter in the first place. By the way, if you don't mind me saying so, it was a good "starting point", but it requires further elaboration.Q: Are you prepared to further elaborate? (I'd be happy to receive that further elaboration directly, or via KO, but that is entirely up to you).

Probably because unlike you, KO earned my respect. Of course I could elaborate but I'm a bit confused here about your attitude. When you write that I must earn your respect to be treated like serious partner to discussion , I think that you don't really want any answer. The question arise whether you are willing to stop being arrogant toward myself. I will not bother only to listen to your old song yet again.

@atheling

Monarchist - You deserve the ridicule. So far, you have been unable to properly explain your position without making yourself look like a fool or an elitist.

This is funny how you claim that I look like a fool. Perhaps you should look at the mirror or read what you have wrote above? You basically admit that I explained my position from elitist point of view. You don't accept such explanation. While this is impossible to do it otherwise, because what is one could think absolutely logical, every monarchist is an elitist! You expect something impossible, thus you will never be satisfied reading my replies.

@Capo

Unlike this one from Atlancitist your question is too general, I could write a book. Sum up everything that I have wrote in this forum and read books that I recommended and then perhaps you will see how. :)

Monty Python was never popular in Poland, this is true. This doesn't mean that Poles lacking sense of humour, simply mostly they don't share British sense of humour. (this is not obligatory, I recently checked) Nevertheless I managed somehow to not point this out all the time since I joined this community, until now when I think that personal remarks crossed the line of civilized debate.

Monarchist- Humour US

Submitted by Capodistrias on Sun, 2009-07-12 19:46.

I would very much appreciate a short summary of the monarchist solution you propose for the world's ills. Why? I don't dismiss Europe's monarchial tradition out of hand, I think you are right there were some positive aspects to it. I simply would like more from you, as I think Marcfrans at least once requested very politely, that would provide some specific, practical explanation of how that tradition might be re-introduced into European polity. For instance, I understand there are problems with the Spanish monarchy's blood line but I thought for sure you might posit some role for the Spanish monarchy in saving Spain from its current course of self-destruction on which S. Koren recently wrote.

 

As for Atlanticist being a smart-ass, please recognize that comes with being British and their right as the lord protector and guardian of the English language, I know from the Irish perspective we consider Brit and smart-ass as synomous, and any Irish Thesaurus will have that entry, though many a smart-ass Irish editors leave out the 'smart.'  ;-)

You might also better appreciate Atlanticist's slash and burn humour. Humour is a very little appreciated force in understanding why some nationalities tend to come out on top in History. Why do you think the Brits and Russians, (and the Americans) have done so well thru the years. They produce great comedy. You know I love the Poles, literally I married one, and I grew up among them, but the Poles sometimes suffer from a humour deficeit. Hard to blame them stuck in between the Germans and the Russians, but still lighten-up will you? Humour us. Explain how monarchy can help save Western Civ. The Poles have done it more than once , so you really have no excuse. Unless you are really a Russian playing another brutal prank to perpetuate dumb pollock jokes? 

 

You basically admit that I

Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-07-12 22:42.

You basically admit that I explained my position from elitist point of view.

I admitted no such thing. You have yet to answer the questions that marcfrans, Atlanticist911, and others have asked you regarding how a "benevolent" monarchy can sustain itself, since it is a hereditary system and benevolence cannot be inherited. You have yet to refute all the historical examples we have provided you regarding the abuses of a monarchist system. This leads me to assume that you're simply an elitist, and a lazy one, at that.

You don't accept such explanation.

Provide one!

While this is impossible to do it otherwise, because what is one could think absolutely logical, every monarchist is an elitist! You expect something impossible, thus you will never be satisfied reading my replies.

You haven't provided anything satisfactorily. What is hilarious is how a pleb like you can assume an elitist attitude, deploring the hoi polloi, of which you are a part, which makes you a hypocrite and a self loather.

Therefore, why would anyone take your ideas seriously?

Bitter truth (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2009-07-12 17:37.

Yes, I read your comment directed at KO. Perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain to me why you directed that comment at KO, and not me, the person who asked you for clarification on this matter in the first place. By the way, if you don't mind me saying so, it was a good "starting point", but it requires further elaboration.Q: Are you prepared to further elaborate? (I'd be happy to receive that further elaboration directly, or via KO, but that is entirely up to you). 

