Iran fires 3 ambassadors, recalls 18 envoys after row over Israel

[ECH1969]

Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has fired his country’s ambassadors to Britain, France, and Germany, and ordered 18 envoys to be recalled to Tehran, a government official in the Iranian capital told Iran Focus.

“Ahmadinejad has been angered by what he sees as the envoys’ meek reaction to the global condemnation of his Wednesday speech against Israel and the West”, the official, who requested anonymity, said. “He made the speech with the full blessing of the Supreme Leader and has his green light to stifle any dissenting voice within the government”.

The official said that while there was broad consensus within the clergy-dominated regime on the hard-line President’s vow to “wipe Israel off the map”, some Iranian diplomats voiced concern that the international backlash could be too costly for the Islamic Republic.

On Friday, an array of top political and military figures in Iran lined up behind Ahmadinejad’s fiery speech. The Commander in Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards, the Speaker of Parliament, the Secretary General of the Supreme National Security Council and the powerful Minister of Intelligence and Security were among those who fully endorsed the President’s diatribe and made equally strong invectives against Israel.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=4176

[applegrove]

1. Great! He's another nut!!!

[VegasWolf]

32. Damn, an Iranian Bush. We're doomed. nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

2. Was this why he made the speech in the first place?

Make a speech (saying what has been said before, and is still often said by many in Iran, but not necessarily the president), publicise it (how often do foreign press reporters check all the speecehs he makes?), and then he has an excuse to fire some ambassadors he doesn't like, because he thinks they're to conciliatory with the countries they deal with. I'm sure they have the equivalent phrase of 'going native' in Iran.

[bemildred]

3. It's very interesting.

I have only vague ideas as to what he's up to,
but I am sure this was not an unscripted event.

Spengler had an interesting piece on this a couple
days ago:

In programs made public on August 15, Ahmadinejad revealed a response worthy of Adolf Hitler or Joseph Stalin to the inevitable unraveling of Iran's traditional society. He proposes to reduce the number of villages from 66,000 to only 10,000, relocating 30 million Iranians. That is a preemptive response to the inevitable depopulation of rural Iran, in keeping with a totalitarian program for all aspects of Iranian society.

As Amir Taheri wrote in Arab News on August 20, "He wants the state to play a central role in all aspects of people's lives and emphasizes the importance of central planning. The state would follow the citizens from birth to death, ensuring their health, education, well-being and leisure. It will guide them as to what to read and write and what 'cultural products' to consume so as not to be contaminated by Western ideas."

Reengineering the shape of Iran's population, the central plank of the new government's domestic program, should be understood as the flip side of Iran's nuclear coin. Aggressive relocation of Iranians and an aggressive foreign policy both constitute a response to the coming crisis.

Iran claims that it must develop nuclear power to replace diminishing oil exports. It seems clear that Iranian exports will fall sharply, perhaps to zero by 2020, according to Iranian estimates. But Iran's motives for acquiring nuclear power are not only economic but strategic. Like Hitler and Stalin, Ahmadinejad looks to imperial expansion as a solution for economic crisis at home.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GI13Ak01.html

[Amonester]

6. In this world wide 'Internet' age? How is (are) he (they) gonna...

succeed?

Re: "not to be contaminated by Western ideas."

The (these) fool (fools) is (are) just other lunatic(s)...

[bemildred]

8. He won't succeed.

But you can't really say this is some sort of new idea either.
From this description he's an old line totalitarian, Stalin
would recognize him as a brother.

[54anickel]

40. Thanks for the link Bemildred. Interesting point of view, especially

in the final 3 paragraphs. But if Ahmadinejad continues on the path of agressive foreign policy, what chance does the Iranian Oil Bourse have if there are no buyers due to that agressive foreign policy - unless it can corner the entire ME market?

I would guess the Iranian Oil Bourse would rely on him being successful in his "imperial expansion" first. If that is the case, I would expect him to be moving very quickly to that end. His call for wiping Israel off the map might be taken as a rally call.


From your posted article:

Iran wants effective control of Iraq through its ascendant Shi'ite majority, and ultimately control of the oil-rich regions of western Saudi Arabia, where Shi'ites form a majority. As Pepe Escobar reported from Tehran (Iran takes over Pipelineistan , Sep 10), Ahmadinejad wants to make Iran a regional power not only in production but in transmission, through a proposed oil pipeline through Iraq and Syria.

