Iran: Obama must seek new Mideast foreign policy
The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.
JAPAN NEWS AND DISCUSSION
-
U.N. observers warn of Syria civil war after massacre
( 7 )
-
Obama on the defensive over spending, debt
( 18 )
-
Egypt's top candidates try to broaden support
( 1 )
-
Queen marks diamond jubilee riding wave of popularity
( 0 )
-
Thousands take part in 'Slut Walks' in Brazil
( 10 )
-
- Business Teaching Positions - Part-time - Kanto Region
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥3,000 ~ ¥5,000 / Hour
-
- National Relief/Substitute Teacher - summer start
- Interac, Tokyo
- Salary: ¥275,000 ~ ¥300,000 / Month
-
- 営業パーソン
- 加治金属工業株式会社, Tochigi
- Salary: ¥240,000 ~ ¥350,000 / Month Negotiable
Order by Time Order by Popularity
35 Comments
Login to comment
0
smithinjapan
Now kidding! The last one was disastrous, as the world can clearly see. Obama has just taken office and already the war in Gaza has stopped -- and if you think the timing is coincidental...
Anyway, Iran is in no place to be making demands, but in the case of a change in policy, they are correct in saying it need be done.
0
Wolfpack
Obama is going to talk and talk and talk and Iran will build their bomb. The media and the Left will be happy; then suddenly surprised that Iran was just playing Obama along like a naive stooge. They will be amazed that the mullahs will have dared to double-cross the great President Obama.
0
neverknow2
For those who are a little slow on the uptake, it was deliberately times to coincide with Obama's start at the white house.
0
AlfGarnett
Wolfpack: If them Israelis is allowed lots of nukes and ignores all UN resolutiions, why don't America let Iran do the same? Are is they biased?
I reckon the Americans don't like or trusr arabs, they have a recent history of legal discrimination and all that.
0
wuzzademcrat
Whatta laugh. Puppet president A'jad takes time out from hanging gays and torturing dissidents to lecture the world's oldest democratic republic about foreign policy, when the theocratic hellhole he represents has basically threatened Israel with nuclear genocide.
0
SezWho2
wuzzademcrat,
Iran has never threatened Israel with nuclear genocide. If there is any country in the Middle East who hopes that Israel does not suffer a first nuclear attack, it is Iran.
0
adaydream
wuzzademcrat
How can Iran threaten Israel with nuclear genocide when Israel has nukes right now and Iran has none?
Well today was Obama's first day. I think Iran will have to wait a few days, but Obama won't make Iran wait for years to at least get a stage to talk. Gotta talk to get some agreement. No talk, no agreement.
Anything Obama does is a new Mideast Foreign Policy. < :-)
0
Helter_Skelter
Amadinejad heads an Islamic theocracy that promotes Sharia law, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and hosts holocaust-denial meetings with neo-Nazis like David Duke. And the left is right there to defend him. The alliance continues.
0
AlfGarnett
Helter Skelter: Shame you love to hate arabs and their leaders, whilst condoning Israeli genocide.
Strewth, i find it rather disgusting mself. Iran doesn'T attack its neighbours like the Isarelis, do they? Are we living on the same planet?
0
Helter_Skelter
Israel has had nukes for nearly half a century now and has never used them, despite multiple defensive wars, some which threatened its very existence. So let's stop with the adolescent arguments that "if Israel has nukes, then why can't everyone else?"
And here I thought with Obama now in office, the left might stop supporting the enemies of America. I certainly miscalculated that one.
0
Helter_Skelter
Iran has been funding and supplying weapons to Islamic terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah for years. Strewth, have you ever met a terrorist group you didn't like? I hear Islamic Jihad is taking applications.
0
AlfGarnett
Helter Skelter: As usual skirting around the issues on my blooming message.
Iran has "NOT" attacked antyone, Israel does constantly. You cannot argue that is afact unless you is too divvy to see reality and that.
0
wuzzademcrat
"Strewth, i find it rather disgusting mself. Iran doesn'T attack its neighbours like the Isarelis, do they? Are we living on the same planet?"
You're seriously deluded if you think Arabs and Iranians have forgotten whose corrupt empire issued the Balfour Declaration.
As with every US president since Truman the only certainty at the start of his term is that the various and ill-conceived nation-states of the formerly British-controlled mideast are going to consume far more time and taxpayer money than will ever be worth it.
0
skipthesong
Iran has "NOT" attacked antyone, Israel does constantly." So, you support the idea that Israel should never have been? The Jews have been man's stepping mat, kicked out of every place they tried to settle down.
