Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditPresident Obama has gone about as far as he should go in condemning the government of Iran for its crackdown and repression of a popular movement for change in Iran. Since the election on June 12, his rhetoric has become harsher by the day. Yesterday, he said:
The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions.
Don't we all! But it's one thing for a Nation columnist to call the actions by the current Iranian regime disgusting and despicable, as I've done many times, and it's another thing for the president of the United States to do it. Because in the next few months, Obama may very well have to send emissaries to sit down and talk to that very regime. Now that he's condemned the repression, let's hope Obama goes back to his original plan of trying to get Iran to the table.
The cold, hard reality of Iran is that the current regime, led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Leader, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president is likely to remain in power. Yes, the legitimacy of their government has been stripped away. Yes, the regime has all but eliminated the "republic" part of "Islamic Republic," relying now on sheer military power to rule. Yes, its crackdown on dissidents has been ugly and brutal.
But if Khamenei and Ahmadinejad want to talk to the United States, perhaps as soon as this fall, America's answer had better be: Yes.
To be sure, it isn't clear if Iran's leaders will want to talk at all. Why? Three reasons. First, because during the election season and afterwards, Ahmadinejad's campaign whipped up the president's base, which consists of hard-core ultranationalists and religious zealots, and it won't be easy to put them back on the leash if the regime decides to talk to the United States. Second, because Khamenei has blamed the United States, Great Britain, Europe, and Israel for the actions of the "terrorists" (i.e., pro-democracy marchers) challenging his authority, and he may find it useful or necessary to demonize the West for the foreseeable future, making it unlikely he will respond positively to any tenders from the West. And third, because most of the more moderate members of Iran's establishment, including in the field of national security and foreign policy, who might have served as personal envoys for Khamenei in talks with the West, have either sided with the reformists or with conservative opponents of Ahmadinejad in Iran's parliament and in the camp of Mohsen Rezai, the former Revolutionary Guard commander who ran against Ahmadinejad.
Yesterday, at a forum organized by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, former top State Department official Nick Burns -- who retired in 2006 after serving as the point man on Iran policy during the Bush administation -- argued that even if Ahmadinejad wants to talk, Obama ought to refuse. David Ignatius, the Washington Post columnist, asked Burns, "In trying to stabilize Iran, Khamenei and Ahmadinejad may crave negotiations with the United States. Doing so would be very popular in Iran. What should the United States do if that happens?" Burns responded:
"That really is the key policy question. We have to be very careful not to give undue legitimacy to this government, not while people are in the streets. ... We should be patient. We should see what happens. For a month? For a year? ... We have to be very careful not to get them to the negotiating table very soon. Now is not the time."
That seems wrong-headed to me, on all counts. While Khamenei and Ahmadinejad may not want to talk soon, for the reasons I stated above, if they do offer to talk I think it will absurd and foolhardy not to take them up on the offer. Spurning an offer by Tehran to talk to Washington would instantly undue all of Obama's good will in Iran and in the region, and it would give the hardliners ample ammunition to further demonize the United States domestically.
Yesterday, in responding to a reporter's question at his news conference, here's how Obama handled that issue:
QUESTION Thank you, Mr. President. Your administration has said that the offer to talk to Iran's leaders remains open. Can you say if that's still so, even with all the violence that has been committed by the government against the peaceful protesters? And if it is, is there any red line that your administration won't cross where that offer will be shut off?THE PRESIDENT Well, obviously what's happened in Iran is profound. And we're still waiting to see how it plays itself out. My position coming into this office has been that the United States has core national security interests in making sure that Iran doesn't possess a nuclear weapon and it stops exporting terrorism outside of its borders.
We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community, engage, and become a part of international norms. It is up to them to make a decision as to whether they choose that path. What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging, in terms of the path that this regime may choose to take. And the fact that they are now in the midst of an extraordinary debate taking place in Iran may end up coloring how they respond to the international community as a whole.
We are going to monitor and see how this plays itself out before we make any judgments about how we proceed. But just to reiterate, there is a path available to Iran in which their sovereignty is respected, their traditions, their culture, their faith is respected, but one in which they are part of a larger community that has responsibilities and operates according to norms and international rules that are universal. We don't know how they're going to respond yet, and that's what we're waiting to see.
Reading that carefully, it is clear that Obama isn't taking the offer to talk off the table. (In other words, all options are on the table!)
In a piece of staged Q & A, Obama called on the Huffington Post, whose reporter rather theatrically forwarded a question to Obama "directly from an Iranian." Pressed by the reporter to say whether he'd refuse to recognize Ahmadinejad an Iran's president, Obama said, correctly, "There are significant questions about the legitimacy of the election." But he added:
"Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government."
Later, bugged by Major Garrett of Fox News, Obama still insisted that he's willing to talk to Iran's leaders, and he reiterated the offer to host Iranian diplomats at July 4 gatherings at US embassies:
GARRETT Are Iranian diplomats still welcome at the embassy on the Fourth of July, sir?THE PRESIDENT Well, I think as you're aware, Major, we don't have formal diplomatic relations with -- we don't have formal diplomatic relations with Iran. I think that we have said that if Iran chooses a path that abides by international norms and principles, then we are interested in healing some of the wounds of 30 years, in terms of U.S.-Iranian relations. But that is a choice that the Iranians are going to have to make.
GARRETT But the offer still stands?
THE PRESIDENT That's a choice the Iranians are going to have to make.
The neocons, including Elliot Abrams -- who's quoted in the papers today -- are pushing hard for Obama to refuse to talk to Iran. Let's hope he continues to reject that advice.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
I'm just glad the "Bomb Iran" or "Let Israel Bomb Iran" Crowd has been put in "time-out" for a good long time.
How do they push that now, when ANY bombing run will incur "collateral damage" (i.e. lots of "Nedas")...that THEY claim to be "more concerned than Obama about"???
And if any neo-con would like to step up and explain how that's NOT what the "imagery" would be or why it wouldn't make them look foolish and utterly hypocritical...
well...I'm sure SJCHER will step up.....LOL
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 09:24am
Lost in the chaos is the irony of an American president condemning the killing of innocent people on the same day that his own military kills 60 or more innocent people in a foreign country.
I think that President Obama should go no further in condemning Iran. Aside from the considerations Dreyfuss wrote on above, the Iranian people and the Muslim world in general have never been impressed by American hypocrisy in relating to them. The closest friends the US has in the region are the brutal regimes of Israel and Saudi Arabia. Where is the American demand for justice and safety for the Palestinian people? Where is the American demand for democracy in Saudi Arabia? Condemning Iran will only raise questions of US conduct.
Finally, it is true that the only poll conducted by a reputable western agency prior to the Iranian election did predict 89% turnout (actual: 85%) and did predict 66% of the vote going to Ahmadinejad (actual 62% according to the disputed result). Assuming election fraud did happen, was it really a big enough fraud to award at least 13% of the votes to Ahmadinejad? That is the minimum percentage needed to switch a Mousavi win to an Ahmadinejad win.
