ARTICLE: "New Post For Rival Of President Of Iran," by Nazila Fathi and Graham Bowley, New York Times, 29 May 2008.
Let's review what's happened since Ahmadinejad took power: his allies lose the first mid-term election badly (local elections around nation), and the man he beats for the presidency (Rafsanjani) gets the chairmanship of the Assembly of Experts (the College of Cardinals-like entity that picks the Supreme Leader; then the SP nixes a bunch of his candidates for the second mid-term, where his religious conservatives lose seats in the Parliament and his rival Larijani (another candidate for prez in 05) is named speaker. Meanwhile, the fourth major prez candidate from 05, Qalibef, the Tehran mayor, grows in popularity.
What does this all reflect? Ahmadinejad has not delivered on the economics--pure and simple.
But no, neither Larijani nor Qalibef will back down on nuclear enrichment either--if elected in 09--when Ahmadinejad is voted out.
That decision was made in response to our decisions to invade countries on Iran's right and left. And just like those decisions are for America, there's no turning back on nukes for Tehran.
| Permalink |
Comments (5)
This is all good news. The sooner Mr. Ahmadinejad is off-stage the better.
Maybe Obama will have someone rational to talk to when he picks up the phone in '09.
Posted by Lexington Green | June 6, 2008 10:27 AM
"That decision was made in response to our decisions to invade countries on Iran's right and left. And just like those decisions are for America, there's no turning back on nukes for Tehran."
I have an idea for Iran, why not stop talking trash to Israel, stop killing our troops in Iraq, stop supporting terrorists organizations around the world and start trying to normalize relations with the US? Maybe they wouldn't need to get nukes to protect themselves. Or they could get nukes and we would care less.
Iran is a problem for the entire world. If they would make proper overtures to the rest of the world, this could be a none issue. I think the ball is in their court. Has been for years.
Posted by Wiredman | June 6, 2008 1:00 PM
Dr barnett,what do you think,China's postion will be once push comes to shuff in the next adminstration,let say MaCin get elected,or
for that matter,even Obama,the way he was kissing up to Aipac in order to secure presidency?
Posted by farhad | June 6, 2008 1:37 PM
Well, farhad, I don't think you really understand the relativeness of what's going on, nor does wiredman. The issue here is the scope of ethnicity. It's all about the ethnicity. It's local to the middle east, but they're taking it global. China is creating perception of democracy, while behind the scenes securing themselves with bi-lateral agreements with Russia, and North Korea. The middle east could care less about what happens to the people, it's all about the oil and control of the geographic and geopolitical boundaries. In the mean time, the security provided by China, Russia, Korea (CRK) secures sovereignty and disruption throughout the middle east. It creates mass geographic econmic and political disfunction world wide.
Posted by Advantage | June 6, 2008 10:58 PM
Wiredman..
We don't live in a benign world where states mind their own business and get left alone by the USA ( or any other historical big boy).
Iran has had it goverment overthrown for less , in living memory, by the USA/UK ( nationalistaion of the oil industry..on it's own territory).
So its a bit naive to say that everything would be OK when they have been bashed about in the past for far less and that was at a time when they never posed a threat to anyone.
rgds
Posted by Javaid Akhtar | June 7, 2008 1:27 AM