Iran Election

[sara535 15]

They are saying that there is no difference between the two parties positions. That Isreal would rather deal with who they've already dealt with in the past to continue putting the pressure on him for the nuclear position. It's the development of the split in the clerical elite that is most interesting. Who is this person behind the scenes pulling the strings and what are his aims if he becomes the new supreme leader?

They did an hour long broadcast on Iran yesterday and basically said the people of Iran aren't in line with the party politics of 30 years ago when the Iranian Revolution happened in 1979. That they are more westernized and want the opposition as the leader because of his platform message of change. Sound familiar?

from everything I have been watching and reading, the supreme leader behind it all is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his position and standing will remain the same no matter which of the 2 prevail. He is the supreme religious leader in the country, while they are vying for the political leadership.

[Peace be still 6]

They are saying that there is no difference between the two parties positions. That Isreal would rather deal with who they've already dealt with in the past to continue putting the pressure on him for the nuclear position. It's the development of the split in the clerical elite that is most interesting. Who is this person behind the scenes pulling the strings and what are his aims if he becomes the new supreme leader?

They did an hour long broadcast on Iran yesterday and basically said the people of Iran aren't in line with the party politics of 30 years ago when the Iranian Revolution happened in 1979. That they are more westernized and want the opposition as the leader because of his platform message of change. Sound familiar?

from everything I have been watching and reading, the supreme leader behind it all is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his position and standing will remain the same no matter which of the 2 prevail. He is the supreme religious leader in the country, while they are vying for the political leadership.

[sandinista! 1,816]

The news out of Iran continues to be disturbing. Latest reports are that family members of Rafsanjani have been arrested.

I found this piece of analysis quite interesting. Hopefully Iranians will gain the ability to choose their own leaders and policies democratically.

But we in the West should be under no illusions that their attitudes toward the West will change, regardless of the domestic choices they make.

The calls in the mosques for "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" will unfortunately likely continue, no matter how this gets resolved.

And the nuclear policies will continue unabated.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationw...0,6816029.story

Iran's nuclear ambitions likely to endure

Analysts: Unrest won't impede what Iranians of all stripes consider a national mark of pride

By Jeffrey Fleishman | Tribune Newspapers

June 21, 2009

CAIRO -- The widespread protests in Iran, even in the improbable event they deliver presidential challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi to power, are unlikely to dramatically change the country's nuclear ambitions or the complications the West faces in countering Iran's political gambits across the Middle East.

Iran's nuclear program, which the United States claims is intent on producing atomic weapons, is ingrained in the national psyche. It began decades ago and is embraced across the Iranian political spectrum. Its future rests more with the wishes of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the ruling clerics than it does with hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the more moderate Mousavi.

The nuclear endeavor, along with geography, vast oil supplies and resistance to Western pressure, are critical to Iran's stature in the region. The political tumult and bloodshed over this month's elections may force a shift in domestic affairs, such as mending the troubled economy, but not a scientific mission that predates the 1979 Islamic Revolution and whose spinning centrifuges and technological breakthroughs have become a mark of pride.

"The elections are a crisis from within the system itself," said Hassan Nafae, a political scientist at Cairo University. "It might change internal issues, but the nuclear agenda will not be modified. Iranians are united around this.

"The reformers, however, might be more willing to open a dialogue with the U.S., and this could lead to compromise," he added. "The U.S. could give a little on the nuclear question in exchange for Iran's help in resolving the Arab-Israeli and other regional issues."

The battle between Ahmadinejad, who won the June 12 election, and Mousavi, who is claiming fraud, illustrates the schism Iran faces in engaging the West: Ahmadinejad's harsh screeds or Mousavi's more conciliatory tone. Neither would sacrifice the country's nuclear vision, but Mousavi, who has a long history of support for atomic energy, is perceived as more amenable to defusing international tensions that could lead to Iran working with the U.S. in the region.

The Obama administration, which has sought a diplomatic opening with Iran, has voiced support for the protesters while also trying to avoid statements that would make it more difficult in the future to work with Iran's leaders. The fluidity of developments in Iran leaves the U.S. with an unclear picture of how the nuclear standoff might unfold.

The latest report by Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, cited his concern about Iran's interest in a nuclear weapons program.

"It is my gut feeling that Iran would like to have the technology to enable it to have nuclear weapons, if it decides to do so," ElBaradei told the British Broadcasting Corp. last week. "They want to send a message to their neighbors, to the rest of the world -- don't mess with us. But the ultimate aim of Iran, as I understand it, is they want to be recognized as a major power in the Middle East."

