News

Updated: Iran’s president urges Obama to ignore ‘warmongering pressure groups’

By 33

Update: 5:30 p.m. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani urged President Obama not to listen to “warmongering pressure groups,” but to abide by international law in his dealings with Iran.

In a speech to the UN General Assembly just concluded, Rouhani said he had listened carefully to Obama’s speech earlier, then warned that the dominant voice in Washington has been: “the military option is on the table.” This voice must give way to one of peace and conciliation, and respect for Iran’s right to develop nuclear power for domestic energy-production.

Rouhani also said that Palestinians experience “nothing less than structural violence” and that the term “apartheid” hardly begins to describe Israeli “aggression” against Palestinians.

Update: CNN reports: Officials: Obama and Rouhani won’t meet at UNGA

United Nations (CNN) — [Breaking news update at 3:15 p.m. Tuesday]

U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani won’t meet during the United Nations General Assembly on Tuesday, even on the margins for a handshake, two senior U.S. administration officials told reporters. The officials said such an encounter proved too complicated for Iran back home. Earlier Tuesday, a senior administration official said the White House had “left the door open” to some kind of face-to-face interaction between the presidents. Obama is scheduled to leave New York on Tuesday night.

Reuters reports it’s “too complicated for Iranians“.

A potential encounter at the United Nations between U.S. President Barack Obama and Iranian President Hassan Rouhani failed to take place on Tuesday as the Iranians indicated it was too complicated, senior Obama administration officials said.

“There will be no meeting,” one official said.

Update: Big Day at the UN, watch the speeches live here. Obama spoke this morning, now everyone is going crazy over a possible Obama/Rouhani encounter, and the warnings from Israel have begun. Time Magazine: A Handshake that Could Shake the World. NBC WorldNews: Hand-wringing precedes possible Obama-Rouhani handshake. The Forward: Israel Hopes Barack Obama Avoids Handshake With Iran Leader Hassan Rouhani. While the New York Times calls it “the diplomatic big tease of the year” and relies on the lobby stalwart Dennis Ross to warn against an opening to Iran with worn-out dumbed down, “rope a dope” messaging.

“It will certainly play to the Rouhani charm offensive, making the new Iranian leadership appear more moderate without any overt change in behavior,” said Dennis B. Ross…

Mr. Ross drew a distinction between a handshake and photo opportunity, and a working meeting. But he said, “We will still need to manage expectations and Israeli fears that we will end up in a rope-a-dope dialogue while the Iranian nuclear program creates facts on the ground.”

As if Obama is the dope.

Original Post:

Obama has done it. He has seized the opportunity and given an opening to Iran in a bold speech at the United Nations. John Kerry will meet on Thursday with the Iranian foreign minister and everyone on the cables is saying that “signals” are that a handshake will happen today between President Hassan Rouhani and President Barack Obama at the U.N.

Spectacular. Obama all but apologized for the American overthrow of Mossadegh in 1953, and said not a word about Hezbollah or terrorism or All options are on the table, while saying that Iranian-American suspicions will not be overcome “overnight.” Translation: the relationship will change overnight.

Wolf Blitzer and Andrea Mitchell both say a meeting of the presidents is inevitable today. While Jim Acosta, CNN’s senior White House correspondent, says that Obama has surprised him by overcoming his temperamental resistance to any bold move.

Can enough be said about Obama’s speech at the U.N. this morning? Leave out the claptrap about Israel and the Jewish state, he also mentioned the occupation as destructive of Israeli democracy, and Palestinian aspirations to freedom at last.

But the earthquake is Iran. Israelis and the lobby are in complete turmoil. Obama has extended his hand to Iran in a moment worthy of Nixon and China. We are at last altering our role in the Middle East. And the special relationship is about to become a lot less special.

Related Posts

33 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

pay attention to what happens to the Palestinians. the ethnic cleansing is not slowing down. Israel does not care if Obama snuggles up with anyone as long as they agree on the one thing Israel wants. watch out.

0
0
View Replies (1)

Maybe Obama has been ’emboldened’ by the public reaction he saw on Syria?
But dont know if he’s bold enough to do the handshake.
I am guessing maybe not–that USA-Iran will be back channeled and kept under wraps
But open to a miracle handshake…would change world conversation like a Cat 5 hurricane.

PS
If anyone has W&M book read chapter 10 on Iran .

