Obama's 1953 Moment

Share/Save/Bookmark

Onlyiran
by Onlyiran
06-Nov-2009
 

As a lifelong Democrat, I voted for Obama in the last elections. I was glad to see the eight years of Bush madness come to an end and looked forward to seeing a sane U.S. foreign policy toward the rest of the world. But, when it comes to dealing with Iran after this year’s post-election uprising, I think that Obama is making a mistake and is placing the United States at the wrong side of history once again.

Fifty six years ago, the United States engineered a coup that toppled the first democratically elected government in the history of the Middle East. The Iranian people never forgot that treachery, and that single event was the biggest catalyst of the 1979 anti-monarchy and anti-American revolution. That single event was also perhaps the biggest cause of anti-Americanism in the Iranian society in the latter part of the 20th century.

Now, in the 21st century, the United States is at a crossroads again when it comes to taking sides in the conflict between Iranians masses and their government, and in my opinion, Obama is choosing the wrong side. You see, for the eight years of the Bush presidency, the Bush administration legitimized the IRI by its belligerence, its threats and its over-exaggerated claims-yet minimal actual attempts-of helping the “opposition” in Iran. His threats of military attack against Iran were God’s gift to the IRI, which masterfully used the excuse to hand over control of the government and Iran’s economy to the Revolutionary Guards, and to essentially transform itself from a theocracy into a military dictatorship. At that time, Bush stood against the wishes of the Iranian people, who truly thought that they could transform this regime into something resembling a democracy by their votes. Instead of taking sides with the Iranian people and not giving ammunition to the IRI, Bush did the exact opposite and gave the IRI the tools it needed to further solidify its hold on the country.

Today, Obama is making yet another mistake by trying to engage the IRI. The June elections in Iran showed that there is very little hope, at least at this time, for a peaceful transition from IRI’s military dictatorship to a democratic system. Engaging it at this juncture is, therefore, a mistake. Don’t get me wrong. I am not talking about “crippling sanctions” or a military attack. I am simply saying that Obama should take a stand and declare that the U.S. will not negotiate or sit at a table with a regime that shoots its population on the streets and corners a defenseless woman against a wall and beats her in the head with a baton. All he has to do is to do a press conference and show videos of Neda being shot and the other woman being beaten on the street and say: “ladies and gentlemen, here its is. I won’t sit at a table with a government that does this to its citizens”. Just like Bush legitimized the IRI with his threats and belligerence, Obama is legitimizing them with his overtures of “engagement”. He is legitimizing a government that has no legitimacy with its own citizens.

The IRI is on its death march. It will be removed by the Iranian people at some point, and unfortunately, I do not believe that it will be without more sacrifice and bloodshed. When that happens, the Iranian people will remember who was with them and who was wheeling and dealing with the IRI when they were being beaten, shot and raped by this monstrous regime. The question that Mr. Obama needs to ask himself is this: which side of history does he want to be on? Does he want to have another 1953 moment, or does he want to be remembered as the U.S. president who, for the first time in the history of this country, stood with the people of Iran?

Share/Save/Bookmark

more from Onlyiran
Onlyiran

Q

by Onlyiran on

You raise a very good point here:

The democracy movement in Iran was largely muted during the Bush era because of Bush' belligerat policies that drove everyone to support the regime in face of imminent attack from a superpower.

I personally think that the Green movement's legitimacy partially arises from the fact that the IRI, despite its many attempts, has failed to portray it as a tool of foreign interventionists.  And that is a direct result of the change in U.S. policy.  in that sense, Obama has done some good.  in my opinion, though, he needs to go a little farther, and that's where we disgaree.

Thanks for the info. on the character.  Whoever he / she is, he / she needs to learn some manners.  I don't mind being criticized, but the manner in shich it was done is disturbing.  I just wish that people could have a productive and contsructive discussion about issues without restortnig to personal insults and attack.  That's why I always welcome people of all opinions to comment on my blogs.  Everyone can rest assured that I will respect their opinion, regardless of whether or not they agree with me. 


Q

OnlyIran

by Q on

I dontt think that Obama has done anything that is fundamentally different from previous policies. As I mentioned in the post, I think that both him and Bush have legitimized the IRI in their own way.

You are conflating an interpretation with action.

