I want to access the Iranian people

OP-ED: Stars (and Stripes) in Their Eyes, By Azadeh Moaveni, Washington Post, June 1, 2008; B01

This is why I don't easily trade away the one asset I have in this contentious relationship: the love of the Iranian people.

I don't ask that population to choose between a sense of national pride and a sense of national fear and vulnerability. The nuke issue is the wrong one to fight over. I want to access the Iranian people, not turn them against the outside world that allows others around them to have nuclear power and/or weapons but denies the concept to them.

So I want to be extra discrete here: threatening Israel is a great way to bring about annihilation. Attacking them with nukes, either directly or through proxies, will bring about national annihilation--guaranteed.

But no, I don't go preemptive on nuclear power and a lot of hot air from Ahmadinejad. Crying "fire" in a crowded theater doesn't get you a death sentence.

So separate the bad leader from the good people and signal clearly how nice things can get for Iran once Ahmadinejad is voted out.

I mean, everywhere I travel this world I hear the same about the U.S. ... life's gonna be so much nicer when ...

(Thanks: Lexington Green)

Comments

[Hugh]

In my day to day world I try, to no avail, to convince my friends and co-workers, that the Iranian people actually are our best friends and an asset in the ME. They think everyone "hates us", according to the 5 o'clock news, and just can't believe the Iranians may like us.

[William R. Cumming.]

The nuclear issue in the middle-east is clouded only in the eyes of the US. No one can stop proliferation based on current technology if a nation state really wants to make the investment politically and technically and financially. So where does that leave us. Again, Paul Bracken's 1989 book "Fire in the EAST" did provide a rationale for possession of non-strategic nuclear assets. Be able to threaten US force logistic and command centers. Probably real reason Saudi's wanted US out. Let the target be Quattar or Israel. There is no military way to use nuclear weapons, strategic or tactical, that has been arrived at since the start of the nuclear age. Even now past deployments have not withstood any analytical rigor as to how, when, where and why? Of course there is always the deranged leadership theory but highly doubtful even then with appropriate safeguards. I am not arguing against anti-proliferation efforts just that the key steps in that process were long ago conceded when for whatever reasons the dream of nuclear power "cheaper than water" which by the way is not cheap and never has been, led to more and more proliferation. The game is I have it and you should not have it. Makes little real sense as a policy or process.

[Bruce Sterling]

What good is the fondness of the Iranian people for America and its culture if they passively tolerate their evil repressive US hating rulers? Don't they understand the danger that the mullahs are putting them in? Have they learned nothing from the fate of Saddam and the Taliban? Don't they know that neither the US or Israel will tolerate a jihadist state armed with nuclear bombs? Don't they know that war is coming to them and coming soon? Unless they take up arms against the mullahs and topple them soon then the people of Iran risk seeing their country turn into a wasteland of rubble and ruins.

[farhad]

"so separate the bad leader from the good people...",that i believe the Iranian and for that matter the American mutually believe in. letsget rid of Bush/Cheny/MaCain,and Ahmadinijad/Mullas.Iranian don'thave any beef against the jewish people,they just don't want to be in the greater Israel's plan.other than that, it was the great Persianking;Daruosh who gave santionuary to the jewish people when it wasn't fashionable,and everybody else were cuting thier heads.

[Andrew in Baghdad]

I'd love to see Tom's reaction to the recent White House approval to give nuclear technology to the Saudis.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121305642257659301.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Because seriously - the Saudis?? If you're going to do this plan, there's at least two better options in the Middle East than Saudi Arabia - The Turks being my far-and-away favorite. At least the Turks are starting to respect international regimes and things like "rule of law". The Saudis? What's that glow? That's the mutawaeen headquarters...