As you point out, they must agree to negotiations, and they will agree to negotiations. It may not happen, as they are quite skillful at finding insult and it certainly won’t be without preconditions. One might even read the above statement as preliminary to talks.
As you’ve been advocating talks, I would like you to state what you think could be achieved by them.
The Leveritt thesis is further out that Uranis. But there must be some common ground on this planet.
Please tell me where you think it could be.

You have no basis for believing the Leveretts’ plan is further out than Uranus, and they have a massive amount of evidence that it’s realistic — Hilary Mann Leverett in particular negotiated with the Iranians on terrorism issues from 2001 to 2003, and maintains contacts with them to this day. It should be the goal of American foreign policy toward Iran to work out a grand bargain with the Iranians: normalized relations, a guarantee against U.S. attack, in exchange for a verifiable end to the nuclear program, productive relations with the Iraq and Afghanistan governments, and acquiescence (meaning the end of arms shipments to Hamas & Hezbollah) to an Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Massively ambitious, yes. Entirely a process of shooting the moon. Will probably take 10 years, if at all. And it could fail. But every other policy toward Iran has failed already — isolation, dual containment (with Iraq), half-hearted attempts at subterfuge — and large-scale military action against the Iranians would be something America has a first- or second-tier interest in avoiding. All else (in the responsible sense of “else”) has already failed.

Furthermore, the Leveretts’ proposal has absolutely no downside. If it doesn’t work, we’re no worse off than before.

I’m not sure if we’re quite understanding each other. I wasn’t asking you about the Leveretts’ ideas. I was asking about your own thoughts as to what might be achieved in now talking with the Iranian government, and I wasn’t thinking of fruits ripening over decades. I don’t suggest that slow progress is inconsequential nor do I seek to demean such progress.
I am interested in knowing if you think anything good is possible in a year or two.

Putting to the side, for the moment, the politicians in Iran, Spencer, how might you think that the Iranian people would react to a less belligerent US? (Bearing in mind, if we are to be honest, that our treatment of Iran, for some decades, was not and has not been praiseworthy.)

they don’t care about us except that we are israel enablers. not much will change except we can watch them closer. it’s better.

Actually, there is reason to think that the Iranian people are not monolithically anti-American, (remember there is a jewish component among them) and my Iranian friends (many of whom had family members who suffered at SAVAK’s whim, when we had far more ’suasion’ in their country) assure me that there is a strong pro-Ameerican sentiment, especially among the younger, more well-educated populace.

I think that is worth considering (and shaping some aspect of ‘policy’ around).

But then all of a sudden, the U.S. elects a president who says he wants to negotiate without preconditions

uggg

et tu akerman?

by having “preconditions” in the first place you would have had to negotiate

there is no such thing as “negotiating with preconditions” unless you negotiated without them in the first place

Digg

agreed. i do not worry about the young. however, push to shove brings those folks together. no more sabre rattling, etc.

I have to confess, california, that “young”, now that I’m not, seems ‘older’ all the time.

So when I say ‘young’, I don’t, necessarily mean twenty-something.

;~D

Won’t Israel go out of its way to sabotage talks between U.S. & Iran?

i don’t mean 20 something either. those not in power i don’t worry.

many groups will, of course. they know first hand of the level of hate.

And then Obama will have to prove his Israeli bona fides. I’m not optimistic. But I shall wait to see. One of my favorite sayings (that I violate all the time) is: no reason to get anticipatory anxiety. There will be plenty of time to worry about it later.

i personally don’t think it is a problem with an acceptable solution. best we can do is keep it from a war. maybe.

Does anyone know what the new leadership in Isreal is going to look like. It has looked for a long time that AIPAC is more beligerant than Israel and anyone who might question them is instantly labeled as antisemetic. If we had a decent press in this country maybe these guys would be forced to moderate.

There is utterly NO reason for a war with Iran.

‘Twould be insanity compounded.

No, I think out more difficult ‘problem’ is the Israeli equivalent of neo-cons (and their knee-jerk supporters in OUR Congress).

Of course, I hoping that Obama ‘gets it’ and isn’t all gung ho for ‘diplomacy’ by ‘other means’.

If there is to be a war then we shall either have ’started’ it or ‘allowed’ it to happen. Neither of which would endear us in the eyes of MOST of the rest of the world.

At this point, THAT consideration definirely matters.

actually, i meant a war in the region. but, yes, war with iran would be insane for us. congress is our problem for sure. i don’t have a solution for the neo cons either.

Oh, I think the Grand Solution is easy as pie if all the vested interests (i.e., the pols versus the people) wouldn’t try to torpedo it. As the Iranians are no longer interested in the Grand Solution (agree with the premise of the post), it is entirely up to Obama to resist pressures against it and cajole Iranian hard liners into it. Think that would easily be possible (what do I know?) if that’s what Obama thought was in his political interest (as opposed, and I mean opposed, to the good of the U.S.), and I think he’ll be as interested in keeping Iran an enemy to preserve his personal political options, while keeping up a facade of pretending to negotiate.

Iran is in a terribly weak position. No bomb to prevent a U.S. invasion, a horrible economy & energy industry owing to sanctions, and now they don’t even have sky high oil prices to bail them out. We are blessed to have an “enemy” as weak as that, and if the U.S. can’t negotiate a succussful agreement, then the U.S. is a moron. So Iran’s regional influence has increased as a result of the U.S. invasion of Iraq. But the region is a mess, so what good does it do them?