And as a parting note, western media needs to get over its love affair with Mousavi, who apparently is one of the more corrupt figures in Iranian politics, and as far as being a "reformer" he has been a hardline anti-Western figure in the back who has supported Hez'b'allah's worst acts, etc.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 09:58am
"And as a parting note, western media needs to get over its love affair with Mousavi, who apparently is one of the more corrupt figures in Iranian politics, and as far as being a "reformer" he has been a hardline anti-Western figure in the back who has supported Hez'b'allah's worst acts, etc."----Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 09:58am
And what is your opinion of Ahmadinejad???
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 10:09am
DREYFUSS: "Since the election on June 12, his rhetoric has become harsher by the day."
So far, AhmaDineInYourJeans is still, though a bit strained, a member of Magic's family-as was Rev. Wright. Now, will BHO's Persian `Uncle', end up under that big BUS? Plenty of room left....LOL!
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:12am
DREYFUSS: "While Khamenei and Ahmadinejad may not want to talk soon, for the reasons I stated above, if they do offer to talk I think it will absurd and foolhardy not to take them up on the offer."
I'm sorry Robert, calling it as I see it......youo and much of the present administration, are engaged in political masturbation.....satisfied the urge but, is it satisfying?
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:14am
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:14am
Curious, HAPP....if "diplomacy is out" (since it's "masturbation")...
and you can't BOMB Iran, now that you guys have said you "Love the Iranian people more than Obama apparently does"....
what's left in your options bag????
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 11:10am
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:12am Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 10:14am
two consecutive posts of nothing but angry nonsense. I am getting so close to adding hap to my list...
Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:11am
Curious, HAPP....if "diplomacy is out" (since it's "masturbation")...
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 11:10am
So, that's what BHO has been doing w/Iran? "diplomacy"! My bad....snickers, slyly.
==================================
I am getting so close to adding hap to my list...
Posted by Extraneous at 06/24/2009 @ 11:11am
Please do! Your side's arguments get weaker by the day and it's a nice reversal for us righties.....facts on the ground, you know, that sort of thing. Your arguments have been weak...and you've got to keep it up for 3.5 years.....man, that's work!
============================
Now, signing off from Orlando!
Posted by Happy at 06/24/2009 @ 11:18am
I can't fathom why everybody is beating around the bush and not saying out loud that the current system in Iran is from and of the Middle Ages (akin to the Protestant and Catholic Inquisition of that time)!! If a society wants to be included in an international community of nations, most if not all of which are working hard to consolidate a modern state, it has to share a set of common values, with the first and foremost being that it is a secular state and certainly not a theocracy of any stripe!!
Aren't we in the 21st Century and not in the 14th Century!!!!
Posted by samgeorge at 06/24/2009 @ 11:20am
Mask,
You said "I'm just glad the "Bomb Iran" or "Let Israel Bomb Iran" Crowd has been put in "time-out" for a good long time."
and you also said "...well...I'm sure SJCHER will step up....."
On your second item, as always, your prediction is correct....here I am!
On your first item, assuming Ahmadinejad maintains control and things stay the way they are, and there certianly is some uncertainty at the moment, but assuming the Holocaust denier keeps control, here are 2 comments:
1. There is no such thing as "Let Israel Bomb Iran"......if the time comes when Bibi determines there is no choice but to bomb Iran to take out nuke-making capability, then Iran will be bombed. Bibi will decide, no one will "let" him do it.
2. As I have said before, what I would like to see, and this will not be available soon enough if Iran may have a nuke in 2 to 3 years, but this will be available after January 20, 2013, would be the following discourse between the U.S. President and Ahmadinejad:
"Lookie here, Ahmadinejad, you get rid of your nuke making capability yourself or we will get rid of it for you by bombing. Do we have a deal? You do what we say, or you get bombed, you betcha!! Deal or bombs? Up to you"
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 11:31am
Thanks to Repubs & Neos we are now getting the blame for fomenting civil disorder and interference in Iranian elections. Behind the scenes, that blame may be well placed, going well beyond pol and media rhetoric. The Repubs and Neos certainly gave a public face to it.
Maybe Ahmadinejad is going to refuse to talk to us. Kiss Iranian help on Iraq and Afghanistan goodbye, and say hello to Russia and China calling the shots on Iranian diplomacy. We are going to have to learn to live with it - like it or not. Ahmadinejad doesn't have to accept any "precondition," obviously. Abandonment of nuclear ambitions is off the table - has been for some time.
Posted by OneVote at 06/24/2009 @ 11:50am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 11:31am
Well, on your 2nd point, SJ.....brings back up HAPP's discussion of...masturbation.
2nd- Don't you want us to SUPPORT Netanyahu, if he does that? And isn't there going to be atleast SOME "collateral damage"?
And aren't photos of "it"....going to look a lot like "Neda"???
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 12:27pm
Mask,
You are comparing apples to oranges....a person killed in cold blood vs collateral damage in the effort to prevent Iran from having nukes (and destroying Israel with them and threatening the rest of the world with them and giving Iran more leverage than there should be).
Iran would be the one that would have the ability to prevent the collateral damage...but stopping the buildup towards nukes.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 12:33pm
'... You do what we say, or you get bombed, you betcha!! Deal or bombs? Up to you" Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 11:31am
Oh yeah. Start a third military conflict. That's smart.
Let Israel bomb 'em if anyone is going to do it. With all the aid money we send them they should have plenty of ordinance around to do the job. Maybe they can expand their settlements over there.
What else can you expect from our 'ambassador of good will' YouBetchaChermak?
Posted by ficheye at 06/24/2009 @ 12:34pm
"Lookie here, Ahmadinejad.... You do what we say, or you get bombed, you betcha!!..."
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 11:31am
Lemme guess....you voted for Palin.
Posted by Malcontent at 06/24/2009 @ 1:17pm
Dreyfuss is having a field day. His exercise in wish fulfillment will in no time at all distabilze Iran. His blatant lies that the election was rigged/stolen (with no emperical evidence)is an insult to those tasked with counting the votes (teachers, civil servants and opposition representaives etc) that reformists are thwarted from achieving power(more reformist have run for Office than other wise) is an outrage.. Boy! I have seen reactionaries and and I have read reactionaries, but Dreyfuss beats them all. Thomm.
Posted by tecle at 06/24/2009 @ 1:31pm
Iran would be the one that would have the ability to prevent the collateral damage...but stopping the buildup towards nukes.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 12:33pm | ignore this person | warn this person
More collateral damage from misguided foreign policy Chermak?
'Bomb strikes Shiite market in Baghdad, killing 56; Exerpt AP
BAGHDAD – A bomb hidden in a cart of vegetables ripped through a crowded market in Baghdad's Sadr City on Wednesday, killing at least 56 people, Iraqi officials said, just days after the U.S. military closed its main base in the Shiite district.
It was the third deadliest attack this year and occurred less than a week before a deadline for U.S. combat troops to leave Iraqi cities under a new security pact.'
Posted by OneVote at 06/24/2009 @ 1:32pm
Malcontent,
You "guessed":
"......Lemme guess....you voted for Palin....."
Right you are, Malcontent. But I would have rather that she and McCain had switched places on the ticket so she was running for Pres. and McCain for VP.
(Yes, Mask I voted for McCain despite his opinions on global warming....once again you do remember, he was the less-lib of the 2 libs running for President, and the less lib-lib McCain had a conservative as a running mate whereas the more lib-lib Obama had another lib as a running mate).
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 1:53pm
Could someone explain the difference to me between the "despotic one-party state of Iran which deprives civil liberties" and the government of China. Why do people think/hope/expect the Iranian protests to reach a result different from Tianneman Square. I mean, other than that we don't like mullahs and religion, but have a soft spot for "red" parties.
Posted by gren at 06/24/2009 @ 2:17pm
Iran would be the one that would have the ability to prevent the collateral damage...but stopping the buildup towards nukes.----Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 12:33pm
Just like the ayatollahs are saying "the protestors have the ability to prevent more deaths in the street...by stopping their protests".
Thanks, SJCHER
BTW, I'm sure people holding their dead relative's bodies that just happened to be within the blast radius of a "suspected nuke site"....will be understanding and put the blame squarely on Ahmadinejad....and not Netanyahu and US for tacitedly supporting him.
Since the main thing to them is not their family getting killed....but the "geo-political" rationale for it.
Posted by Mask at 06/24/2009 @ 2:32pm
Talk to the Iranians about what?
DEATH TO AMERICA!
DEATH TO THE UNITED STATES!
It didn't stop post-Cairo, and anyone who thinks it will be otherwise in the absence of total regime change is criminally delusional.
Obama's theories of rapproachement, first verbalized during the presidential campaign have been discredited by recently past and present events. His outreach to Iran was a nonstarter from the get-go...and Obama continues to look foolish.
But not as foolish as you, Mr. Drefuss. You're seriously unhinged...and more's the pity.
Posted by JackDavis1 at 06/24/2009 @ 2:56pm
Mask,
Preventing Iran from getting nukes is not"geo political" when you consider that they want to destroy Israel with them and they would have the rest of the world over a barrel if they get nukes.
Look what is happening with the North Korean situation. We are a bit hamstrung as to what we can do, because they have nukes.
Iran does not now have a nuke. They will soon if not stopped. How could it possibly make any kind of sense at all to let Iran have a nuke when that did not have to be, and thus create a 2nd North Korean situation?
This has to be prevented.... Unfortunately, on a site such as The Nation, populated heavily by libs, the "moral equivalence" starts spinning out of the libs minds, libs that see nothing wrong with Iran having a nuke because we do. Libs that see us as evildoers also.
Thus, the need to prevent hate mongers and Holocaust deniers from getting a nuke is boiled away to a description of it as a "geopolitical" concern, where the U.S. is no more right and maybe even more wrong (in the lib mind) as other countries in the world.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 3:10pm
Wow! Appeasement at any cost! Peace in our time! The left never learns? However, if Obama wants to abdicate the role of the U.S. in standing up for freedom and democracy that's his choice, or I should say he's already abdicated it. He won after all, 53%. And since the religious crazies in Iran are hell bent on developing their nuclear arsenal whether they talk or not, Obama might as well talk. It should be an interesting conversation. He can congratulate Ahmadinejad on beating down the freedom protestors. Tell him what a good shot he got in with that poor young girl Neda. Maybe after that he can get down on his knees like he did with the Saudi King and beg Ahmadinejad not to develop nuclear weapons, stop his plans to wipe Israel off the map, and stop supporting terrorists. Yep I'm sure that will impress the holocaust deniers, it worked so well for PM Chamberlain with Hitler!
Posted by valwayne at 06/24/2009 @ 3:39pm
It would appear that President Obama has taken a Stupid Pill:
" ... WASHINGTON -- An offer for Iranian envoys to attend U.S. embassy Fourth of July parties has been rescinded as the violent crackdown in Tehran continues, the White House said Wednesday.
"Given the events of the past many days, those invitations will no longer be extended," presidential spokesman Robert Gibbs said ..."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/24/obamas -july-4-invites-to-_n_220297.html
I really believe that Mr. Obama should resist the pressure on him to take a side in Iran's domestic election. That is a good way to damage his diplomatic outreach effort to the Iranians, an effort that is needed to reduce the likelihood of war or disastrous conflict involving Iran.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 3:39pm
Posted by valwayne at 06/24/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
How do you rectify " ... the role of the U.S. in standing up for freedom and democracy ..." with the fact that the US has never once called for freedom or democracy in Saudi Arabia, a nation we sell high-grade military weapons systems to, and allow to own large amounts of stock and financial instruments in our Wall Street and banking systems?
Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 3:41pm
imho a state in possession of nuclear armament is not so stupid as to use it, at least for the last nearly 65 years. I am certain, having watched the events of the last week, that the ruling elite of Iran have *no* intentions of martyring themselves. They, as do all the others, prefer their citizens to undertake the role, and in the environment of unlimited local brutality fostered by our nuclear shields, the situation of more modern-day progressive-minded people will continue to deteriorate everywhere. Get Up Stand Up and all that cause they will cut off your nose to spite their face
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/24/2009 @ 3:54pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 3:10pm
Seems that you've decided that since Netanyahu took over in Israel that they've "lost the will to survive" as a nation (you wanted Avigdor Lieberman on steroids) & that the US must take out Iran to eliminate the most likely source of aggression toward them by proxy or otherwise.
Seems that you believe that if Israel is spared the use of their extensive military arsenal in a "retaliatory" strike at Iran, they'd be able to build more quickly & lavishly on the West Bank & thus hasten Biblical prophesy.
Has Palin already said this?
Posted by Sorelish at 06/24/2009 @ 4:12pm
Yep I'm sure that will impress the holocaust deniers, it worked so well for PM Chamberlain with Hitler!
Posted by valwayne at 06/24/2009 @ 3:39pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Including Israel in holocaust deniers to be impressed?
Have you called for Israeli government to be purged of all complicit in denial of Armenian genocide at the hands of the Turks?
Or - are you only concerned about a certain segment of the human race.
Posted by OneVote at 06/24/2009 @ 4:21pm
Because of the internal conditions in Iran, it may be sometime before they would be ready for talks. Whoever is in charge will support the Palestinians, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and Syria. While Iran, at best, may allow inspections and some transparency with their nuclear program, I doubt if they will give up enrichment programs for the nuclear power plants. To stop terrorism in Israel, there would have to be a peace agreement with the Palestinians, along with settling land issues with Lebanon and Syria. I do not see any large scale attack from Iran on Israel that might harm the Palestinians or Jerusalem. However the proxy wars will continue until a peace agreements with the previously mentioned countries and groups are signed. Unless the Iraqis can pull together, a Sunni/Shia proxy war is possible after we leave. It may have already started?
