Why the US doesn't talk to Iran

[unhappycamper]

Why the US doesn't talk to Iran
By Ismael Hossein-zadeh and Karla Hansen
Sep 30, 2010

The unrelenting diplomatic and geopolitical standoff between Iran and the United States is often blamed on the Iranian government for its "confrontational" foreign policies, or its "unwillingness" to enter into dialogue with the United States. Little known, however, is that during the past decade or so, Iran has offered a number of times to negotiate with the US without ever getting a positive response.

The best-known effort at dialogue, which came to be known as Iran's "grand bargain" proposal, was made in May 2003. The two-page proposal for a broad Iran-US understanding, covering all issues of mutual concern, was transmitted to the US State Department through the Swiss ambassador in Tehran. Not only did the State Department not respond to Iran's negotiating offer, but, as reporter Gareth Porter pointed out, it "rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer".

Since then, Iran has made a number of other efforts at negotiation, the latest of which was made by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad ahead of last week's trip to the United States to attend the annual meeting of the United Nations General Assembly. Regrettably, once again the US ignored Ahmadinejad's overture of meeting with President Barack Obama during his UN visit.

The question is why? Why have successive US administrations been reluctant to enter into a conflict-resolution dialogue with Iran, which could clearly be in the national interests of the United States?

The answer, in a nutshell, is that US foreign policy, especially in the Middle East, is driven not so much by broad national interests as they are by narrow but powerful special interests - interests that seem to prefer war and militarism to peace and international understanding. These are the nefarious interests that are vested in military industries and related "security" businesses, notoriously known as the military-industrial complex. These beneficiaries of war dividends would not be able to justify their lion's share of our tax dollars without "external enemies" or "threats to our national interests."

[RandomThoughts]

1. And that is actually a symptom.

They want something to produce, and because production is above demand, they create demand, and war is one way to do that, also corruption can do that.

So it is really a problem with a system where production is to high, for the demand, and using a system that requires production to be lower then demand to work.

It is all tied together.




The other reason for war is fear, if you have an enemy you fear, it is easier for people to think they need security, then that security is used for power and control for a few.


It is also used in many teachings of fire and brimstone in many churches. If you think about it, the philosophy is not that different. Give something to fear to get compliance.


Totalitarian regimes fail without an enemy to get people to not see what they are doing. And the worse a regime gets, the worse it has to make an enemy.


(I personally think choices of faith should be about what you think is best, not for reward or punishment in the after, many think differently on that.)

[chimpymustgo]

2. How much time do you think we have?

[RandomThoughts]

4. Could you explain that question.

[CanonRay]

3. Because their government is controlled by religious lunatics?

and what they say bears no relation to the truth? So sorry, but I have a lot of trouble making this one our fault.

[eridani]

5. That their government is controlled by religious lunatics is precisely our fault

The US and Britain overthrew the secular, democratic government of Iran in 1953 by stirring up the mullahs. Thanks to the brutality of the Shah, all opposition was funnelled into a religious mold.

[ensho]

7. true

nt

[ConservativeDemocrat]

8. After 60 years, it's no longer our fault.

No matter how bad we screwed up in the 1950s, that doesn't excuse what is happening now.
Carter tried to make amends by not helping the Shah keep the opposition down, but it didn't
mollify the Iranian fundamentalists, or keep them from being brutally repressive when they
got into power.

But I forget, on the D.U., anything that Blames America First will be immediately modded up.
Tell me, do you also blame the Tea Party on Dennis Kucinich?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[eridani]

9. Whatchu mean "America," Kemosabe?

The neocons and neolibs are not "America". The corporate ruling elite is not "America". The rest of us poor saps who just live here have a better claim on the designation "America," and we would likely not approve of all the elite shenanigans aimed at dominating the rest of the world and its resources, and making it safe for dollar a day labor. That is, if large numbers of us knew about stuff like that--but the general population doesn't.

If you want to identify with the sociopathic shitstains who visit daily disaster on the rest of the world, including the 98% of us "Americans" who aren't part of their club,then go for it. Just leave the rest of us out, 'K?

And yes, permanently closing off the possibility of secular democracy in Iran is still the fault of our policy elite, 100%. Odd how they don't mind even whackier fundamentalism in Saudi Arabia right now, no? Just as they didn't mind it in IRan in 1953.

[ensho]

6. kick

nt