Ahmadinejad Wants A Meeting With Obama...

[headscratcher4]

"I see no value in Obama playing into this..."

There is no short term value or immediate imparative. However, at some point it is valuable leverage. Obama is not going to change the nature of the regime there, regardless of how illegimiate it is. The point is that Akmed. needs international recognition to bulster his image, NOT to stay in power. He's in power and likely to be there for a while unless a real revolution breaks out. He needs Obama, Sarkozy, etc. right now, not the other way around. Thus, concessions will be available. Believe me if, down the road, a true revolution breaks out the US won't pay much of a price for backing the wrong horse here because a). we're not important, really, to the political dynamic in Iran (in fact, our support for anything would be poison, so why not give some help to the bad guy?); b). it potnetially buys us time by slowing down Iran's nuclear development.

Again, this shouldn't happen tomorrow, and there should first be some stronger economic sanctions and issolation by the West. However, eventually, we should deal with Iran, and the way this is currently playing out, Obama can do so from a position of far greater strength.

Think about it for a moment...suppose Musavii had won? The dynamic might have been for him to be even more intransigent than Achmed. has been just to prove his revolutionary bonefides and so negotiation with him might actually have been far more difficult than negotiating with a severly weakened Achmed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"
The point is that Akmed. needs international recognition to bulster his image, NOT to stay in power. He's in power and likely to be there for a while unless a real revolution breaks out. He needs Obama, Sarkozy, etc. right now, not the other way around. Thus, concessions will be available.
<snip>
Think about it for a moment...suppose Musavii had won? The dynamic might have been for him to be even more intransigent than Achmed. has been just to prove his revolutionary bonefides and so negotiation with him might actually have been far more difficult than negotiating with a severly weakened Achmed.

Good point.

Do you think Ahmadinejad is likely to give way on nuclear inspections and so on in exchange for the appearance of being more legitimate (or bolstering his image or whatever)?

If so, that's a pretty strong argument to engage with him sooner.

 

[headscratcher4]

I think it depends. If they're really building a bomb...the last thing they want is inspectors. And, if they're really building a bomb, I'll bet they'll try to wait it out because once you've got a bomb the world comes to you.

On the other hand, the Iranian economy is a real mess and the recent election has only made things worse. Achmed. needs to obtain some sort of international recognition just to relieve some of the economic pressure the government is under. I would suspect that his greatest fear at the moment is that the economy plus the unhappiness of a large swatch of the population who feel the elections were a cheat, means he is sitting on a powder keg. He needs to get international recognition of his presidency, also, so he can crack down (and harder than already has) on reformists and be viewed by the world as the "legitmate" government (and, legimate governments have a right to protect themselves, so goes the argument).

I'm not suggesting he won't crack down further without international legitimacy...they've historically shown an ability to do so without fear of international rehtrebution. Rather, things are a little different today. Oil is down (though up a bit recently), the internal economy is crap, the political situation is unstable, he needs to present a face as the legitimate leader of Iran and quickly.

Obama, on the other hand, given the facts on the ground should be in no rush to come to the table. I think he should come eventually, but I simply don't see that he need to be in anything like a rush under present circumstances.

 

[marksman]

ETA: To JoeTheJuggler

Even if he did, there's not reason to trust such assurances. Ahmadinejad is looking for a solution to a transient problem. He needs some legitimacy to convince sufficient people that to oust him now would cause Iran more long-term damage than short. Once he's had enough time to secure his position, he can go back to grandstanding against the West.

Meeting with Ahmadinejad right now gives him the leverage he needs right now.

I say, wait six months. In six months we'll know if there will be change, either through ouster of Ahmadinejad or some pragmatism by an incumbent Ahmadinejad who realizes he needs to be nicer to the West in order to keep stability in Iran. Alternately, in six months, we'll see if we have the same ol' Ahmadinejad as before the election. Either way, we'll know more realistically what we can expect from discussion from Iran. Right now, Iran is too fixated internally to trust anything they say to us.

 

[lomiller]

He needs Obama, Sarkozy, etc. right now, not the other way around. Thus, concessions will be available.

