The honeymoon is over: Iran criticizes Obama

Why can't the CIA just whack the Iranian leadership and so prevent a nuclear armed Iran and possibly save hundreds of thousands killed and wounded in a bloody unnecessary ground war. A future war which could tank Western economy and give China and Russia more leeway in that part of the world.

@ Leon:

Right! Let's send in the squirrels!

Right! Let's send in the squirrels!

Posted by: baest

Don't forget the pigeons.

I think the Mullah's of Tehran have just realised they may have undersstimated this young American leader. Same way Khruschev understimated another dazzling young American 40 years ago and came up against pure steel.

And actually there is some merit in the idea of cutting the viper's turban off. But best be done by Iranians themselves..with a little nod from Obama. You know I think he could do it...

Unfortunately for Obama (but mostly for the whole of America, and more so for Israel), and due to his earlier language in the campaign regarding meeting with Iran sans pre-conditions, he's now gotten himself into a bind. THis is what happens when your naive idealism preceeds you. This may just be the source of the "test" that Joe Biden alluded to several weeks ago...We cannot appease Ahmadinejad, though, I am seriously concerened that Obama is just NOT up to the task!

Gorgi,

I think he is too "nuanced" in his decision making ability (thanks Main stream media!), or in other words, is quite confused about what to do. I felt like the major essence of his campaign was to "Win the hearts of America!" I don't think he is going to be effective in this matter, as I do not think the 52% that voted for him are going to approve of any aggressiveness he takes, and I mean, to him, that seems to be all that matters. HOWEVER, with that said, he IS our new president, AND, I personally would like to see him strong arm the Mullahs - no, he NEEDS to keep up this language of disproval of current opperations in Iran. I pray that he makes intelligent decisions, though my doubt runs deep...

"...good signals."

i.e., capitulate.

Heidi

I think you too have underestimated his inner strength. Any president would've been in a bind about Iran - Bush was was not very effective against it either - but I think Obama has vision and depth about these things.

And I find this never talk to your enemies stance by sections of the American Right utterly gaga. If you could talk them out of their madness why not do so?

"Same way Khruschev understimated another dazzling young American 40 years ago and came up against pure steel."

How comforting false illusions based on hagiographies must be.

THis is what happens when your naive idealism preceeds you.

Heidi J,

You're too kind. I see not naive idealism but calculation. The "I'll meet with anybody" line came during the Democratic primaries. It resulted in a lot of coverage and it must have brought more campaign donations. He had to be to the left of Hillary to get the nomination. He said a lot of things during the primaries and then qualified them during the general campaign.

Too many people heard him the first time and gave him their primary/caucus votes as a result. This will come back to haunt him.

He promises to work with our allies. What does that mean? Where Iran's nuclear program is concerned, we've been "working with our allies" for years and what has it gotten us?

"strong arm the Mullahs"?? For all we know, he was bankrolled by them.

"Obama can understand that strategic changes in (American) policy are required, not just cosmetic changes," Larijani told state television.
-from the article

I agree. Strategic changes in American policy ARE required, not desired. Our policy for the last seven years has done nothing to slow down Iran's nuclear program. We definitely need a change, just not the one Larjani was hoping for.

Here's a change. Attack them and ACTUALLY steal their oil, all of it, like we've always been falsely accused.

I'm traveling to Iran in a few weeks with a delegation. I think it's time to start promoting more discussion and dialogue, and, frankly, even to start taking a sober and honest look at our American misconduct that has contributed to the situation. We're the ones who engineered the overthrow of their government, not the other way around. There is no evidence that Iran plans to lob missiles indiscrimately into Europe. And there is no moral basis to give automatic, knee-jerk support to any notions of Zionist Jewish supremacism. With some good-will, effort, and thoughtfullness, I would think that there is little to no reason why confrontation cannot be scaled back.

fairuzan

What did the Jews ever do to the Persians? You guys seem to hate them more than the Arabs whom the Jews did harm a bit.. by hurting their delicate feelings of superiority.

I lived and worked in the Arab world including Iraq and saudi Arabia for many years and I have never seen or heard anything close to the popular vitriol and hatred that characterises today's Iranian Friday prayers from any Arab group at all.

So I am really intrigued. Why Persian shias, whom Islam was forced on them through Arab swords, so much more `Arab' than the Arabs themselves?

I've predicted before that Obama may be Islams worst nightmare. A liberal who "gets it" could be someone who works to undermine radical Islam at its core.

GW Bush poured gas on the Islamic narrative by given Muslims an enemy to kill and be killed by. He gave affirmation to their violent martyr narrative.

