******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009

Negotiations Preconditioned On Mullah Rule

During the campaign and after assuming the presidency, Barack Obama repeatedly stated his willingness to engage in negotiations with Iran without any preconditions. But that was and is not true.

The events of the past two weeks, including the revelation that Obama sent a letter in May to "Supreme Leader" Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, reveal that there is one precondition to negotiations which Obama willingly embraces: United States acceptance of Mullah rule in Iran in perpetuity.

Acceptance of Mullah rule, notwithstanding what the people of Iran may want or basic human rights, is the key to the Grand Bargain the Obama administration seeks to strike with Iran. In fact, U.S. help to perpetuate the Mullahtocracy appears to be the ONLY precondition.

Making continued Mullah rule the only precondition to negotiations has two negative effects. First, it demonstrates the falsity of the notion that Obama stands for positive change in the Muslim world, particularly for women. Second, it takes off the table the only issue which really matters to the Mullahs, and thereby makes negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program less, not more, likely to succeed.

Only someone who never has had to negotiate anything of significance in his life would pursue a policy of conceding his best negotiating point as a precondition to negotiations. Only someone who is supremely cynical would make a "historic" speech to the Muslim world promising to work for fundamental human rights, yet concede that issue before negotiations with Iran have started.

We all know what you call someone who can look you in the eye and say that he is on the side of the Iranian people, yet be willing to sell out the Iranian people as part of a Grand Bargain.

Related Posts:
Remember "Ahmadinejad Won. Get Over It."
Iran Election Fraud Truthers Emerge
He Who Cannot Stop Talking, Is Silent On Iran

Follow me on Twitter and Facebook


  1. huh? your so-called point makes no sense at all. does that mean that ronald reagan's invitation of soviet leaders to arms reduction talks reveals a "precondition" that the united states accept communist rule over all 11 republics of the USSR in perpetuity?

    i realize this blog has developed a reputation in left blogistan for being the remedial-reading level conservative blog, but seriously, this strikes me as being even stupider than "dijon-gate".

  2. You obviously do not understand the the key point of the Grand Bargain approach is U.S. guarantees to the Iranian regime. There were no such guarantees as part of the Soviet-US arms negotiations. In fact, the Soviet-US model makes more sense. Negotiate, if there is no viable alternative, over weapons, but do not compromise over opposition to the regime.

    If this level of nuance is not understood by the "left blogistan," then remedial reading is more than it can handle.

  3. I guess the problem is, you forgot to show any evidence of the US guarantees to the Iranian regime, then.

    I'm sure you'll get right on that, though...

    (Alternatively, you might consider explaining how President Obama was to go about sending any letter at all to the Iranian regime yet to come... ...or why it is that he--or the leader of any other rights-respecting nation--wouldn't prefer dealing with the more democratic Iran to come, if only they could get in touch with that future leadership.)

    Why do you conservatives hate America?

  4. You obviously do not understand the the key point of the Grand Bargain approach is U.S. guarantees to the Iranian regime.

    like repsac3 said above, you haven't shown us any evidence of those guarantees to the iranian regime. instead you've simply inferred they must exist based on the fact that obama wrote a letter to the ayatollah khamenei. my point is that you're not applying that inference consistently. if every letter inviting talks automatically implies guarantees that the u.s. would support that regime in perpetuity, then reagan must have made similar guarantees to the USSR, etc.

    get my point now?