If Israel didn't defend themselves, even horrifically as recently, then you would can count on them ceasing to exist. There are many more groups in the world wanting their own homelands and that have been pushed around, but no where near the capacity as have the Jews.
0
Helter_Skelter
Yes, Israel does have to constantly defend its citizens against rocket attacks by Hamas terrorists who are backed by Iran and use Iranian weapons. And constantly does have to defend itself against Jihadists who seek the destruction of the "Infidel" state.
Strewth, it must sting having had to watch your Hamas comrades take a blow. Not to worry, Ahmadinejad will help them re-arm during this hudna for more attacks on Israeli civilians. That'll cheer you up mate.
0
AlfGarnett
Iran only wants peace and brecognition. What is the neo-con problem with this undisputed fact?
0
SezWho2
The left. The left. The left this. The left that. I think what the left is defending here--if it is in fact the left and if it is defending something--is common sense.
Iran does not have nuclear weapons and cannot threaten Israel with nuclear destruction. If Iran ever does develop nuclear weapons it will be primarily because continued antagonism leaves them no choice. However, even with weapons development it is neither going to attack Israel with them. And the reason for that is the same reason that a nuclear-armed Iran would not divert weaponry to groups such as Hamas or Hezbollah (unless we succeeded in destabilizing Iran after it developed such hypothetical weaponry). Iran does not want to be obliterated--and that would be the consequence of any nuclear attack it might make on Israel and probably the consequence of any nuclear attack that could be traceable back to Iran, even presumptively.
So, Obama would do well to seek a new Mideast foreign policy. The one that the US is using now was bankrupt decades before the Big 3 threatened to be. However, having called for a change from Obama, Iran must also be ready to change.
0
SezWho2
skipthesong,
You know, when people are universally persecuted, their might just be a reason. As the proverb says, "If one man calls you an ass, thank him and go about your business. If a second one says so, buy a saddle."
There's no question that Jews have suffered. To say that they have suffered more than anyone else in history does, however, give short shrift to people who have been whittled down in numbers signifcantly more than the Jews (for example, native Americans). And suffering doesn't justify ethnic cleansing in order to create and maintain a Jewish state in Israel. It is altogether reasonable to support the idea that Israel should never have been. But that is different from supporting the idea that Israel should not be.
0
Helter_Skelter
Sezwho, how do you know? Practically every day we see Islamic fundamentalists involved in self-sacrifice and martyrdom. What makes you so sure an Islamic fundamentalist regime views things any differently? This isn't like the cold war between the US and the Soviet Union where mutually assured destruction applies. Fortunately, no fundamentalist Islamic regimes have nuclear weapons. But certainly you must be aware one of the greatest concerns right now is a fundamentalist regime take over of Pakistan.
Even your candidate Obama says that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, though whether he'll actually do anything about it is another story. But I believe he understands the gravity of a nuclear-armed Iran. Why can't you? Who's really lacking common sense here?
0
SezWho2
Helter_Skelter,
How do I know that Iran does not want to be obliterated?
You raise an interesting point. And I must confess, there is no way that I can know this. As a matter of fact, you could even make the case that the statement is ludicrous on its face. After all, countries do not want, at least not in the sense that people do.
However, we could say the same thing about those who know that Iran wants to destroy Israel, especially since Iran denies this. Or we could say the same thing for those who know that when Iran denies wanting this, it is lying.
So I am left with choosing whether the leaders of a sovereign country wish to prevent its certain destruction or whether the leaders of that country are willing to risk certain destruction over a plan that may fail. That's why I choose the first. That is common sense.
We are not talking about a nuclear-armed Iran. Iran is not nuclear-armed. And it is not desirable that Iran ever be nuclear-armed--nor is it desirable that Israel keeps its nuclear, chemical and biological weapons.
0
Madverts
"Even your candidate Obama says that Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, though whether he'll actually do anything about it is another story."
And GWB did actually do anything?
The only thing he did IMO is further exsaperate tensions. A different tact must be tried.
0
SuperLib
Right....because we know that a hardline Islamic regime who is waging proxy wars all over the Middle East would otherwise choose against getting more powerful weapons. ;) Methinks you believe a nuclear armed Iran is on the horizon, and you're building a case to defend them before it happens.
In what ways do you believe Iran needs to change?
Oh I agree that Iran won't nuke Israel. It would be suicide. But I have the strangest feeling that Iran just might increase their conventional warfare across the Middle East. Maybe they start giving Hamas and Hezbollah great amount of cash and more powerful weapons. Maybe they start an armed wing in Iraq. And when the world starts to question them, Iran just points to their nukes and says, "Yeah, what are you going to do about it?" That's when a broad smile appears across Sez's lips....finally, the weak have come to power!
