And Iran’s President Would Probably Blame It On The Jews
Is a nuclear policy shift in the offing in Iran? Times Online’s Tehran reporters say it’s on the table:
IRAN’S supreme leader is considering a change of policy on the country’s nuclear programme in an effort to defuse growing tension with the West, according to senior sources in Tehran.Alarmed by mounting US pressure and United Nations sanctions, officials close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei favour the appointment of a more moderate team for international negotiations on the supervision of its nuclear facilities.
The move would be a snub to the bellicose president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose threats to destroy Israel have left Iran increasingly isolated and facing a serious economic downturn.
Ahmadinejad didn’t do well in the last elections. So perhaps this is also a sign of the fact that the voters may have reduced his clout — at least in the eyes of the person in Iran who can checkmate Ahmadinejad’s plans and/or rhetoric:
Tehran sources said the impetus for a policy switch was coming from Khamenei, who has ultimate power over Iran’s foreign policy, security and armed forces.Khamenei is said to believe that Washington’s aim is not only to halt Iran’s nuclear programme but to overthrow the regime.
He also considers the national interest is being undermined by an inexperienced president whose rhetoric is unnecessarily inflammatory.
Under proposals now being debated, an international group made up of the permanent five members of the UN security council, plus Germany or a nuclear power such as India, would oversee and monitor Iran’s nuclear programme.
If this happens it’ll be interesting in several ways. For one thing, it would indicate that the tough talk from the Bush administration did have some impact. Still, at this point, though this is a fascinating report, there is no firm sign of a shift yet. Also note: many books written after 911 note the belief that Tehran has possibly played a quiet role for many years in helping foment and encourage international terrorism. It’s hard to play a “quiet role” when the person symbolizing your nation on the national stage is anything but quiet.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
11 Responses to “And Iran’s President Would Probably Blame It On The Jews”
LOL The Iranian Parliment is looking to IMPEACH the Iranian President for his hawkish ways leading to sanctions and hardship for his people.
IMPEACH AHMADINEJAD
Seems Democracy is working in the ME.
Most likely they do not want American-style “democracy”, which we have introduced to Iraq to be brought to Iran! Time will tell, and of course I do hope that they decide to take a more moderate approach, but it will be a long time before we interest moderates in the ME in “liberation” at our hands again.
This is just an attempt to buy time. Iran has no intention of giving up its nuclear weapons ambition.
Only if you consider a country run by fanatical, genocidal, apocalyptic mullahs to be a democracy.
Don’t mistake the “democracy” of Iran for anything like what we think of as democracy. “Elections” in Iran are carefully orchestrated, not free. Ahmadinejad’s poor showing in the elections was an organized warning to him from more “moderate” mullahs and their factions. With Khamanei in reportedly failing health, a shift in power is approaching.
The two things that most worry the ruling elite in Iran are probably the threat of American military action against their major fixed assets (oil!), and the threat of EU/UN sanctions. Many of the mullahs think Ahmadinejad is playing with fire, but they know it won’t just be him that gets burnt.
At last report, the Sunni regimes in the ME were starting to also lean on Tehran. The Saudis and such know who will be in the crossfire if the American mission in Iraq fails. They’ve sat on the sidelines for the last few years and let us do the heavy lifting, but the threat of potential pullout is also notice to them that they must also do some lifting.
Tully Please show some citation for your assertions. Are the elections in Kuwait, Algeria and Saudi Arabia anymore legitimate. The regime in Iran is a problem, but the Cheney spin isn’t working again.
Rudi- is correct- look at the “free elections” in Egypt, a key regional ally, where the president’s political opponents end up jailed and tortured along with pro-democracy bloggers, and members of the Muslim Brotherhood. Demonstrations against the government are crushed by force.
The countries that we call moderates in the ME are not democracies. We have enabled dictators there for 60 years. The only difference is that their leaders support the US, while Ahmadinejad spouts off with anti-Western rhetoric whenever he gets the urge.
But that doesn’t make Iran a democracy. It’s a theocracy.
If Dobson approves of McCain does that make him the Republican Guard’s annoited candidate. The world is flat, 2000 years old and life created by Intelligent design according to the Dobson Right.
Rudi’s got a point- we are ourselves moving towards a theocracy- what Republican candidate has a chance if they don’t court the leadership of the religious right? Of course it is not on the level of Iran—but isn’t Iran no more or less democratic than other moderate Arab countries in the region? We just downplay their human rights abuses because its convenient to do so.
Iran’s a lot more democratic than at least one of our key allies in the ME.
The warhounds here eagerly lap up any vague and unsubstantiated rumors about Iran’s nuclear development program. In order to do so, they have to ignore certain “minor details” – like basic engineering facts, which specify how many centrifuges are required in order to enrich enough uranium to build a bomb; and the fact that Iran doesn’t have anywhere near enough of ‘em. Not enough centrifuges = not enough enriched uranium = no bombs.
It’s quite the laugh, seeing the same people who ignore basic scientific facts now dismiss the workings of Iran’s internal politics. Ahmadinejad’s candidates didn’t just “lose” in the recent elections; 90% of them lost – hardly a ‘subtle sign’ from shadowy figures in the deep background. Anyone who considered Bush’s 51% victory in 2004 a “mandate” has a lot of nerve calling a 90% rout anything but a resounding repudiation by the Iranian people.
I don’t know what makes the warhounds here so eager to go to war with Iran, whether it’s because they’re scared of their own freaking shadows or because they get off on mass death and destruction. One thing I do know: the war fever’s got nothing to do with any real threat to the US.