Ignatius: Iranians want dialogue with US, expect peaceful end to crisis

[BurtWorm]

David Ignatius in the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/29/AR2006082901044.html

With a Thursday deadline looming on the nuclear issue, you might expect that Tehran would feel like a garrison town. But it's surprisingly relaxed, and I think that's because most Iranians expect the crisis will be defused somehow. The regime has been putting on a show of defiance as the U.N. deadline approaches, shooting off new missiles in Persian Gulf war games, opening a new heavy-water reactor and festooning downtown streets with banners of Lebanon's Hezbollah leader, Hasan Nasrallah. But this isn't a militarized country, and it certainly isn't eager for confrontation with America.

"I don't think anyone can think of a way to resolve problems between the U.S. and Iran other than negotiations," says Ali Ahmadi, a 28-year-old writer at the opposition newspaper Sharq. Though he's critical of Ahmadinejad, he describes the technical achievements of Iran's nuclear program as "really satisfying," and he sums up Iran's dilemma this way: "We are watching how much it's worth to continue the nuclear program -- its price. I can see there is this ambivalence, this concern. Because people realize this choice can bring about certain harsh consequences."

Perhaps the most interesting fact of life in Tehran this week is that you can't find anyone who is opposed in principle to dialogue with the United States. Even a few months ago, that topic was almost taboo, but now here's Ahmadinejad himself calling for a public debate with Bush. "The golden key to being popular here is to normalize relations with the U.S.," says Shahriar Khateri, a former member of the Revolutionary Guards who is now a doctor and a participant in a joint project with American scientists to study the effects of chemical weapons.

Iranians are patient people, and they seem to expect this crisis will play out a while longer. They don't want sanctions, but people I talked to don't seem very worried about them, either. Iranians have been living under some form of sanctions for several decades, and they've learned how to make their own cars, steel and pharmaceuticals -- and now missiles and nuclear reactors.

I come back to the fierce jockeying of Tehran's traffic jams. If Ahmadinejad behaves like most local drivers, he will go as far and fast as he can. It's only when the fender is about to be crushed that he will put on the brake. That's why this crisis is so dangerous -- it's easy to miscalculate when nobody knows the rules of the road.

[leftchick]

1. Iraq all over again

:(

[Julius Civitatus]

2. David Ignatius, as usual, is wrong on many accounts

First of all, Ignatius is very, very scared of Karl Rove (as he himself revealed in Hardball a few months ago), so I tend to doubt anything he has to say.

Second, even if Iran was indeed willing to negotiate and give up their nuclear ambitions, Ignatius is ignoring the BLOODLUST OF THE NEOCONS, who are calling without any shame for the nuking of Tehran. They want their war, and nothing will stop them from getting it.

Third, Ignatius also ignores the fact that the Bush administration won't negotiate with Iran, no matter what. Cheney wants war, Rummy wants to play with those neat new bunker-busting nukes, and the neocons are in full circle-jerk fever calling for a full frontal attack on Iran.

[Julius Civitatus]

3. I forgot: Iran will be this year's October surprise

Mark my words. Karl Rove will work this Iranian crisis to the boiling point just to play the old fear card one more time. Sadly, given the idiocy of Red State Murka, it will probably work again.

[BurtWorm]

4. Ignatius is just reporting what's going on in Iran.

He's not saying it will end peacefully. He's saying the Iranians are expecting it to.