How many adults you know will respond favorably to a request you make that’s been packaged with a threat?
How many adults will feel insulted, and likely not listen to anything else you have to say?
World leaders aren’t much different from the rest of us humans.
Think about what went through the heads of Iranian honchos when the leader of the world and Nobel Peace Prize winner, President Barack Obama, told George Stephanopoulos during an interview that threatening Syria with the bum-rush to obtain peace also applies to Iran’s alleged pursuit of nuclear weapons:
“My view is that if you have both a credible threat of force, combined with a rigorous diplomatic effort, that, in fact you can strike a deal,”
Obama also mentioned that Iran shouldn’t think they dodged any missiles just because the US hasn’t bombed Syria.
Okay, there may be a precedent or two that gives Obama confidence in the Bum-Rush Theory for Peace – but I’m sure Iran isn’t thrilled about one of them.
Still, I don’t know if this is the language Obama should take while he states his readiness to enter negotiations with Iran or any country.
There’s no definitive proof that Iran has been developing nuclear weapons during the past 10 years.
But…most experts say that Iran’s top priority is regime survival. If that assumption is valid, what will Iranian leadership do if it believes America is hell-bent on regime change, regardless of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear concessions to the US?
I dunno…develop nuclear weapons or something…
Which will make America’s diplomatic framework for Iran a self-fulfilling prophesy…
Like I said, many adults may not dig being threatened during peace talks, let along being treated like children.
Let’s safely assume Iran is not even close to developing nukes for a moment and consider what they’ve seen over the years.
Aside from invading an embassy in its own country, you would have to go back several hundred years to find an instance where Iran attacked or invaded another country.
With the support of the United States, Iraq killed 100,000 Iranians with chemical weapons during the 80’s Iran-Iraq War. Iran never used chemical weapons on the Iraqis in retaliation.
Let’s add that America never apologized to Iran for supplying Iraq with those deadly weapons. In other words, “We don’t give a slow, twisting, flying flip about your 100,000 dead.”
Regardless of what the previous Iranian President said while on the global stage, Iran elected a moderate for its President, thus positioning itself for productive talks with the US.
These proposed talks clearly have the blessing of the person who REALLY runs Iran.
And Obama is still hurling threats?
Like many adults, Iranian leadership may feel insulted, and likely not listen…
Former Iranian diplomat and Princeton University visiting scholar Hossein Mousavian wrote a very timely article in The Guardian today on how and why future US-Iran talks should be based on mutual respect. Mousavian should know a lot about the topic – he was on the nuclear negotiating team and had a first-hand view of how previous negotiating attempts went down the sewer…
song currently stuck in my head: “how deep is the ocean” – cecil payne