Obama on Al Arabia: A Case for Mutual Respect

[Cyrus]

After going on Al Arabia, Obama said 'iranians are a great people' and 'if they unclinch their fist they will find an extended hand'

In turn, the president of iran did this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7855444.stm

Two things I noticed about the situation:

(1) Red necks (sorry, got to use that term here) think Obama is projecting weakness by speaking softly.

I will adress this point first. Most American's don't know middle eastern culture, let alone where the middle east is on a map. That being said, they simply don't have a clue on the tone in which you talk to someone from the middle east is not the same tone you talk to Joe the Plumber. Middle eastern culture is highly centered around respect. You can disagree, but you don't dictate to someone if they are middle eastern. Bush did a lot of dictating and hardly any listening. Also, Obama mentioned he had family that was muslim. This is going to earn him major, major points in terms of PR in the ME. It was pretty apauling to watch Bill O'reilly today with his butt buddy dennis miller trash talk obama; however, the tone wasn't that of a news show. It was two guys making inappropriate comments as if they were talking at the water cooler. In all honesty, I was so digusted by what they were saying I had to change the channel (a first for me).

See: http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

Then go to --> Milley Time ---> 1/28/09

More to the point, what (the rednecks) fail to realize is that Obama has set the stage for talks. If they decide to not work with Obama, Obama has framed his help in such a way that they look bad for not accepting his hand in friendship, instead of him looking bad. This is exactly the pitfal Bush got himself into. He was criticized for not having a valid coalition force that had middle eastern components to it (Pay attention to HOW bush formed his coalition. He stated his case for war, and blatantly ignored anyone who didn't see it his way). As a result, he either had to go it alone, or beg others for help. Obviously, he was left with the only option of going it alone.

(2) Ahmadinejad's demand for US apology

At first, I thought ...here we go again. However, the FACT is, we DID support a Coup in 1953 that overthrew the Iranian government and put a dicator in place that did torture the people in Iran. When the Iranian people revolted in 1979 (and took hostages) the US returned the favor by helping Sadam use chemical weapons (and the Iran Contra scandal) during the Iran Iraq war which lasted 10 years and killed over a million people. The same way I would demand an apology from the Taliban for 9/11, or the Jews would demand an apology from the German Government, or the blacks should get an apology from the US government.

The problem with apologizing to Ahmadinejad, is that he will go the obvious route and demand discontiunation of support for Israel (unrealistic). That's why Obama can't apolgozie (even though on behalf of the USA he should). Either way, by framing his interview on Al Arabia in the tone of respect, Ahmadinejad came of looking really, really bad (especially from a middle eastern perspective of mutal respect).

So, although he came off as harsh: the man has a valid point.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obama is poetry in motion.

The problem with apologizing to Ahmadinejad, is that he will go the obvious route and demand discontiunation of support for Israel (unrealistic). That's why Obama can't apolgozie (even though on behalf of the USA he should). Either way, by framing his interview on Al Arabia in the tone of respect, Ahmadinejad came of looking really, really bad (especially from a middle eastern perspective of mutal respect).

So, although he came off as harsh: the man has a valid point.

He won't get any apologies - at least not any time in the near future - but that can be used as a bartering chip.

 

[Cyrus]

Watch the O'Reilly clip. It's honestly distasteful to the point it should be taken off tv.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Alright, I did, but only because you asked. Heh, compare that to any program on PBS.

I don't understand why anyone watches this stuff; esp you! It is like reading grocery store newspapers.

 

[LowlyPion]

Watch the O'Reilly clip. It's honestly distasteful to the point it should be taken off tv.

I think O'Reilly and Limbaugh have come to the point that they are marginalizing themselves with their extreme positions, choosing ideology and partisanship over measured tactical diplomacy.

There is no wonder that Obama has an 80% approval. Even the conservatives are getting tired of these nitwit talking heads thinking they are driving the buggy.

In the House this Boehner character is sounding like an idiot drinking the same Kool aid mash as these guys are dishing. Sadly their only strategy seems to be to stake out an opposition position and hope for the country to fail. It's almost despicable.

As for Miller he's had his face smooched up to Bush's rear for so long he just doesn't know what anything else looks like.

 

[BobG]

Watch the O'Reilly clip. It's honestly distasteful to the point it should be taken off tv.

Yes, it was.

... at about 6 minutes into the video below, O'Reilly deadpanned, “Miller and I are involved in a new business partnership.” What's the partnership? A new themepark called, “Waterboard World.”

