[FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great
Views expressed here are not necessarily the views & opinions of ActivistChat.com. Comments are unmoderated. Abusive remarks may be deleted. ActivistChat.com retains the rights to all content/IP info in in this forum and may re-post content elsewhere.
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Your Key is as Bent as Your Knowledge of History

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:41 pm    Post subject: Your Key is as Bent as Your Knowledge of History Reply with quote

I came across this editorial article, and couldn't help myself from replying to it in this forum. See what you guys think about it. I've posted the original article, followed by my own answer. Enjoy:


http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=/articles/2006/03/29/opinion/edtakeyh.php


Quote:
The key lies in Iran's history
Charles A. Kupchan and Ray Takeyh International Herald Tribune
THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006



WASHINGTON After years of indecision and internal squabbling, the Bush administration has finally settled on an Iran policy: Washington will rely on coercive diplomacy - sanctions backed by the threat of military strikes - to rid Iran of its nuclear program, while simultaneously seeking to foment regime change in Tehran.

This approach is ill-advised and based on a fundamental misreading of Iran's perception of the current standoff.

For the Bush administration, the confrontation is all about Tehran's nuclear ambitions and fears that Iran is seeking to build the bomb.

But for the Iranian government and the vast majority of its citizens, the nuclear issue has become larger than life, a nationalist cause that is all about defending the country's sovereignty and dignity.

Relying on blustery threats to browbeat Tehran into submission is poised only to backfire. Historical sensitivity and judicious diplomacy are needed to steer the theocratic regime in the right direction.

For Iranians, history is a living enterprise. Throughout the 20th century, Iran was a stomping ground for the great powers. It was a pawn first in the struggle between Britain and Russia, then between America and the Soviet Union.

Behind every shah was a foreign hand that could empower or humble the Peacock Throne. An ancient and proud civilization was reduced to a vassal state, irked by the capitulation treaties repeatedly imposed on it by Occidental powers.

Americans fixate on the 1979 revolution and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. But for Iranians, the events of 1953 loom much larger, when America and Britain teamed up to depose a nationalist regime, replacing it with a pliant but tyrannical monarchy.

This past has produced a nation deeply averse to international dictates. That is one of the main reasons the Islamic Revolution has had so much staying power. Iran's mullahs freed the country of great power domination for the first time in a century.

Themes of sacrifice and resistance remain the currency of Iranian politics; to resist American pressure is to validate national dignity.

With this historical narrative shaping Iran's approach to the nuclear debate, the Bush administration's assumption that calibrated pressure will yield Iranian acquiescence is doomed to failure. On the contrary, the more intense the pressure, the more intransigent Iran's response is likely to be.

As Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said last week, "We know well that a county's backing down one iota on its undeniable rights is the same as losing everything."

President George W. Bush may please his conservative base by branding Iran an "axis of evil" and an "outpost of tyranny." But the provocative rhetoric only plays into the hands of Iran's hardliners. Washington is far more likely to see its efforts pay off if it tones down its language and adopts a diplomatic stance more mindful of Iran's historical baggage.

The substance of American diplomacy must change as well. When Tehran is told to suspend its nuclear program or face "dire consequences" at the same time that Washington agrees to help India expand its nuclear program, Iranians only dig in their heels.

Washington should broaden the context of negotiations by tendering clear inducements. The Bush administration has already indicated that it is prepared to discuss with Iran how best to bring stability to Iraq. A U.S.-Iran dialogue should also address broader security issues in the Gulf.

Easing sanctions, releasing Iranian assets frozen since the revolution and ultimately establishing diplomatic relations should also be on the table. The prospect of such rewards will do much more to empower Iranian moderates than a tightened economic embargo or attacks on nuclear facilities.

Tapping into Iran's national pride rather than confronting it head-on holds out the best hope for containing its nuclear ambitions and undercutting a belligerent regime that depends on isolation and defiance for its political survival.

(Charles A. Kupchan, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, and Ray Takeyh are senior fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations.)




Wasn't that entertaining and funny? Now, the replies:

Quote:
After years of indecision and internal squabbling, the Bush administration has finally settled on an Iran policy: Washington will rely on coercive diplomacy - sanctions backed by the threat of military strikes - to rid Iran of its nuclear program, while simultaneously seeking to foment regime change in Tehran.


Ok, it’s not a good plan. Tell me what the plan should be. I’m all ears.

Quote:
This approach is ill-advised and based on a fundamental misreading of Iran's perception of the current standoff.