Posted by pjcasey at 06/24/2009 @ 5:04pm
Prof Jim Petras at Global Research has refuted Dreyfuss' take on the "stolen" election. Also T.E. Arnold.
Posted by zionopp at 06/24/2009 @ 5:08pm
As a Jew I never cease being amazed at the anti-semitism of the left and, in particular by those who are apparently Jewish themselves.
Some papers released today by the Nixon Library indicate his view that Jews must have a death wish.
I think Nixon was correct.
Posted by westernblot at 06/24/2009 @ 5:30pm
<i>Posted by zionopp at 06/24/2009 @ 5:08pm </i>
Link? And should the failure to count millions of votes be relevant?
<i>Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 3:41pm </i>
This argument goes 1 of 2 directions. Either
a) Saudi Arabia is importantly different from Iran...in which case the result (defending people defending freedom) could also be different, OR
b) Saudi Arabia is not importantly different. In which case...yes, absolutely say "repression=bad" there too. Here, though, it might actually make a difference.
That's also why rescinding the invitation was absolutely correct. First, supporting the protests is not at all synonymous with supporting Mousavi; I've already made this point elsewhere. Second, even if we talk to Iran, we don't invite its leaders to a party while they're gunning down their own people.
Diplomatic concerns are a factor, but I have 2 responses to Dreyfuss:
1) What makes you so sure that Ahmadinejad will prevail? And that even if he does, things will be the same? Khamenei is likely to come out of this much less powerful than before; people are far more willing to criticize him than they once were.
2) Even if you think he's likely to prevail...why not do what many European countries are doing and condemn the blatantly obvious human rights abuses involved in murdering and imprisoning innocent protestors? Why not say that we will talk to Iran's government IF they stop this repression. In fact, by your OWN analysis about the likelihood of an Ahmadinejad government honestly dealing with us, it seems like reason dictates precisely what morality does: don't meddle with military force or anything like that, but certainly don't act to enable this regime.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2009 @ 6:12pm
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 11:31am
It's a pity you don;t bother reading the news once in a while. it woudl save you a great deal of embarrassment.
>>1. There is no such thing as "Let Israel Bomb Iran"......if the time comes when Bibi determines there is no choice but to bomb Iran to take out nuke-making capability, then Iran will be bombed. Bibi will decide, no one will "let" him do it.<<
Wrong. Israel wanted to bomb Iran last year but was denied by George Bush. Hence, it was up to the US president to "let" Israel attack Iran.
>> "Lookie here, Ahmadinejad, you get rid of your nuke making capability yourself or we will get rid of it for you by bombing. <<
That almost makes sense, except for the problem that we don't attack countries with nukes, which is why countries like to have them.
Posted by Shingo at 06/24/2009 @ 6:50pm
<i>Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/24/2009 @ 6:52pm </i>
Yet again, your non-responsiveness is awfully telling, as is your gigantic assumption that anti-Ahmadinejad and anti-Iran are somehow identical (given who's killing who, they seem to be opposites).
So let me ask you yet again...what kind of "patriotic" president orders the murder and imprisonment of his own unarmed, peaceful civilians?
Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2009 @ 7:58pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2009 @ 7:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Do you have any evidence that Ahmadinejad himself ordered the "Basij" and the police into action? The "Basij" are paramilitary thugs and don't have any central command and control. They are basically a collection of creepy all-volunteer militias. Likewise, there is a big difference between the President and the Chief of Police. A lot of the riot police are probably city and regional police forces that are ordered by agencies that aren't part of the national executive in Iran. Finally, the Revolutionary Guards are independent from the President and have a lot of control over the means of force in Iran, apparently.
I don't think you or I know at all well how Iran is run on a day-to-day basis, but when, in the US, there are violent police rampages (see: WTO 1999 in Seattle) it is not as if the head-of-state is ordering police violence against protesters.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 8:34pm
For all the blather about Iran censoring the information so it can't get out, Something has happened in the US that doesn't allow the news to get in. Two articles from Haaretz, an Israeli newspaper(June 17) have been totally censored in the US MSM and alternate news sources. "Mossad:Iran Will Have Nuclear Bomb by 2014" and "Israel Can't Make up it's Mind About Iran Nuclear Timetable". My take is that these articles show how intelligence has been manipulated for years by the neo-cons and Zionists in Israel and the US to sway public opinion for their political gain. These stories should stop the neo-con drive to bomb, bomb, Iran. What is really scary is that President Obama and the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are both parroting the AIPAC line that Iran is attempting to build nuclear weapons when our CIA, the Russians, and the UN nuclear Inspectors say there is no evidence of that. This is a very dangerous game, with AIPAC enablers in Congress trying to pass laws that could precipitate war with Iran and the administration allowing a Zionist like Dennis Ross to be anywhere near Iran policy decisions. At present, the new White House is really following the old White House line of the Bush era. Bad mouth the Iranians and then act surprised that they don't want to talk to us. The big question for everyone is, what organization has the power to totally censor such an important story?
Posted by Aarky at 06/24/2009 @ 8:37pm
Wow. Simply wow. Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/24/2009 @ 6:52pm
So... if this author pisses you off, why on earth do you come here? From your response to the article above it's pretty clear that you really didn't read it, either.
We all await your informed and informational discourse on the above topic with or without the vile expletives. Tell us how things are in Iran so that we are not led astray into the wilderness of doubt.
Posted by ficheye at 06/24/2009 @ 8:38pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2009 @ 7:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Furthermore, I speculate that the "Basij" - the squads of armed goons who shot "Neda" and apparently are the most violent figures in the streets, shooting and killing people, beating people, destroying property and structures - don't answer in any way to Ahmadinejad. I don't think they answer to him, I don't think they have any means of contact with him. I don't think that their "leadership" will be taking their marching orders from Ahmadinejad. I suspect that their "leadership" will take orders and direction from various "hard-line" clerics and/or ex-military figures, perhaps from the Revolutionary Guards.
As far as the "Basij" are concerned, I *have* seen video of police forces attempting to stop "Basij" from attacking protesters in the streets who wear the green articles, dispute the election results, etc.
I don't think you can say at all that Ahmadinejad ordered a bunch of violent yokel goons on the ground in various cities of Iran to start shooting protesters. He may not have any control over that himself at all.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 8:39pm
Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2009 @ 7:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Has it occurred to you that Ahmadinejad may not be in control of Iran, and not responsible for every bad thing in Iran? He may be an extremist, he may be anti-Western, he may even be a figure who is a bad leader for Iran - not that I know really what the average Iranian in a city or a countryside needs in an Iranian President. I do know that power is not held in Iran the way it is held in the US - the President in Iran is not the true head of state, and his power is checked by a parliamentary body, by a Supreme Leader who is named by a council of high-ranking mullahs, by a Revolutionary Guards organization that controls the heavy use of military force, and by a clerics' council. It is not possible to call an Iranian president a "dictator" because, even if he perpetrates vast electoral fraud, somehow, he doesn't have the power that a US president holds.
