Home | About | Donate

The Real Problem of 'Getting to Yes' with Iran


#1

The Real Problem of 'Getting to Yes' with Iran

Gareth Porter
Talking to reporters Monday, President Obama asked rhetorically, “[D]oes Iran have the political will and desire to get a deal done?” Iran “should be able to get to yes,” Obama said. “But we don’t know if that is going to happen. They have their hard-liners, they have their politics….”

The idea that Iranian agreement to US negotiating demands is being held back by “politics” is a familiar theme in US public pronouncements on these negotiations.


#2

Gareth Porter misses the point; The U.S. never wants to establish a long term peace with Iran in the first place! The absence of negotiations... even diplomatic channels for that matter, is by design. Keeping Iranian oil off the market is the primary concern of the U.S. unless of course that Iran allows U.S. oil companies to decide when and how Iranian oil is moved. It is corporate fundamentalism versus a weaker country that has been screwed time and again by these same corporate sociopaths. Until we can replace the corporate fundamentalists in D.C. with politicians who place the public interest first, there will be no peace with Iran or anyone else that corporate America deems 'uncooperative'.


#3

Mr. Porter, a very simple explanation of US international negotiating strategy, #1 Give us everything that we demand! #2 After you give us everything that we demand, then and only then, will we demand the first born male child of every Iranian family! #3 After Iran submits to the first two demands do we attack them and remove their elected government, rape the country of all it's natural resources and then install a US bootlicking dictator to run the country in complete compliance to US Foreign Policy!

Foot Notes: See Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine. The US does not negotiate with civilized nations, we destroy them!


#4

Both Space Cadet and Z54 use frames, for Space Cadet, it's "The U.S." and for Z54 it's "we," and both either unconsciously or for propagandistic purposes equate what's done by a small body of elite figures with the will of the entire nation (and citizenry).

When studies show that Big Money runs it, and so much in the way of foreign policy (and increasingly, domestic as well) is done behind closed doors, then the will of the governed is a side-show and afterthought at most. It has NOTHING to do with what is being enacted.

Those who identify with the WE that makes war are probably IN the Armed Forces. YOUR norm is not mine, and it does not speak for at least half of Americans. The numbers would be FAR higher were our media and presses not Occupied by the MIC and its PR tentacles. They use fear, mass trauma, lockstep media pundits marching to the tunes they drumbeat, and altogether work covertly to manufacture consent on the basis of mostly false (or fixed) information.

When an individual goes ape-shit and shoots down people in a post office, church, or movie theater, the blame does not fall upon the entire community.

This is typically the juncture where someone will use the tattered argument that "we" voted for these brutes. They also (in running parallel to the types of news frames that Robert Parry so thoroughly plucks apart) refuse to broaden their frames to include the costs of today's elections, who funds them, and what that means; or that media, itself Captured by corporate behemoths, has a lot of influence over who gets air or face time: a necessity (for winning office) in a Celebrity Culture.

Simplistic yes or no, good guy or bad guy, white hat or black hat, with us or against us frames purposely inhibit honest discussions of all contributing factors and influences. THAT type of "argument" if not part of a targeted propaganda campaign sure manages to mirror its modus operandi.


#5

The clearest illustrations of this warped US understanding of the negotiations is a long essay last month by former US proliferation official Robert Einhorn. Analysing the reason for the failure of the talks to date, he blames “deep divisions within the Iranian elite,” and specifically the position of the supreme leader.

Einhorn (German for "unicorn") as a family name seems to be principally an Ashkenazic Jewish one. Is that significant for the situation?