Robert Dreyfuss, writing at The Nation, explains that unless the United States and Iran arrive at some sort of agreement, Iran is likely to continue to play a “spoiler” role in Iraq.
He quotes a senior Iraqi official visiting Washington as saying yesterday that:
The Iranians have ties with nearly all of the main factions in Iraq…The Iranians, because of their geopolitical position in the region, will have a strong role in Iraq. So the United States, and the international community, need to reach an understanding with Iran.
This statement probably does not come as a surprise to our readers, and unfortunately the Obama administration’s Deputy Secretary of Defense for the Middle East Colin Kahl’s response probably won’t either. Dreyfuss quotes him as responding that:
It’s debatable whether a U.S.-Iran agreement is possible. But I don’t think it’s necessary…I don’t think there’s any probability of Iraq calling under Iranian hegemony.
However, as Dreyfuss points out “the point is that even though Iran may not be able to achieve hegemonic control in Iraq, it can use its muscle — from covert support to violent militias to its widely acknowledged ties to many leading Iranian Shiite religious parties — to make sure that Iraq remains unstable, violent, and prone to sectarian conflicts.”
Kahl’s comments suggest that Obama’s “engagement-lite” strategy is failing in part because the administration has not internalized the fact that none of the United States’ higher-order strategic priorities in the region – including stabilizing Iraq – can be achieved without Iranian cooperation.
– Ben Katcher
I wonder why you Americans always fail to understand non-Westerners and address them in a condescedning manner! The issue is not an irrational and ethno-centric obsession with a name, but not distorting geographical and historical facts! If you look at ancient Greek maps you would note that this body of water has been known as “the Persian Sea” or ‘la mer Persan’ever since. It was only since 1960s that Arab nationlists have started to give a fake name to the Persian Gulf by referring to it as ‘the Arabian Gulf”. The reason that they give is that Iran (formerly known as Persia) is not the only country neighboring the Persian Gulf and that Arab countries lie on the southern coast of this sea. But it is obvious that this is a ludicrous argument, because if this was so then African countries should have also called the Indian Ocean as ‘the African Ocean’ because they are located on the Western coast of this ocean. The same would hold with regard to most other seas, oceans and international lakes.But no one challenges their established names based on such an argument.
To gve you a related example, Iranians have never questioned the legitimacy of the name of ‘the sea of Oman” over the other body of water connecting to the Persian Gulf, even though Iran is the only country owning the whole nothern coast of this sea. They don’t object to this because this is an established historical fact. They expect others to adhere to the same logic with regard to the name of the Persian Gulf.Again, I hope I have clarified to you that the issue is about recognizing historical and geographical facts and being logical and reasonable, rather not having an irrational obsession with names!
Matthew,
You must be a lawyer, and clearly a good drafter. Your solution probably would work because, in the example I gave, it’s hard to imagine that the label would really matter to either side (as it should be: my essential point).
Sometimes, I fear, that wouldn’t satisfy the hard-liners on this “issue.” Suppose, for example, you’re on a flight to Iran and your pilot radios the following message to the control tower: “This is Flight 190, passing over Arabian Gulf on Vector 397. Request permission to land,” and the message is met by radio silence from the control tower. Turns out your pilot “didn’t get the memo” that all planes entering Iranian airspace must use “Persian Gulf.” (http://www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=1&id=19988). What then?
Despite the amount of writing I’ve devoted to this, I still think the name assigned to that body of water is unimportant. I do think, however, that it highlights a more important point: one should support Iran if Iran has the better position on an issue, not pick sides once and for all and support Iran on everything merely because it has strong arguments on most issues. Many people are sympathetic to Iran on US/Iran issues because they feel the US unfairly tries to control matters beyond its borders — matters over which other countries (notably Iran) ought to have a say. Why support Iran when it’s trying to do the same thing? The importance of what Iran is over-reaching about here is not great (unless you’re on that airplane in my example above), but the principle is the same in either case.
Call Persia Iran, call Burma Myanmar, or Smyrna Izmir, or Constantinople Byzantium or Istanbul. OK with me — that’s all within your own borders. Also OK with me if you want to claim naming rights on some body of water bordered by several other nations, as long as it’s OK with them too. But if somebody on the other side of the pond also feels strongly about it, they should get a say too. I would have thought that point was uncontroversial.