As for the situation itself in Iran, my growing understanding is that this "reformist" figure Moussavi - annointed "reformist" by Western media operating in countries that have historically interfered with Iran's politics and are currently at odds with both Iran and Ahmadinejad - is in actuality a fairly dark figure himself.
And, finally, Khameini's allegation that the CIA etc are behind the protests entirely is absurd only if you take him to mean the CIA etc started the entirety of the protesting, and keep it going. It is however completely reasonable to believe that US intelligence operations, long aimed at destabilizing the Ahmadinejad government, and with easy access to Iran via the vast, porous border with Iraq, would have "assets" working in Iran to inflame the disorder, as part of a general covert action.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 8:52pm
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/24/2009 @ 9:05pm
Like I said. You didn't read the article. But I understand your being highly annoyed with the status quo.
Go to existentialistcowboy.com. Len Hart has some similar things to say. What the hell. It's a lark.
Posted by ficheye at 06/24/2009 @ 9:14pm
Dreyfuss says we should talk to Iran:
Why?
What in the world do we possibly have to gain?
*We* have no interests in Iran. Anything remotely interesting could be handled through the auspices of the UN, the Europeans.
Salutary in multiple respects: 1. It encourages these organizations to act responsibly. Iran's presence on the human rights committee of the UN is a bit of an embarassment isn't it. No longer possible to just blame the US.
2. Funny: when Republicans go to bed with dictators, and countries like china lefties go nuts.
When O'bama does the same: Opprobium. Pointing out the hypocrisy can only have a salutary effect on the swing independents.
3. Not talking to Iran would be the mildest consequence I can imagine for brutally repressing a nascent velvet revolution. It would be nice were there *some* consequence.
4. Finally, it would signal a recognition by the jaw-jaw crowd that there *is* no future in nuclear negotiations with Iran. Time to consider what to do next.
Iran is willing to rig a fraudulent election. Brutally repress its people. Supress freedom of the press. Suspend rights of free assembly. Set up a special legal process for protesters. etc etc ad nauseum.
How much do you think they really care about world opinion?
Countries talk when they can accomplish a national goal by doing so. What can Iran accomplish by talking to us.
Other than showing that we are spineless and ridiculous of course.
Posted by chrispedersen at 06/24/2009 @ 9:23pm
<i>Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 8:34pm </i>
This will respond both to you and Ilya, since you're both making essentially the same point (though the idea that Ahmadinejad is a "patriot" should be so patently ludicrous as to hardly need addressing; Holocaust denial is an awfully easy basis for this, but I think the responses to demonstrations count too).
Here's why I'm pretty sure Ahmadinejad is at least involved (even if he's not directing the whole thing):
1) He's the clear beneficiary. He wins, masses protest, he has a vested interest in them not getting what they want.
2) He has very strong connections to the people who CLEARLY are involved. Like Khamenei (unless you think his threats of violence were followed with a "j/k" that the mikes just didn't catch). This is what ideologically immovable tyrannies do when they are challenged: they crack down. They act swiftly to punish dissent.
3) Who do you suppose IS doing this? Clearly not Mousavi; he's been threatened with arrest and is probably concerned about the possibility of being killed. Also, even if the Basij aren't under Ahmadinejad/Khamenei's control...the people arresting unarmed protestors certainly are.
And, if the Basij are simply rogues that aren't sanctioned by the regime...why not call them out and at least try to look good?
This is no longer about Mousavi, but there's no world in which the Iranian governing structure isn't responsible of what's going on.
Posted by Thrawn at 06/24/2009 @ 9:42pm
Wow. what happened here since I was away? You have people putting "Neda" in quotes like that can mute the impact of this young woman's death and the catalyst she has become for the Iranian youth.
"Emmet Till." See, it doesn't work.
Posted by gangpapist at 06/24/2009 @ 10:32pm
Did any of you see the movie The Color Of Paradise? I recommend it 5 stars. A parable made by an Iranian filmmaker, it seems to speak on current events. Especially the part where the bridge collapses plunging the selfish father's blind son into the raging stream horse and all. Y'know, it seems that women are the keepers of the Iranian soul. Sorry guys. You lose.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/25/2009 @ 12:01am
Amendment: Sorry *dictator* guys
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/25/2009 @ 12:16am
Dictators and crazy mullahs kill and shatter the aspirations of people longing for the freedoms we all enjoy. Those very same people see "Hope" in a new American president and what he says and stands for. American President ignores said people and their aspirations for freedom. Instead tries to talk to Dictator and crazy mullah....
Gotta love fringe liberal thinkers....how did you people ever escape the playground bully?....lol
Posted by dartagnansblade at 06/25/2009 @ 06:33am
Posted by dartagnansblade at 06/25/2009 @ 06:33am
Uh, Dart...you DO know that, before he left office, DUBYA was trying to open up negotiations with Iran???
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:08am
Posted by sjchermak at 06/24/2009 @ 3:10pm
BTW, Larry/antisoc....think SJ just proved you wrong!
"Few, if any conservatives were calling for any bombing mission now in Iran"-------Posted by antisocialist at 06/15/2009 @ 12:44pm
Iran's Twitter Revolution posted by Ari Berman on 06/15/2009 @ 12:15pm
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:10am
Dreyfuss declares:
>> But if Khamenei and Ahmadinejad want to talk to the United States, perhaps as soon as this fall, America's answer had better be: Yes. <<
Why?
Why would Ahmedinejad or Khamenei want to speak to the US?
They didn't in the past. They preferred to simply have us as a bogeyman. In 2007 Condi Rice got the Egyptians to seat her at the table of the Iranian foreign minister during a conference at Sharm el Sheikh. The Iranian rose and left the hall complaining a violinist in a red dress was immodestly dressed.
They knew what we wanted to say to them, and they did not want to hear it. A conversation, while we have the upper hand, didn't interest them. When they have the bomb, then they will be glad to talk.
And why had the US better talk to them? The moment we rush to accept the favor of a talk with them, we have lost. They are tough customers even when they have a weak hand; if they believe themselves strong, they will be merciless.
Moreover, there is little to talk about. They know what we want of them. And we know that whatever they might concede will only be temporary, a compromise to bridge a moment of weakness. We need a regime of reasonable, secular Iranians with whom it is possible to talk and who will keep their word.
The curious thing, in this blizzard of Iran reportage, is how Dreyfuss ignores the most fateful development.
The crowds are not just rejecting a questionable election, they are rejecting the mullah's idea of democracy, Islamic democracy.
Which leaves us, if you will notice boys and girls, with the Muslim's only other democracy, the secular version. The Arabs who thought Islam could give them a democratic alternative are left with Iraq, by courtesy of George W Bush and the neocoms.