Iran says it is enriching uranium only to generate power for civilian use. Its view is that the United States and its allies are manipulating the nuclear issue as a pretext to weaken the Islamic revolution in a nation that stubbornly resists U.S. policy in the region.

The street protests "will only confirm in Khamenei's mind his oft-stated view that the nuclear issue is just an excuse used by the West to advance its plot to overthrow the Islamic Republic," said Patrick Clawson, deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "He will be more convinced than ever that if the nuclear issue were settled, the West would find another excuse with which to advance its true goal. To him, any compromise on the nuclear issue will only feed the West's efforts to overthrow him."

The resolution of the political crisis is the Iranian leadership's consuming concern. How that unwinds could affect the nuclear question, at least in tone, and other regional issues. Would Iran offer more transparency on its uranium enrichment? Would it use its influence with the radical group Hezbollah to calm Lebanon? Would it not interfere in the Arab-Israeli conflict? Or would Khamenei and Ahmadinejad grow more emboldened?

The questions are many, and Iran, as it has done for 30 years, is not showing all the options it holds.

why is this a big deal though? what aggressive action has the iranian republic ever taken against the us in the last 25 years? even if they acquired nuclear capabilities, there's no reason in the world to think they'd ever use them. an autocracy's biggest objective is to stay in power, and it's rather difficult to do that when they've been nuked into oblivion (which would surely be the retaliation used against them if they ever deigned to use nuclear weapons on any of their avowed enemies). how emboldened could they possibly be, in light of that?

[sandinista! 1,816]

Shut Up about Iran

by Sheldon Richman, June 19, 2009

Here’s some advice for Barack Obama, John McCain, and any other U.S. politician who feels the urge to issue a declaration about the election in Iran: Shut up.

True, Obama has said he does not wish to interfere in the Iranian election. Others, such John “Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran” McCain, have no such compunction. But any statement at all — even a statement about not making a statement — is a mistake. The record of the U.S. government in Iran over the last half-century is so tainted that it would be better for all officials to just keep quiet.

The results of the presidential election certainly suggest a fix. But that is for the Iranians to work out.

For the last few years, the U.S. “military option” has been prominently “on the table” when it comes to Iran. The U.S. government’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel — especially under the new hard-line prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu — clearly would like to see Iran attacked for having the nerve to develop nuclear technology. U.S. intelligence says Iran gave up a weapons program long ago — before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became president — but Israel apparently won’t tolerate an Iran even with only a civilian nuclear-power industry. Apparently the thought of another country’s challenging Israel’s 40-year nuclear-weapons monopoly in the Middle East — and thus being able to deter aggressive military action — is intolerable. (Ahmadinejad, incidentally, has no military authority under Iranian law.)

The U.S. government, then, can hardly be an unbiased observer of Iran’s political process. Besides, it is well known that U.S. governments have routinely meddled in elections throughout the world, overtly and covertly. The National Endowment for Democracy, a government-funded organization, is just the most obvious way that American officials interfere. (Remember how outraged people were in the Clinton years when they thought the Chinese had funneled money into the U.S. electoral system?)

Most of all, the U.S. government needs to keep silent because of 1953. That was the year the CIA — that model of openness and commitment to democracy — drove an elected, secular Iranian prime minister from office in order to restore to power the brutal monarch, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. For the next quarter century, the shah ruled with an iron fist — secret police, torture, the works. “Enlightened” Americans used to say that he was “dragging his people kicking and screaming into the twentieth century.” He was a close friend of American presidents and Israeli prime ministers, and a main instigator of high oil prices. With all that oil money, he could easily buy the latest weapons made by American contractors, keeping them and his American political sponsors happy. He was “our” man in one of the world’s hotspots.

It was a sweet deal for everyone — except average Americans and Iranians. In 1979 the Iranians had had enough and, led by the charismatic ayatollah, Ruhollah Khomeini, they again drove the shah from power — this time for good — in the Islamic revolution that has reigned in Iran ever since. The U.S. government’s crimes against Iran were not forgotten, as the U.S. embassy was seized and the personnel held hostage for 444 days. When the hostage crisis began, President Jimmy Carter dismissed the connection to 1953, claiming that it was “ancient history.” It is from such utterances that the term “ugly American” was born.

What was ancient to Carter and unknown to most Americans was fresh in the minds of Iranians. Middle-class Iranians may have a high regard for the American people and our way of life, but that does not mean they welcome intervention.