Ahmadinejad needs meetings, he doesn’t need agreements so he has no incentive to actually offer any concession or stick to them if he does. In truth he doesn’t have the power to follow though on any concessions to begin with.

Conversely, there is a lot to gain by Obama publicly saying he isn’t going to take any sides in Iranian internal affairs. The specter of outside interference has played a big role in holding the ruling clerics together, and binding them to the hardliners. If Obama can successfully paint Ahmadinejad as the one trying to gain the support of outsiders more cracks are likely to emerge and it becomes more likely the ruling clerics will actually go along with some type of agreement.

There is of course a limit, Obama can’t say the election is still an ongoing debate in Iran forever. Sooner or later Ahmadinejad will be able to leverage it, so as I said before timing is critical.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Good points also, marksman and lomiller.

On top of those considerations, I doubt very much that Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad before the situation with the UK embassy worker is resolved.

I tend to agree with "wait and see" for now, but maybe not for very long.

Realistically, Ahmadinejad is not going to be ousted --at least not any time soon-- so as lomiller says, the current election issue won't be an issue for very long. But it might not be such a big leverage point anyway.

 

[geni]

My question was about Obama meeting with Chavez. Did that "legitimize" Chavez (any more or less than before)?

Not comparibible. There is no question that at the present time Chavez is both legimately the de jure and de facto leader of Venezuela. There is little that we can do to change this short of an invasion.

While Ahmadinejad is the de facto and at this point probably the de jure President of Iran it suits the wests interests not to acknowlage this for the time being.

The issue is appearing rather more dirrectly with Zelaya and Honduras at the moment.

 

[DC]

Not comparibible. There is no question that at the present time Chavez is both legimately the de jure and de facto leader of Venezuela. There is little that we can do to change this short of an invasion.

While Ahmadinejad is the de facto and at this point probably the de jure President of Iran it suits the wests interests not to acknowlage this for the time being.

The issue is appearing rather more dirrectly with Zelaya and Honduras at the moment.

sadly enough there are enough people in the US and in the world that actually do belive Chavez is NOT legitimate president of Venezuela. they do actually belive he is a Dictator.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21445.html

 

[funk de fino]

Or a legitimate president who acts like a dictator.

 

[MG1962]

Not comparibible. There is no question that at the present time Chavez is both legimately the de jure and de facto leader of Venezuela. There is little that we can do to change this short of an invasion.

While Ahmadinejad is the de facto and at this point probably the de jure President of Iran it suits the wests interests not to acknowlage this for the time being.

The issue is appearing rather more dirrectly with Zelaya and Honduras at the moment.

But with Zelaya, wasnt he removed as an act of the country's Supreme Court? Would not that action alone (Assuming it is constitutional) Legitimise the incomming government?

 

[DC]

Or a legitimate president who acts like a dictator.

yep i forgot those twats
like the twats that belived Dick Cheney acted like a Dictator

 

[DC]

But with Zelaya, wasnt he removed as an act of the country's Supreme Court? Would not that action alone (Assuming it is constitutional) Legitimise the incomming government?

Did Dictator MIcheletti of Honduras plan elections?
or does the people now have no say anymore who their president shall be?

 

[MG1962]

Did Dictator MIcheletti of Honduras plan elections?
or does the people now have no say anymore who their president shall be?

Yes apparently the new presidential election was due in Nov and is being moved up to July.

 

[DC]

Yes apparently the new presidential election was due in Nov and is being moved up to July.

the only thing i read is that the new government is open for early elections, some even mentioned they would be open for a National referendum to reinstall Zelaya.

but nothing concrete sofar.

 

[MG1962]

the only thing i read is that the new government is open for early elections, some even mentioned they would be open for a National referendum to reinstall Zelaya.

but nothing concrete sofar.

Well it seems constitutionally they would be going to the polls in Nov anyway. I agree the July date seems a little difficult given the obvious adminstrative turmoil going on.