Action wise, Obama has done 180 from Bush. He has agreed to meet with Iran and has fired the neocons who were hell bent on war.

It is your interpretation of these actions that makes you say this is "legitimizing" the IRI. The actions themselves are indisputably different. I think it is not the case.

I think you are conflating cause/effect in another area. The democracy movement in Iran was largely muted during the Bush era because of Bush' belligerat policies that drove everyone to support the regime in face of imminent attack from a superpower. Now that this threat has been lifted, there is more room to challenge the system.

But, of course we can agree to disagree.

Also,

Farah Rusta is not Jaleh or Jaleh's friend! Trust me! FR is actually a man who used to blog (with very nasty tone) under the name Parkhash. He as exposed as Parkhash by tinoush and others a while back, but continues on pretending like denial and taking on the name of a woman is going to work. His real name is well known too, you can google it and find out.

The reason he may sound like Jaleh, is because he's so far to the right, that he rejects the Green movement completely just like Jaleh who does so from the other side of the political spectrum. As a die-hard monarchist he doesn't approve of RP getting close to the Greens and so he attacks the movement, ironically just like Ahmadinejad supporters.

Shushtari: i am in awe of your logic, evidence and sound reasoning to my own arguments, not to mention your "elmeh gheib"! Clearly this means we should start pretending you exist from now on. Is that what you want?


Nousha Arzu

Iranian.com

by Nousha Arzu on

If my last post, which was flagged by our house Gestapo, is deleted, this is a black and shameful mark on Iranian.com! What kind of a place is this when a perpetual flagger can flag those of us he disagrees with so as to silence our opinions. That's what the IRI does so well in Iran.  That's called censorship.

That's un-American!

That's ridiculous. We live in the United States of America, not the Islamic Republic of Iran. There's a thing called the 1st Amendment and freedom of Speech. This Islamist character hits the flag button every 5 minutes so as to silence those of us who post negative comments against his beloved IRI.

If Iranian.com becomes a forum rife with censorship, it will ultimately only hurt Iranian.com because people will just go elsewhere to post their opinons.

These fascistic characters on this site are like leeches who have latched onto the umbelical cord of Iranian.com and suck the life out of it, literally, for their perverted nourishment.

It's sickening.

And the moderators at Iranian.com should not fall prey to this sort of over-the-top, perverse manipulation. People who constantly flag others are like the "rats" in Mafia movies, always ratting people out and playing hall monitor, i.e., cyber Gestapo. 

And sadly, they don't do this to elevate the quality of dialogue at Iranian.com, that at least would be benign, but rather, they flag people so as to censor all forms of speech from those of us who are patently against the IRI.

At the end of the day, people like Q flag people like me because he can't stand pluralism of opinions. He doesn't flag me because he really cares about my "accusations," but rather, he flags me because he wants to shut me down, completely, so as to silence me, completely, and eliminate my voice, completely, which is always vociferously against his beloved IRI.

That's not only self-serving and anti-democratic (and un-American) but vile and petty, if not the technical definition of tyranny (of small minds).

 

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 


Onlyiran

Niluofar Jaan

by Onlyiran on

You have a valid point.  However, that theory has already proved ineffective.  If you recall, the IRI was blaming the British and the US for the post election unrest, despite the fact that neither had any role in it.  It was the crux of their fantasy theories during the show trials.  So, whether or not the U.S. has any actual involvement in Iran's affairs is irrelevant as far as the IRI  prropaganda machine is concerned. 


Niloufar Parsi

Onlyiran

by Niloufar Parsi on

interesting perspective, but let me suggest a different scenario: the one thing that in the eyes of the average iranian causes hesitation in supporting the opposition or acting directly against the regime is the idea of a foreign threat. iranians are particularly sensitive to and - therefore - vulnerable to manipulation on this issue given our history. this trick of rulers works in every country and every context, be it iran or usa. one could see obama's strategy as a ploy to remove this last bastion of IRI 'legitimacy' in the eyes of many iranians. once iran and usa normalise relations, the regime will find it even harder to justify suppression of local dissent. obama's engagement strategy may be quite clever. of course the regime will try to paint it as its own victory, but it will nevertheless be left without a great satan.

