Iran - Impact in the Middle East

[James48843]

It's going to be interesting to see how the Iranian government reacts.

Non-Violence is the message being pushed now by the opposition. Hard thing to imagine in that nation.

I find the facebook thing amazing. Technology and social networking-so the whole world can watch as another country struggles to find a way forward. Who would have thought we would have ring-side seats to watch such a struggle?

 

[phil]

I have no doubt there'll be unrest. The Guardian Council may change the face of some of their members. We'll see. Either way, I believe they'll still be in charge. They'll probably just externalize the threat, as always.
There WAS a more liberal regime in Iran previously. I hope that they return, but I don't vote in their elections.

This posting was from 2006. However, nothing changes.

http://www.taylormarsh.com/2006/12/22/part-of-flynt-everetts-op-ed/

 

[phil]

http://english.aljazeera.net/ is the Al-Jazeera network. They're probably the most trusted news service in the Middle East, supplanting CNN and BBC both. Most of the people in the region think that our administration just got a bye during the last 8 years, not covering stories that needed to be covered. This is one reason we're losing the war in the region. Most people know that we have lied to them. Loss of confidence.

http://www.iranonline.com/Newsroom/

contains current information on current news, but the Iran government links were broken for me, anyway.

AJ was also kicked out of Iran, and several other countries in the region for criticizing authoritarian regimes, though I believe they're back in Iran now (correct me if I'm wrong). They have a great deal of journalistic integrity. Pardon the expression, but they're considered to be truly "fair and balanced" by so many people in the Middle East.

 

[coolhand]

http://english.aljazeera.net/ is the Al-Jazeera network. They're probably the most trusted news service in the Middle East, supplanting CNN and BBC both. Most of the people in the region think that our administration just got a bye during the last 8 years, not covering stories that needed to be covered. This is one reason we're losing the war in the region. Most people know that we have lied to them. Loss of confidence.

http://www.iranonline.com/Newsroom/

contains current information on current news, but the Iran government links were broken for me, anyway.

AJ was also kicked out of Iran, and several other countries in the region for criticizing authoritarian regimes, though I believe they're back in Iran now (correct me if I'm wrong). They have a great deal of journalistic integrity. Pardon the expression, but they're considered to be truly "fair and balanced" by so many people in the Middle East.

Indeed, they have come a long way. But the people in the region didn't believe thier own governments either, not just the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Jazeera

"It is widely believed internationally that inhabitants of the Arab world are given limited information by their governments and media, and that what is conveyed is biased towards the governments' views.[6] Many people see Al Jazeera as a more trustworthy source of information than government and foreign channels. Some scholars and commentators use the notion of contextual objectivity,[7] which highlights the tension between objectivity and audience appeal, to describe the station's controversial yet popular news approach.[8] As a result, it is probably the most watched news channel in the Middle East. Increasingly, Al Jazeera's exclusive interviews and other footage are being rebroadcast in American, British, and other western media outlets such as CNN and the BBC. In January 2003, the BBC announced that it had signed an agreement with Al Jazeera for sharing facilities and information, including news footage.[9] Al Jazeera is now considered by some to be a fairly mainstream media network, though more controversial than most."

 

[phil]

:laugh:

Agreed. And the BBC actually has some journalistic integrity.....unlike us.

 

[phil]

I really wonder what they were reporting at NYSE that was so terrible. Was there something there?

Not staying on message? Would that be....speaking the truth?

Also, WE'RE the ones who STILL censor Abu-Ghraib.

From Wikipedia:

In the run-up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the U.S. Pentagon hired the Rendon Group to target and possibly punish Al Jazeera reporters who did not stay on message. When Al Jazeera went on to do reporting featuring very graphic footage from inside Iraq, US officials decried Al Jazeera as anti-American and as inciting violence. This sentiment was widely echoed throughout the US media and population, and is an example of censorship in the United States.
On Monday, 24 March 2003, shortly after the start of the invasion, two Al Jazeera reporters covering the New York Stock Exchange had their credentials revoked. The New York Stock Exchange banned Al Jazeera (as well as several other news organizations whose identities were not revealed) from its trading floor indefinitely. NYSE spokesman Ray Pellechia claimed "security reasons" and that the exchange had decided to give access only to networks that focus "on responsible business coverage". He denied the revocation has anything to do with the network's Iraq war coverage. The move was quickly mirrored by Nasdaq stock market officials

 

[phil]

So....what happened? Well, for some bizarre reason, Iran made an extreme right turn after this. This would be Colin Powell's Chief of Staff at the time. By the way, Ahmadinejad cut his political teeth combatting MEK.

