U.S. & Iran Talks - No Thanks!

by ocpersian

While everyone talks about diplomacy and dialogue, it seems to me no one in Iran is actually ready or willing to talk or negotiate with the West.  Since the leader Khamenei has the final say in any deal with the U.S. and he is on the record as not wanting any relations soon.

In fact he has said in many occasions that we can't deal with the United States. And Obama is more dangerous than Bush because he's subtle and sounds nice, but underneath he's tough.

So all this debate about diplomacy and dialogue really does not matter as it takes two to tango. I think even George Bush was ready for a dialogue with the regime, and they wouldn't talk to Bush. Now Obama is clearly eager for a dialogue, and it is not evident that the top Iranian leadership, starting with Ayatollah Khamenei, is really prepared for one with the United States.

So given these, if you were an adviser to Obama on Iran, what would you advise?


Recently by ocpersianCommentsDate
ما و اوباما
Oct 26, 2012
مرگ بر آمریکا، زنده باد دلار
Oct 02, 2012
What's next for Rafsanjani?
Sep 01, 2009
more from ocpersian


by shushtari on

you do know that this looney, gary sick, was one of the 'advisors' of non-other than peanut-brain carter???

he is one of the individuals who advocated an illiterate dumbass mullah like khomeini would be better for iran!!!!

as far as I'm concerned, this POS should not be alive today, because he has the blood of millions of iranians on his hands, just like carter and zbreszenski


there is a special place in hell reserved for these sickos 

ramin parsa

And to those who say...

by ramin parsa on

that a military confrontation would for all intense and purposes kill the green movement, and if left alone, the movement would swallow the regime... I would simply say that if this was 2002, or even 2004, I would perhaps agree with you. But it's almost 2010, and Iran, by most credible estimations, is going nuclear and fast.

Do we really want to trust the green movement with the herculian task of suddenly reversing the regime's 20 YEAR goal of nuclear capability, specially when you consider that the movement is battling a morally depraved and brutal regime, all too willing to spill the blood of innoncents, a movement that is headed by a murdering former prime minister (Moussavi) and a murdering former president (Rafsanjani), two beasts of the very same Khomeinist regime? 

Let us recap, I'm being asked to trust a reptile like Rafsanjani and a vermin like Moussavi, and I'm further being asked to trust that without any meaningful international support, mere rocks, within the very near future, will overwhelm deadly bullets, which the regime is all too willing to fire at its people?

And in the balance lies the nuclear proliferation of every Arab country in the middle-east, so as to offset Iranian nukes (in the order of Pakistan and India).

As an Iranian, I don't want my Arab neighbors to have nukes! Go with the gas embargo, and if necessary, bomb the hell out of the nuclear facilities. The alternative is an IRI regime armed with nuclear weapons, which it "may" very well use in the future if threatened with extinction (at the hands of its people or foreigners), which would ultimately mean the slaughter of MILLIONS of Iranians in a retaliation strike.

Iran would be turned into a mass graveyard. Is this an unforseeable circumstance, considering that the hard-core revolutionary leaders of the IRI care more about Islam than Iran?

As mullah Khomeini once proudly claimed, "Iran can go up in smoke, so long as Islam survives."


ramin parsa

A Gasoline Embargo

by ramin parsa on

would be a good start, and if that doesn't do the trick, do as Fateh suggests, bomb the hell out of the nuke facilities. The LAST thing we Iranians need is for the IRI to be armed with nuclear weapons. You think the IRI is a bully now, just wait until they get their hands on nukes, then they'll extort the entire world and get away with murder at an even more obscene scale.

Remember, the nuclear facilities are not for Iran, nor its people. The nukes are a self-serving, short-sighted insurance policy for the rapoist regime, in particular the IRGC. The mullahs are not stupid -- they soiled their pants as they watched Saddam Hussein being overthrown in 15 days, all along while Kim Jong Il sits on his throne to this day. What is the difference?

One had nukes, the other didn't. 


If I was an Obama advisor?

by OmidKarimi on

I would say:

Stop with this ridicolous notion that Iran should suspend Uranium Enrichment as its a legal right in the IAEA charter. Accept enrichment with 300% supervision by the IAEA which is the only realistic end game. The more you push, the more they pull back. The current regime has no interest in talking and are heavily military fortified, so at least let us keep IAEA inspectors on their sites.

Sit back, relax, let the green opposition eat the regime up bit by bit. At the same time distance yourself from AIPAC and Military industrial lobby groups that hold loyalty to other countries and interests other than the US. Create and push through laws that force politicians not to accept funding by such groups. Create a national platform were all politicians, GOP or DEM or Independent can debate and talk about their ideas fairly, destroy the two party system.

Stop spending billions of dollars on foreign bases that we have no need to have and which are against our constitution and american values. It blows up a huge deficit, kills american citizens and puts our grand grand children into debt. THe money spent in Iraq, Afghanistan could dramatically improve the living conditions of American citizens.

Support Pro-democracy movements everywhere in the globe through speeches, but never go into spesifics as the movements become targets for the dictatorships. Never support them through counter intelligence as this will be seen as direct interference.

Appologize for the people of Iraq for the death and destruction the US has done to them, leave the middle-east and on your way, promise the people dwelling there that the US will never invade, meddle, rape and destroy in the region in the future.


I could write a book.. but those are the ones Im thinking of right now...


If I would be Khameneis advisor, I would look out the window and say "Sudan seems just nice this time of year. We can maybe get a second chance of creating our Islamic paradise there, il call Antarinejad, you start packing!".


Discuss, chat and post your opinions about Iran on my new forum: www.IranBebin.com



VOA anchors better looking than BBC anchors

by mannya2001 on

why are BBC persian anchors so weird looking.  Plus given their Afghani reporters, I can't help but laugh at their reports


Contain and deter Iran's adventurism like they've always done...


Contain and deter Iran's adventurism like they've always done with other adversaries,  without making a fuss about it... at the same time still leave the door open to negotiations, as in stay the course and let the regime eat itself out. (At the same time try to engage with  IRI's friends and pull them out of their orbit) 

The democracy movement thrives on a less hostile international environment and the western world needs to promote such an environment by not hyping up the threat of a nuclear armed capable Iran.  As any credible evidence suggests it does not yet exist.  the democracy clock ticks faster than the nuclear clock. 


The other route is open hostilities and confrontation indefinitely. Do you honestly believe that it will help the movement inside Iran and foster democracy? you would have to resurrect the sanctions option for starters - something that they've tried for the past 30 years and has not made the regime change its ways - or the airtight sanctions that the russians and china wont go with, that US has to impose unilaterally which will be perceived as an act of war (and if not still not change IRI's ways).  And most importantly it will harm the people of Iran. 



Engagement with Iran: An Assessment of Options

by vildemose on

Sadjadpour: I think the United States should be more outspoken about Iran’s inability to adhere to international standards of justice—a word that Iran’s leadership frequently uses—and human rights and President Obama should be more outspoken in expressing solidarity with the Iranian people. I know that young people in Iran would like to see President Obama make it more clear that he’s not indifferent to their cause, that he’s rooting for them. .
I think there is a way to dialogue with the Iranian government on urgent national security issues—like nuclear proliferation, Afghanistan, and Iraq—without betraying the millions of Iranians who view their government as illegitimate and continue to strive for political change. U.S. dialogue with the Soviet Union during the 1980s is perhaps a useful template.  This is an incredibly important time in Iran’s history and we want to be able to look back years from now and say we were on the right side of history. I sometimes fear that we may look back years from now and see that there was a tremendous opportunity to help champion and facilitate the cause of political change in Iran, but rather than taking it seriously we focused all of our attention on the nuclear issue. .
Sadjadpour: I’m very skeptical about the prospect of a major diplomatic breakthrough with this Iranian government. I believe the underlying problem we have with Iran has more to do with the character of its regime than its nuclear ambitions. In other words, as long as Khamenei is leader and Ahmadinejad is president, Tehran will not be able or willing to meet us half-way, or even a third Of the way, on our various issues of contention. Go to Carnegie.


This is a MUST READ article

by benross on

This is a MUST READ article if you have already not read it. It will probably answer some of your questions and also dilemma that not only Obama but China and Russia are  are having to face:

Thank you vildemose. It was indeed a must read.

I would advise Obama to stay the course. If you don't have someone to talk to, don't talk. It's useless. Right now, there may be some assumption that talking to Moosavi representatives my be a viable option. As it stands now, it is not. First, because there is no real representetive of Moosavi anywhere. And Moosavi himself is not willing to talk. Even if he was willing, he is not in a position to do so. The line of communication must remain open, but that will not substitute a 'talk' to achieve a specific goal. What remains to 'talk' about, has nothing to do with Iran turmoil per se, but the strategic goal about nuclear proliferation. And also the regional concerns of U.S regarding Afghanistan and Israel-Palestine issues.

U.S must endure the current opaque relation with Iran, which is mainly channeled toward IRI, as long as possible, until it became clear there is someone to talk to, and that day will come... and no, I don't think it will be Moosavi. The moment he actually take charge and set-up a road map, he will loose his popularity because he is already conceded to this role to be a face for something that people already drew far beyond.


Support the green movement

by divaneh on

Of course that is if they worry about Iran, otherwise they can bomb it to ensure the regime stays for another 30 years.


My advice would be

by Faramarz_Fateh on

to bomb the crap out of everyone and everything related to the regime.


This is a MUST READ article

by vildemose on

This is a MUST READ article if you have already not read it. It will probably answer some of your questions and also dilemma that not only Obama but China and Russia are  are having to face: