Hossein Derakhshan at PostGlobal

Hossein Derakhshan

Canada/Iran

Iranian-born Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan is a blogger, journalist, and internet activist. Since 2001, he has been based out of Toronto, Canada, running his award-winning weblog, Editor: Myself, which has been among the most influential blogs in the Persian language. Close.

Hossein Derakhshan

Canada/Iran

Iranian-born Hossein "Hoder" Derakhshan is a blogger, journalist, and internet activist. more »

Main Page | Hossein Derakhshan Archives | PostGlobal Archives


Lessons From Iran-Britain Standoff

There are many lessons we can all learn from this. The first is that the Islamic Republic of Iran, when genuinely engaged, is negotiable, unlike what neo-conservatives try to make us believe.

» Back to full entry

All Comments (61)

houshang:

IRAN HAS DEFINITELY NOT WON THE PUBLIC RELATIONS GAME

Zack:

To: "Are you kidding me",

There is no need for you to submit. The only thing I want you to do is simple: "Draw your own conclusions". Specially don't allow the media to make conclusions for you. (They did so in the past and turned a name of a country into a name of a quagmire). The reason nothing but the support from a mis-informed public. Ignorance is what takes us to war.

You have probably heard that Iran was the winner of US-Iraq war. Guess who the grand winner of a possible US-Iran war will be.... "ISRAEL". Now guess who controls the media here in US or partially in UK...... Now you can make your own conclusions.

Are you kidding me:

Zack,

I wish you well

I submit to you there is only one truth and I urge you to reconsider your position

However apparently I cannot convince you and you cannot convince me

Where is the UN in all of this who is the only body to decide what the one truth is????

Vic van Meter:

Silly childrens games played with the threat of global destruction. We should thank Britain for taking a knock on the nose.

I remember this scenario in elementary school (I've gone over this arguement, I'll go over it again). America and Iran have gone nose to nose. Neither wants a war, since Iran knows America will likely steamroll them and then America will more than likely fail in the ensuing occupation with a stretched-way-too-thin military. Both know it would be suicide to fight, but both are right up in each other's faces, telling the other to back down.

The detainment of British sailors in, as I certainly believe, Iraqi waters (though it makes little difference) was a move to up the ante and start a confrontational game. Bush rolled out the American navy. They were nose to nose, Bush just asking the British Parliament to give him a reason (although he wanted no reason). A classic escalation these days.

The English, being more mature than schoolyard boys, backed down. They didn't attack, were relieved to get back their sailors, and didn't level any more threats. And everyone would love to define them as weak.

You've all likely been to school. You've been there when some boy wrongs another who's friend shows up to stand next to him, calling for a fight. With this WHOLE MEDIA EVENT, everyone was looking on, calling, "FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT!" But England refused to fight, refused to play into the nose-to-nose confrontation.

Just like a schoolyard, everyone will decry them as weak. They'll pick on them, laugh at them, and talk about how tough America and Iran looked, depending on their ideologies. No one, maybe myself alone, will give a bow to England for being the grown up in a world full of rowdy kids.

This is why a policy of disarmament should be used on both my country and Iran. If we cannot act as England did and be bigger than our infantile presidents, we should never have the access to nuclear technologies until we prove we can. And shame on everyone who has lambasted the English for not puffing out its chest and acting like a fool. You are the advocates of causes that serve nothing but the egos of two world leaders responsible for a lot of the mess this planet is in.

Zack:

To: "Maybe it's the opposite":

You said: "What I have learned is that when a PR guy spins something, the best way to find the truth is to believe the opposite of what he says."
----Are you talking about Ahmadinejad or our private free media (read Jewish-owned media)? (and despite my intense studies on Iran, I had no idea Ahmadinejad had any PR crew!)

About the lessons you learned "From Iran-Britain Standoff":

1) So you are saying that Great Britain is motivated by "rational things"! when Bush and Blair lie to us and take us to war? It is Bush and Blair who don't understand rational diplomacy. The only language they know is the language of confrontation. Even their diplomatic! solutions are coupled with confrontational threats. Who is the rational here? Bush and Blair, or Iranians (forget about Ahmadinejad, he has no power)?

2) Iran did stupid things just after revolution. Now calling this standoff as a "hostage-taking", is wrong. Iranians, rightly, defended their territories. They demanded nothing but a promise that such incursions, as they put it, will not happen again.

3) Definition of fascism: "dictatorial system of government characterized by extreme nationalism and right-wing authoritarian views".... Seems just like the current US government. Don't blame others. The basic principles of democracy is now being ignored in the US. Why don't you talk about that?

4) I am pretty sure you are referring to the statement by the freed marines ("we were stripped and dressed in pajamas"). So you though they could be dressed in pajamas without taking off their navy uniforms? Were they sexually insulted while they were naked? (such as what happens in Abu-Gharib or Guantanamo-Bay)? Even the hard-liners in Iran (currently in power) treated the British troops better than how prisoners in US are treated (let alone Guantanamo-bay or Abu-Gharib). I laughed at this part of your statement: "with a stone floor"; are the prisons in Great Britain carpeted? Ours aren't.

5) Iran is a country of diverse opinions. That proves that it is not a dictatorship, as you suggested in your lesson #3.

6) What is your proof about your "failure of civilization" statement?. Iranians are very well educated and have more diverse sources of news than us in the west. If anyone is labeled as "ignorant", it is the people in the west who are fed by one-sided privately-owned media.

7) Ahmadinejad, whether you like it or not, received more that 17 million votes. He is a smart cookie (he has a PhD in Engineering), but he is politically dumb. Therefore, it is not an illusion, Iran has a somehow very young democracy. He is definitely more rational than Bush.

8) Iran has no means by which she can win a game. All the media are dominated by anti-Iranian countries, who are constantly demonizing Iran to alleviate the public opinion about another war against her. And your comment about bombing them means that you want another unjust war too.

9) Iranian officials have constantly said that nuclear weapons are not in Iran's doctrine, whereas Great Britain announces its renewal of nuclear arsenal, and US announces that it may use nuclear bombs against Iran. Yet, you claim that Iran is "grown-up enough to play with nuclear matches"? Very nice conclusion.

10) What crimes? Killing innocent people in Fallujah? or Torturing people in Abu-Gharib and Guantanamo Bay?

Non-German Voice:

To "German Voice",

Labeling people only makes your argument weak.

