US and Iran Presidents Exchange Letters

Black Swan

Reuters/Yahoo reports today that Iran President Hassan Rouhani and US President Barack Obama have been exchanging letters towards a resolution of poor relations between the two countries since Rouhani's successful election. Formal diplomatic ties had been cut since 1980 after Iranian students took hostages from the US embassy. Is this the beginning of direct positive diplomacy between the two nations, or what?

The two leaders may meet for the 1st time face-to-face, according to the The Guardian.

Christ the Redeemer

Meanwhile Israel's Netanyahu urges more pressure on Iran and will meet later this month with Obama and has a speech for the UN. There's no way that man will allow diplomatic warming to happen between the US and Iran. Iran would be a very good ally to have in the region and that can never be allowed to happen.

http://world.time.com/2013/09/17/israel-calls-for-new-pressure-on-iran/

Jonny7

Possibility they could meet at the UN next week

Rouhani was a well respected and skilled nuclear negotiator, I reckon he could get sanctions removed for transparency - everyone benefits.

Both sides have their own tyres to drag, the US with a hawkish Israeli cabinet and Rouhani with the hardliners

Amerika

Now might not be the best time given the US handling of the civil war in Syria. Something I recently read that represents a lot of what the American people now feel IMO:

Iran must know: We will not tolerate a rogue regime obtaining weapons of mass destruction. Or, maybe we’ll tolerate it, but we won’t tolerate those weapons actually being used. More than once. Or a few times, as long as they’re small-scale attacks. But if you use them once in a large-scale attack, then you’ll be staring at the firm possibility of a U.S. attack. Unless Vladimir Putin comes up with a plan that gets us off the hook from having to follow through at the eleventh hour.

As the US is not at war with Iran, I think it would be fine to have some level of diplomatic dialog. But they must all be handled carefully, cautiously and with skepticism. From the same article:

Iran looms large in the American consciousness as a potential threat for lots of reasons — decades of anti-Americanism starting with the hostage crisis; international terrorist attacks spanning years; eliminationist antagonism and Holocaust denial towards Israel; abundant media coverage of its meddling in Iraq to undermine the U.S.; and the simple fact that a key enemy building nuclear weapons is a nightmare scenario for the public, especially as Iran’s missile program becomes more sophisticated.

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/16/obama-to-iran-just-because-my-red-line-for-syria-was-unserious-doesnt-mean-my-red-line-for-you-is/

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

surely the iranian anti americanism started when the american govt. overthrew a democratically elected iranian government and installed a dictator...

Christ the Redeemer

It did. Strangely, though. America still enjoys a much better public opinion in Iran than any other muslim majority nation. But Americans demand Iranians love their government too, despite the atrocities brought on them by a string of corrupt administrations.

Jonny7

Christ the Redeemer wrote: »

It did. Strangely, though. America still enjoys a much better public opinion in Iran than any other muslim majority nation. But Americans demand Iranians love their government too, despite the atrocities brought on them by a string of corrupt administrations.

Actually most Iranians don't "hate" the US as much as we think.

Many of them are a hell of a lot more pissed off with the exploitation of those events by Khamanei, the hardline clerics and their private armies which directly affect their lives. The religious rules that have crept into what used to be quite a liberal country. The censorship, the corruption and the stone-age judicial system.

Countries move on by dealing with reality rather than clinging to the past - this is something we know enough about from our own history.

If Obama and Rouhani want to reach out to each other this is a very good thing.

Christ the Redeemer

Jonny7 wrote: »

Actually most Iranians don't "hate" the US as much as we think.

Hence my point. They despise your government but generally like Americans.

Most Iranians would take the mediocre freedoms they enjoy right now than the bull**** warzone the country you cheer for in international affairs would bring them any day.

Jonny7

A little less of the stab-in-the-dark presumptions.

I've lived with Iranians and the line was always the same - they are more concerned with their own shiatty government and the state of their own country. They are tired of the corruption, unemployment and religious authoritarianism.

If they wanted further confrontation wit the US they would have voted for the candidates who promised this - but they have overwhelmingly voted for the moderate.

Cork boy 55

Maskirovka by the Khomeninis cult

Nothing more than deception campaign to cover the home run for the Nuclear weapons program which they intend to use to destroy Israel from their bases in the Lebanon.

They know Obama is weak and an appeaser and won't attack the Deception is aimed at populations and governments to deny Israel political and military aid for an operation against them as they race down the home run.

Their behavior since they have seized power and especially their full scale support for Terrorism, Fascism, democide and chemical massacres in the levant
shows they cannot be trusted with the bomb.

