Time will tell

What about relations with Iran under President Obama?


Time will tell
by Q

Barack Hussein Obama has "proven the impossible," or so the saying goes among people who just two weeks ago were swearing up and down that "America will never elect a black man President."

Within foreign policy circles, the conventional wisdom of all the pundits is that people in the Middle East are so racist, or have such a low perception of the American people, that they will be "shocked and awed" by the selection of a black man to the point of capitulation and cooperation with America.

That is wishful thinking for the most part.

I don't think the race issue is or has ever been nearly as extraordinary a factor with the developing world as it is with the developed one. For decades now the rest of the world has seen many diverse faces representing America. From Michael Jordan and Olympic athletes, to American movie stars, to soldiers serving on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq, to congressmen, secretaries of State and supreme court justices, the world knows about African Americans and their issues in America. To a teenage Iranian who has grown seeing these faces of America, Obama's election probably isn't that big a surprise.

It is mostly the Americans who surprised themselves, along with immigrant communities of all sorts who live in America. This is an unforgettable lesson for the established Iranian-American community, many of whom go to extraordinary lengths to present themselves as ordinary "white", "secular" and "modern" Americans having little in common with rural religious villagers back home. For years they thought that if they just adopt the "white" mannerism and white culture, (and implicity "white" friends, "white" attitudes and "white" skin itself) they can get ahead in life (like they did under the shah) partly because this was a white country.

This explains much of the generational clash among the Iranian diaspora, as well as "recent immigrant"/"established citizen" differences in attitudes and outlook in life and foreign policy.

Therefore, it is a mistake, in my opinion, to try to reduce Obama's achievement to a racial milestone that will have far reaching consequences internationally. President Obama will have an extraordinary opportunity to restore America's prestige and work toward peace in the world. But this is due to the rejection of Bush's policies, a party change in the White House and Obama's stated position on the Iraq war.

If America wants to win Iranian hearts and minds, they have to emphasize Obama's humble origins, not just his skin color. Personal achievement, pulling oneself up from modest economic means and championing the dispossessed have always been rewarded by the Iranian people (living in Iran). Those who are tempted to think that such values have died along with the Ayatollah Khomeini need only look at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

I saw first hand that in a competitive field of eight candidates who ran for Iranian presidency in 2005, Ahmadinejad was alone in presenting himself as humble, down to earth champion of the poor, while the rest of the candidates were tripping over themselves with pandering, flashy signs and sex appeal. A humble person knows how to instill pride and respect to people, a necessary ingredient to any cooperation.

These are the aspects of Barak Obama that make him attractive to Iranian populace and these are where he would get any authority to influence them should he choose to take America's policy toward Iran in a different direction.

Obama has already made extraordinary but logical statements. Saying he would sit down with Iranian leaders, for example may have played into the hands of the (now fringe) far-right wing during the elections, but it was probably a winner with the Iranian people. Here we have an admission by a major American candidate that Iranians are worthy of having direct and respectful discussions with.

According to the (now fringe) Iranian-American reactionaries and their like-minded neoconservative allies, it would be a mistake to "validate" the Iranian regime through the act of sitting down with them. But what these groups never realized was that quite apart from Iranian issues with their own government, their national pride demanded that they be treated seriously and equally in the international arena.

Another important clue to the change Obama will bring is his declaration on the night he won the election: "To those who seek peace and security: We support you." A simple logical sentence, that if followed with respect to Iran would simultaneously defend America's interests and validates Iranian need for security. It is in a nutshell a bargain (not necessarily "grand").

While this rhetoric is encouraging, the real decisions lie ahead. These are the decisions to be taken in 2009 which would be translated to change of facts on ground. These are decisions that  will determine if America is truly moving away from Bush's destructive foreign policy, or simply continuing them under a different paradigm.

We shall wait and see.


more from Q
I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Darius stop ruining this by talking about Shah. JESUS Get a grip

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

You have outdone yourself this time. 


