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.

“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

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.

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.”

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?

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.

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.

“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?”

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.