Home | About | Donate

Why Iran Won't Capitulate


Why Iran Won't Capitulate

Trita Parsi, Reza Marashi

Part of the reason why opponents to a nuclear deal with Iran are so bewildered by President Barack Obama's diplomacy is because their belief that Iran can be forced to capitulate. They adhere to a George W. Bush administration-era argument: If the U.S. only were to ramp up pressure, it can dictate the terms of the deal instead of having to agree to a compromise.

Nothing could be further from the truth.


The arguments offered by these two writers have no logic behind concerning neither political nor economical. Perhaps to remember that Iran is a signatory to NPT and openly promised against building A-bomb which most Western nations have distorted limitlessly creating fear and suspicion. There are lobbyists in the US who purposely wants this nation to be involved in a perprtual war in the middle east. That way the importance of Israel and Saudi Arabia and gulf monarchies are maintained. Just look around the situation in Middle East and north African nations. Everywhere US is actively involved in war, now, who is paying for it? The internal fiscal situation is getting worse and worse. If it continues for few more years then this two party oligrachy will be forever lost. The aging politicians of this country only knows to dominate by sword and they couldn’t comprehend the idea that the panet has been changed. To establish a real peace order permanently, the US needs Iran, a strong indepndent nation and not a dictatorial or monarchial regime which is good for future business and economy.


A regime is a government. An administration is an administrative arm of government.


Lets remember which country originally gave Iran nuclear technology. The USA, under its “Atoms for Peace” program (another misnomer). This after the CIA (admitted by the US gov’t) overthrew the ELECTED gov’t and installed the murderous Shah (who wasn’t really a shah until the US helped him assume the label).

So, much like the chemical WMD’s the Powell lied to the UN that Iraq had (because the US sold some of those weapons TO Iraq to use against… IRAN), the weapons hoopla over Iran’s nuc industry is probably because the US intended Iran under the Shah to counter Israel’s nuclear intentions. Obama just has to open his desk drawer to see the receipts for the nuclear tech the US sold Iran.


Language is an extremely powerful tool to persuade people unwittingly towards a particular point of view. “Regime” in most English usage has a connotation of questionable legitimacy or outright illegitimacy (cf the use of “regime change” repeatedly by the Bush administration prior to the US invasion of Iraq. This primed the US population to accept the view the Iraqi government was an illegitimate one and so reduced any moral/ethic/legal concerns folks might have had about the invasion. British ex-PM Blair said when confronted with the illegitimacy of the invasion and no WMD were found, something like “Well, it doesn’t change anything because we got rid of that regime”). In U.S. usage, “administration” usually refers to government but with some connotation of transiency of the personnel involved because of the regular electoral cycle. So, we talk of “this administration” and that usually implies the executive branch that represents the results of the previous election.


There is misinformation in this article. For good background on Iran, please refer to the book “Going to Tehran” by Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett which I just finished reading. This book opened my eyes. For example, they demonstrated that the 2009 elections were not fraudulent as claimed in this article: four legitimate polls showed otherwise. Also, there is more support for the government than is claimed. This shows you that you can’t always depend on what you read on the internet or in print either. One must read several sources to get at the truth.