Lots of truth in your article,

by Jaleho on

I just beg to differ in one point: The election of an African American was a historic event by itself, lifting not only America, but the rest of the world. You just have to take a look at the "we can" attitude in every muscle of the average African American AND color-blind youth in the streets! Let alone that its most important aspect was injection of a new blood in anemic American democracy where a low voter turn out was making a joke out of the soul of democracy.

And for the world, just take a look at celebrations everywhere, from Africa to Europe. Iranian TV was showing the big celebration in Indonesia I heard.

I also would like to emphasize your point of comparison of Obama to Ahmadinejad and add to it.

Your important point that both elected presidents being from "the people" is well taken. Both elections reflected the power and aspirations of people of humble origins, a typical African American who made it here, and the son of a blacksmith who made it in Iran. Obama even copied Ahmadinejad's election line with the same power and reflected the same capacity!

Ahmadinejad's line was "mitavaneem va khahim kard- We Can, and We Will;"  Obama's was "Yes, we can".

They both aspired hope and power to ordinary people, but let's not forget that they both had a SINGLE UNIQUE platform that got them to high position, beyond the typical hope for the underdog.

Obama's unique promise that separated him from other Republican or Democratic candidates was  his anti-war promise. Ahmadinejad was Iran's best bet on insisting Iranian RIGHT to Nuclear Energy.

Ahmadinejd did not betray Iranian people for the central platform he stood on, hope Obama will prove to honor America's collective wish of ending the war.

Darius Kadivar

If IRI Legitimate Then So was the COUP of 53' ;0)

by Darius Kadivar on

The IRI claims to be the government of GOD on Earth. The Spiritual Leader of the Islamic Republic Ali Khamenei claims to speak the words of God's Messenger the 13th Imam you hailed on the Moon a few years ago remember ?

When it comes to Legitimacy, from a purely Democratic point of view and More logically from the point of view of FAITH itself in the noble sense of the word, the IRI is ILLEGITIMATE. Why ?

Because GOD says THOU SHALL NOT KILL, it is a common denominator to ALL monotheistic Religions we know of. However the Islamic Revolution's history is tainted with Blood up to the the highest levels of leadership. 

To Start with the executions of the officers and civil servants of the previous regime to the massacres of 1988 and all the assassination of political opponents to the regime regardless of their political affiliations.


Ayatollah Khomeiny the Leader of the Revolution Substituted himself to GOD. A HERESY by All Means and to the opinion of all True Muslim's.

So from a purely Religious point of view regardless of whether the Revolution was in effect a popular one in that it was endorsed by the Iranian people at large, it was and remains an ILLEGITIMATE Revolution and a HERESY.

Now if you look at it from a Legal and Secular Point of View, it is the official government of Iran and yet a dictatorship and Totalitarian State by all means. So the question of Legitimacy is still extremely relative given that it is certainly not a democratically elected leadership in that the candidates are not the choice of the people but of the good will of the current leadership.

From a purely institutional point of view, The Islamic Republic is AN ABSOLUTE MONARCHY with A turbaned Monarch instead of a Jewel Encrusted Crowned King. 

I have no problem with that, except that I am in the following Order:

1) Constitutionalist ( The Rule of the Parliament Over that of the Leadership): Separation of Executive and Legislative Powers.

2) A Monarchist ; Because I think that a Jeweled Crown is more Sexy than a Toilet Headed Turban.

3) A Legitimist ( That is I believe in Restoration and Not Revolution)

So that brings me to the following observation: In same way that I believe that the

A) So Called COUP of '53 is in my opinion Constitutionally a Shortcoming ( I will need to answer in a full article in the future to claim why I believe that the Shah's reign and Rule in contrast to Khamanei does not consist of an Illegitimate one from a Constitutional point of view, yet illegitimate from a purely Democratic Point of View ) of the Reign of Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi which turned him into an Absolute Monarch rather than the Constitutional King ( which he should have remained as during the 12 years that preceded the so called COUP of '53. ( Read * Explanation Below) where he perfectly reigned But did not rule over Parliament very much as in most European Monarchies of the time ( Britian and Belgium to name a few)

B) That the Islamic Republic of Iran is NOT a Legitimate System of Government in that its authority is not one deriving from the will of the People and it is even less a Republic as one would define it from a Legal Point of view. In other words it is Simply a NEW DYNASTY, A Turbaned one, yet nevertheless an ABSOLUTE RELIGIOUS Monarchy whose legitimacy and existence can Only be justified by its followers by refering to the Revolution of 1979.

