Another fool heard from.

"Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, 70, said Obama has approached him several times through oral and written messages. It was the second time that Khamenei, who wields ultimate political and religious authority in Iran, has referred to the president's outreach.

The White House has not confirmed sending letters to the Iranian supreme leader but has acknowledged a willingness to talk to Tehran and said it has sought to communicate with Iranian leaders in a variety of ways.

In his harshest comments yet on the Obama administration, Khamenei said in a speech Tuesday that the United States has ill intentions toward Iran and is not to be trusted.

"The new U.S. president has said nice things," he said. "He has given us many spoken and written messages and said: 'Let's turn the page and create a new situation. Let's cooperate with each other in resolving world problems.' "

Khamenei said he had responded in March to Obama's overtures, referring to a speech in which he said he would wait for changes in U.S. policy toward Iran before reassessing ties.

Since then, Khamenei said, "what we have witnessed is completely the opposite of what they have been saying and claiming. On the face of things, they say, 'Let's negotiate.' But alongside this, they threaten us and say that if these negotiations do not achieve a desirable result, they will do this and that." "  Washpost

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just crazy.  The last thing the US needs is another war but this is a step down the path that leads to that war.  pl

Comments

[Anthony]

Khamenei is an idiot who likes nothing but confrontation. But arent we giving them excuses? Just take a look at congress. They've been passing Iran sanctions bill every other week.

[b]

Khamenei has a point: the U.S. does not want to negotiate with Iran but it wants Iran to do what it says.

That speech was likely the response to Clinton's last incompetent attempt of 'diplomacy': Clinton: Iran should accept nuclear deal 'as is'

That and 'crippling sanctions' are simply not acceptable to Iran.

As for war - with the U.S. in a quagmire in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arabs profoundly disappointed by Obama's aborted peace talks attempts and the Russians very concerned of the U.S. military creeping into eastern Europe, there is very little chance that any U.S. started war would end with the U.S. coming out on the winning side.

If there are still thinking people in the pentagon they will find a way to abort any attempt to start another useless war.

[jedermann]

From our perspective they are overplaying their hand. From the Iranian perspective what is their real assessment (not necessarily their public rhetoric) of U.S. intentions? How is that assessment weighed in the making of their foreign and domestic policy?

As we seek to correct the cultural astigmatisms that distort our own view of their intentions and the apparent meaning of their actions we also struggle to understand the defects of their vision. They ain’t making it easy.

[Balint Somkuti]

Sir,

why is a war inevitable? Just because a country's leader openly defies the US? The international community should make it clear that they do not tolerate ANY aggressive move and will retaliate with excessive force. Of course if the SCO do not comply the US and EU should do it together.

[somebody]

It is the threats that are stupid.

[Patrick Lang]

All

Some of you just don't understand. There is no justice in international relations. None! The US can erase Iran if it chooses to do so.

The US does not want to negotiate with Iran? That is absolute crap!

Will the US in the end accept Iran as a nuclear power. We might, but do the Iranians really want to "bet the farm" on that?

[Mad Mike]

Wouldn't Khamenei be in a better position to judge the true intentions of the U.S. than any outsider?

Does anyone really think that the Iranian "uprising" is anything other than a U.S. backed, Gene Sharp, Color "Revolution" adapted by US/Israeli "Intelligence"?

As a matter of fact, does anyone really think the action elements of U.S. policy/power really think of Obama as their Commander in Chief?

Perhaps I'm sounding a little extreme but I'm trying to be optimistic here..., ;-)

[Farmer Don]

"Some of you just don't understand. There is no justice in international relations. None! The US can erase Iran if it chooses to do so.
The US does not want to negotiate with Iran? That is absolute crap!
Will the US in the end accept Iran as a nuclear power. We might, but do the Iranians really want to "bet the farm" on that?"

Col., I think the first part of your post answers the final question, and the answer is yes.

Since there is indeed no international justice, Iran will only be able to stand up to the U.S. when they have a weapon strong enough to dissuade attack. Only the Atomic Bomb will do.

And since they will have to bet the farm on it, what better time than now:
The US is winding down one costly, unpopular and unproductive war.
It is still caught in another smaller resource sucking conflict.
The US military machine needs a couple years to get back to full health.
A new president is in office who seems more careful than the last.
The American Economy is in a deep recession. The main public discourse is on health care & jobs, not 9/11.
Iran has already invested a lot of resources in pursuing this goal.
The farther advanced the program, the better the chance of success before Israel does something drastic.

[Bill Wade, NH]

Khamenei's rhetoric isn't helping the situation but neither is Israel's.

I think we should just ask (tell) Israel to draw us a map of what they really want, just exactly what territories, if in their possesion, will sate their thirst and then we can work on the whole situation from that perspective. This long road to peace costs too much.

[Transsylvania Phoenix]

Meanwhile in Tehran, the blood of innocents still drenches the streets. "Day 135 Iran Revolution: Violent Protests Against Dictators in Iran on Anniversary of US Hostage Crisis" http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/

[Cloned Poster]

Pat, the US bought the Farm with huge debt in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Yes the US has the p---k and gonads to f--k Iran over big time.

