An 'ontology' of Iran-Saudi "rivalry": From Churchill's snobbish sneeze to Abdullah's fear of snakes

[VCheng]

Exactly. But Iran is actually ready to do that and has been ready for a couple of decades now. The impediment seems to be the internal dynamics inside US. Iran much like the China of 1970's is ready to put past behind it and move towards a prosperous future as long as its independence and civilizational identity is respected. United States has to recognize this and understand, without Iran there can be no enduring security order in the middle east and by large the world.

A Nixon is needed in white house. Something unfortunate that happened in United States is that the American establishment believed their own propaganda with regard to Iran which now has become the greatest impediment for a US president to do what is necessary. Huge political capital must be spent by a US president to breakthrough this propaganda haze. Iran does not have such a problem since, the public support the government either way which greatly increases the maneuvering space for Iranian government. Hence my reference to OODA loop in the article above.

Sir, Iran has its own complex and fractious internal politics to deal with as it charts its national policies that are no different than in any other country in the region.

 

[Daneshmand]

Sir, Iran has its own complex and fractious internal politics to deal with as it chart its national policies that are no different than in any other country in the region.

Not at all. In Iran, when the supreme leader sets down a strategy, every one and every thing falls in line. This is unlike United States, where the lobbies and factions can not get their act together even in matters of foreign policy. As for the middle east region, as the article says, they are not important and even bringing them in, will cause for no rapprochement to happen. As I said, there can be no negotiation with puppets. Only with the puppet master.

Now it is upto puppet master to decide whether it wants to further the game, using its puppets or it wants to talk to Iran and reach a detente. The days of using Saddams and Isis to bring down Iran and its allies (or anyone else) are gone. They all backfired. Badly. It is time for US to recognize this and act rationally instead of expecting Iran to pull down its trousers and kneel down. This is not going to happen. Iran expects to be a full and independent partner in world's security with full recognition by United States for Iran to follow its national interests just like any other power does. Anything short of that, won't work.

 

[VCheng]

Not at all. In Iran, when the supreme leader sets down a strategy, every one and every thing falls in line. This is unlike United States, where the lobbies and factions can not get their act together even in matters of foreign policy. As for the middle east region, as the article says, they are not important and even bringing them in, will cause for no rapprochement to happen. As I said, there can be no negotiation with puppets. Only with the puppet master.

Now it is upto puppet master to decide whether it wants to further the game, using its puppets or it wants to talk to Iran and reach a detente. The days of using Saddams and Isis to bring down Iran and its allies (or anyone else) are gone. They all backfired. Badly. It is time for US to recognize this and act rationally instead of expecting Iran to pull down its trousers and kneel down. This is not going to happen. Iran expects to be a full and independent partner in world's security with full recognition by United States for Iran to follow its national interests just like any other power does. Anything short of that, won't work.

Iran is a theocracy, USA is not, clearly. To each its own. Good Luck to Iran!

 

[Daneshmand]

Iran is a theocracy, USA is not, clearly. To each its own. Good Luck to Iran!

To each its own, I vehemently agree. And this is what United States has yet to learn: To each its own.

As for theocracy, I do not see religion plays any less role in United States than anywhere else. Examples are many both in internal politics of United States and in its foreign relations. So let's not go there. Or detente would not be even possible. To each its own.

 

[VCheng]

To each its own, I vehemently agree. And this is what United States has yet to learn: To each its own.

As for theocracy, I do not see religion plays any less role in United States than anywhere else. Examples are many both in internal politics of United States and in its foreign relations. So let's not go there. Or detente would not be even possible. To each its own.

As I said before, USA and Iran do not have to like each other, just be able to work with each other, that is all. The nuclear deal is a good example of how to start working with each other. As the process moves forward, there will be other opportunities to improve the situation, I am sure.

 

[haman10]

To each its own

Lord bless you !

to each its own . maybe one day people like trump can understand that

 

[Daneshmand]

As I said before, USA and Iran do not have to like each other, just be able to work with each other, that is all. The nuclear deal is a good example of how to start working with each other. As the process moves forward, there will be other opportunities to improve the situation, I am sure.

I agree. Then let's build on that.

Lord bless you !

to each its own . maybe one day people like trump can understand that

 

[Daneshmand]

Lord bless you !

to each its own . maybe one day people like trump can understand that

I also have to add this. Nixon was one of the most virulent, uncompromising and a war monger anti-communist politicians in US. But he also was a realist and a maverick.

Trump might be a bigot but he seems at least on the surface to be a maverick. If I had to rank the chances of a Iran-US rapprochement under the presidential candidates running now, I would rank Trump at the top followed by Sanders, and the reason Trump is at the top despite Sanders publicly hinting about the need for a rapprochement with Iran, is the fact that the main opposition for such a rapprochement will come from the right and the republicans so it will be easier for some one like Trump who if elected would have walked over the dead corpses of traditional republican party to the white house, to pull the necessary g's for such a rapprochement. Sanders by comparison will be another Obama at most. A US president who goes for a rapprochement for Iran, must be someone who wants to make new history, not someone who wants to repeat it. Out of the current candidates Trump and Sanders seem to be the kind.

I see absolutely no chance of such a rapprochement under the likes of Clinton or Curz. These are the kind of people who have nothing to gain by rapprochement with Iran. They are not mavericks and worse, they are not even realists. They live in their bubble of their theological/ideological comfort zones.