I guess this must be a part of our previous concept of a full employment economy, where we go around the world and create enemies, then create gummint jobs to combat these enemies. Sounds like an enormous waste of taxpayer resources. Oops, too late.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC Newsnight, January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department, yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah and greater transparency in its nuclear program in return for lifting sanctions and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.

 

[Steadygain]

Iran made an extreme right turn after this.

I hope their seatbelts were snug and secure and that they slowed down for the turn. Our brothers and sisters in Iran are a beautiful people.

Ahmadinejad

He has a trait I've noticed in many other 'leaders'. It seems that power itself is somewhat corrupting. That the higher a person raises the more they are focused on the others with wealth and control and the more the common people are somehow forgotten.

It honestly seems like we would have a better word than 'leader' as a leader would surely most represent the interests of the general population and not limit himself (herself) to the few that keep him (her) in power.

 

[coolhand]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/tehran_is_about_to_blow_where_obama_tDQY4FVfatPoAAlohnFFIM

 

[phil]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a3Bfox0k4g&feature=related

Limiting dissemination of criticism.

 

[nnuut]

http://www.newamerica.net/ This guy is speaking for/at The New America Foundation, so I went to this site just to check it out! Not my side of the fence!

 

[phil]

Yep. He was still speaking the truth. It's not his opinion, but what happened. I think he's telling the truth.

 

[phil]

Why does it seem that the Iranians are so opposed?

It's not very complicated. We rebuffed them under Bush. It seems we just wanted to continue the neverending military adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC Newsnight, January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department, yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah and greater transparency in its nuclear program in return for lifting sanctions and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.

 

[Scrappy]

Why does it seem that the Iranians are so opposed?

It's not very complicated. We rebuffed them under Bush. It seems we just wanted to continue the neverending military adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC Newsnight, January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department, yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah and greater transparency in its nuclear program in return for lifting sanctions and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.

Bow, apologize, point missiles........

President Obama said he's "bent over backwards" to engage Iran in "constructive" dialogue and the U.S. will push the United Nations to sanction the country. Iran told nuclear inspectors on Wednesday that it will begin higher-grade uranium enrichment within days, Reuters reported.

"That indicates to us that despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for, for civilian use that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization," Obama said during a press conference Tuesday. "That is not acceptable to the international community.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Obama White House has gone further than any administration to reach out to Iran, and called the move "disappointing." He said Tehran is violating a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is refusing to sign off on an IAEA-brokered deal that would allow Tehran to be supplied with nuclear fuel for its medical reactor in exchange for its low-enriched uranium (LEU).
"I have never seen an administration reach out in as principled and comprehensive a way as President Obama has done," Gates said in a press conference Tuesday in Ankara, Turkey. "The response has been quite disappointing."
Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions -- and three sets of U.N. sanctions -- aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.
FAIR & BALANCED

 

[phil]

Yes. Iran is violating the NPT, which they have signed previously. I take our own treaty obligations very seriously....like...say, the Geneva Protocols. After Iran took over our embassy in 1979, they also violated a treaty.

Regrettably, our image has been tarnished horribly. Ahmeninajad is a product of our failure to reach out when we had the chance. I'd say this is part of a very complicated dance, very stylized, sort of like Kabuki. We'll see what he unveils on the 11th.

Simultaneously, there're supposed to be opposition demonstrations on the same day around the country. Being marginalized politically may create a sense of desperation internally. I'm not nervous, but would like to wait until the 12th. I hope that it's something that will change our relationship with Iran. I'm sure that a hard-liner could do it. Nixon and China.

Bow, apologize, point missiles........

President Obama said he's "bent over backwards" to engage Iran in "constructive" dialogue and the U.S. will push the United Nations to sanction the country. Iran told nuclear inspectors on Wednesday that it will begin higher-grade uranium enrichment within days, Reuters reported.