German Voice:

Hossein Derakhshan,

Nice try, but your comments are just dumb. Do your homework before spreading such a nonsense. Every little child knows it better than you, brown shirt.

Terryeo:

Lessons from the standoff, Data:
1. The Iranian Navy took the word of a Muslim fisherman that British sailors were in Iranian waters. British Global Positioning System data says otherwise.
2. Iran lied to the only female British sailor, saying, "your shipmates have been sent home".
3. Iran does not understand how a woman's will to be a British sailor can allow a woman to be a British sailor
4. Iran used isolation on ALL of the sailors. It used sensory deprivation and mental torture, to produce fear, on most of the sailors.

Conclusions and predictions:
1. Iran will trust the word of a muslim fisherman over modern, high tech GPS hardware.
2. Iran is entirely willing to lie, both to captured persons and to the international community. It is a way of life in Iran.
3. Iran's religion creates a blind spot. Its leaders can not understand how most of the civilized world gets long, where men and woman work side by side to achieve prosperity.
4. Iran's treatment of captured persons is far less civilized than its public face shows.

Maybe it's the opposite:

What I have learned is that when a PR guy spins something, the best way to find the truth is to believe the opposite of what he says. Generally the things that he says are true are the things he knows to be not true, and for which he is compensating:

Lessons From Iran-Britain Standoff

There are many lessons we can all learn from this:

1) The Islamic republic cannot be negotiated with, it is not motivated by the same things that motivate a rational society.

2) Iran has made great progress since its revolution 28 years ago: the student hostage-taker is now president.

3) Iran is like most groups of thugs, it's in a constant state of warring sub-constituencies. However, the IRGC is taking over the levers of power, and the comparisons to fascism are hard to ignore.

4) Moderate is a relative term. In Iran's case, the moderates will give you a pile of blankets to sleep on after you've been stripped naked and shoved in a dark cell with a stone floor.

5) There is no one really in charge. Even among the mullahs, it's a contest to see who can be the most devout that swings influence and power.

6) The Islamic regime is a failure of civilization. It is an angry collection of ignorant haters trained by cynical old men who manipulate the yearnings for spiritualism within a stalinist theocracy.

7) Ahmadinejad has been allowed to announce the sailors’ release to continue the illusion that Iran is run by a democratically elected government. It is worth noting that if Ahmdinejad was more rational he would be pushed aside by the mullahs.

8) Iran has won the public relations game: which is why most people in the west would happily bomb their oil terminals and teach them some damned humility.

9) Iran is a winner in the recent standoff, as it ultimately was when the U.S. removed its most threatening neighboring regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan. Its recent behavior will no doubt be viewed in a favorable light as it argues it is grown-up enough to play with nuclear matches.

10) Ahmadinejad will just be another sad loser when he is finally put on trial for his crimes.

Zack:

To "Are you kidding me???"

Is that your proof??? I am sure you had the same reason when you believed that Iran "supports terrorism" or seeks nuclear weapons (and therefore "defies the UN"). Now, I am sure that you "never had a chance to hear the Iranian side of the story".

I have read a lot about Iran. Iran supports Palestinian and Lebanese groups that are fighting against occupation of their lands (listen to George Galloway once and you'll understand). Iran doesn't recognize them as terrorists and, therefore, supports them. Bush and Blair, on the other hand, want to show themselves as logical and civilized, and yet lie to us to take us to wars and kill innocent people.

Neither Iran, nor Blair can be trusted easily. Their claims have to be addressed by an independent group.

Are you kidding me:

Zack

Here is what we know

Iran said they were in Iranian waters
Great Britain said they weren't

Go ahead and believe a state that actively supports terrorists and continues to actively defy the UN if you want to

Amir:

Dear Robert Tirado:

1. "Iran continued to report that they were in their territory: Not true":.... Do you mean that Iran is negotiable only if she accepts the British claim? What is the point of negotiation then? In a negotiation, both sides exchange their views and discuss their different opinions. Isn't this more civilized?

2. "For the president to inject Israel, which has NOTHING to do with Iran shows his hate of the Jewish people.":.... You should notice that Ahmadinejad never uses the words Israel or Jews in his statements. Instead, he uses zionists and zionism. He has expressed times and again that he doesn't hate Jews, but your free! media never report it, do they? Still, there is no doubt that he is stupid and politically illiterate. This is the Iranian point of view on the issue of Israel: All native people in the Israel+Palestine region+refugees (including Jews, Muslims, and Christians), should participate in an election and choose a government; and since the majority of the people in that region are Muslims (and not Jews), Israel will no longer exist on the map. I am skeptical of the practicality of this one-state solution, but I am confident that it is neither anti-jew, nor anti-muslim or anti-christian.

3. "with the helter-skelter within": .... You should probably visit Iran something before you make such statement again. People live there a normal life. They don't live in tents, and they don't ride camels. Iran may not be perfect, but it is a country!

4. "Ayatollah Khamenei is as reprehensible a the president". I can't agree more with this statement.

5. "... these criminals ...": ... Are you brave enough to label other [in]famous presidents as criminals too?

Zack:

To "Are you kidding me???" who thinks Iran lied throughout this event:

Of course we think that "Iran lied" throughout the event. Because we never had a chance to hear the Iranian side of the story. If this is the case, we can't judge whether Iran or UK has lied.

There is one case that we CAN surely judge. And that is the lies we were told by Bush and Blair before Iraq war. This is a fact that Bush and Blair lied. As for Iran, it is not yet proven that they lied. (we are supposed to be fooled by a nautical GPS location of a ship in a region where baselines are poorly defined / under dispute).

I am not fooled. I won't be fooled by Bush and Blair again. Their claims has to be verified by an independent party.

Zack:

To "Are you kidding me???" who thinks Iran lied throughout this event:

Of course we think that "Iran lied" throughout the event. Because we never had a chance to hear the Iranian side of the story. If this is the case, we can't judge whether Iran or UK has lied.

There is one case that we CAN surely judge. And that is the lies we were told by Bush and Blair before Iraq war. This is a fact that Bush and Blair lied. As for Iran, it is not yet proven that they lied. (we are supposed to be fooled by a nautical GPS location of a ship in a region where baselines are poorly defined / under dispute).

I am not fooled. I won't be fooled by Bush and Blair again. Their claims has to be verified by an independent party.

Michael J Sullivan:

As an aside I think some words that you use indicate a rather beligerent bias. Like the word "Kudos" there is a suspicion that a lot of people don't know what it means. (Kudos is a Greek word and a parallel to the word ethos, and people use it as a plural of kudo for some strange reason).
The other word, is neo-conservative. I am suspicious that the word seems to conatate something related to a cross between neanderthal and conservative. All the literature seems to show that the word is derived from a jewish background meaning liberals pushing for an active response to solutions rather than a passive one.
I assume the negative meaning. Being from Canada and probably from the east I would assume you are a socialist liberal cross drinking latte in downtown Toronto.

Kevin:

Kids play this practical joke where kid1 comes up behind kid2 who is standing near a ledge, pushes him suddenly toward the brink, and then pulls him back. Kid1 then says to kid2, "Saved your life," which, of course, is meant to sound silly. When the government of Iran plays this game, why should we give them credit.

When making comparisons about prisoner treatment, we should remember that the British were uniformed soldiers. Members of the Iraqi army who fought against the coalition forces were only briefly detained, if at all, before being set free. There were no threats of trial or anything of that sort. US atrocities have been directed at suspected un-uniformed irregulars, insurgents or terrorists depending on your orientation. The traditional rules of war allow un-uniformed combatants to be executed as spies and the Geneva Conventions offer them little protection, if I'm not mistaken. How does Iran treat people accused of terrorism? That would be the relevant comparison. Revolutionary Iran used to execute even those accused only of opposing the regime, though they seem to be getting better over time.

With any luck, in a generation, they will stop chanting, "Death to America, Death to Israel!" and both sides will have no reason to fear the other. Iranians should realize that we really don't want to invade them. It is only fear that makes us consider such a thing. Otherwise, what would we stand to gain? We don't want the territory, and no matter who is in charge, Iran is going to sell their oil to someone; and oil being completely fungible, oil sold to anyone props up supply all over the world.

Now in Iraq we have elements within just 20% of the country's population holding the rest hostage. Imagine for a moment what would have happened if the Sunni had cooperated with the new government. We'd be out of their country by now. The government would be dominated by the majority Shia, which is their right in a democracy. But by their campaign of murder, the Sunni are bringing on a situation where we will leave in frustration and the Shia will quell the insurgency themselves by means of mass slaughter and repression. The Sunni's love of unthinking violent opposition will cause them to lose everything that they think they are fighting for.

Are you kidding me???:

1. Iran lied and continues to lie

2. Parts of it maybe but not the power brokers that control the country

3. This directly contradicts number 2

4. If you say so they need to speak louder

5.

6. We will believe this when you stop supporting terrorists and violating UN treaties

7-10 I dont have time for this

Iran lied throughout this event and cannot be trusted

Robert Tirado:

Responses to HOSSEIN's remarks:

1. Iran was NEVER negotiable with regard to the British captives: Iran continued to report that they were in their territory: NOT true.

2. Iran REMAINS the same, or worse, than it was 28 yeras ago. Its' current leaders are more reprehensible. For the president to inject Israel, which has NOTHING to do with Iran shows his hate of the Jewish people.

3. United establishment? Iran? Have you been up to date with the helter-skelter within?

4. Ayatollah Khamenei is as reprehensible a sthe president. Who are you kidding?

5. You demonstrate the conflict within Iran when you state that the "real" president is Larjani.

The rest of your posting is incredibly disingenous and false, but again, you seem to have the same "insight" these criminals have.

Yakub yozivz:

Hello Folks:
Our Great "Prophet" Albert Eisenstein (Birth date MARCH.14th) had this, Space Forth premonition or had this "A Cosmic Feeling" experience, and he had referred to some of the phenomenon as “SPOOKY STUFF...” And OUR GREAT FATHER did not respect any of your UnHoly Immortal beings, nor some proclaimed Deity, or some Satan or Angels in the Sky or below or truly Supernatural in any of you lores & self serving Epochs of times past et al.

So ALL PRE-Apocalyptic “teachings” of Morality as if tautological , or as if truth or the very word of HUMATE imagined form of G-d in flesh, etc.
He did favor Buddhist more than so than any of the Pre-Apocalyptic belief SYSTEMS here on Space-Ship Mother Earth et al during his TIME here.

But he Loved ECLATi in Him and All thing Animate and Inanimate from a Cosmic Thinking Respective. His Prophecy's are a revelations in themselves. And the Apocalypse is upon us and can never be stopped. Even by your imagined Satan & Company.

Annette:

I agree with your points. Ultimately, they to make Bush look bad in the way he mishandled Iraq by saying that Bush should have been a man and talked face-to-face instead of through someone, and they wanted the whole world to see that it could have worked. Quite possibly, that could actually be the message that they are trying to convey to Bush now. Unfortunately, Bush thinks that the only way and the best way to solve a problem is by fighting. His job overwhelms him.

Kohsar240:

Tide is against Iran and in favor of AIPAC as it has been in House and Senate. Bashing Iran is like getting credit for playing the game for another chance. This is the unfortunate outcome of lobby culture in Washington. If one group like AIPAC gains the upper hand, then it takes as much mileage out of it as it can. In the end we all pay for it. Iran has been humiliated and embarrassed repeatedly and their voice choked. Their diplomats are kidnapped and detained for months which gets no attention. Saudis and Jordanians are fueling insurgency in Iraq, the ultimate factor for Iraq failure, yet they are not criticized by the Bush administration. It seems Iran finds itself at great disadvantage and threatened by it. What would you do if you were the CEO of Iran, inc., with US on encircling you from east (Afghanistan) West (Iraq) South (Persian Gulf) North (Azerbaijan)?

Abu Jafar:

Lets consider the fact that apart from the fanfare there is no Iranian terrorist in the world that kills the westerns like the Sunni's do. The world needs to know about Iranians and Iran and their peaceful natures and history. That's why I support the current move by Iranian government.

Amir:

Dear John-Michael, thanks for your response.

