John Limbert, a former US embassy hostage in Tehran, has apparently written a book supporting US-Iran engagement and negotiations and has set up a discussion on Facebook for you to join. In Negotiating with Iran: Wrestling the Ghosts of History, Limbert says that Iran's long history as a nation has to be respected, and
“If all you do is carry the grievance and say, ‘My grievance is more than your grievance,’ you’re never going to be able to have a discussion.”
I haven't read the book but I assume it is a more thorough statement of an article he wrote for USIP in 2008.
I found Limbert to be quite interesting way back in 1982 when he wrote that the West had to accept that the 1979 revolution was a reality with deep social roots in Iran that wasn't going to go away, and that wishful thinking should not be a substitute for observing facts -- though no one listened and there was and still is consistent speculation for the last 30 years about the immediate demise of the IRI, a perfect example of wishful thinking substituting for facts, which incidentally continues with this "Green Movement" thing IMHO.
(I particularly like this statement:
The life of most of the Iranian people was already determined by the regulations of Islam. Wearing the veil (chador) was not an imposition for the majority of Iranian women who already did so.
Most people simply don't want to accept this FACT.)
All of this is of course very nice and welcome -- Bruce Laingen, another former hostage, also wrote about the need for the US and IRan to get along, many, many, many years ago. So, why hasn't it happened?
The bottom line -- and something that US diplomats simply don't want to conceed -- is that the US is not in control of its own foreign policy when it comes to the Mideast and Irran. Israel is. Plain and simple. Until the US gets rid of this ball-and-chain, nothing's going to change and it doesn't really matter who is president in Iran or the US.
Comments