Posted: 2/25/2011 6:21:28 PM EDT
|
Against this, Soros, other American elites, the media, and the Obama administration all assert that the wave of popular unrest that is taking down one U.S. ally in the Middle East after another will now bring down the Islamic Republic –– and perhaps the Assad government in Syria, too. This is truly a triumph of wishful thinking over thoughtful analysis.
Many of these same actors, of course, worked themselves up into quite a frenzy after the Islamic Republic's June 2009 presidential election. For months, we were subjected to utterly unsubstantiated claims that the election had been stolen and that the Green Movement would sweep aside the Iranian "regime." Like Soros today, many pundits who predicted the Islamic Republic's demise in 2009 or 2010 put various time frames on their predictions –– all of which, to the best of our knowledge, have passed without the Iranian system imploding. (But don't worry about the devastating impact of such egregious malpractice on the careers of those who proved themselves so manifestly incompetent at Iran analysis. In today's accountability-free America, every one of the Iran "experts" who were so wrong about the Green Movement in 2009 and 2010 is back at it again.) U.S. attempts to intervene in the Islamic Republic's internal politics are typically maladroit and often backfire. But the Obama administration's performance is setting new standards in this regard. Among other consequences, the administration's latest initiative to stir up unrest in Iran will put what is left of the reform camp in Iranian politics at an even bigger disadvantage heading into parliamentary elections next year and the Islamic Republic's next presidential election in 2013, because reformists are now in danger of being associated with an increasingly marginalized and discredited opposition movement that is, effectively, doing America's bidding.
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/02/23/obama_is_helping_iran Even without a bad economy and soaring gas prices, we are truly screwed. 
|
|
Bullshit. Look either the United States of America backs pro-Democracy and pro-American groups in nations like Iran or we place those reformers at severe disadvantage to the radicals that do get support. We backed pro-democracy leadership and movements in the former Soviet satelite states for decades and that's in large part why Democracy has taken hold in Eastern Europe instead of military dictatorships. You stand behind your friends, because if you don't you will not have any. Pretty simple concept. |
|
What is so deliciously ironic about this thread is that the article is claiming that Obama is helping Iran by pursuing the exact policies that the OP likely wants, ie., stir up unrest, help support opposition, and that these policies that we also want are what is helping Irans hard-line government.
The article states clearly that we should accept the inevitable in the Middle East, as autocrats are replaced by popular, more democratic and most certainly more Islamist leadership, and start engaging productively with Iran. Also from the article: The United States faces serious challenges in the Middle East. Its strategic position in this vital part of the world is eroding before our eyes. Indulging in fantasies about regime change in Iran will only make the situation worse. at precisely the time when the United States needs to figure out how to deal with legitimate, genuinely independent Islamist movements and political orders, which are the most likely replacements for "pro-American" autocracies across the Middle East, the Obama administration's approach to Iran is taking U.S. policy in exactly the opposition direction. |
|
Quoted: Bullshit. Look either the United States of America backs pro-Democracy and pro-American groups in nations like Iran or we place those reformers at severe disadvantage to the radicals that do get support. We backed pro-democracy leadership and movements in the former Soviet satelite states for decades and that's in large part why Democracy has taken hold in Eastern Europe instead of military dictatorships. You stand behind your friends, because if you don't you will not have any. Pretty simple concept. This guy gets it. |
|
Quoted:
What is so deliciously ironic about this thread is that the article is claiming that Obama is helping Iran by pursuing the exact policies that the OP likely wants, ie., stir up unrest, help support opposition, and that these policies that we also want are what is helping Irans hard-line government. The article states clearly that we should accept the inevitable in the Middle East, as autocrats are replaced by popular, more democratic and most certainly more Islamist leadership, and start engaging productively with Iran. Also from the article: The United States faces serious challenges in the Middle East. Its strategic position in this vital part of the world is eroding before our eyes. Indulging in fantasies about regime change in Iran will only make the situation worse. at precisely the time when the United States needs to figure out how to deal with legitimate, genuinely independent Islamist movements and political orders, which are the most likely replacements for "pro-American" autocracies across the Middle East, the Obama administration's approach to Iran is taking U.S. policy in exactly the opposition direction. Should the USA back the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, qatar? (not Iran) Yes or no. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
What is so deliciously ironic about this thread is that the article is claiming that Obama is helping Iran by pursuing the exact policies that the OP likely wants, ie., stir up unrest, help support opposition, and that these policies that we also want are what is helping Irans hard-line government. The article states clearly that we should accept the inevitable in the Middle East, as autocrats are replaced by popular, more democratic and most certainly more Islamist leadership, and start engaging productively with Iran. Also from the article: The United States faces serious challenges in the Middle East. Its strategic position in this vital part of the world is eroding before our eyes. Indulging in fantasies about regime change in Iran will only make the situation worse. at precisely the time when the United States needs to figure out how to deal with legitimate, genuinely independent Islamist movements and political orders, which are the most likely replacements for "pro-American" autocracies across the Middle East, the Obama administration's approach to Iran is taking U.S. policy in exactly the opposition direction. Should the USA back the uprisings in Libya, Bahrain, qatar? (not Iran) Yes or no. An incredibly naive and silly question. We should back them in the sense of hoping for a nations people to be free to choose their own government. The governments they will choose are not likely to be as cooperative as the ones we are currently dealing with. It's a very difficult situation since, as has been proven, democratic elections can produce very hard-line Islamic leaders. We can also negatively affect the course of a revolution simply by being overly involved or vocal, as our imprint, much less direct intervention, is the one thing vast majorities of the citizens of a typical oppressed Middle Eastern nation agree that they can do without. Besides, what do you mean by the word 'back'? It could mean a number of different things. As you can now see, asking for a simple answer about a complex situation is meaningless. |
|
Quoted: Bullshit. Look either the United States of America backs pro-Democracy and pro-American groups in nations like Iran or we place those reformers at severe disadvantage to the radicals that do get support. We backed pro-democracy leadership and movements in the former Soviet satelite states for decades and that's in large part why Democracy has taken hold in Eastern Europe instead of military dictatorships. You stand behind your friends, because if you don't you will not have any. Pretty simple concept. Yep. Poland's Solidarity movement would have been crushed had Obama been in charge rather than Reagan. |