This may appear to be a desperate gamble, but conditions call for desperate gambles. Ahmadinejad is not a throwback, as I wrote with a dismissiveness that seems painful in hindsight. He has taken the measure of his country's crisis, and determined to meet it head-on. Washington, from what I can tell, has no idea what sort of opponent it confronts. Iranian dissidents were supposed to push their country toward democratization, following the glasnost model of Soviet deterioration, and contagion from the new democracy in Iraq was supposed to hasten the process. Ahmadinejad's ascendancy took Washington by complete surprise. Now there is nothing obvious the US can do to reduce Iran's influence among Iraqi Shi'ites, or to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear ambitions.

[bemildred]

44. Yes, that too.

That is an idea I've run into in a number of places now,
Greater Shi'iastan.

The one thing I think is clear is that it would be a mistake
to think Ahm-an-ijit is just a loon. The sentence tells:

Washington, from what I can tell, has no idea what sort of opponent it confronts.

[Colorado Blue]

68. That is interesting. Russia proletarianized the Turkmen,

and other nomadic/semi-nomadic tribes (or tried to) over a period of decades. One can only imagine how many people were involved, trying to get people to give up their traditional ways and settle down to work in factories, etc. Now the "stans" are independent countries, some with great resources, and also with a certain amount of violence as you know.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Uh, hate to rain on yr parade...

but Iran isn't an Arab nation. Also, Arab states aren't 'fucked-up Islamofascist nations'. While that sort of garbage is the catch-cry of American conservatives, a quick look at the governments of Arab states would prove that particular nonsense wrong...

Violet...

[JJackFlash]

15. educate me

Has your quick look at Arab nations revealed one that is a democracy? Or one that is not crushed by suffocating Islamic culture which has been demonstrating an extreme propensity for violence the last several years?
You're right that Iran is not an Arab nation, but they are a fascistic Shiite theocracy.

[Warren Stupidity]

16. Actually they aren't really fascistic either.

They are a theocracy and they are totalitarian. So other than the arab and fascist part your characterization of Iran as an islamo-fascist arab state was spot on.

[JJackFlash]

18. spot this

It's a fine line between totalitarianism and fascism.
"Islamo-fascist" is a perfectly appropriate term for today's Iran, one that I believe the young people struggling to break the bonds of the mullahs would agree with.
Would you be happier if I said "Islamo-totalitarian"?
The outrageous "Death to Israel" slogan has become a ubiquitous phrase across the ME, among the Arabs AND Iranians, so their president felt perfectly comfortable saying it. I think President Carter should have dropped bombs on them when they were holding us hostage. If he had, we probably never would have had a Reagan victory in 1980.
My two cents.

[thebigidea]

19. its a bullshit Daniel Pipes/Mikey Ledeen neocon term

[number6]

24. Amen bro

its a bullshit Daniel Pipes/Mikey Ledeen neoclown term

"islamo-fascist" muslim bashing

[barb162]

28. When the head of a country calls for the destruction of a

sovereign state, I think the islamofascist tag fits pretty well.


http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/10/28/iran.un.reaction/

The U.N. Security Council has condemned recent comments by Iran's president that Israel should be "wiped off the map" but did not say if the world body planned any action against Iran.

In a written statement, the council pointed out that all members of the United Nations "have undertaken to refrain from the threat or use of force against ... any state."
snip

[number6]

35. how about religious wacko

"I think the islamofascist tag fits pretty well"

Islam

Fascism

two different things

comments by Iran's president that Israel should be "wiped off the map"

kind of a crazy thing to say, cause Israelis and Palestinians
are standing pretty close together ...

like saying nuke Palestine to solve Israels problems
(get rid of those pesky Pals, of course probably
wouldn't be anybody else left either .....

[barb162]

41. Who said they were the same thing? Not me.

I will agree religious wacko fits too for this Iranian President.
Um, I want everyone to stop talking nukes (a little fantasy of mine)and I sincerely hope the last time they were ever used was WW2

[barb162]

42. Forgot to mention, yep, the Palestinians and Israelis are so

close, I don't know how Iran or others could "take out" one without the other. That's right!

[Warren Stupidity]

36. argument by non sequitor

You might as well have said 'when the head of a country calls for the destruction of a soverign state, I think the booga-booga tag fits pretty well'. And then when your opponents object, you can of course come back with the 'oh so you are in favor of the destruction of a sovereign state'.