There can be NO negotiation or appeasement only a military solution is possible
The destruction of their Nuclear program until the secularist awakening collapses political Islam.

Black Swan

As a follow-up to the exchange of letters, Iran President Hassan Rouhani may be setting the stage to encourage a meeting with Obama at the UN, as well as a major change in his country's diplomatic position by the recent release of several political prisoners.

clairefontaine

I think we need toi make friends with Iran to get off Saudi oil dependence. The money for jihad comes straight out of Saudi and we are paying for it by continuing to buy Saudi oil and because of OPEC. Saudi wants to remain dominent with oil supply as well as being the centre of Wahabbisim.

And we need to do more drilling on our own territory.

Black Swan

Media reports continue to speculate upon an historic meeting between Iranian president Hassan Rouhani and Obama during the forthcoming UN meeting. The presidential leaders of both countries have avoided face-to-face meetings since before 1980.

Positive: Letters + Meetings + Negotiations + Agreements + Trade Relations = Peace

Hopefully!

Amerika

Does President Obama channel his inner Neville Chamberlain, or stay firm on sanctions because Iran refuses to slow its efforts to enrich uranium (the key step in the production of nuclear weapons)? Rouhani's smiley-faced moderate rhetoric doesn’t negate the fact that true power in Iran remains in the hands of Ali Khamenei, whose decree becomes reality. Also, Rouhani has a history of deceiving the international community and bragging about it. Common sense dictates the Iran’s intentions should first and foremost be viewed as merely a ploy to buy time for Iran to achieve development of a nuclear weapon. Iran’s refusal to cooperate with U.N nuclear inspectors being the best evidence to support the contention.

Obama can talk with Rouhani I guess, but negotiations of this kind should be handled at the state department level, and the leaders meet only when the deal is done… unless one has a towering strategic advantage (which I don’t see).

BuilderPlumber

Hopefully, Iran and the US can form normal relations. Unfortunately, hardline factions in both countries for years have been kind of set up a unique arrangement where they were officially enemies but in reality strange allies because one could not do without the other to justify themselves: when the US ran out of real enemies, they could justify arms budgets by mentioning Iran and when any form of protest movement against Khamenei and co happened in Iran, the regime could then say it was US-backed and a foreign plot to take down the Iranian government.

In recent times, we have seen a lot of events conspire to make the situation of today happen. Back in 1979, it was not set in stone what type of regime would ultimately triumph in Iran once the Shah was gone. Obviously, the Americans made sure it was not going to be a communist one so they allowed a religious one to take hold. But the 1979/1980 regime in Iran poured out mixed signals and contained the weak and indecisive (Ayatollah Khomeini), hardliners (ironically, this included future moderate Rafsanjani as well as the Ali Khamenei faction then called the Islamic Republican Party) and moderates (Bani Sadr, Bazargan). For whatever reason, Saddam then invaded Iran and that militarised the regime thus seeing the rise of and respect for the Revolutionary Guards who consolidated power around Khamenei (who was often seen in the 1980s dressed as a military leader and not a cleric!!).

However, by 1988/89 the country had enough of the war and isolation and had to end it in order to survive. Of course, 1989 was the year of mostly velvet revolutions in many of Iran's neighbours to the west (ironically, the only violent revolution in communist Eastern Europe was in Romania and Ceaucescu's fate related to Iran's inability to give him oil and Ceaucescu was in Iran the week before he was killed). Iran's new leader Rafsanjani wanted some of this action and while in the past sick Khomeini was a handy scapegoat for the real powers to blame, now dead Khomeini was useful for this purpose (fatwas cannot be reversed and so on, even though it was Rafsanjani and Khamenei and not the increasingly poorly Khomeini who had most of the power in the 1980-89 period and made most of the rules). Rafsanjani presented himself as a kind of Iranian Gorbachev, reversing many economic policies and granting minor social freedoms.

Unfortunately, Rafsanjani's overtures were not taken notice of by the US, who at this stage were entirely focused on their new and more immediate enemy, Saddam Hussein. The Iraq/Kuwait situation and the post-war containing of Saddam took Iran off the agenda and the US was indifferent to it and ignored both positive and negative statements from it.

In 1997, Rafsanjani's presidency came to an end and the even more moderate Khatami came to power. As his presidency progressed, he increasingly clashed with Khamenei who turned more and more to non-cleric hardliners and the revolutionary guards. However, Khatami opened up his country and relations with the West and even the US were normalising.

