Hello class. I hope you all had a great Thanksgiving. This link will direct you to an NPR program on what Obama may do about Iran. It features both Ted Koppel and Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security adviser to President Carter.) Listen to the program and post your reactions. Do you agree with these men? Disagree? How about those who called in? Also read some of the comments left on NPR's site. What are your reactions to them?
-Amir
17 comments:
Both of these guys made good points, especially about all the missed opportunities we've had to bridge the divide. I think when Brzezinski said we need to be "clever" about how we approach relations with Iran. Obama's announcement of the appointments to his National Security team gives me hope that we can accomplish this. It may be to early to start talking about specific strategies, but I think that as long as we approach diplomacy in good faith, enough flexibility, and INTELLIGENCE, relations with Iran will improve. One of the problems with the Bush administration was the lack of ideological diversity in his cabinet, and I think the characterization of the Bush admin as "anti-intellectual" is spot on. The "axis of evil" statement was one of the most pointless screwups of his administration.
I agree with Charlie's comments; the Bush administration is unsuccessful in cultivating a diplomatic and peaceful relationship with Iran's government. But, how do "we," as Americans, begin to define these ambiguous and vague terms: "diplomatic" and "peaceful." What appears to be diplomatic/peaceful to one group of people, may very well be treacherous to another. Hence, there is no perfect cookie cutter way to resolve this ongoing problem between the two governments, but there are, as indicated in the NPR video, opportunities that America has missed in order to "bridge the divide" between U.S. and Iran relations. One way that we can bridge this divide, is, as Charlie discusses, focusing on "flexiblity and intelligence." When I think of flexibility, I think of Bakhtin's notion of heteroglossia: a "multivoiced" world where both the colonized and colonizer are in discourse with one another and are "bridging" the linguistic gaps instead of "transitioning"/"imposing" one dominant language in the another. Bakhtin's concept of heteroglossia can be applied in the context of U.S./Iran because both the U.S. and Iranian government should not impose their own opinions or ideologies, but rather, practice "active listening" where they try to conceptualize the "other" culture's views/morals on their own territory/linguistic identity.
I kind of agree with both of them on the missed oppourtunity and like I said in class this is a game which had been played wrong by U.S. but we should consider the fact that whether we ae looking at the situation as a politition or from public points of view. mr Brezeinski approach is more of a politition approach in which he look at iran as one of the players in international scene and his goal is to make things easier for the U.S. at first place. but as Saeed one of the callers mentioned things inside iran is worth than mr. Brisinski mentioned. from human righs point of view there should be no negotiation with a government that has one of the highest number of minor excecutions. even in many cases U.S. support ,even a verbal support, from human right activists in iran have many negative consequences. I personally believe the best thing that U.S. can do for irannian people is to let them fight this war themselves. but in terms of international relationships I agree with mr. Brzenski.
I agree that acknowledging Iran's past (such as the 1979 hostage situation with the American Embassy in Iran, the Revolution) is a step towards creating better relations.Understanding the past, as is mentioned in the NPR discussion, can create more tension and paranoia on America's part. But it is important to really try and understand our past relations with Iran and the real causes for events such as the hostage situation and the revolution, because we can discover the obvious yet ever-suppressed fact that things are always two-sided, and our past problems did not simply occur because of Iran's "irrationality," but also our own government's arguable irrationality and greed. An example of this that is mentioned in the NPR discussion is Bush's decision to label Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" after using them for our own interests, and then making them our enemy and missing an opportunity for possibly good relations.
I like the way Brzezinski stresses that it is not Ahmadinejad who is the supreme leader, as American media often makes it appear. Brzezinski makes it clear that serious negotiations will not occur with Ahmadinejad, who has no power over military or foreign policy in his country, and this is interesting when you consider how powerful and menacing the American media has often made him out to be. I agree with Brzezinski's statement that Iran is not stupid enough to give its nuclear weapons to terrorists, due to a high risk of getting caught, but more importantly it not being on their immediate agenda, as many seem to believe. I think they should have the right to produce nuclear weapons as we do. It only seems fair to Iran's energy needs, and security needs.
I believe that Brzezinski brings a lot of concrete points to the table. He is right in stating that the president of Iran has no say over foreign affairs and has no control over it's military. I believe the first thing the American media giants should do is clarify this point to the American people. I believe that a lot of the opinions that Americans have about Iran come from what they hear come out of Ahmadinejad's mouth. I also believe the U.S.'s history in Iran, is going to make it extremely difficult to make ties to the country. Just like many other countries located in the middle east, the US along with other super powers have tried to play those countries like puppets and install what they think would be best for them. In the end this hasn't worked in the majority of countries in the region. I believe there is a deep hatred for America in Iran. So for peace to become a reality, I believe that Iran must first start to change their peoples impression on America. The same goes for us here. How can a government have relations with another country when the people of that nation can't even tolerate the other country? We have a very troubled past with Iran. This I believe is our biggest obstacle to overcome. For peace to happen Iran must also change it's policies of harboring terrorists organizations like Hezbollah and other groups fighting against Israel. Until peace can be found between those two nations, we will never truly be at peace with Iran. I do believe that America should stand down from from military and sanction approach to Iran and continue with new types of peaceful talks with Iran. Being a bully to Iran hasn't worked so far, so what makes us believe it will work tomorrow? But I believe that President elect Obama and his new cabinet have the right idea and experience to make this work.
