About our author:
‘Having worked within the Iranian government for nearly 30 years, and having sat on the secretariat of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council for much of the decade before 2005, I was involved in discussions about both of these two approaches.’
and he claims the door to diplomacy was open, but is now closing:
‘These statements are clear evidence that Obama’s engagement policy has failed. In fact, they support Ayatollah Khamenei’s assessment that the core goal of U.S. policy is regime change.’
Well, to some extent, regime change is the goal in some quarters (and I could well understand that the Iranian leadership recognizes this as an existential threat). Most Americans probably don’t understand Iranian society very well, let alone the more repressive and theocratic elements of Iranian leadership.
‘There is a peaceful path — one that will satisfy both Iranian and U.S. objectives while respecting Iran’s legitimate nuclear rights.’
It is a very mutually suspicious, often hostile relationship, and as long as Washington maintains that it can’t let Iran can’t go nuclear, there will probably be an impasse. Peace can be an overused word, and from Washington’s perspective, peace in the Middle East might be better served by not having Iran acquire nuclear capabilities. Avoidance of a costly war, however, is definitely worth thinking about on both sides.