Skip Nav
Pregnancy
The 1 Simple Reason I Decided Not to Have Kids
Summer
18 of the Sexiest Movies You Can Watch on Netflix in July
Tech Tips
Creating Your Own Snapchat Wedding Filter Is So Much Easier and Cheaper Than You Think

Should the US Pursue a Diplomatic Surge Which Includes Iran?

Yesterday Senator Barack Obama called for a different kind of surge in Iraq. During the first day of hearings with General Patraeus, Obama said:

Nobody's asking for a precipitous withdrawal, but I do think that it has to be a measured but increased pressure; and a diplomatic surge that includes Iran. Because if Maliki can tolerate as normal neighbor-to-neighbor relations in Iran, then we should be talking to them as well. I do not believe we're going to be able to stabilize the position without them.

Obama's call for a more temperate approach toward Iran departs from the confrontational and apocalyptic rhetoric that has dominated the Iran narrative.

If the Iraqi government, one that is held up by US treasure and blood, can engage Iran, is it in the US interest to do so as well? By threatening Iran, the US may give the country an incentive to cause us trouble in Iraq and the Middle East in general.

Is it in the interest of the US to open even a minimal dialog with Iran? Or, does Iran's dangerous defiance make the idea of a diplomatic surge a non-starter?

Source

Join The Conversation
samantha999 samantha999 9 years
Well I just got proof people read and hear what the want. I did NOT say I support the war. I said we are stuck there and need to finish it. This is not something you can start and just walk away from. I sad it was a MISTAKE. I abhor the loss of life. The flagged draped coffins. But the fact remains we will be there for awhile. My guess is in the next 12 months there will be major changes in the players and please do not forget Afghanistan and the men and women there. As for SA they outlawed roses not red and just last week a father beat his daughter to death for being on face book (she was supposedly typing to a boy). They are Wahabbists and are the ones spending the money to build mosques and followers. As for Iran not being so religious that was the Shah (not the best guy but not he worst). When he was overthrown Iran went religious to the extreme. it is now slowly swinging back. Zeze whether you like it or not it has become us vs. them. It is western beliefs vs. Islamic fundamentalism. If the moderate muslims do not speak out against the fanatics they are condoning their actions. No one plans in silence. If you read what they write and listen to what they say you will hear it is Islam vs. all infidels. They put out a death warrant on all who speak out and can not handle even a cartoon drawing. Freedom of speech is a major player in the west not in Muslim society. Take the rose colored glasses off and read the news coming out of Egypt, Lebanon and Indonesia. Read, watch and cry for the women, for those brave enough to speak out and for their families who grieve their punishments or assassinations. bye for now
UnDave35 UnDave35 9 years
It's amazing what you miss when you spend the day in meetings. This has been a very electric.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
bailaoragaditana, I think you make a really GREAT point. When discussing talks with Iran, that doesn't mean Ahmedinejad necessarily. I have been learning more (but still not caught up) on Iran. Iran was more secular during the 90s, and that was largely due to Khamenei, right?
bailaoragaditana bailaoragaditana 9 years
Absolutely. But the real talking won't involve Ahmedinejad. I studied Iranian govt in HS and my best friend is half-Irooni, so I know altogether too much about this stuff... but it's the "Supreme Leader" - the Ayatollah - who controls everything. Ahmedinejad acn run his mouth all he wants, but unless Khamenei approves, nothing goes. But Khamenei is also rather more reasonable than the president, and he doesn't believe in doing recklessly stupid things. So offer the right incentives, and things could turn out quite well. (Also, a massive proportion of the Iranian population utterly despise the government and the morality crap. They just don't want to have to live another bloody war.)
zeze zeze 9 years
Who exactly is this "them"? Can you define who these people are, can you pull them out from the billion muslims in the world? And please don't say "radical Islam" because that basically means whoever we say it is and wherever we decide they are. If you think this administration and these wars are to protect our values and our religion (loving how you include everyone like you in the "we" by the way) then you are kidding yourself. The country with the most radicals and the most oppression and the most hatred towards "we" and "our values" is Saudi Arabia (you know the outlaw the color red on Valentine's Day) and yet little w takes walks in the park with them holing hands. "Them" by your definition of them is our biggest ally in the middle east. When will people wake up and stop believing and justifying everything they hear? When will people stop fooling themselves and see the greed and politics behind these wars. This isn't about values, it isn't even about religion, its about power and money! And until we, as Americans, as HUMAN BEINGS start demanding more than the bull answers the press secretary gives us we will get no where. I am not saying anyone is wrong, but I am saying we are being led around like sheep. People in Palestine and Israel are killing each other everyday while Bush, Abbas, and Israel's leaders relax in their mansions because people are buying into this carp we are always being fed about "us against them." The same schpeel you gave me about "them" coming to end our lifestyles and lives - "them" are getting from their media and leaders, tell me, what do you suggest, we put ear plugs on take out our guns and see who survives?