Eric
P.S. to Kooshy:
Not that it’s a big deal, but they didn’t name “North America” after the “United States of America.” Other way around. We named our country after the continent whose name had been chosen by our British colonial oppressors — right after our bloody seven-year revolution to win our freedom from that continent-namer. The Brits, in turn, had named the continent after some Italian guy.
Eric
“I doubt there are many in the “western community” who give a damn what you call it.”
Well just, like the Flynt’s line that I guess we all liked so much and you bragged about on the other post
“I did not know laugher was an argument”
I don’t think not giving a damn to someone’s sensitivities is negotiation.
And then you are at it again and trying to cover, yes this creative tool, with the fallowing sentences and examples
“For example, suppose we strike some far-reaching deal with Iran involving Iraq. Great deal for Iran, great deal for us, the people, and government of Iraq are just thrilled, except for one part: Iran insists that the agreement contain references to the “Persian Gulf” and that upsets some Iraqis whose support we need to get the deal through.
Then what? Tell those Iraqi Arabs to just suck it up and sign? Tell Iran no can do? There are many possible solutions, and they’ll vary from deal to deal, but I think it’s pointless and counter-productive to just tell Iran up front that any deal we arrange with them will always contain the words “Persian Gulf.” What if Saudi Arabia tells us it always has to say “Arabian Gulf” or it will cancel a contract for 47 fighter-bombers?”
Look no one is asking to use a newly fabricated name, in contrary everyone is asking you to use a historic internationally accepted and the only name recognized by UN and every other convention on sea, this is what you need to say to whomever that raises a concern, and not just to the Arabs but more importantly to yourself. Unless you have other designs for not using this name, that is also fine.
I think I read that you, or someone else wrote on this post and I paraphrase that “the only reason that we are there is that we need the enrgy”. Well that is no brainer if this is the case this country will need to start getting real nice. Otherwise, as you probably know no one will have that energy.
Eric don’t feel so deprived of not having an ocean or a sea named after America you have a whole continent named after America it’s called the North American Continent that may be you and me can start calling it The Mexican continent , or better yet after the folks who actually discovered it the Spanish Continent
Cheers
Eric, in your hypothetical, I would not let the “far reaching deal” be hung up on labels.
The agreement could contain a definition section defining “Gulf” for purposes of the agreement with a geographic description followed by “known as the ‘Arab Gulf’ by Saudia Arabia and the “Persian Gulf” by Iran. It would make it clear that the purpose of the agreement is not to adopt any one label, but only to identify if so that the agreement could be carried out.
Matthew,
A more general point here. I hardly need to explain that I find Iran’s case very strong on many issues. Nor do I fail to appreciate the importance of symbolic issues. What I oppose is elevating a symbolic issue (or any issue) to an importance beyond what it deserves merely because someone else tends to get very angry about it.
Bottom line: I’d “duly note” Iran’s strong feelings on this, and defer entirely to those strong feelings (since I myself couldn’t care less), until Iran’s strong feelings butt up against someone else’s strong feelings. If a conflict arises, I’d try to work it out on an ad hoc basis — not once and for all, as some insist is necessary to compensate Iran for all the historical wounds to its pride — essentially by testing the strength of each side’s feelings in the deal at hand. I’d find out first whether one or both sides appear willing to give at all, on any conditions, since the deal obviously would be off if both unequivocally say “no”. If one or both sides will bend, I’d find out what conditions each side would accept in the deal at hand. As I wrote earlier, I think that will vary from deal to deal. Standard negotiating practice; pretty mundane — diplomats, lawyers and business people do it every day.
Frankly, despite the hair-trigger tempers I’ve seen on display here, I suspect the Iranian government has a cooler head on this issue — or would, if push came to shove on a deal it really wanted to do. Bear in mind this historical fact, for example: even if the story about the Shah and the mail is true, and even if the Shah was a very bad guy with a hot temper, I don’t recall even him insisting that we call it the “Iranian Gulf.”
Matthew,
I’m familiar with the story about the Shah and the mail (among others like it). I fully understand Iran has a “chip on its shoulder” about this, and I agree entirely that “chips on the shoulder” should be taken into account in diplomacy, especially when the other side doesn’t really care one way or the other about the issue. In fact, diplomatic negotiators like nothing better than an issue that the other side feels strongly about but that the diplomat’s country couldn’t care less about. Easy to toss in, even if you get next to nothing, or even nothing but good will, in return. My only question is: What do you do when you find that someone else (with whom you also need to deal) has a chip on their shoulder too?
