News

vildermose, ditto, ditto and ditto...

I haven't the foggiest how some posters here have got the idea the US wouldn't "cuddle" another dictator! Do these people have any evidence or historical precedence that proves the opposite?!!!

Obama's objective is to engage the regime, and legitimacy or lack of it have nothing to do with realpolitik.

Obama has major problems in the ME and Iran holds the key to many of them. I have problems with Obama's policy of keeping the sanctions on Iran, but I realize many problems may be solved once the "negotiations" get to mere advanced stages. 

You see how happy a pro IR person is here?

That says it all , when a person who is supportive of a regime that imprisons, tortures and kills is so excited and suddenly talkative 

I say no more!

They never learn

They have always looked in front of their nose and not long term from 1953 all the way to today

They have always tried to appeal to the ones in power instead of The People and then they wonder what they have been doing wrong!! 

Nothing has changed since 53, always justifying based on the hair on their nose and not seeing the big picture and beyond it

The rest has been TALK...

Obama the same....TALK and no WALK

At least with Republicans you get what you anticipate!, with democrats they promise one thing and do another,,,double faced...always

this is not even good for US best interest...long term

 US is trying to appease to people who shouted death to USA for 30 years , supported terrorists and took Americans hostage and instead selling out those who wanted peace and cooperation with all the world.

Barack Hossein!  I am sorry I voted and campaigned for you, not because I am Iranian but because I am American.

For selling out the little guys to big coorporations and wall street when it comes to economy

and for selling out ideals of liberty and justice for all to intolerant extremists

all in few short months!

Irannian people's Allah Akbar as Obama forgets about them

check this out:

//niacblog.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/people-ch...

peace45, US foreign policy goes beyond

a single president, although different presidents can have important effect on it. As such, the US foreign policy towards Iran since Iranian revolution has been antagonistic and aimed at defeating the Iranian revolution, and if not possible then containing it from spreading in the region, and finally weakening its effect by weakening Iran and trying to overthrow the regime in Iran. This has been the known policy of the US under Carter, Reagan, Bush father, Clinton, Bush junior, and naturally is what is supposed to be continued under Obama. However, the above mentioned presidents did not sit there like brainless and powerless "chomagh" and follow a set policy in an identical manner. For example, Clinton and Bush Junior had the same final goal towards Iraq, one followed sanctions and the other concocted lies to achieve a military invasion.

Regarding Iran, Bush Junior would have loved to be able to attack Iran, Obama follows a more sane policy of trying the "soft" regime chaneg if possible, the fundamental opposition to Iranian revolution and its aims, support of Israel and preventing other regional powers in the Middle East are fundamental foreign policy goals of the US in the Middle East though, regardless of presidents.

Within those constraints, I have given my opinion regarding Obama's policy towards Iran in detail in two blogs. One, alternative policy suggestion to Obama right after his Norooz message to Iran. The other, his reaction to the Iranian election, which I found "wise" then, and I continue to believe he's wise now.

//iranian.com/main/blog/jaleho/obamas-correct-iran-policy-so-far

To Jaleho: Obama never hoped anything for Iran

 "He hoped, he tried, it failed, he recognized it, he must go forward."

 Obama never mentioned Iranian struggle during his campaign,  so I don't know what are you talking about "Him hoping"...hoping for what.

 What do you mean "he must go forward"??

hundreds have been died, thousands are in prisons and he must go forward????  what kind of sick mind do you have...ARE YOU THAT MUCH HYPNOTIZED BY HOPE AND CHANGE ?? 

HE PROMISED HE WOULD NOT MEDDLE, AND HE DID.  BY THIS ACTION, THEY SHOWED THEIR ULTIMATE CRUELTY TOWARD IRANIAN PEOPLE

Rosie, BRAVO, such an improvement!!

instead of a huge page full of meaningless attack and khaleh zanaki, you finally had a post in which you made a short relevant question (ignoring the nonsense that followed the question, haha):

"If Obama's intelligence knew this two months ago why didn't he just say so on June 13? "

They were waiting to see if the effect of $MILLION spent on terrorism, subversion, and propaganda could buy them a "color"revolution, and using the TRAITOR leaders of the opposition maybe they could ride on the back of some Iranian youth to carry the long sought after dreams of the west.  However, Obama is smarter than the dreamers who are still waiting and hoping that a youth frustration turn into a REVOLUTION, like and your green buddies think :-)

He hoped, he tried, it failed, he recognized it, he must go forward.

Jaleho,

If Obama's intelligence knew this two months ago why didn't he just say so on June 13?

Oh, wait, wait, lemme guess, he was trying to build suspense...

it's like a movie right? He looks at things kind of like a movie. And this is the climax right?

How is it for you?

Only DREAMERS in denial would have thought otherwise!

US intelligence community knew earlier than anyone that Ahmadinejad won with an overwhelming majority of 62%. They had conducted their own research before the election.

Obama is wise enough to know that he can not make any deal with Iran unless he talks to the REAL representative of Iranian people, not IDIOT jokers like Makhmalbaaf and friends who get too passionate about the CNN and twitter propaganda!

Obama reads Iran, not Iranian.com :-)

Only 12 years old

! //www.akhbar-rooz.com/news.jsp?essayId=23036

• پیکر بی جان علیرضا، کودک دوازده ساله ای که بر اثر اصابت باتوم به سرش، دچار ضربه ی مغزی شده و جان خود را از دست داد، روز گذشته تحویل خانواده گردید ...

اخبار روز: www.akhbar-rooz.com
سه‌شنبه  ۱٣ مرداد ۱٣٨٨ -  ۴ اوت ۲۰۰۹

یک کودک دوازده ساله، روز پنجشنبه ی گذشته در بهشت زهرا به صف جان باختگان جنبش مردمی پیوسته است.
بنابر گزارش ها، پنجشنبه گذشته علیرضا همراه با پدرش برای شرکت در چهلم شهدای سرکوب اخیر به بهشت ندا
(بهشت زهرا) رفته بوده است. در هنگام بازگشت، لحظه ای دست علیرضا از دست پدرش جدا می شود، در این هنگام دست او از زندگی نیز کوتاه می شود.
علیرضا بر اثر اصابت ضربه ی باتوم به سرش دچار خونریزی مغزی شده و به شهادت رسید. او فقط ۱۲ سال سن داشت.
خانواده علیرضا بعد از ۴ روز، بالاخره روز گذشته (دوشنبه) توانستند جنازه او را از پزشک قانونی تحویل بگیرند.

Rosie is right

He could have said that AN is the president of Iran and leave it at that.  This is disheartening.   Talks will go on no matter what but this statement weakens the dissent and Obama both vis a vis IR.  

If I were Hajjarian...

and I heard about this...

I would weep.

Obama's action means a lot, however you cut it and dice it.

Thanks for all your comments.  Most of you are correct that Obama really can not do much, but I am afraid ALL iranian people are asking is MORAL SUPPORT.  We already now Japan, Russia, China will not go along, America should not do what these nations are doing.

MY PROBLEM with  Obama is that his team’s desperation in dealing with anyone they can find and avoiding the hard choices about how to treat a despotic regime. The Obama eagerness to proceed, no matter what, only convinces the mullahs that they have the upper hand.  

 I hope we all can agree on that !

 and we should be outraged.  

No revolution has gone forward without support form some sympathatic nations, iran deserves the support of democratic nations.

That's not what I said, VIldemoose (cross-posted)

I said there was NO REASON to use ANY adjective with 'president', just 'he is president', and it would've produced the same pragmatic diplomatic effects as well as conveyed a message to the people to move on to another phase. I actually think "elected" is worse than 'legitimate', but NEITHER OF THEM WAS NECESSARY.

To say 'he is president' without the adjective would've been a good move. To put in the adjective 'elected' was WRONG. WRONG. WRONG.

And it does matter. Ask those students, ask those police with the V sign, ask those lawyers who just got their regulation of the bar stolen, ask Panahi, ask...anyone...how they feel today.

DON'T THEY HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO FEEL ANGRY AT AND CHEATED BY?

Iranians have to do it themselves? Are you telling me it wouldn't be EASIER for them to have the wherewithal to do it if they felt supported and respected by the international community that their MOST BASIC CLAIM could..just could..be true?

___________________

Like this:

Reporter: Do you think Ahmadinejad is the legitimate presdient of Iran?

Spokesperson:  He is president. (look over his head, point to someone in the back) Next queston?

Double-edged sword

On the one hand, Obama's statement undermines the charges at the circus trials of complicity with the CIA and the 'Hoofer Institute' and god knows who, the Elks Club, to start a Velvet Revolution, and that is important. It undercuts the whole case for high treason. I have a feeling that was on his mind. I do believe he TRIES to be a fair man. I have a feeling this was no coincidence, that he said it just when it came clear how lurid these trials would be. And at the time of the inauguration-BECAUSE IT WAS NO COINCIDENCE THAT THE TRIALS AND THE INAUGURATON WERE AT THE SAME TIME! 

