Islamists Rejoice?
Amir Taheri writes for the New York Post that Islamists around the world celebrate the outcome of the US elections.
Calling the election “the beginning of the end for Bush,” Ayatollah Imami Kashani told a Friday congregation in Tehran that the Americans were learning the same lesson that last summer’s war in Lebanon taught the Israelis.Tehran decision-makers believe that the Democrats’ victory will lift the pressure off the Islamic Republic with regard to its nuclear program. “It is possible that the United States will behave in a wiser manner and will not pit itself against Iran,” says Ali Larijani, Tehran’s chief negotiator on the nuclear issue.
His view is echoed by academics with ties to “Supreme Guide” Ali Khamenei…
Nasser Hadian, another academic with ties to Khamenei, goes further. “With the return of a more realistic view of the world, the United States will acknowledge the leading role that the Islamic Republic must play,” he says. “There is no reason for our government to make any concessions on the nuclear issue.”
What do they expect from the Democrats?
Iraq: The assumption is that America will cut and run.
Iran: Radical circles are unanimous in their belief that Iran can now proceed with its nuclear program without fear of U.S. and allied retaliation. They expect Democrats to revert to Clinton-era policy and seek a “Grand Bargain” with the Islamic Republic – acknowledging Iran as the major regional power and recognizing its right to the full cycle of nuclear technology.
Israel: Radical Islamists in both Iran and the Arab countries believe that the Democrats’ victory indicates “growing American lassitude.” They believe that, once it becomes clear that Americans don’t want to fight for the Middle East, many in Israel would emigrate to America and Europe to escape the constant daily pressure from Islamist groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah.
As Amir points out, the Democrats – however – may change their point of view on certain issues now they are in power themselves. Also: Bush still is the President of the U.S. and will continue being so for the next 2 years.
Some points of criticism: Taheri does not present other examples: only Iran. Secondly, where are the facts? Just writing that Islamists worldwide rejoice, without presenting clear facts, etc. does not exactly make one’s article trustworthy. Thirdly, does it mean that when radical Muslims rejoice, Western policies are automatically wrong? Or do ‘we’ have to do what ‘we’ consider best, no matter what extremists might think of it?
That being said, when Islamists rejoice it seems to be logical for one to take a closer look at the exact reasons and to re-consider one’s policies.
No?
19 Responses to “Islamists Rejoice?”
Yes, let’s let what Iran thinks control our foreign policy decisions. There’s a point of relevance to be had here: every time this topic comes up in any form, there is a leaning towards the idea that we shouldn’t do it just because these fellows say we should… That is to say, the reason behind not doing things is rooted in the approval of others with regard to those things being done. It gives foreign powers a place of perceived control over our policy decisions, and folks have to stop playing into that. The first question when Iran says something, should be, ‘what relevance is the Iranian PR team to us?’ The second question should be what this fellows purpose was in writing the article and whether it was in line with the Fox News memo sent out in this past short while….
Amir Taheri? He of the infamous “yellow badge” story? There’s plenty of material out there on the web to indicate that anything – anything – this guy publishes should be considered highly suspect.
Sorry, but this is just speculation BOLOGNA. My speculation on the matter is one where the Democrats will continue to ‘support’ OIF but there is going to be some oversight on the matter. No more off-the-cuff comments like “turning the corner” or “last throes” are going to dictate what the country should and should not do. The conflict is not an open-ended affair where a small minority of folks dictate to what the country can and cannot do. I think the Democrats are going to:
1. Provide more money to the military, specifically the US Army and US Marines, to repair and replace equipment damaged and destroyed. No more stealing money from the operations &maintenance funds to help pay for DHS security plans for the border of Mexico and the US.
2. There will be more oversight over contractors and the work that they are performing for GWOT. No more throwing money down a rat hole for the sake of doing something.
3. There should be clear benchmarkers of the progress on the war. No more “wishing on a star” to hope the insurgency will end when: CPA closes shop, the local nationals get purple colored fingers as they practice their right to vote, and so forth. Where is the pole set? Are we exceeding at what we do, or do we need to address other items to bring the whole system up to snuff?
As someone said above, how does this statement reflect the Fox News’ VP memo to go out and find negative stories in the Middle East to show the Democrats are bad for the country? Sorry, but whether we are either Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Independents, and so forth, we are still Americans. I don’t go out looking for foreign stories to show the shrillness of the hyper-right or hyper-left to be wrong. Why is it okay now?
Mikey:
What I like about you is you don’t read all the bad stuff like editorials in Iran saying the United States has a responsibility to stay until stability comes. Traitor child molesting liberals like to point out things like Iran is a country with typical interests, that it’s a big supporter of the current government providing all kinds of aid including electricity and that it doesn’t want civil war sweeping over it’s borders and to wind up face to face with the other Arabs in Snni Shiite conflict. That “realism” has to go. You’re the kind of guy who thinks like Rush, rhetoric is reality and only the rhetoric you like. For example Al qaida’s telling Bush to keep them coming, that they love him is obviously false because like you Bush is a great man who sees things like a 14 year old.
Again to everyone: please ignore dittohead. To call him a useless, obsessive, stupid troll would be a compliment.
Amir Taheri?
But I see m.croche has made the sensible objection already.
I’d be SAFER in Israel than I am here in the good ol’ US of A!
Holly then move to Israel and support your real country. As BYG and MC said, Taheri is a documented liar and propogandist. Now I suggest that we have a design contest for patches – Real American Patriots Yellow Cheetos patches and Cut and Runners Pink Patches……
I call dittohead a satirist, and pretty funny. I think he gets the point of this Fox news styled article.
