Comments on: Neocons and Ahmadinejad: Perfect Together

By: Anna

Anna — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:13:33 +0000

I interpreted it as Majd saying that all the bombastic rhetoric (and past actions vis-a-vis Iraq) that comes from the neocons plays directly into the hands of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad. The neocons seem not to realize (or care) that Iranians are a very nationalistic people and their rhetoric is the perfect distraction for the leadership to toss out to the people. I have a hunch that had it been a President McCain making the the less-than-measured remarks (compared to Obama's) that's he's been making as Senator McCain, there's a decent chance that the protests and any divisions in Iranian leadership could've been papered over by uniting everyone against the “interlopers” of the West (interlopers in quotes since we obviously wouldn't have had any direct involvement in Iran's elections under McCain or Obama). McCain's rhetoric could quite possibly have made it easier for Iranians to buy the (IMO desperate) attempt of the Iranian leadership to paint the US as meddling whereas Obama's rhetoric makes it harder for them to buy into.

By: eejays

eejays — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 11:05:15 +0000

Iran is not just Tehran, where of course Mosavi got a big support. But had Rafsanjani not sided with mosavi, he was unlikely to get even the half of current votes.

By: kathykattenburg

kathykattenburg — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 05:40:28 +0000

Actually, Majd does say that Ahmadinejad does have his supporters in Iran, and he very well may have won, but it's the size of the win that's fraudulent.

By: Don Quijote

Don Quijote — Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:48:22 +0000

an "election" whose results have to be improsed through fraud and violence.

How do you know that?

For all you know, Ahmadinejad may have won fair and square...

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 21:26:44 +0000

Uh... regarding the "quality" of that court decision:

The decision in the Florida election case may be ranked as the single most corrupt decision in Supreme Court history, because it is the only one that I know of where the majority justices decided as they did because of the personal identity and political affiliation of the litigants. This was cheating, and a violation of the judicial oath. ~ Alan Dershowitz

Anyone who is comfortable with that particular decision is either blinded by partisanship or didn't pay attention. Was the "rigging" as blatant when compared to the Iran "election"? No, but if the result compromised our fair election system, then grounds for comparison aren't terribly far-fetched.

By: adesnik

adesnik — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 20:40:27 +0000

It's interesting that Majd criticizes neoconservatives for their ignorance of Iran, yet ventures to make such remarkably uninformed observations about American politics.

He says: "If we come out on the side of the reformers and say we can't accept Ahmadinejad, it would be the equivalent of Iran saying we can't accept that Bush is president because we don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling."

There is no comparison between an election decided by a legitimate court (regardless of the quality of its decision) and an "election" whose results have to be improsed through fraud and violence.

Majd's comments about neoconservatives (as well as the implied approval of this post) are deeply problematic. Especially on a centrist website dedicated to civil discussion, we need to rise above simplistics associations of neocons and Ahmadinejad.

Majd actually misunderstands the neocon position. The serious neocon concern is that if Mousavi won but Khameini retained effective power, the US and Europe would mistake Mousavi's moderation for the actual intentions of the regime. That is a serious point you can agree with or debate. Majd's suggestion that the neocons just want someone "to demonize" is ill-informed.