BUT then 9/11 happened. At first, it brought Iran and the US together: neither had any love for the regime in power in Afghanistan. But, then the Axis of Evil speech and that ended all attempts by Khatami to engage. It also consolidated the rise of Abadgaran, an ultra nationalist group of technocrats and builders who not only opposed Western imperialism but also had a secret agenda to topple clerical rule in Iran!

But Abadgaran was useful for Khamenei at the start and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad from that faction was seen as a protege. But Ahmadinejad became a contradiction in terms and his bizarre mix of both moderate and hardline rhetoric confused everyone in and out of Iran (was it meant to?). Like previous presidents, he advocated greater social freedoms but the regime was not having any offering of greater political freedoms whatever about social freedoms. By 2009, Ahmadinejad was a divisive figure and the infamous election that year nearly ended up in civil war.

By 2011, Ahmadinejad felt that clerical power in Iran and the need for a supreme leader who was infallible were not set in stone as the status quo. His protege Mashaei was groomed as successor. But Khamenei, who also halted Khatami's lessor challenges to his authority, was having none of it and Ahmadinejad was sidelined and poor relations between the two developed. By 2013, Khamenei was not having any Abadgaran candidates for the presidency and - apart from Jalili - most the candidates were relatively moderate with the most moderate actually winning.

Now, Khamenei allowed this to happen as again his very political survival rests on a more moderate policy to develop. From 2002 to 2013, Iran and the West had its worst relations since the early days of the revolution. He knows this is not sustainable and for now, Rouhani is given full support.

The West should normalise relations and set in place a transition period where Khamenei can live out his days and then perhaps have a new setup arranged where the position of religious leader is given Qom as a Vatican like city state and Iran then is ruled as a federal republic akin to Germany. At present, everyone even Khamenei is playing ball and events will develop that will point Iran in the right direction.

For years, events like the Iraqi invasion, namecalling after 9/11, etc. helped negativity to develop in Iranian politics. Hopefully, the current efforts won't be scuffled by hardline Western and Israeli rhetoric. At present, the Israelis are the only hardline voice and a moderate Israeli leader (who does not get assassinated or end up mysteriously in a coma like former Israelis heading in a moderate direction!) is also much needed at the moment.

Jonny7

Rouhani and Obama talking by phone

baby steps

Black Swan

Friday after the phone exchange with Obama, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani twittered about their conversation. They appear constructive.

czx

Black Swan wrote: »

Friday after the phone exchange with Obama, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani twittered about their conversation. They appear constructive.

Thanks for the update

cyberhog

I think we should keep the tweeting in perspective.

Here's a few words from Rouhani's speech at the UN General Assembly.

Palestine is under occupation; the basic rights of the Palestinians are tragically violated, and they are deprived of the right of return and access to their homes, birthplace and homeland. Apartheid as a concept can hardly describe the crimes and the institutionalized aggression against the innocent Palestinian people.

http://publicintelligence.net/iran-un-speech-2013/

But the US doesn't speak out against the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Obama is more concerned with trying to soothe Israel's fears on Iran.

President Barack Obama sought on Monday to alleviate Israeli anxieties about his new diplomatic outreach with Iran, insisting that he would still consider “military options” if he felt they were necessary to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.

Israel also doesn't want any enrichment taking place in Iran.

Israel wants Iran to stop all uranium enrichment, remove enriched material, and suspend activity at its underground enrichment facility in Fordow, near Qom, and the heavy water plant at Arak. It fears that a compromise which falls short of its demands will leave Iran within easy reach of developing a nuclear weapons capability that would permanently alter the strategic balance in the Middle East and could in time also threaten other regions.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a318ed02-29f5-11e3-9bc6-00144feab7de.html


Whereas Rouhani said at the UN the world must accept Iran's nuclear rights.

..acceptance of and respect for the implementation of the right to enrichment inside Iran and enjoyment of other related nuclear rights, provides the only path...

But Israel is clearly not willing to compromise on that issue.


So Obama had some nice words with Rouhani and then was quickly back to reassuring the Israelis that he is still ready to bomb Iran. Under the circumstances I think it's unlikely negotiations will work. I fear they'll just keep going round in circles until war breaks out.

BuilderPlumber

cyberhog wrote: »

I think we should keep the tweeting in perspective.

Here's a few words from Rouhani's speech at the UN General Assembly.



http://publicintelligence.net/iran-un-speech-2013/

But the US doesn't speak out against the collective punishment of the Palestinian people. Obama is more concerned with trying to soothe Israel's fears on Iran.



Israel also doesn't want any enrichment taking place in Iran.



http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a318ed02-29f5-11e3-9bc6-00144feab7de.html


Whereas Rouhani said at the UN the world must accept Iran's nuclear rights.



