Obama just offered Iran ...

Oct 18, 2002
8,727
0
#1
To sit down and talk out all past disputes

First time he says also Iranians were gassed...

He actually offered if Iran to have a better political, social and economically relationship if Iran settles down its nuclear dispute.

WOW this is huge since the revelotion....

He also mentions that Irans anger for US involvement in its domestic politics...

Man, I feel like US and Iran will shake hands very soon during my life time :10:
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,134
4
#2
Dear D24 - you see my dear - we all have different prespectives on Iran.....someone like me is afetr secularism, freedom, human rights,........and you seem to be after Dollar = 1000 Toman. It is all about priorities.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
0
Canada
#5
Not sure why you are getting all excited like you just booked a date with a Playboy bunny my good man! ;)

Great speech and all, but absolutely nothing new here. He had offered to sit down before. Iranians being subject of a chemical attack by Saddam has been accepted by previous US administrations. And he has been saying Iran can become so and so IF it resolves its nuclear problem since he became president. And he didn't acknowledge that Iranians' anger for the US is justified - he said they have complained about it. As usual he is saying the ball's in IR's court where it has been for a very long time. Let's see what Rohani says in response, because I highly doubt there's going to be anything useful in there to latch on to.

Full transcript of his speech - most relevant sections to Iran are on the last page - couple of other mentions here and there: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d5b386-2522-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html
 
May 9, 2004
14,799
91
#6
Not sure why you are getting all excited like you just booked a date with a Playboy bunny my good man! ;)

Great speech and all, but absolutely nothing new here. He had offered to sit down before. Iranians being subject of a chemical attack by Saddam has been accepted by previous US administrations. And he has been saying Iran can become so and so IF it resolves its nuclear problem since he became president. And he didn't acknowledge that Iranians' anger for the US is justified - he said they have complained about it. As usual he is saying the ball's in IR's court where it has been for a very long time. Let's see what Rohani says in response, because I highly doubt there's going to be anything useful in there to latch on to.

Full transcript of his speech - most relevant sections to Iran are on the last page - couple of other mentions here and there: http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...d5b386-2522-11e3-ad0d-b7c8d2a594b9_story.html
من تعجب میکنم
تو چرا ناراحت هستی
تو مگر دوست نداری ایران با امریکا دوست بشه ؟ توی این همه سال مگر نمی گفتی دلار رفته چهار هزار تومن و نمی دانم چه رفته پنج هزار تومن
یعنی منتظر بودی که جنگ بشه بخاطر بمب های شیمیایی اسد و ایران رو هم بزنند؟
من از ادمهایی مثل تو تعجب میکنم
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
0
Canada
#7
Not to pour too much cold water on those who are celebrating this historic moment in Iran's history after the historic, epic and free elections that took place a couple of months ago, but this is PressTV's headline after Obama's speech (surprise, surprise! ;)): Obama says US ready to use military force in Middle East
 
Oct 18, 2002
8,727
0
#8
All right, in my opinion this is smth really new because officially Obama never mentioned that IRI is upset about US involvement in the past officially. US never directly mentioned that Iran was victim poison gas. Especially, right after he mentioned holocaust, he brought up Iran. This is new. Iran was never put next to Israel as victim of war crime. Rhetorical wise Obama US puts Iran as victims even though all those Saddam support from the US during Iran and Iraq war has been changed to Iran "the victim under Saddams brutal regime." I was shocked when I heard that because since when US sees Iran as victim???

Second, it has directly offered Iran to be part of world politics IF they accept to stop uranium enrichment not being under IAEO control. In the past US government indirectly mentioned to accept IRI in the world politics but this time Obama mentions that Iran felt being treated unfairly in the past so wise US. He actually also mentioned that US does not want regime change. he pointed that this change will take time. Hence, Obama accepts Islamic Republic. Also within his perfect speech, one could read that US does not mind to help Iran to advance economically if it starts to play an important role in Syria and Palestinian conflict. US gov. has realized that bombs and war game threat won’t solve the problem in the Middle East. Also,one can realize that Assad being there or not there won’t change its borders to Hezbollah and Co. Hence, US goverment wants strongly to talk to Iran and help them to get economically better.
I know for us this is BS because how can IRI prosper under such regime. However, a corruped gov. wont prosper even it gets economical help.

