US to have 'vigorous' Iran talks
bbc
26-Jan-2009 (6 comments)

The new US envoy to the United Nations says Barack Obama's administration will make Iran's nuclear plans a diplomatic priority and pursue direct talks. Susan Rice told reporters she looked forward to "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran". Under George W Bush, there were no direct US nuclear talks with Iran.

>>>
Darius Kadivar

LET'S TALK !

by Darius Kadivar on

Good Luck ! Is Susan Rice the sister of Condoleezza ?


Share/Save/Bookmark

 
Darius Kadivar

An observer

by Darius Kadivar on

Its too early to know exactly what will be the Obama approach. I do have concerns but the reality of the situation in the middle east is a complex one and the US will be first and foremost be concerned by the security of Israel for two reasons:

1) Historical Importance of the creation of Israel given that it reflects the own credibility of not only the US but the United Nations since the latter is just as old as Israel (1948). Questioning the existence of Israel would mean to question the existence of the United Nations since its inception. No Western Leader can accept such an ultimatum on behalf of a country like Iran or even the Arab leaders ( who in this case seem more moderate than Iran in their support for Hamas and even the Palestinian cause at large).

2) The Nuclear Build Up would jeapordize the balance of power in the ME. America will need guarantees and a new Iranian President could warm up relations and offer some window for dialogue based on mutual trust. This is precisely where the Opposition ( Or what is left of it) and civil Society neet to be alert and outspoken. For a Grand Bargain between Obama and a new Iranian Administration for Peace in the Middle East should not be at the expense of OUR Legitimate Struggle for Democracy and Human Rights.

So Yes Risks are High for everyone in the Opposition and for the Iranian Civil Society at large beyond the Monarchists or Republicans. Unfortunately I am pessimistic about our prospects of achieving Democracy and even less Freedom because of the lack of solidarity between Iranians on a common platform. 

As for the Monarchists I believe that the struggle should be positioned on another ground than simply overthrowing the current regime and that is an Institutional Struggle to convince beyond their constituency that the Monarchy as an Institution can play a constructive role in Iranian society ONLY in a Constitutional Form if Ever the Pahlavi Dynasty is Restored. But that is another debate ...

All I can say is that as far as acheiving Democracy for Our People Nothing of the sort is possible if we Refuse TEAM WORK between Iranians of different Political sensistivities. We have spent too much time fighting one another than focusing on a common goal and that is Regime Change for a Democratic system of government. From that point of view we are ALL Accountable for failing to reach this common goal.

Will RP be able to do that during the Obama Administration's tenure ? I really don't know ...

But on the Issue of the Monarchy if that is your concern or question, my answer is that it ultimately does not depend on RP but on the reliability of the Constitutionalists in offering a coherent and unifying approach in offering an Alternative to the current Constitution that  can be looked up to as both realistic and necessary. Whether its RP who becomes King or another Family Member like his own Daughter in the future , their role cannot be anything else but a symbolic one. RP's current involvement in the political struggle can only be justified by the fact that our country needs to be freed from the current leadership and its cruel behavior towards our people. But out of this particular situation imposed by the fact that the Revolution did not lead to democracy but a Totalitarian State, Reza Pahlavi's Role cannot be one of pure leadership even as President since some like to see him in that role. That is my humble Opinion in that for me the Monarchy and the Monarch have to be above the Political landscape which is not the case for a President who has to respond to the political demands of his or her constituency. Same thing for a Prime Minister in a Constitutional Monarchy.

My Humble Opinion,

DK


default

To Darius Kadivar

by An observer (not verified) on

Dear DK; It sure looks like Obama is going to go out of his way to please mullahs and mullahs might very well end up having it their way any way. Don't forget that Obama is going to seek the help of people like Seyyid Vali Reza Nasr and one of Obama's close advisors is that ol' infamous Polish guy Brzezinsky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vali_Nasr

How long is Reza Pahlavi going to try to work on gaining the trust of Iranian people based on his own merit?!!!! he is already 50 years old. he's going to wait until he's 80?!!!!


Darius Kadivar

An observer You Think So ?

by Darius Kadivar on

I do not see in Obama's approach to a dialogue with Iran as an endorsement of the regime. See Below

 http://iranian.com/main/blog/david-et/barack-hussein-obama-messenger-peace

As for Reza Pahlavi I don't think he counts on the current administration to give him his throne back !

RP is investing his efforts to gain the trust of the Iranian People. He may have difficulties but he has the merit of trying and being his own man.

If the Iranian Leadership thinks that they can have it their way in their negotiations with Obama, I very much doubt it !


default

To Darius Kadivar

by An observer (not verified) on

Dear DK; it sure looks like Reza Pahlavi is completely out of the picture as far as Iran's future is concerned. Obama is focusing all his attention to get close to and endear Mullahs in Iran.


gol-dust

She is her democratic cousin who was active about Darfur!

by gol-dust on

She has no connections with oil companies and mafia! She is bright & decent! if US threat disappears, Iran's mollahs would be on their way to hell!