Ahmadinejad Wants A Meeting With Obama...

[ZenFountain]

The pitfalls of unconditional talks with Iran now become painfully apparent. If Ahmadinejad calls for talks and Obama refuses The Iranian government can back out of diplomacy altogether citing false promises. If Obama accepts it will help legitimize their rule and alienate us from the (apparently) growing moderate dissent.

It was impossible to anticipate the election fallout but I do see the merits of keeping your intentions vague until a specific course of action is decided, as opposed to talking yourself into a corner as Obama has done. I anticipate he'll now want to be vague about his intentions with Iran for as long as possible, fingers crossed hoping for them to do something incredibly rash so he can be the one to back out while saving face. I don't see how anything can be accomplished right now with diplomacy when the Iranian government's only goal will be short term political gain.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Only Nixon can go to China.

 

[Tricky]

The pitfalls of unconditional talks with Iran now become painfully apparent. If Ahmadinejad calls for talks and Obama refuses The Iranian government can back out of diplomacy altogether citing false promises. If Obama accepts it will help legitimize their rule and alienate us from the (apparently) growing moderate dissent.

I don't think talking with someone legitimizes them. It just means that you recognize them as an important factor. As for alienating, I don't think many of the dissenters really want America on their side. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, as we found out when we supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.

It was impossible to anticipate the election fallout but I do see the merits of keeping your intentions vague until a specific course of action is decided, as opposed to talking yourself into a corner as Obama has done.

Obama has not "talked himself into a corner". He has criticized suppression of protest, as almost every other country has done. What options are no longer open to him?

I anticipate he'll now want to be vague about his intentions with Iran for as long as possible, fingers crossed hoping for them to do something incredibly rash so he can be the one to back out while saving face. I don't see how anything can be accomplished right now with diplomacy when the Iranian government's only goal will be short term political gain.

Probably nothing will be accomplished, other than to make it clear that the US is not afraid to engage in diplomacy. The message of "They are afraid to even talk to us," is a bad one to send, IMO.

 

[lomiller]

Because of political pressures, Obama probably won't accept this invitation. That's kind of a shame too, because nothing can be harmed by talking, even if you don't convince anyone of anything. At least you can clarify your position, free of media spin.

He won’t be in any hurry, but not due to political pressure. Ahmadinejad is trying to present his election as being accepted by everyone including the international community. He wants this meeting because he is hoping to confer legitimacy to the election. Obama will meet with him eventually, but it’s pretty obvious he’s going to drag it out.

 

[lomiller]

I don't think talking with someone legitimizes them.

Inside Iran he’s trying to present the view that the international community is already dealing with him as the elected leader, and use that as an argument for not redoing the election. I’ve no doubt that Obama will meet with him, but timing is everything.

 

[headscratcher4]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/04/iran.ahmadinejad.obama/index.html

Something tells me Obama will be in no hurry to return his call anytime soon/
Just shows that the Iranian Government is living in another reality.

Given his situation at home...suddenly, he needs world leaders like Obama to give him some legitimacy...oddly enough, the domestic situation in Iran could make progress possible as the dictator/regime needs to be seen as accepted by the world...he's going to be starved to meet with anyone who will talk to him.

At some point we probably must talk with Iran. I think it is too soon, and I think Obama will think it is far too soon...the election there still hasn't played itself out...though it seems bad for the reformist (and, remember, the reformists in many ways are just Iranian revolutionary-lite, not pro-west, not pro-American, not pro-western-style Democracy, but Persian nationalists and Islamists of a different stripe).

I think Obama's in no rush. THe smart move is to continue to issolate the current government and deny it hard statements about it legitimacy. Make them beg to be accepted by the west.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And your proof these are the "Same" people is.,,

From the Wiki article on Mousavi:

Mousavi and his wife had an active role in the success of the Iranian revolution.[8] He was imprisoned for organizing street protests against the monarchy of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.[3][5] As the Iranian revolution neared, Mousavi, whose earliest political hero was Che Guevara,[9] became more actively involved in the struggle. Soon he joined ranks with Mohammad Beheshti, who was a close associate of the revolution leader, Ruholah Khomeini.[5]

In his speeches and in the symbolism adopted by the opposition, there are overt references to the fact that they see themselves as a continuation of the 1978 revolution.

I've also heard experts saying that many of the organizers are indeed the same people who were involved in the 1978 revolution as students, now 30 years older.

I thought this was pretty widely known. I can give you more specifics if you still doubt this point.

ETA: Ali Reza Beheshti is another ally of Mousavi's and current opposition organizer who is the son of one of the main leaders of the 1978 revolution, the Ayatollah Mohammad Hossein Beheshti (killed in 1981).

An article in The Economist says of the current opposition: "Their leaders are figures who, like Mr Mousavi, gained prominence in the early years of the revolution, but have learned pragmatism since."

I know this conflicts with your de facto support of the Current Iranian regime, but then the ability of progressives to "dooublethink" has been well established.

I do not support the current Iranian regime. I'm just pointing out the opposition is NOT promoting a secular democracy. I have a great deal of sympathy, and I hope they win without needing to have a civil war or something, but right now, Mousavi does not have a greater claim to the presidency than Ahmadinejad, whether you and I like it or not.

And on the issue of secularism vs. theocracy: I firmly believe that any government based on the Koran and sharia law cannot be democratic.

Neither the current regime, nor the opposition party Mousavi is now registering as a new political party, is in favor of doing away with theocracy.

In fact, I don't think anything his party stands far is in opposition to the current system. (N.B. I'm talking about the system, not the people in the seats of power--Khomeni's successor as Supreme Leader and the current president.)
The Iranian constitution that was put in place following the revolution that kicked out the Shah establishes the Koran as the basis of the government and courts, but it also makes fairly progressive statements about the role of women, for example.

That's pretty much the same kind of thing Mousavi stands for. I think many people here are seeing this through a filter of wishful thinking.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't think talking with someone legitimizes them. It just means that you recognize them as an important factor. As for alienating, I don't think many of the dissenters really want America on their side. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend, as we found out when we supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran.

This is an important point.

While I still think Obama's current "wait and see" position is correct, I agree that it is possible to meet with someone from the current regime without it legitimizing their actions.

ETA: Did Chavez's photo ops with Obama change anything for him?

 

[Tricky]

Can somebody tell me, does Iran currently allow a US embassy? If not, then I think Obama should tactfully point out that this is the first step to opening talks.

 

[ZenFountain]

Obama has not "talked himself into a corner". He has criticized suppression of protest, as almost every other country has done. What options are no longer open to him?

He still has all options. My point was that since Obama promised talks over a year ago for his own political gain it now disadvantages our timing as lomiller mentioned. I'm not saying Obama should not have done that, only pointing out that because of unanticipated circumstances he'll be reneging on promises by delaying or scrapping talks altogether. After seeing the Iranian regime's handling of the election that makes me uncomfortable.

 

[DC]

Can somebody tell me, does Iran currently allow a US embassy? If not, then I think Obama should tactfully point out that this is the first step to opening talks.

Afaik the US has no Ambassador in Iran atm. all negotiations and diplomatic stuff is handled by the Swiss Ambassade.

The Foreign Interests Section of the Embassy of Switzerland acts as protecting power for the interest of the USA in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

http://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/reps/asia/virn/fosteh.html

 

[DC]

This is an important point.

While I still think Obama's current "wait and see" position is correct, I agree that it is possible to meet with someone from the current regime without it legitimizing their actions.

ETA: Did Chavez's photo ops with Obama change anything for him?

Chavez's photo ops with Achmegimmejob lately cost him alot sympathies.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Can somebody tell me, does Iran currently allow a US embassy? If not, then I think Obama should tactfully point out that this is the first step to opening talks.

No we do not currently have an embassy in Tehran. From what I can tell, we handle U.S. visas and such there through the "U.S. Interests Section" of the Embassy of Switzerland. On the other side, I don't think Iran has an embassy in the U.S., and that business is conducted through the Pakistan Embassy. (I'm less sure of the latter.)