 

FYI:  I have "respectfully disagreed" with several BJ posters in the past. Peter  VDH, and Mr Scarborough to name but two. The difference between Peter and Mr Scarborough and yourself (and kappert) is that they have earned my respect. They have stated their positions clearly, honestly and  without evasion. When you (and kappert) learn that simple lesson believe me you will BOTH get the respect from me you duly deserve.

Blackmail (aka) ??? (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2009-07-12 15:11.

You are a monarchist (of sorts) who either won't, or more likely can't explain how he would seek to achieve his theoretical objective. I fail to see how stating this simple truth could possibly  be construed as "blackmail",but if you say so...

And here's another simple truth you need to get your head around. By your own inaction  you have chosen to withdraw in confusion, humiliation and defeat, and in a  democracy it is your right as an individual to make such a complete and utter ass of yourself which you have. Goodbye. 

 

A bitter truth

Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2009-07-12 16:48.

To answer to your insanities I must lower myself to your level for a moment. Unfortunately people like you don't understand otherwise.

Like nearly every forum this website consist from two kinds of posters. The first group is able to respectfully disagree, especially if they claim to share similar values. Second group consist from self-concentrated smart-asses who cannot resist from making personal remarks and just love to discuss about certain posters among themselves in the same time avoiding to address them. This is something that I hate the most, their unjustified self-content and complete lack of culture of posting. You my dear Atlancicist belong to the second group. You pretend to be 'funny' smart-ass but in fact you are nothing else than Leninist's 'useful idiot' in conservative camp.

As far as my unwillingness to answer to your question in this topic, who would like to discuss with such arrogant? An arrogant who for sure read my previous posts on this issue and claims otherwise now. An arrogant who seems to read everything on TBJ but still failed to notice (or maybe is intellectually too weak to figure this out? ) that I mentioned this issue in my reply to KO few days ago commenting under other article.

Conclusion is that you must change your irritating attitude if you have any intention to discuss with me seriously.

A Bitter Straw Man

Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-07-12 17:39.

Is more like it.

Monarchist - You deserve the ridicule. So far, you have been unable to properly explain your position without making yourself look like a fool or an elitist.

No one is being arrogant here - except for a certain wannabe kingmaker.

@ Monarchist

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2009-07-06 23:14.

"I explained my vision at least twice on TBJ".

 

If that statement is true you shouldn't have any trouble explaining it again for a third time. So, explain it again, or withdraw in confusion, humiliation and defeat. Either put up, or shut up, the choice is yours and yours alone.

???

Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2009-07-12 11:14.

You can blackmail me only in your dreams!

no regards here,

Monarchist

Nice try (2)

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sun, 2009-07-05 11:38.

@ Monarchist

 

"I explained my vision at least twice on TBJ".

 

Well, who'd of node it?  If what you say is true, here's the solution, just 'publish' the relevant nodes in response to this post and (if you can't, or you won't)  be damned.

@Atlanticist911

Submitted by Monarchist on Mon, 2009-07-06 22:13.

I discussed mainly with marcfrans and atheling and they should remember something. These are probably two years old posts I think. You are free to check out my posting history if you are interested. Why should I waste my time?

Nice try...

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Sat, 2009-07-04 18:05.

@ Monarchist

 

"If new members have any questions then I will answer to all questions as usual".

 

Really? Ok then prove it. Let's pretend I'm a new BJ member and I'm asking you my question for the first time. What's the answer?

PS If you prefer, I could always change my username, like you did, and ask the question again using my new username. Your choice.

Happy Birthday America! Down with necons and other leftists!

Submitted by Monarchist on Sat, 2009-07-04 17:36.

I fear that Atlanticist already became the British marcfrans. Praising a neocon and registered Democrat V. Hanson, who voted for Bush because he hate Muslims? Such people would be surprised that somebody recommend them even on forums of conservative websites.

As far as monarchy is concentrated, I explained my vision at least twice on TBJ. You both are old members who read comments regularly. I don't really have desire to repeat myself already knowing about your irrational dislike of monarchy. If new members have any questions then I will answer to all questions as usual.

