About Negotiating with Iran

[Adam's Apple]

Nonnegotiable
By Michael Ledeen, National Review
March 12, 2007

“Diplomacy” with Iran means ignoring what its leaders are saying.

for full article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjVkMjFkODZmZGMwYjQ5NmE1NDQxM2ZiN2EyOTQxYWI=

 

[ErikViking]

It would be great if Iran showed some interest in negotiations. A moderate force there would be nice...

But what does he mean by this?

...They are not like us, and they do not share our dreams. Diplomacy will not tame them. Only our victory will.

Faster, Please. Our kids are getting killed every day by these people, and we’re next on their list.

Pure hate/fear dehumanization.

 

[boedicca]

It is futile to negotiate with people who are not doing so in good faith. The best policy towards Iraq is to support the insurgency of westernized moderates against the Medieval Mullahs. Islam is long overdue for a Reformation.

 

[Annie]

It is futile to negotiate with people who are not doing so in good faith. The best policy towards Iraq is to support the insurgency of westernized moderates against the Medieval Mullahs. Islam is long overdue for a Reformation.

Exactly, which was the point I think Erik was missing with English.

 

[CTRLALTDEL]

I see you all graduated from the Paris Hilton school of international diplomacy. If you don't like them, don't talk to them

 

[ErikViking]

It is futile to negotiate with people who are not doing so in good faith. The best policy towards Iraq is to support the insurgency of westernized moderates against the Medieval Mullahs. Islam is long overdue for a Reformation.

Exactly, which was the point I think Erik was missing with English.

If that was the essence of the text, I did misunderstand it. Not good

I will re-read the article...

 

[ErikViking]

Well. I read the article again.

First I will say what I think is good about it:
The cultural difference he describes between Iran's leader and our own is an issue. We might not be speaking the same language or negotiating the same things. This is something we should be aware of.

But then:
He tries to describe diplomacy as an ineffective way of solving conflicts. Or even worse. He claims diplomacy being the reason for prolonging the cold war with 20 years. Until Reagan ended it.
How? Did he have two buttons?
"End cold war"
"Issue thermo nuclear strike"
And just decided to press number one? No. Reagan also adopted diplomacy.

Maybe we should be glad that the cold war didn't end 20 years earlier? By some other mean than that of diplomacy.

Diplomacy isn't equivalent of giving up. Diplomacy can implement threats, sanctions and deception.

About the current conflict with Iran I can't see him calling for any other solution than that of a war - how can I miss that?

Also I find his last sentences very stereotype and uninspiring.
Taming people isn't the objective of diplomacy. Wild animals are tamed. If you feel the need of everyone sharing your dreams or in generally be like yourself you are probably a very unsecure person.

Calling combat troops in Iraq "kids" doesn't do it for me. Everyone is someones kid.

As he obiously know alot I think he could have done better than that last lines AND put some balance into his critisism of diplomacy.

So, what have I missed? I can't see how he is advicating anything in general (clear text) only how he rules out all form of diplomacy or negotiations.

 

[Adam's Apple]

For diplomacy to work, it takes two to tango with both partners being interested in the same outcome of the dance--living together in peace. That equation is not evident with radical Muslim Iran, unless you have no objection to becoming a Muslim and living under Shira law (death to America, the Great Satan!). You have to hand it to the mullahs--they tell you exactly what their aims/goals are.

If the young Iranians--the discontented population of Iran--were in charge of their government instead of the radical mullahs, then diplomacy would have an outstanding chance of working.

 

[Gurdari]

Nonnegotiable
By Michael Ledeen, National Review
March 12, 2007

“Diplomacy” with Iran means ignoring what its leaders are saying.

for full article:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZjVkMjFkODZmZGMwYjQ5NmE1NDQxM2ZiN2EyOTQxYWI=

Iran has made far more overtures to talk, debate, than US. All the US does is say 'That's a ridiculous offer." and make threats.

That article was pretty prejudiced... don't Palestinians want their own state?