Israel is in no position to sabotage talks between the US and Iran. If the US tells the Israelis to shut the hell up, they will do just that.
They have their hands more than full with the Iranian proxies around them and have plenty to gain in said talks.
They would have a hell of a time trying to label the Obama administration as anti-semitic.

Hmmmmm.

A little brain-finger synapse collapse is goin’ on.

Actually, ‘qwerty’ and I are at (temporary) loggerheads … I scraped all the letters off the keys, have programmed random letter selection and just let muh fingers do the talkin’ … wud yuh frink? Party gud fer random poundin’, mebbe?

You know the reason ‘they’ went with ‘qwerty’ was simply to slow the typists down; now that’s never been my problem, so I have to wonder.

Isn’t there a better way?

Douglas Adams once had a fine riff about that …

Iran is stronger militarily than what you are suggesting. It wouldn’t be a cake walk and no we wouldn’t be treated as liberators.

well, you have just described a country like iraq that we DID invade and occupy. weak doesn’t do it. all you have to do nowadays is say you have wmd and you get bombed. maybe now the next admin will ignore such threats. but we still have 60 some days for bombing to start.

I was not trying to make the case for a U.S. war. I offered the lack of bomb merely as statement that Iran would feel a lot more secure if they had it, i.e. for its emotional influence. In a real war, Iran would have a lot to lose (and the U.S. would lose its army, but that’s another topic).

you say israel will do what we say? not. they have their own agenda. where you been the past 70 years?

I disagree with every sentence in your comment. Think Israel sabotages whatever & wherever they want at the drop of a hat. The U.S. will never tell Israel to STFU. The “Iranian proxies” (Hezzies & Hamas might differ with you about that) don’t seem to be doing much harm to Israel at the moment. Labeling Obama anti-semitic would be a cakewalk (since they’ve already labeled him a Muslim).

Well Obama is a pollytishun, so his ‘pragmatism’ may well not jibe with ours …BUT he must be wise enough not to go around kicking hornet’s nests to just to impress any ol’ body.

I dunno, and I guess we’ve got to wonder when we haven’t a clue as to whether the Democrat chosen is even part way as looney (and avaricious to have his ‘frens’ enriched by some war-profiting) as the Thug we still gots to deal with …

We is left with audacious, I say audacious ‘hope’, ain’t we?

it is sad to say that is ALL we have now. got to be better than the man man though.

sorry mad man. you knew that.

I never said nor implied that Obama would kick any hornets nests. I specifically suggested that, on the contrary, he would pretend to negotiate while placating the anti-Iran forces.

Raising once again the age-old Q of whether lip service is better than any service at all.

is binladen a hornet? he wants to go after him. that sounds like trouble to me.

I view that as complete & utter bullshit campaign talk. Do you remember the photo of about a couple dozen U.S. special forces lumbering up the sides of mountains in Afghanistan looking for him? I fell off my chair laughing. It’s impossible to find anyone in those mountains. Or the U.S. could bomb some more wedding & funeral parties. Don’t know whether O is dumb enough to do a lot of that.

I assume that U.S. is unable to get intelligence on where he is (if he still is). If that changes, I’d be perfectly happy for O to kick that particular hornet’s nest.

Israel will do whatever it does quietly.
I think that Obama’s chief of staff will vociferously refute charges of anti-Semitism and will seek retribution from anyone leveling such charges.
And I don’t think that this administration will hesitate to use it’s leverage over the Israelis and that includes an overt scolding if needed.

Les jeuz sont fait.

eCAHN!

Didn’t mean to appear to suggest that you thought Obama was into ill-considered entomological adventure, since I think him wise enough to chose which bugs he goes after.

Actually, I was agreein’ with you AND appreciatin’ your perspective.

;~D

I do not say or imply that Israel will do what we say, I am saying that they will not publicly challenge Obama any time soon.

Ooops. I think I meant Les jeux sont fait.

Bartoo’s qwrty problem coupled with my inattention to detail.

OK. Sorry to misinterpret your response. Hard to do nuance & snark in typing.

Got 30 pages of a whodunit written by a Russian about the Russian-Turk war of 1877 to finish.

‘Tain’t us, its qwerty!/s

Underscores the stupidity of McCain’s “oh my god he will negotiate without preconditions” meme.

Wanker.

possibly the best way to effect regime change in tehran would be to jump-start negotiations next february, and make the ayatollahs look like they’re dragging their feet.

promise lots of aid to iranian citizens, travel to the u.s., anything. when the mullahs don’t take the bait, stir up the populace, and keep stirring until the next round of iranian elections.

stupid? maybe, but not nearly as stupid as bombing iran with 140,000 of our troops like sitting ducks next door in iraq.

I’m more positive about Iranian American relations than many. I’d say that it would be easier for a U.S. President to deal with the Iranians than, say, Cuba? Iran doesn’t have significant constituents in the U.S. Issues surrounding Cuba do.

That having been said, I’m hoping for a thawing with Cuba too…after all, Obama won in Florida without Cuba being an issue, right?

Normalization with Cuba will come soon. The Cuban revolution achieved what it could and is spent.
I think that the Iranian regime believes that it will be able to spread it’s ideology and influence for many years.