Greetings, and welcome to the World Affairs Board!
The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.
Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?
Obama did the best thing possible at this time. Just stay neutral, with the slightest hint of support for the protests coming from his aides, not the president himself. He kept a balanced tone.
If he supported Ahmadinejad, then wtf...?
If he supported Mousavi, then he will simply be seen as yet another U.S. president pushing the regular agenda of forced democratization in the Middle East, and thus empower and give voice to the fanatical Islamic radicals in the region who are just waiting for a mistake by Obama to turn against him. Can't have such a thing happen only days after the major speech in Cairo.
Obama has done well so far. Let his actions be dictated by events on the ground; not him dictating events on the ground by speaking prematurely.
For his country I have to disagree with that statement. For the world, well I guess we shall see.
As for his standing back during the Iranian election, I have to agree. Why should he worry about the liberty of any other nation.
We are after all 'friends of liberty everywhere, but defenders of only our own.' That is an old paraphrased quote that probably marks me as a domestic terrorist, but I don't mind. Maybe He'll call ME a freedom fighter? Nah, I'll probably just be a domestic archethect of life's bad roll of the dice...
I'm listening to Johnny Cash's 'One Piece at a Time' if that means anything...
There seems to be top level power play behind this Iran election, between the previous Ayatollah Rafsanjani and his current successor Ayatollah Khamenei.
June 19 (Bloomberg) -- In 1989, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the most powerful figure in Iran, supported Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s appointment as supreme spiritual leader.
Now, the two men are locked in conflict amid a wave of protests against the June 12 re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Khamenei ally. Rafsanjani supports Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that he won the vote and has drawn hundreds of thousands of Iranians into the streets to rally behind him.
Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are the public faces of a power struggle among Iran’s ruling clerics. As the country is swept up in protests not seen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the conflict risks undermining the regime’s existence, said Mohammad-Reza Djalili, an Iran expert at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva.
“The divisions within the ruling elite in Iran are making it very hard for the authorities to crack down decisively,” Djalili said. The regime “is going through its biggest crisis in 30 years. The divisions are getting deeper and deeper.”
Khamenei, in a prayers address in Tehran, televised live, today rejected the opposition demands for a new election. “It would not be acceptable to agree to illegal demands, this would be the start of dictatorship,” he said. The supreme leader also warned the country’s “political elites” against lawbreaking, saying they would be held responsible if unrest continues.
Rafsanjani’s support legitimizes Mousavi’s fight against the regime, broadening his base and making it harder for the government to respond, said Cliff Kupchan, a senior analyst at New York-based Eurasia Group. ....
Khamenei has officialy endorsed Ahmadinedjad, now for those who still had illusions about his position and the possiblity that this conflict could be solved according to the rules, this is the end. Every new demonstrations will be against the regime itself not about the elections.
I wrote the information wrong about the two Ayatollahs. This one below should be a more correct version.
The two, who are among the most veteran figures in the Islamic regime in Iran, were among the protégés of ayatollah Khomeini, and since the Islamic republic’s establishment assumed the most senior posts there.
During the Khomeini era, Khamenei served as president, while Rafsanjani was the parliament speaker; after the leader of the revolution died, Khamenei became the supreme leader and Rafsanjani became president and the head of two of the regime’s most important councils.
Over the years, the two figures have distanced from each other, and although both belong to the conservative camp, Khamenei adopted a stricter line, while Rafsanjani adopted a more pragmatic approach.
1 hr ago WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration on Friday stuck to a measured response to the uprising in Iran over a disputed presidential election, even as both houses of Congress voted overwhelmingly to condemn an official crackdown on mostly peaceful demonstrations in the streets of Tehran.
Administration officials said they remained convinced that the wiser U.S. course was caution over confrontation. President Barack Obama is coming under growing domestic political pressure to speak out more forcefully in support of protesters warned by Iran's supreme leader Friday to end their huge street rallies. ....
A long-standing source of Iranian anger at the U.S. is the CIA's role in toppling the elected government of Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 and replacing him with the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. In the 1979 Islamic revolution that overthrew the Shah, student militants occupied the U.S. Embassy and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. In April 1980, Washington severed diplomatic relations with Iran.
Obama, who hopes to draw Tehran into talks aimed at curtailing its nuclear ambitions and potentially ending the 29-year-old rupture in diplomatic relations, has stayed mostly neutral on the election dispute. He has spoken in measured terms about supporting Iranians' aspirations to have their voices heard. ....
Hannity on his show last night suggested that Obama's restrained response to events in Iran may have something to do with concern that Iran might stir up trouble in Iraq in retaliation if he took a more outspoken stance. Hannity suggested the US had a tacit understanding with Iran to keep Sadr bottled up in Qum.
Fox's foreign policy expert on the show disagreed. He pointed out that A-jad is likely to prevail and that Obama fears coming down too heavily on the other will obscure the real goal of ending Iran's aspirations to join the nuclear club.
What do you all think about it?
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
The US and Israel saved their butts during the Iran-Iraq War and two American gestures of friendship (Regan and Obama) were returned with slaps in the face and two wars against Israel.
The world is leaning on Iran and, for that matter, N.Korea too. Let them throw their tizzy fits and call us what they want. They have no out. Nor do we. No nukes. Period. They have time left to engage in face saving. But not much.
To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato
53 minutes ago TEHRAN, Iran (AFP) — Iran's opposition will go ahead with a planned rally in Tehran despite a government warning against new protests, an aide to defeated presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi told AFP.
"I have not heard anything indicating that the rally has been cancelled," he said on condition of anonymity.
The rally will be held at 4:00 pm (1130 GMT) at Tehran's Enghelab square as announced before by Karroubi, he said.
The demonstration is being organised by Karroubi supporters and a reformist group, the Combattant Clerics Assembly.
The plan to hold the rally comes despite Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning the opposition groups against holding street protests ....
Any possibility of the Iranian opposition try to force a reelection is now out of the window with the Ayotollah taking the side of the incumbent.
That apart, he has stood by Ajad saying his foreign policy and other key policies are close to his own. So there is no chance that anything is going to come out of the protests.
Its now a wait and watch approach for the world as to what first step Ajad takes in his second innings.
Hannity on his show last night suggested that Obama's restrained response to events in Iran may have something to do with concern that Iran might stir up trouble in Iraq in retaliation if he took a more outspoken stance. Hannity suggested the US had a tacit understanding with Iran to keep Sadr bottled up in Qum.
Fox's foreign policy expert on the show disagreed. He pointed out that A-jad is likely to prevail and that Obama fears coming down too heavily on the other will obscure the real goal of ending Iran's aspirations to join the nuclear club.
What do you all think about it?
Obama has zero chance of talking the present regime out of the nukes program. So if that is the reason for the restraint, it doesn't make sense.
However, this were Obama's words yesterday:
…we stand behind those who are seeking justice in a peaceful way. Already we’ve seen violence out there. I’ve said this throughout the week, I want to repeat it, that we stand with those who would look to peaceful resolution of conflict and we believe that the voices of people have to be heard, that that’s a universal value that the American people stand for and this administration stands for.
Commentators I respect like Charles Krauthammer, Victor Davis Hanson or Mark Steyn are asking for a stronger message, but I fail to see what would be the point, and I think it could be used by the regime to be even more violent against the protesters.
In my opinion, at this point, it is enough to subtly let the protesters know the US stands with them, no need to be emphatic; I think protesters know very well what they are going through.
A lot of people saying today could be a crucial day.
Tweet
Comment