We were pleased to see another non-hysterical—and, therefore, sober and favorable—review of Going to Tehran; this one is by Philip Reboli published by Antiwar.com. We append it below. We encourage readers to leave comments both on this site and on Antiwar.com, see here.
The Case for Diplomacy with Iran
You might not assume it from the title of Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett’s book but as it suggests, the United States, through our elected representatives in Washington D.C., don’t need to like the Islamic Republic. The President, the Congress, and our diplomats don’t have to think that Iran is moral. The American people don’t even have to understand the machinations of Iran’s body politic. Our political leaders—especially the President—need only accept Iran’s government as legitimate, and therefore able to negotiate on behalf of the Iranian people.
There is no way to make a sober judgment about the future of U.S.-Iranian relations unless we see the current situation from the perspective of both parties. This is the most important insight gained from this book. Iranian leaders are not the caricatures that are common to the Iran experts on television and print. To elucidate this point the Leveretts make two bold—if not accurate—claims about the Islamic Republic and its leaders: the government of Iran is a rational actor and it is the legitimate government of Iran.
The authors begin the assessment of rationality by challenging the American reader to understand how the Islamic Republic assesses its national priorities—both internal and foreign. The answer is simple: what would America do. Iranian leaders shape their policies like any rational country would. “Material realities—geography, demographics, military and economic capabilities—play a large role. But softer factors—shared identities and aspirations, principled beliefs about right and wrong, subjective assessments of other states’ intentions—bear an influence as well.” The Leveretts explain that the Islamic Republic’s national security goals are shaped by foreign domination beginning in the 19th century. Curiously, they expend almost no ink reminding the reader of Iran’s former dynastic histories. After all, as Robert Baer, author and former CIA case officer stationed in the Middle East has said, there is a reason they call it the Persian Gulf. However, this minor detail does not affect the book in any way. In fact it reminds the reader that Iran’s government is remarkably modern, even by its own standards.
The rationality of the Iranian government is considered with regard to the all-important question of nuclear proliferation. The reader is reminded that three strategic considerations inform Tehran’s progress with low-enriched uranium. The first is that Iran could never equal the total numbers of nuclear weapons possessed by the United States or Israel. The second is that Iranian officials calculate that so long Iran does not cross the “red line” of weaponization the United States or Israel will not attack. Third, the only countries supportive of Iran’s nuclear program—Russia, China, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa—would end their political support. Moreover, Iranian officials know it is a strategically bad decision. Ali Asghar Soltanieh, Tehran’s IAEA ambassador, has said that it would be a ‘strategic mistake’ for Iran to build nuclear weapons, as it “cannot compete in terms of the numbers of warheads possessed by the nuclear-armed powers, so if it seeks to produce nuclear weapons, it will be in a disadvantageous position compared with these countries.” Sounds rational enough. The case for rationality is strengthened with the assessments of current and former Israeli statesmen. Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak has stated, “I don’t think the Iranians, even if they got the bomb, [would] drop it in the neighborhood. They fully understand what might follow. They are radical but not totally crazy. They have a quite sophisticated decision making process, and they understand reality” (emphasis added).
If the leaders in Tehran are making rational decisions in the best interest of the Iranian people but are not the legitimate governing body then the question of rationality is a moot point. The authors next remind the reader that the current government in Tehran is legitimate by its own and the Iranian people’s standards. This was most obvious in the Green Revolution after the 2009 elections.
On this point, the Leveretts point to two Western approaches to the Iranian Revolution and current political order that prevent Washington from accepting the government in Tehran as representative of the thoughts, intentions, and norms of Iranian people; in other words legitimate. First, the revolution is regressive and therefore unable to appreciate Western liberalization. In the other approach the Iranian revolution was “hijacked”, in the words of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. In the authors’ estimation both of these perspectives fail to appreciate that Iranians have chosen the current political order time and time again. From the original revolution in 1979 until the most recent national elections, Iranians have consistently reaffirmed the current form of government. Washington’s belief that the Islamic Republic cannot be legitimate until it adopts a secularized Western-style of governance is “deeply flawed [and] dangerously misleading as guides for policy making” (p. 152-154).
The 2009 election and the protests instigated by the defeated party through the Green movement are broken down into two parts: the polls showing that Ahmadinejad did indeed win and the rush of Western Iran-watchers that were quick to condemn the election results.