The successful method is to undermine the Islamic narrative by creating economic troubles for Islamic states. Islamic countries have very young populations which makes them very unstable. War is inevitable within Islamic states due to their desire to fight and die. Without an external enemy, Muslims will perpetually turn inward on themselves. They will also turn in on non-Muslims minorities which means we must also fast track the immigration practice for persecuted minorities.

The Islamic narrative is the correct target, since it is unstable theologically (evidenced by the diverse interpretations of the Koran), but it also creates unstable economies due to the highly transcendent belief in allah sapping any meaningful long term business planning.

Ronald Reagan and, more importantly, Pope John Paul the Great were instrumental in the defeat of the Marxist narrative. There was no great war to defeat communism. It just collapsed under the weight of its own futility. This is what I hope Obama focus on in the next 8 years.

Gorgi,

I'm afraid your post is off in a multitude of ways.

First, I've travelled throught the Muslim world. While I have found some anti-Semitism, I have found relatively little in my interactions. And I would not put Iran anywhere near the top of the list here. Claims that the Iranian theocratic leadership is a bunch of Nazis or that we're eternally in 1938, as this website likes to claim, don't hold up. Iran has more Jews than any other Muslim country. If they were Nazis, they would have carted off and killed them long ago during their now 29 year reign.

And I don't think mistreating, uprooting and effectively dispossessing over half a million Arabs, including Christians, is a little, trivial nothing.

Lastly, what do you mean by 'you guys'? Do you know me or anything about my background? If by 'you guys', you mean conservative, principled, constitutional, American, Catholic Jews, then you would be correct. But, somehow, I suspect that was probably not what was on your mind.

fairuzfan

The Palestinian `disposession' while partially true is probably one of the most over-hyped, over-blown, oversold `disposessions' in human history.

Far worse things have been done to other human groups without so much a whine from your average garden variety liberal think tank.

The Kurds, the Ahwazis, the Ahwar Arabs, the Indians of Guatemala, the Hutus, the Tusis, the Hemas and the copts of Egypt, the anuaks; the Furs and Zaghawas, the lendus..the list is endless...

So why the world is obsessed with this tiny little conflict in this tiny little strip of unholy land is beyond me.

And sorry but there is no other place in Islamdom where almost every man, women and child ritually chants `mag bar israel' after every friday prayer in every mosque across the land except Iran. they dont even do it in Gaza!

"This is a step in the wrong direction," said Larijani. "If Americans want to change their situation in the region, they need to send good signals."...

I see, so now Larijani is going to start telling our President Elect what sort of Changes need to take place, or else?

Guess Iran thinks they're running the show over there, like they're King of the Planet; and whatever you do, Obama, don't mess with their pet project: NUKES! Or the world will witness a Temper-Tantrum unlike any other.

Iran leaders need only give Obama a little more time. He'll find a way to appease them.

"GW Bush poured gas on the Islamic narrative by given [sic] Muslims an enemy to kill and be killed by [sic]. He gave affirmation to their violent martyr narrative."

He failed because he limited the extent of the "affirmations" (e.g. no firing on mosques) and because of his deference to Shariah based constitutions in subservience to his professed fantasy of an underlying benign Islam.

Passivity, appeasement, flinching, blinking, half-measures and even negotiation do not work with this enemy. Overwhelming superiority proven by decimation and threat of more produce the only type of peace possible with this enemy: deferment. This "narrative" has survived intact for over 13 centuries. It did not need "affirmation", only means and opportunity. They attacked us first, we did nothing and they were emboldened. When they attack again, on larger scale and on the homeland, finally, Bush was the first to respond. If any "narrative" was "affirmed" it was "affirmed" by the LACK of response by Reagan (Beirut, 1982) and Clinton (too numerous to list here), and decades of cowardly European appeasment and accomodation. Liberals need to get their heads out of their collective asses. We are in for a long retrogressive four years.

Citizen

I think the gungo-ho yeehaaa option that you propose have been tried, tested weighed and found wanting. firepower is way over-rated as a negotations tool.

What will blowing up mosques achieve? Perhaps you are proposing a nuclear holocaust? If yes remember nukes are an acient technology which means dozens of countries are capable of building it and using it. How does the idea of nuking Iran only for us to be nuked back by say Azerbaijan in ten years time strike you?

People like you are sometimes as scary as the Mullahs of Tehran.

From above:
"What will blowing up mosques achieve?"

It depends what is in them.

