Iran has made many, many diplomatic overtures to the U.S., the most recent ones being just a few years ago sometime around 2003-04.  Of course, we told them to shove it.  This whole angle to the U.S. is pushing, "You must meet our demands before we will talk to you about our demands" was designed to fail, so Cheney could make the Bush administration the second U.S. administration to use nuclear weapons.

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

If Iran actually is seeking some diplomatic rapprochement with the US, perhaps they will have better luck with a new American President in 2009, particularly if the Democratic Party's candidate (whomever that may turn out to be) wins the election.  John McCain may prove to be just as bellicose as George W. Bush.

If not more so.  

sierra tango foxtrot uniform

Iran can legitimately complain about US meddling in their affairs, more than half a century ago, but that is not a good reason for them to support terrorism at the present time.

Iran has a natural vested interest in how Iraq turns out because it is the neighboring country.  As  a nation that has long had tense relations with a Sunni-ruled Iraq, they very much want the new Iraq to be Shiite dominated.

The balance of power in the region is something that should have been considered more when our government declared war, but it seems that many heads were puffed with the easy victory in Afghanistan...so the thinking that we could just win in Iraq, take over Iran seemed perfectly logical to many people then, both in the government and private citizens.  

It is perfectly clear that George W. Bush has mishandled the war in Iraq, and that any intervention in Iraq should have been done as a UN based operation (much as the Gulf War was in 1991) rather than as a US-British operation.  Even so, there is nobody who should be happier than Iran, to see Saddam Hussein toppled from power, arrested, tried, and executed.  Hussein had previously gone to war with Iran, over a minor territorial dispute, and did terrible damage.  He was the worst enemy that Iran had.  The US did Iran a tremendous favor by overthrowing Saddam.  I do not see that Iran has any legitimate basis upon which to support an insurgency in Iraq, rather than allowing the newly created democratic government to establish itself, to rebuild the country, and to function in a normal manner.

Any concerns that Iran may have about the roles of the Sunni and Shiite versions of Islam in Iraq should be pursued by peaceful means, not by terrorism.  Muslims must give up sectarian violence, if they are going to have any future at all.

Sigh.

More than half a century ago?

Diplomacy is tricky?  They can talk anytime the want to.

Certainly Iran has done some crazy things lately, but isn't it plenty crazy to invade Iraq to force them to stop weapons programs Iraq got rid of in 1991 and to stop helping terrorists whom they weren't helping in the first place?  How about seriously talking about using nuclear weapons on Iran to put a stop to their nuclear weapons program, which we have good intelligence is already mothballed?

It's the conviction on both sides all of the aggression is by the devils on the other side and your side are angels which keeps anything from being fixed.

As I mentioned in my previous comments, the problem with the regime of Saddam Hussein was not the fictitious weapons program which Bush accused Saddam of having, or Saddam's non-existent support for terrorism, it was his failure to comply with the cease-fire terms of the Gulf War.  By obstructing weapons inspectors, Saddam created the impression that he actually did have weapons of mass destruction that he was concealing from the UN inspectors, an impression that, apparently, he created deliberately in the mistaken belief that he could thereby intimidate other countries, when all he actually did was convince other countries, particularly the US, that he was too dangerous to be allowed to remain in power.  Saddam was the victim of his own duplicity.  Some dictators never know when it is time to stop lying.

As far as your assertion that diplomacy is actually easy because they can talk any time they want to, it is true that they can talk any time they want to, just as you and I can talk any time we want to, but that hardly guarantees that any agreement or understanding will result between nations or between you and I.  Talking is one thing, talking in a way that yields a diplomatically meaningful result is quite another.  At this point I see that the theological stance of Iran, the great champion of Islam, when dealing with the US, a country whose legal system is based upon freedom of religion, while the country in general remains dominated by Christianity, tends to create an impasse.

&gt Overthrowing democratic leaders who are merely guilty of jeopardizing the UK's lock on oil in Iran is kind of starting on the wrong foot, isn't it?

If you consider Iran's leadership "democratic", then I'd like to have your express approval for their system to be in place in the US before the next general election.

Whoops. You're right, MC. I misread the context of the original post.

hardline Islamic assholes in Iran

Er? The US put the hardline Islamic assholes in Iran in power when it backed the coup of 1953. No one disputes this.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

The US put the hardline Islamic assholes in Iran in power when it backed the coup of 1953.

You are aware that the Islamic Republic of Iran began in 1979, yes? And that the Shah was in power until then?

Yes, the Shah, who had American support.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

the Shah, who had American support.