Sad that Iranian propoganda gets a replay here at TMV as if it were something more than what it really is.
Yes, Dittohead. We will kindly remind you that it’s really the best on this site to detail what you disagree with in someone’s post, then explain why and offer your own take. We truly are not interested in people who insult. We know there are lots of blogs who love that kind of thing, but we don’t here. You’re welcome to leave your comments but please re-read the commenting policy below. We get people on the right and left who angrily disagree with the posts of each of us who write on this site and they explain why in detail, discussion the issues as to why they believe we are wrong, what info we’re missing, how we see it wrong. But hurling insults isn’t welcome.
MvdG didn’t just replay the propoganda, he is trying to take a look at it and learn something from it, which I think is quite sensible.
I think the Iranians are more clever than we give them credit for alot of the time. I think they really want the US to stay in Iraq, and that this is classic reverse psychology. It all comes down to pros and cons (from Iranian persepctive)
With the US occupying Iraq, Iran gets to reap the benifits of a obvious enemy. They can rally public support around whatever actions they decide to take to protect from the imperialist west. That enemy also must spend billions of dollars to try and achive peace in its neighbor, and could now cannot mount any sort of credible millitary action against Iran.
If the US were to leave. It is very likely that a Shia/Sunni (and possibly Kurdish) civil war will break out that would threaten to engulf the entier region. Their strong ties to the Iraqi Shia population will almost requrie them to provide support, which will then make them a target for Sunni retaliation. Any outright invasion of Iraq to quell the fighting runs into all of the same problems as the US occupation, and swings all of the UN against Iran, making its nuclear program issue #1.
Now I’m not saying that we leave Iraq simply because Iran wants us to stay. But that taking Iran at face value is dangerous and silly.
Amir Taheri knows a heck of a lot more about the Middle East than his critics here.
Taheri’s so called “propaganda” about yellow stars misrepresented here was in fact a highly plausible report from sources inside Iran that Iranian Parliamentarians were considering requiring some visual identification for non-Muslims. Entirely plausible given the other lunacies coming out of Iran. Refuted only after the reports were widely reported, and refuted only to the extent that no legislation ot that effect was passed. In no way does this mean Taheri’s assertion — that is was under consideration — was false.
Much like the anti-war distortions of the 16 words of Bush’s State of the Union speech, the anti-Taheri allegation is itself a distortion, and driven by propaganda.
Joe, you’re right to take pause with reports of our enemies deriving great satisfaction and hope from the “repudiation” of Bush’s Iraq Policy and conduct of the war.
You may end up concluding, “we still need to change our strategy,” but you reveal more sensitivity and wisdom than most of leading Democrats BEFORE the midterm elections. Hopefully, most of that was more rhetorical than revelatory of what they’ll actually do when responsible for direction.
Amir Taheri…the “yellow stars” b.s. was not the first time Taheri has been found to be making stuff up out of thin air. Misidentifying the Iranian ambassador to the UN as one of the hostage takers in ’79 when it was proven that he had actually been in the US at the time.
He may know a lot about the ME, but he apparntly knows even more about how to hit the buttons on the right in the West. He stirs it up, gets the lie out there and when a paper is forced to retract an article and apologise (within 24 hours as in the case of the Canadian National Post and the “yellow stars” article) that is forgotten…people only remember that Iran is making Jews wear yellow.
As for us rethinking our policies based on whether a foreign country likes it or not…no, it doesn’t “make me think”. I certainly don’t think we should just do the opposite of what our enemies seem pleased with. Cutiing your nose of to spite your face. Is that political wisdom or a childish response. I have had enough of children running our foreign policy.
Dadmanly writes: Amir Taheri knows a heck of a lot more about the Middle East than his critics here.
The question is not whether Amir Taheri knows more about the Middle East than I do. The question is whether or not he has got a long history of printing inaccurate and fraudulent information.
Of what use is an expert whose printed word is not reliable?
Dadmanly You claim that Taheris ‘patches’ story wasn’t a lie, please show reliable sources to back this up. believe even Michele Malkin retracted his story.
I don’t think that Americans should vote either for or against political candidates based on what enemies of America say. However, I do think it was important to send a message to those in the Middle East that our votes were based on what Americans think is right for our country, not based on collusion with Islamist extremists. I think that is the message that Bush tried to send in his speech on Nov 8 when he said:
And frankly, I am disappointed that no Democratic leader has seen fit to make a similar statement. Wouldn’t that be a powerful message, if the Democratic leadership would say “Stop rejoicing: we may have differences of opinion about the way that America should protect her interests, but make no mistake about it that ALL Americans of both political parties have America’s interests at heart and will defend her against her enemies”?
dadmanly: thanks for the compliment.
Kevin H: that was exactly what I was trying to do. Also I agree with you that Iran, in fact, wants the US to stay.
But Iran cannot lose this one. If the US does not stay, the Iranians can claim some kind of strange victory and spread more propaganda about how weak the US is, no will to fight, etc., etc.
Iran cannot lose.
No.
Is it really a surprise that a representative of a country described as being part of an “axis of evil” is happy that the politician that made that statement is repudiated in an election?
This has nothing to do with Iran, or anyone else, preferring Democratic policies over Republican policies but rather the joy that comes from seeing someone that had demonized their country by calling it “evil” being rejected by his own country’s citizens.
MvdG:
Perhaps this proves that the invasion of Iraq is a colossal failure, then? In both idea and execution?