1) I don't think that the British marines intentionally trespassed into Iranian waters, if that was the case at all. If so, I think, Iranians should have escorted them to Iraqi waters. (This would have been a nice scenario). In fact, in 2004, a similar unintentional incursion occurred and the Iranian coast guard captured few marines (four, if I am not mistaken), and released them after 3 days. Since Iran is under constant threat of attack, I think it is understandable to have a well-prepared coast guard at all times. (You don't think that only US and UK protect their borders, do you?). Same way I think the British troops unintentionally (if at all) entered Iranian waters, I think Iran didn't have any intention of ambushing (none of the two cases seems probable). The Iranians were simply protecting their territory. (what is the point of ambushing? to do what? to create a crisis? It is not probable, as intentional trespassing of British marines in not probable)
_______________
2) In fact it was very probable and predictable of Iran to release the marines. (as it was the case in 2004). The unpredictable part was the timing of the release. I thought it would only last a couple of days, some of my blogger friends said it'd be at least a month. These "details" are what politicians play with to gain more benefits out of any issue. (i.e. domestically and internationally). If everything could be predicted, we could have foreseen what will happen next year. (apparently we can't. Not even for the UK). Most of these unpredictability and unexpectedness that you are talking about, I think, is due to lack of understanding, which is magnified by the biased western media. (I can give you examples if you wish).

3) I agree that the islamic "REVOLUTION" acted revolutionary and not rationally for a decade or two. I always apologize to my American friends for the hostage crisis; and you are not exempted. As for supporting Hizbollah, Iranian officials see them as resistance group and not a terror group (This is something I don't agree with at all. It takes a huge toll out of Iran's national interests.)

"By my account Iran has quite a bit more western blood on its hands.". Likewise, from Iranian perspective, US has quite a bit more Persian blood on its hands: attacking IranAir's Flight# 655 in 1988, providing Iraq with chemical weapons and backing Iraq during Iran-Iraq war, backing Mujahedin-e-Khalgh (a terror group, also called MeK or "people's Jihadists"), or backing other terror groups such as Jundullah, or supporting ethnic clashes. (These are even occasionally publicly announced by US officials, let alone being denied).

Iran doesn't recognize Hizbollah as a terror group and supports it. United States recognizes MeK as a terror group and yet allows it to raise money, have a safe heaven in Iraq, plan gatherings, and provide political suggestions to US congressmen and women. (I should say that I am not sure about the latter case, I have only heard it from Iranian officials). And yet, as the mainstream media put it, Iran supports terrorism, and US is not.

And about not "allowing Iran to obtain the means to make nuclear weapons", I should say that I don't think making a nuclear bomb would be in favor of Iran's national interest at all (and Iranians in several occasions have confirmed this stance). A n-bomb would put Iran in a state of danger rather than security. Consider the moment Iran announces its first nuclear bomb test. The next minute Iran would be bare flat with over 200 Israeli n-bombs. Iran would gain nothing with 1, 2 or even 10 n-bombs. It be far weaker than Israel+US's nuclear arsenal. At the same time, it justifies an attack against Iran.

This whole story of Iran wanting to attack Israel with a nuclear bomb is nothing but a propaganda to alleviate the public opinion about a possible "Iran war" and serve Israel's interests. Israel has a vast interest in seeing Iran weakened, because she wants to stay the dominant regional power and keep or extend her land occupation. This is why Israel is playing its most powerful card (the media) to demonize Iran as much as possible. This is something against American interests.

You, my friend, should get some alternate view on the nuclear issue.

Jozevz:

I had a dream:

((((((((( B R E A K I N G ------- N.E.W.S. )))))))))

A few minutes ago An F15 was deliberately smashed into the AL AQSA "Golden Dome of the Rock" in Jerusalem, Israel.

The death toll is rising and we will report on further coverage as it comes in. AND,

"The unHoly "KABBA" in Mecca, Saudi Arabia, was just destroyed by "Exiles" of the "SHAH" PALAHVIs secret Army who smashed a hijacked Saudi Commercial Airline into it and killing around 3,000 people.

AND, SUNNi Pakistan just nuked Shia TEHRAN, Iran 666 minutes ago, Our Captured British, Boys & Girls also perished in the aftermath of such Atomic proportions! We will Report further soon. P.S. Watch Your Ass Persian SATANS of the Sky G-ds!

Its as though every Muslim has gotten a dagger shot in their hearts and or minds. This means that ISLAM is now Dead! People are yelling: Death to Iran! They run around like Chickens without heads. LOST and oblivious like!

Eeeeeeeeeee Haaaaaaaaaa Cowboys & Cow Girls alike! Ya Ya PRAISE THE L.O.R.D. E.C.L.A.T.i in me, you and ALL things created Past, Present and Beyond via SOURCE-ONE. a/k/a/ ECLAT (a Brilliance Bursting Forth). NOT Your big Bang theory's et al.

Hark! W.E N.E.V.E.R. D.I.E. LIGHT (a/k/a you) PHOTONS can nrver be destroyed once created by the ECLAT-i of my HOLY COSMIC HEAR BEATY. We are Eternity substance like avoiding lonliness via TRANSFINITY (Reality moving about you or us) Oh YES! Say Praise the Lord of the Eclat-i in me and ALL thing animate & Inanimate!........ Ya. Ya! :=)'

By: Yakub Yosif a/k/a Jacob Jozevz et al

I am SECULAR MAN against HUMAN-WRONGS against any CIVIL RIGHTS.

G-d is a SINGULAR World in a Secular MIND.


Hark! You LOVERS of of Old ISLAM et al


Hello SATANIC VERSE LOVERS --OF J,I,H,A,D,I,S,M IN Iran and elsewhere, on Space-Ship Earth & Beyond.

(((((((( U N C L E ----- S A M ------IS ------WATCHING------YOU ))))))


Come to Poppa & Momma G.W. Bush. He will Push Push in your Bushy Pushy. Ya Ya Satan Actors and killers in and from Iran , Company, et al.... BEHOLD!

Maybe our President Mr. Bush was right when he said these two thing that I find WISE.
1)"YOU Are Either With Us Or Against US." Similar.

2)On Pakistan reluctance to help US post 911, "We can BOMB YOU Back To the Stone-Age.." Similar.

WE COULD NUKE Iran-Afghanistan & Pakman country ALL AT THE Same-Time and call it a day!

And Brother George Walker will enjoy his Jim Beam, just like in Heaven. But Only with Laura, Our virgin First Lady. Ya Ya. :=)'

Then TRUE & Genuine PEACE and healing of Nations on EARTH will truly become the Bloom of our future. Because the real SATAN will lose. And we will win. Just a matter of clock time.
PEACE-LOVE-ROCKnROLL. Ya Ya.

Jozevz:

Att: Ronert James, Adam, Ali et al:

Iran is not a Super Power. And someone on this thread said that . "..For the 1st time....Russia & China backed-off on Security Councils..." [Similar].

So Mr. Lane Duck PreZ Bush is not talking "QUACK" with Iran. nor Paper Tiger language.

And Our Navy is on their "Back Yard" is a sobering sight for the average Iranian there, neighbors, et al.

Don't mess with "Jim Beam,"

O.K Iran, Hezbullys, Hasmats, etc.. :=)/


Robert James:

Bush is a disrespectful bully who is dangerous. He wants to threaten Iran and then abuse it for not complying with his demands. Remember, the US started an illegal war and you expect the world to trust you. Grow up!

Jacob Jozevz Secular Man against Civil Wrong against Human Rights Int'l:

Att: CrUSADER et al:

The SHAH "Palahvi" Was king then. He was like king Cyrus the Great & was good to Hebrew culture.

The Mullahs killed-off the ZOROASTRIANS People. Most are spared living under Democratic INDIA's Protection. The AHura Mazda followers living there are like the advanced Jews of India.

For aminority they sure are affluent. Note: The Three Wise men who saw JESUS in the stable was Zorostrian Masda priests. iran has a nice History.

It was nice then. As an Israeli I was free to roam,

And ofcourse it is best never to discuss Politics or religion abroad.

But Iran was HOTTEST port Ever. Lots of oil and IRAQ was a rocks throw away.

I miss the Monarch Iran I used to know & I hate this Khoemeni Theocracy Mullah crap-stuff. ya Ya

Crusader:

Round 1 is over there are going to be 14 more rounds. Iran made the first move the Crusaders will make the next 14 !

Ali:

I, unfortunately, fail to set my opinions in accord with those of Hoseyn. I believe he is a bit short of the occurances inside Iran: everyone is well informed of the very fact that the Revolutionary Guards have become a law unto themselves, hence an inside government for itself.
Iran is not 'negotiatable'. I should feel sorry if one takes the release a sign of Iran's succcess since it was the only way out for iran bending under the mounting international pressure.
He wanted to save his face.
A sheer rout!!!!!!!!!

JOZEVZ Jacob et al:

History is OUR JURY and “The People” Have Spoken Today and are saying, ”We, the Jury have to be vigilant with them unjust and usurping ANCIENT, PRE-Apocalyptic BELIEF THINKERS who out number THE SECULAR THINKERs and do things contrary to their own Lores and Epochs, then. Now and Tomorrow.

Wherefore: We the People cannot trust such errant minds to Run Our Nations....”

((((((( Vote SCIENCE not G-D )))))))

((((((( VOTE FOR SECULAR THINKING MINDS )))))))

((((((( Vote SCIENCE not G-D ))))))

USE YOUR (((H.U.E.R.I.S.T.I.C.S))) NOT RELIGION

Veto Veto ((((((( AGAINST Premature WITHDRAWAL )))))))

Veto against early Withdrawal!

Adam:

Further, I have to agree with Vic Van Meter as to how the outcome will be received. In the middle east it will likely be seen as a message of strength to others in the region. This is good for Iran. Internationally, it will heighten the concern over the volatility of the Iranian leaders. The key is for Ahmadinejad not to overplay his hand.

Saddam also played the bluff game with the WMD angle, and he did it very well for a number of years. Inside the region, pretending he had weapons was a way to enhance national security and his chances of keeping control. Outside the region, it was motive to intervene. And intervention is always on a spectrum from diplomacy to military action. Unfortunately, due to events outside his control largely, circumstances changed and he found himself in the gunsights of a country with an open wound, a past grudge, and a fear of what terrorists could do with really destructive weapons.

In Iran's case the danger of overplaying has as much to do with Israel as it does anything else. They can play the unpredictable card for a while, but as they get closer and closer to developing nuclear weaponry Israel (who has nukes) asks themselves with greater and greater anxiety how long they're going to be around. If a non-nuclear Iran takes hostages and allegedly finances insurgencies and in general contributes to the instability of the region, what will a nuclear Iran do?

I understand why Iran would want nuclear weapons, I really do. Any country in that region would, and would resent non-proliferation talk from Western powers that have nukes and don't have to live in the lion's den. Unfortunately, Iran's historical track record of engaging in terrorist tactics and saying extremely worrying things overcomes any worries of hypocrisy on the part of Israel/US. Now it's simply a question of how much it'll take to get our eyes off of Iraq.

It's a dangerous game, but I don't dispute that so far Ahmadinejad isn't playing too badly. The danger to Iran is far more grave than the danger to the West. But then Iran faces more danger on an everyday basis than the West, so perhaps they are used to it.

Adam:

I disagree that we can infer any of those points from the release (assuming it happens) of the British soldiers. It's impossible for anyone to know what's going on the minds of the Iranian leaders or who's in control, but let's look at the alternatives and see what's most reasonable.

1) The kidnapping was a political maneuver designed to underscore Iranian toughness against the backdrop of recently passed sanctions.

2) The kidnapping was political maneuver designed to underscore Iranian toughness by gambling that Britain/U.S. wouldn't respond with force. This is a terrorist tactic, by the way.

3) The kidnapping was purely self-defense; Iran merely wanted to hold the British sailors until they could determine their alleged penetration of Iranian waters was not due to a planned military action, at which point a reasonable Iran was happy to let them go.

As with all political maneuvers, the answer is likely some combination of the above. However I find a combination of 1 and 2 the most likely based on Ahmadinejad's own well-established pattern of actions reinforcing the goal of asserting Iran's toughness and defiance of Western aims.

Iran did indeed win a battle, and the West did lose, but it wasn't a PR battle, it was a posturing battle. Iran played chicken against the west and won some sort of concession (the Brits did nothing, and an Iranian detainee was released).

I don't see other nations coming away from this thinking to themselves that Iran has really become more reasonable. I see them saying Iran employed the same terrorist tactics it has favored in the past, only this time the West showed signs of weaknees by releasing an Iranian detainee instead of responding to force with force.

That isn't a good thing for the West, but it doesn't make Iran anyone's friend either. In fact, it provides ammunition for neocons or any other pro-war group because it highlights that Iran's method of negotiation is to take hostages and then ask for things.

Vic van Meter:

All this goes to prove that it's a matter of spin.

I'm a Satanist and have been for five years. Since becoming a Questioner, I have learned to watch things objectively and understand rationale before rhetoric. Living in such times, it is easy to label one side or the other to be unpredictable, violent, ignorant, and moronic. When you've removed yourself from the arguement and see the cold facts, the truth is clear.