Making the case that the elections were free, fair, and representative of the views of Iranians the authors bring our attention to four polls conducted one month before the election to three months after the vote. Three of the polls were conducted by Western groups based out of the United States and Canada and one by the University of Tehran. According to these polls Ahmadinejad never trailed Mousavi.
In assessing the Green movement the authors ask the reader to suspend all prior notions regarding the movement’s organizers. How is it that so many protestors that were interviewed spoke English? How is it possible that the supposed backbone of the movement—Twitter—that attracted so much attention in the West was done in English and not Farsi? The answer is that the Green movement never was.
Western journalists worked primarily in North Tehran which was coincidently where Mousavi—the Green movement’s leader—had won the most support. It is no coincidence that foreign journalists would come in contact with English speaking youths declaring their desire for a secular democracy. The English language tweets were primarily coming from Western journalists unable or unwilling to make the distinction between a genuine social movement and disaffected youths living in their midst.
The Leveretts finish with an explanation of why American rapprochement with Iran is the only way to achieve our strategic goals in the Middle East. It would not be unheard of in American Politics for warming or relations between Washington and a foreign government whose interests are inimical to our own.
The parallels between the Islamic Republic and the People’s Republic of China are revealing in so much as how they can guide American policy makers. Iran is as critical to U.S. interests today as China was during the Cold War and the diplomatic overtures from Washington to each country have some similarities. For instance, as with Tehran, Washington decided that the PRC had to be delegitimized, isolated, and eliminated. And echoing the claim that the 1979 Iranian revolution had been hijacked, high level Washington policy makers asserted that the Chinese communists had “captured” an otherwise laudable revolutionary process. In a startling similarity between the Washington consensus on the PRC and the Islamic Republic, informed opinion believed the People’s Republic to be “fanatically ideological.”
Again the authors ask the reader to set aside these assumptions and view the current Iran question the same way the Nixon Administration did: strategically. In keeping with the notion that Washington needs to push a grand bargain with Tehran the authors remind us that President Nixon boldly shifted American policy regarding the PRC: we will regard our Communist adversaries [Nixon said] first and foremost as nations pursuing their own interests as they perceive these interests, just as we follow our own interests as we see them.
Only when there is this level of sober understanding regarding Iran—its government, its leaders, its citizens, its interests—can the United States, according to Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett, mend a relationship with a regionally important nation who needs us as much as we need them.
Very good review. The book is excellent.
Great account of Chavez by Tariq Ali;
“Two factors helped sustain my morale. The first was the support we retained throughout the country. I got fed up sitting in my office. So with one security guard and two comrades I drove out to listen to people and breathe better air. The response moved me greatly. A woman came up to me and said: ‘Chávez follow me, I want to show you something.’ I followed her into her tiny dwelling. Inside, her husband and children were waiting for the soup to be cooked. ‘Look at what I’m using for fuel, the back of our bed. Tomorrow I’ll burn the legs, the day after the table, then the chairs and doors. We will survive, but don’t give up now.’ On my way out the kids from the gangs came and shook hands. ‘We can live without beer. You make sure you screw these motherfuckers.’
http://niqnaq.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/im-afraid-i-missed-this-last-week-because-i-dont-normally-browse-counterpunch/
I was being told there was no jewish nor israeli lobby..right.
http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/03/15/iran-human-rights-investigation-should-be-renewed-ajc-tells-un/
Perhaps we should remember that not until the mid-1930s did the US put an ambassador in Moscow.
Totally absurd that the US embassy in Tehran has not been reopened.
fy says: (not fyi ???)
March 16, 2013 at 10:38 am
I deeply respect your views and I feel uncomfortable to again not being totally in agreement with you.
For more than 2 centuries westerners are trampling Muslims.
First in Northern Africa and Africa, then in ME.
Many Muslims states are at the bottom on the scale of sovereignty and power at world stage.
They are in a master-slave relationship with the west.
The palestinian issue is only the reminder of the true situation.
The palestinian issue is the symptom of the problem, not the cause of the problem.
Would the power balance between Muslims and Westerners be equalized the Palestinian issue would disappear overnight.
I have not had the chance to read the book yet.
However from the review published on this site as well as the numerous article from the Leveretts I still believe the Leveretts message is oriented to a wide public audience not necessarily familiar with foreign relations.
The message lack in depth strategic analysis to my liking.
Though I understand that they need their message to be sellable in order to be efficient and not be outright demonized and excluded.
As an example, US Policy makers do not care a whit about whatever is the legitimacy of the regime of whatever country.