Please enlighten us on the “correct read.”

Quote:
For the Bush administration, the confrontation is all about Tehran's nuclear ambitions and fears that Iran is seeking to build the bomb.


Actually, it’s much more than that, and needs to be more than that. Not only is the bomb an issue, but also Iran currently being the greatest state sponsor of terrorism, and the largest single power threatening the civilized world. It’s also about the islamo-fascists in Tehran gravely oppressing the Iranian people and committing horrific human rights violations.

Quote:
But for the Iranian government and the vast majority of its citizens, the nuclear issue has become larger than life, a nationalist cause that is all about defending the country's sovereignty and dignity.


Not really. First, the Iranian government is anything but nationalistic, and would destroy Iran to replace it with its own “Islamabad” if it could. Second, Iranians are currently either too busy trying to not starve to death, or getting high from drugs as an escape, or avoiding being thrown into prison and being tortured and killed to really care about having a nuclear bomb. A nuclear bomb is irrelevant to a people struggling to just stay afloat and dealing with constant torment and oppression from their own government.

Quote:
Relying on blustery threats to browbeat Tehran into submission is poised only to backfire. Historical sensitivity and judicious diplomacy are needed to steer the theocratic regime in the right direction.


Diplomacy doesn’t work with these guys. They secretly laughed at the EU-3 during their negotiations while enriching Uranium.

Quote:
For Iranians, history is a living enterprise. Throughout the 20th century, Iran was a stomping ground for the great powers. It was a pawn first in the struggle between Britain and Russia, then between America and the Soviet Union.


This is true….go on…

Quote:
Behind every shah was a foreign hand that could empower or humble the Peacock Throne. An ancient and proud civilization was reduced to a vassal state, irked by the capitulation treaties repeatedly imposed on it by Occidental powers.


….You had a good train of thought, but then ruined it. Not every shah was a puppet, though the foreign powers intended them to be. Reza Shah stood up to the Russians and the British and held his ground, much to their surprise, during the Azarbaiejan and Khusistan crises. And Mohammad Reza Shah got left out in the rain by his so-called western allies because he was not willing to submit to their demands of robbing the country of its natural resources.

Quote:
Americans fixate on the 1979 revolution and the seizure of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. But for Iranians, the events of 1953 loom much larger, when America and Britain teamed up to depose a nationalist regime, replacing it with a pliant but tyrannical monarchy.


First, the “nationalist regime” of 1953 was not necessarily nationalistic. Just because they “nationalized” Iran’s oil didn’t mean that they were nationalists.

Second, the Shah’s monarchy was far more nationalistic than anything Iran had seen in centuries, and not tyrannical. Show me a SINGLE tyrant in all of recorded world history that had one of the most powerful militaries at his disposal, yet did not use it to suppress his people when they rebelled. Show me a single tyrant who gave the order for his mighty military to stand down, lest bloodshed of his citizens ensued. Show me a single tyrant who ever relinquished power because he thought that that’s what the people wanted. Please show me…

Quote:
This past has produced a nation deeply averse to international dictates. That is one of the main reasons the Islamic Revolution has had so much staying power. Iran's mullahs freed the country of great power domination for the first time in a century.


Before you were incorrect, but now you’ve gone completely off the deep end. The reason the mullahs have staying power is two-fold. First, they brutally and mercilessly oppress any opposition. Though effective in the short term, history has shown that its effect eventually diminishes and gets overwhelmed by a people who eventually reach a boiling point. Second, they have oil and money, which makes many of the world’s greedy nations – Russia, China, European nations, etc – want to continue to do business with and empower them. This too, will eventually be overcome, as the boiling point of the people will not be averted forever. It is a question of WHEN, not IF.

And the Mullahs “freed” nothing except their own “Willy,” which they have subsequently stuck up the backside of the Iranian nation and all of its citizens.

Quote:
Themes of sacrifice and resistance remain the currency of Iranian politics; to resist American pressure is to validate national dignity.


What dignity? Show me one Iranian other than the Mullahs and their lackeys that feels in any way “dignified” by the current regime.

Quote:
With this historical narrative shaping Iran's approach to the nuclear debate, the Bush administration's assumption that calibrated pressure will yield Iranian acquiescence is doomed to failure. On the contrary, the more intense the pressure, the more intransigent Iran's response is likely to be.


Well, since your “historical narrative” is obviously flawed, then so is this conclusion which you draw based on this “historical narrative.”