The thing is Micheletti would not have become president if vice president Santos had not resigned from his post, because he was next in line. I believe western media is being a little one sided in this issue

The congress voted to remove Zelaya and begin inpeachment, the Supreme Court ruled against his constitutional change and the army said they would stick with the majority government.

The thing being buried is that Zelaya was trying to ammend the constitution in areas that by law can not be changed. In this instance, extending the terms a president can serve.

In the US if any president tried to mess with say the 1st ammendment without going through the mechanisms provided for change in the constitution, the people, congress, everyone would run him out of town so fast his head would be spinning.

Obviously the ball is in Micheletti's court - if he acts as a caretaker government till November, pushes these elections hard and supports whatever result they throw up. Then the people can be happy with what has occured. Till he fails to do any of that - I think the level of comment against him is uncalled for

 

[DC]

Supreme Court ruled against his constitutional change

what constitutional change? there was non, they just wanted to ask the people if they want to change it at all. and that was considered illegal, and Zelaya ignored that decision.

when he proke laws, you trial him, not just kick him out of the country.

to mee it looks like the oligarchy turned amok because they feared the people will take the power into their own hands like it was in Venezuela.

why wasnt Bloomberg exiled? he asked to remove the term limit.

 

[DC]

Well it seems constitutionally they would be going to the polls in Nov anyway. I agree the July date seems a little difficult given the obvious adminstrative turmoil going on.

The thing is Micheletti would not have become president if vice president Santos had not resigned from his post, because he was next in line. I believe western media is being a little one sided in this issue

The congress voted to remove Zelaya and begin inpeachment, the Supreme Court ruled against his constitutional change and the army said they would stick with the majority government.

The thing being buried is that Zelaya was trying to ammend the constitution in areas that by law can not be changed. In this instance, extending the terms a president can serve.

In the US if any president tried to mess with say the 1st ammendment without going through the mechanisms provided for change in the constitution, the people, congress, everyone would run him out of town so fast his head would be spinning.

Obviously the ball is in Micheletti's court - if he acts as a caretaker government till November, pushes these elections hard and supports whatever result they throw up. Then the people can be happy with what has occured. Till he fails to do any of that - I think the level of comment against him is uncalled for

To what country was Horny Bill exiled after his impeachment?

 

[MG1962]

Supreme Court ruled against his constitutional change

what constitutional change? there was non, they just wanted to ask the people if they want to change it at all. and that was considered illegal, and Zelaya ignored that decision.

The constitution says you can not have the referendum in the first place. Congress and the Supreme Court both ruled he could not do it. It is puzzling why he was shoveled of to Costa Rica, and the lack of sources or comments about this is annoying.

 

[DC]

The constitution says you can not have the referendum in the first place. Congress and the Supreme Court both ruled he could not do it. It is puzzling why he was shoveled of to Costa Rica, and the lack of sources or comments about this is annoying.

I still didnt find a full english translation of the Honduras Constitution.

but found this interesting.
http://themoderatevoice.com/37619/about-that-referendum-in-honduras/

 

[MG1962]

I still didnt find a full english translation of the Honduras Constitution.

but found this interesting.
http://themoderatevoice.com/37619/about-that-referendum-in-honduras/

I would love the UN or some such organisation to create an online library of national constitutions.... It would make these discussions a lot easier

That is an interesting and well balanced article, and I think I would conceed the reaction to the Presidents motions was a little strong handed. However given we are in a bit of an information vacuum regarding Honduran politics it is hard to say with surity

I did find this

http://countrystudies.us/honduras/87.htm

Its a description and critisim of the workings of the Honduran Supreme Court.

I did find this interesting

One frequent criticism has focused on the executive branch's dominance over the judiciary. Because a new Supreme Court is appointed every four years with the change in the presidency and because the executive essentially controls the selection of the justices, the judiciary is largely beholden to the president.

So effectively the court bit the hand that feeds it - Unlike the US systems where the judges can have widely varying political views to those held by the executive, seems in this model, the executive directly appoints them them.

Finally in defense of actions that have occured, it is important to note that the party in power were the ones to remove him from office, so this is not even a regime change, but simply changing the name on the business cards.