Ahmadinejad on the way out?

[Thunder]

You know, the funny thing is, if Iran just stopped building more centrifuges, they would be allowed to keep their nuclear energy program.

 

[ravdin]

Stated but not shown. His position gives him a fair bit of power and his links to the revolutionary guard more still.

Ahmadinejad is a former member of the Revolutionary Guards and there's no doubt he owes his current position to this. However, he does not command the Revolutionary Guards or any of Iran's military. He has a good deal of prominence based on his position, but this is not the same as influence or power.

Nuclear program is Ahmadinejad driven. Fairly easy for someone else to ease off on.

He does exactly what the Supreme Council allows him to do. Their goals will not change if Ahmadinejad is replaced.

 

[geni]

Ahmadinejad is a former member of the Revolutionary Guards and there's no doubt he owes his current position to this. However, he does not command the Revolutionary Guards or any of Iran's military. He has a good deal of prominence based on his position, but this is not the same as influence or power.

Strange as it may seem command positions are not the same thing as influence nor does a lack of them indicate a lack of influence.

He does exactly what the Supreme Council allows him to do.

Meaningless statement. Gorden Brown does exactly what the Queen allows him to do.

Their goals will not change if Ahmadinejad is replaced.

One of their goals is survival. If Ahmadinejad loses expect them to change their other goals to acomerdate this.

 

[Marc39]

As has been stated many times already, Ahmadinejad has no real power.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Grand Poobah, is just as bad, if not worse, in his threatening rhetoric.

 

[ravdin]

Meaningless statement. Gorden Brown does exactly what the Queen allows him to do.

The Queen is not in charge of the UK. The Supreme Council is very much in charge of Iran. If you are unable to see the distinction there's not much else I can say.

One of their goals is survival. If Ahmadinejad loses expect them to change their other goals to acomerdate this.

I think this analysis is based on wishful thinking. There's only one way to determine which of us is right, and that's to wait it out. If Ahmadinejad's departure heralds a new age of peace, freedom, and prosperity in Iran, I will gladly concede that you were right. But I very much doubt this will happen.

 

[geni]

The Queen is not in charge of the UK. The Supreme Council is very much in charge of Iran. If you are unable to see the distinction there's not much else I can say.

Your statement however equaly applies to both. If you want to assert the level of control the respective parties have you need to do so clearly.

I think this analysis is based on wishful thinking. There's only one way to determine which of us is right, and that's to wait it out. If Ahmadinejad's departure heralds a new age of peace, freedom, and prosperity in Iran, I will gladly concede that you were right. But I very much doubt this will happen.

Peace? The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and Iran has not been significantly involved (in terms of manpower and money spent) in any conflicts since.
Freedom? Mousavi wants things like private TV channels and more women's rights but nothing earth shattering.
Prosperity? Mousavi wants Iran to be less dependent on oil prices and has some plans for privitising goverment run industry but improveing Iranian prosperity would be a hard trick to pull off.

Demanding a new age if Mousavi wins is unreasonable. Movement in a more liberal and less antagonistic dirrection would be a more reasonable hope.

 

[ravdin]

Peace? The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and Iran has not been significantly involved (in terms of manpower and money spent) in any conflicts since.

I am frankly astonished that anyone with access to non-Iranian media could make such an embarrassingly ignorant statement. It's well known that Iran substantially supports proxies such as Hezbollah with money, material, and even personnel.

Perhaps you remember the cross border conflict between Israel and Lebanon from a couple of years ago? Regardless of who you believe the instigators to be, it can't be denied that Iran played a significant role in this conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

 

[dudalb]

I am frankly astonished that anyone with access to non-Iranian media could make such an embarrassingly ignorant statement. It's well known that Iran substantially supports proxies such as Hezbollah with money, material, and even personnel.

Perhaps you remember the cross border conflict between Israel and Lebanon from a couple of years ago? Regardless of who you believe the instigators to be, it can't be denied that Iran played a significant role in this conflict.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War

The amount of denial and wishful thinking you see among certain..by no means all...on the Left concerning Iran is mindboggling.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maybe there is a reformist movement forming among the people? From what I understand, the mullahs who really run the show behind the scenes in Iran are getting pretty old... perhaps the new generation of Iranians senses this, as well?

