Iran Says "Prove It" (Updated)

By Steve Hynd

Is anyone really surprised that the official Iranian reaction to Obama's video-letter is to ask for concrete actions?

In his most direct assessment of Obama and prospects for better ties, Khamenei said there will be no change between the two countries unless the American president puts an end to U.S. hostility toward Iran and brings "real changes" in foreign policy.

"They chant the slogan of change but no change is seen in practice. We haven't seen any change," Khamenei said in a speech before a crowd of tens of thousands in the northeastern holy city of Mashhad.

... Still, Khamenei left the door open to better ties with America, saying "should you change, our behavior will change too."

As I wrote yesterday, the Obama administration as a whole have been just as inclined to ignore the facts and lie about the most pressing US/Iran issue - Iran's nuclear program - as the Bush administration ever were. Far from being appeasement, as rightwing bloggers would have it, the combined rhetoric has been of "one chance to do as you're told, which we doubt will work" and then it's back to talking about containment and even interdiction.

Those rightwing pundits are making fundemental attributional errors that Iran isn't. You don't ascertain the direction of a school of fish by watching where the fish in front happens to be swimming at present, but by the aggregate movements of all the fish in the school.

The same "prove it" could be asked of Iran, of course - and they've tried to. Three attempts at negotiating "grand bargains" have been ignored - the Bush administration even rebuked Swiss diplomat middlemen for passing them on to the US - and to this day Iranian offers to internationalise their uranium enrichment facility still stand.

Update: MJ Rosenberg wonders if Israel's message to Iran at the same time was specifically designed to throw a spanner in Obama's diplomacy and says he's heard that the White House is "furious" because it makes the U.S. and Israel look like good cop/bad cop by calling on the Iranian people to overthrow their rulers even while Obama is talking about unclenched fists. But good cop/bad cop is precisely the D.C. establishment's preferred approach too, although they call it "strategic ambiguity". Maybe Obama needs to have a word with his SecState.

Comments

[empty]

What has been especially troublesome has been the portrayal of the US corporate media of Iran's actions. The caption in all the major newspapers that I have seen has been something on the order of "Iran rebuffs American overture." It seems too much like the stage being set for - "well we tried but the evil Iranians just would not accept the way of peace and diplomacy." The corporate newspapers reflect establishment consensus and it seems, at least for now, the establishment consensus is still keeping the ground prepared for possible military action against Iran.

[Woody]

I thought the show was more intended for domestic consumption, demonstrating firmness and reason toward the feelthee raghaids, and placating the rubes' belligerence with not-so-subtle threats...

Iow: Domestic propaganda for the Sunday news-shows, where it will I am utterly certain, be a centerpiece, and much--and very SERIOUSLY--discussed...

[Rudi]

Over at TMV there is a post about a CSIS report, in great detail, about what would happen with an Israelis attack on Iran. This report goes into details that might have leaked from intelligence sources.
http://www.csis.org/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
http://themoderatevoice.com/27284/roadmap-for-an-israeli-attack-on-iranian-nuclear-facilities/