I have no problem with that Interpretation it is a Valid one.

I simply DON'T Consider This NEW Dynasty as Legitimate in that I Do not Consider the Revolution of 1979 as The Prolongation of the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 but rather a Religious COUP and HIGHJACKING oveof the Legitimate Democratic Aspirations that defined the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 that led to the adoption of a modern ( however imperfect) Constitution for our Country. So if the popular upheavel of 1979 had any Legitimacy it was in leading to the formation of the Government of DR. Shahpour Bakhtiar ( However LATE due to the monarch's fatal hesitations and In CATASROPHIC circumstances) who took office at the Height of this Religious Highjacking.  


In this Reading and for your understanding this is how A Constitutionalist would interpret a modern Reading of the Lesson's of the Shahnameh aka Book of Kings in the light of our contemporary History with the following distribution of characters:

a) The People and the Constitutional Revolution would be: ROSTAM AND ZAL

b) Mohamed Reza Shah Pahlavi: The Imperfect YET Legitimate KAI KAVOUS

c) Khomeiny, Ali Khamenei and his Turbaned Dynasty: ZAHAK AND HIS EVIL KINGDOM.

d) Shahpour Bakhtiar: A Reincarnation of ZAL, ROSTAM except that he died like SOHRAB by the hands of his own countrymen blinded by the treacherous echoes of Islamic Revolution which highjacked our patriotism in a very similar way as with the IRI Lobbyists today who overlook the true nature of the current Theocracy.   

e) Reza Pahlavi: A  LEGITIMATE HOWEVER IMPERFECT Reincarnation of Kai KAVOUS.

After All Ferdowsi always reminded us that we Only have the Rulers We Deserve. They are Imperfect but they are the ones history has made Available to us. Up to Us the People  to Open their eyes just as Rostam does with Kai Kavous.

Video's Illustrating My Arguments :  

Bakhtiar Interview on his Legitimacy and Role:


Khomeiny's (the New King) Arrival in Tehran and Bakhtiar Opinion regarding the Turbaned King's Claims:


Bakhtiar in Exile Saying why he accepted to become Prime Minister of the Shah:


So in My Conclusion From a Constitutionalist Point of View, which I would like to submit to your sagacity and other readers whether You like it Or NOT, Whether You Think it Realistic OR Not, Whether You like or Not the Pahlavi's, Whether you think it is Crazy or Not, is nevertheless :




HEE, HEE ...



(*)  PARTIAL Explanation ( would deserve a much longer one maybe in the future in the form of an article) : I used the word "so-called" because constitutionally the Events of 1953 can very legitimately be seen as a "Coup" by the Prime Minister Against the Royal Institution and not the contrary. This observation is purely based on a "Legal" point of View and not an "Emotional" statement triggered by an understandable yet illogical "Moralistic" Standpoint which consists of confusing :

1) Dr. Mossadegh's nationalistic struggle to nationalize our national ressources over the British neo colonialist control of our Oil .


2) The Struggle for Democracy  in our country which was never entirely fullfilled under the successive Qajar and Pahlavi reigns but which doted our country with a Constitution nevertheless and which had its roots in the Constitutional Revolution of 1906 and not the Events of 1953.  


I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Rush Limbaugh - worry about yourself and the Republicans

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on

Rush never talks about what a stinkfest the Republicans are. He's awful. All he talks about is how fake the news is, that no one really wanted Obama, that McCain was going to win. NOW EGG IS ON HIS FACE.

Obama is NOT Jimmy Carter. The cycle of crappy Republicans is true though, and it helped us this time. But Obama hasn't even entered the White House. Obama is a genius and he knows that you morons are waiting for another Jimmy Carter.