Both interviewers stressed the importance of looking at U.S-Iranian relations in the past. While I think it's important to address the past and recognize the role each country played, there should also be sizable effort in moving beyond what happened in history toward something more progressive.
I also appreciated the statistics about Iran. I did not know that Iran is comparable to Turkey in terms of its potential for further evolution and identification with the West. This statement, along with the comments about the educated and dissatisfied Iranian youth, gives the U.S. -Iranian situation more perspective. It was also interesting to hear that a large portion of the Iranian community, according to one of the callers, wants democracy and looks favorably on the the United States.
Koppel and Brzezinski both brought up really interesting and pertinent points.
I completely agree with both of them in that it's crucial to pay attention to the history of US and Iranian relations. Koppel brought up an interesting point as to how most Americans remember the hostage crisis and that is where much of their bitterness comes from, but do not understand why Iran feels angry or bitter toward them. The memory of the coup d'etat in 1953 is where the Iran-US relations first begin according to Iranians, and that is where most hold some bitterness. I completely agree. To even be able to discuss the future of relations between the two countries, their histories in relation to each other must first be understood from both sides.
I was also very impressed that they mentioned the "missed opportunities" to fix relations between the two countries on the part of the United States. I feel like we would be so much further in negotiations and relations status right now if the United States government had reacted differently at the time. The whole notion of including Iran in the axis of evil, even after Iran helped the US out in the middle east.
Overall I was in complete agreement with both Koppel and Brzezinski.
I agree with Koppel, it's important to remember that while America has reason to doubt Iran's motives, the feeling is mutual. Brzezinski states, as I also believe, that it is important to look beneath Ahmadinejad's critical and inflammatory remarks. After all, it was not so long ago that Israel supported Iran's efforts in the Iran-Iraq war. If hostilities can be lain aside for a moment of honest discussion, a lot of good can be done towards repairing US-Iranian diplomatic ties. Bush's strategies have proven not only unsuccessful, but perhaps even destructive. If threatening for so many years has not helped the situation, it's time for a change. It is unlikely that an ultimatum will provoke any positive response. After all, Iran is a sovereign nation, and responding to such political demands could destroy the balance of power within the state. Obama, in my opinion, has taken the right approach to changing the way America and Iran interact. As Charlie said, it is important to use intelligence and good faith in dealing with diplomacy. Bush made a fatal flaw when he declared Iran part of an "axis of evil", and we need to make sure we do not make this mistake again.
Because President elect Obama has been more open towards negotiations with Iran, I agree with Sajadpou's argument that the most contentious issue between America and Iran, being Iran's nuclear program, should not be the first one for Obama to tackle. In fact, the threat of military action against Iran should also be taken off of the table due to the fact that relations between America and Iran should be eased into due to the fact that we finally have a president that is willing to negotiate with Iran and we should not take the opportunity to better relations with Iran for granted.
Therefore, issues that should be favored are those that overlap Iranian and American so that we can find some common ground and begin negotiations before the more controversial issues are discussed.
Because President elect Obama has been more open towards negotiations with Iran, I agree with Sajadpou's argument that the most contentious issue between America and Iran, being Iran's nuclear program, should not be the first one for Obama to tackle. In fact, the threat of military action against Iran should also be taken off of the table due to the fact that relations between America and Iran should be eased into due to the fact that we finally have a president that is willing to negotiate with Iran and we should not take the opportunity to better relations with Iran for granted.
Therefore, issues that should be favored are those that overlap Iranian and American so that we can find some common ground and begin negotiations before the more controversial issues are discussed.
I believe that both speakers are intelligent men that obviously know a lot about Iran and dynamics involved both within the country as well as in the International stage. Both made good points and I agree with them on most parts. They both mentioned various facts to try to paint a more accurate picture of Iran, especially since there are so many conflicting facts (majority of university students are women, yet there is still a lot of improper treatment of women in the country). I also think that both had the right idea when they talked about how the future of the Iranian-American political relationships should be clever, intelligent and calculated. I feel this is one of the most important things that the Obama administration should work on when it comes to Iran. I feel that there is great potential for bettering US relations with Iran, and both speakers mentioned this. However, Brzezinski soon mentioned the great amount of cheap oil the US could have access to because of a friendly relationship with Iran. This again I feel points to the importance of oil whenever it comes US relationships with Middle Eastern countries. We have seen this as far back as the 1953 Coup up until the Iraq war. I want to know what will happen when this cheap oil runs out?