In Cairo, Obama acknowledged that history. Good. However, acknowledgement is not enough. Deeds must match regrets — if that’s what he feels — about 1953. The U.S. government must forswear intervention, take the military option off the table — and mean it.

The Obama administration says the United States has two concerns regarding Iran: its support for terrorism in the Middle East and its nuclear ambitions. Neither concerns the American people. Even if Iran builds a weapon, the leaders there are not suicidal. And the way for the United States to safeguard against terrorism is to follow a noninterventionist foreign policy. U.S. troops can’t be attacked in the Middle East if they aren’t there. Someone as bright as Obama ought to realize that.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0906i.asp

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

They are saying that there is no difference between the two parties positions. That Isreal would rather deal with who they've already dealt with in the past to continue putting the pressure on him for the nuclear position. It's the development of the split in the clerical elite that is most interesting. Who is this person behind the scenes pulling the strings and what are his aims if he becomes the new supreme leader?

They did an hour long broadcast on Iran yesterday and basically said the people of Iran aren't in line with the party politics of 30 years ago when the Iranian Revolution happened in 1979. That they are more westernized and want the opposition as the leader because of his platform message of change. Sound familiar?

from everything I have been watching and reading, the supreme leader behind it all is Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his position and standing will remain the same no matter which of the 2 prevail. He is the supreme religious leader in the country, while they are vying for the political leadership.

I'm talking about the three clerical elites aligning against Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This morning here the news says that the 10% recount exposed the fraud to the Guardian Council and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei the Supreme Leader has issued an investigation into voter rigging and the results should be revealed Monday. Kinda seems quick to me.

The US is being critized for being timid on the response while the Iranian government is blaming the west and foreign media for the current situation. That allegation is an old one and always going to be there for them in their minds but it's pretty clear to the rest of the world that it's between the Iranian people and their government.

Britian, Germany, France, ect have said a lot more on the subject than the US has said at recent. The US is trying to keep the options open for potential negotions down the line. Analyst suggest that the reason the US is taking a timid line is that with this revolution they don't see the current regiem being overthrown but rather staying in power unless more than just the middle class and urban elite join the protests.

Analyst say that Europe, the Americans, and most of the Arab world would have prefered a Mosavi prescidency as it would change the image of the Iranian people. It is a global concern because the peoples right has been repressed and it's their basic constitutional rights. It's not just their right it's their duty.

[anitacastillo 0]

why is this a big deal though? what aggressive action has the iranian republic ever taken against the us in the last 25 years? even if they acquired nuclear capabilities, there's no reason in the world to think they'd ever use them. an autocracy's biggest objective is to stay in power, and it's rather difficult to do that when they've been nuked into oblivion (which would surely be the retaliation used against them if they ever deigned to use nuclear weapons on any of their avowed enemies). how emboldened could they possibly be, in light of that?

Isn't it all about Israel? - which I do not understand why we protect/support.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I guess there are five senior clerics that have been arrested and later released.

The most influential speaking on Mousavi's behalf is former President Hashemi Rafsanjani the one that ran against the current president now in 2005 and made the original voter rigging alligations back then.

I've seen the other clerical names on TV just now but I can't find them online to copy and paste here. I'm not as familiar with arabic names to remember and type them fastly.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

why is this a big deal though? what aggressive action has the iranian republic ever taken against the us in the last 25 years? even if they acquired nuclear capabilities, there's no reason in the world to think they'd ever use them. an autocracy's biggest objective is to stay in power, and it's rather difficult to do that when they've been nuked into oblivion (which would surely be the retaliation used against them if they ever deigned to use nuclear weapons on any of their avowed enemies). how emboldened could they possibly be, in light of that?

Isn't it all about Israel? - which I do not understand why we protect/support.

Yes the concern stems from the statements issued by the current president elect saying he wants to wipe the US and Israel off the map. The US supports Israel because of the holocaust and a long diplomatic relationship with them and the formation of their state. The US has a deep bond with them and diplomatic relations with them.

[sandinista! 1,816]

why is this a big deal though? what aggressive action has the iranian republic ever taken against the us in the last 25 years? even if they acquired nuclear capabilities, there's no reason in the world to think they'd ever use them. an autocracy's biggest objective is to stay in power, and it's rather difficult to do that when they've been nuked into oblivion (which would surely be the retaliation used against them if they ever deigned to use nuclear weapons on any of their avowed enemies). how emboldened could they possibly be, in light of that?

