It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran Hopes For Peace After U.S. Election Results

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:28 AM
link   
In the wake of the recent American midterm elections, Iranians are seeing hope for peaceful relations. Iran and the U.S. have been at growing odds with one another in recent years and both have been locked into a stagnantly aggressive stance towards one another. With the rather enormous change about to take place in the House and Senate, plus the resignation of Rumsfeld, the common word on the street in Iran is that peaceful relations with the America may now be a possibility. While Iran still has no plans to halt their nuclear program as a pre-condition for talks, it is hoped that now our government will hold talks with Iran as a precursor to peace in the Middle East.
 



www.cnn.com
The most interesting comment came from an engineer named Babek.

Speaking in English, he voiced a desire to see the United States and Iran figure out a way to forge a cooperative relationship.

"If they make any relationship, it means [the economy] in Iran is getting better and conditions for the people getting better," he said. "People want to see [a good] relationship between Iran and the United States."

And that really hits what the majority of Iranians seem to want. They want their economy, languishing with unemployment and inflation, to improve. It's why they voted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into office, and it's what they are waiting to see happen.

Another man, named Hamdi, said he thought the change in the U.S. Congress meant a chance for the nuclear issue to be worked out.

"Yes, of course, the Democrat win in U.S. gives hope because the Republicans confrontational policy may be pushed aside," he said.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Please do not turn this into a Democrat/Republican bashing thread.

I'm a moderate independent, and have been so fed up with the Middle East in general (including Israel), that I'd pretty much given up hope for peace . However, in retrospect, American policy towards the Middle East has never really been very well thought out. We tried isolating them and ignoring them, but Communism threatened to gain a foothold. So we tried arming them and hoping they'd kill each other, or at least the communists off, and they started committing genocide and attacking U.S. interests. So then we tried an invasion policy, which has only served to really piss them off. The most recent failed policy has been the "my way or the highway" approach to even beginning talks with Iran, which has only met with derision.

Perhaps now that there has been a major paradigm shift in American politics, there will too come a shift in foreign policy. I used to believe that a hardline approach to the Middle East was the only way to get the job done. Over the last few years I've come to realize that these people are neither barbarians, nor are they easily intimidated. Iran is, for better or worse, as powerful influence in the Middle East, and their cooperation is going to be required to stabilize the region.

It seems that even the U.S. and Britain are now hoping for a more peaceful relationship and the opening of a dialogue with not only Iran, but also Syria.


from NPR

...Perhaps the most controversial recommendation, signaling the broadest policy shift, will be a call for talks between the United States and Iran and Syria. The White House accuses those two nations of helping fuel instability in neighboring Iraq, and supporting terrorism, and has consistently rejected the idea of direct talks with them. Many members of the Iraq group are considered pragmatists with a multilateralist worldview, who believe that dialogue is often the best route to conflict resolution. And on Monday, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- whose country has sent more troops to Iraq than any other except the United States -- endorsed the idea of engaging Syria and Iran.

Baker has said that enlisting the help of Syria and Iran could also pay dividends in the broader Middle East peace talks, because both groups have influence with the Islamist groups Hamas in the Palestinian territories and Hezbollah in Lebanon.


Baker is, of course, former Secretary of State James Baker III, who heads the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, whose importance since the election has been drawn into the limelight. Their findings are still being compiled, but so far what has been released is on par with current sentiment; the Middle East will not be stablized through force, but rather through open dialogue by both sides.

The Iraq Study Group met with the Bush administration (including the President) yesterday on November 13th, and will meet with key Democratic foreign policy experts today.

Also seeming to further this move towards a more diplomatic stance towards peace, Rumsfeld's replacement for Secretary of Defense, former CIA Director Robert M. Gates served on the Iraq Study Group for eight months, and has a rather strong insight as to the situation. However, there is still some skepticism as to his effectiveness considering he was a key (and largely silent) player in the Iran-Contra affair during the 1980's. However, it is hoped that in the following two decades one can have learned from mistakes.

The combination of all these factors together, at the very least, is a big bright, flashing neon flag that once again, regardless of the outcome, the key players involved are slowly preparing to stop shooting long enough to talk to each other. Whether or not anything will come of it remains to be seen.

Related News Links:
www.npr.org
www.usip.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org

Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
Iran's Threat to West Over Israel
Talabani backs 'Iran-Syria plan'
Europeans move Iran resolution without U.S
The U.S should (and probably will) open talks with Iran




posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 01:48 PM
link   
My thanks for the upgrade, but sadly it would appear that peace does not sell.

