PDA

View Full Version : Int'l Issues Neocons for Ahmadinejad


jAZ
06-14-2009, 09:30 AM
http://www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=256

Neocons for Ahmadinejad
By Daniel Luban

At Wednesday’s Heritage Foundation conference on the Middle East peace process (which, as I wrote yesterday, was primarily devoted to pushing the almost-universally-scorned “three-state solution” for Israel-Palestine), Middle East Forum director Daniel Pipes made an unusually revealing comment while discussing Iran’s upcoming presidential elections.

“I’m sometimes asked who I would vote for if I were enfranchised in this election, and I think that, with due hesitance, I would vote for Ahmadinejad,” Pipes said. The reason, Pipes went on, is that he would “prefer to have an enemy who’s forthright and obvious, who wakes people up with his outlandish statements.” (Video of the event is available by following the link to the Heritage website; Pipes’s comments come at about the 1:29:00 mark.)

Video Referenced:
<embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f8/1274179818" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=25292025001&playerId=1274179818&viewerSecureGatewayURL=https://console.brightcove.com/services/amfgateway&servicesURL=http://services.brightcove.com/services&cdnURL=http://admin.brightcove.com&domain=embed&autoStart=false&" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="486" height="412" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed>

jAZ
06-14-2009, 09:34 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTY2NzFmYzQ0NTM2YWI2ZDNkNWZmOTNiMTI3YWE3N2I=

Thursday, June 11, 2009
Eye on Iran [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Tomorrow is election day in Iran. I asked our friend, AEI's Iran expert, Michael Rubin some questions about what to watch.

...

LOPEZ: Should we want Ahmadinejad to lose the election this weekend?

RUBIN: The Obama administration tends to conflate advocacy with analysis. They see in the Islamic Republic what they want to see, not what the Iranian leadership’s intentions really are. As such, should someone more soft-spoken and less defiant — someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi — win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger. What Ahmadinjead did was to expose the ideology of the power holders in Iran for what it actually is. Holocaust denial, for example, is nothing new to the Islamic Republic. Both Rafsanjani and Khatami also encourage it. Ahmadinejad’s bluntness, however, forced even the Europeans to react.

***SPRAYER
06-14-2009, 09:35 AM
kOZ

jAZ
06-14-2009, 10:24 AM
tPM
Correction.

trndobrd
06-14-2009, 11:27 AM
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTY2NzFmYzQ0NTM2YWI2ZDNkNWZmOTNiMTI3YWE3N2I=

Thursday, June 11, 2009
Eye on Iran [Kathryn Jean Lopez]

Tomorrow is election day in Iran. I asked our friend, AEI's Iran expert, Michael Rubin some questions about what to watch.

...

LOPEZ: Should we want Ahmadinejad to lose the election this weekend?

RUBIN: The Obama administration tends to conflate advocacy with analysis. They see in the Islamic Republic what they want to see, not what the Iranian leadership’s intentions really are. As such, should someone more soft-spoken and less defiant — someone like former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi — win, it would be easier for Obama to believe that Iran really was figuratively unclenching a fist when, in fact, it had it had its other hand hidden under its cloak, grasping a dagger. What Ahmadinjead did was to expose the ideology of the power holders in Iran for what it actually is. Holocaust denial, for example, is nothing new to the Islamic Republic. Both Rafsanjani and Khatami also encourage it. Ahmadinejad’s bluntness, however, forced even the Europeans to react.


Ahmadinejad's 'election' victory has underscored what many on the left have long refused to recognize, that Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship.

Donger
06-14-2009, 11:33 AM
Ahmadinejad's 'election' victory has underscored what many on the left have long refused to recognize, that Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship.

I don't see the big deal. Just start treating them nicely and have talks without pre-conditions, and I'm sure they'll see the light.

trndobrd
06-14-2009, 11:38 AM
I don't see the big deal. Just start treating them nicely and have talks without pre-conditions, and I'm sure they'll see the light.

I don't have an issue with talking. However, the President needs to be talking to the manager, not the guy at the front desk.

petegz28
06-14-2009, 11:48 AM
Now the Cons allegedly support this guy? They were bashed relentlessly when Bush called this guy out. But now......LMAO


JAZ you are a shill among shills.

Nightwish
06-14-2009, 12:40 PM
Ahmadinejad's 'election' victory has underscored what many on the left have long refused to recognize, that Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship.
Seems to me it wasn't so much the left refusing to recognize that, as the right. It was you guys who kept touting the free elections in Iran as proof that Bush's policies were turning the rest of the Middle East, not just Iraq, toward democracy, specifically pointing out Iran's elections.

petegz28
06-14-2009, 12:41 PM
Seems to me it wasn't so much the left refusing to recognize that, as the right. It was you guys who kept touting the free elections in Iran as proof that Bush's policies were turning the rest of the Middle East, not just Iraq, toward democracy, specifically pointing out Iran's elections.

So it is Bush's fault, heh?

Nightwish
06-14-2009, 12:49 PM
So it is Bush's fault, heh?
Is what Bush's fault? The current state of Iranian politics? I'm not assigning blame. I'm saying that it's bullshit to say that it was the Left who refused to recognize that Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship, when it was in fact the Right who kept propping them up as a budding democracy and proof of the success of Bush foreign policy. If there are those who refused to see Iran's "democracy" for what it is, there was no element of our society more guilty of it than the Right.

trndobrd
06-14-2009, 12:51 PM
Seems to me it wasn't so much the left refusing to recognize that, as the right. It was you guys who kept touting the free elections in Iran as proof that Bush's policies were turning the rest of the Middle East, not just Iraq, toward democracy, specifically pointing out Iran's elections.