So ear Rush "fan" worry about yourselves instead of criticizing. Sarah Palin doesn't even know how to add. 


GET REAL guys ...

by Lobbyist (not verified) on

Goodness gracious! BO has not even set foot in the White House yet and IRI lobbyists, apologists, profiteers and payrollees are all over him, already telling him what to do.

What security guarantee?

Mullahs could not give a rat's ass about security guarantees that America wants to provide them. Bush and the EU were more than willing to provide that security at least throughout the last 4 years, besides, mullahs do not even trust America to keep her word for that matter, neither does America trust mullahs to stop financing and supporting ther ME terrorist groups.

Mullahs have spent billions so far to build the bomb in order to blackmail the world with it and coerce it to see things their way. Anybody can see that mullahs believe that the bomb will provide them a lot more security guarantee that any super power can! GET real!

Jahanshah Rashidian

Perplexed Lobbyists

by Jahanshah Rashidian on

BitaWeb HTML-Editor

معتقدم پيروزی
باراک اوباما اینک ج.ا. و لابی های انرا دستپاچه کرده. 

اوباما اگر چه حاظر به
مذاکره در یک محدوده زمانی بر سر پرونده اتمی رژیم است

 اما د درازمدت باید قاطع
عمل کند و رئوس این قاطعیت نیز امده اند.

 از طرف دیگرا و با پرونده سیاه حقوق بشررژیم نیزممکن است برخورد کند. 

بوش برای ملا ها و لابی هایش غنیمتی بود تا بعنوان دفاع از حق غنی سازی از
ناسيوناليسم و غرورملی مردم برای بقا رژیم سوئ استفاده کنند.  

 دولت بوش نمیخواست و یا نمتوانست به اين واقعیت ساده توجه کند که نمود
اصلی ملاها 

اول ضدیت و بیگانگی با مردم خود است و بعد با دنيای
در واقع،  پاشنه اشیل رژیم  پرونده رژیم با حقوق بشر و
دموکراسی است و نه غنی سازی.

رژیم ج.ا. در کلیت حامی دکترین قرون وسطائی و ضد بشری است و مانند 

رژیم اپارتاید لکه 
ننگی است بر پیشانی بشریت. اوباما که تبلورنسلی رها شده از برده داریست، 

قابل انتظار است که     
اپارتاید جنسی ملاها را نیز محکوم کند. این امکان اظطراب ملاها و جیره خواران

 انان را باعث
شده است.

تبلیغات مزدوران رژیم که شعارهای "وطنپرستی" و نام ها ویا ظاهری "پارسی"

 را به عاریه میکشند خدمت به بقا رژیم ضد ایرانی جهل و جنایت است. این سایت غیر

 مسئولانه به انان
فرصت میدهد تا برای یکی از فاشیستی ترین رژیمهای معاصر و یکی از ضد ایر

رژیمهای بعد از حمله اعراب تبلیغ کنند.  



White guilt won this election

by Rush Limbaugh fan (not verified) on

read about it here:

Obama is Jimmy Carter II. He owes his liberal ideology to dhimmi carter and he will go down just like Carter did. Republicans will come back in 2 years.


for President Obama

by Cheezaki on

Take me to the magic of the moment
On a glory night
Where the children of tomorrow share their dreams




by Mammad on

Thanks for the article. A few points:

1. The legitimacy or illegitimacy of a political system is not given to it by a foreign country or leader. So, even if Obama meets Ahmadinejad or ayatollah Khamenei, the meeting will not give them legitimacy, or take away anything from his own legitimacy. If IRI is illegitimate, it is because of Iranian people. And if it is legitimate, the same.

2. In my view, and I have said this many times, Obama is constrained by the same parameters as any US president. The strategic objectives of the US establishment (military, corporate, intelligence) are the same, regardless of who is the president. It is only the manner - or the tactic - by which the objectives are attempted to be realized that distinguishes one US president from another.

