The False Hope Of Iran Part One

The FACTS you are NOT hearing.

Hey folks,

OK. While the False Messiah is attempting to turn our Country into the new USSA, the ignorant, self delusional, intelligentsia of this country want him to go talk with Little Hitler. Some in this country actually believe that he will be able to smile and wave his hand and Ahmadinejad will just love us.

Look at this piece by Time.com - The Different Ways the U.S. Can Talk to Iran

President Obama says he'll talk to Iran if Tehran "unclenches its fist"; President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says Iran is open to negotiations but only on a basis of "fairness and mutual respect". Both men's coded conditionals are a reminder that, after three decades of mutual hostility, talking won't be easy. TIME tapped a number of Iran experts for perspective on some of the key questions facing U.S.-Iran diplomacy:

{Laughing} "Experts" OK. Let's see what they have to say.

When Should Talks Begin?

Conventional wisdom holds that Obama should wait until after the Iranian presidential election in June before making an approach. With any luck, Ahmadinejad will lose — perhaps to his more moderate predecessor, Mohammed Khatami, who has a history of reaching out to the West. Even if Ahmadinejad is reelected, Khatami's mere entry into the fray may force him to open up, says Ali Ansari, an Iran expert at London's Chatham House. "The one thing Khatami can deliver is better relations with the U.S. Ahmadinejad will want to cancel that out, by saying, 'I can do that, too.'" (See images of the anniversary of Iran's revolution)

Pipe dream. Little Hitler is not going anywhere.

But other experts say it's pointless to wait for the June vote, not least because its outcome is entirely unpredictable. "American attempts to game out Iranian politics, to try and determine who is on top, is doomed to fail," says Hillary Mann Leverett, a former Iran expert in the State Department and the National Security Council. She argues that U.S.-Iran talks should not be linked to personalities, saying they'll only be meaningful "if they are about issues, about substantive things."

The election, in fact, does not even decide who ultimately rules Iran: Executive power rests not with the President, but with the clerical Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Since his personal clout won't be affected by the elections, the best time to start talking is now, the argument goes. And speedy talks would also allow Obama to use some of the political capital from his election (or at least what remains after the tug-of-war over the stimulus package) to persuade the American public that a rapproachment with Iran is a good idea.

More completely incorrect information here. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is nothing more than a figurehead. Kind of like the way the Pope is seen in this country. Little Hitler runs the show. Make no mistake about it.

To Whom Should the U.S. Talk?

A direct conversation with the Supreme Leader may not be feasible in the short term, but one expert who has advised the Obama Administration on Iran policy argues that the U.S. can still talk over Ahmadinejad's head to Khamenei. "We should aim our rhetoric at Khamenei," says the expert, who asked not to be named. "He will decide whom to appoint [to talk with the U.S.]."

WRONG!

Mann Leverett, who conducted secret negotiations on behalf of the Bush Administration with the Iranians between 2001 and 2003, says her Iranian counterparts made sure to report to Khamenei, or his trusted advisers, before and after every conversation with U.S. officials. She points out that two former foreign ministers — Ali Akbar Velayati and Kamal Kharraji — are among Khamenei's trusted advisers. Both men have had some experience in dealing with the West.

Who Should Do the Talking for the U.S.?

This could be a problem area. Obama's planned point man on Iran is Dennis Ross, who served as Mideast envoy to both George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Ross takes a hawkish view of dealing with Iran, emphasizing the coercive diplomacy of sanctions. Ross himself was not available for interviews, but his position on Iran is well know. He has long argued for ramping up economic pressure on Tehran, telling TIME in 2007 that "if Iran thinks it is actually going to be cut off economically, which has not been the case in the sanctions so far, then you have a chance to change their behavior."

NO WE DO NOT! Ahmadinejad has come right out and said, and is PROVEN to be correct, that NO sanctions, nor anything else that the US or anyone in the World are, can, or will do, will stop them from obtaining the Nuclear Technology that they are seeking.

What Should They Talk About?

The big-ticket topics are clear enough. The U.S. wants Iran to drop its nuclear program and to stop backing radical groups like Hamas and Hizballah. Iran insists on its right to a nuclear energy program, and wants an end to economic and financial sanctions and guarantees that the U.S. will not seek regime-change in Tehran.

NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN!

But some Iran experts say it's best to start small, building confidence and a more positive dynamic by seeking cooperation in areas of overlapping interest. Afghanistan, says Karim Sajadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, "is the perfect [issue on which] to commence the dialog." Like the U.S., Iran doesn't want to see the resurgence of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda; both those groups subscribe to a radical Sunni view that regards Iran's Shi'ism as an abomination. (Iran nearly went to war with the Taliban in 1998 after the militia's forces murdered eight Iranian diplomats and a news reporter in Afghanistan.)

Iran also shares the concern of Western governments about the vast quantities of opium pouring across the porous border with Afghanistan; drug addiction has grown steeply among Iranians.

And there's certainly a recent precedent for such cooperation: Iran and the U.S. cooperated to bring down the Taliban after 9/11, and continued to quietly work together for more than a year afterward on efforts to stabilize the Karzai government in Kabul.

Seriously? Complete Bunk. Iran did and ARE supplying the Taliban and others that are killing our Soldiers with finance and weapons. {Sigh}

Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, is reported to favor enlisting Tehran's help in the war against Afghan drug lords and their supply routes. That would be a smart call, says Sajadpour. Once fruitful dialog and cooperation has been established over drugs, he says, "then you can gradually expand the scope [of talks] to include nuclear issues, Hamas and Hizballah."

Stupid.

Not all Iran experts agree, though, that such small-bore cooperation will lead to meaningful discussion on the big issues: nukes and terrorism. Mann Leverett warns that such cooperation will fail unless accompanied by talks with "a comprehensive agenda, leading to a rapproachment and a strategic understanding between Iran and the U.S."

Leslie H. Gelb of the Council on Foreign Relations believes the Iranians won't even be interested in small accommodations, and will likely hold out for more substantive discussion. That's because the Iranians have been down the road of small-bore cooperation with the U.S. before, most recently on Afghanistan, and have invariably been left with nothing to show for their efforts. "They'll wait for a [broader] conversation," he says. Only after comprehensive talks begin, Gelb says,"can there be individual acts of cooperation by each side, to show good faith."

All of this would be good if Iran, more importantly Little Hitler himself, wanted anything from us. They don't. They do not want money, land, concessions. Nothing. They want us and Israel dead. We have nothing to negotiate with. They want nothing from us.

I'll be right back with part two. Some interesting facts that you most likely have not heard.
Peter

Sources:
Time.com - The Different Ways the U.S. Can Talk to Iran