This is how politics works. It is a dirty game. There is no good guy and the bad guy is obviously bad. But the maverick bad has some chance to change to good if the conditions demand for him to become good and reap the benefits. So in a contest between a bunch of bad's and a maverick bad, the maverick bad wins hands down.

 

[VCheng]

A US president who goes for a rapprochement for Iran, must be someone who wants to make new history, not someone who wants to repeat it. Out of the current candidates Trump and Sanders seem to be the kind.

Both people you mention are extremists, one to the right and one to the left. A centrist candidate has the best chance of winning, or if it is one of these two, their governance will revert to the center, very likely.

 

[Daneshmand]

Both people you mention are extremists, one to the right and one to the left. A centrist candidate has the best chance of winning, or if it is one of these two, their governance will revert to the center, very likely.

It is all a matter of perspective. And I was talking from Iran's perspective. The Clinton who comes out and says, the nuclear deal is just a one off event, and US will continue its policy of containment of Iran using its allies (read puppets) despite having lived through thick of it and seeing it all with her husband's dual containment policy, is an extremist from Iran's perspective. It does not matter if internally Clinton is regarded as a "centrist". Only some one eccentric like Nixon can pull this off. This is not something that is within capability of a "centrist". As I said, it needs someone who wants to make history not someone who wants to stay in the middle and repeat the history.

 

[VCheng]

It is all a matter of perspective. And I was talking from Iran's perspective. The Clinton who comes out and says, the nuclear deal is just a one off event, and US will continue its policy of containment of Iran using its allies (read puppets) despite having lived through thick of it and seeing it all with her husband's dual containment policy, is an extremist from Iran's perspective. It does not matter if internally Clinton is regarded as a "centrist". Only some one eccentric like Nixon can pull this off. This is not something that is within capability of a "centrist". As I said, it need someone who wants to make history not someone who wants to stay in the middle and repeat the history.

The upcoming election in USA will be interesting indeed.

 

[Daneshmand]

The upcoming election in USA will be interesting indeed.

Very interesting. So much is at stake for United States both internally and externally. Though I am not much impressed by the quality of candidates. They are almost on par with a third world country. No vision and no logic. But the greatness of a nation is seldom due to its politicians and almost always due to capabilities of the nation, itself. And we all know American nation is the most capable nation the planet earth has ever seen. So let's hope for the best.

 

[haman10]

I also have to add this. Nixon was one of the most virulent, uncompromising and a war monger anti-communist politicians in US. But he also was a realist and a maverick.

Trump might be a bigot but he seems at least on the surface to be a maverick. If I had to rank the chances of a Iran-US rapprochement under the presidential candidates running now, I would rank Trump at the top followed by Sanders, and the reason Trump is at the top despite Sanders publicly hinting about the need for a rapprochement with Iran, is the fact that the main opposition for such a rapprochement will come from the right and the republicans so it will be easier for some one like Trump who if elected would have walked over the dead corpses of traditional republican party to the white house, to pull the necessary g's for such a rapprochement. Sanders by comparison will be another Obama at most. A US president who goes for a rapprochement for Iran, must be someone who wants to make new history, not someone who wants to repeat it. Out of the current candidates Trump and Sanders seem to be the kind.

I see absolutely no chance of such a rapprochement under the likes of Clinton or Curz. These are the kind of people who have nothing to gain by rapprochement with Iran. They are not mavericks and worse, they are not even realists. They live in their bubble of their theological/ideological comfort zones.

This is how politics works. It is a dirty game. There is no good guy and the bad guy is obviously bad. But the maverick bad has some chance to change to good if the conditions demand for him to become good and reap the benefits. So in a contest between a bunch of bad's and a maverick bad, the maverick bad wins hands down.

I also have to clarify one thing : besides sanders (as it seems) , every other numbnut thats running for presidency in US is a "Trump" with a difference : they talk less crap .

mentality is the same for the arrogance that they have .

For time being , they can enjoy this as a gift from Iran letting them know that they are NOTHING :

http://mashreghnews.ir/fa/news/528710/فیلم-پرواز-پهپاد-مسلح-ایرانی-بر-فراز-ناو-آمریکایی

 

[Daneshmand]

I also have to clarify one thing : besides sanders (as it seems) , every other numbnut thats running for presidency in US is a "Trump" with a difference : they talk less crap .

mentality is the same for the arrogance that they have .

That's true. But from Iran's perspective, it won't matter much. It is the puppets whose lives depend on who will become the president and how he/she will treat them. But Iran should not just sit on its arrse. Iran should start a diplomatic initiative and send diplomatic missions to all over the world and inform the world's nations that all this destruction has been caused because of America's support for Takfiris and its love of using puppets as proxy instruments of its foreign policy. Put the pressure on US, so that they start realizing only a rapprochement is their solution to an enduing peace.

It is very important for Zarif to start such a diplomatic initiative. Spread the message of truth among the nations. Keep the pressure on puppet master. And hope for the best.

It is a low cost but high return initiative. The power of word of reason and truth should never be underestimated.

 

[VCheng]

Put the pressure on US, so that they start realizing only a rapprochement is their solution to an enduing peace.

As long as Iran knows that pressure also causes a counter-response.