Peace


kharmagas

Khanome Nousha!

by kharmagas on

It is very unlikely that U.S is going to go to war for you guys, not only because of the ongoing expensive mercenary wars in east and west of Iran that it is involved with, but also because many in the U.S know that likes of you are incompetent, and corrupt and like Karzai will become a burden. .... so go fight your war yourself.


kharmagas

well said OmidKarimi

by kharmagas on

These guys are in bad shape in the region, real bad shape in  Afghanistan/Pakistan and very shaky shape in Iraq, those are the main reasons that have stopped them from destroying Iran so far , not Obama...


Q

Nousha,

by Q on

your comment is flagged for personal attacks and worthless accusations.


shushtari

nousha

by shushtari on

again, perfectly said!

it's funny that all these bache akhoonds who support the mullahs live in sunny california and drive bentleys bought with the money stolen from iran vast wealth! 


Nousha Arzu

No, Q, the joke is on you...

by Nousha Arzu on

For you to compare the Cubans and their unique plight to the Iranian people of TODAY, and for you to compare the situation in Iran under Clinton and Regan, and even Bush, to TODAY, is patently asinine. Never under Clinton or Bush, not even in 1999, was the Iranian nation on the verge of exploding as it is TODAY.

the past, no amount of moral support could make a difference because our struggle against the IRI had not reached a revolutionary boil. Today, we have indeed reached the boiling point, and we do in fact need the leader of the free world to be on OUR side, and NOT on the side of our oppressors!!!!

If the IRI is so good for Iran, why aren't you living in Iran?

Cheers.

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 


OmidKarimi

I have said it countless times

by OmidKarimi on

Obama is more dangerous for Iran than Bush ever was. Obama's fake smiles and empty speeches has actually killed the entire anti-war movement int he US. At least Bush came out with a straight face and said he wanted to hurt Iran (iranians, IRI) any way possible. Who would stand up against this man if F-16s were to start dropping bombs in Iran tomorrow? 

----------------------------------

Discuss, chat and post your opinions about Iran on my new forum: www.IranBebin.com

 


Onlyiran

Q

by Onlyiran on

I respectfully disagree.  I dontt think that Obama has done anything that is fundamentally different from previous policies.  As I mentioned in the post, I think that both him and Bush have legitimized the IRI in their own way.  In that sense, nothing has changed.


Onlyiran

OK Jaleho

by Onlyiran on

whatever...

you know, it's pretty sad to you in this state.  You were chased off this site after you abused other users and became the most despised character on the site.  Now, you're back under a different username (and perhaps many others) and are back to your old games: no contribution to any post, just abuse and interruption of productive discussions.  I guess after a while, this username will outlive its usefulness and you will  show up as another...if we're only so lucky...

PS/ if this is how Mr. Javid wants to run his site, then so be it.  I write blogs and have respectful discussions with others on topics of interest, even those who disagree with me.  I never attack or abuse anyone.  There are a few others like me.  If Mr. Javid wants to dissuade us from contrbuting, and have hoodlums and abusers like you populate his site, well, that's his choice. 

 


Farah Rusta

contributes nothing to the discussion.

by Farah Rusta on

Perhaps the reason my comment is still here (thanks to JJ's perception) is that I felt exactly the same about your boringly familiar arguments. They  contribute nothing to the discussion.

 

FR


Onlyiran

Moderators

by Onlyiran on

I am at a loss as to this site's moderation policy.  I wrote this blog, and have had some good comments, most of which disagree with my position, which is perfectly fine.  But then comes this "Farah Rusta" person, who. based on all indications, is our good friend Jaleho writing under a different username.  She leaves a silly comment which is nothing but a personal attack and in the subject line writes a profanity.  I flag the comment, but instead of it getting deleted, only the profanity in the subject line is removed and the comment is allowed to remain.  First, I did not know that the moderator was in the business of "cleaning up" offensive comments and reposting them.  Second, even if that's the case, the body of this comment is nothng but a personal attack and contributes nothing to the discussion.  So, why the effort in cleaning it up so that it can remain?!!!!!

Your own comment policcy says:

"Comments containing profanity or personal attacks will be removed"

This comment is nothing but a personal attack.  Why is it here?


Farah Rusta

Oh, no! Not another Kinzer ...

by Farah Rusta on

The moment I see such clichés as "life long democrat" (how old are you 65, 75?) and "the first democratically elected ..." (now the domain is extended to the Middle East!!!) I know what to expect.