For example, when it comes to Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, and Iran, there was little difference between Obama and McCain, only tactics were different (and not very much), not goals. Obama has said that he would not accept a solution to Iran's nuclear program problem that involves enriching uranium on Iranian soil. How is that different from Bush's or McCain's position? This is what every US president would seek. Obama may not rush to war with Iran, but if push comes to shove, he will without any doubt or hesitation.

3. Unlike what some say in this column, Obama is not going to do "what is right for the people of Iran," or "side with the people of Iran." He and his administration will do what is right for achieving the strategic goals of the US. If that entails attacking Iran, he will do. If that entails sitting down with whoever is in power in Tehran, he will do.

It is utterly naive to think that Obama - as good and as intelligent he is - will do something against what he and his administration perceive to be in the US national interests. The US, like any other major power, is not after establishing democracy elsewhere or "freeing" people per se, rather after achieving its strategic objectives, and will do whatever it takes to achieve them.



I have a question for anybody

by Anooshirvan-- (not verified) on

I have a question for anybody, when did this nice cultural website become the new mullah newspaper? I have read 10 pro-IRI comments just today.

I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek

Republicans are racist. No blacks are interested in them.

by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on


Obama's chief of staff, is one of the co-signers of the "War

by Fozool (not verified) on

with Iran Bill" also called H.Con.Res.362. He voted for military embargo against Iran just this last summer. Israeli Lobby has landed inside the Obama's White House already. Just do a search on Google and you'll see. Sorry folks. I was a believer for a total of 12 hours and then it hit the fan.



سید حسن مدرس (not verified)

Obama's Islamic values will guide him through his term in the office. His solid adherence to Islamic values and guidelines will help him to better his relationship with all Islamic countries.

Ameen ya rabal alamin


you're funny....

by ali138 (not verified) on

you think race didn't play a factor here?!! why do you think obama got 95% of the black vote? the fact that almost all blacks voted for him because he's black says something very loud and clear.
and you think sitting down with the murdering akhoonds will somehow satify "our national pride?" wow, if you think the akhoonds represent our people and its culture and values, you've been in a time capsule!
the mullahs have killed thousands of americans in cold blood, from pan am 103, to beirut, to kobar towers, to iraq, and on and on. what are u exactly going to sit down and tell them???? please stop hating us and calling us the great satan? or please stop oppressing the wonderful iranian people???
give me a break, biden, bresynski and the rest of morons who advised carter will ensure that the akhoonds reign will turn into a dynasty....may god help the US and iran!
like u said, we shall see.....but the outcome is pretty clear



by crossroads (not verified) on

Obama has criticised Bush for "not talking to the enemy", particularly in the case of Iran. So the world would expect Obama to obey all the diplomatic traffic rules and follow all the procedures to try to persuade President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the Iranian authorities to abandon their project to build a nuclear bomb.

But when Iran refuses to give up its bomb despite the eloquent entreaties of the new US president, Obama would be forced to act. So, after talking to Iran, he would likely end up at the same spot where Bush is. That wouldn't make him very popular in Iran or with others who oppose America's use of its military might...




by MRX1 (not verified) on

does any one know when will BO get together with ahamdinejad, sar sofreh eating ash reshteh?
I think amanpour is going to cover it live.



Home sweet home...

by Rosie (not verified) on

Asssssh, Jammy...Thomas Wolfe was wrong! You CAN go home again....just like the good ol' days. LOL

signed, rosie about to turn into a pumpkin again at midnight...



Iranians can too!

by shameoniri (not verified) on

Khameni and his ilk have
by highhopes (not verified) on Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:57 AM PST

Khameni and his ilk have stood defiantly in support of insidious corruption and xenophobia, religious and gender segregation (apartheid), a culture of brutal repression, violence, perversion, immorality, and denial of basic human and economic rights for thirty years.

These actions and the stark images of their consequences have spread across the world and should galvanize Iranians and the international community to a cry for an end to the IRI/Islamists apartheid. There should be a firestorms that should be lit in hearts of all of freedom and liberty seeking people of the world to help Iranians to face IRI assault on freedom, liberty and mainstream prosperity. Economic security for all and not just for the Khodis.

