dagblog - Comments for "Putin: I can work with Obama (& In Updates in Comments: Turns Out Maybe Iran Can, Too)"

"A U-turn in Iranian

artappraiser — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 05:57:47 +0000

"A U-turn in Iranian diplomacy occurred today":

Rouhani outflanks hardliners on Syria, nuclear talks
By Ramin Mostaghim and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times via Sydney Morning Herald, Sept. 5, 2013

Tehran: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani appears to be outmanoeuvring hard-liners with his move to take control of stalled nuclear negotiations and in curbing bombastic declarations to defend ally Syria from threatened US airstrikes.

In sharp contrast with the bellicose posturing of his predecessor, former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mr Rouhani has kept expectations low that Iran will provide military aid to Syrian President Bashar Assad if Western forces attack his government.

Another former president and influential backer of Mr Rouhani, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, last week was reported to have publicly blamed Dr Assad's forces for an alleged chemical weapons attack August 21 on the suburbs of Damascus that reportedly killed hundreds of civilians.

[...]

Analysts hailed the shift on nuclear talks as an opportunity for Mr Rouhani to make good on his campaign pledge to improve relations with the West.

"A U-turn in Iranian diplomacy occurred today," said Saeed Laylaz, an economist and political analyst. "This is very important, as we understand it to mean that the supreme leader (Khamenei) is allowing the Foreign Ministry to handle the nuclear talks. ... We can see a new chapter has already opened vis-a-vis relations with the West."

Mr Laylaz also pointed to Mr Rouhani's modest pledge on Wednesday to support Syria with humanitarian aid if Dr Assad's forces come under attack for the alleged use of poison gas.

If Syria is targeted with Western airstrikes, "the Islamic Republic of Iran will do its religious and humanitarian duty and send food and medicine," Mr Rouhani told the Assembly of Experts, a panel of Islamic theologians that chooses and advises the supreme leader.

"Iran will not do anything to openly announce assistance to the Syrian regime if Syria is attacked by the United States," said Nader Karimi Joni, an independent analyst and chief editor of the sociopolitical magazine Gozaresh. He and Mr Laylaz interpreted Mr Rouhani's reserved support for Syria as following through on a campaign promise to give priority to Iranians' desire for an end to their international isolation.

The nuclear policy takeover "reinforces the message of Rouhani during the election that Iran is looking to turn around its relations with the world and that he appreciates that the only viable mechanism for doing that is re-engaging in the nuclear talks in a very different way than it has in the past eight years," said Suzanne Maloney, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

"Moving the portfolio from the Supreme National Security Council to the Foreign Ministry certainly underscores Rouhani's personal identification with the progress of the talks,"Ms Maloney said.

"Most importantly, this puts at the helm of the talks the Iranian who is best positioned to engage in serious and productive dialogue with Washington," Maloney said of Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, a former Iranian ambassador to the United Nations who has spent much of his adult life in the United States.

Still, it remains unclear whether Rouhani and the moderates will prevail in keeping their distance from Assad.

But Iranian leaders have been hedging their support for the Syrian government since the start of the civil war there, Maloney said, "and it is quite clear that there is no consensus in the Iranian leadership that Iran should be defending Assad."

Just a cross-link to the

artappraiser — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 05:03:20 +0000

In reply to Putin: I can work with Obama (& In Updates in Comments: Turns Out Maybe Iran Can, Too)

Just a cross-link to the Happy Rosh Hashanah wishes from the Foreign Minister of Iran.

Yeah, there's that. This was

ocean-kat — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 03:31:53 +0000

In reply to Note that the White House is

Yeah, there's that. This was the guy who was elected in part because he was supposedly a great mediator and negotiator. The whole thing about his time as president of the Harvard Law Review was his ability to bring disparate groups together. For years now people, and even I, have been excusing him by saying even a great mediator couldn't work with the house republicans. But it doesn't seem like he can work with anybody.