Suffice to see how they support the worse reactionnary regimes in ME, or the coups they supported or planned in Latin America.
Legitimacy of a regime has never been for US policy makers. It is for the 99% consumption.
The Leveretts being former high ranking US officials and being foreign relations expert necessarily base their position on strategic calculus regarding US interests as for example enshrined into the Carter doctrine.
The Leveretts claim the current relation with Iran being detrimental to US interests but do not drill the subject concerning oil access and control or the petrodollar status.
They neither detail what are the conflicting interests, the alternate security framework or relation paradigm that would be acceptable by both sides and do not show how it would be profitable or less detrimental to US interests.
Major undelying geopolitical assumptions are taken by the Leveretts but not clearly explained.
It would be truly great if they could provide at least some indication.
Maybe it is already the case but I have to confess that I am not smart enough to get it.
I will read the book and try to find out !
CIA begins sizing up Islamic extremists in Syria for drone strikes
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/middleeast/la-fg-cia-syria-20130316,0,3989647.story
And HERE is how the US will get itself directly involved in Syria!
Even I didn’t imagine that would be the approach – although I DID predict that one of the “justifications” for a foreign military intervention would be something along the lines of “we have to fight them over there so we don’t have to fight them here” a la the same nonsense spouted when the Iraq insurgency started.
HOW is the CIA going to send drones into Syria’s air defense network? With Assad’s PERMISSION? Seriously?
The OBVIOUS purpose of this is to bring the CIA into direct conflict with the Syrian military and then of course escalate to full fledged foreign military intervention.
A very good book review.
nico says:
March 16, 2013 at 3:21 pm
The Western polities were not sleep at the wheel for 1200 years.
The rest of the world was.
So the Western people, over many many generations, harvested the fruits of their collective labors.
Muslims chose to be in an inferior position collectively and for over a millennia.
Nobody put a gun to their head telling them to remain mired in poverty, ignorance, squalor etc.
Muslims were not alone in this: Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese, Koreans were all wallowing in the same historical dead-end.
All of these are self-inflicted wounds and the responsibility lies with Muslim political and intellectual and religious leaders.
In Palestine there are two issues: the displaced Arabs and the control over Al Haram Al Sharif. The War in and for Palestine will not end until the political control of Muslims over Al Haram Al Sharif is restored.
Not really a wise move by Iran to let UK in. Which have of course no interest in reapproachment with Iran but to get a foot in and meddle in iranian affairs.
http://presstv.com/detail/2013/03/17/294031/iran-uk-talk-resuming-consular-ties/
Same UK that also recently urged arming of anti-assad/iran terrorists in Syria.
Billay Kenber, writing in The Times (London) recently, quoted David Miliband (former Foreign Secretary of UK): George W. Bush’s election as President of the US was “the worst thing ever to happen to Tony Blair”.
Nico,
High oil prices are pouring fabulous amounts of money into the Middle Eastern countries with oil and gas. Isn’t this wealth a source of power? Obviously it is.
How do you think it should be employed, to resolve Israel/Palestine problem?
Further proof of the US using terrorism branding as a political tool to avance their incidental interests.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/15/the-new-generation-of-hypocrisy-on-iran/
“The bill passed both houses and was signed into law by Obama on December 28.According to Alex Main of the Center for Economic and Policy Research, the US government has produced no evidence for these claims. Despite the lack of evidence, Iran’s terrorist presence in our hemisphere is now official.”
In such condition, what is the credibility of official 9/11 storyline of Afghanistan being attacked because of 9/11?
” But secondly, and more brazen, is the hypocrisy of the U.S. accusing Iran of terrorism in Latin America. How hypocritical is that accusation? Just check the living memory of virtually any country in Latin America. Ask Guatemalans about the coup that took out Jacobo Arbenz. Or ask Brazilians about the one that removed Goulart from power. Ask the Guyanese about Cheddi Jagan, or the Cubans about the attempts on Castro’s life. Ask Chileans about Salvador Allende, or Panamanians about Manuel Noriega. Ask the mourning Venezuelans about the attempted 2002 coup of Hugo Chavez. Most recently, listen to the people of Honduras and Haiti and Paraguay. Ask many of these people too about the death squads and reigns of terror that followed the American coups.”
And that is for the US respect toward government, no matter whether democratically legitimate or not.
This proves without doubt that the US claim to defend democracy abroad is laughable lie.
Thus what is the whole point to defend before the US public audience whether the Iranians want a republic islamic or not?