As a new call to arms was sounded by Obama two years ago, Iranians need to learn from Americans to take their country back.

IRI"s trampling of individual freedoms and blatant contempt for the rights (economics, social, human, religious) of the average Iranians are nothing short of what black Americans faced 60 years ago in the South antebellum.

There needs to be a shift of conciousness in Iran too.

Honesty, and love of country (instead of religion) in both word and deed can replace treachery and perversion of all that is decent in the Islamic Republic We need someone like Barack to lead and give Iranian the power back that was hijacked by right wing religious fundamentalist in 1978.

We need to wake up and come to an understanding of the injustices borne by IRI's deeds and the legacy of suffering and destruction that it has and will left behind as did Martin Luther King and his movement.

Today, Barack Obama is hope for a better tomorrow for all Americans. He stands on the shoulders of all those people who have incessantly prayed for a day when "justice will run down like waters and righteousness as a mighty stream" (Amos 5:24).

Perhaps one day, Iranians will have the opportunity to have a leader like Barack Obama.

We need an Iranian Barack
by Iranians can too! (not verified) on Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:21 AM PST

We need an Iranian Barack Obama. It's time for all Iranians of ideological stripes to unite and put their country first instead of their ideologies.

We could learn so much from this US election to build a movement, a cause, to take our country back from the jaws of extremist IRI apartheid.


The new President elect can

by shameoniri (not verified) on

The new President elect can side with the people and their legitimate aspirations or choose to listen to the big-oil company lobbyists and connive with the present oppressive and dictatorial regime. I hope he chooses justice for Iranians over profits. I hope he would want justice, liberty, prosperity and competent governance for Iranian children as he does for American children.


Re: Q

by jamshid on

"According to the (now fringe) Iranian-American reactionaries and their like-minded neoconservative allies, it would be a mistake to "validate" the Iranian regime through the act of sitting down with them."

Depends on what the purpose of "sitting down with them" is. If it is to validate and legitimize the illigal and illegitimate IRI regime, then indeed it would be wrong.

"But what these groups never realized was that quite apart from Iranian issues with their own government, their national pride demanded that they be treated seriously and equally in the international arena."

Iranians national pride demands first and foremost to be treated well by their own government in the domestic arena. International pishkesh.

"We shall wait and see"

Backpedalling already? I thought you were vehemently pro-Obama. Your comments are still there. Are you trying to save face in case...? In case what Q?


This is retarded

by Toofantheoncesogreat (not verified) on

Iranians supporting (either by vote or other) Obama or McCain should not call themselves Iranian.

Have you read the list of "advisors" that are going to hang around Obama when it comes to Iran? There is the answer to your question about "The future of Iran" mr. Q.

Let me mention them, then you can enjoy reading about what they have planned for all of our families back home: James Steinberg, Dennis Ross, Sam Nunn, Ephram

Dear Q, you write

"Obama has already made extraordinary but logical statements. Saying he would sit down with Iranian leaders, for example may have played into the hands of the (now fringe) far-right wing during the elections, but it was probably a winner with the Iranian people. Here we have an admission by a major American candidate that Iranians are worthy of having direct and respectful discussions with."

What he will say in that meeting is that Iran is not allowed to enrich its own low HEU, Iran has said that is a red line, then comes the sanctions, and when the GOP grabs the presidency in 2012 or further, Iran will be dust.. The same EXACT advisors and policies that destroyed Iraq are being put in place against Iran.

At least McCain wants to bomb and destroy Iran right away, he reveals what a creature he is, Obama wants to sanction and starve Iran first like Iraq, then bomb and destroy it.

So PLEASE can people have some intelligence and stop all this Disney portrayal of Obama. Him being black has nothing to do with what kind of person he is. It makes it all the worse to actually criticise him for his real faults..

All Iranians and even Americans should do themselves a favor and read this article, you wont get a better more accurate read out on how Obama is going to rape Iran more than the Mullahs ever have done:


Iranian.com should also post it as an front page article. Its the least it can do after the Obama romance that is stirring in this site..