Another wannbe analyst whose knowledge is limited to a few (American) books and the boringly repetitive clichés is about to be born.

Listen ONLYIRAN?!! if you want to say something that makes a difference at least innovate. Don't repeat the fossilized stories of no significance.

Yawningly

FR


Q

Nousha, Jok migi?

by Q on

This "disappointment" in Obama which cannot possibly be genuine (since it comes from career Democrat haters) has now been stretched to ridiculous levels.

You are seriously claiming, Obama making speeches could have made a difference in the outcome of recent unrest?

How can you possibly claim this, knowing how badly Bush failed doing exactly what you susggest?

Please!!! You have not noticed 50 years of hostile American rhetoric toward Cuba? 60 years of taking sides in favor of Israel. And 30 years of demonizing Iran hasn't accomplished anything! Do you think this is the first opportunity for an American president to "delcare solidarity" with Iranian opposition? This has been done by Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and W.

Could Obama possibly put more sanctions or exert any more pressure than Reagan did in the 80's? Could he possibly fund more opposition than Bush did? Could he put more sanctions than and directly attack Iran like they did in the 80's and 90's ?

Don't you understand what change means?

OnlyIran: You your own post, you admitted Obama is doing something different than Bush. Why doesn't this count as change? You are in fact advocting doing the SAME thing as Bush tried (and failed!).

Nobody is looking to Obama for legitimacy or moral guidance. If he praises Mousavi, or the Green movement in a speech, it doesn't make anything any more or less legitimate, but it does give an excuse to his opponents to say they are supported by foreigners. A charge taken seriously by everybody in Iran.

The most moral thing Obama can do is to treat Iranians like any other peoples. Don't try to push one view or another on them, and don't try to play "savior" on their bahalf.


Onlyiran

Nousha

by Onlyiran on

Thank you for your comments and your contributions.  First, when Obama was talking about engaging the IRI in his campaign, that was consistent with the wishes of the Iranian people at the time, who, like a lot of us, were still under the mistaken assupmtion that they could change the regime with their votes in the upcoming elections.  Therefore, at the time, Obama's policy was correct. The problem, however, is that he has failed to adapt to the new reality in Iran.

Second, I do agree with your point that Obama should have addressed the situation in Iran by relying on his background as an African American.  He could have addressed the struggle in Iran in the context of the U.S. civil rights movement.  It would have given him a lot of credibility.  Unfortunately, he failed to do that as well. 


Onlyiran

Jamshid & Q

by Onlyiran on

Jamshid: I don't disagree with you that Khomeini prolonged the war so that he could consolidate power.  But if I recall correctly, Saddam's overtures of peace came much later in the conflict, perhaps in 1986, and as the tide was turning against him, as opposed to 1982.  There is no doubt that Reagan threw his support behnd saddam, and that really added fuel to the prevelant anti-American feeling in Iran at the the time.

Q: The whole point is that people like me expected more from Obama than business as usual.  he was, after all, the change candidate.  We did, in fact, expect him to have a moral foriegn policy.  We didn't expect "what can I get out of this" sort of thing, especially given his worldly personal background.


maziar 58

America's Interest.....

by maziar 58 on

MARHABA shushtari jaan I can personally relate to all your comments since I had few top ... relatives in setad and jandarmery before they were all cleared to go home and die in poverty. (better than execution)         Maziar


Ali9 Akbar

for those who still want to Blame Jimmy Carter

by Ali9 Akbar on

Forget that there was a SECRET DEAL between the IRI and the Reagan White house.....to hold the American Hostages until Reagan was inaugurated as president 

 According to this report a US NAVY Captain flew a modified SR-71 with George HW Bush in a secret compartment to meet with the Iranian opposition in October 1980

//www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi/read/62465 


Nousha Arzu

In other words...

by Nousha Arzu on

Obama could've personalized the Iranian people's struggle in the context of the Civil Rights movement in America, and as such, his humanistic, and all too appropriate, position would no longer be stained by the age-old taint of American inteference and invlovment in Iranian affairs dating back to 1953.

Indeed, with a poingnant reference to the Civil Rights movement or Apartheid in South Africa (another black cause), Obama could've taken the Iranian freedom movement out of the context of US imperialism and premeditated motives, and planted it near his heart and made it personal and authentic to him as a black man, whose cause has faced the tyranny of evil men, racism and injustice all across the world. 