But Israel is clearly not willing to compromise on that issue.


So Obama had some nice words with Rouhani and then was quickly back to reassuring the Israelis that he is still ready to bomb Iran. Under the circumstances I think it's unlikely negotiations will work. I fear they'll just keep going round in circles until war breaks out.

What is BADLY needed is a moderate Israeli president. Netanyahu is overall weak, corrupt and dull, subservient to the military dictate and just overall too set in his ways to be the reformer Israel needs.

Rouhani is a great president and doing his best to reform and repair Iran. Obama wants to solve it diplomatically too, so that leaves Israel as the one remaining contender to moderate its views and come up with a solution.

Another Middle East war is the last thing the world needs. Iran is very stable and peaceful compared to its neighbours and should be left to remain so. It is also heading in the right direction and a peaceful transformation of its political, social and foreign policies under Rouhani should be allowed to succeed. We had that chance with Khatami and we did not take up that offer, allowing hardline forces to consolidate power in Iran afterwards.

I am pie

Here's the thing, does the US want a stable progressive Iran or do they need a regional bogeyman more?

BuilderPlumber

I am pie wrote: »

Here's the thing, does the US want a stable progressive Iran or do they need a regional bogeyman more?

They actually need both! Iran offers stability and progress that the US badly needs so the US could choose another bogeyman: a poorer but still strategic country.

CS Hasuki

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

They actually need both! Iran offers stability and progress that the US badly needs so the US could choose another bogeyman: a poorer but still strategic country.

The new bogeyman for the US are right wing conservatives, vets & gun owners.

BuilderPlumber

CS Hasuki wrote: »

The new bogeyman for the US are right wing conservatives, vets & gun owners.

That would be a healthy bogeyman for the US! Why? Because it is internal. Rightwing conservatives as epitomised by the Tea Party are advocates of a failed politics (their stance is basically what we call austerity here plus an aggressive, warmongering foreign policy akin to the Bush era).

Regarding reforms: yes, both the US and Iran need serious reform and it is much talked about. At present, both countries are trying to implement reform. However, we rarely hear a need for Israeli reform, which is every bit as important. For close to 70 years, Israel has been drenched in violence, aggression and tension and people there are sold this all our neighbours hate us and we need to fight them thing. Unfortunately, any leader of Israel who deviated from this stance was executed by hardline elements. Ariel Sharon's coma is very very strange too: just happened after he spoke out against settlements and had a peace deal in the pipeline.

nagilum2

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

That would be a healthy bogeyman for the US! Why? Because it is internal. Rightwing conservatives as epitomised by the Tea Party are advocates of a failed politics (their stance is basically what we call austerity here plus an aggressive, warmongering foreign policy akin to the Bush era).

Regarding reforms: yes, both the US and Iran need serious reform and it is much talked about. At present, both countries are trying to implement reform. However, we rarely hear a need for Israeli reform, which is every bit as important. For close to 70 years, Israel has been drenched in violence, aggression and tension and people there are sold this all our neighbours hate us and we need to fight them thing. Unfortunately, any leader of Israel who deviated from this stance was executed by hardline elements. Ariel Sharon's coma is very very strange too: just happened after he spoke out against settlements and had a peace deal in the pipeline.

Regarding the first para, you are conflating two ideologies. Most tea party types are not at all in favor of any kind of foreign military intervention.

BuilderPlumber

nagilum2 wrote: »

Regarding the first para, you are conflating two ideologies. Most tea party types are not at all in favor of any kind of foreign military intervention.

Aren't the Tea Party types the successors to George W. Bush?? If they are not in favour of war anymore, is that their way of apology for that mess called the Iraq war?

CS Hasuki

BuilderPlumber wrote: »

Aren't the Tea Party types the successors to George W. Bush?? If they are not in favour of war anymore, is that their way of apology for that mess called the Iraq war?

No. Tea Party was founded by Ron Paul, conservative. They want non-intervention, small government, responsible fiscal policy.

Well in theory. Some argue Tea Party has been hijacked by the RINOs (republican in name only) eg 99% of current republican party.

Jonny7

Iran nuclear talks starting today

Looks fairly positive so far. The Iranians would be happy with a deal in 6 months, so not much should happen over next 2 days, but expect some foundation to be laid. Very different from the deadlocked talks under previous leadership.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Iran nuclear talks starting today

Looks fairly positive so far. The Iranians would be happy with a deal in 6 months, so not much should happen over next 2 days, but expect some foundation to be laid. Very different from the deadlocked talks under previous leadership.