Il quote from the article:

" The most important advisor to Obama—the one who according to the aforementioned The New York Times article, was asked to frame "Obama's comments on Iran's nuclear program and its potential threat to Israel"—is Dennis Ross, the former Director of The Washington Institute for Near East Policy and its current "Consultant." Ross, as I said earlier, represents that wing of the Washington Institute which advocates sanctioning Iran to death before finishing her off with a series of military attacks. He believes that the US must join France, Britain and Germany in negotiating with Iran, but with a price: If Iran does not accept capitulation, that is, to stop its enrichment of uranium—then Europeans must impose severe economic sanctions against Iran. He has expressed this view a number of times and in different places. In an essay in U.S. News and World Report on May 25, 2005—when Iran was still halting its uranium enrichment under the "Paris Agreement""


"If you want peace, we will support you. If you want to tear

by Rosie (not verified) on

the world we will defeat you." Not destroy, not obliterate, not tear YOU down...defeat...

That's the whole point. He didn't SAY who he was addressing. It's open-ended. IF. He will strive for a middle ground. That's about the best we can hope for right now. Any President with more extreme views either way would be a disaster (not that anyone with views further to the left could've possibly won...)

His speech was open-ended. People can project whatever they want onto it. It was simply...diplomatic.

Diplomatic. And that's exactly what he promised. Diplomacy.



Obama will best let IRI do

by alpha (not verified) on

Obama will best let IRI do whatever they want. Let them develop, weaponize, who cares. No war should be declared on Iran until they actually use their weapons on others. This way, President Obama will not have to sit down with murderes and criminals ruling the oppressed Iranians.



by Kablammad (not verified) on

Haven't you seen Ahmadinejad's photos and video clips going to remote villages and other shahrestans? That is his "appeal". He is an idiot but he goes among regular people and get them to like him.

I can provide bunch of links but here's one. Does he look like Bush?


So they vote for him because they know him. Others didn't do it and didn't care to talk to people outside Tehran. So in that sense you can say he has a broader base. People from shahrestans are people too and their votes counts just the same.



by IRANdokht on

Thank you! you made a lot of sense in most of your article.

I am not really seeing Ahmadinejad as comparable to Obama's class and humility but more to Bush's fundamentalist, agressive and self-righteous demeanor.

I also believe that Obama's election will result in the election of a more moderate cadidate in Iran. Ahmadinejad was Bush's match in so many ways, Iran will need someone more respectable and less controversial now. 

we shall wait and see and continue to hope for peace.  



Venice Beach

by Fred on

Mishmash essays and speaking as the duly authorized representative of the enslaved Iranian people is nothing new from defenders of the Islamist republic but everything has a limit. Almost every sentence in this one has number of fallacious statement, lets just take this one: “I saw first hand that in a competitive field of eight candidates who ran for Iranian presidency in 2005, Ahmadinejad was alone in presenting himself as humble, down to earth champion of the poor, while the rest of the candidates were tripping over themselves with pandering, flashy signs and sex appeal.” “competitive” field in the Islamist republic where the show candidates are vetted by the Islamist establishment? “sex appeal” in the Islamist republic where public lashing for apparel violation is commonplace?

You sure with all the competitions, sex appeals and flashy signs the 2005 visit was not to Venice Beach?


"If you want to tear down the world, We will defeat you"--Obama

by highhopes (not verified) on

Obama will not be fooled by IRI or realist et al because he is a methodical and incredibly intelligent man. He is also an honorable man and has no tolerance for those who trample on the humanity of others for profit. He will see right through IRI lobbists and the IRI's shenangins. He will not be manipulated by IRI mouthpieces. He will do what's right for American and for the Iranian people.

He said last night, "If you want to tear down the world, We will Defeat you". I think he was addressing the IRI and Al-Qudae.


Thought you might like this, Qumars, if you haven't seen it yet.

by Rosie (not verified) on


Just visiting for the day. Thanks for the article.