Bill Clinton couldn't do this, neither could Kennedy or Carter or any other white US president. But Obama, as a BLACK MAN, had, and still has, the PERFECT opportunity to personalize our plight and make it his own, in the context of civil rights.

And it's my firm belief had he done that, had Obama made our struggle personal to him as a black man, the IRI would have been irreparably crippled and fast. As it is, the IRI's ultimate removal will be a slow grind, thanks to the MONUMENTALLY INEPT leadership from the White House.

It is for these reasons and more that I firmly believe that Obama is no change, and no cause for hope, but rather, the same old politician who will say anything to seize power.

Welcome to Hope and Change, Chicago style...and don't forget my favorite, "Yes we can!" Actually, I think I've come across such vacuous, self-serving farts in the wind from another suspicious source of "hope" and "change," that being mullah Khomeini, circa 1978, when he promised free gas, free electricity, free water, women's rights, a share of oil profits, free bus fare, etc.

But for a fringe hezbollahi crowd, the black revolution was not so much an "Islamic" revolution as it was a populist revolution. The people just didn't want to "miss the boat" on all the fabulous goodies promised by the "Iranian Ghandi," an oft-quoted description of mullah Khomeini by one innocuos Andrew Young, who was Jimmy Carter's ambassador to the United Nations back in 1978!

And you say that Carter didn't sponsor the vile, Hendi mullah?

 

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 


Nousha Arzu

And for people who say...

by Nousha Arzu on

What else could Obama do?

Here's what he could do -- he could've taken the lead on the June crackdown (instead of remaining quiet on the sidelines, giving the impression in Tehran that anything the mullahs do to silence the crackdown is okay so as to hasten negotiations) -- Obama could have stood behind the biggest freaking microphone in the world (that being the White House) and said something like this...

"As a product of the civil rights movement, as someone who wouldn't be here if it wasn't for peaceful resistance against injustice, I find the crackdown in Iran reprehensible, unacceptable and wrong. The people of Iran deserve better. This is not what responsible governments do -- they do not murder their citizens on the streets of their capital for voicing their opinions. The government of Iran must protect its citizens against this sort of inhumane and unjustifiable violence."

"If" Obama had given a press conference early on (instead of submitting a written statement) and said something like this, perhaps Neda would not have been killed, and you can BET YOUR HOUSE MONEY that millions of more Iranians would have poured into the streets and participated in the uprising!

You can take that to the bank!

 

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 


Nousha Arzu

Onlyiran

by Nousha Arzu on

You seem genuine, but way too young, and dare I say, naive. How old are you, if I may ask?

You write, "The frustrating thing is that I, along with many others, thought that Obama may be different. "

As our friend Shustari says, how could you be a democrat as an Iranian, knowing that it was Jimmy Carter who brokered the darkest chapter in Iran's long and tormented history, the darkness being the vile shadow of the IRI -- what with that beast Zbignew Brezhinski's "green belt" theory -- wrapping Iran along with the rest of central Asia around the green belt of Islam. If you don't think that Carter sponsord Ayatollah Khomeini ascendancy, just research the connection between Ibrahim Yazdi (Mr. "Green Card") and Zbignew Brezhinski. Not that Yazdi is the only connection, but that's a good start.

But wasn't it Obama who repeatedly claimed during the elections that he wanted to engage and negotiate with the mullahs without preconditions?

And here you are now saying that Obama is wrong to legitmize the mullahs by trying to "engage" them. Well, dear, if you had listened more carefully all along, you wouldn't be surprised. Obama signalled early and often that he was going to legitimize the mullahs by calling for unconditional talks.

I, and all those Iranians who experienced the revolution first-hand, knew what Obama was/is... the second coming of Jimmy Carter. This guy, Obama, is a despicable, self-serving person in my view. As a black man, he's a product of the civil rights movement in America. He's the beneficiary of peaceful resistance against injustice!  And yet, it took Obama just 3 hours to condemn the LEGAL removal of Hondurous' president, a move that was sanctioned by the Supreme Court of Hondurous, but it took Obama 10 DAYS to condemn the bloody, vicious crackdown of peaceful protests in Iran.

10 days, 3 hours.

