Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mithridates]

I agree, and I would also add that Turkey is cooperating a lot on energy deals with Iran anyway so there's no way to contain them in the first place.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=19660

[Gopher]

No. We are not interested in "cooperating" with the Iranian regime while it pursues nuclear weapons, the destruction or Israel, hosts Holocaust-denial conferences, etc.

Such one-way diplomacy is despicable, reminiscent of "appeasement." What "cooperation," for example, does the Iranian regime offer us in such a scheme as this? "Iranian energy flowing westward?" Sounds like a kind of blackmail to me.

[Kuros]

I agree.

A bilateral agreement with Iran will allow the U.S. more leverage should Iran fail in its committments. The U.S. should pursue an open-minded agreement with Iran and have secret arrangements to help the U.S. withdraw from Iraq. Should Iran fundamentally violate the agreement by pursuing nuclear weapons, the U.S. can claim a breach of the provisions and strike.

The U.S. needs time and a bilateral treaty offers that. Iranian violations of a bilateral agreement also provide the U.S an effective and credible casus belli for limited retaliatory strikes. Its time for the U.S. to start working within the international system in a clever manner, rather than stupidly and stubborningly refusing to take part, as Stalin did vis-a-vis the U.N. in the early 50s.

[Gopher]

Kuros: the last time we made a serious, good-faith effort to normalize relations with the Iranian govt, it blackmailed us. Some people in advising and policymaking circles remember this from first-hand experience. And are you prepared to accept Tehran's continued backing of Hezbollah and its activities?

This situation is not analogous to the early Cold War, either. Tehran is not a superpower, for one. Further, when I ask who is showing stubbornness here, the American govt is not the first party that comes to mind.

[Ya-ta Boy]

'Appeasement' is one of those words that is thrown around in order to cut off discussion. A constructive word that means the same thing is 'compromise'.

It is always worth pursuing negotiations for fair settlements with other countries, and it is always worth being seen by the world to be attempting to find non-military solutions to international problems.

I for one am sick of unilateral actions in that region. To hell with bilateral agreements. Any talks with Iran should be through NATO.

[Kuros]

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Gopher]

[Ya-ta Boy]

We'd have to actually sit down with them in the same room to find out the answer to that. Even then, we'd have to go in the room ready to make deals, not dictate terms. Their domestic economy is in a shambles; that should give us someplace to start.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Gopher]

Ya-ta Boy: why should we be prepared to sit down at a table, with the attitude of making deals and not dictating terms, with an opponent who does not want to make deals but rather dictate terms?

Point of comparison: the Shanghai Communique. Beijing and Washington shared an overriding common interest: anti-Soviet foreign policy. Mao initiated contact, subtly, by inviting Edgar Snow, an American journalist, to stand by his side in an official photograph. Nixon and Kissinger reciprocated: we would like to explore a reconciliation with you. Mao responded: remove your naval patrols from the Taiwanese Straits, and demonstrate your seriousness of purpose. Nixon complied. Kissinger went to China. Once in China, Mao compromised, stating he was in no hurry to force the Americans to abandon Taiwan after all, that the thing could be worked out much later, etc., etc. That was a significant thing for the Chinese to give, especially at that time.

In any case, what kinds of signals have Tehran been sending the Americans (and their allies in the Middle East) recently to lead you to believe that it would be worthwhile and productive to negotiate with them. "Their domestic economy" is not a good starter. Consider the decades-old Castro's Cuba.

In any case, if Tehran wants to negotiate, reach compromises, reestablish relations with us, and move forward constructively, I would wholly support that -- including our giving at least as much as we take from such an agreement. I just do not see Tehran as being ready for these kinds of adult conversations at this point. In fact, last I heard, I'madinnerjacket was not even prepared to accept that homosexuals existed within Iranian society.

[Ya-ta Boy]

Are we so morally corrupt that all we have to offer this world is the school yard bully?

The rulers of Iran are abysmal administrators. Their economy is a mess. A major reason for the bellicose talk about Israel is to divert public attention from the mess at home. How about offering them an alternative? Economic development at home is often more important than foreign crusades...just look at the US public this year.

[Tjames426]

Changes are going to come in Iran. Major Iranian Islamic leaders are complaining against the present political leadership.

The common Iranian people do not want war with anyone.
They are tired of the morality police who think women wearing proper dresses and headscarves is more important than jobs, and enough food to eat.


The US has already struck a deal with Iran. It is like this:

Make nukes and Israel will come and destroy them.
Send Iranian terrorists into Iraq, we will kill them.
Attack ships in the Strait, we will destroy your so called Navy.

Not much more to say.

[Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee]

[Gopher]