WOW! This is quite possibly the worst analysis of Iranian goals and actions I have ever read.
By Ray Takeyh
Monday, December 29, 2008; A15
After an eight-year struggle over whether to engage Iran, the United States may finally be on the verge of launching a direct dialogue with its perennial Middle Eastern adversary. Washington has a long list of grievances to discuss, from sponsoring terrorism to the nuclear issue. The success of any talks will hinge on a critical unknown: What does Iran want? Today, an ascendant Iran views negotiations with the United States as a means of consolidating its gains and achieving American recognition of its regional status.
Kinda lame with the usual canard that we have not engaged Iran under W, but just wait this gets wicked stupid.
The two powers may find more commonality on the issues of Iraq and a Persian Gulf security structure. As it surveys the horizon, Tehran's primary foreign policy goal is stability, not the export of the revolution.
WTF? Stability? I am flabbergasted and don't even know how to insult that statement's inanity with the vitriol it deserves. I guess you could make it true as long as stability is defined as Iranian hegemony. What an ultra-maroon.
A functioning, Shiite-dominated Iraqi government with its sectarian blocs in check serves both American and Iranian objectives. Tehran's tempered conduct during the negotiations over the recently inked status-of-forces agreement regarding U.S. troops demonstrates its propensity for cooperation in Iraq.
You jackass, Iran has spent almost all of it's efforts fomenting terror and providing support, weapons and in many cases actively killing our troops and thousands of Iraqis. This dips**t considers that evidence of their propensity for cooperation.
In a similar manner, Iran may yield to a continued, albeit greatly limited, U.S. presence in the Gulf. Despite their belligerent rhetoric, Iranian leaders have come to believe that their projection of influence in their immediate neighborhood is best achieved through diplomacy rather than subversion and violence.
Seriously? I must have missed the diplomacy in the midst of all the slaughter they have facilitated in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine.
Although Iran will insist that the future of Lebanon and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must be part of any talks, its approach is likely to frustrate American interlocutors. It may surprise some that a state that routinely denies the legitimacy of Israel and even calls for its eradication could prove susceptible to reining in Hamas. But the tenuous nature of Iranian ties to Hamas and the prospect of countervailing gains elsewhere may lead Tehran to press Hamas toward more constructive participation in Palestinian politics.
Tenuous ties and a tendency to press them to be constructive? The only thing they have pressed them to construct is more rockets to fire at Israel.
It is the Persian Gulf, not the Arab east, that has always been the primary focus of Iran's foreign policy. As Tehran gains power and influence in the Gulf, it may prove moderate on more distant terrain. The Islamic Republic will never recognize Israel, but it may limit its mischievous interventions in Palestinian affairs.
This guy is without a doubt the most cluelessly optimistic appeaser since Chamberlain.
The writer is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
The writer is a highly-educated, serious-thinking, complete f**king idiot.