But have they the money to pay for the consequences?

[JJackson]

pl:
I am sorry but I am still not sure who you think is behaving crazily. Khamenei, the US or both of them? Nobody can win a military confrontation with the US. Lose is the only option it just a matter of how much damage you can do in the loosing.

Balint:
I thought I understood you up to this point. "The international community should make it clear that they do not tolerate ANY aggressive move and will retaliate with excessive force." Now I realised you were referring to US and Israeli threats to bomb Iranian nuclear reactors and other parts of there nuclear fuel program but the last sentence seemed to imply you were talking about some kind of Iranian threat. Its is just that I was not aware Iran had threatened the United States.

[WILL]

"All

Some of you just don't understand. There is no justice in international relations. None! The US can erase Iran if it chooses to do so."

perhaps it is appropriate to revisit

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/melian.htm > The Melian Dialogue 431 BC
HISTORY OF THE PELOPONNESIAN WAR by Thucydides
CHAPTER XVII. Sixteenth Year of the War - The Melian Conference - Fate of Melos

[N.Z.]

You are right Mr. Lang! There is no justice.

The Ayatollah is not escalating, neither do the Iranians want another devastating war, they want to be left alone, they want a clear message . Let us put ourselves in their shoes . There is great pressure on president Obama. His vision had been hijacked by the same old guards . I still believe he is a man for peace in a land of warriors .

I did not get what you mean "bet the farm" on that ?

[Patrick Lang]

will

Yes. The Melian dialogue is an apt mataphor for the possbilities in this.

pl

[Patrick Lang]

N.Z.

"Let us put ourselves in their shoes."

What kind of crazy childish nonsense is that? Go back to your pulpit or seminar room.

What do you think this is, a game? pl

[Jose]

Let us remember that Athens lost The Peloponnesian War...

[William R. Cumming]

I was wondering if any of the commenters had read Professor Paul Bracken's book "Fire In the East" (1989?) and his take on the interest of nation states in acquiring nuclear weapons? Is that book and its judgements still of interest to the current Iranian situation? The first book of his that I remember was entitile "Command and Control" and came out about 1982 and concerned US nuclear and strategic doctrine! I found both books very interesting. I actually gave a number of copies away because I found them of great interest to US strategic policies.

[CK]

Refusing to understand your opponent is the first step toward defeating him, right?
Even better, assume that your opponent is just like you only, dumber, slower, idiotic, retarded, and gullible.
By doing so the USA has won its wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, The phillipines, East Timor, Somalia, and its coming war with Venezeula.
How are those Mandarin classes coming?

[Patrick Lang]

All

What has this to do with "winning?" What an antique idea!

What we are talking about is sheer, massive, destruction.

When the target set is a putative nuclear weapons program or facilities, all bets are off on "rules."

If this comes to blows in the end, the forces involved will be those that have hardly been involved in all this conventional war business that the US has restricted itself to.

Cost? We pay for those forces every year. fuel, engine hours, replacement prices for expended weapons. Those would be the costs.

Did someone suggest that the US would be deterred by Iran's posession of a few nuclear weapons? Now, that is a real indication of a lack of understanding of the relative scale of things. pl

[JohnH]

The most recent negotiations were a set up. Iran was to ship 80% of its enriched uranium to Russia, which would in turn ship it to France for final processing. Then it was to be returned to Iran.

Bottom line--send me your crown jewels and I swear on a stack of Bibles to send them back, someday, maybe.

Iran proposed sending the uranium out in small batches which would be returned before more shipments were made. But the US characterized this as "rejection" of the deal.

Khamenei is not crazy. Who wouldn't resent someone trying to play you for the fool? And what does the US hope to gain by constantly threatening and tricking the Iranians?

I agree with the colonel's assessment: "The last thing the US needs is another war but this is a step down the path that leads to that war." To prevent it, the US needs to start negotiating in good faith. Enough of the stunts!

[N.Z.]

Here is my response,

Going back to your point, wish I totally agree with "There is no justice in international relations"the question you posed to me "What do you think this is, a game?" my answer is NO, I do not think this is a game !
I agree, that neither side need another war .

So let me clarify what I meant by, let us put ourselves in their shoes:

It is part of the arrogance of the west of talking down to emerging civil societies .

So rather than talking
down to civilizations in a humiliating way, it is rather more helpful to talk with them in a respectful way .
This will co-create new global communities that will have emerging democracies and emerging civil societies, it is a much more effective and beneficial way of building bridges .

[Patrick Lang]

N.Z

That seems reasonable. pl

[Patrick Lang]

John H.

The idea was too deny them enough material on hand tp refine into a mass of critical size.

We are trying to keep them from having nuclear weapons.

"Good faith" includes an undrstanding that this is what we are doing. pl

[johnf]

Are the Russians or the Chinese - especially the Chinese - going to allow this? China has big stakes in Iranian oil and gas reserves. And wants larger.

And I can't imagine India or even Brazil are going to be that pleased.

Even Germany is going to be caught between Russia and the US.