Obama's Feeler for Peace between Iran and the U.S.

I never said anything about his conversion.

Politically he may be aligned with christianity but his shia roots does have influence over him.......

Infact, the Samskara (as we hindus call it) laid in the childhood days have very strong influences on the sub-conscious.

laddu: i hear obama is a convert to islam. he was originally a hindu, but when babar invaded india he became muslim. isnt that outrageous?

I feel Obama's Shia roots are guiding his foreign policy towards Iran.

Sunni Pakistan should now be ware!!!

jeb main hanuman aur bagal meing churri

Gill you back? and lo and behold you produce another master-junk piece. Now this should get me banned for sure, since you're on the chowk "board of directors".

The fact is that Obama's message was cheap, it was insulting with insinuation that Iranians are terrorist thugs and that they should submit to their righful lowly position in the world order. It should have been rejected outright. There was no acknowledgment of US BS in its barbaric dealings with Iran nor of the hypocrisy involved in Iran/Contra on both sides. Now, the purpose of this "diplomacy" is merely to buy time and legitimize their upcoming invasion of Iran after taking over the Quetta region. So the "Tom and Jerry" game continues, where will Al Qaeda hop to next, wherever the Americans want to establish their footprint. It is an age old story that we are seeing a replay of.

TNITC masadi

Obama is doing exactly as expected. And Iran as well. Iran's mullah multi-millionaires have only one aim - to preserve their lifestyle and power. They know that the ONLY way to ensure this is to have the BOMB. So they will use every trick in the book to delay any real negotiations with the West on this issue. They are simply stalling for time, while they feverishly work on the nuclear program in secret. Bush's and the neo-cons' plan from the beginning was to prevent Iran from getting the BOMB. Because this would take away much of their control over the middle-east. But the bad press from the Iraq war messed everything up for them. They could not even okay a last-ditch request from Israel to have a go at Iran's nuclear facilities - Bush was THAT unpopular.

Obama, on the other hand, had won the election by explaining to the American public that it was bad America that was preventing Iran from entering into a non-proliferation deal. Now that he represents "good" values, he HAS to prove that his theory was right. So in spite of direct slaps to his face by Ahmedinejad, he is persisting with his ingratiating tone. He figures that at the end, Iran will start feeling the pressure from the rest of the world for denying such a grovelling advance from the US. But he figures wrong. The Mullahs understand the logic of power. The Bomb will let them cling on to power and keep strangling democracy for the foreseeable future. And that's all they want. So the dance will go on. Obama with his "peace" offensive, and Ahmedinejad effectively slapping him in the face repeatedly.

The results of this will be significant. First, the mullahs will announce the arrival of their Bomb with a test explosion that will decrease Obama's popularity by many percentage points. Second, the red-faced American left who were insisting that the Mullahs are really peace-doves with beards will disappear from the television screens. Third, the right will re-emerge with a vengeance. There will certainly be a new dynamic in the oil market, with US influence diminishing rapidly. Obama will be under intense pressure to show the results of his "green" policies. Because a few years is not sufficient to show ANY appreciable impact on decrease in oil consumption, he will have little to show. America will move even further to the right. Americans like driving their cars. They will forget their high-falutin ideals double-quick when they find they have to pay 10 dollars a gallon at the pump. Once again, the West will launch a war to take by force what other people possess - "it's OUR oil, under THEIR soil" - as it always has, through history. Tahmed would take a long leave of absence from explaining about superior Western morals and values at Chowk.

And the wheel of history would turn again.

"Although the U.S. and Israel have vowed to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power at all costs, it is becoming more and more improbable for them to bomb Iran out of existence.'

You are slightly confused, it was Iran that had threatened to bomb Israel out of existence, not the other way around. No comment on this?

Our Iranian friends appear to have contracted (probably through exposure to those Pakistani friends of ours) the disease of very grudgingly acknowledging the obvious (after denying it a thousand times) under the illusion that it somehow improves their negotiating position when, in reality, it only weakens it by making them appear like chumps!

Obama's address to Iran was anything but concilliatory; au contrair it was quite brazenly insulting. People must understand that Obama is nothing but a black Bush who happens to be relatively eloquent. The thing is that the Christian-Zionist religious nuts the puppetmasters of Bush have put some irreversuble processes in place. Reversing one of these process would mean the collapse of American Empire just like its european colonial predecessors. Americans need a Charles DeGaul or Churchill who could salvage whatever they can - if A US president wont do it then nature will take its course - America's financial bankruptcy is an inevitability that only a miracle can overturn. The moral bankruptcy is always the first to happen. And that has already happen in the last 9 years when Christian-zionist religious nuts flown plane into their own buildings.

Those hoping to hear a conciliatory statement from US should give up because it wont be happening.
The feelers are actually peelers that are meant to remove the skin of and reach deeper into the flesh by removing the peel.

Anything and everything US acts about is in the National & national security interest of the nation and rightfully so, those who have bargained and compromised the interest of their nations do not deserve to be dignified by the history of their nations. Even though they may not have committed acts of treason as defined by the laws of those nations however such acts are in itself an act of treason where the leadership of a country bargains and/or compromises the fate of their people for personal and/or short term gains.

“the message itself was of great historical importance in the last 30 years. President Bush as other presidents also had refused to talk to Iran without preconditions.�

I don’t know why his statement is of great historical importance. President Bush on several occasions used somewhat similar language to address Iran. The last time it was on VOA in 2006.
Does President Obama offers any meaningful change? His statement does not make that case.

John Whitbeck has a good article on the issue at counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/whitbeck03202009.html
He writes: “One may well agree that improving relations between the two countries "will not be advanced by threats", but who has has been threatening whom? Has Iran been threatening a "preventive" (i.e., unprovoked and aggressive) attack on the United States? Has Iran been insisting that "military action" remains "on the table" if the United States does not bow to Iranian demands?�

More questions should be asked to judge the sincerity in Obama’s statement. His FS is a person who during her election campaign “promised to obliterate Iran�.

Mr. Obama appointed Dennis Ross as his Iran advisor. As John Whitbeck points out in his article “Dennis Ross, recently named as Hillary Clinton's special advisor for Iran, is publicly on the record as favoring a brief but visibly intensified "diplomatic" effort to convince Iran to bow to Israeli/American demands -- which would, inevitably and necessarily, be unsuccessful -- before proceeding on to the attack on Iran which he deems essential to protect Israel's security interests.�

Mr. Obama has no realistic chance of improving relations with Iran at least in his first term. He is wedded to the Israel firster lobby and his statement is geared more towards the domestic audience and not to open any new diplomatic avenue with Iran.

The point of the speech pretty much was: "Well, gosh, we did try peaceful means first, after all".

Lets also not discount Shimon Peres the President of Israel’s insulting message to Iran (published in NYT the same day as Mr. Obama’s statement). Sounds like good cop, bad cop strategy and the cautious response by the Iranian shows that they did not believe a word of what Mr. Obama said. Mr. Obama needs to follow words with actions and so far it does not appear that he intends to do that.