Isn't it all about Israel? - which I do not understand why we protect/support.

Yes the concern stems from the statements issued by the current president elect saying he wants to wipe the US and Israel off the map. The US supports Israel because of the holocaust and a long diplomatic relationship with them and the formation of their state. The US has a deep bond with them and diplomatic relations with them.

actually he said "een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." (this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time).

the us was never included in that commentary olivia, at least not outside of your imagination.

just this week, the secretary of state of this country met up with the vile avigdor lieberman. this guy is a real charmer:

"He once proposed bombing the huge Aswan dam, an act that would have caused a terrible Tsunami-like deluge and killed many millions of Egyptians. Another time he proposed delivering an ultimatum to the Palestinians: At 8 am we shall bomb your commercial centers, at noon your gas stations, at 2 pm your banks, and so on.

He has proposed drowning thousands of Palestinian prisoners, offering to provide the necessary buses to take them to the coast. Another time he proposed deporting 90% of the 1.2 million Arab citizens of Israel."-http://www.theseminal.com/2009/04/05/lieberman-if-you-want-peace-prepare-for-war/

but God forbid an israeli meeting with our secretary of state should be held up to the same scrutiny as a misquoted ahmadinejad. the us needs to take that "deep bond" and "diplomatic relations" with this vile regime and shove it.

[scandal 951]

why is this a big deal though? what aggressive action has the iranian republic ever taken against the us in the last 25 years? even if they acquired nuclear capabilities, there's no reason in the world to think they'd ever use them. an autocracy's biggest objective is to stay in power, and it's rather difficult to do that when they've been nuked into oblivion (which would surely be the retaliation used against them if they ever deigned to use nuclear weapons on any of their avowed enemies). how emboldened could they possibly be, in light of that?

Isn't it all about Israel? - which I do not understand why we protect/support.

Yes the concern stems from the statements issued by the current president elect saying he wants to wipe the US and Israel off the map. The US supports Israel because of the holocaust and a long diplomatic relationship with them and the formation of their state. The US has a deep bond with them and diplomatic relations with them.

actually he said "een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." (this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time).

the us was never included in that commentary olivia, at least not outside of your imagination.

just this week, the secretary of state of this country met up with the vile avigdor lieberman. this guy is a real charmer:

"He once proposed bombing the huge Aswan dam, an act that would have caused a terrible Tsunami-like deluge and killed many millions of Egyptians. Another time he proposed delivering an ultimatum to the Palestinians: At 8 am we shall bomb your commercial centers, at noon your gas stations, at 2 pm your banks, and so on.

He has proposed drowning thousands of Palestinian prisoners, offering to provide the necessary buses to take them to the coast. Another time he proposed deporting 90% of the 1.2 million Arab citizens of Israel."-http://www.theseminal.com/2009/04/05/lieberman-if-you-want-peace-prepare-for-war/

but God forbid an israeli meeting with our secretary of state should be held up to the same scrutiny as a misquoted ahmadinejad. the us needs to take that "deep bond" and "diplomatic relations" with this vile regime and shove it.

vile regime

You commented about Avigdor Liberman -- a man I do not support and whose views I do not agree with.

You then extrapolated from the words of this one man and refer to a nation of 7 million people as a "vile regime". Most of whom do not share his views and find him repugnant.

This is a nation based upon the rule of law, with a vibrant democracy, open elections, and a free press. In contrast to Iran, and in contrast to virtually every other country in the region.

It is a nation who's Palestinian Arab citizens (both Muslim and Christian), Druse citizens, and Beduin citizens vote in elections and have representation in the Knesset, and have press and media outlets in their language and representing their views. Note - I will not state that their lives are ideal and that there is no room for improvement. Certainly the per capita income in the Arab Israeli community should be higher, access and funding for municipal services, healthcare, and education should be higher than they are. But there is a level of freedom and openness that all Israeli citizens - Jews, Muslims, Christians, Druse and others - enjoy, which no other country in the Middle East has. Ask an Israeli Arab how quickly they'd like to exchange their life for that of any other country in the region. I think you know the answer to that question.

Finally, you (chemaatah) brought Israel into this discussion. What does Israel have to do with Iranian domestic politics? Absolutely nothing.

Suppose Israel did not exist (something I'm sure you would be overjoyed to see happen).

Do you suppose that Iranians would not be concerned with their desire for freedom? With their stagnant economy? With the political corruption and cronyism of their regime? This has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

[Der Bücherwurm 1]

Finally, you (chemaatah) brought Israel into this discussion. What does Israel have to do with Iranian domestic politics? Absolutely nothing.

