[bitterlemons-international.org] Joshua Muravchik - The Obama administration will surely talk directly with representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran. So did the Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan and Carter administrations. These talks will produce nothing, however, just as those earlier efforts did. The idea that two countries that are at odds can lay to rest their dispute by talking and resolving their misunderstandings is a myth. Yes, enemies do sometimes reconcile, but in none of these cases did the crucial breakthrough come as a result of conversations between the parties. Rather, in each case, dictatorial rulers first decided to undertake a drastic shift in policy. After that, negotiations served to work out the details. The U.S. has no designs against Iran and no desire for conflict. Iran, however, has ambitions to spread the "global Islamic revolution" and dominate the Persian Gulf. Toward these ends, it seeks nuclear weapons. The U.S. resists these ambitions in order to defend itself and its allies. Iran has an official slogan, "death to America," posted on walls and chanted at Friday "prayers." No one in America chants "death to Iran." If Iran relinquished its ambitions for regional dominance and global revolution, and sought only to develop its economy, enhance the lives of its people and live in peace, the conflict with the U.S. would be over automatically. If there were something Iran wanted from the U.S. for which it was willing to trade away its imperial and revolutionary ambitions, it would have made that known long ago. Negotiations between Washington and Tokyo in the 1930s ended on the day of Pearl Harbor. Then, the U.S. opposed Japan's ambitions to create a "Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere," a regional empire much like the one Tehran dreams of today.
2008-12-17 06:00:00Full ArticleBACK Visit the Daily Alert Archive