Posted by Hugo_Pirovano at 06/25/2009 @ 08:17am
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 08:08am
Man, I bet that was one cold call
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/25/2009 @ 08:23am
Wrong. Israel wanted to bomb Iran last year but was denied by George Bush. Hence, it was up to the US president to "let" Israel attack Iran.
Posted by Shingo at 06/24/2009 @ 6:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Sure sounds like Israeli unilateral action on bombing Iran isn't an option in Bibi's stable - and The Guardian believes (at the date of the article cite) that the "green light" is still necessary, and that Bush was 'enhancing' Israel's capability via sale of bunker busting bombs but was leaving discretion to the next president. For Bush - "two wars at a time" was probably enough at the end of presidency. Note that some of these bombs were used in Gaza by Israel already.
'The US announced two weeks ago that it would sell Israel 1,000 bunker-busting bombs. The move was interpreted by some analysts as a consolation prize for Israel after Bush told Olmert of his opposition to an attack on Iran. But it could also enhance Israel's attack options in case the next US president revives the military option.
The guided bomb unit-39 (GBU-39) has a penetration capacity equivalent to a one-tonne bomb. Israel already has some bunker-busters'
Israel asked US for green light to bomb nuclear sites in Iran - Jonathan Steele; 09/25/08 - Guardian.co.uK - Excerpt
Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2009 @ 09:59am
Hugo_Pirovano,
You are right that secular democracies in the Muslim world are the only way to go.
You say "....And we know that whatever they might concede will only be temporary, a compromise to bridge a moment of weakness....."
Compromise or cease fires in the Muslim world such as what you mentioned are known as Hudnas.
Their beliefs give them the "green light" to break agreements.
It appears that these Hudnas are made with the intention to eventually break the agreement when they deem appropriate.
Right from the get-go they are making agreements they have no intention of honoring or living up to.
Their religion, the Religion of Peace, is what gives them the "authority" to do this.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 10:21am
For a real travesty of journalism, check out the NYT today: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/world/middle east/25tehran.html?ref=global-home
Notice that the NYT reporter in question - NEIL MacFARQUHAR - and his editors too - actually published an article attempting to characterize how Ahmadinejad has got his fingers throughout government - get this - using exclusively anonymous sources.
That's right! Every bit of supporting commentary MacFarquhar uses to directly characterize Ahmadinejad is sourced to "analysts". There is no indication of who these "analysts" are, who employs them, how they can claim to have expertise, what political vendettas with Iran and/or Ahmadinejad they do or do not have, nothing at all.
Great job NYT! You've published a headline article attempting to characterize a controversial foreign President as a dictator based exclusively on anonymous comments from "analysts" who did not wish to be identified. I believe in the vernacular we call this a "hit piece".
Posted by syfriendly at 06/25/2009 @ 10:47am
I'm just glad the "Bomb Iran" or "Let Israel Bomb Iran" Crowd has been put in "time-out" for a good long time.
Actually mask, I hate to disappoint you, but Secretary of State Clinton implied the exact opposite in a recent interview with Stephanopolous. We have a president who claims to have no interest in attacking Iran. That being said, Obama declared "all options are on the table" and the administration has made it quite clear that this includes a first strike by the U.S. or Israel.
Posted by nkurland at 06/25/2009 @ 11:00am
"Compromise or cease fires in the Muslim world such as what you mentioned are known as Hudnas.
Their beliefs give them the "green light" to break agreements.
It appears that these Hudnas are made with the intention to eventually break the agreement when they deem appropriate.
Right from the get-go they are making agreements they have no intention of honoring or living up to.
Their religion, the Religion of Peace, is what gives them the "authority" to do this."----Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 10:21am
So SJCHER, given IRAQ is 97% Muslim....we have no reason to trust our new "allies" in Baghdad, do we?
(Backpedalling will generate upto 13.5 kilowatts/hour....LOL)
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:41am
Posted by nkurland at 06/25/2009 @ 11:00am
Bargaining chip, nkur. Keeping it out there as a "stick" to go with the "carrot".
Our right-wing friends see bombing Iran as an "inevitability"...no "carrots" need apply.
And even so, how do they support it, when there will be photos, just like "Neda", of "collateral damage"...and all their talk of how much they "love the Iranian people more than Obama did". Of course, as SJCHER shows, they WOULD...they always find a rationalization.
And if Obama did green-light an attack, by us or proxied through Israel", look for them to STILL carp, saying it was "done late" or even, yes, I would think some of them to join the Left and might discuss "civilian deaths"....just to have something to hit Obama with.
Remember the Somali pirate incident, he did what they wanted, what most wanted...and they STILL complained.
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:46am
Yes Mask,
Collateral damage committed while stealing nukes from a baby hitler is the same as gunning down an unarmed woman for the purpose of gunning down an unarmed woman.
Everything is the same as everything.
This is 2008. Did you ever stop hating your countryfucks for long enough to ponder that some people might legitimately 1) empathize with democratic struggles afar 2) think nukes in the hands of Islamobaddies is bad, and not just be looking for an excuse to make ear-necklaces?
Posted by gangpapist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:31pm
2009. Damn.
Posted by gangpapist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:49pm
Remember the Somali pirate incident, he did what they wanted, what most wanted...and they STILL complained.
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 11:46am
Funny, I seem to remember most conservatives, including myself, applauding Obama for the Somali pirate action.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:51pm
"Did you ever stop hating your countryfucks for long enough to ponder ...."---Posted by gangpapist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:31pm
I'm sorry....my what?
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 12:57pm
Funny, I seem to remember most conservatives, including myself, applauding Obama for the Somali pirate action.-----Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:51pm
Happy to help you out-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RStQBdURg2A
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 12:58pm
your countrymen
Posted by gangpapist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:01pm
This is 2008. Did you ever stop hating your countryfucks for long enough to ponder that some people might legitimately 1) empathize with democratic struggles afar 2) think nukes in the hands of Islamobaddies is bad, and not just be looking for an excuse to make ear-necklaces?
Posted by gangpapist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:31pm
Problem is GP is those 'countrymen' you reference include the f__kups who incited Shiite and Kurdish insurrection in Iraq during the 1st Gulf War, only to abandon them when HW & Company decided that they had better leave your other baby Hitler in place. Better the devil you know than the one you don't know. Saddam exacted his revenge - more collateral damage and broken promises from the folks who want to bring freedom and democracy to the Muslim world. Now Baby Bush wanted to right the wrong of Pappa Bush, but look at what a mess he made of things.
And as I recall, US is only country ever to have used nukes. I think you are fearful that your brethren are going to be deterred by 'deterrance.' Maybe when Iran has nukes, we will begin to mind "our" own business. That might be a good start on the peace process. Those who bargain with your "countrymen" from a position of weakness tend to get royally screwed.
Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2009 @ 1:15pm
Funny, I seem to remember most conservatives, including myself, applauding Obama for the Somali pirate action.-----Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 12:51pm
Happy to help you out-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RStQBdURg2A
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 12:58pm
I hadn't seen this since I don't watch him.
I've said before that I dislike Hannity and that he's just not much of a thinker.
I appreciated the way Goldberg called him out on it.
Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:33pm
"Problem is GP is those 'countrymen' you reference include the f__kups who incited Shiite and Kurdish insurrection in Iraq during the 1st Gulf War, only to abandon them when HW & Company decided that they had better leave your other baby Hitler in place."
That was criminal. I don't think at this point that what Baby made is a terrible mess, though I can respect the argument that he shouldn't have made anything.
Some governments are better off weak. Would you want the Sudanese in a position of (nuclear) strength? I know we are a flawed nation with a flawed history, but I would prefer US hegemony, and Indian, and even Chinese, to Islamicist.
Of course, the best course of action would be little or no action, as the Iranians replace their government with the better one they deserve. The only losers in that scenario would be 1) right-wingers who can't stand for anything positive to happen on Obama's watch 2)rad leftists who reflexively support any and all hate america types, 3) rad Israelis who need the hate.
Posted by gangpapist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:41pm
"... and that he's just not much of a thinker."----Posted by antisocialist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:33pm
We have an accord!
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/25/2009 @ 2:11pm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14018
Here's the Petras link. Actually, as to the Iranian president's patriotism, someone above seemed to claim this is nullified by his Holocaust revisionism.
What?!
As to Dreyfuss being pro-Israel as accused, I always assume any Mideast political commentor who also claims Jewish identity is at least a soft Zionist if he or she doesn't argue for a Finklestein/Chomsky "two state as process to one state" ultimate solution and with full right of return.
Posted by zionopp at 06/25/2009 @ 2:35pm
Some governments are better off weak. Would you want the Sudanese in a position of (nuclear) strength? I know we are a flawed nation with a flawed history, but I would prefer US hegemony, and Indian, and even Chinese, to Islamicist.
Posted by gangpapist at 06/25/2009 @ 1:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Well - in a perfect world......
But, what is the likelihood? And, at what cost in those up for grabs spheres of influence? Are we willing to start WWIII to preserve Israeli nuclear hegemony? Seems like what they call a "pyhrric victory" does it not?
Nazi Germany was working on an A bomb - and there are many who believe that without the aid of German nuclear scientists we would have not been able to develop a bomb for use on Japan before the need to invade with ground forces. How long was it before the Soviet Union got the bomb?
Iran isn't comparable to Sudan. In fact, US was aiding nuclear development in Iran during the time of the Shah.
When Israel gives up its nukes, perhaps Iran might be open to discussion of the topic. Until then - I don't believe it is going to happen. As far as Sudan - well, how about North Korea as a better example. We just haven't been able to stop the flow of technology to those who are willing and able to pay the price for it. In a nuclear world run by resource hungry developed nations, you bet you would want a nuke or two to level the playing field.
While there are those who wish to stop the spread of nukes for peaceful purposes, I believe there are those who wish to stop the spread because they want to preserve the nuclear option as an extension of military and foreign policy. I think we both know that the current reasoning on Iran is of the second variety.
Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2009 @ 2:55pm
Hello zionopp.
Thank you for a good laugh. Dreyfuss as Zionist. LOL Re: Finklestein / Chomsky, they may have been born Jewish, but neither has any association with the Jewish community. The reference to their "Jewishness" in an attempt to bolster their willingness to eliminate Jewish sovereignty in Israel is disingenuous.
Posted by gren at 06/25/2009 @ 4:10pm
I confess I am unfamiliar with Mr. Dreyfuss' stand in regards to and in comparison with Chomsky/Finklestein. Nor do I know the motives of those you criticize. Understand of course, your assertion cannot be sweeping in regards to objectives and motivations.
www.jewsagainstzionism.org.
Posted by zionopp at 06/25/2009 @ 5:20pm
Posted by gren at 06/25/2009 @ 4:10pm | ignore this person | warn this person
You suppose that Finklestein and Chomsky as secular and objective "bad Jews" have been ostracized from your "Jewish Community" Gren? Maybe it is your "Jewish Community" that refuses the association?
How about the authors of The Lobby? Do they refuse the outstretched hand of the "Jewish Community"?
What about academics in Israel being targeted by Zionist extremists? Would you say that such academics are not real Jews because they put academic objectivity and accuracy before Zionist Judaism?
I don't think you have standing to make the call on Finklestein and Chomsky - but that never has stopped a "good Jew" from trying has it.
Talk about laughable................
Posted by OneVote at 06/25/2009 @ 7:33pm
Their beliefs give them the "green light" to break agreements.
Posted by sjchermak at 06/25/2009 @ 10:21am
Whatever it is you're smoking, I want some.
In case you've forgotten, we do break agreements all the time when it suits our interests.
Bush was more than happy to break agreements we had over long range missiles and nuclear disarmament.
We don't rely on religion to break agreements. We just tell the world to go to hell.
Posted by Shingo at 06/25/2009 @ 11:42pm
I always assume any Mideast political commentor who also claims Jewish identity is at least a soft Zionist if he or she doesn't argue for a Finklestein/Chomsky "two state as process to one state" ultimate solution and with full right of return.
Posted by zionopp at 06/25/2009 @ 2:35pm
The irony is of course, that short of mass genocide to mass ethnic cleansing, this is where Israel is headed regardless.
The Arab population in Israel will ovrtake the Jewish population within a decade, if not sooner (given that Israelis are leaving faster then they are arriving).
If you include the West Bank as part of Israel, then Arabs constitute 50% already.
A one state solution is happening as we speak.
Posted by Shingo at 06/25/2009 @ 11:47pm
Yes, our glorious leader will bend over for a swat and say "Thank you sir, may I have another?"
Posted by pyeatte at 06/26/2009 @ 10:01am
Posted by pyeatte at 06/26/2009 @ 10:01am
Where as Bush ......what?
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 11:31am
<i>Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/24/2009 @ 10:29pm </i>
I've already pointed out that the green movement in Iran is no longer confined to "Ahmadinejad v. Mousavi," so the points about Mousavi are functionally irrelevant. That said, to the other points.
First, he is the clear beneficiary of the crackdown. He obviously can't go along with it because the movement is demanding freedoms that he adamantly refuses to defend, and threatens to erode an autocratic structure upon which he depends and to which he is inextricably linked.
Second, on the question of who is doing this if not Ahmadinejad, your response is a combination of distortions and evasions. First off, I'm unaware of any of Mousavi's "stooges" making any such threats. Second, how many of the murdered protestors remotely approached violence? Virtually all of them, as one Iranian NGO put it, were armed with nothing more than a cell phone. Your argument about threatening the life of Obama therefore has absolutely no relevance.