However, I personally think if Iran solve its dispute and Bassijis have nothing to propaganda to than we will also have a domestic change which results in less religious involvement in the gov. at the end
 

masoudA

Legionnaire
Oct 16, 2008
6,134
4
#9
Dear D24 - I have no doubt about your good intensions.......even the 1000T $ - there is nothing wrong with that. I love to see the sanctions end if it would mean for the people of Iran to live a better life. I love to see a deal in which political prisoners are freed, or the people are less oppressed...........however, how many times are we going to fall for the same tricks?

Here is what is going to happen - Obama and Rohani will come to agree to meet and discuss the nukes. Obama will lift much of the sanctions, which for the most part do nothing but limit Sepah from doing their global business. IR will feel 10 times more ligitimate and shall become 10 times more brutal.......
 
Oct 18, 2002
8,727
0
#10
Dear D24 - I have no doubt about your good intensions.......even the 1000T $ - there is nothing wrong with that. I love to see the sanctions end if it would mean for the people of Iran to live a better life. I love to see a deal in which political prisoners are freed, or the people are less oppressed...........however, how many times are we going to fall for the same tricks?

Here is what is going to happen - Obama and Rohani will come to agree to meet and discuss the nukes. Obama will lift much of the sanctions, which for the most part do nothing but limit Sepah from doing their global business. IR will feel 10 times more ligitimate and shall become 10 times more brutal.......
I do not think that only a part of the sanctions will be lifted if both parties agree how to solve the nuclear issue. IRI will go for the big ball if it agrees to stop their stupid actions.
Problem is that Khomeini needs anti US movement to satisfy his foreign guard the Hezbollah. On the other hand, it domestic economic problem will bring IRI more and more devestating situation. Hence, Rohani and Co. have a pretty difficult work to do. How to satisfy their godfather Khameini and how to get along with the west. And here it comes our chance that IRI will break in part when it sees that the west opens a fair and proper dialouge, see todays Obama speech.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
0
Canada
#11
All right, in my opinion this is smth really new because officially Obama never mentioned that IRI is upset about US involvement in the past officially. US never directly mentioned that Iran was victim poison gas. Especially, right after he mentioned holocaust, he brought up Iran. This is new. Iran was never put next to Israel as victim of war crime. Rhetorical wise Obama US puts Iran as victims even though all those Saddam support from the US during Iran and Iraq war has been changed to Iran "the victim under Saddams brutal regime." I was shocked when I heard that because since when US sees Iran as victim???
Okay, sure, I see where you're going with this. Obama's really reaching out to Iran. He's a great diplomat and peace and resolution of problems through diplomatic means was the underlying theme of his speech - he obviously extended that to Iran in the last part of the speech. None of this indicates a change of policy however - by mentioning Iranians as victims of chemical weapons, it doesn't mean that the US is willing to consider Iran its ally, at the same level as Israel. I think the more subtle message was that we understand how thousands of you were victimized and you better understand how millions of Jews were victimized.

Second, it has directly offered Iran to be part of world politics IF they accept to stop uranium enrichment not being under IAEO control. In the past US government indirectly mentioned to accept IRI in the world politics but this time Obama mentions that Iran felt being treated unfairly in the past so wise US. He actually also mentioned that US does not want regime change. he pointed that this change will take time. Hence, Obama accepts Islamic Republic. Also within his perfect speech, one could read that US does not mind to help Iran to advance economically if it starts to play an important role in Syria and Palestinian conflict. US gov. has realized that bombs and war game threat won’t solve the problem in the Middle East. Also,one can realize that Assad being there or not there won’t change its borders to Hezbollah and Co. Hence, US goverment wants strongly to talk to Iran and help them to get economically better.
I know for us this is BS because how can IRI prosper under such regime. However, a corruped gov. wont prosper even it gets economical help.

However, I personally think if Iran solve its dispute and Bassijis have nothing to propaganda to than we will also have a domestic change which results in less religious involvement in the gov. at the end
I think you're putting words where they did not exist. Again, we're listening to a great diplomat - every word is there for a reason. He mentioned nothing about enrichment and he certainly did not suggest that Iran should be outside IAEA control. He said that the "issue of Iran's nuclear program" must be resolved. That encompasses a wide range of issues, two of which are enrichment and unconditional access to IAEA inspectors, but the most important aspect of it is "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons" (quote/unquote). He's also not offering much by saying Iran can be a part of world politics - we already are - just not a useful part of it and that's because of the policies of our own government, not because of Obama! And he said nothing about Iran being treated unfairly in the past - again you're adding words that he did not use. He also said nothing about helping Iran advance economically. He said that our commitment to going down a different path will help the Iranian people in commerce and culture, etc.

