Well if the US now starts to negotiate, ease sanctions, make back room deals, all of these are fairly good points that can help AN and IRI in the short term.
If the strong sanctions where to be placed on Iran, IRI would be in deep shit. This can be a pretty bad situation for the Green movement for the near future
If the strong sanctions where to be placed on Iran, IRI would be in deep shit. This can be a pretty bad situation for the Green movement for the near future
Well if the US now starts to negotiate, ease sanctions, make back room deals, all of these are fairly good points that can help AN and IRI in the short term.
If the strong sanctions where to be placed on Iran, IRI would be in deep shit. This can be a pretty bad situation for the Green movement for the near future
If the strong sanctions where to be placed on Iran, IRI would be in deep shit. This can be a pretty bad situation for the Green movement for the near future
farbod jan,
I am in agreement with you. What I am saying is that many Iranians were under the false impression that Obama and his admin was going to be a fresh air as far as Iran and US relationship was concerned. The issue that I brought up from the get go was that this is in fact a misnomer. I brought up the issue of Obama because he could have made a huge difference in terms of supporting the people of Iran by putting extra pressure on IRI, but as usual the path that was chosen was a path that hurt the Iranian people. My post was intended for those that were convinced that with Obama we would see a better future for Iran and I just wanted to remind them to NOT FALL for the HYPE
I am in agreement with you. What I am saying is that many Iranians were under the false impression that Obama and his admin was going to be a fresh air as far as Iran and US relationship was concerned. The issue that I brought up from the get go was that this is in fact a misnomer. I brought up the issue of Obama because he could have made a huge difference in terms of supporting the people of Iran by putting extra pressure on IRI, but as usual the path that was chosen was a path that hurt the Iranian people. My post was intended for those that were convinced that with Obama we would see a better future for Iran and I just wanted to remind them to NOT FALL for the HYPE
farbod jan,
I am in agreement with you. What I am saying is that many Iranians were under the false impression that Obama and his admin was going to be a fresh air as far as Iran and US relationship was concerned. The issue that I brought up from the get go was that this is in fact a misnomer. I brought up the issue of Obama because he could have made a huge difference in terms of supporting the people of Iran by putting extra pressure on IRI, but as usual the path that was chosen was a path that hurt the Iranian people. My post was intended for those that were convinced that with Obama we would see a better future for Iran and I just wanted to remind them to NOT FALL for the HYPE
I am in agreement with you. What I am saying is that many Iranians were under the false impression that Obama and his admin was going to be a fresh air as far as Iran and US relationship was concerned. The issue that I brought up from the get go was that this is in fact a misnomer. I brought up the issue of Obama because he could have made a huge difference in terms of supporting the people of Iran by putting extra pressure on IRI, but as usual the path that was chosen was a path that hurt the Iranian people. My post was intended for those that were convinced that with Obama we would see a better future for Iran and I just wanted to remind them to NOT FALL for the HYPE
the revolution will continue,no matter what. however they are doing this to stop big pubilicites by west media during 22 bahman and after .plus to stop sanction .recently europe put them on pressure,humialated their ambassador and regime didn't do damn thing .for akhounds to saty in power is everythings .but people of iran will win .
Well if the US now starts to negotiate, ease sanctions, make back room deals, all of these are fairly good points that can help AN and IRI in the short term.
If the strong sanctions where to be placed on Iran, IRI would be in deep shit. This can be a pretty bad situation for the Green movement for the near future
If the strong sanctions where to be placed on Iran, IRI would be in deep shit. This can be a pretty bad situation for the Green movement for the near future
I mean, after all, they were saying that US and UK are behind green movement, US and UK are evil, this and that, and now they arrange a deal with US on nuclear issue.
nevermind everything said before.
Like I said, for IRI this is just a move to become internationally legitimate and the sanctions that exist right now were BS anyway, see this Bloomberg article as an example.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=av5smtYe_DDA&pos=14
So that won't change much...except that the money flow out of Iran will get normal again after what happened in last months.