On the other hand the statement excises like a cyst the central tenet of the post-election movement: fraud. Not even that there WAS fraud, but that there COULD'VE been fraud.

Double-edged sword.

And anyone who wants to explain tol me that this international proclamation from the President of the United States doesn't matter, doesn't count, doesn't impact the movement I'm ready to listen. Very carefully.

And respond. Very carefully.

Those kids--in their green glitter Halloween costumes on June 11--ask them if they feel like dancing today. Why were they REALLY dancing?

Because they want to be normal people, part of the world...no sorry, getting clubbed by hijab police is NOT being part of the world...it's being part of SOMEONE ELSE'S psychotic nightmare.

And they want that wish to be part of the world to be respected BY the worl.d

Peace45: The sooner

Peace45: The sooner Iranians understand that the US we'll cuddle another dictator in the ME if it serves their interest, the better. Iranians don't need Obama or anyone else. Obama cannot dictate or determine the destiny of Iran and Iranians, only Iranians can do that, period.

peace45

I can feel your pain and of course share it.  But I think you're way out of line laying the blame on Obama.  Rosie pointed out the very obvious elimination of the word "legitimate" when asked if Obama recognizes AN as the legitimate president of Iran.  I honestly don't know what you're expecting him to say or do?  This isn't about what the US or anyone else thinks.  This is an issue for IRANIANS to decide and deal with.  Q really said it right "unless you want America to solve  your problems..."  You can't have it both ways.  You either want US involvement or you don't.   And Iranians DON'T.  You think Obama should stand next to the people of Iran?  Why would you think that?  He does support the movement but it's not up to another country to validate the elected officials of another country!

I THOUGHT OBAMA DID NOT WANT TO MEDDLE ?! BUT HE JUST DID..

 REACTIONS TO OBAMA'S ENDORSEMENT OF AHMADINEJAD COMING FROM LEFT AND RIGHT.  

The Wall Street Journal editors observe:

Maybe President Obama will note that his no-meddling stance hasn’t yielded much in the way of humane restraint or political accommodation. All the more reason, then, for Mr. Obama now to denounce the Stalin-style show trial of some 100 leading reformists accused of seeking to overthrow the regime. The detainees were hauled out of prison in their pajamas, brought to court without the aid of defense lawyers, and in some cases forced to deliver publicly televised confessions.

The Washington Post editors are equally angered by the “contemptible show trials” and by Obama’s fantasy-based policy of engagement with the mullahs. They conclude:

The trials have reinforced the image of a regime whose extremely modest tolerance for public dissent has shriveled as its own grip on power has weakened. Opposition protests continue in the streets of Tehran despite a crackdown by hard-line militias loyal to the regime. Public spats are reported between Mr. Khamenei and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president who was sworn in Monday. These are dangerous days in Tehran, which only underscores the dilemma the Obama administration faces as it clings to a strategy of engaging Iran to contain its nuclear ambitions: Who is there to talk to?

Rosie

You know how deeply you and I particularly have debated this issue. What you just posted is precisely what I have been trying to get at.

Neither party, US nor IR want to lose the chance of dialogue. IR desperately is seeking entrance to international arena. They can not do it without USA[PERIOD]

As much as I hate IR[I know I sound like a teenager] but they are no dummies, that is for sure.

-YT 

Ayhab...

moral support.

Why do you think they were chanting marg bar Rusiyeh instead of marg bar Amrikaa?

Rhetorical question but the point is..

they need moral support.

:-o)

Congrats peace45 jan, now you know how to embed videos.

-YT 

peace45 Jan

Come on, I doubt anyone voted for Obama to invade Iran or make Iran a democracy.

I realize how upset you are because I am the same way of not worse. It would be delusional in MY part to think that anyone is going to bring democracy to Iran except our own brave women and men.

-YT 

A couple of additional things to ponder: /Q

 Here is a quote from a (really) moderate London-based Arab publication called Asharq Alawasat which covers Iran regularly:

We realize that the opposition's popularity in Iran is real and its objections have reverberations. The opposition represents all the people's sectors but is...a street revolution that does not have the ability to change the face of a regime that is publicly threatening it will use its 7 million armed men to suppress it.