Which leads us back to the counterexamples I gave. The US supported the Shah in Iran, Diem in Vietnam, and Pinochet in Chile. Chile and Vietnam have long since normalized relations with the US. Why not Iran?

Thank you for distilling your point. Vietnam and Chile have lengthy histories of colonialism so it's no surprise that they would willingly submit to a stronger influence. They are also developing satellite economies and in need of some larger power to suckle up to. Iran, on the other hand, has a length of history of not simply independent rule but large imperial influence. Not to defend it in the least but it is large enough to stand on its own entirely and does not have to "normalize" relations with anyone to get by in international politics. To assume that it can be treated like Vietnam or Chile--or even Iraq or North Korea--is folly and likely the folly of American policy toward it in the time since 1953. Those four are/were all places led by strongmen. Even when the Shah was in place, Iran had a depth of political awareness, infrastructure and identity among its population not nearly matched by any of those other four.

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

Not to defend it in the least but it is large enough to stand on its own entirely and does not have to "normalize" relations with anyone to get by in international politics. To assume that it can be treated like Vietnam or Chile--or even Iraq or North Korea--is folly and likely the folly of American policy toward it in the time since 1953.

What I read you saying here is that because Iran has an imperialist tradition, the US has to throttle back its imperialist tradition. My question in return is, why? Specifically, what makes it incumbent upon the United States to withdraw?   Even ignoring all the truly shitty aspects of the current Iranian government which would get exported with their waxing influence, there's still this rhinoceros in the room: the US already has all the bombs it needs to turn Iran into a wasteland, and plenty of military options scaling down from there. What does the US gain by giving Iran room to grow its ambitions, aside from more war and misery a bit further down?

    Iran is not just another Islamic theocracy-- it's the most notable and successful instance of a fundamentalist party seizing power and continuing to rule for decades. Groups like the Muslim Brotherhood may have been willing to kill and terrorize before the 70s, but they were given hope that they could actually take over a country one day by the Shah's removal, a model to at least try in places like Egypt, Pakistan, or even Turkey. Having a successful example goes a long way in convincing folks that you should be given a chance to replace the current regime-- especially when that current regime is authoritarian and corrupt, as in Egypt.
    But there's trouble in the garden, there; Iranians have expressed disdain, sometimes even contempt, for the mullahs who are in charge. If this great triumph of Islamic fundamentalism could be brought down from within- rejected by the very people who were the first to embrace it- the PR from groups like al-Quaida, and less militant variations, will be undercut a lot more than if the US removes it by force. That's a fairly significant reward, more than would accrue from the peaceful overthrow of, say, a Syria or Jordan, which would be nice for all involved, but would have far less symbolic value.
    This is all undercut by talking about war. The mullahs probably want a nice external threat like us, because it makes cracking down on dissent and stifling political change more palatable than it would be otherwise-- than it was right after the first gulf war, for example. War, even the threat of war, has a tendency to pull a nation together, and right now, that's not what the US wants in Iran.
    I know you've mocked the idea of peaceful revolution in Iran before, so we probably don't see eye to eye on whether this is even possible. So be it. But to answer at least one objection, how long it would take, I'd ask you in return how long you're willing to keep troops in Iraq, or how long a US tour in Iran would take. If time is no obstacle, then what's the problem with giving Iran 3-5 years to collapse from within? Especially when the costs of war are so steep on the US side?

Ex ignorantia ad sapientiam; e luce ad tenebras

If you consider Iran's leadership "democratic", then I'd like to have your express approval for their system to be in place in the US before the next general election. Iran's current election process includes the very important step of pre-vetting all candidates by the clergy prior to the election. Surprise, surprise -- the vast majority of "moderate" (read: opposed to the powers-that-be) candidates get removed from the ballot. In other words, they created a de facto one-party state -- exactly what they opposed the Shah doing in 1975.

Even so, many Iranians would probably prefer that their government hold onto sovereign rights rather than the U.S. overtake them for the benefit of "democracy" American-military style.

And particularly given that the U.S. hasn't delivered on any promise of democracy to Iraq, Iranians probably think that what they have is much much more preferable.  

I think that Bush and Co. underestimate how much sovereign rights mean to each nation, no matter how poor and how undemocratic that nation is.  There are plenty of nations that would prefer to keep their tyrant as long as it's their tyrant and not the tyranny of American military imposing our will on them.  

Even so, many Iranians would probably prefer that their government hold onto sovereign rights rather than the U.S. overtake them for the benefit of "democracy" American-military style.

And I'm sure many Lebanese would prefer their government held sovereign rights, instead of having an Iranian-funded, -trained and -armed military occupying them. Iran is in a particularly poor position to argue the case of national sovereignty.

So's our government but we do it all the time.