Maybe it was in the wording? I need to hollywoodize it more...

IRAN ON BRINK OF NOT-WAR!!!

How's that?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 02:08 PM
link   
You should not dwell so much on the response. Just be happy you have put out an important message that some people are taking seriously.

I for one think that peace is easily possible. If it were me that suddenly came to power tomorrow, I would go on international TV and make an apology to the whole Middle East and Africa for decades of imperialist foreign policy.

The biggest step to take is to actually say "Im sorry" . believe it or not, people actually appreciate that, and would be very willing to start over on a better note.

You know saying it wonb't kill anyone. All the war-mongers and hardliners, here is one for you. Go up to anyone you have been rude or pissy to this week, and just say i am sorry.

I bet you will not melt, and the person will not attack you. May even decide to mend relations. The biggest problem here is the leaders seem to not understand that the other side is in fact capable of forgiveness.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by thelibra
My thanks for the upgrade, but sadly it would appear that peace does not sell.

Maybe it was in the wording? I need to hollywoodize it more...

IRAN ON BRINK OF NOT-WAR!!!

How's that?


Unfortunately, thelibra, you are correct. Peace does not sell. People much prefer drama, war, conflict, and violence. Just watch TV for a night or go to the movies. And here at ATS the same applies- post about peace and you can usually forget that thread forever.

But all of us need to change that. We really do. Make an effort people. Peace is better. War is bad. Post in threads like these. Show an interest in peace. It would be interesting to see the world change when people focused on peace through thoughts, words and action. Think if all of us never posted again in threads that incite or promote war in any way. Peace would be the "IN" thing to do. Peace would be the talk of the town. If you're not for peace, I don't want to hear about it.

Then all of a sudden, the media would have to shift focus. News stories about war and political rhetoric would flop, while any peace story would sell bigtime. Perceptions would change across the world. And pave the way for even countries like Israel and Iran to reconcile differences. Politicians promoting hate would lose popularity, or be voted out of office. They'd have to change their tune.

That was a very nice article, thelibra, and it did not go unnoticed here. I urge anyone reading this to think about peace and start posting in more threads that deal with peace. Hell, aren't you getting sick of war already? Sheesh.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Perhaps now that there has been a major paradigm shift in American politics, there will too come a shift in foreign policy.


Major paradigm shift...
Real funny.

Anyway, I think that the democrats will stay in Iraq and go attack Iran. I don't believe and thrust them at all, just as the republicans, because in the end, they all are working for the globalists. They'll push for NAU, don't repeal the patriot act, ect, not impeach Bush... they are all the same, that's why they won't change the foreign policy.

[edit on 14-11-2006 by Vitchilo]



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   
For the most part I agree with your viewpoint on how America has caused problems in the Middle East and for Iran, but let's not hand over the farm just yet. Iran has caused problems itself, and if they really wanted peace, why did they elect President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad who calls for the destruction of Israel and spouts off anti-Semite comments any chance he gets? Let's not forget the hostage crisis, and that they hold national anti-American rallies and teach their children to hate us.

I am all for better diplomatic relations with Iran, and if they want peace with America, it seems that maybe they should do a little house cleaning of their own.

And thelibra, I will second that this was a well written article.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
He was elected because the two biggest border countries with shared belief systems were invaded, conquered, and exploited, and soon after there was rhetoric and propoganda being spread around about how Iran is also a terrorist nation and the possibility of military action was not ruled out. Thats also probably the reason he threatens Israel, seeing as the Zionists are behind this Middle East invasion for their own interests.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Peace? You mean US concessions and a cease in economic and political pressure, allowing Iran to continue with their nuclear program, not doing anything to hinder their influence in Iraq? No thanks, I don't want appeasement, that's not real "peace".



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 07:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Thats also probably the reason he threatens Israel, seeing as the Zionists are behind this Middle East invasion for their own interests.

Without a doubt they feel threatened by the US, but what you are implying would be similar to blaming Saddam for 9/11. No, Ahmadinejad says those things about Israel because it is what he believes, and it is popular with the people of Iran. Did you hear any complaints from any Iranians? Do you hear any of them saying he should stop? They like many other countries in the region would like to see the end of Israel.

This does not sound like a peace loving country to me.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Peace? You mean US concessions and a cease in economic and political pressure, allowing Iran to continue with their nuclear program, not doing anything to hinder their influence in Iraq? No thanks, I don't want appeasement, that's not real "peace".


since human beings do not share a majority physchic ability, we can drop the assumption that a cease in antagonistic dialogue would never be able to result in the "other side" developing in the world's society without immediate coflict.


Sacrifices made by a party to convince another party to enter a contract.
www.bramptonhouse.com/index.php

Additional value granted by a buyer or seller to entice another party to complete a deal.
www.homesfornh.com/new-hampshire-mortgage/mortgage-glossary-ac.html


If the civilised world, part of achieving peace without violence is for both sides to make concessions. If Washington were to concede to Iran's right to nuclear fuel, or nuclear weapons period (the people of that land are entitled to the same defensive rights as a nation as any other nation on Earth has to theirs), this coming news of considering assistance Sryia and from them to assist with Iraq and Afghanistan can very well become a reality. They are closey related culturally to the people of that Region more intimately than our culture is of them, and can be of help to the International community for achieving peace to those people.

Settling for offensive battles against them that will incite hostilities from a defensive lashback is no true peaceful human beings' definition of peace. If one truly could explain and believe how pre-empting violence against someone is more "peaceful, or closer to a definition of peace" than diplomatically agreeing to concessions from both sides, than would it not be wise for Israel's most powerful ally to supply a missle protection center in their Nation to defend from the paranoid thoughts that another country may in fact go through with ceasing Israel's existence?
Both options lead to the exact same conclusions if Iran were to go through with their misinterpreted statements, however, only one of those options prevents a full scale regional war that would not only consumes the lives of innocent humans in that side of the world, asbut also our own unwittingly brave citizens who sacrafice their lives to live their loyalty to their nation.
Now which one sounds likle real peace WP?



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hal9000
Without a doubt they feel threatened by the US, but what you are implying would be similar to blaming Saddam for 9/11. No, Ahmadinejad says those things about Israel because it is what he believes, and it is popular with the people of Iran. Did you hear any complaints from any Iranians? Do you hear any of them saying he should stop? They like many other countries in the region would like to see the end of Israel.

This does not sound like a peace loving country to me.


I do not want to appear foolish, but could you, Hal9000, remember at any time any news reports on TV, news articles in your local, state, or international newspaper, or even internet news source, or at any time view an Iranian source utilizing whatever medium of media distribution that stated "it is popular with the people of Iran. Did you hear any complaints from any Iranians? Do you hear any of them saying he should stop? They like many other countries in the region would like to see the end of Israel." is a shared belief in that nation, or one of the many others you state without elaborating on?

Can anyone post a reply that will source anything I jiust questioned as being fact? Until that is seen here, or anywhere, statements like

is popular with the people of Iran. Did you hear any complaints from any Iranians? Do you hear any of them saying he should stop? They like many other countries in the region would like to see the end of Israel.

must not be allowed to be posted and spread as pure fact.

I hope someone has better methods of searching for this evidence, because I sure as hell did not have any luck.



posted on Nov, 14 2006 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Are the words,

Civilized, Peace and Concessions, accurately applied to the Same country that was admittedly training thousands of it's own citizens as suicide bombers?

Was that misinterpreted too?

Semper



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
One of my biggest arguments regarding the middle east is that we have been relying on the wrong country to do our work of spreading our message around. If we were friendlier with these Arab and Muslim countries , we would be able to accomplish much much more without a lot of the hassle. Israel is by no means an Ambassador of American policy and peace nor are they a good example of the American way to do things. These countries are not blind to what goes on in their own territory, while we here in the states may be kept in the dark and only shown what needs to be shown to make sure the support is there. We had Syrian help and to a degree Iranian,lets say apathy in Gulf War I and things went so much easier and we were able to pull out without long term investment or loss. That was 15 years ago and what these countries have been complaining about has not been addressed as far as the Israeli/Palestinian issue, so why should they work with us and why should they help us if we just repeatedly turn our backs on them?

If you just look at lebanon over the summer and see how this government dragged their feet even when it came to rescuing American civilians while bombs dropped all over the place it should give you an idea as to why they feel the way they do. America abandoned them, isolated them and even to a degree punishes them for something that may or may not exist, that others they know for fact have done are overlooked. I think if we were to be fair with Syria and Iran, they would be on their knees promising sexual favors to us if we treated them with a modicum of fairness and dealt directly with them instead of allowing another country to represent our needs in the Middle east.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:19 AM
link   
Here is an interesting article I found. Its an op/ed but gives a different view on things.


Ahmadinejad does not represent the Iranian public at large. Most Iranians are tolerant. Iranians pride themselves on being cosmopolitan. Most Iranians are polyglots, and Iran itself is more an empire than a nation. The Jewish community has long roots in Iran. Iranian Jews still make pilgrimages to Hamadan, a city in western Iran, to visit the tombs of Esther and Mordechai. The prophet Daniel walked through the lion's den in Susa, the ruins of which lie in the province of Khuzistan, not far from the Iraqi border. Even today, Iran boasts the second-largest Jewish community in the Middle East after Israel.


but.......


That most Iranians embrace religious and cultural diversity is irrelevant; the clergy and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps--their ideological enforcers--wield the power. It is the stranglehold of ideologues over the Iranian state that makes a nuclear Iran so dangerous.


just thought that these two statements might clear things up as far as how the Iranian people and their leaders feel. Which seem to be two different things completely.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
I thought it was appropriate to add that 4 spots directly below this thread titled "Iran hopes for peace..." there is (at time of posting) another thread titled "Netanyahu calls for War".

Kind of sums it up for me..


[edit on 12/06/2005 by kojac]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by semperfortis
Are the words,

Civilized, Peace and Concessions, accurately applied to the Same country that was admittedly training thousands of it's own citizens as suicide bombers?

Was that misinterpreted too?

Semper


Hmm now i wonder when that happened? Oh wait a minute thats right, after their two biggest border nations were invaded, conquered, occupied and destabalized. But that was not enough, because after those two came timbling down, guess who was being threatened next? thats right, IRAN and SYRIA!!!

So you would wonder why they would take up defensive measures? See their culture is different, and if their citizens choose to become suicide soldiers against the front line of any invading force, thats just how they wish to sacrafice their lives to defend their people. It is not as if they are sending those citizens to go into crowded streets with civilians and intentionally target innocent people. I'll just say it this way, if we NEVER attack Iran, we will not have to deal with those trained suicide citizen-soldiers, if they indeed exist.

[edit on 11/15/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Like many have stated already, Iran is by no means a perfect place, Israel is by no means the ideal candidate to stablize the region anymore, and the U.S. is largely blind to what is actually happening within the Middle East except for what we are shown in rather corporately biased news snippets.

Some have decided that Iran's past and nuclear program is reason enough to not seek any peace with them at all. To them I ask "very well, what would you have us do instead?"

Should we carpet bomb them with nukes, and reduce the ground to glowing slag?

Should we try to occupy their country so that we will truly be infidels and invaders in everyone's eyes?

Should we completely isolate them from any and all "Allied" aid, so that the only ones they can obtain solace from is our enemies or criminal-empowering black markets?

Should we send in a bunch of assassins to simply wipe out all the heads of government and clerical leadership, and institute our own puppet dictatorship?

Should we arm and train a group of them to rise up in a bloody coup and send the country into complete chaos, where the power vaccuum will be quickly filled by tribal warlords?

Seriously, I do not do this as a taunt or any manner of partisan politics, but for those of you whom have roundly rejected even so much as the idea of peace with Iran, I would like to hear what you would rather have us do. Give me a solution. If working towards a peaceful dialogue, to try and resolve the long-term issues surrounding the whole region is just so completely alien and unthinkable to you, then I ask you present the rest of us with a better alternative.

Until then, I work towards peace.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
Israel will not sit idle and watch as the world attempts to negotiate and talk to this country of Iran. Though the rest of the world may be fooled by this leader, Israel will not be. If the other countries of the world choose to do nothing, than Israel will strike alone.



posted on Nov, 15 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
As a matter of fact, Israel WILL sit by idly and watch as the world attempts to make peace with Iran. Time after time they have attempted to manipulate us into making a pre-emptive strike with the threat that "the Iranian attack is imminent". They even said at the beginning of this year that an Israeli missle strike upon Iran would happen within months. It is now almost the end of the year, and we have yet to see Israel do squat. Again, Iran is not Iraq. They have eyes in the sky (satellite), advanced anti-air systems, and most likely round-the-clock aerial patrolls for miles around any key sites.

Besides I cannot even recall how many months it has been since Israel has stated it is intending to attack Iran, therefore I predict they are finally going to shut their trap realizing America, Europe, and the rest of the world are tired of figuring out ways to justify using their resources for corrupt Israeli political agendas.

[edit on 11/15/2006 by DYepes]



new topics

top topics



 
2

log in

join