»

[Panda Strong]

heading for another 1979? what do people think?

[Le Stu]

Uncertain. Their anger at the regime is perhaps greater than the stomach they have for more revolution and violence. And what did that ever get them anyway? They know this.

It seems that the trick of the Islamic revolution has always been to ensure The Great Satan America is hated more than they are by the populace. At the moment, this isn't the case but how long before tensions rise again between the two nations?

[Stichman]

Could be. It's looking extremely volatile just now. I see that when Obama was asked about the situation, he wisely said he didn't want to 'meddle' in Iranian politics. Can you imagine what Bush would have said?

[RF Scott]

It's certainly made Twitter a lot more interesting

[Panda Strong]

Originally Posted by Le Stu

how long before tensions rise again between the two nations?

i can't really see this happenings anymore. i think we've seen the worst between the US and Iran (obviously you can't be certain though). i think the election of obama and the clear sign for an end to a regime and mindset that seems centered on exclusion from the international community means another hostage crisis is unlikely. as mentioned above, obama made the right call. i'm not sure how bush would have reacted; he'd want amademajad out as much as the next guy. maybe he would have sent in US representatives to watch over a new election of something.

[Le Stu]

Originally Posted by Panda Strong

i can't really see this happenings anymore. i think we've seen the worst between the US and Iran (obviously you can't be certain though). i think the election of obama and the clear sign for an end to a regime and mindset that seems centered on exclusion from the international community means another hostage crisis is unlikely. as mentioned above, obama made the right call. i'm not sure how bush would have reacted; he'd want amademajad out as much as the next guy. maybe he would have sent in US representatives to watch over a new election of something.

The Obama foreign policy lacks definition at this point. Yes, we hear the rhetoric and it's what we wish to hear but what of the tough choices ahead? I would like very much if the US could allow the Iranian people to undergo a velvet revolution, without much outside interference. But the US support of Israel is sacrosanct and I am very sceptical of any US president taking a soft line on Iran, no matter what he may say or not say in public.

[Panda Strong]

well of course it lacks a little definition - he's hardly that far into his term! he's definitely plunged in at the deep end - an israel and palestine solution is hardly something to be snuffed at. rhetoric counts for a lot here i think. we've not had a US president that has taken on the middle east with such immediacy in...a long time? did you see his speech in cario last week? that was an outstanding and even daring move! not only did he demolish all the previous bush foreign policy along with the 'huntingtonised' clash of civilisations, he talked of how islam has played a major role in shaping the US, and that the broad brush strokes of orientalists have only seen to deepened/entrenched any problems.

i think any progress in iran over this will be domestically driven. even calls by the govt. of western interference have already been cited as bogus. iranians are too nationalist to let the west, specifically the US, to take claim for any change.

[Pierre Von Mondragon]

There was a US based lot that did polling through all the Iranian Regions, and they had estimated that Ahmadinejad was really ahead by 2 to 1, yet the official results showed the President winning in places he was bound to lose, such as Mousavi's home state, full of ethnic Azeris, who would have voted for their candidate. No wonder they are going batshit crazy, but the demographics of Iran mean that further internal conflict is inevitable, due to a huge proportion of the populace being under 25. A lot of people think that Iranians are our enemy, but, like all countries, they are a heterogenous mix, with wildly differing opinions, and there are many who aren't interested in fundamentalist activity. Interesting times.

[Le Stu]

Originally Posted by Panda Strong

well of course it lacks a little definition - he's hardly that far into his term! he's definitely plunged in at the deep end - an israel and palestine solution is hardly something to be snuffed at. rhetoric counts for a lot here i think. we've not had a US president that has taken on the middle east with such immediacy in...a long time? did you see his speech in cario last week? that was an outstanding and even daring move! not only did he demolish all the previous bush foreign policy along with the 'huntingtonised' clash of civilisations, he talked of how islam has played a major role in shaping the US, and that the broad brush strokes of orientalists have only seen to deepened/entrenched any problems.

i think any progress in iran over this will be domestically driven. even calls by the govt. of western interference have already been cited as bogus. iranians are too nationalist to let the west, specifically the US, to take claim for any change.

I did catch some of his speech. But, as I understand it, Huntington's arguments don't really apply to Iran where people identify as Persian more than Muslim/Arab and are therefore more 'western' than we think. That to me has always been the tragedy with our foreign policy towards Iran. We make enemies of those moderates who would otherwise be our allies. The same is true of Palestine.

[Panda Strong]

Originally Posted by Pierre Von Mondragon

There was a US based lot that did polling through all the Iranian Regions, and they had estimated that Ahmadinejad was really ahead by 2 to 1, yet the official results showed the President winning in places he was bound to lose, such as Mousavi's home state, full of ethnic Azeris, who would have voted for their candidate.

there were numbers from an 'unnamed source' from the iran interior ministry which put mousavi at something like 57%. not only that, but the same source claimed that the outcome was put together and organised BEFORE the election took place. i have no idea how reputable this source is though - i'm just repeating what was in the guardian a few days ago.

Originally Posted by Le Stu

I did catch some of his speech. But, as I understand it, Huntington's arguments don't really apply to Iran where people identify as Persian more than Muslim/Arab and are therefore more 'western' than we think. That to me has always been the tragedy with our foreign policy towards Iran. We make enemies of those moderates who would otherwise be our allies. The same is true of Palestine.

well we can pussy foot around the details of huntington's arguement if you want, but the main crux of it is that the west and islam will never be able to hold hands; iran is an islamic republic, so i think it sort of does apply! but that doens't matter - my point was that both blair and bush cited his work in forming a view of the middle east - something which obama has cancelled out.

what do you mean by the same is true for palestine?