The conservatives sense it as well. The Revolution was thirty years ago; more than half the population doesn't remember what life was like before. They do know what it's like now, and they are not afraid of the US bogey-man any more. The US is out, and they're not coming back.

The only reason for the clerics ascendency in the Revolution was that the Shah's police-state expunged all democratic opposition, leaving the mosques as the only focus for revolt. Iran is not traditionally dominated by clerics. By the time the surviving democrats emerged from prison the deed was already done. Iraq's subsequent invasion set the seal on it, and ushered in the martyr principle (manpower being the only advantage Iran had once its air force was grounded for lack of parts).

The democrats salvaged much of the pre-Shah constitution simply on the need for sound governance, which the clerics desperately needed in a time of war. There's not much they can do about it now.

That's all ancient history now. As for the US bogey-man, look at Iraq. There's the bogey-man, all bogged-down having called its own bluff. That dog won't hunt.

Ahmedinejad is a small-town conservative joke to the urban majority, and I reckon he's going down.

 

[CapelDodger]

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Grand Poobah, is just as bad, if not worse, in his threatening rhetoric.

Do you have examples?

 

[Marc39]

Do you have examples?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504365,00.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/meast/12/15/mideast.iran.reut/

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.21c84721b2a4459b107dfbfb9ada315a.2f1&show_article=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/14/world/middleeast/14mideast.html?_r=2&oref=slogin

 

[CapelDodger]

Your statement however equaly applies to both. If you want to assert the level of control the respective parties have you need to do so clearly.

Cutting off a monarch's head does serve to clarify an issue. It may not come to that with the Ayatollah. Remember the antiquated leaders wheeled out by the Praesidium in its dying days? I predict something similar in Iran.

Peace? The Iran-Iraq war ended in 1988 and Iran has not been significantly involved (in terms of manpower and money spent) in any conflicts since.

I think in this case peace means not being pointlessly antagonistic to the US, which is Ahmedinejad's only line. And Israel really isn't Iran's problem.

Freedom? Mousavi wants things like private TV channels and more
women's rights but nothing earth shattering.

It's progress which will feed on itself.

Prosperity? Mousavi wants Iran to be less dependent on oil prices and has some plans for privitising goverment run industry but improveing Iranian prosperity would be a hard trick to pull off.

Not really. The place is run so badly right now that improvement is an easy trick. There's a lot of talent and youthful enthusiasm just raring to go.

Demanding a new age if Mousavi wins is unreasonable. Movement in a more liberal and less antagonistic dirrection would be a more reasonable hope.

Indeed. It was the most we could have hoped for from Gorbachev. Look where that ended up .

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504365,00.html

[Ayatollah Khamene] described the Jewish state as a "cancerous tumor."

You can see his point. I'd have used "weeping sore" myself, since it isn't growing significantly but sixty years after its establishment it's still dripping poison into the region.

Khamenei also said the Holocaust was used to "usurp" Palestinian land ...

It certainly has been used as justification. Israel can hardly be mentioned without the Holocaust being trotted out.

... and said the West and Israel showed the weakness of their cause by not allowing anyone to question the Holocaust

That's pretty weak. He seems to be straining to depict Ahmedinejad as under attack by the tired old bogey-men. That isn't going to work.

An actual physical attack by Israel might work, but nobody believes in that.

 

[Marc39]

You can see his point. I'd have used "weeping sore" myself, since it isn't growing significantly but sixty years after its establishment it's still dripping poison into the region.

Poison to those opposed to modernity, valueing life over death, democracy, freedom, recognition of human rights and civil liberties...

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,504365,00.html

"Iran's stance has always been clear on this ugly phenomenon (Israel). We have repeatedly said that this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region," Khamenei told thousands of Muslim worshippers in Tehran.

It's a reasonable position.

Khamenei offered an alternative solution which he said might be more "internationally acceptable":

"Palestinian refugees should return and Muslims, Christians and Jews could choose a government for themselves, excluding immigrant Jews."

That might have worked in 1920 but there are far too many second-generation immigrants now. A return to status quo ante Zionism is impossible.

The return of Palestinians seems only fair though, and a non-sectarian democratic state sounds like an ideal solution.