He's NOT saying anywhere in his speech that He's going to help us, rather he's making it VERY clear that we need to help ourselves.
And on that note, saying that US is NOT after regime change in Iran, should be considered a victory for Khamenei, Sepah and et. al. I'm not sure we should be the ones celebrating! :(
 
Oct 18, 2002
8,727
0
#12
I think you're putting words where they did not exist.
Politicans always love to play with words so it makes us to think what comes next. When he starts to talk Iranians being victims of poison gas and that US is ready to talk, this leads us that US understands irans stand and tries to come to an agreement. This is really new


Again, we're listening to a great diplomat - every word is there for a reason.
He and is previous presidents are BIG liars. In his speach he talks about democracy movement in the middle east. But does not mention a single word about his NSA dilemma and again since he is in office he praises to close Guatanamo shortly. This is not a great diplomat. He mirrors a typical asswhole politicans who points to others but forgets what his country has recently done. Same like IRI.
That he knows English very well and uses great words, is of course marvellous.


He mentioned nothing about enrichment and he certainly did not suggest that Iran should be outside IAEA control. He said that the "issue of Iran's nuclear program" must be resolved. That encompasses a wide range of issues, two of which are enrichment and unconditional access to IAEA inspectors, but the most important aspect of it is "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons" (quote/unquote).
You are right he did not mention that but as far as I remember he said that Iran has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose. And in others channels US gov. mentioned that enrichment needs to be under the control of IAEA

He's also not offering much by saying Iran can be a part of world politics - we already are - just not a useful part of it and that's because of the policies of our own government, not because of Obama! (
We are not a member of NATO neither we have been ever seen as a seriouse goverment who wants to be part of the global economy. I actually give this problem to the "west" which we all know stopped Shah to use its economical power to rule globally.


And he said nothing about Iran being treated unfairly in the past - again you're adding words that he did not use. He also said nothing about helping Iran advance economically. He said that our commitment to going down a different path will help the Iranian people in commerce and culture, etc.
Here again, this president offered Iran to sit down and talk. Actually, Iran should be happy that after all those severe sanctions US gov. still gives IRI the chance to discuss its differences out. US has Iran right in the corner and no more economical pressure is needed. However, when it gives IRI the chance to sit down after 36 years tells me US wants to help...


He's NOT saying anywhere in his speech that He's going to help us, rather he's making it VERY clear that we need to help ourselves.
And on that note, saying that US is NOT after regime change in Iran, should be considered a victory for Khamenei, Sepah and et. al. I'm not sure we should be the ones celebrating! :(
I do not see that it is a victory for Khameini and its gang. Reason here is that US is directing Iran to a table with fruits and water on it. Now, if IRI wants to taste those non Iranian fruit and accept its taste, shows IRI that it has no more power to eat its own juicy and tasty fruits anymore, Since those severe sanctions its goverment does not even have the chance to pick a fruit they liked so much in the past
 
Oct 18, 2002
15,968
68
#13
Daiee, These are all political posturing.

also don't forget 99% of what Statesmen say in the UN is for internal consumption in their own countries.

There is not gone a big deal or grand bargain.

It is possible to reach a small scale deal on enrichment. and I think rahbar is gone be uninterested for any further serious negotiations after that.
 
Oct 18, 2002
8,727
0
#14
Daiee, These are all political posturing.

also don't forget 99% of what Statesmen say in the UN is for internal consumption in their own countries.

There is not gone a big deal or grand bargain.

It is possible to reach a small scale deal on enrichment. and I think rahbar is gone be uninterested for any further serious negotiations after that.
esamani jan, if rahbar likes it or not, is at the end irrelevant because Irans economical situation is just bad. I am close to the source and I hear lot of problems and coming more. I have cousins on the ships in the persian gulf where they have oil loaded but dont know where to go.
Hence, why rahbar pushes Rohani to talk and come to an agreement, shows IRI devastating situation.
 
Oct 18, 2002
15,968
68
#15
esamani jan, if rahbar likes it or not, is at the end irrelevant because Irans economical situation is just bad. I am close to the source and I hear lot of problems and coming more. I have cousins on the ships in the persian gulf where they have oil loaded but dont know where to go.
Hence, why rahbar pushes Rohani to talk and come to an agreement, shows IRI devastating situation.
exactly, they are interested to do negotiations just to get the country out of negative growth cycle.

my guess is Iran's major goal is to lift Central Bank Sanctions. and able to export upto 1 million barrels a year.

this will allow the government to get enough foreign currency to sustain the countries import needs.
 
