One-on-One Talks with Ahmadinejad?

[gipper]

Barack Obama has seized an opening left by Hillary Clinton's more traditional stance on Iran to purvey the idea of having one-on-one talks with President Ahmadinejad sooner rather than later and certainly before the two nations' differences get to the point of military action. How should this play in the electorate. At once the idea dangles the possibility of diplomatically-reached resolutions, but it has its drawbacks. One tangible outcome may be to strengthen the Iranian's domestic political hand as he could approach the anomaly of a firebrand-statesman tweaking the imagination. Then there is the danger, without foundation blocks by subordinates, that Ahmadinejad's intent could be perverse. The biggest downside, however, is that he is not the top man in Iran, more a showcase than the policy-maker. But maybe if Obama or anyone else wants to talk to the Supreme Ayatollah himself things would fall into place. Though the circumstances were entirely different, the stakes are not: Roosevelt and Churchill sat down with Stalin when a common enemy threatened. Today, the common enemy is the actual and perceived differences among peoples who don't know each other in many crucial facets.

[yellow_crane]

Barack Obama has seized an opening left by Hillary Clinton's more traditional stance on Iran to purvey the idea of having one-on-one talks with President Ahmadinejad sooner rather than later and certainly before the two nations' differences get to the point of military action. How should this play in the electorate. At once the idea dangles the possibility of diplomatically-reached resolutions, but it has its drawbacks. One tangible outcome may be to strengthen the Iranian's domestic political hand as he could approach the anomaly of a firebrand-statesman tweaking the imagination. Then there is the danger, without foundation blocks by subordinates, that Ahmadinejad's intent could be perverse. The biggest downside, however, is that he is not the top man in Iran, more a showcase than the policy-maker. But maybe if Obama or anyone else wants to talk to the Supreme Ayatollah himself things would fall into place. Though the circumstances were entirely different, the stakes are not: Roosevelt and Churchill sat down with Stalin when a common enemy threatened. Today, the common enemy is the actual and perceived differences among peoples who don't know each other in many crucial facets.

I wonder how much stock to put into the notion that Ahmadinejad is simply a storefront enterprise. 

As is true with Juan, I tend to think that the msm acts as pure propaganda machine to maintain a continuity conduit in which both are trivialized with automatic routiness, with little note of any neutrals, let alone positives.

I do not doubt that it is true, in that the clergy stands behind the "throne."  It became less credible to me that he is of such insignificance after his Columbia appearance.  With a truly objective assessment of that encounter, a rational mind would have to, no matter how begrudgingly, admit that the trophy went to the Iranian, and couple that with what I would assess as the mainstream Islamic capacity to cheer at his performance, it becomes even less credible to me.   But note that the msm gave little if any kudos to him.  As I said, bias.

So what else is new?  Look at Bush.  Talk about a figurehead. 

If you click to those who stand behind the throne in both countries--the Islam superdogs and Cheney's corporate cowboys, you are closer to the truth as to who is affected and who is responsive and who really counts.  In America, I would say that a very good argument could be made that Cheney has the people in the far end of his mind, and profits for a very few are up front.   Could the Iranians see as insulting regard in their leader, or leaders?   

[Amianthus]

It's actually better to think of all world leaders as the tip of a "cone" of people who are his / her power base.

[gipper]

I may be wrong, but I understand Iran's written or oral "constitutional" structure to lodge ultimate power in the ayatollahs, whom the president serves at their pleasure, basically. It's not a matter of power bases and effective constituencies; it's a matter of formal authority accompanying effective authority.

[Amianthus]

I may be wrong, but I understand Iran's written or oral "constitutional" structure to lodge ultimate power in the ayatollahs, whom the president serves at their pleasure, basically. It's not a matter of power bases and effective constituencies; it's a matter of formal authority accompanying effective authority.

He doesn't "serve at their pleasure" really, but they have veto power over nominations. Anyone can be nominated and elected pretty much, as long as they don't annoy the mullahs to the point they exercise their veto.

[Xavier_Onassis]

Whatever the political structure of Iran is, it is clear that (a) Ahmedinejad does have some power, (b) the system of government DOES involve the Iranian people and is clearly far more democratic than Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Pakistan and pretty much any Arab country other than Turkey, and (c) is quite complicated.

In the US in 2004, we had to choose between two rather mediocre politicians who attended Yale and were both members of the elite fraternity Skull & Bones. I would say that the mullahs gave a more expansive choice to the Iranians in selecting a leader than we were given here in the suposedly democratic USA.

It would CLEARLY make sense for the next US president to sit down and discuss the various problems between the US and Iran with Ahmedinejad and whomever follows him, just as it made sense for Nixon to meet with Mao, or Reagan with Gorbachov.

It would make sense for Juniorbush to accept Ahmedinejad's various invitations to talk as well. But either he is too stubborn, or the oligarchy that pulls his strings is too stubborn or perhaps they seriously want to monger a third war.

There is really no reason for the US and Iran to get into a violent confrontation. It would be bad for both countries and their people.

Iran has no reason to want to annex Israel or Palestine, either. As Shiites, and the defender of the minority Shiite sect, Iranians know how it feels to be a second-class citizens because of religions, so it is natural that they would side with the oppressed Palestinians over the domineering Jews in Israel.

By oppressed I mean that an entire Palestinians family can have their ancestral home utterly destroyed and prohibited from being rebuilt forever, based on the suspicion that a member of the family is a 'terrorist'. 

[Michael Tee]

Why does it have to be one-on-one?  Why can't the U.S. send over its President with whatever cabinet members or legislators he or she chooses to negotiate with whomever the Iranian power structure designates as its negotiator(s)?  Telling them in advance, "We wanna talk to Ahmadinejad" or "We wanna talk to Mullah X" is bound to insult somebody, step on somebody's toes.  Surely it's up to the Iranians themselves to figure out who will speak for them.

[Amianthus]

In the US in 2004, we had to choose between two rather mediocre politicians who attended Yale and were both members of the elite fraternity Skull & Bones. I would say that the mullahs gave a more expansive choice to the Iranians in selecting a leader than we were given here in the suposedly democratic USA.

Michael Badnarik and several others were on many state ballots.