by JWdaughter 318 Replies latest social current
Hi LWT,
I saw these reports too, and I am quite concerned that Iran might implode, that would be the worst of all possible outcomes. The government of Iran, and Ahmadinejad and his backers in particular really do need to listen to the voices of dissent.
What is also interesting is the apparent silence of the military, they could be the king makers in Iran.
David
Siege mentality?
“I am convinced that the regime will collapse”
SPIEGEL: Montazeri succeeded in recent months in uniting the religious and secular wings of the opposition. Has his death weakened the dissident movement?
Kadivar: The exact opposite is true. The mourning will actually strengthen the opposition’s determination. The Shiite Ashura (a religious holiday to take place on Sunday), which is symbolically about justice, will provide a further boost for the protest. The authorities are not able to ban this ceremony, which coincides with the seventh day after Montazeri’s death…
SPIEGEL: Can the West do anything to support a democratic reform process?
Kadivar: The tightening of sanctions is not the right path ahead. They affect the people more than the government. A military attack is something I categorically reject. Perhaps Western countries should stop treating Ahmadinejad’s government as the legitimate government of Iran. Otherwise, I think the reforms must be pushed forward from inside the country.
BTS I accused you of having " siege mentality with regards to Iran, because you seem to think that a missile defense is needed.
The passage you cite from Der Spiegel is very interesting, constructive and informative, and says many of the things the i have pointed out, only it is more credible, as it is not nly from and Iranian, but a a senior cleric as well.
Thank you BTS
Regards David
. . .
The elite Revolutionary Guards accused the foreign media of joining hands with the opposition to harm the Islamic state and the British ambassador to Tehran was summoned by the Iranian government to be accused of "interference" in state matters.
"If Britain does not stop talking nonsense it will get a slap in the mouth," Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said. The British government said their envoy would respond "robustly" to any criticism.
. . .
David,
You may find this article to be of interest:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/511667/holding_firm_on_iran
-LWT
Interesting article lwt, and the writer and seems to hold a similar view to my own. The most useful approach with regards to Iran is to wait and see, the country is in a state of flux, patience and understanding will reap greater rewards than the rhetoric of the hawks
David
"Iran has told the International Atomic Energy Agency it does not accept the terms of a deal to ease concerns about its nuclear programme, diplomats say."
In a surprisingly swift move on Thursday night that could have wide-ranging implications, the U.S. Senate passed a bill containing broad unilateral sanctions to punish foreign companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its domestic refinery capabilities.
The voice vote came at the eleventh hour before the chamber recessed so legislators could go home to campaign. The bill cannot come before the president to be signed into law until a conference procedure combines it with a similar House bill, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA), passed in October.
The Senate move reveals an administration losing control of even its own party in foreign policy dealings, as U.S. President Barack Obama has tried to maintain engagement with Iran aimed at curbing its nuclear programme, which the Islamic Republic insists is for peaceful purposes.
Along with scores of Democrats, who favoured the bill over the administration's objections, the effort was supported by Iran hawks including Republican co-sponsor John Kyl and neoconservative independent Joe Lieberman, and was characterised by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell as a shot at Obama.
"If the Obama administration will not take action against this regime, then Congress must," McConnell said.
The administration had raised its issues with the bill in a December letter from Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg to Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, complaining that the bill limited the president's flexibility.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton also made late December comments urging caution in applying broad sanctions that might harm and alienate the struggling Iranian opposition movement, asking instead for sanctions that targeted Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), thought to be responsible for crackdowns against opposition demonstrators.
. . .
The Iranian regime committed an act of war against the United States when they invaded our embassy and kidnapped our people. Carter emboldened the regime by doing nothing except wanting to have a group hug. The current Iranaian president can be clearly seen in photographs of the hostage takers in the early days of the hostage crisis. Iran and the United States are enemies. Until the current regime is replaced we will continue to be enemies.
When the Iranian people took to the streets to overthrow the shah they wanted a secular government, they did not like nor want the Ayatollah's brand of religious fanatacism, most of them did not even know who the Ayatollah was, he had been in hiding abroad for 20 years. It was the left, Jimmy Carter, and the French that made it possible for the Ayatollah to steal the results of the Iranian people's toppling of the shah and steal the government.
Now these same leftists and Democrats are complaining because those of us who view Iran as our enemy want them smashed instead of allowing them to obtain nuclear weapons which the Iranians have promised to use to start their version of Armgaggedon?
Unbelievable.
Happy Guy, the Shah's regime was supported by the West and was largely Totalitarian, that is what enabled the Ayatollah; to overthrow him, and yes I agree with you that France should have behaved far better; the US as well under presidents of both political parties included.
Iran could argue quite cogently for nuclear weapons, they don't. I like others here ( and has been stated) believe that nuclear power is being used by Iran as a bargaining chip.
Iraq is a mess, and Bush ( with encouragement from Blair, a socialist) should never have gone in there, taking military action against Iran would be far more costly in all ways.
Iran needs western expertise, big time; the young want regime change big time, leave them to find their own destiny, and encourage the moderates and west looking like Mousavi, that would yield far more results for all concerned. Reread the words of Kadivar posted by BTS above.
David