For whatever happens inside of Iran, this is rather irrelevant.
not just Russia, Farbod. USA-EU are in it together in preferring to "Negotiate" with IR rather than "sanction" it. specially U.S here. As u know, bc of severe U.S sanctions on Iran already, and EU taking full advantage of this in the past 3 decades, to sell American goods/services via their own EU countries(read huge amount $ of contract commissions), now USA, with current horrible state of Economy, wants a share of a pie here too, just like EU.
so for Obama, unfortunately, Keeping IR in power and negotiating with them Although he prob knows IR is funding all major Terrorist groups(hell even Tony Blair admitted it on "Iraq Inquiry in UK" few days ago that "we, U.S/UK did not anticipate IR and Al Qaeda's partnership against USA troops in Iraq!), so in terms of "security for all Americans and Western countries in general", Obama prob knows having IR in power would actually endanger their internal security..
but I guess at this time, recession is so severe in USA that Obama Administration prioritized "Economic advantage of keeping IR" than "overthrowing IR bc of their world-wide terrorist activities aimed specifically at USA"..
which is sad, but hey u cant really change U.S President's mind that easily can u?!lol
Took words out of my mouth Kambiz jan.. love it how insightful ppl living in USA(ur a great example here!), have become about current Administration's flaws in decision-making sometimes(if not always!)..
thats a good point too Farbod..although it'd be veryyyyyyy disappointing for Iran Green movement protesters to have the same high motivation, if Iran reaches agreement with all major world powers, and leave Green movement in dark, still it may actually make those millions of protesters "less reliant on world powers, for the first time in our history?!" and more reliant on their own strength and will-power to change the govt, against not only AN-Velayat Faghih,etc but also defeating all major world powers' will to keep IR in power at the cost of our ppl's blood.. hope the later be the case..
Again perfectly put Kambiz jan..
Farbod, there is a huge "investment and Regional Economic domination" strategy benefit for USA if they decide to get rid of Russia-backed IR, overthrow IR and create their own free-market, resourceful, allie in the most crucial part of Middle East. In terms of investment profit, Iran can be a safe-heaven for any U.S corp, considering its current/future cheap Rial currency(hence big advantage for Americans to exchange their $US and literally buy half of Iran in Rial!), then add huge young population in Iran, whom a lot of them, do find ways to spend their money and have this crave for American products/brands/flagship restaurants, which they have been deprived of for 30 yrs. so again there is huge business opportunity there for U.S Administration and American corp's exports/investments in Iran, if the country become free..
here is a similar discussion we had here in ISP, which we discussed huge economic benefits for U.S in a "free-market"(as opposed to current lefty Communist) Iran:
http://forums.iransportspress.com/showthread.php?t=62930&highlight=Obama+Economic
so for Obama, unfortunately, Keeping IR in power and negotiating with them Although he prob knows IR is funding all major Terrorist groups(hell even Tony Blair admitted it on "Iraq Inquiry in UK" few days ago that "we, U.S/UK did not anticipate IR and Al Qaeda's partnership against USA troops in Iraq!), so in terms of "security for all Americans and Western countries in general", Obama prob knows having IR in power would actually endanger their internal security..
but I guess at this time, recession is so severe in USA that Obama Administration prioritized "Economic advantage of keeping IR" than "overthrowing IR bc of their world-wide terrorist activities aimed specifically at USA"..
which is sad, but hey u cant really change U.S President's mind that easily can u?!lol
I told you guys a long time ago that with Obama administration the main issue is and will always be the nuclear situation. The people of Iran are not important to this current or any US administration. This would be a big win for Obama in terms of his foreign policy and screws Iranian for the sake of a back room deal. Hala come on here and make a hero out of Obama again
love it how insightful ppl living in USA(ur a great example here!), have become about current Administration's flaws in decision-making sometimes(if not always!)..thats a good point too Farbod..although it'd be veryyyyyyy disappointing for Iran Green movement protesters to have the same high motivation, if Iran reaches agreement with all major world powers, and leave Green movement in dark, still it may actually make those millions of protesters "less reliant on world powers, for the first time in our history?!" and more reliant on their own strength and will-power to change the govt, against not only AN-Velayat Faghih,etc but also defeating all major world powers' will to keep IR in power at the cost of our ppl's blood.. hope the later be the case..