stephley stephley 9 years
I can't believe you can support a war while admitting you can't define what 'finish properly' means.
samantha999 samantha999 9 years
Look it was a major colossal MISTAKE to invade Iraq. I truly believe it from day one. But we are there and have to finish it. And yes weird lyrics aside it is us against them. When a priest is murdered (italy) or beaten while muslim youths yell your church should be mosque (in britain) or a mob of people try to burn down an embassy due to a cartoon it is western values vs. their values. When 200 people are blown up in Bali, when police officers are murdered in South Thailand, trains blown up in Madrid, Mumbai and Russia and finally buildings pulled down in technicolor before my own eyes it it us against them. I personally believe it is little w trying to finish what big W failed to do when he caved in to the Europeans. We went in without an exist plan and we are stuck until we finish properly. I do not know what that is yet so don't ask me what I mean by properly.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
The only criticism I have of the republican response to the democrats plan of withdrawal is that they insist on leading the public to believe that the democrats just want to pack up and leave with very choice exaggerated words and visa verse for the democrats. I know Joh McCane doesn't want to stay in Iraq for one hundred years and has no intention of doing so. Both sides need to tell it like it is and stop painting all of these disingenuous pictures of extremism on both sides. Like I said in another post I like Gen. Patraeus and I think he's doing a fine job. Waging war is not a commanding Gen. only responsibility. Accountability is the other.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
"That presumption is that our position on Iran not having nuclear weapons will some how change with diplomacy. Our stance will not change, however our stance will have the added measure of diplomacy and negotiation rather than rather than stale mate and escalation." Great point! :) "I'm going to be listening to the guy thats in the trenches day in and day out and actually knows what he's talking about." How can you rely on information that is coming from someone whose job depends on the Bush Administration? I just think of all of the faulty information that was fed to us and our leaders pre-invasion, and I think it is the duty of our representatives to question these sources and make sure we are getting accurate information. It is not wrong or insulting to ask for specific goals, to find out why only 4 of 18 benchmarks of the surge have been met, to find out what good our massive sacrifice is doing. "It is naive to think that as of right now that Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and other Arab nations will sit down and not blame us for their problems is wrong." I think it is niave to presume that staying in Iraq will help bring enlightenment to these countries. The questioning of many Democrats was rightly focused on "how has this war helped us" in regards to this region. The answer is that it has hurt us.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
So don't hate!
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
No I was addressing my own personal feelings while watching the hearing yesterday. :)
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Well if you're just going on about how you don't like Obama we already know that. I thought you were addressing the points of the article.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
Obama can pontificate all he wants and I'm sure he will, but at the end of the day, I'm going to be listening to the guy thats in the trenches day in and day out and actually knows what he's talking about.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
I absolutely did not say we should nullify what you presume to be a good idea. But I don't exactly appreciate some guy with no experience telling someone who has served this country honorably that he's not doing a good job because in his social circles this war isn't moving fast enough... The way some Democrats treated Petraeous was insulting. About 2/3 of what they said was trying to back him into a corner and gurantee a timetable for the troop withdrawal, which only goes to show the great lack of military knowledge that is present in many of today's Senators.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
This isn't a tea party and good manners although appreciated can sometime be dropped in the heat of passion but that should not be a hindrance to anything or any idea that will bring clarity and a definitive path to success.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
Well if you want to allow your sensitivities to nullify a good idea when so much is at stake cabaker27 that is outrageous.
hausfrau hausfrau 9 years
Its one thing to share advice, its another thing to come off as arrogant and elitist, which Obama does consistently and yesterday was no exception.
zeze zeze 9 years
"Both against us" --- yup, the "us against them" mentality is a great way to go about things in this day and age. Seriously? "both against us"!!!!! You remind me of the same logic the town's folk used to attack the beast in"Beauty and the Beast" and honestly it reminded me of that because this whole "kill them or they'll kill us" reaction people have is ridiculous enough that it should only exist in cartoons... haha, I found the lyrics, listen to this: Gaston:] The Beast will make off with your children. [Mob:] {gasp} [Gaston:] He'll come after them in the night. [Belle:] No! [Gaston:] We're not safe till his head is mounted on my wall! I say we kill the Beast! [Mob:] Kill him! [Man I:] We're not safe until he's dead [Man II:] He'll come stalking us at night [Woman:] Set to sacrifice our children to his monstrous appetite [Man III:] He'll wreak havoc on our village if we let him wander free [Gaston:] So it's time to take some action, boys It's time to follow me Through the mist Through the woods Through the darkness and the shadows It's a nightmare but it's one exciting ride Say a prayer Then we're there At the drawbridge of a castle And there's something truly terrible inside It's a beast He's got fangs Razor sharp ones Massive paws Killer claws for the feast Hear him roar See him foam But we're not coming home 'Til he's dead Good and dead Kill the Beast! [b][Gaston:] If you're not with us, you're against us![/b] Grab your sword Grab your bow Praise the Lord and here we go!
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
As for Sen. Obama or any other person non military sharing advice with someone who is military established. I don't see what difference it makes because if an idea is a good idea it shouldn't matter who's mouth it comes out of. This is part of the problem people are so concerned with posturing and saving face that what is really at stake suddenly becomes peripheral.
samantha999 samantha999 9 years
if someone laughing at a point is hurtful then so be it. It is naive to think that as of right now that Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Iraq and other Arab nations will sit down and not blame us for their problems is wrong. Islam is and I know this will hurt - still wet behind the ears. As far as written text it is the youngest and has yet to go through enlightenment. It tried in Spain over 100 years ago and they murdered them. A young girl was beaten to death last week for being on facebook in SA. And last time I check poison gas is a WMD. Ask the Iranians and the Kurds. An islamic scholar just wrote this week that until Islam stops blaming others for their problems and looks inward to see the problem is themselves, there will be no talking to them.
hypnoticmix hypnoticmix 9 years
For those of you who say we should not indulge Sen. Obama's point to begin diplomacy with Iran you are making a foolish presumption. That presumption is that our position on Iran not having nuclear weapons will some how change with diplomacy. Our stance will not change, however our stance will have the added measure of diplomacy and negotiation rather than rather than stale mate and escalation.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
I posted this on another thread, but it clarifies my stance: Until we acknowledge and engage the other interests that are working in the region, the only "discussion" that will be happening will be in the form of violence. The solution to Iraq will be political, not military. "Iraq" isn't even 100 years old, they have no patriotism to rally around. The only way we will stop the violence is to make the leaders of the different Iraqi factions want peace. The surge tries to stop the violence, but not the cause of the violence. If you only treat the symptoms and not the cause, there will never be resolution. These factions we are fighting against have an endless supply of "troops" from the entire middle eastern region. It isn't just one team against another, it is many groups coming in from many countries. The recent violence was one Shiite faction against another. They are fighting against many groups, and all of them will continue to pour endlessly into Iraq. The US military can't stop these small attacks made by individuals, it is too random. What the US CAN do, is get the faction leaders to call off their people. Peace will only be achieved when the militia leaders, who are guiding these forces and the violence, want their followers to stop.
stephley stephley 9 years
Geez, its a good thing we don't demonize our enemies or anything like that.
Jillness Jillness 9 years
Samantha, you do not need to make assumptions about my investments in the war. You have no idea. And "hahahahahaaa" says a lot about your tone. Saddam would rather have his country invaded and die than stop bragging about weapons that he didn't have. He was NOT a threat to the US when we invaded. I think that Saddam should have taught us the lesson that just because a man brags, doesn't mean it reflects reality. We lost lives, money, and security because we placed our bets on someone's machismo instead of facts.
mymellowman mymellowman 9 years
Liberty, I suppose my question is: How is the US talking to Iran essential for peace in the Middle East? (It always makes me think of being a young kid when I type or say "peace in the middle east" as if I'm some 10 year old who thinks he is way cooler than he is :) )
Undocumented Father Detained by ICE
Who Is Nabra Hassanen?
Barack Obama Facebook Post on Health Care Bill
Dani Mathers Convicted For Invasion of Privacy
From Our Partners
Latest Love
All the Latest From Ryan Reynolds