BTW, the claim about the CIA is entirely unwarranted. There is NO grounds whatsoever to believe that the CIA has been involved, and in fact there's good reason to think they're not (why would they need to be? and why no violence?) Please tell me you're not using Ahmadinejad's assertion of American involvement as a justification for this claim; he's never failed to blame the US for his own failings or difficulties.
And yes, your claim that Iran is actually freer than the US...wow. Just...wow.
And speaking of distortions:
<i>Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/26/2009 @ 07:43am </i>
Attempts at genocide? An original state of Palestine? Talk about warped history...
Posted by Thrawn at 06/26/2009 @ 11:40am
Bargaining chip, nkur. Keeping it out there as a "stick" to go with the "carrot".
Our right-wing friends see bombing Iran as an "inevitability"...no "carrots" need apply.
That's exactly the problem: Obama isn't even willing to rein in Clinton for her remarks. He's more than willing to give tacit support by keeping his mouth shut. Besides, brandishing the "stick" while claiming to want peace is no way to conduct diplomacy. Toss any pretensions of good faith diplomacy out the window because it simply won't happen.
And the inevitable approach this administration will take ensures that this isn't a mere display of the "stick." I have no doubt that Obama will demand as a precondition a halt to uranium enrichment. Everyone knows this crosses Iran's red line. The inevitable result will be a complete gridlock and the pressure will build to preemptively attack Iran because, hey, the "pacifist" had his turn and that didn't work (in actuality, he's to the right of the party establishment). That threat of a first strike remains a very real possibility unless the substance of future negotations changes fundamentally- and it won't.
Posted by nkurland at 06/26/2009 @ 12:12pm
Posted by nkurland at 06/26/2009 @ 12:12pm
There is a third option, nkur...and it's a good, if not strong, possibility-
Though the protests have died down under police/Guard oppression, it's merely gone to what I heard a commentator call a "slow boil".
The regime in Iran is now dropped all pretense of being a "republic" and shown that they will stop any reform movement. (BTW, Ilya Kuryakin...reports coming in of precincts where MORE than 100% of the vote came in....but I'm sure that's "AIPAC-controlled media...heheh)
So the third option...let the boil continue and the regime implode on itself.
Keep in mind, the first protests to the Shah were in 1977....the Revolution didn't hit until 1979, with strikes and economic shutdowns.
Posted by Mask at 06/26/2009 @ 12:32pm
"So the third option...let the boil continue and the regime implode on itself."
This probably won't happen. Yes, they have given up any pretense of being a republic. Even so, the state has constructed apparatus after apparatus to ensure that this doesn't happen. Obama's recent approval of $20 million in USAID grants to opposition groups is a kiss of death. He's effectively validated the regime's claims. Maybe, just maybe, if the opposition takes a page from Brazil and absolutely saturates the streets with protestors the regime will be forced to compromise. But even so, this is a civil rights movement, not a revolution.
So in actuality, the three options are:
1) Obama's funding spurs even harsher repression (would've happened anyway).
2) A first strike by the U.S. or Israel which results in a protracted war and a backlash that entrenches the current leadership.
3) Or Iranians flat out ignore the ban and flood the streets until the regime is forced to make concessions.
There's no chance of this government being overthrown. An opening of civil society perhaps, but not an overthrow.
Posted by nkurland at 06/26/2009 @ 2:04pm
>>>The neocons, including Elliot Abrams -- who's quoted in the papers today -- are pushing hard for Obama to refuse to talk to Iran. Let's hope he continues to reject that advice.<<<
I don't think there is any question that Obama wants to change the tone and relationship with Iran from the "axis-of-evil" to a constructive partner for peace and prosperity in the region.
Like most other things on the change agenda, Obama likens it to turning an ocean liner around. First you have to slow it down, then gradually enter a very wide turn, and then move in a different direction.
I think both the right and the left are missing this necessary realism in changing from the disaster of the last 8 years.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/26/2009 @ 3:10pm
The Arab population in Israel will ovrtake the Jewish population within a decade,
what nonsense. just hopeless nonsense.
arabs make up 20% of Israel's population.
how 20% turns into a majority in ten years is not explained by this idiot poster.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 3:29pm
Opprobium
it's spelled opprobrium. don't use such big words next time.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 3:39pm
a Sunni/Shia proxy war is possible after we leave. It may have already started? Posted by pjcasey at 06/24/2009 @ 5:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person
this war has been going on for a long time. it waxes and wanes. look for it to heat up right about
now?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 3:47pm
and allow to own large amounts of stock and financial instruments in our Wall Street and banking systems? Posted by syfriendly at 06/24/2009 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person
allow to own? hahahahahahaha
we're begging 'em to lend us more money.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/26/2009 @ 3:54pm
"President Obama has gone about as far as he should go in condemning the government of Iran for its crackdown and repression of a popular movement for change in Iran. Since the election on June 12, his rhetoric has become harsher by the day."
Yea, it always takes 10 days for a President to respond to those murdering and arresting protest leaders of their own people and Autocratically running their country in defiance of the freedom and will of their own countrymen!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/26/2009 @ 6:19pm
It may be sometime, before any negotiations with Iran will be possible or fruitful. The once and future government is in the process of reasserting it's authority, and part of that process involves waving the bloody shirt of foreign intervention. Certainly, Obama was under a lot of pressure from the left and right to sympathize with the opposition, but such statements gave the government the opportunity accuse both the opposition and the U.S. of working together against the Islamic Republic. The U.S. and Great Britain have, in the past, given Iranians cause to be suspicious of our motives, but Founders of the Iranian Revolution, were approved as candidates by the Leadership for the election, lead the protests over the election. Clearly, this was and is an internal matter. One naturally sympathies with people who are being killed and injured, however, in foreign policy, a poor choice of words may cause additional deaths.
Posted by pjcasey at 06/27/2009 @ 12:11pm
It may be sometime, before any negotiations with Iran will be possible or fruitful. The once and future government is in the process of reasserting it's authority, and part of that process involves waving the bloody shirt of foreign intervention. Certainly, Obama was under a lot of pressure from the left and right to sympathize with the opposition, but such statements gave the government the opportunity accuse both the opposition and the U.S. of working together against the Islamic Republic. The U.S. and Great Britain have, in the past, given Iranians cause to be suspicious of our motives, but Founders of the Iranian Revolution, were approved as candidates by the Leadership for the election, lead the protests over the election. Clearly, this was and is an internal matter. One naturally sympathies with people who are being killed and injured, however, in foreign policy, a poor choice of words may cause additional deaths.
Posted by pjcasey at 06/27/2009 @ 12:21pm
Yea, it always takes 10 days for a President to respond to those murdering and arresting protest leaders of their own people and Autocratically running their country in defiance of the freedom and will of their own countrymen!
Posted by BigPasture at 06/26/2009 @ 6:19pm
Unless you're George Bush, and the country is an ally, in which case it doesn't take place at all.
Posted by Shingo at 06/28/2009 @ 01:04am