Again perfectly put Kambiz jan..
Farbod, there is a huge "investment and Regional Economic domination" strategy benefit for USA if they decide to get rid of Russia-backed IR, overthrow IR and create their own free-market, resourceful, allie in the most crucial part of Middle East. In terms of investment profit, Iran can be a safe-heaven for any U.S corp, considering its current/future cheap Rial currency(hence big advantage for Americans to exchange their $US and literally buy half of Iran in Rial!), then add huge young population in Iran, whom a lot of them, do find ways to spend their money and have this crave for American products/brands/flagship restaurants, which they have been deprived of for 30 yrs. so again there is huge business opportunity there for U.S Administration and American corp's exports/investments in Iran, if the country become free..
here is a similar discussion we had here in ISP, which we discussed huge economic benefits for U.S in a "free-market"(as opposed to current lefty Communist) Iran:
http://forums.iransportspress.com/showthread.php?t=62930&highlight=Obama+Economic
That is a HUGE gamble that could not only destroy any chance for meaningful dialogue with Iran, but many other countries in the region and throughout the world. Its not like if they negotiate with the current regime, the new regime would come in and not talk to the US should they succeed. The US has nothing to lose by negotiating with the current regime. It would be a stupid gamble, especially in the current climate.
Farbod jan, IR officials have proved that although it takes them yrs to finally accept a negotiation deal, when IR's survival is at at stake, they do NEGOTIATE with Anyone and about Anything!
thats why IR keeps those poor American hikers as hostage, bc they KNOW current U.S Administration prefers to negotiate with IR rather than support Iran Green movement. and it was in the news today as well, that those American hikers' lawyer, said "he has been finally given a chance to meet with his clients and that they were told they'll be freed soon." so this could very well relate to a successful completed negotiation deal bn IR and U.S Administration, that IR agreed with this Nuclear deal, and will free those American hikers, in return for possibly U.S Administration's soft spot on IR's human rights abuses, protest reactions, and to veto sanctions against IR.
yes maybe in short-term, there is less risk for USA to not support Green movement and support IR instead, but in long-run, it'll only hurt USA political-economical domination in region, even further if IR-AN's communist/Russia-backed govt stays much longer in the region..
thats why IR keeps those poor American hikers as hostage, bc they KNOW current U.S Administration prefers to negotiate with IR rather than support Iran Green movement. and it was in the news today as well, that those American hikers' lawyer, said "he has been finally given a chance to meet with his clients and that they were told they'll be freed soon." so this could very well relate to a successful completed negotiation deal bn IR and U.S Administration, that IR agreed with this Nuclear deal, and will free those American hikers, in return for possibly U.S Administration's soft spot on IR's human rights abuses, protest reactions, and to veto sanctions against IR.
yes maybe in short-term, there is less risk for USA to not support Green movement and support IR instead, but in long-run, it'll only hurt USA political-economical domination in region, even further if IR-AN's communist/Russia-backed govt stays much longer in the region..
Last edited:
I think you are confusing negotiations and support. USA is not supporting either side. They are negotiating with IRI while hoping the greens win. If they support the greens, they cant negotiate with anyone until the greens win... You are really underestimating the risk involved. Supporting the greens is easy for individuals to do, but for a country to actively support a opposition group against a soveriegn, albeit tyrannical, government, it would almost be an act of war that would send massive repercussions around the world. Condemning violence against the people and calling for freedom is the most any govt can do without meddling with a country's sovereignty.
oh exactly Farbod. and thats the most Iranian protesters want from U.S administration really. cuz if U.S does get involved directly(war on IR, planning a coup against IR govt,directly negotiating with Green leaders,etc) that'll literally kill off Iran Green movement instantly.
so as u said condemning violence against ppl and calling for freedom, is the best U.S or any govt can do to give motivation to Iran protesters..