There never were free elections in Iran. What "you guys" are you talking about?

"It's never free and fair when a group of people, unelected people, get to decide who's on the ballot," Bush said.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1023918.php

wild1
06-14-2009, 12:58 PM
I think there is merit to what he is saying. No one is saying that if we could pick a leader for Iran, we would pick this guy.

But he's right to say that it's better that if you have someone with those views, it's better that he's upfront about them so the rest of the world can recognize his intent and be ready to oppose it. This way there's no doubt about what he intends to do.

He wants Israel to disappear from the world. He is openly advocating the destruction of another nation. We have seen just in the past hundred years how appeasement policies work against genocidal aims. He knows perfectly well that Obama fancies himself a charmer and wants to talk, and then return to America proclaiming that he's created a peace in our time. He doesn't rate him as an opponent and he well shouldn't.

WoodDraw
06-14-2009, 01:17 PM
No one I know with a fundamental understanding of Iranian politics has mistaken Iran for a democracy. But plenty have never recognized the progressive, reform groups in Iran that have survived the '79 revolution. Khamenei has the true power in international relations and the last word on any reforms. But, Iranian people can at least pretend to vote in an open election, and take to the streets afterwards in open protest.

The original neocons for Ahmadinejad quotes are ignorant and disrespectful. But that's what we've come to expect from the neoconservative movement. They see the world through only their small faction's eyes. It doesn't matter what's good for Iranian reformers, only what's good for the neoconservatism movement. And that requires a militaristic diplomacy, a clear good and evil, and a black and white world.

Mousavi won't be a Western politician, and we've seen the problems with Iranian reformist Presidents before running into the brick wall of theocracy. But such a large amount of Iranians realizing that their government has stolen an election from them and trying to do something against that is huge. The best reform movements come from within, not from outside. No American/Israeli led movement against nuclear weapons will ever move the people to revolutionize, whether that involves regime change as a goal or not.

Iran can't be accepted as a nuclear weapons power, but today everyone should put their support behind the green revolution, while realizing this is about them and not us. Maybe eventually we'll run into the reality of having to deal with the nuclear question. But maybe if the people continue to revolt, Iran will have to back down. They say things haven't been this bad since '79, and we know what happened then. Probably nothing will happen, but it's worth having a look.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 01:43 PM
Ahmadinejad's 'election' victory has underscored what many on the left have long refused to recognize, that Iran is a totalitarian dictatorship.

And just what is Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our allies? They're the same thing. Mubarek fixed his elections too and jailed dissentors. Actually they're worse than Iran.
I'd call it authoritarian more than totalitarian.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 01:44 PM
There never were free elections in Iran. What "you guys" are you talking about?

"It's never free and fair when a group of people, unelected people, get to decide who's on the ballot," Bush said.
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/usa/news/article_1023918.php
What do you think is happening in this country when each of the two parties annoint who will run with a compliant press?
Our two party system is broke!

Didn't you claim to be a libertarian?

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 01:47 PM
Iran can't be accepted as a nuclear weapons power...

Yes they can. And their nuclear program is going to stay because the fundamentalists and the reform groups all support it. They have an energy crisis believe it or not.

trndobrd
06-14-2009, 01:49 PM
And just what is Saudi Arabia and Egypt, our allies? They're the same thing. Mubarek fixed his elections too and jailed dissentors. Actually they're worse than Iran.
I'd call it authoritarian more than totalitarian.

When people on this board express shock that an election in Egypt or SA was fixed, they will look just as stupid.

WoodDraw
06-14-2009, 02:05 PM
Yes they can. And their nuclear program is going to stay because the fundamentalists and the reform groups all support it. They have an energy crisis believe it or not.

"Nuclear weapons state"

The US and Israel, and likely a fair amount of European powers, will not allow a militarized nuclear program in Iran.

The reformists and fundamentalists all widely support a civil nuclear program. The reformists are far less supportive of the military side, although they tend to be skeptical of the West's willingness to allow them to have one without the either.

BucEyedPea
06-14-2009, 02:19 PM
"Nuclear weapons state"

The US and Israel, and likely a fair amount of European powers, will not allow a militarized nuclear program in Iran.

The reformists and fundamentalists all widely support a civil nuclear program. The reformists are far less supportive of the military side, although they tend to be skeptical of the West's willingness to allow them to have one without the either.

Well, there's no hardcore proof that they are developing a weapon either.
The inspections are not designed to get to that information. So I was referring to their civilian nuclear program which the US govt doesn't trust them to have either.

If other states don't like it, it's too bad. Being able to defend oneself against other nuclear powers, particularly ones with bellicose rhetoric like US is part and parcel of being a sovereign nation. I doubt many where thrilled when Pakistan got one too. No one really likes seeing the nukes expanded ww.

If they are developing one it's more evidence that an illegal invasion on their west border plus another on their east border aka the Bush Doctrine may have pushed them to get one. Same with NK. I mean really, as far as I know Iran stated at one time earlier they were against nuclear weapons and wanted to be free of them as well as the entire ME.

If the mullahs are ever replaced then what's the big deal anyway? If they were replaced and the west still made a stink about it, then it says more about them and their desire to control the world. They've meddled in the ME long enough for their own interests. It's time this nonsense stopped. It leads to war.

patteeu
06-16-2009, 09:45 PM
Seems to me it wasn't so much the left refusing to recognize that, as the right. It was you guys who kept touting the free elections in Iran as proof that Bush's policies were turning the rest of the Middle East, not just Iraq, toward democracy, specifically pointing out Iran's elections.

When was that?