We actually do something, and we're evil imperialists. We decide not to get involved and we're "cowardly, lily-livered, and wrong."
Right now the best thing Obama can do is keep a cautious tone. I'm dubious that anything substantial is going to come of these protests, but the most sure way of ensuring it does not is to give the impression that the protestors are furthering outside causes.
If the official radio is acknowledging seven dead, we can be sure there at least that many. Maybe more. And this is probably just beginning.
Fuck. This was our chance to get rid of Ahmaneedajob. Although to be honest, I'm not entirely sure what the best course of action would be. If playing it quiet aids regime change, I guess that is what you do. But it sure makes for more effective diplomacy later on if you can rattle your sabers an get someone overthrown. That might even get Lil' Kim back in his box.
Most world leaders are being cautious on commenting on this. It would be very easy to say the wrong thing. The problem is you have to work with whoever ends up winning...
A recount done by the same government-controlled system? If there isn't an independent system checking the results, or else plenty of people from all sides of the political spectrum involved in the counting process to keep tabs on each other, that is meaningless. They'll just say, "Yeah, we re-checked, and we are relieved to report that our guy did win, as we said the first time. Now, you have to believe us, since we've said it twice!"
And neither one of them is exactly pro-Western, pro-liberty. One is simply less bad than the other.
The opposition leaders - Mousavi et al - have their own election monitors, who were (illegally) denied the right to check the first count. It remains to be seen whether the recount will be acceptable to them, but if it is, and their guys do the checking, that would provide for some degree of accountability. Of course, there's still the issue of missing ballots, some of which were allegedly burned.
Yeah. People either want us to be the world's policeman or they don't, but you can't have it both ways.
For once I am completely in agreement with Obama's tactics. America doesn't want to get involved. Its name has been smeared enough All you armchair generals sit there dictating about regime change and getting rid of Ahmadinejad as if he's another Saddam Hussein, but you so badly misunderstand Iran and the Iranian people. This thread, as usual, gives the stink of ignorance. Consider the following:- 1) Removing Ahmadinejad does not solve the problem that you perceive, namely of an anti-west, anti-Israel country in the Middle East obtaining nuclear weapons. There is a dictator, but that dictator isn't called Ahmadinejad, he is called Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and he's gonna be in place whoever sits in the president's chair. Problem is that the Supreme Leader has a somewhat divine place in their society as the highest member of the clergy and for many religious Iranians he is akin to the Pope. Many of Mousavi's supporters will be religious and many of Ahmadinejad's won't be, so the line between supporters of each group wouldn't necessarily translate to those who wanted to set the back of the Ayatollah, the Mullahs and his stooges, the Revolutionary Guard. 2) In view of (1) it is important to remember that for many older Iranians, who aren't even that religious, the Islamic regime is actually the preferrable option over the rule of the Shah. The Shah was even more of a dictator, and one installed by American and Britain no less in place of a then in place democratic regime. In the eyes of many Iranians it was America that no only lead to a miserable time under the Shah but inadvertantly set in place the society that eventually gave rise to the popularity of the present regime in 1979. If America goes in now, plays around with the Iranian regime, they'd better hope to hell that their efforts dramatically improve things because if it goes the way of Iraq you will be hated and despised there even more. 3) Whilst two thirds of the Iranian population are young people born after the revolution, they are not members of Iran's regime or people in positions of power. Therefore regime change will only take place if there is another full scale revolution or when the current older generation get too old to maintain power. A dispute of this scale over a presidential result, whilst not seen since the revolution, nonetheless indicates that the Iranian regime isn't close to being overturned. The regime knows that at this stage all it has to do is placate the crowd to their satisfaction and it will survive. If that eventually means that Mousavi becomes president the regime will still go on, because he is not anti-regime and can be viewed as the lesser of two evils. We've seen this before when President Khatami was in power, and he was ultimately considered a failure in the eyes of the reformist Iranian electorate, primarily because the regime wouldn't let he achieve a great deal. 4) One has to also appreciate who and how many Iranians want to see the back of the regime. Whilst I believe that most young and/or educated city dwellers would git rid of it in a heartbeat, it's worth remembering that many of the ignorant farmers and village dwellers actually favour Ahmadinejad and the regime, and is basically where the majority of his votes come from. You have to convince at least sone of them that revolution is needed in order for it to happen. 5) A minor point, but Tehran is hardly "burning". I've been following the TV news coverage and the riots, while notable, are not any more destructive than the MayDay/anarchist riots we have seen in western cities. The city is largely untouched (having been there I can recognise a lot of the famous areas) and I don't think that a few burning cars and piles of wood constitutes a warzone. So, all in all I don't think we are anywhere close to regime change and America is wise to stay away, particularly if it wants to foster relations with whoever ends up president. As for the longevity of the situation, I have always said I give the regime a life span of 15 more years. I stick by that. That said, of course if the situation were to escalate to the point where a revolution seemed likely then I, for one, would be very happy to see it.....as long as its reltively peaceful. There are people in Iran that are dear to me and I would not want to see it turn into the kind of cesspit Iraq has become.
A meaningless gesture to placate the international community. At the very least there's needs to be a fresh election. I rest my case.
Hmm, it could just be a rumour that has started somewhere else and got mistranslated but the word seems to be that the US State Department got directly in contact with Twitter and asked them to stay online (they were due to go down for 90 minutes for scheduled maintenance)
If true, then my estimation of Clinton and/or Obama just shot way up. That's exactly the kind of 'support' we should be giving. Hmm..... I wonder how many Radio Liberty towers we have near the Iranian border in Northern Afghanistan (Iraq of course speaking Arabic) and if that is being used?