but just review all govt comments/announcements,etc made by U.S Administration, military(which is govt-appointed too), and compare it with European, Canadian govts their parlimants' huge IR violence condemnation and criticizing human rights abuses on Iranians by IR. cuz when u read all those and compare, you'll notice European govts do condemn recent violence in Iran MUCH more frequently and in stronger voice than U.S Administration..
this is what recently a top U.S military commander said about Iran(basically saying something that if implemented, will directly strengthen IR and kill of Iran green movement)..which is sad and just shows U.S Administrations' lack of good foreign-policy strategy as Kambujieh pointed out, that instead of saying something that will benefit both Israel and IR-AN, on a month that thousands of our journalists/students get jailed/executed, just like European politicians, they could just condemn IR violence against its own ppl..but they r not consistent in that aspect..one day Biden condemns IR's human rights abuses, and one day U.S military commander and U.S congressmen, ask for "war on Iran"!:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/01/10/10/irans-nuclear-facilities-can-be-bombed-us-commander
Iran's nuclear facilities 'can be bombed': US commander
Agence France-Presse | 01/10/2010 9:45 PM
WASHINGTON DC, United States - A top US military commander responsible for the Middle East and the Gulf region said the United States has developed contingency plans to deal with Iran's nuclear facilities, insisting that they "can be bombed."
"Well, they certainly can be bombed," General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, told CNN television as he commented on suggestions that Iranian nuclear facilities were heavily fortified.
"The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear," he added.
The network plans to air the interview later Sunday, but has released some excerpts.
Petraeus did not elaborate on the plans, but he said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there, CNN said.
"It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies," Petraeus said.
Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
Israel has called Iran's nuclear program the major threat facing its nation. Petraeus declined to comment about Israel's military capabilities, according to CNN.
Iran had until the end of last year to accept a deal offered five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.
It did not do so. Instead, Tehran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.
Petraeus said he thought there was still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any US contingency plans, CNN noted.
But he added that "there's a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will."
so as u said condemning violence against ppl and calling for freedom, is the best U.S or any govt can do to give motivation to Iran protesters..
but just review all govt comments/announcements,etc made by U.S Administration, military(which is govt-appointed too), and compare it with European, Canadian govts their parlimants' huge IR violence condemnation and criticizing human rights abuses on Iranians by IR. cuz when u read all those and compare, you'll notice European govts do condemn recent violence in Iran MUCH more frequently and in stronger voice than U.S Administration..
this is what recently a top U.S military commander said about Iran(basically saying something that if implemented, will directly strengthen IR and kill of Iran green movement)..which is sad and just shows U.S Administrations' lack of good foreign-policy strategy as Kambujieh pointed out, that instead of saying something that will benefit both Israel and IR-AN, on a month that thousands of our journalists/students get jailed/executed, just like European politicians, they could just condemn IR violence against its own ppl..but they r not consistent in that aspect..one day Biden condemns IR's human rights abuses, and one day U.S military commander and U.S congressmen, ask for "war on Iran"!:
http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/world/01/10/10/irans-nuclear-facilities-can-be-bombed-us-commander
Iran's nuclear facilities 'can be bombed': US commander
Agence France-Presse | 01/10/2010 9:45 PM
WASHINGTON DC, United States - A top US military commander responsible for the Middle East and the Gulf region said the United States has developed contingency plans to deal with Iran's nuclear facilities, insisting that they "can be bombed."
"Well, they certainly can be bombed," General David Petraeus, head of US Central Command, told CNN television as he commented on suggestions that Iranian nuclear facilities were heavily fortified.
"The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear," he added.
The network plans to air the interview later Sunday, but has released some excerpts.
Petraeus did not elaborate on the plans, but he said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there, CNN said.
"It would be almost literally irresponsible if Centcom were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies," Petraeus said.
Iran maintains its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Tehran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
Israel has called Iran's nuclear program the major threat facing its nation. Petraeus declined to comment about Israel's military capabilities, according to CNN.
Iran had until the end of last year to accept a deal offered five permanent UN Security Council members -- Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany.
It did not do so. Instead, Tehran gave the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.
Petraeus said he thought there was still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any US contingency plans, CNN noted.
But he added that "there's a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will."
Last edited: