It was "the first direct contact between the leaders of Iran and the United States since 1979," and by President Obama's report, the 2 men found "a path to a meaningful agreement."
I'm just trying to imagine how this phone call sounded...
Hello? Uh, hello, Hassan... Listen, I can't hear too well, do you suppose you could turn the music down just a little?... Uh, that's much better. Fine. I can hear you now, Hassan, clear and plain and coming through fine... I'm coming through fine too, eh? Good, then, as you say, we're both coming through fine. Good... Well, it's good that you're fine, and I'm fine. I agree with you. It's great to be fine. Now, then, Hassan...
Source material:
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
१९ टिप्पण्या:
President Burackin O'Muffley
Hopefully Obama will negotiate with Iran the way Lincoln negotiated with the Confederacy.
It doesn't look like he will though.
Well, at least Obama speaks Farsi. Oh...
I'm trying to think of what Obama could do, or not do, that would cease him having a sycophantic group chattering in his wake without much too much scrutiny, analysis, or simple questioning.
They've got their new sneakers on, their beds made, and they're ready to beam up to the mothership.
Go.
You'll be free there.
Lyle said...
Hopefully Obama will negotiate with Iran the way Lincoln negotiated with the Confederacy.
It doesn't look like he will though.
==================
The last thing we should wish for is a big Lincolnesque war not in our vital interests that costs 660,000 lives, 550,000 more casualties and destroys 1/3rd of the US.
Far better we work with Putin to eradicate WMD in Syria and peacefully end the Iranian nuke program on terms of mutual satisfaction to Iran and the USA.
Essentially, that means somebody has to put Iran under a nuke umbrella. Even though America and the UK were once Iran's ally, America is now so in bed with Israel we cannot be trusted to safeguard Iran from WMD attack if they give it up themselves. That probably positions Russia as the best and most trustworthy guarantor of Iran against nukes, even though that advances Russia in the old "Great Game" the Russians, Turks, and Brits played.
that sucks ann. how about something that undid 30 moronic years of GOP non-action.
"that sucks ann. how about something that undid 30 moronic years of GOP non-action."
Republicans have held power for the last 30 years?
What are you talking about? What sucks? Me not getting enthused about the phone call?
The "Great Game" redux, indeed -- U.S. Says Iran Hacked Navy Computers:
The latest reports of infiltration took U.S. defense officials by surprise and showed that the Iranians had gained greater capability than many in the U.S. government believed, officials said.
"Iran is very active," said James Lewis, a former State Department official and cybersecurity specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "They're better than we thought."
As recently as last year, U.S. intelligence officials said that they considered Iran's capabilities unimpressive. That view has changed over the past year.
One reason that Iran's hacking capabilities have improved so quickly is a growing partnership with Russian cybercriminals, according to current and former officials briefed on the matter.
"They're getting help from the Russians," Mr. Lewis said. He added that Russian spy services tightly control cyber activities in Russia and that cybercriminals "don't do things" without government permission.
At the Russian Embassy in Washington, press secretary Yevgeniy Khorishko denied a government role, saying, "such statements are absolutely untrue."
The Iranians are likely to know much of what the Russians know – which, considering the Wikileaks and Snowden screw-ups, could be many things having to do with US intelligence – sources, methods, movements, projects, equipment, techniques, software vulnerabilities, blind-spots, passwords, etc. No wonder they got better all of a sudden.
Our technological advantage, which is the only advantage the West has over the jihadists, is disappearing.
Obama doesn't seem to do very well at negotiating. Maybe that's why he seldom does it. On the other hand Iran, Syria and Russia are very good at negotiating. They seem to know what he's going to do before he does it. Maybe that's one reason they've snookered him so badly in this Syria debacle.
"... the Premier loves surprises."
Which leader from Dr. Strangelove is Obama and which one is Rouhani (sp. I know and don't care)?
Obama is already in run-out-the-clock mode to January 2017 when he can really focus on golf.
According to NPR, there were negotiations about whether Obama and Rouhani would shake hands, or do a fist bump. No, that's a joke, there were only negotiations about whether they would shake hands.
But the funny awful horrible bit is that Obama agreed to shake his hand, but Rouhani did not want to be seen shaking Obama's hand.
Ouch.
When I heard the news today my first thought was: "Hmm how is he going to fuck this up?" I mean he's pretty much outmatched on foreign affairs, that is pretty much self-evident at this point. His foreign "brain trust" consists of Kerry and Susan Powers and a gaggle of lick spittles. I just hope we don't wind up trading Manhattan to the Iranians for some glass beads.
The most criminal (and typical) aspect of the Obama Administrations policy vis-a-vis Iran -- if we want to give it sufficient benefit of the doubt to call it a "policy" -- is its shameful neglect of the republican and humanitarian elements within Iran.
The fact that he's cavalier about nuclear Iran is of very little importance. We had no problem with a nuclear USSR, a much more fearsome enemy, and we've lived with a nuclear Pakistan, a much less stable regime, for decades. This is picayune stuff, the kind of showy froth that obsesses the 30-second attention span minds of journalists or the narcissistic pipe-dreams of international studies majors in freshman seminars.
But Iran is full not only of clever people, but of deeply cultured and humane people, too. This isn't the ass end of Afghanistan, a land that has never been much more than the demesne of poppy merchants and goatherds. This is Persia, a nation with centuries of sophistication to its credit.
It has been locked in the grip of crazies who rode anti-authoritarianism from one extreme to the other, not unlike Russia a hundred years ago. It could shake it off, in a dignified and self-determinative way, like the Americans at Lexington and Concord. But it must deeply dismay Iranian Minutemen that the leadership of the free world, such at is in these diminished days, holds out zero hope for them -- won't even acknowledge them or cheer them on, prefers to make nice noises to their brutal oppressors.
The President cracks golfing jokes and shakes hands respectfully with monsters who hang 17-year-old boys caught kissing from industrial cranes, and look the other way when 14-year-old girls are murdered for revealing incestuous rape, by their own family. That is the real shame of his insouciant ignorant disinterest in the rest of the world, or enemies without an R after their name.
Sharansky wrote movingly of how important it was, for Soviet dissidents, in their lonely dark winter, to know that they had at least the firm moral support of the US leadership. What a shame the spiritual perspective of the current President is so cramped and cynical by comparison.
Carl said...
The most criminal (and typical) aspect of the Obama Administrations policy vis-a-vis Iran -- if we want to give it sufficient benefit of the doubt to call it a "policy" -- is its shameful neglect of the republican and humanitarian elements within Iran.
We have been squawking about human rights in Iran for 30+ years, including under Obama, where it has been our tool to force great sanctions hardships on Iran. However like with Helsinki, we have to recognize that peace and stable relations depend on a lot more than just and obsession with Palestinian Rights or precious gay and dissident rights in Iran...when we talk the Middle East. Human rights were 1 part of Helsinki. The other clauses, just as important, barred nations from land grabs after the post-WWII Borders were set. The accords required respect of sovereignity, avoiding meddling in another nations internal affairs, and refraining from attacks simply because you didn't like a country's internal policies.
Carl - Sharansky wrote movingly of how important it was, for Soviet dissidents, in their lonely dark winter, to know that they had at least the firm moral support of the US leadership. What a shame the spiritual perspective of the current President is so cramped and cynical by comparison.
And the best thing that Neocon piece of crap should have done was to thank NATO, then just shut up, and enjoy his freedom from the Communist system Soviet Jews were instrumental in creating but grew sick of when it failed to produce the power and wealth they wanted. Instead the witless tool greatly influenced the equally witless Bush and other neocons that nothing would help human rights more than "A Case For Democracy" sweeping democratically elected Islamists into power in Arab lands.
1975 and human rights and final borders and such were actually down the list of the West, the Soviets, and even the dissidents at the peak of the Cold War. First up was treaties to control nuke arms that would make it less likely that either side would blow the other up. Then Detente..a series of of agreements, trade policies, and relaxation of points of contention so more trust would be built.
Only after SALT and detente did anyone think "human rights" had any priority in any discussion vis a vis the Soviet Union and China. Nixon was, after all, making a safer world as he toasted mass murderers and "human rights violators" galore.
We are at the SALT/detente point with Iran. And what they do internally with policies of their elected government and Islamic non-elected institutions is stuff that can wait until the big "lets not have WWIII" stuff is dealt with.
The fact that he's[Obama] cavalier about nuclear Iran is of very little importance.
I couldn't agree less. Carter gave us a terror-sponsoring Iran. Now Obama will give us a nuclear-armed terror-sponsoring Iran, which will also have the effect of setting off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Lot's of folks in the Middle East will have nukes to play around with in the post-Obama era.
We had no problem with a nuclear USSR, a much more fearsome enemy,
Actually, we had lots of problems with a nuclear USSR, which is to say a nuclear Russia, all the rest of the USSR being mere satellites. Not the least of which was coming close to nuclear war a couple of different times. Even so, I fear our Islamic enemies more than I ever did the Commies. It's the difference between mere evil and bat-shit crazy evil.
and we've lived with a nuclear Pakistan, a much less stable regime, for decades. This is picayune stuff …
We've lived with a nuclear Pakistan, true, but uneasily and only because we've had no choice. So far cash in the right hands(aka foreign aid) seems to have kept their nukes secure from terrorists. We need to all keep our fingers crossed on that, which is kind of my point. Now there will be lots of others like Pakistan but even more worrisome. Picayune worries? I wish it were so.
And our problem with Iran is NOT a "stable regime" problem. Indeed, the theocratic despots running Iran would probably be less of a problem if they weren't so damned stable. Yes, they are quite stable, perking along nicely with their nuke-building and terrorism.
Clearly it should be Bob Newhart that imagines the phone conversation for us.
C-fudd, I really appreciated your posts last week. As a Jew it is very gratifying to see how your sweaty compulsive anti-Semitism dovetails so perfectly with your predilection for whitewashing ass-raping child molesters. It says a lot about you, in more ways than one, that the only Jew you've ever had a sympathetic word for is Roman Polanski. But not to worry! You also whitewash Sandusky so you're preference-neutral bwahahaha.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा