Obama sent video to Iran

[punisa]

IVcg6ugW6XM

Comments?
The "change" at least changed the political demagogy towards other nations. Just yesterday we were hearing about the "axis of evil" :lol:

Although I will never respect any government other then pure socialist, in the current worldwide political arena I salute such talks.
All those talks about US preparing a military invasion on Iran was horrible..

[brigadista]

the smiling face of imperialism/capitalism - what do they want to buy[steal] from Iran?

[punisa]

the smiling face of imperialism/capitalism - what do they want to buy[steal] from Iran?

Was wondering the same thing myself :laugh:
If the speech was indeed honest, that would be nice, but I have the feeling that Obama wants something ... to do the things by using slick moves rather then spending all of that money on military..

[Dimentio]

Was wondering the same thing myself :laugh:
If the speech was indeed honest, that would be nice, but I have the feeling that Obama wants something ... to do the things by using slick moves rather then spending all of that money on military..

Obama is simply ending a US policy which has actually been counter-productive to its aims. Khatami was elected two terms but the US never accepted him. I think that if Obama continues this policy, Ahmadinejad will have it hard to keep his presidency.

Besides, states have no friends. They have interests. It would be as stupid by a socialist government to do something out of altruism (towards another government) as it would be for a capitalist government. Governments always have interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=599AzvrUqo0

Why do I think of this guy every time I see Obama?

[Revy]

This shouldn't be interpreted as a peaceful gesture to Iran. Obama has on numerous occasions supported an attack on Iran. Even Israel's President Shimon Peres sent his own Nowruz message.

[Charles Xavier]

this is smoke in mirrors

[AvanteRedGarde]

[Thought this was relevant. Comments?]


Obama to Iranian Leadership: Let's Make a Deal

(http://antiimperialism.wordpress.com)


Marking the Iranian new year's celebration, Nowruz, U.S. president Barack Obama released a video statement to the Middle East nation. While on the surface Obama offered his "best wishes" and the "promise of a new beginning," such a statement can hardly be taken at face value.
The statement was aimed at three audiences specifically: the Iranian leadership, the Iranian people, and the Amerikan and Western masses. Lauding Iranian culture and making vague comparisons between Amerikans and Iranians, Obama both played into Iranian nationalism and invoked a false sense of fraternity between the Iranian and Amerikan people. Obama stressed that it was a "new day" and raised the false hope of a "greater peace."


In truth, fraternity between the oppressed Iranians and oppressor Amerikans is a myth and Barack Obama is not in the position to offer changes to the basic relationship. Whereas Obama is a good orator whose words have an aire of credibility that George Bush lacked, the capitalist-imperialist system still demands the increasing exploitation of Third World peoples. Obama should be seen for the role he plays in this overall system.
Implied in Obama's statement was a clear offer to the Iranian leadership: get with the program and there is a place for you in the imperialism system. Amerika's desire to exploit Iran hasn't changed. Now it appears as though the door is open for the current Iranian leadership to become the local managers for the Amerikan empire. While Obama emphasized dialogue and 'mutual respect,' if these tactics fail to bring about the desired result, Amerika will surely resort to covert destabilization efforts and direct military actions. In previous statements, Obama said he would not rule out the latter option in dealing with the Iranian leadership.


The statement was also directed to the Iranian masses. By invoking the Iranian holiday, Obama hoped to especially connect to this group. The aim of this was to cast domestic speculation on the Iranian leadership's current anti-U.S. policies. This is especially hypocritical in that Obama's efforts are aimed at bringing the Iranian masses under the exploitation the Western imperialism. Amerika's current stance towards the Iranian leadership is based solely on whether they will be an accomplice to this exploitation.


Amerikans also took in the statement by the millions, many with enthusiasm. For them, Obama represents an imperialist figurehead which they can be proud of. While not giving up the drive to bring every corner of the globe under its domination, Amerika is now better able to claim it is doing so in the name of peace. Such a proposition is no less a tactic of imperialism, albeit a more popular one. As RAIM ['the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement] has previously stated, Obama represents the velvet glove of imperialism. False rhetoric of "mutual respect" and "peace" are likely to be continuing tactics of Obama and Amerika's never ending war against the Third World masses.


Sources:

http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/20/news/IRAN-transcript.php
http://raimd.wordpress.com/2008/06/12/obama-shocks-arabs-touts-imperialist-creditials/
http://raimd.wordpress.com/2008/06/30/obama-%E2%80%9Cblack%E2%80%9D-messiah-for-white-amerika/

[kmtina]

I think Obama got slapped down pretty hard on this. The mullahs told him they expected a policy change and this video wasn't it. This is the second time he's reached out to Iran and they've slapped him down. Same thing with Obama's attempt to talk to "moderate" Taliban. I think their response was "Get the f___ out of our country. Don't let the door hit you on the way out." Incidently, they shot the Russians in the back as they retreated and castrated any Afghans they thought were sympathetic to the Soviets. So much for "moderate."

[ZeroNowhere]

"Khamenei set the bar impossibly high — demanding an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy, including giving up "unconditional support" for Israel and halting claims that Iran is seeking nuclear arms."
Holy shit, he got slapped down damn hard there. What harsh requests. :rolleyes:
I mean, at least he's not asking Obama to stop being a hypocritical jackass.

"Has your hostility towards the Iranian nation changed? Where are its signs? Have you unblocked the assets of the Iranian nation? Have you lifted the oppressive sanctions? Have you given up your mudslinging and making accusations against this great nation and its popular officials? Have you stopped your unconditional support for Israel? What has changed? They give the slogan of change but we have seen nothing in practice. We have seen no change."
Again, harsh as fuck. Apparently not wanting to sell your soul (oil resources too, of course) is 'slapping down' attempts to 'reach out'. Yes, of course, we'll just set a few demands for Iran to be our allies, without any apology or even mention of what we've done to mess up the region in the last few decades. I mean, according to Obama, the Iran conflict is simply "serious differences that have grown over time." Nothing to do with violent overthrow of their elected government in 1953, support for a brutal dictator, and backing Iraq as it killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians. I mean, fuck, they took over the US Espionage Den in 1979. The destruction was mutual. But then again, rather than, I don't know, even mention any of this, Obama's just going around being paternalistic. Apparently, Iran's "rightful place in the community of nations...cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions." This said by the President of the US, who happens to not be especially peaceful himself. Perhaps he's dissing Iran, "Your rightful place in the community of nations is at our feet, Islamic dogs!"

I'd say that the only unreasonable thing Iran did was BUILD THEIR COUNTRY ON TOP OF OUR OIL, THE BASTARDS.

[Mike Morin]

OIL and they want to build a pipeline to fuel the Capitalist fuel gluttony.

[Mike Morin]

the smiling face of imperialism/capitalism - what do they want to buy[steal] from Iran?

OIL, silly, and they want to build a pipeline across and they want to convert Iran into an "emerging market". They want to extend credit (usury), they want Iran to be under the heels of the IMF and associates.

Although a great improvement in STYLE relative to Private George War Bushitler, and offering conciliation IF the Iranians accede to the Capitalist and US dominance, it seems disingenuous rather than blatant like O'bomber's predecessor.

It is a smooth talking continuation of American World Manifest Destiny (WMD) policy since the Capitalist/American overthrow of Moresaddiq. The Iranian Americans that he touts are most likely predominantly of the Capitalist class associated and sympathetic to the Shah and what he bent over for.

There was no apology by O'bombers for those past transgressions against the Iranian people and continued WMD policies. No cooperative overture to have different policy and actions based on changed intentions and principles.

He wants Iranians to mark their holidays, "gift giving", by maximizing shopping, spending, and borrowing, to "stimulate" dysfunctional and exploitative Capitalism.

Obama is patronizing and hypocritical when he speaks of Iranian leaders' lack of responsibility relative to "terror" and the allocation of armaments. Such should be obvious relative to Capitalist/American aggression in Palestine/Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

He's a great speaker, but does he have a mind of his own? Is his Imperialist complicity a function of his lack of courage or his lack of principles or his gullibility and lack of knowledge and understanding, or some combination of all those (and others).

[AvanteRedGarde]

He's a great speaker, but does he have a mind of his own? Is his Imperialist complicity a function of his lack of courage or his lack of principles or his gullibility and lack of knowledge and understanding, or some combination of all those (and others).

This is the kind of ideas we get divorced from class analysis. Obama is 'great,' for whom?

Moreover, Obama- more than an individual- fits a role within imperialism. His "complicity" (not sure if i'd even call it that) comes as part of his job description. What else would you seriously expect the U.S. president, Obama or otherwise, to do. Fundementally change class relation?

Its American imperialism, in multi-cultral wrapping, ever increasingly pushing itself onto marginally independent peoples.

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

This shouldn't be interpreted as a peaceful gesture to Iran. Obama has on numerous occasions supported an attack on Iran. Even Israel's President Shimon Peres sent his own Nowruz message.

Yes, but Peres didn't mention the "Islamic Republic" part nor offer any steps toward conciliation. Instead, he used the opportunity to call for Iranians to remove their government.

Anyway, Iran has taken up the US offer to attend US-led talks concerning Afghanistan, which is mutually productive since they hate the Taliban at least as much as Americans do. Seeing as the Iranian economy is in the shitter hopefully they will enter into conciliation with the US and war can be avoided.

Not that I want war if this doesn't happen but Israel is crazy and if they decide to bomb Iran's nuclear sites you're looking at regional war and closure of oil lines and we'd be involved immediately.


OIL, silly, and they want to build a pipeline across and they want to convert Iran into an "emerging market". :confused: Are you saying they're not an emerging market now?


WASHINGTON: US exports to Iran - including brassieres, bull semen, cosmetics and possibly even weapons - grew more than tenfold during US President George W Bush's years in office even as he accused Iran of nuclear ambitions and helping terrorists. America sent more cigarettes to Iran, at least $158 million worth under Bush, than any other products.

Other surprising shipments to Iran during the Bush administration: fur clothing, sculptures, perfume and musical instruments. Top states shipping goods to Iran include California, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, New Jersey, North Carolina, Ohio and Wisconsin, according to an analysis by AP of seven years of US government trade data.

Despite increasingly tough rhetoric toward Iran, which Bush has called part of an "axis of evil," US trade in a range of goods survives on-again, off-again sanctions originally imposed nearly three decades ago. The rules allow sales of agricultural commodities, medicine and a few other categories of goods. The exemptions are designed to help Iranian families even as the United States pressures Iran's leaders.Just sayin.

http://www.kuwaittimes.net/read_news.php?newsid=MTM0MTI5MDQ5OA==


It is a smooth talking continuation of American World Manifest Destiny (WMD) policy since the Capitalist/American overthrow of Moresaddiq. The Iranian Americans that he touts are most likely predominantly of the Capitalist class associated and sympathetic to the Shah and what he bent over for.Yes, many Iranian immigrants are wealthy (like a lot of other immigrants), but you're pretending if you don't think many visit Iran regularly and keep in contact with family there. Though, yes, many enjoy not wearing any head gear and not getting beaten up for it.

I find your dualism a tad disturbing, to be honest.

[Mike Morin]

Seeing as the Iranian economy is in the shitter hopefully they will enter into conciliation with the US and war can be avoided.

Seeing that the USA economy is in the shitter, hopefully the people who live in what is known as the USA will enter into conciliation with the people of Iran, and the all others on the planet.


Mike Morin
www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com (http://www.peoplesequityunion.blogspot.com)

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

I don't think you can really compare the two.

Yes, America's (and the rest of the world's) economies are currently shrinking at an alarming rate. But Iran is largely dependent on a single commodity, the price of which has shrunk by nearly 70% since its peak last summer.

If we are having a hard time, I assure you that the developing world is feeling the pinch in a much more pronounced way.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Yeah, that's what Stiglitz said recently.

[The Author]

On the one hand, I thought Obama in this speech was trying to pander to the Iranian-American expatriate community here in the United States as a means of gaining more votes for re-election than for some kind of eye-to-eye relationship with Iran itself.

But then I came across these articles and have now come to the conclusion that the U.S. government wants to "bury the hatchet" with Iran to a degree in order to get the Iranians to do some of the dirty work of the imperialists in Afghanistan, and that Obama merely was speaking sweet words as a diplomatic gesture:


U.S. hopes to engage with Iran on Afghanistan Tuesday

Saturday, March 28 09:17 pm
Reuters

The United States hopes to "constructively engage" with Iran on issues related to Afghanistan at an international conference in The Hague on Tuesday, a senior White House official said on Saturday. Skip related content

Iran said on Thursday it would attend the U.N. conference, proposed by Washington, which will have delegates from more than 80 countries.

"It's our assessment and we believe it's theirs that there are issues as it relates to, for example, narcotics that present an opportunity for Iran to engage Afghanistan in a way that can address ... a concern that we also have about Afghanistan," White House deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough told a conference call with reporters, referring to Iran.

"Our hope is that they see it as an opportunity to constructively engage this issue," McDonough said.

The problem of heroin abuse in Iran could create an opportunity for cooperation on the issue, McDonough said.

"Obviously we all know that revenue from the poppy trade and the heroin trafficking funds extremists in the south, in particular," McDonough said. "And we'd like to see, given the not-insubstantial heroin abuse problem in Iran, some opportunity to cooperate with Iran on that issue."

McDonough also said Obama would discuss Iran during meetings with European leaders next week.

"We'll look forward to having a discussion in Europe and with our allies not just about cooperation with Iran in Afghanistan, but obviously underscoring the President's view that Iran has a right to be a member of the international community, but with that right comes responsibilities -- principally as it relates, in this instance, to its nuclear program," he said.

The United Nations has imposed sanctions on Iran for refusing to halt uranium enrichment. The United States and some other countries accuse Iran of seeking to build a nuclear weapon. Iran says its nuclear program aims to generate electricity.

(Reporting by Jeff Mason)

Iran at Afghan meeting a 'step forward': US envoy

Fri Mar 27, 7:51 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) – A top US envoy on Friday welcomed Iran's participation to next week's Afghanistan conference as a "step forward," saying Washington and Tehran share common interests.
"We believe that the Iranians and the United States have some common interests in strategic stability" in Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke told US public television network PBS.
"This conference is not an American conference, it's a UN conference. Sixty nations are coming and one of them is Iran. I think the United States feels that that's a step forward," said Holbrooke, a special envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan.
His comments came after President Barack Obama unveiled a new strategy on Afghanistan in which he proposed a new contact group that includes Iran.
Iran, which has not had diplomatic relations with the United States for nearly three decades, did not attend the last international conference on Afghanistan when George W. Bush was still US president.
Obama has reached out to Iran, sending an unprecedented video appeal last week for the Persian New Year in which he spoke of a "new beginning" between the two countries.
Despite their rivalry, the United States and Shiite-majority Iran are both sworn enemies of the Taliban, a Sunni Muslim militia initially backed by Pakistan that ruled Afghanistan from 1996 to 2001.