ETA: I see Dict. Cheney has already provided this info.

That reminds me that the U.K. has a much tougher issue with this question of dealing with the current Iranian regime. I just read that Iran released one embassy worker, but is still holding another, who is an Iranian national.

 

[DC]

No we do not currently have an embassy in Tehran. From what I can tell, we handle U.S. visas and such there through the "U.S. Interests Section" of the Embassy of Switzerland. On the other side, I don't think Iran has an embassy in the U.S., and that business is conducted through the Pakistan Embassy. (I'm less sure of the latter.)

ETA: I see Dict. Cheney has already provided this info.

That reminds me that the U.K. has a much tougher issue with this question of dealing with the current Iranian regime. I just read that Iran released one embassy worker, but is still holding another, who is an Iranian national.

Not the Visas

US-Visas are not issued by this Section. Visas may be applied for from a neighbouring country, e.g. Turkey or UAE. For Visa-information consult the websites of the consulate in Ankara or Dubai (Link see below).

people like to joke about it here : "we are the mailman for the US in Iran"

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Chavez's photo ops with Achmegimmejob lately cost him alot sympathies.

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

That's the point that's being made here--not that a meeting between Obama and the Ahmadinejad would hurt Obama politically, but that it would somehow give a U.S. seal of approval to the recent elections and "backstab" the popular opposition to the current regime.

Just like having relations with China somehow communicates blanket approval to human rights abuses there. I think if we only had meetings with nations we completely approved of, we would be completely isolationist.

 

[DC]

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

That's the point that's being made here--not that a meeting between Obama and the Ahmadinejad would hurt Obama politically, but that it would somehow give a U.S. seal of approval to the recent elections and "backstab" the popular opposition to the current regime.

Just like having relations with China somehow communicates blanket approval to human rights abuses there. I think if we only had meetings with nations we completely approved of, we would be completely isolationist.

the problem is, some people will see it as a legitimisation, like some did it in the case of Chavez. Aslong this is only some right wing nuts that will make some youtube videos and rant about it, it will not do any harm. but when the iranian protesters see it as Backstabbing? i dunno.

If achmed wants to talk, i guess he knows Obama's phone number. they can talk there without any media attention.

 

[headscratcher4]

IT seems to me that the equation is pretty clear here. Achmed. wants international legitimacy. Obama wants to stop or severely slow Iran's ability to develop nuclear missles. Achmed.'s need for legitimacy at the moment is most pressing. It should suggest that concessions are possible. At the same time, the underlying issues that have forced Achmed's need for international legitimacy remain, and nothing Obama or any other world leader can do will take that away...in short, the Iranian state is either becoming a complete dictatorship or Achmed is so weakened that sooner or later the Iranian powerstructure will either collapse or be thrown into what is essentially a civil war.

In any event, it would seem that all would mean that the Iranian nuclear effort would be undermined either by negotiation or because internal strife forces the regime to focus on staying in power (which, in turn, continues or intensifies its internatinal issolation).

So, Obama likely will, at some point, talk to Iran and to Achmed. But methinks Achmed's going to have to do a lot of begging and backing-down to get this to happen.

In practically everyway I can think about it, if OBama waits, he's pretty much in the cat-bird seat.

 

[DC]

wrong topic :/

 

[MattusMaximus]

Can somebody tell me, does Iran currently allow a US embassy? If not, then I think Obama should tactfully point out that this is the first step to opening talks.

There is no U.S. embassy in Iran now. I think yours is an excellent suggestion.

 

[lomiller]

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

Keep in mind there is a big difference between legitimizing the regime and legitimizing the election. Not all government are legitimately elected but for all functional purposes they are still the legitimate government in that you must deal with them if you want to deal with that nation. You may need to hold your nose a bit, bit in the long run it doesn’t pay off to simply not talk to them.

In this case Ahmadinejad is specifically trying to build a case in Iran that the election results must be accepted as legitimate because the international community already accepts them. I see no value in Obama playing into this.