Irans Response to Obamas interview

[daniel49]

Responding to the U.S. offer of direct talks between Iran and the United States, Elham said that "there remains no choice for the United States but change, and this change is determined to be done," Iran's Mehr news agency reported.


Elham said that "the U.S. behavior of focusing on the secondary matters will not solve any issue. Negotiation and the like is secondary, the main issue is there is left no other choice in the world but change."


He said the U.S. request of the talks "means the passivity of the Western thought, the failure of capitalist thought and the failure of the system of domination."


Even worse, as NPR reported Friday, Ahmadinejad was also unimpressed with Obama's offer:

Text

This would seem to me to be what the pundits have been saying would happen for the last 2 years?

 

[Moonbeam]

Good, we can now begin a dialog. First off we can ask what secondary issues are implied and who is determining what change is to be done. Then we should move on to understand what the passivity of the Western thought, the failure of capitalist thought and the failure of the system of domination mean. Once we are clear on what we are talking about and what the code words mean to Iranians then we can give a response.

Of course, we can also just react like the idiots we are famous for.

 

[frostedflakes]

It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Ahmadinejad's comments are far from surprising, though. His anti-US rhetoric was partly based on the fact that we have been unwilling to sit down and talk without preconditions. This simple policy change by the new administration has really turned the tables on Ahmadinejad. If we hold out the olive branch and he refuses, it makes him look like the bad guy, not us. If we show willingness to work with Iran and Ahmadinejad continues to dismiss our offers, it's going to be harder for him to convince the Iranian people that we are the bad guys. There's already a lot of discontent among the people because of the lackluster economy.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: daniel49
This would seem to me to be what the pundits have been saying would happen for the last 2 years?

Thanks for posting this; this thread made me laugh. You are correct, this is what we've been predicting for the last xxyy years. Finally, it is becoming clear/obvious that they cannot be reasoned with.

Obama is a pushover, but he's also smart. Unfortunately that means he does whatever will be best for him right this moment.
Now that he's president I think he's going to see that all the warm fuzzies and tolerance policies democrats spew left and right doesn't count for naught when you get to the real world; and this is an example of it. I think he knows he was just pandering to the Dems, and that makes me less concerned about how he's going to handle this.

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Ahmadinejad's comments are far from surprising, though. His anti-US rhetoric was partly based on the fact that we have been unwilling to sit down and talk without preconditions. This simple policy change by the new administration has really turned the tables on Ahmadinejad. If we hold out the olive branch and he refuses, it makes him look like the bad guy, not us. If we show willingness to work with Iran and Ahmadinejad continues to dismiss our offers, it's going to be harder for him to convince the Iranian people that we are the bad guys. There's already a lot of discontent among the people because of the lackluster economy.

Even before Obama was elected, he was quoted as saying he's convinced that a change in policies/interest in talks on our part is just us trying to take advantage of him. That, for us to change his opinion, we would have to recognize Iran and his authority as sovereign. As if we needed to enter into talks to take advantage of him...

And of course allowing them to do whatever they want with that nuclear material of theirs they're processing "for peaceful power" is on the list as well, we must allow them full rights to do whatever they choose with it. Ha!

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
It will be interesting to see how things play out.

Ahmadinejad's comments are far from surprising, though. His anti-US rhetoric was partly based on the fact that we have been unwilling to sit down and talk without preconditions. This simple policy change by the new administration has really turned the tables on Ahmadinejad. If we hold out the olive branch and he refuses, it makes him look like the bad guy, not us. If we show willingness to work with Iran and Ahmadinejad continues to dismiss our offers, it's going to be harder for him to convince the Iranian people that we are the bad guys. There's already a lot of discontent among the people because of the lackluster economy.

Even before Obama was elected, he was quoted as saying he's convinced that a change in policies/interest in talks on our part is just us trying to take advantage of him. That, for us to change his opinion, we would have to recognize Iran and his authority as sovereign. As if we needed to enter into talks to take advantage of him...

And of course allowing them to do whatever they want with that nuclear material of theirs they're processing "for peaceful power" is on the list as well, we must allow them full rights to do whatever they choose with it. Ha!