It was good to hear some commentary that actually evaluates the strength of various sources. The talk went far deeper than the scare tactics put forth and magnified by the media. Before I took this class, I did not realize the previous US-Iran history, how we were friends, how we interfered in the government and revolutions, and how even now we rely on each other for support only to later publicly proclaim how Iran was evil. This conversation actually addresses these dichotomies.
After establishing the previous history, it puts the future in a better context. Since the previous history of these two nations has been interactive and helpful, Obama is probably on the right track by wanting to have open communications. Additionally, Iran has to look to Obama more favorably than the current administration. With Obama's willingness, open communication should begin to restore the relation between the two countries.
I think that david bockoven (davy B)'s comment on the broadcast (on the NPR website) makes a good point: that we are less likely to be open once someone has injured us. If we (both countries) can put the previous strives aside, policy might be set that is mutually beneficial for both countries—after all, isn't a friend better than an enemy?
The truth about Obama's future strategy about Iran will b revealed to all in a short period of time. It is safe to say that Obama plans on negotiating with Iranian Officials without preconditions. It is not safe to say that these negotiations will be successful. Both these writers make good points, but everyone has a different logic about approaching Iran. There is only one thing that is agreed between most intelligent American politicians. If Iran is able to build nuclear weapon(s), many countries in the region will be endangered. therefore the ultimate goal of the United Stats must be to prevent Iran from building any nuclear weapons.
Both of these guys made a good point in future steps towards better Iranian-U.S. relations. I agree with Karim Sadjadpour when he says that the new administration must not begin by immediately demand Iran to halt nuclear enriching, but to rather build good relations with time. The article states that others believe the new administration must take on hard-line policies, but I agree with Karim when he says: "If we immediately approach Iran and give them ultimatums on the nuclear issue and on Israel, the likelihood is that we'll forsake building confidence with them and bringing about more cooperative Iranian behavior on the other issues." This characteristic of Iran has been seen in the past such as during the Iran-Iraw war. The more Saddam tried to demoralize and take advantage of the Ayatollah Khomeini's unstable nation (due to the Iranian revolution) the more the Iranian people held strong and found unity in a common idea. Therefore, I believe that a military approach would only be detrimental for future relations and would not solve the problem of Iran's nuclear enrichment program.
After watching this presentation, I agree with both these men. These men concurred on the signficance of Iran’s past and that the United States should take it into consideration when interacting with the country. Brzezinski elaborates on the fact that the Iranian president does not have power over foreign relations and military decisions. The Supreme Leader, also known as the Faqih, has ther ultimate authority in the fields of foreign policy and the Iranian military. Koppel articulates about the United States not forgetting Iran’s past history. The United States should take this history and learn how the past events have affected Iran to become what it has become today.
As there has been bad relations created between Iran and the United States, change is necessary on how the United States perceives the country of Iran to be. The United States needs to realize that iran is also a country with strong influence and that it cannot be taken advantage of. The United States needs to come to a halt on believing that it can do whatever it pleases in the Middle East and that the region of the Middle East contains countries with their own forms of governments. With the election of Barrack Obama as the new president of the United States, there has been a great amount of hope and optimizm that the relationship between the United States and Iran will strengthen towards a positive direction.
I agree with both of these strategist. They are correct in their observation that there were many missed opportunities with creating a stronger relationship between the US and Iran. I thought that the most important point that was made referenced the political tactics of the Bush Administration and their confrontational foreign policy with Iran. They were correct in their assumption that talk of regime change and military action have not helped relations between the two countries. I also thought they made a good point when they explained how the US should wait and see who wins the next Iran Presidency. A new President of Iran might be more inclined to negotiate with the United States, even halting their nuclear enrichment program and allowing inspectors to come in. Just like with Obama, countries could take a different approach with a new President. I think the most important message to come away with is the fact that ignoring Iran and not negotiating in a face-to-face matter has done more harm than good. With Obama's Presidency it will be important to not only take a non-confrontational stance, while still keeping negotiations and overall concerns of Iran's nuclear intentions stern.
Ted Koppel, NPR news analyst, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security adviser to President Carter, shared very interesting perspectives regarding potential US-Iranian relations. I do agree that there have missed opportunities in the past, for example, Iran helped the US regarding Al Qaeda and Afghanistan post 9/11. However, shortly after, the Bush Administration named Iran a part of the Axis of Evil. Just as Americans have not forgotten, and some have yet to forgive, the hostage crisis of 1979, Iranians share the same apprehension to trust Americans because of the overthrow of Mossadeq in 1953. Iran and the United States have shared a difficult past, but there is still hope. I do not believe that Iran is a threat. Koppel and Brzezinski spoke about the threat of Iran building nuclear weapons, but as Brzezinski pointed out, it would not be such an unmitigated disaster to make going to war worth it to prevent production. As proven in the past, deterrence works. It worked between the US and the Soviets, the US and the Chinese, and between Palestine and India. If Iran were to have nuclear weapons, anxiety would increase in the Middle East. If Iran creates further instability in the Middle East, the US would have to extend its nuclear umbrella, and ostracize Iran if Iran chooses to go ahead with nuclear warfare.
Post a Comment