//www.asharq-e.com/news.asp?section=2&id=17660

No doubt Obama has looked at the cold reality--what's next, civil war with the US TOTALLY unable to intervene? Execution of the top leaders? And to what end?

So maybe it was a message for the people to calm down and for the Reform movement to move on to Phase 2 which is working within the political system and through strengthening the civil society (top and bottom pressure but on a softer scale), but you can't convey that message AND make Mousavi, Karroubi, Khatami, Montazeri and the entire Reformist camp sound delusional for claiming fraud.

My God, with ONE WORD, ONE LOUSY UNNECESSARY WORD,that's what he just did! That's the word they made Abtahi use: Mousavi is DELUSIONAL.

Stupid and very harmful.

________________ 

 Q, you wrote:

It's not America's place to say who is elected.

Exactly. 

Pls. read my comments below carefully

This was a no-brainer. Khamenei did not expect a bouquet of roses from Obama. This was unnecessary, there was no reason for this, there were SIMPLE acceptable options, Obama discussed them beforehand, one of the below in my post should've been chosen (preferably NOT to repeat the word legitimate...)...

WELL THEN OBAMA IS NO BETTER THAN OTHERS..RIGHT?

WE VOTED OBAMA IN SO HE WILL BE DIFFERENT TYPE OF LEADER..BETTER THAN BUSH! BUT WE ARE GETTING WORSE RESULT

P/S

I tend to agree with Rosie's assertion.

Administration, as their overall foreign policy on Iran is playing this very low key.

-YT 

HERE IS THE EXACT EXCHANGE IN TODAY'S PRESS CONFERENCE:

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs says Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is “the elected leader” of the Islamic republic.

Gibbs was asked Tuesday if the White House recognized Ahmadinejad as the country’s legitimate president.

“He’s the elected leader,” Gibbs responded.

Our elected leader, Barack Obama, vowed to “bear witness” to the Iranian regime’s violent — indeed, homicidal — snuffing out of the collective democratic spirit in Iran. But even that feat of cowardly indifference proved too great a burden in the age of smart power and endless diplomacy. So hear this, all you protesters and sufferers being beaten and corralled into pens in Tehran. Listen up, all you Iranians who say “Neda lives”: President Obama, leader of the most robust democracy in history, says you’re wrong. It turns out that you’re protesting in error. This was an election, not an “election,” after all. In democracies, populations accept fair results, and you are expected to accept this one. We do.

LINK://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/category/contentions

Peace45 Jan

There is no argument about illegitimacy of Ahmadinejd, but I think you are ignoring the fact that non of these leaders care about people who are dying in Iran.

Just FYI: //iranian.com/main/news/2009/08/04/britai...

Excerpts:

Britain sparked controversy yesterday by sending its second most senior diplomat in Tehran to the ceremony at which Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, officially endorsed President Ahmadinejad’s hotly
disputed re-election. Iran’s opposition leaders, who say the election was rigged, boycotted the event.

End excerpt

And of course I am certain you have heard about Japan as well

-YT 

The question was does the administration recognize

Ahmadinejad as the LEGITIMATE president of Iran?

All he had to do was answer poker face, "Ahmadinejad is the President of Iran."

or simply "We recognize him" and move on.

The reporter starts to speak again, and the spokesperson deftly points to someone else and says, "Yes?"because the question has been ANSWERED.

There is a BIG difference between implicitly acknowledging he is 'legitimate' without saynig the word (which means it is open to be interpreted the other way too), and saying 'yes he is legitimate', which still opens up the question of what constitutes legitimacy, it's a relative term. The WORST possible thing to do, and totally unnecessary, was to go one step further and say he was 'elected'. And you KNOW this was discussed beforehand..and you saw the look on the guy's face, like he wanted to puke and gag...

and so should everyone else be puking and gagging. imho

Any of the above choices would've been equally pragmatic WITHOUT having the implicit connotation (denotation actually) of withdrawal of support for the protesters. In the face of these sham trials, it was a terrible way of dealing with things.

It is taking the moral support away from the people. Even on the off-chance that he WAS elected,

Your wrong peace45

vast majority of countries have a process and pretense of democracy and popular consent. In China there is an election among the communist party members which in theory represents the entire people. In Egypt, Syria and many other Arab countries there are actual elections that might be meaningless formalities in real life. Even in Arab monarchies there are parliament-like bodies that are official representatives of the people.

It's not Obama's place to say who should be elected in a different country. Did you make the same demand when Bush stole the US elections?