Russia says 'no reason to break into applause' after Iran talks

AFP - Russia's chief negotiator on Iranian issues warned Wednesday there was "no reason to break into applause" after the latest round of talks on Tehran's disputed nuclear programme concluded in Geneva.

"Things could have worked out better."

Ryabkov said the distance between the positions taken by Iran and world powers on the issue "can be measured in kilometres, while the progress we are making can be measured in single steps".


He said the main outstanding difficulty concerned "the lack of a general understanding about sequencing? -- a reference to Iran's insistence that Western states revoke their unilateral sanctions before the Islamic republic scales back its uranium enrichment drive.

World powers insist that sanctions can be lifted only after Iran halts enrichment to high levels and opens unfettered access to its nuclear facilities.

http://www.france24.com/en/20131016-russia-says-no-reason-break-applause-after-iran-talks

So not so different from previous talks. Both sides still hold intractable positions that make achieving a solution an impossible dream.

Brian?

clairefontaine wrote: »

I think we need toi make friends with Iran to get off Saudi oil dependence. The money for jihad comes straight out of Saudi and we are paying for it by continuing to buy Saudi oil and because of OPEC. Saudi wants to remain dominent with oil supply as well as being the centre of Wahabbisim.

And we need to do more drilling on our own territory.

What about investing in technologies that reduce the need for oil?

Brian?

CS Hasuki wrote: »

No. Tea Party was founded by Ron Paul, conservative. They want non-intervention, small government, responsible fiscal policy.

Well in theory. Some argue Tea Party has been hijacked by the RINOs (republican in name only) eg 99% of current republican party.

Ron Paul did not found the Tea Party.

It sort if grew out of the remnants of his 2008 campaign. But realistically it was bred by the Koch brothers and other corporate interests.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

Brian? wrote: »

Ron Paul did not found the Tea Party.

It sort if grew out of the remnants of his 2008 campaign. But realistically it was bred by the Koch brothers and other corporate interests.

is there any bogeyman the left doesn't automatically blame on the devilish koch brothers?

and oooh, "corporate interests". that does it, right in the feels.

Brian?

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar wrote: »

is there any bogeyman the left doesn't automatically blame on the devilish koch brothers?

This is quite a bizarre response. Neither the Tea Party or the Koch brothers are bogeymen hiding in the shadows. They are quite open in their political activism.

I'm merely stating fact. Ron Paul did not found the Tea Party. The Koch brothers provide a large portion of the funding for the Tea Party. This is quite well known and shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

and oooh, "corporate interests". that does it, right in the feels.

Did you want me to list every single corporation that helps fund the Tea Party? I really don't understand this at all.

The Tea Party is funded by corporations who have an interest in promoting the "small government" agenda. I'm not saying there is some sort of shady conspiracy going on, it's all out in the open. It's way America works, I am merely countering a factual inaccuracy that the Tea Party is some sort of crusade started by Ron Paul.

Jonny7

Deal reached

No more processing beyond 5% (ie the medical isotopes)

Newer plants can be inspected (Fordo)

Better access to inspectors

7 billion worth of sanctions dropped and no new sanctions

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25074729

We'll see how it holds up for the next 6 months, but good news

BuilderPlumber

Yes, it is good news there has been a breakthrough on the Iran nuclear issue and this will hopefully improve things for all.

Netanyahu is an unhelpful idiot. And his is the most dangerous regime in the world at the moment as well by the way. Israel saw nothing wrong in arming Iran in the 1980s and 1990s when Saddam was around!!

Iran got rid of the weak/inexperienced Ahmadinejad and a government of incompetent hardliners and president Rouhani is doing his best to reform things. Now, we need rid of hardliners in Israel and then things can go in the right direction there too.

Manach

Usually would not be overly supportive of the Obama administration but this on balance looks to be a good deal, brought in by diplomatic dialogue of most parties concerned. If it holds, then perhaps Mr. Obama by the end of this term will be worthy of that Nobel prize.

BuilderPlumber

Manach wrote: »

Usually would not be overly supportive of the Obama administration but this on balance looks to be a good deal, brought in by diplomatic dialogue of most parties concerned. If it holds, then perhaps Mr. Obama by the end of this term will be worthy of that Nobel prize.

True. I think at last there are sensible people both in the US and Iranian governments and a genuine desire for change. We need a reformist in Israel as well to heal the bitterness there too. Like Ahmadinejad, Netanyahu is one of those leftovers from the Bush era whose hate fueled policies only cause more trouble for his own country.