Now to just get an idea of what your stands are on some issues.
Here are mine:
I am against Negotiation with NO PRE-CONDTION with Rahbari and AN and regime ( emphesize is on no Pre-conditon which you left out).
I am against lifting the sanctions on IR unless it stops its support of Global terrorism and also prosecution of the religious, political and racial minorities.
I am against individuals doing business openly with Iran until this regime is in power because it will give the regime a way to laundry money in and out of Iran.
I am against voting in presidential selection because I find it pointless.
Trita is opposite me on all the above points. I am wondering what is your stand on these issues ?
Shahin,
Sorry about the delay in responding, and I apologize if I'm slow to respond in the next few days too.
Of course you can ignore my posts whenever you want, that is your prerogative as well as mine. However, since you are obviously a fan of logic, I would still maintain that drawing parallels between what I say and Reza claiming that Neda was not murdered by IR is inaccurate, unnecessary, and prevents a reasonable discussion. Points should be discussed based on their substance, and people on their inherent merits. That is why I believe that there is more substantial material to discuss NIAC than their founder having worked for an infamous person a decade ago. By the same token, whether someone has a picture with x or y should not be part of the discussion either.
I'm glad you turned the topic to the substance of the matter and policies. I'll try to give you my view of the issues you brought up. But before I do, I want to reiterate that I understand your position on those topics is opposite of NIAC's, but again IMO that would not make them traitors.
Now to your policy issues. I first give you my view if I were a non-Iranian citizen because I think what the US would and should do has little to do with what I want for Iran as an Iranian. So:
A) If I am an American with no particular interest in Iran:
The main objective would be preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear ability (and not just the bomb), or at least nuclear bomb. Of course I care about the plight of people and human rights but they are secondary. If I can strike a deal with Iran that would ensure they won't go nuclear but give them higher domestic power and stability, I would do it. Of course I would prefer IRI to go but I can live with them if they are contained from a nuclear point of view.
To do so, pre 2009 post 2003, I would do mostly as Obama has done on your first three items: Hit them hard with sanctions, set up conditions for direct talks and removal of sanctions, limit business with Iran, punish or discourage interactions, try to isolate Iran, etc. As an American I wouldn't really have a say on your last point (voting in elections).
Note that I said pre 2009 in my response above. After the Green movement, the line of reasoning could change significantly, to justify doing almost the opposite. But what Obama started to do seems to be working, so if it was up to me as an American, I probably wouldn't change any thing. I'll explain what I mean more in case B.
B) I am an Iranian living abroad:
My main objective is to get self-governance for the people who have been looking for it for a century or more; to get rid of IRI. In general, I strongly believe that dictatorships thrive in isolation, they always have. Isolation and sanctions weaken people and regimes both, but weaken people more than they do regimes (Saddam and Castro are good examples). So isolation and sanctions end up strengthening dictators relative to the population, even though they are weakened internationally. So long as there is no external threat to the dictator, it's domestically a good thing for a dictator who's threatened by his people to have his country isolated and under sanction.
Because of the explanation above I am, in general, against sanction and limitations for business interactions with Iran. It would be good if there could be targeted limitations for government entities, but I find that hard to do if you're following an engagement path. Again because of the above, I am in general pro negotiations, and pre-conditions are to some extent a hinderance to starting negotiations, so I don't have, in general, any problem with negotiations without preconditions. On your last point (elections), while I agree that these are more selection than election, I have been in general in favor of voting, because as limited as they are, they would help institutionalize an civic infrastructure, and that they can (but not necessarily) result in marginal progress or reform.
That above is my generic answer. Things changed significantly in 2009 and my opinion on a number of those things has changed accordingly or is shaken. The regime was so shaken that I can see sanctions causing an existential problem for them, something that is usually not the case for such dictatorships. The same with isolation and lack of negotiations and accompanying limitation on business transactions. I don't think I will vote in the upcoming election but I'm not decided yet. So the short answer is that in the current fluid situation, I honestly don't know what to think on almost any of those questions you ask because I don't have enough information. I still prefer no sanctions and engagement as a general rule, but the weakness of this regime together with the memory of the brutal days following the last election make me hesitant on that general stance. Elections are even more of a joke than they were in 2009 but still I don't see what not voting would accomplish either.
In 2009 and 2005 I campaigned by butt off for people that I knew to vote and I am proud of that. This year I will stay quiet because I am not confident what to think. One thing I am confident about is that when the next wave of popular protest arrives, IRI will be no more. It may be this summer, it may be 20 year but IRI will not survive the next round.
