Iran, US and Obama

“We will extend our hand if they unclench their fist”; this was the first statement by Obama, after he took office, about the new administration’s policy toward Iran. Later, new secretary of state, Hillary Clinton said that all options continue to be on the table as were on Bush administration’s table before, but again emphasizing just literally on diplomatic efforts, somewhat more than Condoleezza Rice.
I could hardly believe that Obama has had enough time to spend on Iran up to now being overwhelmed by the global economic crisis. But it seems quite apparent that no breakthrough change of policy is on his agenda right now.
Words could no longer work. Sending messages to the Iranian people, such as this latest one for the celebration of new Persian year and Nowrooz, would not make any difference. Iranian leaders have sent similar messages to the American nation frequently prior to this. However everything is virtually unchanged. Every side asks the other side to step first. But no side will move first as it has been the case over the last three decades.
I think, as I wrote in a previous posting, current Iranian leaders will only accept an irrefutable offer. They will never be the first mover. Therefore what I do suggest to the American government is to extend his hand if they would like to give a chance of solution to the problem of Iran-US relations. Hereby I am going to reason for this recommendation in economic terms and upon making comparison between the mutual influences of the two governments.
On the one hand it seems that Islamic Republic’s policies, haranguing and literal enmity toward the United States has had negligible negative effect on the American economy if one takes into account the scale of the American market and its correlations to the rest of the world. Perhaps the major hostile action of I.R. was the 1979 hostage crisis of American Embassy in Tehran. Yet that event and a few other terrorist attacks believed to be committed by groups affiliated or within the power structure of I.R. appear to have had more pronounced political consequences rather than economic effects. Moreover, Iran has continued to sell its oil in the global market, never using it as a political weapon up to now, despite occasional claims from government people. In military arms market, while I.R. has been drawn to the Russian/Chinese products, Middle East Arab countries has replaced Iran as excellent costumers for the American arms producers, spending multiple billion of dollars thanks to the continuous instability in the region. In the meantime, American products reach to the hand of Iranian consumers indirectly through multiple mediators at high prices.
On the other hand, Iranian economy has suffered on multiple sides. Firstly, Iranian properties in the US were blocked due to hostage crisis. Secondly the economic embargo has been kept in place by the US government over three decades of hostility. Thirdly the American governments backed Saddam’s regime militarily during the eight-year long Iran-Iraq war which resulted in the devastation of Iran’s economy and over a million death tolls on the Iranian side. Last but not least, I.R. hostile haranguing toward the US over the years has caused a tense atmosphere in Iranian foreign relations with the other western powers. Due to such tense atmosphere, foreign investment has continued to be nearly nil over the years. Moreover advanced technologies are either banned or paid through the nose to the mediators or replaced by poor Chinese or Russian alternatives, followed in turn by problematic working or development of critical industries such as oil/gas production, power plants, air aviation, etc. Nationwide power plants could hardly produce to their half capacity mostly due to lack of spare parts; sanctions on aviation devices have forced the government to lean toward second-hand Russian or Ukrainian airplanes and poor maintenance of the existing fleet, leading to frequent air crashes. Typical examples are numerous.
In general, the US-laid embargo not only terribly decelerated the economic growth of the nation, but also has changed, in effect, nothing in Islamic Republic’s political trends and stances, if not worsened it.
On the other side of the equation, could anybody give examples of similar effects of I.R. policies on the American economy? I would not wonder if a positive effect emerges at the end of a thorough scientific investigation.
From the Iranian nations’ point of view, Iran is and has continued to be the obvious loser of the equation, insisting on its hard-line stances up to day. Now, I would like to ask American policy-makers, whether it is still wise to wait for the Iranian side to unclench its fist first or not.

Che, Part One, 2008 by Steven Soderbergh

Che, part one as ending captions implies, directed by Steven Soderbergh, jointly produced and played by Benicio del Toro as the leading role tries to be a memoir of Ernesto Guevara “Che”, the world-renowned and legendary guerrilla leader and revolutionary of Latin America.
Waiting long to watch it, I was not impressed by the picture as I was when I read the biography of Che some time ago and as he deserved, in my opinion. Obviously, no matter how good in quality, the subject and the story are attractive enough to make the film important. So I started for the film with high expectations.
Despite the physical similarity of del Toro’s face to Che Guevara, he can hardly represent his vision, morale and charisma as someone like me who has heard his name for the first time decades after his death, could see in his eyes. Benicio del Toro looks too fat and his motions not agile enough for someone in his late 20s or early 30s.
The opening season, on the night when Che and Castro discuss their views and plans, it simply lacks an explanation of why an Argentinean doctor should join a foreign revolutionary movement. It lacks a description of the basics to his vision and motives especially when he asks Fidel to pass his revolution, after the victory, to the whole Latin America.
In the first half of the film, Che looks more as a sick soldier who hardly handles his own problems, than a pillar to the whole revolution, which he absolutely is widely believed to be. It’s said in his bio that after joining to the revolutionary movement he attended military trainings and he was called “the best of them all” at the end of the training by their instructor.
The director puts too much emphasis on Che’s asthma and smoking Cuban cigars. He is either igniting a new cigar or smoking passionately in every scene. Soderbergh seems to have tried hard on shooting the guerrilla life and fighting scenes as realistically as possible. I believe he is pretty successful in this regard, making good resemblance to documentaries.
Those episodes showing Che Guevara travelling to the US to represent Cuba at the UN general assembly are quite precise such that they could hardly be discerned from original news footages. Shooting in black and white is quite helpful. But this is only in terms of appearance than the content.
Unfortunately, it’s been attempted to deliver Che Guevara’s vision more in verbal terms than imagery; Fidel Castro, Raul and Camilo complement him, emphasizing on his importance to the revolution; expression of slogan-like words in delivering speeches at the UN general assembly. I think the picture does not depict the message Che brought to the world as it was.
Contrary to some news, that Soderbergh has not depicted the executions, there is a complete portrayal of a justified (by revolutionary rules) execution of a deserter who has committed crimes in the name of revolution.
As I understand, Che was that prominent in his vision and believes that after meeting with Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beauvoir, Sartre described him as "not only an intellectual but also the most complete human being of our age”. Also I learn that he was even superior to Fidel Castro in terms of theory, vision and ideas while Castro had more capabilities in leadership and management. So a combination of both, led to the victory of the Cuban revolutionary forces over the Batista regime. The film, simply doesn’t give such a meaning.
Soderbergh and del Toro’s Che is not what I expected for.

National Engineering’s Day

Today, the 5th of Esfand (23rd of February) is the birth anniversary of Khajeh-Nassireddin Toosi, declared as the “National Engineering’s Day” by the government.
Every year, all the government effort for the celebration of the day is to invite Dr. Seyed Amiroddin Sadrnejad, a professor at Khajeh-Nassireddin Toosi University of Technology (www.kntu.ac.ir) for an interview on national TV. Every year is the same person, a radical paranoid and talkative academician exactly on the same scale as President Ahmadinejad.
Is there anything not to regret? Sadrnejad & Ahmadinejad are the engineers of contemporary Iran! Shouldn’t Khajeh-Nassir be shuddering in his afterlife?