You don`t have a clue do you?
This is the first step! It was taken!
Unlike the GWB who refused to even take the first step!!
Too often we have reacted without even attempting to talk.....
It`s time to give Obama the chance!!

 

[fskimospy]

Why anyone takes Iran's public posturing seriously is beyond me. Why anyone thinks what Ahmadinejad thinks matters to the people actually in power in Iran is beyond me. Bush's Iran policy was basically 'stick our fingers in our ears and pretend they don't exist'. Ie: the worst policy position imaginable. It gave us no leverage over them in any way, and they completely ignored us for it. Even if Iran decides to continue on with their nuclear program in spite of Obama's diplomatic efforts, that's what they were already doing for eight years under Bush. The only difference is that our willingness to talk to them strips them of the diplomatic cover they have been using. When we were the ones refusing to talk to them, we were the bad guys, now if they refuse to talk to us, they are the bad guys.

Obama's Iran position automatically nets us diplomatic benefits from the start, and it doesn't cost us a dime. The absolute worst case scenario is that the outcome of his policy is as bad as Bush's was, but with the US looking better. How anyone can be against this is baffling.

 

[Lemon law]

It seems to me, the whole thread is conceived as a misnomer in touting two whole comments into what Iran thinks. Iran is a politically diverse nation and one can always cherry pick two political spin lines and then inflate them all the way up to what the entire nation lock step thinks. Which does not work in Iran, does not work in the USA, and certainly does not work on P&N.

It seems to me that eskimospy has the correct take here, the question is not what US&Iranian relations are now, the question is what US&Iranian talks can yield for the mutual benefit of both nations in the future. But given how bad present US Iranian relations are now, in the initial stages of any dialog, there will be basically be voices of kindergarten maturity on both sides, that boil to to ha ha ha, we were right all along because you are being forced to talk to us.

Right now, Ahmadinejad will be up for re-election in 8/2009, his policies are not very popular in Iran, and is widely regarded as a Iranian national embarrassment. And it was Bush&Cheney's 2002 slamming the door in the face of more moderate Iranians that helped make his first term victory possible. And if Obama is wise enough to open a productive dialog with Iran, he in turn can do much to discredit Iranian extremists.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Just a little clue for the OP ...

There is an upcoming Presidential election in Iran. Ahmadinejad is losing hardliner support and has been accused by some as being too open to dialogue with the United States. As Ahmadinejad is in the political fight of his life for hardliner support the reformers in Iran are aligning behind a single candidate - most likely Mohammad Khatami (or Mehdi Karroubi if Khatami does not run).

So Ahmadinejad is posturing for political expediency. Gosh. Who'd a thunk it? Posturing in a Presidential election.

Don't you feel silly, now?

 

[Lemon law]

The Iranian Presidency is a little like being Governor of Texas, its more of a ceremonial position, the real power lies elsewhere.

 

[retrospooty]

Originally posted by: daniel49
Responding to the U.S. offer of direct talks between Iran and the United States, Elham said that "there remains no choice for the United States but change, and this change is determined to be done," Iran's Mehr news agency reported.


Elham said that "the U.S. behavior of focusing on the secondary matters will not solve any issue. Negotiation and the like is secondary, the main issue is there is left no other choice in the world but change."


He said the U.S. request of the talks "means the passivity of the Western thought, the failure of capitalist thought and the failure of the system of domination."


Even worse, as NPR reported Friday, Ahmadinejad was also unimpressed with Obama's offer:

Text

This would seem to me to be what the pundits have been saying would happen for the last 2 years?

So now suddenly, you all care what the Iranian propaganda machine says ?

Step aside and let the man govern... You know nothing.

NEXT!

 

[ahurtt]

So, correct me if I'm mistaken but it sounds to me like this guy is basically begging to have the shit kicked out of him. I say we oblige.

Change starts with open dialogue. He seems to be saying he doesn't want dialogue. Change implemented without understanding and direction is reckless change for the sake of change and stands just as much chance of doing more harm than good. If he doesn't want to talk, what other choice is there?

I think it's good Obama offered unconditional talks because doing so effectively called Iran's bluff and now we can see Ahmadinejad's true stripes (as if we didn't know he was full of shit already but this is just proof) and guess what. . .The emperor has no clothes!