Muslim apologist and shill Gorgi,

No one ever recommended blowing up mosques for the sake of blowing up mosques, or using nuclear weapons for trivial purposes. You know as I do, the American troops were, as a general rule, prohibited from returning fire originating from within mosques, and that they were inhibited from storming them where otherwise appropriate.

By the way, your method of appeasement and accomodation has been far more extensively tested by many European countries and Israel, always with poor long term outcomes. My approach was rarely tried, a good example would be the crushing of the Ottoman empire, including establishment of secular reformers and dissolution of the caliphate. That worked pretty damn well for a long time.

Scary? Maybe, because I would certainly advocate returning FAR in excess of that received. You, on the other hand ARE a mullah.

I agree with both returning of fire under all circumstances and the esatablishment of secular regimes wherever and whenever possible.

Do you therefiore agree that removing Saddam Hussein was utterly crazy and do you agree that Syria should now be welcomed and supported since it is not only a secular regime but has a proven track record of doing to Islamists what you would really like done to them?

American misconduct that has contributed to the situation. We're the ones who engineered the overthrow of their government, not the other way around.

fairuzfan,

Are you referring to the coup in 1953, the one that was supported by the mullahs?
The shah lasted twenty-six years.
The current regime has been in power for close to thirty. You can't use 1953 as an excuse forever.
Do they want to live in the past? Let them!

Syria may be a secular regime but it is a major weapon supplier of Hezbollah in Lebanon and hence supporting another enemy of Israel. They are also a major exporter of arms and terrorist into Iraq.

In short being a secular state doesn't mean squat if you are enabler of terrorists and weapons supplier.

GORGI: "Do you therefiore agree that removing Saddam Hussein was utterly crazy and do you agree that Syria should now be welcomed and supported since it is not only a secular regime but has a proven track record of doing to Islamists what you would really like done to them?"

This is the kind of simplified "logic" one might expect from a liberal. Syria has directly supported the most radical terrorists in the Islamic world, Hezbollah and Hamas.

But because the Assad regime is technically secular, it should be "welcomed".

Jesus.

Cornelius

You said we should help establish secular states in the region. Your words. You did not say we should insist they are Israel-friendly first.

So are you saying we should insist on this first?

Gorgi,

You have obviously confused me with someone else. I never wrote that we should "establish secular states in the region".

I do happen to prefer secular regimes to fundamentalist ones in the Muslim world, but that in no way implies that I would "welcome" secular regimes that are exponents of terrorism.

Iran must not have an atomic arsenal--period.

Iran must not be allowed to flout its obligations under international law and the treaties and covenants it agreed to sign.

Iran must not be allowed to give the lie to its protestations of peaceful intent, and develop the Bomb, as this leads, surely, to widespread war and a new Holocaust.

Iran must not have an atomic arsenal--period.

Iran must not be allowed to flout its obligations under international law and the treaties and covenants it signed.

Iran must not be allowed to give the lie to its protestations of peaceful intent, and develop the Bomb, as this leads, surely, to widespread war and a new Holocaust.

From above:
"Do you therefiore agree that removing Saddam Hussein was utterly crazy ..."
---
Not at all. Saddam was compelled by the UN resolutions to "account" and to destroy his WMD in the presence of UN inspectors. Read the resolutions.

Putting in another government for those maniacs is another matter. We should have disposed of Saddam and his regime and only return if they ever posed another threat.

Saddam used chemical weapons 15 times over the years. And he was a known sponsor of terrorism. He didn't want terrorists in his country. But he had no problem with them elsewhere. And he planned to purchase nuclear weapons in the future as well as reconstitute another WMD program in the future. Saddam stated this prior to his execution. Or you can just ask Joe Biden who said the same thing several years ago.

Leaving Saddam in power only to reconstitute his WMD programs and purchase nuclear weapons doesn't strike me as very sound thinking. And that's exactly what would have happened. The UN would never confront him in any meaningful way. And Saddam "underestimated President Bush and Prime Minister Blair". (his words)

From above:
"I agree with both returning of fire under all circumstances..."

So you now disagree with yourself when you earlier asked what will blowing up mosques achieve?

"Iran has more Jews than any other Muslim country" --fairuzfan

Really? How many are there, and why are they there? I'd like statistics - not just your blanket statement.

And, I think you're a Muslim.

You never know. One thing is clear, Obama is no Jimmy Carter. I was wrong about that. Obama is cut throat, and takes things very personal. Jimmy was just really stupid.

The Iranians better not tick him off too much...

"Iran has more Jews than any other Muslim country"

There was over 300,000 Jews in Iran during the time of the Shah. Today, there are under 10,000.

Yes indeed, Iran is a paradise for Jews.

