Iran’s response was tepid. It didn’t help that Shimon Peres sent his own message that called for the toppling of the Iranian government. What do you think?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
I like to see it. If he stays consistent and vocal, this will do wonders in restoring the Iranian people’s perception of us. Problem is that matters little.
IMHO, the best way to topple their regime is through theological dismantling of their interpretation of Islamic Law – remove their legitimacy on their own terms.
We are in no position to do that directly, but if we continue to engage and reward other nations in the Western economy, eventually that voice should arise on it’s own.
What one can do about the development of nukes is the tough nut, but perhaps forcing that issue now is less productive than promoting the hopefully peaceful modernization of their regime’s ideology and economy:
Do we fear China’s nukes?
It is not your business to topple anyone’s regime by any means. And you’ll just make another great huge mess if you try.
Stop trying to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries. You don’t have the right, you have no clue what you are doing, and it will never end well.
Are you saying that the US shouldn’t positively engage with other regional powers through trade and diplomatic moderation to set a broad range of positive exemplars for routes to a mutual self-evolution to allow a cooperative relationship?
Because that’s what the comment says.
I think the use of ‘Topple’ set of a knee jerk.
If you think that US disengagement from the region is going to happen, then I apologize for your future frustration: our energy supply is issue #1 for us obviously and we can only hope to deal with that honorably in the future instead of acting like desperate junkies with 30 cents and a Saturday Night Special. No doubt we have a lot to learn.
But we are going to be in Iran’s face for daring to try to become energy sufficient and self-sufficient and we’ll use the bogey man of nukes to justify whatever we eventually decide to do. Scary stuff!
Nothing is stopping this train, but we can get it to the station on a different track: I am just hoping that those American obsessive goals, which will be pursued if we like it or not, might be achieved peaceably.
I totally feel your more purist approach to what ‘should’ be going on, and I hope you understand that I do try to start from there as well but am trying to be practical.
It’s hard to turn this scorpion into a frog, but I believe we can get it across the river just the same.
No, what I am saying is that the United States and its citizens should overcome their compulsion to try to determine how and by whom other states are governed. Period.
There is no need and no reason for the United States to try to topple the Iranian regime by any means or method. In fact, there is strong reason to believe that by now the regime in Iran would have been replaced or evolved into something different – or at least be much farther on its way – if the U.S. had kept its fingers out of the pot. In the mean time, if Iran is the enemy of the United States, it is because the United States has made it an enemy, and worked hard to maintain it as such. The Iranian regime has sent numerous signals over the decades that things could be different if the U.S. so chose.
PS There is no evidence that Iran is developing nukes, and an abundance of strong evidence that it is not.
I was and continue to be intrigued by your reference to “theological dismantling of their interpretation of Islamic Law”. Specifically what interpretation of what part of Islamic law are you referring to, and how, specifically, does it affect the United States’ satisfying its energy needs?
Shimon Peres is a perfect, narcissistic ass. The NY Times front page on line headline says that Obama and Peres reached out to Iran, as if they did it together, maybe as if Peres told Obama to get out the Israeli message. What a bunch of gangsters. And this is just the beginning. What a bunch of stupid asses in the U.S. Let Israel dictate the terms. Anyway, Obama’s stunt is meaningless without substance. You can be sure the Iranians aren’t that impressed with him. What do you have to offer, Mr. Obama? Peres and Obama in the same breath as in the NYT should be an indignation to every U.S. person. But it is not. Israel is the master.
mean that the leadership in Iran doesn’t want Iranians to listen too closely or build up hope based on Obama’s words?
It might mean that they are
“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, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization. And the measure of that greatness is not the capacity to destroy, it is your demonstrated ability to build and create.“
Given the U.S.’s rich history, particularly in the last eight years, of the liberal use of terror and arms to destroy and kill, and Iran’s nearly three centuries of far more peaceful behaviour, those remarks are deeply ironic as well as insulting.
So the Iranians were given the honor of the good cop O. and bad cop P. treatment, how dare they be so ungrateful. Never mind that there is also the reliably dimwitted new chairman of the Senate Foreign Dimwit committee, John Kerry, running around telling interviewers right and left that he believes Syria will dump Iran and Hezbollah and cast its lot with that bastion of righteousness called the West.
“Nice” US presidents have been especially bad for Iran: Sweet old Ike engineered the overthrow of the democratically elected Iranian government by the clique around Reza Pahlavi in 1953, and in 1980 sweet Jimmy Carter engineered the attempted invasion of Iran by CIA posterboy Saddam Hussein.
both “nice” and also bad for Iran? Seems like the guys who followed him (Reagan, Rumsfeld, Ollie North, etc) were the ones so bad for Iran…
Check your facts. It was Carter and Zbignew Brzezinki who greenlighted Iraq’s attempted invasion of Iran, not the team that followed.
“By their fruits you shall know them”.
Interesting, thank you. Carter is generally portrayed as kind, if a bit out of touch.
Taking our place among the community of nations, how about if we destroy ninety-five percent of our nuclear weapons and various delivery systems. That would still leave us with five hundred city busting bombs. That ought to be enough.
How about if we force our client state in the Mid East, Israel, to ratify the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty. Which treaty Iran has already ratified. If Israel does not do this, then, we just cut or eliminate all the military and economic aid we provide them.
How about we apologize to Iran for enabling the Shah to overthrow a freely elected democratic leader in 1953, Mohammed Mossadeigh replacing his regime with one known for its savage terror and torture. While we are at it, we could compensate Iran for the petroleum our oil giants stole from their fields.
How about the United States withdraw from Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and promise to abide by Geneva Conventions on peace and war as well as closing Gitmo immediately.
How about we be a good neighbor to all nations of the world who mean us no harm and who seek to live in peace and justice. And, who want to prosper from their own natural resources.
How about we live up to our own values and our own sacred documents like the Bill of Rights and the Constitution?
How about we respect the humanity of every individual on this planet. When we do this, and all the other actions mentioned above, then, we can lecture Iran about acting with responsibility. Until that point, I think we should hold our tongues and control our unbelievable arrogance. We need humility, desperately, before the Gods destroy us utterly.
Obama delivers an articulate, rational, mature, respectful greeting to a major Middle East country. It sure as hell beats Bush not even knowing the difference between Shiites and Sunnis the month before invading Iraq. And it sure as hell beats Rumsfeld’s “stuff happens” as the cultural heritage of humanity’s first civilization was looted and destroyed.
Newsflash: “Newsflash,” as a form of cutting sarcasm, is and has long been played out, done to death, banal, depleted.
Typically used in an attempt to reveal the cluelessness of the addressee, its effect tends to be the opposite of the one intended.
Best avoided. Goodnight.
By the way, I largely agree with the substance of your post, but the “Newsflash” sarcasm has got to go.
Most of Obama’s speech was reasonably respectful. He appeared to be approaching Iranians, including the Iran government, as equals. It was very refreshing and a good move as long as it is followed up by like actions.
The part where he gave Iran a little paternalistic lecture about how the United States wants Iran to take its place in the community of nations, but Iran would first have to change its ways and start to behave properly was disrespectful. It was also hypocritical as hell given the United States’ history of using terror and arms and destroying as opposed to building as compared to Iran’s far more peaceful history.
He could easily have omitted that little paragraph, and if he had the speech would have been a home run, maybe even a grand slam. His choice to put that paragraph in the speech diminished the value of the communication.