Words have meaning. Iran is an islamic theocracy. Iran is not a fascist state. The USA is arguably a fascist or quasi-fascist state, Iran is demonstrably not. Oddly while Iran utters hateful statements such as calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, but does nothing to back up its bluster with actual deeds, it is our own government that not only proudly proclaims that it is in the state-destruction business, but goes about the planet destroying states.

[JJackFlash]

46. You think the US is more fascist than Iran?

Words have meaning. America is more aggressive in its foreign policy, yes, more fascist, no.
You sound awfully smug in your geo-political assertions.
The hundreds of dissenters who have been "disappeared" in Iran, the prisoners who have been mutilated, and the women who have been forced out of skirts and into chadors might not agree with you that Iran is not a fascist state.
People like you really give great fuel for the repugnicans.

[number6]

55. Iran would be a more repressive state, not more fascist

"America is more aggressive in its foreign policy" correct
or should we say more aggressive in military adventures

"the women who have been forced out of skirts and into chadors might not agree with you that Iran is not a fascist state"

wearing chadors in Nazi Germany ?

[JJackFlash]

57. And who was ALLIED with Nazi Germany?

The Islamic Arab nations were ... Nazis were crawling all over the ME, even AFTER WWII, training and assisting the Islamic Arab nations in their quest to exterminate Israel ... pretty aggressive.

[barb162]

64. a lot of people don't know the connections between the Nazis and

Moslem countries

[JJackFlash]

66. Axis Powers, sure

good night

[Warren Stupidity]

72. Which would not make them fascist, just allies of fascist regimes.

Once again you simply argue by being argumentative, not by actually providing evidence that logically proves your case. Perhaps the fact that after WWI the region was occupied by England and France had something to do with which side they chose to support in what they undoubtedly viewed as yet another squabble between european nations.

[JJackFlash]

88. What do you think my case is?

I didn't say that their being allied with the Nazis made them fascist - I was responding to the previous post which brought up the Nazis.
You keep saying that in your opinion Iran is not technically fascist, in spite of mutilating prisoners, in spite of oppressing everything liberal in that country, in spite of calling for the total destruction of Israel, etc, etc.
Doesn't change the fact that "Islamofascist" is an appropriate term.
Once again I'll ask you, would you prefer it if I used the hairsplitting term "Islamo-totalitarian"? Or does it offend your sensibilities any time Middle Eastern governments are criticized?
You are quite willing to minimize their DEATH TO ISRAEL and KILL ALL THE JEWS slogans and I think you give great fuel to the repugs.

[Warren Stupidity]

71. You should try looking up the meaning of the word fascism.

As it is obvious that you just use it as a word to describe a government that is highly repressive, that tortures prisoners, that disappears those it finds inconvenient. By the way prisoner torture and disappearance are attributes of our government, in fact they are quasi-official policy.

Fascism and 'police state' are simply not the same thing, and yet this appears to be your usage of the term. All fascist states are police states, not all police states are fascist states.

Iran is a police state and a theocracy. Lacking a modern industrial economy, Iran cannot have the corporatism that is an essential element of fascism.

[barb162]

27. what is? Islamofascist?

I think if that is what you referenced, it applies pretty well to this leader of Iran

[barb162]

29. I wouldn't ever classify Pipes as a neocon.

Now, Douglas Feith, Condi, Rummy, etal, yes

[thebigidea]

59. funny, he does.

"As some of my oldest friends and closest allies are called neo-conservative, I happily accept this appellation."

[barb162]

65. see post 63

[thebigidea]

67. which is totally irrelevant considering he accepted the term neocon

you could call them fintoozlers for all I care. I prefer "warmongering assholes."

Pipes:

"I have never quite figured out what views define a neo-conservative, and whether I am one or not, but others long ago decided this matter for me. Journalists use "neo-conservative" to describe me, editors include my writings in a neo-conservative anthology, critics plumb my views for insight into neo-conservative thinking, and event hosts invite me to represent the neo-conservative viewpoint.

As some of my oldest friends and closest allies are called neo-conservative, I happily accept this appellation...

... I mention all this because neoconservative policies in the Middle East have been looking pretty good the past two months...

The Middle East today is not alone in its attraction to a totalitarian movement – think Germany in 1933 or Chile in 1970 – but it is unique in the extent and persistence of this allure. I worry that my fellow neo-conservatives are insufficiently focused on its implications."