"That indicates to us that despite their posturing that their nuclear power is only for, for civilian use that they in fact continue to pursue a course that would lead to weaponization," Obama said during a press conference Tuesday. "That is not acceptable to the international community.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the Obama White House has gone further than any administration to reach out to Iran, and called the move "disappointing." He said Tehran is violating a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and is refusing to sign off on an IAEA-brokered deal that would allow Tehran to be supplied with nuclear fuel for its medical reactor in exchange for its low-enriched uranium (LEU).
"I have never seen an administration reach out in as principled and comprehensive a way as President Obama has done," Gates said in a press conference Tuesday in Ankara, Turkey. "The response has been quite disappointing."
Iran has defied five U.N. Security Council resolutions -- and three sets of U.N. sanctions -- aimed at pressuring it to freeze enrichment, and has instead steadily expanded its program.
FAIR & BALANCED

 

[Viva_La_Migra]

Why does it seem that the Iranians are so opposed?

It's not very complicated. We rebuffed them under Bush. It seems we just wanted to continue the neverending military adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Wilkerson

Claims of an Iranian overture, 2003
Wilkerson claimed in an interview on BBC Newsnight, January 17, 2007, that an Iranian offer to help stabilise Iraq after the American invasion, was positively received at the State Department, yet turned down by Dick Cheney. The offer supposedly consisted of help in stabilizing Iraq, cutting ties with Hezbollah and greater transparency in its nuclear program in return for lifting sanctions and dismantling the Mujahedeen-e Khalq, an organisation working to overthrow the Iranian government. When this supposed offer was made, numerous middle-east experts were warning of the coming shift in Power in Iran toward the far-right, fundamentalist Mahmoud Ahmadinejadl, who would assume power shortly thereafter.
“We thought it was a very propitious moment... But as soon as it got to the White House, and as soon as it got to the vice president's office, the old mantra of 'We don't talk to evil' ... reasserted itself.

And if you're gullible enough to believe that they would actually do all of these things, I got a nice, big, red bridge in California to sell you!:nuts:

 

[WorkFE]

Being marginalized politically may create a sense of desperation internally. I'm not nervous, but would like to wait until the 12th. I hope that it's something that will change our relationship with Iran. I'm sure that a hard-liner could do it. Nixon and China.

It is a dream Phil, a big one, but I like the way you're thinking.

 

[Warrenlm]

Heard a panel discussion last night that believed the USG has now accepted the fact that Iran will have a nuclear weapon capability, despite the Biden speech. It's hard to believe that Israel will accept it also and moreover think that the talk on sanctions will have any effect. The Israeli government seems to have been quiet recently on the subject. If Israel were successful in a strike or sabotage move that could at least delay Iran's progress, it seems to me that the area governments would not do more than surface responses to appease their masses and the biggest effect on the West would be short term oil flow disruption if Iran temporarily closed the Strait. That would mean the market climb would continue despite such an event?

 

[James48843]

If Israel were successful in a strike or sabotage move that could at least delay Iran's progress, it seems to me that the area governments would not do more than surface responses to appease their masses and the biggest effect on the West would be short term oil flow disruption if Iran temporarily closed the Strait. That would mean the market climb would continue despite such an event?

That is a very big risk in that assumption, don't cha think?

You are playing "what if", and then asking if the market will climb if that is the outcome.

It seems our intellegence still isn't really keen on understanding how Middle Eastern countries will react- Our track record isn't really all that great on that score, is it?

We didn't see the fall of the Sha of Iran in advance.

We didn't see Saddam's invasion of Kuwait coming.

We didn't predict several of the West Bank/Gaza issues that came to pass over the last two decades.

We didn't see a lot of things there- and now we don't have a whole lot to go on when studying the leadership of Iran.

Close down the straight of Hormuz? Maybe.

Or Iran could go further- with a lot of other reactions that would not be pretty. Could send fighters to attack US troops in Afghanistan or Iraq, of course. that COULD be the reaction of Isreal attacks.

Or any of a number of other possibilities I could think of. Invasion of Iraq. Or a provocation on the Black Sea. Or sinking of American ships in the Gulf. Or attacking Arab neighbors.

All within the realm of current capabilities.


You never know what we may get if that happened.

 

[Warrenlm]

So your thinking is that regional war is more likely than grousing and containment with a flurry of fluff?