All our governments, those here and in the Middle East, maintain power by playing the other side as a monster. Bush won his reelection by mobilizing his base by promising a religious agenda and painting the Middle East and terrorism as our chief security concern. Iran's government is no different, playing to its religious base while playing victories up against the West, generally speaking.

All in all, Ahmadinejad (or whoever runs the Iranian government nowadays) is making a trade. He is playing himself as a victor to his people while making a fool of himself to the international community. Considering the increasing isolation of Iran today, it isn't such a bad trade-off. He certainly hasn't won any international accolades and this little episode is certainly not making any friends or proving his stability to the world. In all, internationally, his stance advances the United States' point that he is unpredictable and unsafe. Luckily for his country, he released the British before he invited a real invading army, most likely a more unified force than the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan.

However, until the United States truly puts a squeeze on him, he's better off playing to the people who keep him in power. Thumbing his nose at the Western world may be an international heresy, but it certainly plays well to the public he must keep the favor of. Bush has also done this often, with the example of Guantanamo coming immediately to mind. Ignoring the international community plays well to many isolationists who keep both these men in power. The difference being that Bush, at the helm of a major Western democracy, is much less exotic than Iran's Middle Eastern locale. He will gain much better acceptance, unfortunately, simply because America is what it is.

Nobody wins in this entire scenario, being that political power is conserved like some physics experiments. This opinion page certainly does not count how weak Iran must seem to an objective bystander knowing that they arrested British sailors as an "invading force" then let them go as a "gift." America simply advances its case against Iran in the UN and the powers in Iran solidify their base support. Luckily, nobody is directly harmed in the exchange and each goes to tout victory to the base.

This, in summation, advances an interesting point. What better general cause of war could there be than a country which is increasingly unpopular in the global community and increasingly strong in its nationalism? Honestly, if it keeps up in the United States, we may find ourselves the target of a war. Still, President Bush has a lot of the former credibility of past diplomats to burn through. Iran only has its customers of its oil trade. Odds are that if both ropes are set to flame, Iran's will burn through first.

Again, all conjecture. It will be interesting to see how this balancing act of international favor versus nationalistic displays plays out. It certainly served Bush well in this country, unfortunately, and as long as Ahmadinejad doesn't do anything TOO reckless, it shall serve him just as well.

marie2:

In 2000, 191 countries signed an agreement known as the Millennium Goals, the first of which is to eliminate global poverty by 2025. I hope that our representatives will uphold this promise made by global leaders.

Jacob Jozevz The Secular ECLATi On:

Hello Cousins, Brothers and Sisters; “There is Nothing Like A Good Philosophy”

Today is: UNIVERSAL YEAR CIRCA, 4.98 Billion Year-TIME, 2007.4th.April, Calendate.

Remember my Cousins:

To "pray" is to "SPEAK" to G-D. And to "meditate" is to “LISTEN," Yes as many times as One likes and in ANY tongue or language(s)). And R.E.V.E.L.A.T.I.O.N Is the same as A,P.O.C.A.L.Y.P.S.E and is opposite or contrary to any “Secrets” or “Mystics” in ANY of the VEDIC, TIKKUN, ZILZAL, Scriptures or Suras. Therefore In Shalah & Praise the beneficent One in Ourselves. Yes!

WELCOME: Today while still being in OUR Miraculous Form [in Photo-Finite Essence) I Thank You for your time here on Space-Ship Momma/Poppa Earth, as you may appear, in either cyberspace or in the flesh and in the awareness of your Own senses via your own beautiful Carbon-Based & Microbial Life Form, both in the ANIMATE & in the INANIMATE state via ECLATS “TIME” (not your Clock or Gravity time) a/k/a TEMPERATURE OF TIME ITSELF.

TIME is inseparable from the MIZAN (Arabic for balance) of IT (G-d) which Yings & Yangs between ABSOLUTE HEAT & ABSOLUTE COLD. Example: Average TIME of the Universe or Your Own Body Temperature, or Microbial or Caterpillar, Holy Cow, Rock, Soil or Nuclear Core, Surface or Sub terrain or Planetary Temperatures radiated via ALL the animate & Inanimate things in existence.

MARK IN NORTH CAROLINA:

WHAT A LIBERAL STORY. IF IRAN IS SO GOOD NOW WHY DON'T YOU CARRY YOUR LIBERAL SELVES THERE AND LIVE. I WON'T PROTEST. ALL IRAN DID WAS MAKE A JOKE OF TONY BLAIR BECAUSE EVERYONE WANTS TO BE LIKE THE LIBERAL EU. I DID NOTICE THAT IRAN DID NOT TRY TO CAPTURE ANY AMERICAN SAILORS AND MARINES, BECAUSE IRAN KNEW BUSH WOULD NOT TOLERATE IT, EVEN WITH MS. PELOSI'S LIBERAL COMRADES.

Yakub Yosif:

Maybe our President Mr. Bush was right when he said these two thing that I find WISE.
1)"YOU Are Either With Us Or Against US." Similar.

2)On Pakistan reluctance to help US post 911, "We can BOMB YOU Back To the Stone-Age.." Similar.

WE COULD NUKE Iran-Afghanistan & Pakman country ALL AT THE Same-Time and call it a day!

Then TRUE & Genuine PEACE and healing of Nations on EARTH will truly become the Bloom of our future. Because the real SATAN will lose. And we will win. Just a matter of clock time.
PEACE-LOVE-ROCKnROLL. Ya Ya.

Kay:

John-Michael: says, *The connection with the nuclear issue is how Iran conducts itself as a state. Predictable behavior equals safe behavior as far as states are concerned*.
A eminder for you, US is the only country, in the history of mankind, that has used ATOMIC BOMB. That too on CIVIL POPULATION and TWICE.
****Predictable behavior equals safe behavior as far as states are concerned****

Harry:

I think Iran did well. I still wonder what really was going on though.
Although the waters are disputed, it must be clear to the UK where Iran considers its borders to be, and the other way around.


Still I'm afraid that some incident, fabricated or not, will be used to invade Iran. I was worried that this was be that incident.

John-Michael:

Dear, Amir

1) I agree that whether or not the Brits were in Iranian waters is and will remain a matter of dispute. However there are a few details that would lead me to believe that this was not a case of the British intentionally moving into Iranian waters. The coordination and apparent preparedness of the Revolutionary Guard unit that captured the sailors and marines indicates a planned ambush. I have seen photographs of the captured. These people do not look at all like the serious kinds of operators that would be sent into enemy territory clandestinely. It just doesn't add up to a clandestine British incursion into Iranian waters that was thwarted by Iranian "border guards."