In other words if could drive a "bus" over his grandmother to gain power, he will drive over dinnerjacket in a heartbeat.

fairuzfan.

Do us all a favor and stay home. No point in you walking backwards, bent over, thinking it is in our National Interest.

Iran has not said a nice thing about the U.S sense 1979.

It is highly unlikely your approach will make much headway. If you know what I mean.

Cool Ghoul

Saddam used Mustard gas against Iran and the Kurds. Criminal thing to do but hardly justifies American attack. Not our business.

Saddam wanted Nukes but stopped once Israel took the first reactors out in 1981. Saddam NEVER supported an Islamist terrorist group nor threatened America or the West. He even stopped making the obligatory anti-israel noises that all Arab leaders are expected by their population to make. He had one goal in life and politics: to stay in power because he correctly knew losing power meant losing his head.

He was a secular thug who feared Islamists and what he feared he hated and what he hated he killed. He was that kind of guy.

So why on earth did the neocons attack him when he posed no threat to America and indeed was a potential ally against a common enemy?

Gorgi,

Saddam used sarin, tabun, and VX , and mustard gas in his attacks. I am not if favor of looking the other way.

Saddam never "stopped" wanting nukes after 1981. He may have stopped trying to develop them. But he remained quite active in his quest to purchase them.

And he sponsored terrorism. In April 2002, Saddam Hussein increased from $10,000 to $25,000 the money offered to families of Palestinian suicide/homicide bombers. Former Iraqi military officers have described a highly secret terrorist training facility in Iraq known as Salman Pak, where both Iraqis and non-Iraqi Arabs receive training on hijacking planes and trains, planting explosives in cities, sabotage, and assassinations.

Here are some quotes from democrats.

Joe Biden himself said that he believed Saddam "had the ability to acquire a tactical nuclear weapon — not by building it, by purchasing it."

In October 2002, Nancy Pelosi sounded the same urgent theme, summing up a threat whose imminence the Democrats had been insisting upon for years. “Yes,” reiterated the tireless Pelosi, “[Saddam] has chemical weapons. He has biological weapons. He is trying to get nuclear weapons.”

"He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security… “We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world."
--Joe Biden

"Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq."
--President Bill Clinton

"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people. Bringing change in Baghdad will take time and effort. We will strengthen our engagement with the full range of Iraqi opposition forces and work with them effectively and prudently."
--President Bill Clinton

"Heavy as they are, the costs of action must be weighed against the price of inaction. If Saddam defies the world and we fail to respond, we will face a far greater threat in the future. Saddam will strike again at his neighbors. He will make war on his own people.

And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction. He will deploy them, and he will use them."
--President Bill Clinton

"It(Iraq) admitted, among other things, an offensive biological warfare capability notably 5,000 gallons of botulinum, which causes botulism; 2,000 gallons of anthrax; 25 biological-filled Scud warheads; and 157 aerial bombs.

And I might say UNSCOM inspectors believe that Iraq has actually greatly understated its production."
--President Bill Clinton

Cool Ghoul,

Well done.

Gorgi is obviously a liberal who appears to be oblivious about most of the things he's spouting off about.

On another thread, he claims IRAN has never used terrorism to strike America. Hugh pointed out the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon, and I pointed out the dozens (if not hundreds) of IED attacks in Iraq using armor-piercing shells newly manufactured in Iran just for the purpose of killing Americans.

On this thread, he argues that it was a mistake for the US to have invaded Iraq...such an argument may have a certain validity, but making it by fudging the facts so comprehensively will not cut it here.

Obama changed his tune because Iran got cocky and set down their own preconditions:

First, America must renounce support for "the Zionist regime," and second, America must remove all troops from the Middle East. He also said, if in a "between-the-lines" way that we must allow them to develop nukes and then destroy Israel.

http://www2.irna.ir/en/news/view/line-17/0810118630172325.htm

Had they not done this he would still be gung-ho about chatting with Ahmedinejad.

Fairuzfan,

No, Iran is not threatening to lob nukes into Europe. Not yet. But there is another place, in the Middle East, that it IS threatening quite clearly to annihilate, and where nukes would come in very handy for such an annihilation. As a "Catholic Jew" (sic), are you comfortable with your "Holy Land" being wiped-off the map, and being rendered uninhabitable, possibly for thousands of years?

Fairuzfan is a "Catholic Jew" like Geraldo is a "Catholic Jew:" only to the extent that he thinks it lends him credibility when he makes Judeophobic statements and uses tu quoque, anti-Christian logical fallacies to support his transparent claims. He's a Muslim.