For example, suppose we strike some far-reaching deal with Iran involving Iraq. Great deal for Iran, great deal for us, the people and government of Iraq are just thrilled, except for one part: Iran insists that the agreement contain references to the “Persian Gulf” and that upsets some Iraqis whose support we need to get the deal through.
Then what? Tell those Iraqi Arabs to just suck it up and sign? Tell Iran no can do? There are a lot of possible solutions, and they’ll vary from deal to deal, but I think it’s pointless and counter-productive to just tell Iran up front that any deal we arrange with them will always contain the words “Persian Gulf.” What if Saudi Arabia tells us it always has to say “Arabian Gulf” or it will cancel a contract for 47 fighter-bombers?
Eric
Contrary to your statement above they do, that is why the US, Department of War (DOD) in its communications does call this body of water the “Arabian Gulf.” That is contrary to their own state department designation. Alternatively, as the ever-lost big daddy of divide and concern, BBC and now VOA call it The Gulf.
I suspect if Iranians sign a couple of more contracts with the Chinese we will soon even see NATO’s communicates starting like this: “Our ever loved humanitarian NATO forces in operations of killing children and civilians in weddings near the Arabian Gulf.” Well if this country thinks that this a tool to further their goals as it has in last thirty years OK continue and hypocritically call it whatever you wish ( you can even call it AL).
looks like you don’t understand, if you need to negotiate with someone so badly, more importantly as Levretts say “we need Iran” or “we are in a race for Iran” period, you should not intimidate them any further then you have to. That is an advice for whoever will need to negotiate with Iran especially on a public level.
Wasn’t it Reza Shah that ordered all mail incoming to Iran, returned to its senders if its address contained “Persia” instead of “Iran”?
So Eric, this is not comparable to Lake Ontario. Having been dominated by foreign powers for decades, Iran very much has “a chip on its shoulder”, or many chips for that matter. Any slight, perceived or real, or indication of a lack of respect toward Iran is viewed with extreme disfavor and met with a harsh response. This is very much a part of the approach taken by Iran’s leaders toward the outside world. So perhaphs we should make a note of it, and move on.
Kooshy,
“Are politely asking you and the western community please if you are unhappy with our politics, you don’t need to thorough the kitchen sink at history and distorting historical names, facts and traditions.”
I doubt there are many in the “western community” who give a damn what you call it. I know for a fact there’s at least one member of the “western community” who feels that way. If you say “Persian Gulf” and nobody else has any objections, then “Persian Gulf” it is. But it appears some of your neighbors do have objections — enough, apparently, not to show up at Iran’s recently scheduled athletic games. I suspect I speak for most of the “western community” when I suggest this: Why don’t you all work it out and then tell us what you’d like us to call it? We’ll hold off on printing new maps for a few months until we hear from you.
I will, however, add that I’m not inclined to acknowledge territorial claims or naming rights just because somebody tells me their ancestors used to own the place in question, say, 2,000 years ago. I’m always concerned that someone else might come along and tell me their ancestors used to own it, say, 4,000 years ago, or maybe 500 years ago or 100 years ago — or maybe that it was briefly named after their uncle’s brother-in-law 500 years ago. If we start looking back that far, before you know it, as Stan Laurel used to say to Oliver Hardy, “we’d have ourselves a fine kettle of fish, wouldn’t we?”
Eric
“Is this something you all care enough about that you’d be willing to make concessions on other points to get naming rights? Seems like that would be fair for the other side to ask — after all, it sure wasn’t named the “Persian Gulf” when it was created; I hope we can all agree on that.”
Ok Eric, let’s play your game, say Britain wants to get cheaper oil from Mexico, to make the Mexicans intimidated and convince them to negotiate it starts among other things calling the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of Texas. She knows the Texans are Mexico’s competition and they had a few conflicts of their own with Mexicans say Alamo, with land grab and all that I am sure you know.
Now let us hold it there, and hear the conclusion of your statement
Eric
“But if, say, Mexico insisted that we leave more than a quart or two of water in the Colorado River when it crosses the border if we want to keep calling the “Gulf of California” by that name, I’d tell them “No thanks. We’ll keep the water — you call it what you like.”
Great Ok look Iran just like your example above is not giving up anything, or has ever made a concession with regard to miss use of the Persian Gulf name. This is exactly why you should not use this as an “option on the table” because before you even seat behind this now famous virtual table, the other side has long gone, and is selling its goods to the next bidder.
But now, look in the same time Iran and Iranian for the following reasons:
“On almost all maps printed before 1960, and in most modern international treaties, documents and maps, this body of water is known by the name “Persian Gulf.” This reflects traditional usage since the Greek geographers Strabo and Ptolemy, and the geopolitical realities of the time with a powerful Persian Empire (Iran) comprising the whole northern coastline and a scattering of local emirates on the Arabian coast. It was referred to as the Persian gulf in the Arabic Christian writer Agapius, writing in the 10th century.”
Are politely asking you and the western community please if you are unhappy with our politics, you don’t need to thorough the kitchen sink at history and distorting historical names, facts and traditions.
In addition, intimidations in the region will not advance US aims in the region, it will cause the other side to go to a different bidder, which could be your competition, not hers.
Clearly there are strong feelings on whether to call that body of water the “Persian Gulf.” I’ve learned from this that there are strong feelings on whether to call that body of water the “Persian Gulf.”
I wish I could also tell you that learning this has changed my view on the subject, but it hasn’t. (To be honest, I didn’t even HAVE a view on the subject until it came up here; I hadn’t given it a great deal of thought — to be precise: “none”). I don’t think it’s critical to the debates. Is this something you all care enough about that you’d be willing to make concessions on other points to get naming rights? Seems like that would be fair for the other side to ask — after all, it sure wasn’t named the “Persian Gulf” when it was created; I hope we can all agree on that.
Maybe I’m kidding myself, but if Americans had long ago named the “Pacific Ocean” the “American Ocean,” and someone now pointed out that Japan could just as easily insist on calling it the “Japanese Ocean,” I think I’d acknowledge they have a point. I sure as heck wouldn’t agree to change the name to the “Japanese Ocean,” or the “Chinese Ocean” (besides, each of them already has its own “Sea” and we don’t even have a “Gulf” or a “Bay”, though all that is beside the point). But I’m pretty sure I could live with something neutral, and I sure wouldn’t be willing to give up something substantial to get naming rights. What would it take, anyway — maybe the state of Oregon? No way. Maybe a few of the Aleutian Islands — I guess I could let those go. But if, say, Mexico insisted that we leave more than a quart or two of water in the Colorado River when it crosses the border if we want to keep calling the “Gulf of California” by that name, I’d tell them “No thanks. We’ll keep the water — you call it what you like.”
I suppose I might privately think “Damn, having an ocean named after us was pretty nice!” but I still think I’d see my way clear to change the name. After all, I’ve learned to live with “Gulf of Mexico” and “Lake Ontario” — I don’t remember either of those names ever causing me a great deal of anxiety.
I for myself never believed that this site is pro Iranian or if it should be, but based on this sites principles well-known opinion it is clearly advocating an honest, equal Grand Bergin with Iran. If I understood correctly, one of the Flynt’s points with regard to the tanked Vienna agreement was a terror attack in Baluchistan. Levrretts should know that using the fabricated name of Gulf or Arabian Gulf instead of the historic name of Persian Gulf for Iranians is as bad as any Regi attack on the country. Therefore, if they are after honest negotiations with Iran they should also advise use of sensitive and not internationally recognized terms.
As an Iranian, I would like to see their explanations and opinion with regard to this sensitive issue.
Eric:
what a strong argument you made for not calling the true and genuine name of Persian Gulf (!). I am truly flabbergasted.
Eric
“On labeling the Gulf/Persian Gulf, whatever label you pick will offend someone. I’d like to think this site is not just mindlessly pro-Iran, but pro-Iran based on rational arguments. If so, sometimes those arguments will come down against Iran, in which case one might feel, at least for a while, that “Persian Gulf” is an unfair slap in the face to, say, Saudi Arabia. Maybe the best solution is to leave it unlabeled.”
Wow, what a convenient explanation to legitimate historic concerns of some, especially while the war party is almost begging for an honest negotiation on a grand bargain scale before they lose the rest of their hegemonic balance of power, or perhaps this is one of the options you would like to keep on the table to further the negotiations.
Frankly dishonest remarks like this and what suddenly popped out of this site is what that has kept our countries apart for last 60 years, from the early years of the last century Iranians start to know the Americans as righteous, fair, and honest people but that got interrupted in 1953.