Thank You, Monarchist

Submitted by atheling on Sun, 2009-07-05 06:59.

For the Independence Day wishes.

However, I had to laugh at the use of your term, "irrational dislike of monarchy".

If anyone is "irrational" about monarchy, my dear, it is you.

Atlanticist911, marcfrans and I have all given you historical and empirical facts about the problems with a monarchy, yet you persist in your unthinking belief that somehow, that system will solve your political problems. You have yet to EVER provide any thoughtful, rational answers to support your belief. Indeed, it has become somewhat of a joke, and I have had many chuckles reading the bantering between you and others here, particularly with A911, who regularly beats you with a logic stick.

I would have to conclude that you are simply obtuse and lazy. Only an obtuse person refuses to look at facts honestly. Only a lazy person believes in a political system in which a king makes all the decisions, rather than the citizenry.

Hopefully there are not many in Poland who share your delusion.

@atheling

Submitted by Monarchist on Sun, 2009-07-05 11:10.

Yes, your trio is worth each other. This is very hypocritical of you to make such comments like below. The only stance that you expect from myself is to recognize supposed superiority of democracy over monarchy. No other position would satisfy your democratic mentality. Neither of you ever bothered to analyse my criticism of democracy. While I criticized this political system from many perspectives. Simply this is impossible to convince you using rational arguments because democracy it is new secular religion.

You support political system that, what every honest conservative should admit, destroying concept of family based on Christian values. It disgust me so much reading how supposed conservatives praising neocons. You have an issue with Mullahs and I say that Mullahs despite that they worship false religion and chose unhealthy model of the state are morally superior to rotten evil represented by neocons. If we talk about intellectual laziness, so called war on terror belong to political fiction as the war against global warming. It also belong to serious delusions as the war against the wind, of course unless one make profits out of this demagogy.

Deluded (2) too

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2009-07-01 21:41.

@ Monarchist

 

You repeatedly tell us who and what you are against, and what you are for, and in which direction you'd like to go and the rest of us to follow, but you have yet to offer any form of 'road-map' explaining how you propose to get there.

@A911

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2009-07-01 23:27.

Nor does he respond to the valid questions regarding the history of aristocratic oppression, and how the "line" of his dream monarchy will continue.

"...any dream will do..."

deluded mullahs

Submitted by Monarchist on Wed, 2009-07-01 21:13.


Speaking last year at ‘The Second Stage: Building Democracy in a Posttotalitarian World’ conference [video] hosted by The Hoover Institute, Richard Perle remarked on the difficulty facing diplomats working in authoritarian regimes. “

 

This is even funny how many problem Mullahs brought on themselves.  They  decided to establish theocratic state, this is stupid but let ignore this factor for a moment. Their greatest mistake was to allow elections and popular voting. Really, what the hell they thought?? Not only this is difficult to keep such regime if you make yourself dependent from decisions of majority. They also made themselves to be target for different kind of other creatures like above mentioned neocon. Now when they see that they must keep this regime possibly by rigging elections, they gave them opportunity to attack. Mullahs should be wary to avoid mistakes made by Saddam, he gave too many occasions for his enemies to justify their invasion in eyes of their own (I mean "western") taxpayers.

Excellent analysis

Submitted by PatriotUSA on Thu, 2009-07-02 07:40.

A great summary and analysis that I had not read yet. Thanks Atlanticist911! This administration is a train wreck at home and the laughing stock of the world.

@atheling

Submitted by KO on Wed, 2009-07-01 18:23.

Check out Caroline Glick's excellent, wide-ranging analyses of the Messiah's foreign policy on www.carolineglick.com.

So far this administration is a leftist farce. It is the West Wing, for which my wife coined the subtitle, "The Importance of Being Important."

What is his foreign policy?

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2009-07-01 18:13.

Ogabe's muddled foreign policy does have a pattern:  a tendency to side with authoritarians, making him a statist.  He is timid with corrupt regimes, citing an unwillingness to interfere with them, yet insists that Israel refrain from building settlements - a breathtaking hypocrisy which demonstrates his antipathy towards Jews.

In America, the lasting image of Neda's bleeding body is juxtaposed with our Dear Leader eating an ice cream cone for a photo op that weekend - which sums up the essence of his style of "leadership".