In "Whither Iran Policy?," (Commentary Magazine) Emanuele Ottolenghi sees signs that Obama's engagement policy with Iran may be coming to an end.
Could it be true? According to the Los Angeles Times, the U.S. administration may have changed its mind on the virtues of engaging Iran’s regime while giving the cold shoulder to its street opposition. As Paul Richter reports,While this assessment might be true, it brings any realist to an inescapable conclusion: after a year of an active "engagement" policy vs Iran, the administration realized the futility of this naive approach and is switching to "do nothing" attitude. As is demonstrated very well in the rest of Mr Ottolenghi's article. And when he is saying "Still, it is too early for optimism", I can only admire his ability of understatement.
After keeping a careful distance for the last year, the Obama administration has concluded that the Iranian opposition movement has staying power and has embraced it as a central element in the U.S.-led campaign to pressure the country's clerical government.
Clearly, the administration is not about to embrace the rhetoric of regime change. Nor is it going to send an expeditionary force to oust the tyrants in Tehran. But perhaps there is a growing realization that something unprecedented has happened in Iran since June 12, 2009, and that the best hope American interests have rests on a change of regime carried out from the inside.
In the eyes of a pessimist: "Wither Iran Policy".
12 comments:
I can't see the US doing much to affect things in Iran for the better.
Afraid have to agree with you about that, Jams.
<span>China is afraid of a pro western government to emerge in Iran ?
What does he mean by pro western ? If U.S was worried about democracy and people lives, It would not have seek friendship with backward monarchs of Saudi Arabia . Never to forget that Saudis played a major role in creation and rise of <span> </span>Taliban and Muslim brotherhood in the Middle East .Egypt is another ally of U.S and everyone full well knows that Egypt is a not democracy . Pakistan has nuclear weaponry as U.S tend not worry about Pakistan since Pakistan authorities are U.S son of a bitches .
<span>To hell with U.S interests</span></span>
<span>Not to mention U.S support of Islamic fundamentalists in Iran<span> </span>and <span> </span>president Reagan administration cooperation with Khomeini .Israel as well sold weaponry to the Islamic regime of Iran for 8 years .<span> </span>As a result of 8 years of war , so many people’s lives got wasted<span> </span>and this inhuman regime could stabilize itself . <span> </span>all the money and human’s labour that could have spend on Iran ‘s industrial development got wasted in war that was fueled by both Islamic fundamentalists and U.S .And every body knows how U.S sold all kind of weaponry <span> </span>including chemical weaponry to the criminal Saddam which he used on Iranians .</span>
<span>No to mention U.S coup which they overthrew the prime minister of Iran and U.S brought to power their favorite clown Shah who killed and jailed many of Iranian intellectuals during his resign .
One sector economy base on oil exportations is what Imperialist powers wanted for Iran . Not a developed industry that could produce jobs for Iranians . Industries that could have supplied Iranian’s demands . Industries that would have stopped Iranians dependency on world bank’s loans to supply their food , cloth e, GAS etc .. .</span>
That's simple, Guest: China gets up to 70% of its oil from Iran. So Ayatollahs could be sure of kid gloves treatement from China.
Yep, as I've mentioned, today it's "do nothing"...
Money talks, Guest, or don't you know it? As for US selling "all kind of weaponry" to Saddam, it's pure bullshit. There are official lists that clearly show USSR/Russia and European countries leading the list of Saddam suppliers, with US being far at the end of that list with a small percentage.
Now we shall start arguing what was better for Iran: Shah or Ayatollahs? What is your point exactly?
One worse than the other .
China's postion is very clear for Iranians . U.S position is not .
They say they support democracy and they support people but they want to attack Iran if they get the chance .
They support sanctions with supposed aim to harm Iranian authorities but as a matter of fact the sanction will impoverish Iranians even more while it is going to leave Iranian authorities intact .
No , china's position is very clear but U.S is not .
Besides , china never threatened Iran with an economical blockade or an attack .
An open relation with Iranian authorities is better than secrete aid and alliance of U.S authorities with Iranian stinky regime or an economical blockade .
An open relationship with U.S should be welcomed but I do not think both Iranian’s authorities and people can agree with U.S colonization of Iran.
U.S supplied Saddam with weaponry during Gulf war .
Are you referring to Gulf war ?
Can I say profit talks instead o f money talks .
Post a Comment