2)The connection with the nuclear issue is how Iran conducts itself as a state. Predictable behavior equals safe behavior as far as states are concerned. That way contingencies can more effectively be planned for and diplomatic efforts operate much more efficiently. Continually instigating aggression among key players is not a good sign of diplomatic reliability.

3)I am very happy that the Brits were treated well. If they would have tortured or tried for espionage we would be in a much graver situation right now. I agree that invading Iraq was unjustified and the conduct of the post invasion effort extremely fool hardy. As far as Iran not starting any wars goes, well they are lucky. Some degree of responsibility for the taking 66 Americans hostage and holding 53 of them for nearly two years, the IJO bombings of our embassy and troop barracks in Beirut, the bombing of the Khobar towers, and any other attack by The Islamic Jihad Organization or Hizbolah is due to the Iranian government. WWI was started by the assassination of a single man and his wife. By my account Iran has quite a bit more western blood on its hands.

I am not saying that America is not morally blemished, but the bottom line is that we cannot and will not allow a regime with a long and continued history of sponsoring terrorism to obtain the means to make nuclear weapons. The kidnapping of our allie's soldiers only reinforces that belief.

Kay:

Jozevz: You are PSYCHO! Must see a doctor

Peter:

Mr. Derakhshan is just a regime mouth-piece for Western audience. He was publicly defending Islamic regime to acquire Nuclear weapon, (in Canadian TV program, CBC-The Hour program) and his trying to mislead western audience about the evil nature of this regime. If you can read Persian you will see how he is his blog ridicule West and swearing Westeners and recently Tony Blair.

It's funny that Mullah run a Circus with this kidnapping and he argue that West should reward them for their pathetic move. Yes, kidnap people and then ended up being a nice, logical and generous gang!

The Rogue Islamic regime will be, as it has always been, backed down despicably when see iron feast, that's the only way they bow and listen like a rat!

Lesson learned:

-Supreme leader has final say on every matter of state, don't be fooled by a moron like Ahmadinejad, or a liar like previos "president" or be hopeful for a more moderate president, after all they all pawn in the hands of clerics., they don't have any real power.

-In Iran all the "Law" enforcement personal( including Traffic cops) report directly to supreme leader and not answerable to anybody except Supreme leader, even MPs don't know how the heck they spent their budget, they just approve it as being ordered to do so.

-Threatening with real painful action stops mullah to do mad things!

Al:

One could agree on most of it except "Ahmadinejad is smart", that really is the stupidest remark, guy is a morone. With respect to internal splits, these are no different to those in US politics. When outsiders attack they unify, otherwise they trade insults at each other.
Iran is the clear winner in the recent standoff, as it was when US removed two of its nemsis. What an icing in the cake when Saddam was executed. The struggling Iranian economy was rescued with those astronomical rise in oil price accompanying the Iraq war. Iran has alot to thank the US for but not visa versa.

RT:

Lessons From Iran-Britain Standoff
There are many lessons we can all learn from this:

1) The Islamic Republic of Iran, when threatened will back down liberals try to make us believe.

2) Iran is a same country now than it was 28 years ago when they held the American embassy hostage.

3) Iran's establishment is more spilt than everyone thinks. Painting the Revolution Guard as a mafia or a government inside a government is a strategic about right.

4) The moderate conservatives in Iran, represented by Ali Larijani, have the unconditional backing of the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei....True

5) Ali Larijani, who brokered the deal, is the real president of Iran and is the person in Iran the world should be talking to. That's why Ahmadinejad was reading from a written statement at today’s press conference.....True

6) The radical elements, constitute a “rogue” or irrational regime and are losing power.

7) Ahmadinejad has been allowed to announce the sailors’ release undermine his image that he has greatly damaged through his unnecessary provocations.

8) Iran has lost public relations game.

9) Iran is the loser in the recent standoff, as it ultimately was when the U.S. removed its most threatening neighboring regimes in Iraq and Afghanistan.

10) Ahmadinejad is one heck of a morone.

randy:

The regime overthrow in Iran is coming:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/ID05Ak05.html

A steady squeeze on Tehran
US economic pressure is mounting against Iran. While efforts to stop oil companies investing in Iran have produced mixed results, pressure via the financial sector has been more effective. At the same time, efforts to strengthen domestic opposition forces in Iran continue, as does the propaganda war.

Asror Xonim:

Jacob Jozevz, what are you talking about? Could you please show a little consideration for other people, organize your thoughts more coherently, and try to make some linear sense for a change?

Ruby:

This shows that, through apology, a country can achieve positive outcomes. Had the British not apologized, we may be reading an entirely different headline. Strategically, we need to understand the motivations of other civilizations, and sometimes acquiesce in order to gain a favorable outcome.

Unfortunately, President Bush would not have reacted the same. Had these been U.S. soldiers, the Bush administration's usual inflamatory and arrogant comments would have made the international situation worse. This type of one-dimentional leadership will continue to insight violence throughout the Middle East and push more countries away from supporting the U.S.

Ross:

In response to your first comment "The Islamic Republic of Iran, when genuinely engaged, is negotiable, unlike what neo-conservatives try to make us believe." This comment is as silly as it is unrealistic. Anyone with a modicum of intelligence knew from the beginning Iran kidnapped, yes kidnapped, foreign Soldiers operating in Iraqi waters under UN Mandate purely for the point of playing politics with the UK and coming to a quote unquote agreeable resolution to the situation. Whatever PR game Iran won has at best only short term benefits; Iran will in the near future facilitate some action that draws global and universal condemnation, most liklely an act related to its developing "non-weaponized nuclear program."

Mr. Derakhshan, why don't you attempt for a moment to think/discuss how negotiable Iran is relative to it's blatant attempt to develop a nuclear weapons program under the guise of a non-weaponized nuclear program and how the UN has attempted to deal, quite fairly, in assisting it to develop a non-weaponized nuclear program only to be completely rebuked.

I'm an American and quite proud of that fact. However, I will freely admit that our current foreign policy is quite flawed on numerous fronts. I suggest you attempt a little introspection as well. Maybe then you will come to the same types of conclusions that a good portion of the rest of world, and in particular the UN Security Council, has already made, that Iran is not negotiable.