0
0

RE: “But the earthquake is Iran. Israelis and the lobby are in complete turmoil. Obama has extended his hand to Iran in a moment worthy of Nixon and China.” ~ Weiss

ISRAELIS AND THE LOBBY ARE IN TURMOIL BECAUSE: “Israel needs an existential threat.”*

* SEE: “Israel’s Defense Chief OK’s Hundreds of Israeli Deaths”, By Ira Chernus, CommonDreams.org, 11/11/11

[EXCERPT] . . . An essential motive of Zionism from its beginning was a fierce desire to end the centuries of Jewish weakness, to show the world that Jews would no longer be pushed around, that they’d fight back and prove themselves tougher than their enemies. There was more to Zionism than that. But the “pride through strength” piece came to dominate the whole project. Hence the massive Israeli military machine with its nuclear arsenal.
But you can’t prove that you’re stronger than your enemies unless you’ve also got enemies — or at least believe you’ve got enemies — to fight against. So there has to be a myth of Israel’s insecurity, fueled by an image of vicious anti-semites lurking somewhere out there, for Zionism to work. Since the 1979 Iranian revolution, Iran has gradually risen to the top of Israel oh-so-necessary enemies list. Iranophobia is rampant in Israel, as one Israeli scholar writes, because “Israel needs an existential threat.”
Anyone who has grown up in Israel, or in the U.S. Jewish community (as I did), and paid attention knows all this. . .

ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/11/11-2

P.S. ALSO SEE – “Iranophobia: The Panic of the Hegemons”, by Ira Chernus, Tikkun Magazine, November/December 2010
LINK – http://www.tikkun.org/nextgen/iranophobia-the-panic-of-the-hegemons-3

0
0

With respect, I’m not sure you and I heard the same speech. Strip out the rhetoric, and what did he say?

And our approach to Egypt reflects a larger point: The United States will at times work with governments that do not meet, at least in our view, the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests.

Nevertheless, we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals, whether that means opposing the use of violence as a means of suppressing dissent, or supporting the principles embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I.e. the US will talk the language of human rights, but will work with any regime that supports our “core interests.” What are those interests? He listed them:

The United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power, including military force, to secure our core interests in the region. We will confront external aggression against our allies and partners, as we did in the Gulf War.

We will ensure the free flow of energy from the region to the world. Although America is steadily reducing our own dependence on imported oil, the world still depends on the region’s energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire global economy.

We will dismantle terrorist networks that threaten our people. Wherever possible, we will build the capacity of our partners, respect the sovereignty of nations, and work to address the root causes of terror. But when it’s necessary, defend the United States against terrorist attack, we will take direct action.

And finally, we will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction.

So, we will support any regime that supports US allies, ensures the free flow of oil, fights against entities the US has declared as terrorist, and stops WMDs (recognizing he also specifically accused Iran of “pursuit of nuclear weapons”).

How is this position even slightly different from the US position in the last 20 (or 50) years?

0
0

RE: “It will certainly play to the Rouhani charm offensive, making the new Iranian leadership appear more moderate without any overt change in behavior,” said Dennis B. Ross…

SEE: “Is the Iranian President Sincere in Wanting a Nuclear Deal?”, Posted By Stephen M. Walt, ForeignPolicy.com, 9/20/13

[EXCERPT] . . . In fact, the United States and Iran are facing a classic problem in international relations (and other forms of bargaining): Given that an adversary could be bluffing or dissembling, how do you know when a seemingly friendly gesture is sincere? Political scientist Robert Jervis explored this issue in depth in “The Logic of Images in International Relations” (1970) and drew a nice distinction between “signals” (i.e., actions that contain no inherent credibility) and “indices,” which he defined as “statements or actions that carry some inherent evidence that the image projected is correct.”
More recently, this basic idea was resurrected in economics (and borrowed by IR scholars) in the notion of a “costly signal.” Unlike “cheap talk,” a costly signal is an action that involves some cost or risk for the sender and therefore is one that the sender would be unlikely to make if they didn’t really mean it. A classic example was Anwar Sadat’s 1977 offer to fly to Jerusalem and speak directly to the Israeli Knesset in search of a peace deal. Because this move was obviously a risky step for Sadat (who was condemned throughout the Arab world), his Israeli counterparts had good reason to believe that his desire for peace was genuine.
So should we take Rouhani’s overtures seriously? I think we should. As noted above, the possibility that Iran is genuinely interested in a deal is inherently credible, because we have in fact been squeezing the Iranians quite hard. To repeat: Isn’t what they are now doing exactly what we’ve been trying to achieve? Equally important is that Iran has taken a wide range of actions that were not cost-free. . .

ENTIRE COMMENTARY – http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/09/20/is_rouhani_sincere_iran_nuclear_deal

0
0
View Replies (1)