 

[Marc39]

The return of Palestinians seems only fair though, and a non-sectarian democratic state sounds like an ideal solution.

The return of 150 million refugees after World War II and 900,000 Jews expelled from their homes in Arab countries seems only fair, too. Life isn't always fair.

 

[CapelDodger]

Poison to those opposed to modernity, valueing life over death, democracy, freedom, recognition of human rights and civil liberties...

Israel should try those. It wouldn't be a Jewish State if it did, though. What would "Jewish State" even mean under those conditions? At the moment it only defines itself against the outside world and the permanent menace it has to provide.

Israel doesn't even have a constitution, let alone human rights. Palestinians in the occupied territories have no rights at all.

Poison is in the attack on South Lebanon, the attack on Gaza, the anti-Iranian posturing, the refusal to discuss anything with anybody, and the constant search for new existential enemies to justify its own existence.

Where next after Iran? China?

 

[Thunder]

The return of 150 million refugees after World War II and 900,000 Jews expelled from their homes in Arab countries seems only fair, too. Life isn't always fair.

The 700,000 Jews who left the Arab and Muslim countries deserve to be able to return to their homes..or received compensation for their property.

The Palestinian refugees who were forced out or left Israel in 1948 should be allowed to return to their property or be compensated for their lost land. I predict any Israel/Palestine treaty will include allowing 100,000 Palestinians to return with the rest getting compensation.

 

[CapelDodger]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.21c84721b2a4459b107dfbfb9ada315a.2f1&show_article=1

"The only way to save Palestine is resistance," Khamenei said in his address to open the global summit Tehran organised in aid of Gaza and the Palestinians.

Quite. Without resistance Palestine would be gone. It's not a terribly aggressive statement though.

Palestinian resistance has been pretty impressive. I don't think this is at all what was expected back in '67. Forty years on there are still Palestinians on the ground, and the international community hasn't recognised one hectare of annexation. As for South Lebanon, that's lost for ever. Gaza's been surrendered, and remains in limbo. Not a state, but with state-like qualities and lots of discontented people; a strategic liability of the first order.

Meanwhile Israel is falling to pieces all by itself.

Support and help to Palestinians is a mandatory duty of all Muslims. I now tell all Muslim brothers and sisters to join forces and break the immunity of the Zionist criminals," Khamenei said.

He also called for putting Israeli political and military leaders on trial for the December-January assault on Gaza ...

Calling for people to be put on trial doesn't strike me as extreme. The accused are regarded as innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Marc39]

Israel should try those. It wouldn't be a Jewish State if it did, though.

Winston Churchill would disagree with you. He recognized the validity of a Jewish state. What is lost on many, if not most, is that Israel wasn't created with the intent of denying others rights, but, quite simply, to provide a safe sanctuary for Jews to live wihout persecution. Anyone with any depth of insight into Israeli society recognizes the commitment to human rights and civil liberties, and, for all citizens. Israel is not perfect, but, no state is.

What would "Jewish State" even mean under those conditions? At the moment it only defines itself against the outside world and the permanent menace it has to provide.

What would a "Catholic State" called Italy even mean? What would a "Greek Orthodox State" called Greece even mean? Nobody seems to mind. I wouldn't lose too much sleep over Israel.

Israel doesn't even have a constitution, let alone human rights.

Israel's ethos is reflected in their Declaration of Independence, which emphasizes equal rights to all. Human rights is the foundation of Israeli society. Israel's 1.5 million Arabs are not exactly stampeding out of the country.

Palestinians in the occupied territories have no rights at all.

Israel's presence in the "territories" is not an occupation, although, those uninformed of the subject matter often fall into this that propaganda trap. The reality of the situation is Pals have no rights at all because they are governed by fascist regimes.

Poison is in the attack on South Lebanon

Provoked by acts of war committed by Hizbullah, a terror group.

the attack on Gaza

Provoked by acts of war committed by Hamas, a terror group.

the anti-Iranian posturing

Provoked by Iranian existential threats. Notice a certain trend?

the refusal to discuss anything with anybody, and the constant search for new existential enemies to justify its own existence.

Where next after Iran? China?

Yawn.