Dave:

Let's capture some British sailors and then let them go a week later after "negotiations". Then our mouth pieces in the west will say all they have to do is talk to us to solve any problem and we will never have to worry about any use of force against us for any reason.

How predictable.

Amir:

Dear John-Michael,

1. With all due respect, I think you have only listened to one side of the story. You presume that the captured marines were in Iraqi territory, while, this region has been the subject of dispute in the past couple of decades. Iran claims they were in Iranian waters, and Britain claims otherwise.

2. I see no connection with the nuclear issue here, do you?

3. Iran acted humanly and took good care of the British personnel. Although Iran could put them on trial under Iranian laws and regulations, these marines were pardoned as a good will gesture (for Easter and Birth of prophet Muhamad occasion). I understand when you call them unpredictable, but, how would you see them as "dangerous"? In fact, I think those governments that "start wars", "torture their detainees", and "take nude pictures of them" are way more dangerous than Iran (a country that has not started a war in the past 200 years, at least).

4. You are right in this point: Iran didn't act wisely by keeping the captured marines for two weeks.

5. You are right. Until there is a Veto power, the patience of veto-holding powers will mean patience of security council. And yes, it will grow thinner.

Ayul Zamir:

Folks, Bush Strategy really WORKS! It is so kool! See the effect of the US Navy Carriers conducting war-games in the Persian Gulf: it un-nerved that Iranian bit of the Axis of Evil, and they did yield--although they our enemies won this bout of the propaganda war. Do I believe this? Well, for sure, some would agree with all that, and whole-heartedly too. So what if the US does not have a foreign policy--the US can make it on the run. The US has all the might, can fight multiple wars, and surge, emerge, bulge--break all that china in the shop--and can even say that it accomplishes missions. So it has all that, and it can can can something or the other--and it is that one nation under God, etc. too. USA USA USA: Go Bush Go.

john:

yeah iran won this pr game (dripping with sarcasm) .. did all these "commentators" come from an alternate universe?

Salamon:

I agree with Mr. Hossein Derakhshan's analysis.

I would also state that there were two loosers in this event, the UK [bloody nose] and the USA [bombast and childlike tantrums by Congress and President].

Sam:

Interesting analysis. However, I don't understand why you say that this proves that Iran isn't a rogue regime. They kidnapped foreign soldiers--an act of war if ever there was one. They milked the crisis they caused for what they could get in their domestic arena. And then they released the hostages before the other side could retaliate. That doesn't sound like a logical and peaceful member of the international community. You seem to be intent on blaming "the neoconservatives" for every problem in the world. Your readership and much of the Washington Post's leadership understands that's a code word for Jews. You seem to have a much better grasp of Iranian domestic politics than American domestic politics. Jews actually don't control this country. The reason why America is so intent on confronting Iran's nuclear goal is to prevent a nuclear war, not to protect Israel. As soon as Iran has nuclear weapons, it will use them (either by itself or through Hizbollah). Israel has enough nukes to destroy the entire Islamic world. When Hizbollah drops the bomb on Jerusalem, Israel will drop its hundreds of bombs on every Islamic city. America can't stop Israel from getting nukes because it already has them. But it can do its best to stop Iran from getting them--which is the focus of U.S. foreign policy. America's not doing it to save the Jewish state--it's doing it to prevent the deaths of a billion Moslems.

Michel Levy:

I,m fluent in Persian language and I have been reading Mr Derakhshans persian website, Since 6 months ago He has started to defend the government of Iran and its regime.
The question is why is this sudden action happens?
All the Best
Michel

Mg:

Wait a couple of days and see that all the iranian diplomats released that are currently being held hostages in Iran. That is the deal that let the british sailors free.

Anonymous:

I'm not sure if its Ahmadinejad or some other Iranian leader, but someone has got some serious brains and balls. Did anybody else notice that as soon as Jalal Sharafi was released in Iraq, Iran went straight for negotiations? It was smart to kidnap a Briton, if it was a US citizen that could have meant war. But a junior partner won't go to war without the big brother.

And now Iran looks very reasonable. This took attention away from the nuclear issue and may be a feint to show the Iranian government as negotiable. This may ease judgement of sanctions against them if UN and UAEA members feel they can be reasoned with. Whatever the game was, Iran wins, or is one move ahead!

John-Michael:

POINTS TO REMEMBER ABOUT THE BRITAIN-IRAN STANDOFF

1)Iran kidnapped sailors and marines of a sovereign nation conducting operations under a mandate of the UN and within Iraqi territory.

2) The Security Council passed an escalation of nuclear program related sanctions with no interference from Russia or China for the first time.

3)The current Iranian regime is viewed as less predictable and more dangerous than ever.

4) As soon as the kidnapping occurred the regime in Tehran entered into a no-win situation. They made the best of the exclusively bad decisions available to them after that foolish act was committed.

5) After a long record of being a frustrating if not impossible diplomatic partner the patience of the members of the Security Council with Iran is that much thinner.

Shervin Boloorian:

Sad to say it, but another important lesson is that Congress is likely complicit in alienating Iran and adding to the provocation. The House has consistently moved quickly to denounce Iran for every perceived misstep (including the seizing of British troops), but fails to give credit when it is due. Take for example HRES 267 by Reps. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rob Andrews (D-NJ), which condemned Iran for the detention of the servicemembers and called for sanctions. That measure unanimously won committee action and gained 62 cosponsors. It's almost certain that Congress will not draft good-will legislation to lower the pressure on Iran in spite of the release or any positive behavior coming from Tehran.

Concerned Citizen:

With all said and done, the clerical establishment ruling Iran may be uniquely adept in brinkmanship; however, the achilles heel of the regime is the catastrophic state of the Iranian economy which despite historically unprecedented high oil revenues, has run aground due to immeasurable dosage of mismanagement, corruption and neglect.

You can be good in international give and take, but the economy will sap your energies; did it not the Soviet Union's?

Impose embargo of gasoline, you will see real compromises by the body politic in Tehran.

reza:


Hi,

Analysis is not that far from reality, except that Ahmadinejad is stupid, playing in the hands of neoconservatives indeed. I hope some wise people in iran can control him till the next election.

Post a comment

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.

Categories

PostGlobal is an interactive conversation on global issues moderated by Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria and David Ignatius of The Washington Post. It is produced jointly by Newsweek and washingtonpost.com, as is On Faith, a conversation on religion. Please send your comments, questions and suggestions for PostGlobal to Lauren Keane, its producer.