Miller then regaled viewers with an anecdote about a caller to his radio show. According to him, the caller suggested, “Change the public relations of waterboarding. Say that people are emitting too much CO2 and when you pour water down their nose, it cuts into their CO2 exhalation.”

“So it's better for the planet!” O'Reilly said.

“And we can sell it – greenboarding!” Miller added.

O'Reilly, really getting into the fun of it, added, “You buy one ticket, take the kids and everybody'll be waterboarded.”

Miller began to sing, to the tune of “Surfin' USA,” “If everybody had a cheesecloth, across the USA...”

 

[Gokul43201]

The thread is about Obama's strategy with the ME and more specifically about his interview (or am I mistaken?). Let's not make it about O'Reilly or Limbaugh or Miller and have this thread shut down too.

 

[russ_watters]

'iranians are a great people' and 'if they unclinch their fist they will find an extended hand'

I like it, but isn't it basically the same policy as before, now just stated to them instead of stated to reporters in press conferences. The policy remains: if you want us to deal with you, you need to stop being terrorists.

More to the point, what (the rednecks) fail to realize is that Obama has set the stage for talks. If they decide to not work with Obama, Obama has framed his help in such a way that they look bad for not accepting his hand in friendship, instead of him looking bad. This is exactly the pitfal Bush got himself into.

You're basically right, but can't we, on this forum, be better/more realistic than that? I mean - you did expect the reaction he got, right? Otherwise, we're just being naive about his odds for success.

You're also missing the other side of the coin: yes, Ahmadinejad is made to look bad to the international community by this, but so what? He already looks bad and isn't going to get any worse. Just as important is how it makes Obama look to him. We're not fighting the average Iranian here (yes, the people of Iran are actually relatively moderate), we're fighting the murderous nuts and by approaching murderous nuts with your hat in hand, you weaken your position. This statement of Obama's doesn't do that much either way - again (as with the Pakistan attack), one soundbyte doesn't determine success or failure in a policy/Presidency.

(2) Ahmadinejad's demand for US apology

At first, I thought ...here we go again. However, the FACT is, we DID support a Coup in 1953 that overthrew the Iranian government and put a dicator in place that did torture the people in Iran...

The problem with apologizing to Ahmadinejad, is that he will go the obvious route and demand discontiunation of support for Israel (unrealistic). That's why Obama can't apolgozie (even though on behalf of the USA he should).

Peace talks require only that both sides accept that peace is the goal of the talks. Requiring concessions (other than a mutual acceptance of a desire for peace) before talks weakens the position of the one giving the unilateral concessions. It is an improper and counterproductive way to negotiate.

After all - Obama didn't ask for an apology for their terrorism, did he? No, he shouldn't ask for nor give an apology.

 

[russ_watters]

I think O'Reilly and Limbaugh have come to the point that they are marginalizing themselves with their extreme positions, choosing ideology and partisanship over measured tactical diplomacy.

Extremism gets ratings and it even occasionally gets people elected (maybe) to the senate. That's just the way it is, good, bad, or indifferent.

There is no wonder that Obama has an 80% approval.

Not any more he doesn't. 68% as of last weekend: http://www.gallup.com/poll/113968/Obama-Initial-Approval-Ratings-Historical-Context.aspx

It's easy to have a high approval rating when you're planning a party. Now that the wedding is over, the approval rating is dropping because he actually has to do stuff. He's still on his honeymoon, but eventually, he'll get back to reality with his approval rating.

 

[Gokul43201]

You're also missing the other side of the coin: yes, Ahmadinejad is made to look bad to the international community by this, but so what? He already looks bad and isn't going to get any worse.

I suspect you may be omitting one particular important group from the "international community": other countries in the ME.

I imagine that a poll in the ME of "who's the more evil person - Bush or Ahmedinejad?" would get you a nearly unanimous voice proclaiming Bush to be the worse of the two (and Ahmedinejad, by contrast and through standing up to Bush, looks like a hero). Obama has a much better chance of winning a popularity contest in the ME by playing his cards right. And if he can do that - get the locals more on his side - that's half the battle won.

To paraphrase Tom Clancy (from Carrier, I think), you're in for a long and hard campaign if you don't have the locals on your side.

 

[rootX]

Recent Israel attacks have worsen the conditions - I don't see any stage for negotiations unless Iran will be getting something in return. If Ahmadinejad comes out soft, he would lose the elections provided that there is a strong hate for Israel and America due to recent events.

(2) Ahmadinejad's demand for US apology

I would be surprised if that's all he want.

 

[Gokul43201]

If Ahmadinejad comes out soft, he would lose the elections provided that there is a strong hate for Israel and America due to recent events.

I'm sure this has to be a very big part of the calculation performed by the Obama team: how do you manage your Iran policy over the next few months so as to not give Ahmedinejad a popularity boost that will get him re-elected?

It is important to note that one of the big reasons he was elected in the first place, in 2005, was because of the Iraq war.

 

[rootX]

I'm sure this has to be a very big part of the calculation performed by the Obama team: how do you manage your Iran policy over the next few months so as to not give Ahmedinejad a popularity boost that will get him re-elected?

For solving those problems, It's just does not look possible to me (at least for next few/many decades), and it's not Ahmedinejad but all of Iran:
1.

He called on Mr Obama to withdraw US troops from their bases around the world and for America to "stop interfering in other people's affairs".

2. He wants Nuclear power
3. He is aggressive against Israel

I hope that he really doesn't want #1 (American to step down as a superpower). But, he wouldn't sit on the table without #2...If he gets #2 then there would be more instability.

 

[LowlyPion]

I'm sure this has to be a very big part of the calculation performed by the Obama team: how do you manage your Iran policy over the next few months so as to not give Ahmedinejad a popularity boost that will get him re-elected?

It is important to note that one of the big reasons he was elected in the first place, in 2005, was because of the Iraq war.

I don't think there is any doubt that Mahmoud is playing his own election game.

And of course regardless of what Obama might do, he will only set the bar higher with new demands and tell America to jump over that bar if there ever is an apology. And then try to the best of his ability to make it appear that he is calling the shots.

The real question will be if the Mullahs might sense a chance to advantage themselves with a rapprochement and maybe decide that Mahmoud is more an impediment to that than a useful extension of their interests.

 

[Gokul43201]

For solving those problems, It's just does not look possible to me (at least for next few/many decades)

I think a lot will come down to whether or not Karroubi will be allowed to run, and who his competition will be from the Reformist wing. Rafsanjani would have had a great chance of winning if he could run but he's too old (Iran has an upper bound on the eligibility age), and Karroubi has strained relations with Khamenei, so there's no telling what will happen with him. But, if he is not disqualified, Karroubi will definitely run, and will easily win a sizable fraction of the vote. Unfortunately, I think he may end up splitting the reformist vote with Mohammad Hashemi (Rafsanjani's brother), if he also runs. If Karroubi is ruled ineligible from the start, then M. Hashemi might have a reasonable chance against Ahmadinejad, or if Karroubi is eligible and Hashemi doesn't run, then too, I'd be hopeful.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

it's not Ahmedinejad but all of Iran:

I've had a number Iranian friends and a couple that were close friends, and I have always been amazed by how much we have in common; even if they have only been here a very short time. In spite of what we might see as vastly different cultures, I find that Iranians and Americans have a surprisingly natural compatibility. More than not we share a common worldview, a common sense of humor, a common sense of priorities. In short, we should be able to understand each other and get along - in spite of how it might appear on the evening news, there is no giant cultural divide that fundamentally prevents us from being friendly.

 

[Cyrus]

For solving those problems, It's just does not look possible to me (at least for next few/many decades), and it's not Ahmedinejad but all of Iran:

I'm afraid this point ignores the facts about the iranian people vs. the iranian government.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm afraid this point ignores the facts about the iranian people vs. the iranian government.

George Bush sure didn't represent me or my views.

 

[Cyrus]

That's a good example. For the most part, the Iranain people are diametrically opposed to the Iranian Government and are pro USA.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

That's a good example. For the most part, the Iranain people are diametrically opposed to the Iranian Government and are pro USA.

I believe the majority of anti-us sentiment in iran came from fear that bush would invade their country.
to add to your analysis regarding the perception of obama vs ahmadinijad I would imagine there is a certain practical component. "which of these men is likely to be a bigger threat to my desired way of life?" they would likely be considering. between an american president offering diplomacy and an iranian president snubbing that offer I'd imagine the math wouldn't be too hard.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

That's a good example. For the most part, the Iranain people are diametrically opposed to the Iranian Government and are pro USA.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdyEw6jfGQ

 

[Cyrus]

Please, no home videos of Astronuc!

 

[The Dagda]

It is often said that the Iranian youth culture is enamoured of the US culture.

It's about time someone talked instead of pressing red buttons and talking crap. Ahmadinejad may not be the most amicable of Middle Eastern pseudo democratic leaders, but he is willing to talk.

 

[rootX]

I'm afraid this point ignores the facts about the iranian people vs. the iranian government.

Yes, agree.

Ahmadinejad had 70% approval rating in 2006
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jun/20/iran.ewenmacaskill

But, it doesn't look better now
(Mar. 19, 2008)
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1723901,00.html

 

[devil-fire]

...The problem with apologizing to Ahmadinejad, is that he will go the obvious route and demand discontiunation of support for Israel (unrealistic). That's why Obama can't apolgozie (even though on behalf of the USA he should)...

I don't think the possibility of Ahmadinejad demanding more from the USA once the USA gives him his little apology is a problem. I think the Iranian people would see the injustice of him asking for an apology, Obama apologizing and suddenly Ahmadinejad claims "Oh... well um... So now free the Palestinians! Your apology is no good until you do that! See? America is still evil!".

I think the problem with apologizing is that it would mean the American government was sorry for those actions and regretted them, which would make similar plans in the future all the more objectionable the world over. I mean if Obama said "it was poor judgment to support a coup of a democratically elected, peaceful government. I believe a more peaceful negotiation would have yielded a more positive outcome for both our nations." (which is about as close to an apology as anyone is going to get... I can't imagine a president hanging his head in shame and saying 'Im sorry we killed your leaders. That wasnt nice. I wana be friends now OK?'). If after that, the CIA gave money to a radical left wing bunch of peace loving hippies who go on to be declared enemies of the state, Ahmadinejad will proclaim "Look! The Americans are still medaling in our business! They offer one hand in peace and with the other they try to topple our government by supporting a terrorists organization again!".

Without apologizing, at least Obama will still be trustworthy and consistent if the USA does the same stuff again. Mind you, it might vary well come to that if Iran becomes a nuclear power.

 

[The Dagda]

It would also set the dangerous precedent of the US actually apologising for anything it did, we could have a floodgate situation.

 

[russ_watters]

I believe the majority of anti-us sentiment in iran came from fear that bush would invade their country.

How they knew about Bush in the 1970s, '80s, and '90s is beyond me... :uhh:

 

[russ_watters]

It's about time someone talked instead of pressing red buttons and talking crap. Ahmadinejad may not be the most amicable of Middle Eastern pseudo democratic leaders, but he is willing to talk.

He's certainly willing to talk - talking is what psychopathic despots do. What we need is a leader over there who is willing to actually do peace, as opposed to talking about annihilating us all the time (and, of course, the supporting terrorism thing he does...).

 

[russ_watters]

I suspect you may be omitting one particular important group from the "international community": other countries in the ME.

I imagine that a poll in the ME of "who's the more evil person - Bush or Ahmedinejad?" would get you a nearly unanimous voice proclaiming Bush to be the worse of the two (and Ahmedinejad, by contrast and through standing up to Bush, looks like a hero). Obama has a much better chance of winning a popularity contest in the ME by playing his cards right. And if he can do that - get the locals more on his side - that's half the battle won.

I'm not sure if you read anything after that sentence, but it explains why what you just said is irrelevant... No, Obama being more popular among the people who aren't terrorists in the Middle East does nothing for us. Perhaps you could argue what you think Obama's popularity among people who have no power does for us...

 

[russ_watters]

Obvious question - if Iran is mostly moderate, how does a nutcase like that get elected? Are the elections really legitimate or are the people less moderate than the western media thinks?

 

[russ_watters]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQdyEw6jfGQ

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Now that is classic comedy!, lol.

 

[The Dagda]

He's certainly willing to talk - talking is what psychopathic despots do. What we need is a leader over there who is willing to actually do peace, as opposed to talking about annihilating us all the time (and, of course, the supporting terrorism thing he does...).

Yes something tells me your lost in a world of Fox? Who has talked about annihilating anyone? And how is Ahmadinejad more of a psychopath than Bush? You are joking right?

Why is asking for peace funny? Must be some weird neocon sense of humour thing.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Obvious question - if Iran is mostly moderate, how does a nutcase like that get elected?

The same way Bush got elected.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: Now that is classic comedy!, lol.

You do realize that it WAS a joke, right?

 

[Gokul43201]

I just lost a long reply that I made to this post (and the one asking about how Ahmadinejad got elected), and don't have the determination to redo the whole thing.

No, Obama being more popular among the people who aren't terrorists in the Middle East does nothing for us.

That statement, IMO, is just plain ridiculous. If you think that terrorists in the ME operate out of isolation, you ought to prepare yourself for a culture shock if or when you eventually study the socio-political conditions in the ME better.

Here's a surefire way to get Ahmadinejad re-elected: go to the Knesset and make the kind of speech that Bush made last year.