Note that the White House is

acanuck — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 23:41:45 +0000

In reply to If I had to bet, yes, I'd bet

Note that the White House is stressing that, despite being in Russia at a summit alrready dominated by the Syria crisis, Obama still plans no one-on-one talks with Putin, who is the key player in any diplomatic solution. Why? Because he said last month he'd snub Putin to punish him over asylum for Snowden. Petty schoolyard bullshit, while the world economy teeters. Rigid and not at all statesman-like.

Re: ships. Italian naval

artappraiser — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 21:41:12 +0000

In reply to Thanks back, glad to see

Re: ships.

Italian naval manoeuvres (Guardian Live Blog, 13 hours ago)

The eastern Mediterranean looks set to become more crowded with warships.

AP reports: An Italian news report says two Italian warships are sailing closer toward offshore Lebanon to protect Italy's soldiers participating in a UN peacekeeping mission there. Italy currently has some 1,100 soldiers in the Unifil force in Lebanon....

This is the way I see that: peacekeeping forces can only wish people were as ascared of them as they are of ships. If they could have that same effect, maybe there'd be some peace.

P.S. There's a chronology I

artappraiser — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 21:23:32 +0000

In reply to Thanks back, glad to see

P.S. There's a chronology I am starting to see in my reading, where the U.S. was a bit nasty to the U.N. right after. They were sure of their intel and the U.N. getting in there, with the security problems, was just delaying things and causing security problems for the U.N. And they were figuring a lot of the evidence was covered up already, that was already seen in the intel (the French especially had that.) But once the UK vote upended everything, Obama got the light bulb that he's going to have to delay and go Congressional. And the delay opened up a whole new world of options(or problems, depending upon your p.o.v., say a strong hawk,) including involving the G-20 meeting. And in that whole context, U.N. involvement is still important.

Thanks back, glad to see

artappraiser — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 21:15:35 +0000

In reply to Intriguing hints of a dawning

Thanks back, glad to see someone else who sees in the news what I see.

BTW, I don't for a minute believe some of the media spin that's still suggests Obama/Kerry are thinking "fuck whatever the U.N. does." That he chose the Congressional option says just the opposite and furthermore, lines up with most analysis of his presidency as the presidency that can never make up its mind. People read too much into public bluster.

Of course, all the figures involved are going to bluster and spin, they need to start from an advocacy position, that's the way all this works. Would people rather they just do actual war rather than have wars of words? There's gonna be rough language and lots of threats, that's the way this thing works. Matter of fact, this is just intuition, and may be totally wrong, but I am starting to think all the military stuff was/is bluster meant to scare the bejeesus out of everybody to get something to start happening. Obama never actually said what he intends to do on it. He's got "plans," just like Putin. Plans are plans. Sending ships are sending ships (which often works to scare people, especially people on the internet, works better on them than it does on leaders.) All threat, no actions yet. The only thing so far that went counter to my intuitions on this front is McCain and Graham getting on board after an hour with Obama at the White House.

If I had to bet, yes, I'd bet

acanuck — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 21:00:09 +0000

In reply to Its is a novel idea, a great

If I had to bet, yes, I'd bet on bombs and missiles falling. I'm a bit encouraged by the stone wall of resistance Obama is getting -- from U.S.-allied countries -- at the G20. Also the UN secretary-general warning that an attack (with congressional approval or not) would be illegal, and the pope saying it would be immoral.

I clearly recall candidate Obama pledging that he would end, not only the U.S.'s current wars, but "the mindset that gets us into wars." Gutsy declaration, never implemented. He's now firmly locked in Washington's military-driven bubble. The Nobel committee should have waited a term or two.

Its is a novel idea, a great

ocean-kat — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 19:55:42 +0000

In reply to Intriguing hints of a dawning

Its is a novel idea, a great idea. Here's another one.

Change we can believe in.

Wanna bet we get the same old bombs?

Novel idea. Might work. As

Verified Atheist — Thu, 05 Sep 2013 11:33:29 +0000

In reply to Intriguing hints of a dawning

Novel idea. Might work.

As long as by "the West", you don't mean the US, 'cause even if the Iranian leadership beat their swords into plowshares and fed 5,000 with five loaves and two fish, we still wouldn't trust them.