I personally agree with you, and others who say the US should have an (outwardly) hands off approach to Iran, but all that quote tells me is they’re gonna slam us for meddling whether or not we meddle, so why not meddle?
Yes. I see your point, but in the grand scheme of things, as it lies today, is there anyone who doesn’t know which side the US government is rooting for here? Chrissakes, Bush spent the last 8 years calling Achmadinawhatever an asshole, and he wasn’t really criticized too hard for it. It seems pretty clear from a policy standpoint that we’d like the protesters to have their say.
Because the last time we got a word in edgewise in 2005, we got far from the result we wanted. This time, it might be good practice to keep our collective mouth shut.
Because giving that claim credibility will hurt the protesters?
In fact they do, if by “democracy” you mean “government friendly to the US”. If you mean “government expressing the wishes of the Iranian people”, they don’t have a great deal of evidence that the US supports it.
They in fact do have a great deal of evidence to the contrary of this.
My point here is that all the evidence seems to be (at least in this kerfuffle) that a government expressing the wishes of the Iranian people would *be *a government that is friendly to the US. Why do we want to upset the applecart?
I’m sure you said this tongue in cheek, but in fact the Iranian’s DO (rightfully IMHO) blame the Brits even more than the American’s for their various woes. Not talking about the current crisis either.
Anyway…
As others have said, they hope to achieve gaining some political points against Obama, of course. They want to make him look bad, to be perceived as weak or ineffectual. All of their assertions are aimed at the local electorate…it’s not meant for the consumption of Iran or The World™, it’s meant to sway US voters.
So, they don’t have to DO anything…they just have to make it appear that Obama isn’t doing anything (or enough). It’s a tactic that works well for the party out of power.
Nothing. I doubt they care what Obama does, except in-so far as they can use it against him on the local front. If Obama came out strongly on this issue then the Republican’s would either ignore this issue completely or they would be trying to make political hay about how Obama should be more diplomatic, or something to that effect.
It works either way…or, if the issue doesn’t work from the opposite end then you ignore it and focus on something else you can make political gains on.
-XT
Where do you get that idea from?
Because a lot of the reformers want a reapproachment with the US…or, at least they want to rejoin the international community on terms other than being an international pariah. I doubt that the majority protesting atm will get their wish, even if their man is somehow magically put in power…but they may be one step closer.
It’s a myth all Iranian’s hate the US or run about shouting ‘Death to America!’ at the drop of a hat(e)…I thought you knew that.
-XT
What’s the best case scenario right now? The protesters get their way, hard-liner Achmadijonmustard is ousted, reformer Moussavi is seated as president, and everybody is happy.
Of course, we would still have to deal with Ayotolla I-Don’t-Care-Who-The-President-Is, but that’s not the point I’m making.
Nitpick: I’ve seen it said here and elsewhere that Mossadegh was assassinated. He was not. He was placed under house arrest by the Shah, not that house arrest was a good thing, either. But he wasn’t killed.
In addition, while he was undermined from without (as well as within), he wasn’t exactly a babe in the woods. He fixed his last election by banning secret ballots and operating under emergency powers (read: dictatorship). So let’s not go overboard with our sympathy towards the man.
I’m not. I don’t know where you’re getting that from. Mossadegh, for all his faults, was still popularly and fairly elected. Reading any more meaning than that is your own doing.
I do sympathize with democracy, and the point is that the Iranians have no reason whatever to believe our government does, no matter its rhetoric or recent regime changes.
Jack, the thing I was asking you about is your contention that a democratic Iranian government would necessarily be supportive of the US. As stated above, they have no reason to be, and quite a bit not to be.
What the bloody hell? What makes you think I don’t? :dubious:
Well…I THOUGHT you did, but then your question puzzled me there.
-XT
Beats the alternative.
But that being said, it seems we should walk the walk if we’re going to talk the talk. That is, say Iran does a complete revolution, kicks out the Ayotollahs and dissolves the Islamic Republic in favor of the The United States of Iran or something. We’d have to applaud that.
Then if they turned around and said, “Ah, fuck the US.” … well, what could we do? We wanted them to be free.
In the grand scheme of things, it seems that a non-Islamic-Republic of Iran would be a better option that what they got now … at least in theory.
I am insinuating nothing. I am merely offering the complete history of the man, no more and no less. I thought the last part was significant given the parallel to today, where we are having this discussion because of an allegedly fixed election.
You are doing anything but offering a complete history of the man. He was definitely not as pure as the driven snow, but what you say lacks enough context to be anything close to be a complete history.
Sanction them, bomb them, harass them, just like always.
Since when ? America has never cared about freedom; only compliance with it’s wishes.
It seems to me that all that sticking our fingers into the pot will do is potentially hinder the opposition, by allowing the government to have evidence that they are the tools of the Western infidels. So keeping our distance seems a good idea, if we assume that we want to see the opposition gain something from this situation.
I notice none of our more noted conservative members have stepped up to take a crack at this thread… 
When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.