The entire US history before, during or after communism, shows that legitimacy is not the point.
The US had the occasion to change behaviour and prove that justice and democracy meant something for them.
It was after the fall of the soviet union.
They miserably failed the litmus test.
There is nothing as democracy, justice or value to discuss with the US. They respect none as foreign policy matter.
The only subject to discuss is conflicting or shared interests and how for each party to move toward their goals depending on the balance of power.
Might makes right and the weakest shall suffer the most.
The Times (London) leader March 5, 2013: “Iran and the Bomb”. Quote: “No one disputes Iran’s right to a civil nuclear programme.”
Obama, Netanyahu agree on Iran − but not on timing
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/obama-netanyahu-agree-on-iran-but-not-on-timing-1.509795
Quotes
Senior American and Israeli officials involved in preparations for the visit said the differences between Washington and Jerusalem over the Iranian nuclear program have narrowed. They have reiterated over the past few days that Obama is undergoing a maturation process regarding the possibility that diplomatic efforts aimed at Iran could fail, and he might have to order a strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. According to American officials, the senior U.S. military brass is undergoing a similar process.
Proof that the parties are moving closer could be seen in the Channel 2 interview: Obama used the term “red line,” which Netanyahu is so fond of, although he placed it farther off than the prime minister does. Obama also began defining the Iranian threat as attaining “nuclear capability,” not just attaining its first nuclear bomb.
Obama also made clear that the military option exists, although he preferred not to use it. He said the decision to attack or not was his and his alone, and that Secretary of State John Kerry and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel − whose dovish positions toward Iran have Netanyahu and his associates worried − agree with him on the Iranian issue.
Where does disagreement still lie? On the key matter of timetables. While Netanyahu has set the deadline for a decision on attacking Iran between April and July, senior American officials have been talking over the past few weeks about the need to decide by the end of 2013. But in Thursday’s interview Obama set an even more distant deadline, saying Iran needs at least a year to attain a nuclear weapon.
End Quotes
Yeah, that really sounds like Obama is preparing for a diplomatic resolution…NOT.
Instead, it agrees with my timetable that says the US and Israel have to deal with Syria and Lebanon first this year before attacking Iran in 2014 or later.
Karl.. says:
March 17, 2013 at 12:44 pm
The availability of consular services in UK will help Iranian nationals who are living there.
fy
And you really think that is the reason why UK want a foothold in Iran? Of course not.
US Mil deploys baby sitters for their drones flying over Persian Gulf….
http://www.emptywheel.net/2013/03/15/us-drones-over-persian-gulf-now-have-escorts/
All:
US Policy and NPT
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-america-encourages-nuclear-proliferation-8231
All:
Mr. Goldman’s (an American Champion of Israel and therefore an enemy of Iran) observation about “Liberal Interventionists”
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/MID-02-180313.html
Karl.. says:
March 18, 2013 at 8:57 am
I think you are unaware the extent to which the work of embassies and consular offices consist of issuing visas, helping stranded nationals, and supporting businessmen and traders.
The lofty heights of strategy and global diplomacy constitutes a very small portion of the activities of the diplomatic apparatus of any state.
That is why the most boring parties in the world are those given by diplomats in foreign countries.
The next boring ones are the all-male Saudi Arabian parties – with alcohol being the essential ingredient.
Geoff Dyer and John Reed, writing in the Financial Times today (“Second shot, long shot”): “Yet Mr Obama now faces the possibility that Iran’s nuclear programme could reach a critical point this year or next, raising the prospect of a new war in the Middle East if he cannot forge a deal with Tehran to unwind its capacity to build nuclear arms.”
“The next boring ones are the all-male Saudi Arabian parties – with alcohol being the essential ingredient.”
Speaking of which…
Drunk Saudi Embassy staff kills Iranian driver, injures 1 in Tehran
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2013/03/18/294197/drunk-saudi-kills-driver-in-tehran/
fyi,
We shouldnt be fooled by any such cover.
fy says:
March 17, 2013 at 12:24 pm
That muslims countries are less powerfull than western countries is a fact.
That muslims countries deserve it subject to discussion.
First it could be argued that it is result of geopolitical game and that today situation is not only due to internal factors. Exogenous factors, as foreign schems and plots over the last 2 centuries, have also some influence.
Second it could argued that deserving or not is an opinion based on moral values. As such it is related to oneself set of values and is debatable.