I am sure as you, and the principles of this site, very deeply and well know, since the Nasser era the fabricated name of Persian Gulf or the Gulf ( kind of we wouldn’t want to take side) is been used as a tool and a hedge to inflame the ever existing distance between the Iranians and the Arabs. If this country is interested to negotiate with Iran, in an honest and equal way on the, nuclear issue or any other matter of its interest, I can guarantee that any verbal or any document that bears the fabricated name of Gulf, or Arabian Gulf wouldn’t and couldn’t get approved by Tehran, so if you can’t be honest with your politics then should at least be honest with yourself.
Eric
You are right. 20%-enriched “fuel rods” cannot be further enriched to weapon grade, so it is far better for the west to provide Iran with 20%-enriched “fuel rods” rather than letting Iran enrich uranium to 20% itself.
Your argument make sense but as you know, the decision makers in Washington are already aware of all this but are using “the nuclear Issue” as a pretext to impose sanction or military action.
With Israel lobby dominating the power in Washington, I am pessimistic about rapprochement with Iran.
Eric S. Margolis has written another article about the Iranian nuclear which you might find interesting;
“Here We Go Again With the Iranian Nuclear Scare”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article22176.htm
Eric,
Spent fuel plates (as for TRR) or rods (as for power stations) are normally reprocessed for plutonium. Iran doesn’t have a reprocessing capability, or even facility in the making. It is I understand a very complicated thing to do, and most countries try to avoid it these days. The Russians do loads, the British do some, but even the US had given it up, at least for a while.
If you mean reprocessing unspent fuel plates to extract the 20% uranium and enrich it further, it is widely held this isn’t possible, or at least if it is, there is no point because it would be much, much easier to just use the existing 5% LEU stock that is still in UF6 gas form.
An interesting fact is Iran offered in 2005 to convert all their LEU into fuel rods, to never reprocess, and to never let any surplus LEU accumulate. Bush et al turned them down. In fact, your very good point about the nature of a US/Iran agreement and interpretations thereof is exactly what happened with both the Tehran Declaration and Paris Agreement during the EU3 phase of the nuclear negotiations.
Regarding your last point, Iran (as Persian Gulf alludes to) has been given the opportunity to prove they can enrich to 20% very easily. This has surprised a lot of people I think. Whether it is capped at 5% or 20% is really irrelevant now; they can do it, and they can probably enrich to whatever level they like in a short space of time. We have no choice now other than a political resolution, because no amount of bombing or sanctions can get rid of the knowhow.
Dan,
Thanks for the link to the article. Interesting reading. It raised a question in my mind for which you, or someone else here, may have an answer:
If it’s true, as most writers seem to claim, that providing 20%-enriched “fuel rods” for the Tehran Research Reactor will not enable Iran to further enrich that uranium, then aren’t we a lot better off providing such fuel rods rather than letting Iran do the enriching-to-20% itself? One thing we know for sure, after all, is that 20%-enriched uranium can be further enriched BEFORE it’s been turned into “fuel rods.”
Iranian,
First, thanks for the link to the article, which was good (though Flynt and Hillary might complain that the author stole the title of their June 15, 2009 op-ed – “Ahmadinejad Won – Get Over It”).
On labeling the Gulf/Persian Gulf, whatever label you pick will offend someone. I’d like to think this site is not just mindlessly pro-Iran, but pro-Iran based on rational arguments. If so, sometimes those arguments will come down against Iran, in which case one might feel, at least for a while, that “Persian Gulf” is an unfair slap in the face to, say, Saudi Arabia. Maybe the best solution is to leave it unlabeled.
As for words like “regime” — and one might add words and phrases such as “reform” and “reactionary” and “unelected mullahs” and “final say in all matters of state” — at least they tell you up front where the writer’s sympathies lie. Often that enables one to decide more quickly whether the article is worth the time — though I rarely stop reading for that reason alone (after all, if one were to toss an article just for using such value-laden words or phrases, there might not be much left to read).
rfjk:
The way you wrote it, makes it seem as if the US, as a rational actor, must try to understand Iranians who behave irrationally. However, the point here is that even the name Persian Gulf has been politicized in the west. For example, the BBC usually says Gulf and so do many European and American officials. This was not the case three decades ago and it is seen in Iran as a symbol (though small) of western hostility. Another example is when the word regime is used when describing the Iranian state. This is widely seen as derogatory. I think Iranians would argue that this sort of language and this approach is a symptom of a larger problem, which is the irrational behavior of western governments and much of the western mainstream media.
