U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters that Iran intended to “interfere with the internal affairs” in the region by funding terrorism, “whether it’s Hizbollah, Hamas or other proxies”.She has always been fond of gun-boat diplomacy hasn't she? Why doesn't she think out of the box. Think about and address the plight of the Iranians', who are peacefully resisting this regime. Help them in their non-violent approach.
What Saadi said was this:
The Children of Adam are limbs of each other
Having been created of one essence.
When the calamity of time afflicts one limb
The other limbs cannot remain at rest.
If thou hast no sympathy for the troubles of others
Thou art unworthy to be called by the name of a man.
Saadi wrote this to say that when someone suffers, others feel their suffering. The whole purpose of this poem is to talk about suffering, and the sympathy we all should have for each other, wherever we are, and from whatever origin.
That brings up the question, "Does Mr Obama realise the calamity on Iranians that have tried to celebrate Nowruz for 1400 years?". How dare he talk to the Seyyed/Theocrats about this truely Iranian occasion, when the Seyyeds/Theocrats' sole task is to destroy what is Iranian.
Mr Obama, you should be addressing the Iranians that put Nowruz over and above everything else. You should not be trying to cut a deal with these people who hate Iran and its culture so symbolised by Nowruz.
This leads to speculation that the supreme leader may yet quietly promote a rival, but less controversial, principlist figure, such as Mohamed Qalibaf, who has proved himself a skilled administrator as mayor of Tehran, rather than Mr Ahmadinejad. Some leading principlists have also proposed a coalition conservative government that would dilute Mr Ahmadinejad’s role. Such quiet manoeuvring inside the principlist camp suggests a fear that either they, too, could find themselves split, or that the reformists will, despite Mr Khatami’s absence, actually succeed in galvanising new voters.Quite amazing that a magazine like The Economist, takes these monsters in Iran seriously, when the people of Iran don't. The Economist even speculates about outcomes.
Brzezinski bears more responsibility for the fact that the Iranian people are subjected to — and everyone else in the world is threatened by — an authoritarian Islamist regime than any single Westerner besides, perhaps, ex-President Carter. Eleven years ago, Brzezinski revealed the gaping breach in his brain through which the mullahs poured in 1979.I suppose he thought that a Shah Abbas type of Iran was better, with Shiite doctrines being able to fend of USSR.
'The key issue is now to find a channel to Khamenei,' said a senior Western diplomat briefed on the Obama administration's policy review in recent days. 'If the supreme leader moves, he's going to do it in a very prudent and incremental way.'You read commentaries like this, and it makes you think, "wow, this Obama guy is really up to something good". We all like him. And I know you are thinking here comes his sentence starting with the word "But ....".
The discussions are part of a larger Iran-policy review that the Obama administration is aiming to complete this month, according to U.S. officials."