It could be atheist as darwinism (deserve it) or western humanism (not deserve it)
Or it could be spiritual values as such thing as karma (deserve it) or catholic charity (not deserve it).
The “deserve it or not” debate is for philosopher or religious people.
I strive to have a rational position devoid of such opinion.
However one thing is clear : the US elites in power failed miserably, whatever is the way you look at it.
If they tried to advance their power on materialist or religious ground, well they only succeded in US being less dominant in the ME region.
If they tried to advance humanist values, atheist or spiritual , well doing so by killing more than 2 millions people over 2 decades in Irak and Afghanistan is disastrous track record.
Has anyone been held accountable ?
No.
That tells much about the health and degenerate state of US “democracy”
To be franck it is the same degenerate state when you look at the way the US and the western countries manage their economy.
When you delare banks to big to fail and reward bankruptcy by free public
Nico,
Consider that Germany is the strongest country in Europe today, despite having been smashed in the Second World War.
Discipline, organisation, etc etc etc explains a good deal.
nico says:
March 18, 2013 at 4:38 pm
I do not agree. Please consider:
When the late Nasser-al Din Shah came back from his first trip to Europe, he told the late Hadji Mirza Aghasi – his Chancellor – :”We will never catch up to the Europeans. You just keep the country tranquil while I am alive.”
This is to be contrasted with the Meiji Emperor and indeed the Japanese polity during the same period. Japan remains the only successful non-Western polity (including Russia) that has been very good at reforming her institutions without losing her unique culture.
The Korean and Chinese thinkers as well as Muslim ones quite willfully chose ignorance (of the world that Euro-Americans were making) over learning from barbarians and infidels.
The results have been clear for everyone to see.
That the Americans are harming other states in not an issue – that will always be the case in the international arena. The point is why are you – Iranians, Turks, Afghans, Chinese, are so weak that others are walking all over you.
All:
Why Axis Powers have to – absolutely have to – get a deal with Iran this year:
http://secureenergy.org/sites/default/files/SAFE_Decision_Point_Iran_Issue_Brief_March_2013.pdf
A lot is spelled out in the history of American society and its roots with respect to the effect neoconservatism has had on it. Mr. Leverett gives some information about it in his book. I’m sure a lot of the previous US president’s administration’s policies are a result of the influence of neoconservative predecessors and the influence they had on them. I don’t like to say this but it’s almost by default if you have grown up in America you are almost unable to avoid the neoconservative influence to some degree. It’s inside American culture like the small sand that falls between cobblestone cracks and its not coming out. As an American if you go against its tenents you are part of a subculture a sort of weirdo- there is some irony there. To me this neoconservative influence is a large degree the root behind america’s mess in the Middle East. The use of social media technology helps to negate this as long as we are willing to be open minded and have a thirst for learning and learning the truth. Maybe I’m a less than average American – everyday I’m shocked about what happens here.
fyi says:
March 18, 2013 at 10:13 am
Thanks for the link, fyi.
Compared to Ambassador Richard Butler’s overview of the strengths and weakness of NPT, delivered at Penn State Symposium (see here: http://mediasite.dsl.psu.edu/Mediasite/Play/b5235dd4169346f98923ff19025b73e21d
Butler’s talk begins around 30 min. )
Butler addressed “the negotiating history” of NPT that “starts with discrimination between states that are nuclear haves and have nots, around the core of a “grand bargain,” which has been betrayed, the betrayals leading to “disaster.”
“Almost from the beginning,” Butler said, “it has been increasingly misrepresented and misdescribed, principally by the nuclear weapons states.” Those states insist that the NPT is about “keeping others from getting the bomb,” which advantages them, because they have the bomb.
Butler was particularly outraged at a comment by George W. Bush, who said that “the reason why Iran may not have nuclear weapons; must not be allowed to have nuclear weapons is, and here I quote, “because of the kind of people they are.” ”
Tod Galen Carpenter’s article is okay/leftovers again.
http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/how-america-encourages-nuclear-proliferation-8231
Every American should read this. None of this had to happen – the only axis of evil is the one that created casualties of war like these – innocent children. If The US starts a war with Iran ill immigrate somewhere else.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/17/world/meast/iraq-damon/index.html
First a bit of entertainment…
NPR and PBS have diligently put together educational and investigative programs on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq war. The glaring (and innocent) omission appears to be the program that reminds the American people how the Media, including PBS, NPR, CNN, NYT and all these liberal outlets help sell the war. Funny how the camera never points inward.