One needs to look no further than even at this site to find reasons why US/Iranian relations are hard to establish, like infantile obsessions about the naming of the Persian Gulf to insensible discussions regarding Iranian/Iraqi relations, which should be a painfully, obvious, no-brainer the US must accept and deal with if it intends to be relevant in the M/E.
Iraj is absolutely correct the map has to change, especially for this site that advocates reduction of tensions with Iran and Iranians
Good point Iraj
One suggestion! Before you lose all your Ianian readers, I advise you to change the map on top of your article! This shows the Persian Gulf as ‘The Gulf”. This is an ouright affront to all Iranians! It needs no argument that the real name which has been in currency since ancient times is ‘the Persian Gulf’. If you need, I can recommend you some sources to boost your geograohy and history knowledge of the region.
A very good article:
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/Default.pl?id=37567
Matthew,
It’s inconceivable that Iran could not be involved in Iraq affairs, but your use of “disrupt” rather than “be involved” highlights the risk (for Iran) of any US/Iran deal involving Iraq. Iran’s “being involved” would be our “disrupting,” deal or not — it already is that way, in fact — but if we could point to some contractual obligation that (in our view) Iran had not fulfilled, many more people would probably accept our choice of verb, and all the indignation and retribution to which we therefore felt entitled. For that reason, if I were Iran, I’d be very careful about what contractual obligations I agreed to. I’d make sure they were very specific, avoiding all the usual diplomatic-language overlays — at least for the first deals. Something really straightforward — we’ll trade you some hikers for some diplomats, for example; if that works out, maybe take a step further, just a tad looser with the language, and so on. At least early on, any sort of loosey-goosey arrangement could only work to Iran’s disadvantage: when it came to what the US was obligated to provide, Iran would be informed that the statement of our obligations was much less clear than Iran had imagined; when it came what Iran was required to do (or to refrain from doing), Iran would be informed that that was all quite clear in the agreement and — guess what — Iran hadn’t complied with that and now we are quite upset. Lots of downside, not much upside for Iran. Unless they get something concrete and valuable, at least in the early rounds, they’re better off just keeping things the way they are — no agreement, just “being involved” with their neighbor, no strong peg for anyone to hang a “disrupting” claim on.
Pirouz, the NIAC only invites Iran bashers these days.
IRAN’S AHMADINEJAD STRIKES AGAIN
http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/irans-ahmadinejad-strikes-again.aspx
Hillary Clinton blasted Iran for becoming `a military dictatorship,’ seemingly heedless of the fact that Egypt, one of America’s key Arab allies, has been a military dictatorship for decades. Or that Washington is now all smiles and hugs with the ghastly dictatorship in Uzbekistan where opponents of the regime are boiled alive. Such selective morality is a leading cause of anti-Americanism around the globe.
In the Iranian view, if France and Britain, and neighbors Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India (now with US help) can have nuclear arms, why can’t Iran at least boil water for tea using nuclear energy?
Alan,
This relates to the George Friedman piece from several days ago, but I’m guessing you too may stop looking back that far in time after a while, so I thought I’d catch your eye here:
You mentioned “They will exchange their LEU in one hit in Iran simultaneously for fuel plates.” Do you know whether those “fuel plates” can be further reprocessed into higher-purity fuel (bomb-grade)? Several writers have said “no,” but you may recall Alan Kuperman’s NYT op-ed, where he said “yes.”
This raises an important point on why we should be engaging with Iran.
But it also raises some critical questions as well. Why would Iran ever agree to not disr affairs in Iran? Especially after the death toll of the Iran Iraq war? Even if they did agree, how would this be verifiable? There are so many factions and religious groups that cross over both countries that I don’t see how would ever come about.
“a reeducation of the new facts”
Talk about understatement.
Leveretts, I’m disappointed you won’t be part of the Iran forum being assembled next week by NIAC, especially given the fact that you were in Tehran so recently. I told them so, too.
What is being proved here is that the major media is beginning to get on the bandwagon regarding some kind of rapprochement with Iran, limited or otherwise. No doubt its painful to hear people discovering this for the first time, but for most Americans, those who at least pay some attention to current events, the idea of normalized relations with Iran will require a reeducation of the new facts.
Boy, talk about (re)stating the obvious. The Nation has nothing better to do than print stuff that anyone who’s been breathing for the past 6 years knows?