I've been very busy. It took me a lot of time to get back to this.
On 1/20/07, Yoshie Furuhashi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Charming whom? The American people? But it's not the American people who are demanding a war with Iran; it's the White House that's going forward in the absence of opposition.
but the Iranians could aim their effortt to "charm" the US people -- and people all over the world -- in order to try to undermine popular support for elite policy. They might try to split Europe against the US, too. > Take the Iraq War. The American people have already spoken, through
elections, opinion polls, and so on. Most of them want the troops out, and few of them want Washington to "Surge," though none is charmed by Iraqi insurgents, Shi'i or Sunni.
Take the Iraq War, please! (rim shot) It's true, but why not take the long view? if people _keep on_ struggling, it might have an effect. The longer the disjunction between elite policy and popular opinion persists, the more likely that new antiestablishmentarian movements will develop. Even the damned Demoncrats (and some GOPsters like Hagel) have turned against the surge.
What the Americans need is not Iranian charms but their own resolve to make their opinion count through action.
what kind of action? reducing oil supplies? bombing Israel? me: > > The White House's mood can be changed! Yoshie:
Yes, but only if the American people pull off something like what the French people pulled off in opposition to the CPE. The American inability to pull off any such thing is not Iran's problem, it's _our_ problem.
yes, it's our problem. But I was looking at matters from a Iranian nationalist perspective.
> the current relative strength of the Dems has already pushed the WH to > change. Now secret spying is going to be done only under the FISA > court's supervision. It's still going on, but at least Bush is > bending. He's doing new obnoxious things, like firing US attorneys, > but he is still making concessions. That doesn't say that the Dems > should rest on their laurels (though likely they will do so). What's > needed is _more_ pressure, not less.
I'd be impressed if Democrats fly to Tehran and meet with Iranian leaders, bypassing the White House. They can do so if they want.
I don't expect much from the Dems. They don't have a backbone anymore. Back when there was a labor movement, they had more of a backbone (though it required the AFL-CIO to endorse the US in the Cold War). The women's, anti-war, and environmentalits movements provided temporary spines for the Dems. me:
> What's amazing about the "charm offensive" is that much of it is > merely cosmetic. But if the Iranians loudly and repeatedly told us > that they want peace in Iraq and are willing to back Maliki (or > whoever) to get it, they might weaken Bush further. They could open up > Iran to international inspection in a way that would remind people of > the deceptions of the Bush attitude toward pre-war Iraq. Etc.
Yoshie:
Well, they have done both. Iran has cooperated with the IAEA probably more than any country, and both Maliki and Talabani have visited Tehran, and Tehran has expressed its support for the Iraqi government. Washington, however, counts Maliki's and Talabani's good relations with Tehran against it. Washington simply doesn't want Iran to have any relation with Iraqi leaders at all, so Iraqi leaders will serve Washington and Washington alone.
they have done both, but that doesn't mean they can't do it again and again. They could also dump that creep Ahmadinejad and explicitly eschew Holocaust denial. me: >> What's your alternative plan for Iran, Yoshie? she:
As far as Iraq is concerned, Iran needs influential Arab Sunni allies in Iraq -- especially former Ba'athists among guerrillas and tribal leaders -- and Shi'i and Kurdish leaders who are popular, principled, and pragmatic enough to ally with the hypothetical Arab Sunni allies.
a tall order. -- Jim Devine / "Doubt is uncomfortable, but certainty is ridiculous." -- Voltaire.