Quote:
As Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said last week, "We know well that a county's backing down one iota on its undeniable rights is the same as losing everything."


You’re listening to this guy? For Allah’s sake, the guy is a monkey who was blessed with the miracle of human speech. He is Mahmoud Meymoon. He is the village idiot.

Besides, what exactly is Monkey Boy talking about when he says “undeniable rights?” Could it perhaps be the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness? Because if so, he and his band of orangutans have denied the Iranian citizens of all three.

Quote:
President George W. Bush may please his conservative base by branding Iran an "axis of evil" and an "outpost of tyranny." But the provocative rhetoric only plays into the hands of Iran's hardliners. Washington is far more likely to see its efforts pay off if it tones down its language and adopts a diplomatic stance more mindful of Iran's historical baggage.


Is the current regime not “evil,” and an “outpost of tyranny?” Why not call it what it truly is? Toning down language serves only those who out of shame and ignorance wish to be politically correct.

Quote:
The substance of American diplomacy must change as well. When Tehran is told to suspend its nuclear program or face "dire consequences" at the same time that Washington agrees to help India expand its nuclear program, Iranians only dig in their heels.


Oh, wise one….please tell us what the American policy must change to…

Quote:
Washington should broaden the context of negotiations by tendering clear inducements. The Bush administration has already indicated that it is prepared to discuss with Iran how best to bring stability to Iraq. A U.S.-Iran dialogue should also address broader security issues in the Gulf.


I already told you…negotiating with these guys is a joke. In fact, the Bush administration’s willingness to open negotiations in the context of Iraq is a mistake. Nothing good will come of this for the Great Satan. As far as “broadening security issues in the gulf,” the current theocratic regime in Tehran IS ITSELF the greatest security threat to the region. Shall we negotiate with the wolf on “how to make the sheep safe from the wolf?”

Quote:
Easing sanctions, releasing Iranian assets frozen since the revolution and ultimately establishing diplomatic relations should also be on the table. The prospect of such rewards will do much more to empower Iranian moderates than a tightened economic embargo or attacks on nuclear facilities.


Oh yeah…great idea…Release their frozen assets, so they’ll have even more funds to subsidize Hamas and Hezbollah. I have a better idea. Why not just send them guns and ammo directly, and bypass the middle man?

Let’s also bake a pie and send it to the Mullahs, with a note attached: “just a token of our appreciation for screwing Iran and spreading death and terrorism for the past 27 years.”

As far as the “Iranian moderates,” there is no such thing. The moderates are just the “good cops” in the “good cop, bad cop” routine. The moderates are the wolves in sheep’s clothing. Save the “moderate” mumbo jumbo for the simpletons.

Quote:
Tapping into Iran's national pride rather than confronting it head-on holds out the best hope for containing its nuclear ambitions and undercutting a belligerent regime that depends on isolation and defiance for its political survival.


By all means, please tap into Iran’s national pride…at least what’s left of it after 27 years of an Islamic Barbarian Theocracy.

Quote:
Charles A. Kupchan, a professor of international affairs at Georgetown University, and Ray Takeyh are senior fellows at the Council on Foreign Relations.)


The professor needs more time researching history and less time professing about subjects of which he is so unfamiliar. If these guys are the senior fellows at the “Council on Foreign Relations,” it’s no wonder the US’ foreign relations are so screwed up.

It looks like every liberal hippy with a flower up his butt is getting his own column these days.
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
blank



Joined: 26 Feb 2004
Posts: 1672

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear Amir:
It was a great response, I do hope you actually send it to them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
AmirN



Joined: 23 Sep 2005
Posts: 297

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I sure did, blank.

And if anyone else wants to send them any kind of response, you may do so at the following e-mail, which is where I sent my reply:

letters@iht.com
_________________
I am Dariush the Great King, King of Kings, King of countries containing all kinds of men, King in this great earth far and wide, son of Hystaspes, an Achaemenian, a Persian, son of a Persian, an Aryan, having Aryan lineage

Naqshe Rostam
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
asher



Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 305
Location: Portland, Oregon

PostPosted: Fri Mar 31, 2006 5:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Amir, this is a really really outstanding piece. I linked it at my blog here:
http://asher813.blogspot.com/2006/03/great-post-at-free-iran.html

Great job.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    [FREE IRAN Project] In The Spirit Of Cyrus The Great Forum Index -> News Briefs & Discussion All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group