Quote Originally Posted by Hanna
Mischa ---- I am really curious:

What would you and your friends like to happen, politically in Iran?
This question to Misha makes me nervious. Hanna don't we know that Internet is not such a secure or safe place?

This is a great book: http://www.amazon.com/Reset-Iran-Turkey ... 0805091270

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMex7rgHSVc

Yesterday Stephen Kinzer was on Charlie Rose: http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11110

http://www.charlierose.com/view/intervi ... #frame_top

"...
STEPHEN KINZER: First of all I approach it with this idea that we need some new thinking. Second, I believe part of that has to be more cooperative relationships with our friends this that region.

Then you get to the question, who would they be? Who are the logical partners for the U.S. not over next week and next month but over decades in the Middle East?

I think Turkey and Iran are logical long-term partners in the Muslim Middle East for two reasons. I think when you’re looking for partners you’re looking for countries that fulfill two criteria. One is you want countries whose long-term strategic goals are somewhat similar to your own.

But it’s not good enough to just have relations between governments and ruling elites. The peoples of nations have to be involved if you want relations to be stable. And therefore, the other thing you look for is a
partner is a country that has a society something like yours.

Now, I’ve been to Saudi Arabia while I was researching this book. Saudi Arabian society is nothing like our society. Women are not allowed to drive and dating is illegal.

CHARLIE ROSE: That may be changing.

STEPHEN KINZER: Absolute monarchy.

CHARLIE ROSE: Some of that is changing.

STEPHEN KINZER: Now, Turkey is a pretty easy sell despite recent problems as a long-term partner for the U.S. Iran is a little bit more counterintuitive because of everything we’ve been told.

But if you leave your emotions and stereotypes outside the room and shape your foreign policy according to what I think should be our basis which is what’s good for us --

CHARLIE ROSE: OK, but take a look at Iran. They are standing in the way of some kind of settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. That is not in our interest. It is in our national security interest, General Petraeus and everybody else has said, to see that issue settled. Iran doesn’t want to see it settled, and it is supporting other people who have a stake in the game, Hamas being one.

STEPHEN KINZER: It’s not only that. Iran is interfering --

CHARLIE ROSE: Providing them weapons and everything else.

STEPHEN KINZER: -- Iran’s interference in other places, in Lebanon, in Iraq.

CHARLIE ROSE: Hezbollah, exactly. Therefore, what are you suggesting that the United States ought to do about those issues so that Iran does not practice those policies?

STEPHEN KINZER: When you hook at a map of the Middle East, the first thing that jumps out at you is Iran is the big country right in the middle.

CHARLIE ROSE: Look at its neighbors and what borders it has and you quickly get how important it is.

STEPHEN KINZER: Exactly. So we are seeing by the mischief that Iran is perpetrating in that region how destabilizing it can be. But there’s a flip side to that, which is that if Iran felt it was in its interest, Iran could help resolve those problems.

CHARLIE ROSE: That is my question, though. How do you make it in Iran’s interest? How do we make that case? And why isn’t Iran responsive whatever case we may be making? The president says he wants to engage with Iran.

STEPHEN KINZER: He does. But actually the policy toward Iran has not really changed that much from the last year --

CHARLIE ROSE: What’s wrong with a policy towards Iran that says don’t, don’t develop a nuclear weapon or a nuclear weapon capability?

STEPHEN KINZER: That’s a goal that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. I share that goal. I’m terrified of that.

CHARLIE ROSE: That’s what the administration’s policy is about.

STEPHEN KINZER: Because it’s not getting us to the result. We’ve had five years of not negotiating with Iran. In those five years the centrifuges have increased tenfold.

CHARLIE ROSE: Agreed. But that’s because when they make agreements, those agreements are not being adhered to and there are all kinds of programs that are taking place that are secretive.

STEPHEN KINZER: You’re right. The lack of transparency in the Iranian nuclear program is the key problem. Meanwhile at the same time they’re testing ballistic missiles. This is very disturbing if not terrifying.

CHARLIE ROSE: What policy could have gotten them not to do that?

STEPHEN KINZER: I still think that the option we have never tried is to say to Iran what we said to China in the 1970s. I’ve gone back to read that Shanghai communique. That was the first document we signed with China. And that was a brilliant idea for how to start a relationship with a country that’s been out in the cold for a long time.

It doesn’t contain any agreements. That came later. All it is, is three sections. The first section was written by the Chinese side, everything we don’t like about America and what America does. Second side we wrote it, what we don’t like about China. And the third section just says we agree to negotiate on all these issues.

If we go to Iran and say we only want to negotiate on the nuclear issue, there’s no incentive for Iran to do that. If we open up the agenda maybe there is a chance.

CHARLIE ROSE: Why do you think the agenda has not been opened up?

STEPHEN KINZER: First of all, I don’t think we have gotten to the point where we recognize Iran’s importance.

CHARLIE ROSE: The president said that in his statements.

STEPHEN KINZER: Yes, his policies are not reflecting the fact that none of our strategic goals in the Middle East can be achieved without Iran or over Iran’s objections.

CHARLIE ROSE: I think the administration does recognize it needs to have, or it will be well served by a positive relationship with Iran, because it wants Iran to stop doing the things it’s doing. ..."