And who is the president of Hondorous, whose removal is so near and dear to Obama's heart? A leftist thug who is a wanna-be Hugo Chavez, another one of Obama's leftist buddies.

Furthermore, for the Obama administration to cut off funding to a human rights group in Connecticut, after the June uprising is even more despicable. Neda's blood has not dried yet on some tragic street in Tehran, and this embicile president cuts off the paltry $3 million funding to human rights in Iran.

If this had happened prior to the June uprising, I'd still be pissed, but I would begrudgingly understand it in this economic climate, but after the heinous nature of the crackdown (with rampid rape, murder and torture in Iran's prisons), it is a vile and sickening act of appeasement and indifference, and nothing else.  Most of all, it fails moral clarity and smacks of weakness.

It's just my opinion, but Obama supporters are either historically/politically clueless, or IRI supporters. Just consider the names who still support this leftist embicile.

 

LONG LIVE THE GLORY OF KUROSH 


shushtari

onlyiran....

by shushtari on

perhaps, but I know for a FACT that the carter administration had a direct hand in toppling the shah....

how do i know this? the widow of the late general badrei was a good friend of ours, and she swore that gen huyser was sent by carter to neutralize the army- in fact, gen badrei was murdered RIGHT IN FRONT OF HER...at their house by a black american soldier- this was after badrei refused to sign the neutrality agreement put before him by huyser!!!! she swore to this

traitors like fardoost and gharebaghi did carter's deeds at the army level, to ensure that there would be no coup by the army....anyone who was a danger to khomeini was assassinated- badrei,  oveissi, shahriar shafiq....

so the evidence is right there......of course, reagan was no genius either, but khomeini would have never been able to take over under gerald ford's administration! 


Q

Reality doesn't work that way

by Q on

You either accept foreign intervention or you don't. A moral foreign policy position is not dependent on who is in office.

You can't say Bush should not have done it but Obama should have do it. Obama is being consistent and not interfering, for once being a US president who is not a shameless hypocrite by holding hands with Saudis and other friendly dictatorships, but finding a backbone only when it comes to criticizing Iran or palestine. He realizes no one put US in charge of global finger wagging.

And what exactly can he do anyway? Would a few more speeches really do anything other than to shift the heat to him instead of the hardliners in Iran?

He needs to go one step further and de-fund the CIA black budget ops that still feed terrorists and seperatists in Iran.


jamshid

"it was Reagan who

by jamshid on

"it was Reagan who empowered and helped Khomeini consolidate power by his support for Saddam. "

Let's be honest and stop blaming others. Reagan could not stop Khomeini from accepting Saddam's peace offer in 1982.

The rejection of the peace offer allowed Khomeini's thugs to consolidate power in Iran. It had nothing to do with Reagan who like other US presidents only fished in the muddy waters.


Onlyiran

Shushtari

by Onlyiran on

I am not sure if it was all Carter's fault.  Shah's fall was inevitable, and bakhtiar came into power way too late in the game to make a difference.  By that time, Khomeni had pretty much taken control.

Plus, don't forget that if Carter did nothing to stop Shah's fall, it was Reagan who empowered and helped Khomeini consolidate power by his support for Saddam.  He was also wheeling and dealing with Khomeini under the table in the whole Iran-contra affair, selling him weapons, etc.

The failures of U.S. policy toward Iran is not limited to Democrats of Republicans.  Both parties are equally to blame.


shushtari

your position is correct.....

by shushtari on

however, I don't know how u could be a democrat knowing the fact that it was carter, the idiot, you helped usher in the era of evil in iran with khomeini.....when he decided NOT to support the bakhtiar govt......

had bakhtiar had a chance to govern, iran would be in a much better place now! 


MRX1

Why is the surprise?

by MRX1 on

Obama is a community organizer and academic at best with no real life experience in anything much less in international affair!

Democrats and in General people like obama think that appeasement, appology, negotiation, the usuall touchy feely stuff is the answer. In fact if anything the opposite is true. A simple bomb run on Libya ordered by Reagan did more to shut up and squeeze thug like Ghadafi than years of empty negotiation....... We all remeber madeline half bright bringing a cake to a low life  Rafsenjani which ended up back firing on her.

The only thing islamo facists underestand and even respect is force and violence. Any other jesture is waste of time. Mr Obama will find that out sooner or later. Hope it's sooner.