CNN producer Alexander Mooney, not to be left without an attaboy star for the new campaign of propaganda, has a piece on his blog claiming that President Obama’s New year Message to Iranians asked Iran to “disarm”. Well, ignoring for the moment the irrelevancy of the oratory, Mr. Obama said no such thing in his message. Mr. Mooney, known for his excellent impersonations of Goebbles (just kidding), killed many birds with one stone. He accused Iran of having a nuclear weapon (disarm), and made Mr. Obama look real tough ahead of his trip (told). Write to CNN and thank them for hiring such creative professionals.
Speaking of propaganda and war and beyond entertainment, for those of you who occasionally contemplate the thought of an impending war with Iran, you should know that none of the war calculus has changed significantly since the last major (and minor) assessment. It is the overall assessment of the US military that a war at this juncture will not meet the objectives of its proponents.
One may accept the proposition that there will be a war with Iran — sometime in the future. I may not be alive to see this war or test the validity of this proposition, but so long as the time horizon is indefinite the proposition can be supported without the danger of being tested. However, as the calculus of war, imperialist or otherwise, is to gain “something” for “some group”, and given that such a “gain” does not currently enjoy reasonable odds (including for the rich elite), the time horizon shall remain indefinite.
So, Happy New Persian Year!
fy says:
March 18, 2013 at 7:44 pm
You only answered the first sentence of my post, the easy one.
And yes, I already understood that you are following a materialist/darwinist moral and school of thought.
The less evoluate and adapted to its environment shall desappear in order for humanity to continue its rightfull evolution.
Good for you. I have no intention to argue about it.
Speaking of darwinism, I take the opportunity to finish my last post :
To be franck it is the same degenerate state when you look at the way the western countries are managing their economy.
You have banks commiting frauds or being badly managed and bankurupt with the only result to be rewarded with free public funding. (do you see here the darwinist problem ?)
Has anyone been held accountable ?
No
A nice illustration : Elizabeth Warren Smacks Down Wall Street Bankers (not quite so yet)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQo9W7sRbKQ
Again a nice illustration :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4i8Nyb5MDRA
Could it be a test on a small UE member to evaluate people reaction and the economic consequences. If it is a success it could be extended to other UE countries.
Again whatever the angle you look at it spells failure and degeneration.
That is bad omen for western countries and people.
There definitly will be no happy ending and it will finish with tears and maybe if truly mismanaged with blood.
Mister 20%
What is your point ?
As usual you are not direct and what you imply does not smell good.
nico says:
March 19, 2013 at 1:38 am
Evidently you wish to avoid facing the world.
You ask about “Banks”; an institution that was invented 2000 years ago to facilitate economic life of human beings.
The fault is not in human inventions, it is in humans themselves.
The world will always be in this state of affairs since men are in the State of Fall.
Until God wills otherwise.
http://news.antiwar.com/2013/03/19/no-progress-in-latest-round-of-iran-talks/
There will be no relief on main sanctions without grand bargain, Iran surrender or west defeat.
Fyi,
I think I made my point clear and I do not see how your remarks is related to anything I wrote.
If your point is that the financial crisis was inevitable as such crisis are cyclic. Well maybe.
That being said I live in my time and in real world not in some theorized 2000 years history.
Do you believe the financial crisis and the banking regulation are well managed and bankers rewarded with free public funding is good thing ?
Do you think the various QE provide a sustainable way to manage the crisis ?
We are in the most gigantic bubble that ever existed and the current policies and specifically the US ones are still inflating it.
I share the opinion that the more the current recipes are used, the more the economic adjustment will be violent and bloody.
The question is not whether it will happen, but when, and how violent.
We are in a current war between world powers.
The main factor still allowing the US to pursue this suicidal policy is the petrodollar status.
That where Iran as role to plan as she is challenging the US dominance in the ME.
Obviously the grand bargain would need to adress such issue as the petrodollar.
Anyhow, an agreement between Iran and the US to preserve the petrodollar status could only kick the can own the road a few more years.
The economic unbalance is to strong with the derivatives bubble, the assets bubble, the bond bubble, the currency bubble…
Following last post.
Economic crisis are common things.
US elites mismanagment of the crisis is criminal.
They should have regulated it and deflated it slowly to achieve a soft landing.
The UE was suicidal for 20 years but strive to jugulate it with austerity measures.
The US are amplifiying the unbalance and they keep digging the hole.
My take is that the 2008 crisis was the small one, the bing one is still ahead.
How soon is the question.