Suppose Israel did not exist (something I'm sure you would be overjoyed to see happen).

Do you suppose that Iranians would not be concerned with their desire for freedom? With their stagnant economy? With the political corruption and cronyism of their regime? This has absolutely nothing to do with Israel.

Your assessment is spot on, Scandal. To trivial, unthinking minds everything from pimples in their teen years to failing a college entrance exam can be traced back to Israel. It really is getting old at this point. And Israel has absolutely nothing to do with whats going on in Iran. Islamists and their crimes against humanity however, have everything to do with the turmoil in Iran going all the way back to their conquest of the Persian empire. The people of Iran got rid of the Shah because they wanted more freedom and instead they got a corrupt, murderous regime that is guilty of oppressing the people to a greater degree and killing more people than the Shah ever did. The people's misery and discontent has been growing for the past 30 years just waiting for the necessary stimulus to boil over into the streets. The candidates in the election were irrelevant. The people are jaded and have no faith in revolutions anymore. What they had hoped for were to elect progressively more liberal leaders that would gradually introduce more reforms and freedoms until one day they finally end up with a secular state. The election fraud dashed those hopes and proved once and for all that the backwards, power-mad Islamists would never release their grip on power and would only continue introducing more restrictions on the people. So the people's frustration with the entire institution of the Islamic regime and a desire for a secular government that they could never before dare to express finally spilled over into the streets. Hopefully, the people will get their wish and the Islamists will be charged and held accountable for their crimes.

[doodlebugg 10]

This is a nation based upon the rule of law, with a vibrant democracy, open elections, and a free press.

Do you live on the same planet as me? Is there another country called Israel somewhere out there that has these qualities? Seriously?

[scandal 951]

This is a nation based upon the rule of law, with a vibrant democracy, open elections, and a free press.

Do you live on the same planet as me? Is there another country called Israel somewhere out there that has these qualities? Seriously?

Yes, we do share the same planet.

To my knowledge there is only one country on our planet called Israel.

Yes I am serious.

Do you have anything factual you'd like to challenge here? Otherwise I am at a loss in trying to understand your questions.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

why is this a big deal though? what aggressive action has the iranian republic ever taken against the us in the last 25 years? even if they acquired nuclear capabilities, there's no reason in the world to think they'd ever use them. an autocracy's biggest objective is to stay in power, and it's rather difficult to do that when they've been nuked into oblivion (which would surely be the retaliation used against them if they ever deigned to use nuclear weapons on any of their avowed enemies). how emboldened could they possibly be, in light of that?

Isn't it all about Israel? - which I do not understand why we protect/support.

Yes the concern stems from the statements issued by the current president elect saying he wants to wipe the US and Israel off the map. The US supports Israel because of the holocaust and a long diplomatic relationship with them and the formation of their state. The US has a deep bond with them and diplomatic relations with them.

actually he said "een rezhim-e eshghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." (this regime occupying Jerusalem must [vanish from] the page of time).

the us was never included in that commentary olivia, at least not outside of your imagination.

just this week, the secretary of state of this country met up with the vile avigdor lieberman. this guy is a real charmer:

"He once proposed bombing the huge Aswan dam, an act that would have caused a terrible Tsunami-like deluge and killed many millions of Egyptians. Another time he proposed delivering an ultimatum to the Palestinians: At 8 am we shall bomb your commercial centers, at noon your gas stations, at 2 pm your banks, and so on.

He has proposed drowning thousands of Palestinian prisoners, offering to provide the necessary buses to take them to the coast. Another time he proposed deporting 90% of the 1.2 million Arab citizens of Israel."-http://www.theseminal.com/2009/04/05/lieberman-if-you-want-peace-prepare-for-war/

but God forbid an israeli meeting with our secretary of state should be held up to the same scrutiny as a misquoted ahmadinejad. the us needs to take that "deep bond" and "diplomatic relations" with this vile regime and shove it.

Right outside my imagination is your head up your butt cheematah. Here is a bit of light for you that has been all over the news since 2005: Iran's President Calls For America's Destruction; wants to wipe Israel off the map

Edited June 22, 2009 by ~Flower~

[Kathryn41 3,205]

Please refrain from making derogatory and insulting comments about other countries. Whether or not you agree or disagree with their policies, there are citizens from that country who are members of VJ and your comments will trigger antagonistic responses. Be respectful or this thread will be closed.