Oct 18, 2002
8,727
0
#17
exactly, they are interested to do negotiations just to get the country out of negative growth cycle.

my guess is Iran's major goal is to lift Central Bank Sanctions. and able to export upto 1 million barrels a year.

this will allow the government to get enough foreign currency to sustain the countries import needs.
No No its all or nothing. What reason should US have to lift only some sanction and keep IRI to enrich uranium without any control.
If i see how much US media is currently talking about Iran (CNN shows for last 5 hours non stop about Iran) and Obamas speech, shows that media got the sign that US pushes Iran to open the glory gate to have normal diplomacy like Shah time.
Never forget, Iran is needed so much to solve Syria and Palestinian conflict.
 
Oct 18, 2002
15,968
68
#18
US pushes Iran to open the glory gate to have normal diplomacy like Shah time.
look I think you are reading too much into things.
the media needs a news cycle, wait to see if there beautiful girl abducted see what news the media covers the diplomacy or beautiful girl missing.

Iran and Britain had diplomatic relations that did not mean they had resolved all the west and Iranian differences.

but in the case of the u.s an Iran - U.S relation is not practical because then power establishment Iran has attached too much symbolism to American Embassy.

second, the u.s would not be interested in grand negotiation with iran that does not include Hezbollah.

the grandplan is way to complicated constructed and thus both sides will be happy if they reach small deal in three to six month time frame.
 
Jun 9, 2004
13,753
0
Canada
#19
Politicans always love to play with words so it makes us to think what comes next. When he starts to talk Iranians being victims of poison gas and that US is ready to talk, this leads us that US understands irans stand and tries to come to an agreement. This is really new

He and is previous presidents are BIG liars. In his speach he talks about democracy movement in the middle east. But does not mention a single word about his NSA dilemma and again since he is in office he praises to close Guatanamo shortly. This is not a great diplomat. He mirrors a typical asswhole politicans who points to others but forgets what his country has recently done. Same like IRI.
That he knows English very well and uses great words, is of course marvellous.

You are right he did not mention that but as far as I remember he said that Iran has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purpose. And in others channels US gov. mentioned that enrichment needs to be under the control of IAEA

We are not a member of NATO neither we have been ever seen as a seriouse goverment who wants to be part of the global economy. I actually give this problem to the "west" which we all know stopped Shah to use its economical power to rule globally.

Here again, this president offered Iran to sit down and talk. Actually, Iran should be happy that after all those severe sanctions US gov. still gives IRI the chance to discuss its differences out. US has Iran right in the corner and no more economical pressure is needed. However, when it gives IRI the chance to sit down after 36 years tells me US wants to help...

I do not see that it is a victory for Khameini and its gang. Reason here is that US is directing Iran to a table with fruits and water on it. Now, if IRI wants to taste those non Iranian fruit and accept its taste, shows IRI that it has no more power to eat its own juicy and tasty fruits anymore, Since those severe sanctions its goverment does not even have the chance to pick a fruit they liked so much in the past


Every great speech giver knows how, where, why and when to use words - particularly when he's giving a speech to people of different tastes, backgrounds and wants. If it led YOU to believe that the US understands Iran's stance and is ready to do a deal with Iran, then his speech achieved its purpose. After all, that's what the Iranian populace was looking for. Having spent most of my life in the West, I have a tendency to look at these things more from a Western perspective - in that sense, I can tell you that there was nothing new in his speech that remotely hinted at a change of policy. So overall, I guess we agree that it was a good speech both for a domestic audience and the overseas audience - although I'm dying to see some Israeli reactions! ;)

In all fairness to him, he did hint at the NSA mishap right at the beginning of his speech actually. The reason it was included at the beginning of the speech is that the administration knew the US is going to receive a grilling from Rousseff (Brazil's president who went up just before Obama) on the issue, since they intercepted her personal calls! So, he said that going forward, the US is going to do its best to balance its security apparatus needs with the rights of its citizens. I was impressed with the semi-acceptance of wrong-doing - not something you'd ever hear from an IR official! ;)

And on the last paragraph, you're right. If Rohani accepts a deal under which the IR is domestically perceived as the loser, then it's a good situation for us and not a good one for Khamenei & Co. I just can't see how that would happen though. It's like Khamenei signing his own death warrant! Like all other dictators in the course of history they'd rather carry on fighting a losing battle than to surrender - even a miserable life for another two years would be better than committing political suicide now. That's how he'd look at it.