0
adaydream
I agree that we don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. But then I look at what the U. S. and Israel and other countries have in the weapontry department. Why wouldn't Iran or any other country want bigger and better weapons and equipment.
This is no different than the cold war between the U. S. and the USSR when we built 1000 nukes and then the USSR built 1500 more nukes, then the U. S. built another 1000 nukes. It was an arms race.
Now we have Iran who looks around and sees Israel with nuclear weapons and they know that they are looking at a more superior nation when it comes to weapontry. Of course Iran wants weapons to match their neighbors.
I'm hoping that Obama has some idea how to put a leash on Israel and get some harmony in the Middle East. < :-)
0
SezWho2
SuperLib,
Youthinks wrong. But I give you credit for thinking what you want to think, for creativity in making up stuff to confront opinions you don't like. For example, most inventive is your fantasy about the hypothetical smile that you suppose will break across my face when Iran begins its hypothetical wars.
Had you been serious about wanting my opinion about what I think Iran should be willing to do to change, I don't think you'd be poisoning the well. Maybe your dire scenario materializes and maybe it does not. But I don't think we should start another war certain to prevent the wars potential. Our policy of confrontation is more likely to lead to a war certain than forging a reasonable agreement with a sovereign nation is likely to lead to wars potential.
0
AlfGarnett
Helter Skelter: Time to grow up sonny jim.
Strewth, Iran has as much right as your beloved Israel and USA to have nukes. They havent threatened to wipe anyone off the earth contrary to US right wing media lies.
Obama knows the score. Leave Iran alone if you don't want trouble. And he will unless he is as thick as Bush.
0
ChrisBiggins
To Helter Skelter, I think one may find that Israel is in the MId East and Israels foreign policies are relevent to the matter.
Just because you are a lone voice , don't ry to stifle othetrs voices, it just isn't cricket dear.
0
SuperLib
Oh no, Sez. I'm very serious. What changes do you feel Iran needs to make? Just about all of your comments about Iran paint them as being the victim, so I was surprised to hear you think they need to change.
0
SezWho2
No, SuperLib, I have seldom--if ever--painted Iran as being "the victim". That is another one of your indulgences with the truth of the matter. What I have done rather consistently is to express what I think is an understanding of Iran's position and to express my opinion that its position has more merit than is usually credited within the US in particular.
When you characterize my comments, when you cast me as a covert proponent of terror or of warfare, you are not being serious. You are being cute. More than that, you are refusing to deal with the comments I have made and are choosing to substitute instead your attitude about my comments.
Had you really wished to know what changes I thought Iran should make, that would have been a short and simple question. The amount that you added to the question demonstrates that your agenda was entirely different. As cast, your question did not merit any answer other than the one you received.
You have no come back with a shorter version of your question. However, even in this shorter version, you choose to cast your question in terms of your interpretation of what you think I "usually do" rather than with what I have said about this topic on this thread. More attitude. Here is the simple and short question: "What changes do you think Iran should make?"
Had you asked the more honest question, I would have answered you honestly in this fashion:
I don't know what changes Iran should make. However, I do know that it is not quite reasonable to call for change without being willing to change yourself. Should it stop proxy warfare? Of course it should. So should we. Should it allow the world to verify that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only? Of course it should. So should we and so should Israel.
My entire point about change was that, without a corresponding readiness to change oneself, a call for change in others is insincere to a high degree of probability. This is what the Bush administration had been doing--even to the point of avoiding the dialog with Iran which might expose openings for change on both sides. Now Obama promises a new approach, but I think everything must start with a dialog for change--not with a each side's presumption of what the other side must do.
0
SezWho2
Errr...
You have now come back...
...and as long as I'm correcting errors of grammar and syntax (and I'll leave you to correct my errors of thought)...
...not with each side's presumption of what the other side must do.
0
Helter_Skelter
Obama said Iran must never be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons. You're right, he does know the score. Strewth, don't you bloody know anything mate?
0
AlfGarnett
Helter Skelter is trying to talk like a cultured Englishman like i is.
Obama is going to stop pandering to Israel like dumbo Bush and gun toting Cheney.
I hope he acts fairly to the Palestinians who suffered so much because Bush let Israel treat them like muck.
0
bishamonten
I hope he acts fairly to the Palestinians who voted for Hamas & suffered so much because of doing so. Poor demented fools need euducation, education, education, as some other Brit once said. I wonder whatever happened to that one?
Back to top