News and Politics | January 29, 2009 | 11 comments

Tehran 'can co-operate with US'

Image
merasyad
Real change in Washington's policy in the Middle East would enable Iran to have a "co-operative" attitude towards the US, Iran's foreign minister says. Manouchehr Mottaki was speaking at a session at the World Economic Forum.

A day earlier, Iran's president, responding to an overture by the new US president, said the US should apologise for its past "crimes" against Iran.

This was the first official response to Barack Obama's offer to extend a hand if Iran "unclenched its fist".

Mr Obama has emphasised the need to engage with Iran, a country his predecessor viewed as among the most dangerous in the Middle East.

"We do believe that if the new administration of the United States, as Mr Obama said, is going to change its policies, not in saying but in practice, definitely they will find the region in a co-operative approach and reaction," Mr Mottaki told a panel in Davos.

"And Iran is not excluded from this general understanding in our region."

Iran had noted Mr Obama's stated intention to pull troops out of Iraq and believed he should withdraw from Afghanistan, too, Mr Mottaki said.

Quoted by Reuters news agency, he praised Mr Obama for having "courage" to move away from the policies of George W Bush and an era of "might equals right".

"We are in a turning point. We are at a milestone now," Mr Mottaki said.
  1. groups:
    News and Politics,   Current News US,   Foreign Policy
  2. tags:
    News and Politics Obama Barack Obama Iran 4 more
  3.     
    |

11 comments // Tehran 'can co-operate with US'

  • petarro
  • Hostile
  • unimatrix0
    • 0
      unimatrix0  
    • Ahmadinejad is a silly puppet. The country is a theocracy, ruled by a bunch of bearded, hypocritical old men who use religious superstition to divide and terrorize.

      It would be nice if the Iranian people had the stones to throw out the old men with beards and reveal the hypocrisy and superstition for what it is.

    • 3 years ago
  • PJSEE36
    • 0
      PJSEE36  
    • I is beyond me why we would even waste a dime for the phone call?What makes iran any different than syria jordan, or even pakistan ? they (iran) is responsible for the IED technology that has killed and maimed THOUSANDS of our young soldiers in iraq.like i said before all apologies should be dropped from 30,000FT over and over,until ther is no more insurgents to insurge. SOT---------P

    • 3 years ago
  • hydrokat
    • 0
      hydrokat  
    • In that region it is only viewed as weakness and fear. I'm sorry but the minds of the Middle Eastern World only understand strength. An apology will be viewed as just that. How about Russia? Have they been offered this ridiculous demand? They too have provided plenty of destabilization to the Region with their own past policies. No one seems to recognize this. The President of Iran is a puppet for the Radical Islamic Clerics. Nothing will change until the People of Iran can live in a free Society.Free from the scourge of the Fanatic Death Cult that is in control and holds the Country Hostage. I could agree with the offer of apologies to the People of Iran once that has been accomplished. But the fact is, We could wish in one hand and crap in the other to see which one comes first. I believe it is the latter. Russia and Iran continue to ship weapons and arms to the region. Apologies are not the answer here. All Countries concerned must be willing to lay down their arms, cease the advancement of oppression. I'm in favor of holding out an olive branch and seeking peaceful resolution to our differences, but it must be a matter of give and take on both sides.

    • 3 years ago
  • bansheewail
    • 0
      bansheewail  
    • Good re-post Merasyad. I'm glad this story got some coverage. Keep up the good work. We all have to be open to a better way of thinking about the world. If we use our brains and hearts instead of a few cherry-picked and oft-repeated talking points, we will come out ahead in the end. Peace and elbow grease,

      Bansheewail, over and out.

    • 3 years ago
  • petarro
  • Vikingblood
    • 0
      Vikingblood  
    • Iran? Perhaps. But we owe Ahmadinejad nothing.

      One person pointed out: "Iran deserves an apology and acknowledgment for what everyone knows, that USA thrashed their democracy long ago and installed the shah. Is Obama a big enough man?"

      I am fairly certain Ahmadabad has no problem with that, as it lead to his power and their current, oppressive government which he supports.

      We do indeed owe the Iranian /people/ an apology; but it will not get to the people. It will be taken, and propagandized as an apology to Ahmadinejad and his current state. It will strengthen their societal aims for Iran which are in no ones favor. (mind you I think they're entitled to nuclear power but it will be tricky to be certain that's what Iran uses it for, they'd need to allow UN inspections .. power is scarce in their region)

      Since Saddam is gone --of which there was no reason to remove him, Iraq was more stable under him, they had an advanced, stable society despite him being a despot, but his despotism wasn't our business-- and it was the mid-eastern nations job to deal with him which they did, actively, and happily, we most certainly owe the Iraqi an apology for screwing up their stability. We've nothing to lose from that, there's no longer any despot to strengthen.

      Ahmadinejad is an ambitious opportunist, as is much of the current Iranian government. Apologizing to Iran under his government would be apologizing to him/them, when he deserves no apology as it has done nothing but rise him to power that I doubt he would have undone, and which would strengthen him. We helped to create a climate in which a man like him was able to climb to power, for that we owe the Iranian people an apology... but unfortunate that would be terribly difficult.

      And I am a 'lefty' btw, we aren't naive, just reasonable and thoughtful... well some of us. Be realistic people,.. no offense.

      Also, our presence in Afghanistan is legitimate and important. It was indeed a haven for radicals which meant the world harm, even their fellow mid-east 'brothers' who felt they weren't Islamic enough... they were and continue to be --wherever they are hising now-- a threat and danger to the world as a whole, not just the West. It is supported by the UN and it says a lot when the UN supports and sanctions a military action/presence. We weren't acting unilaterally nor are we to this day. We should have stayed in, and focused on Afghanistan and never went to Iraq.

    • 3 years ago
  • sammysoul
    • 0
      sammysoul  
    • Vikingblood:

      I appreciate your level-headed opinion but want to add that considering how much "success" we've had with being the bully I absolutely favor the diplomatic approach over the posturing and militaristic one.
      Of course Ahmadinejad will try to exploit any gestures, be it by trying to raise nationalistic fervor when we did threaten them militarily, or by alleging that he's the peacemaker once we undertake a diplomatic initiative.
      However he's not really the important factor. Over the medium and long term it's decisive what the majority of its people think about the US. Especially in a country like Iran, where a growing share of the population is young and fed up with the clerical dictatorship. You want to make them into your allies and not alienating them by occupying their neighboring countries or threatening bombings. Diplomacy leads to peace, war only does after it has extinguished untold numbers of civilians lives.

    • 3 years ago
  • cerealforeal
  • mrarsen
  • mutedmajority
  • unimatrix0
  • DouginLA
  • Hostile
more from News and Politics:

top videos