 

[Thump553]

Ahmadinejad is a political windbag and is not the real power in Iran, the mullahs are. He's also coming up for re-election soon-did you really expect him to act any differently?

Diplomacy is much more than superficial statements.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ahurtt
So, correct me if I'm mistaken but it sounds to me like this guy is basically begging to have the shit kicked out of him. I say we oblige.

Change starts with open dialogue. He seems to be saying he doesn't want dialogue. Change implemented without understanding and direction is reckless change for the sake of change and stands just as much chance of doing more harm than good. If he doesn't want to talk, what other choice is there?

Who's this we? Are you a member of the Services?

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ahurtt
So, correct me if I'm mistaken but it sounds to me like this guy is basically begging to have the shit kicked out of him. I say we oblige.

Change starts with open dialogue. He seems to be saying he doesn't want dialogue. Change implemented without understanding and direction is reckless change for the sake of change and stands just as much chance of doing more harm than good. If he doesn't want to talk, what other choice is there?

Who's this we? Are you a member of the Services?

What if I am? Are you? By "we" I was referring to the American collective as a nation but I think you know that and you're just trying to be intentionally obtuse.

 

[Farang]

Originally posted by: ahurtt

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: ahurtt
So, correct me if I'm mistaken but it sounds to me like this guy is basically begging to have the shit kicked out of him. I say we oblige.

Change starts with open dialogue. He seems to be saying he doesn't want dialogue. Change implemented without understanding and direction is reckless change for the sake of change and stands just as much chance of doing more harm than good. If he doesn't want to talk, what other choice is there?

Who's this we? Are you a member of the Services?

What if I am? Are you?

Doesn't matter.. military is controlled by civilians.

 

[alchemize]

We'll know within the next year if Obama is strong or weak in regards to iran.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

This is just another example of Iran's Napoleon complex. They have such a bad case of little guy syndrome that it gone past the point of being funny.

 

[jman19]

And we should care about Iranian rhetoric why, exactly?

 

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is just another example of Iran's Napoleon complex. They have such a bad case of little guy syndrome that it gone past the point of being funny.

And GWB was another example of a Napoleon Complex. GWB had such a bad case of big guy syndrome that went far past the point of being funny and backfired badly.

And now that the damages are done to both sides, the real question is not self justifying the present by demonizing the past, and rather the question becomes, making the future better.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
This is just another example of Iran's Napoleon complex. They have such a bad case of little guy syndrome that it gone past the point of being funny.

And GWB was another example of a Napoleon Complex. GWB had such a bad case of big guy syndrome that went far past the point of being funny and backfired badly.

And now that the damages are done to both sides, the real question is not self justifying the present by demonizing the past, and rather the question becomes, making the future better.

Speaking of complexes and syndromes...

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: daniel49
This would seem to me to be what the pundits have been saying would happen for the last 2 years?

What's that? You mean that if we start talking to Iran, they might talk back? Huh. Never counted on that, eh?

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: daniel49
This would seem to me to be what the pundits have been saying would happen for the last 2 years?

What's that? You mean that if we start talking to Iran, they might talk back? Huh. Never counted on that, eh?

Umm, yeah. Sure sounds like they want to talk.

:roll:

The pundits have been saying that Iran truly had/has no intent to talk. The US approach was/is not the core problem related to Iranian diplomacy and this latest Iranian rhetoric puts that on display for all to see. The pundits were right and the Iranian apologists were wrong.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Iranian Presidency is a little like being Governor of Texas, its more of a ceremonial position, the real power lies elsewhere.

If the mullahs run the show behind the scenes; they either are willing to let him shoot off his mouth because it benefits them (same line of thinking) or they are manipulating behind the drapes and willing to let him take the fall.

They should be concerned that their opponents are concerned about where the power is and how much of what he states is sanctioned by them.

 

[yllus]

The U.S. may in fact fail to engage Iran in diplomatic talks, but it's still important to make the effort. True change in the Middle East is completely out of the question until a perception shift occurs amongst the denizens of the ME. Whatever the U.S. can do to sap the strength of the notion that it's the West that's keeping them down instead of their own leaders is a positive.