I think when he talks in terms of "fellow neo-conservatives," you can safely call him a neocon, eh?

[JJackFlash]

62. not quite: new + conservative

Neo-con means simply a conservative who once was progressive (allegedly). Von Rumsfeld was certainly never progressive, but William Kristol was (allegedly), and Wolfowitz, also. Neo-cons are characterized by extremely aggressive foreign policy.
Soon, neo-con may come to mean "neo-CONVICT" :)

[barb162]

63. Ithink of these particular "neocons" as the "Vulcans"

with their extremely aggressive foreign policy or as the conservatives of 1890s USA, ala the old robber barons. They want virtually no taxes on the rich, no social programs, etc. Therefore Pipes doesn't fit in with this... I just think of him as a scholar/researcher/writer type.

[Jim Sagle]

21. Fuckin' A.

[barb162]

31. you have some good points there and welcome to DU!

[JJackFlash]

49. Thank you, barb

[number6]

17. you need some education ...

1. you don't the difference between Persians and Arabs.

2. you don't know the definition of fascism

3. your a Muslim and Arab basher

"suffocating Islamic culture"

"fascistic Shiite theocracy"

Your Ignorant of other cultures and Governments

[JJackFlash]

20. oh, no

I know whereof I speak.
Are you saying Iran is not a fascistic Shiite theocracy? Are you saying there is not a problem with "suffocating Islamic culture"?
I'd like to see you try to defend that position.
I know what fascism looks like and I despise it in all its forms.

[number6]

22. well ah

Are you saying Iran is not a fascistic Shiite theocracy?
no its not, Am I defending the Iranian Government, no
is it a Shiite theocracy? yes

"suffocating Islamic culture"?
is Iran the last word in Islamic culture

"I know what fascism looks like" no you don't
you know its bad and your right...

but study Nazi Germany and Facist Italy
and then you'l know why its bad

oh and the bush regime too ;) peace

[JJackFlash]

23. no I don't

Maybe I'll throw in the towel.
Your counter-argument on behalf of Islamo-fascism was just too devastating.

[number6]

25. have a nice day,....eh

;) :smoke:

I defend neither Islam-O's or Fascists

[JJackFlash]

53. don't tell me what kind of day to have

"I defend neither Islam-O's or Fascists"
OK, since you agree they are indefensible I will continue to use the term "Islamofascist."

[number6]

54. its a recommendation, not an order

I will continue to use the term "Islamofascist."

continue to use whatever inaccurate terms you wish.

have a bad day, If you like ;)

[kineneb]

30. Thanks, for the list

as a former inhabitant of Iran, there has been and always will be a vast difference between the people and the leadership. Scratch any Persian, and underneath you will find a Zoroastrian. I imagine quite a bit of this bluster is for internal consumption and to placate the fundies in Qom.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warren Stupidity]

39. Perhaps,

but I think also it is part of the game they are playing over their nuclear program. Oddly they need an incident to give them cover to pull back again, and this may be the way to get just what they need.

I also think they are testing the boundaries of the new power structures in mesopotamia.

[barb162]

43. May I ask when you left there?

I have many other questions and perhaps I should privately PM if you wouldn't mind. I know only one Iranian who left there several years ago. He is a physicist, kind and brilliant. He was physically threatened many, many times as he was a Bahai. He came to the US

[barb162]

38. As to the word

"suffocating" would you explain how a chador feels when it's a 110 outside and you were once accustomed to shall we say, more modern dress? I thought the poster pretty well explained his points except for the diff betweeen Arab and Persian, an extremely common mistake similar to the mistaken use of "your" and "you're" as shown in your last line and your point 3. Also, I see no Moslem or Arab bashing in his comments. I note you make no similar mention of Israel bashing in regard to the Iranian leader's comments for the destruction of another nation. The UN certainly noticed it. The "Supreme Leader" of Iran is a Shiite ayatollah. I would call that a shiite theocracy.


Below: quickly referenced from BBC Country Profiles for your ready reference:
"Supreme leader: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei

The supreme leader - the highest power in the land - appoints the head of the judiciary, military leaders, the head of radio and TV and Friday prayer leaders.

Ayatollah Khamenei, the ultimate authority on matters of state
Moreover, he selects six members of the Guardian Council, an influential body which has to pass all legislation and which is able to veto would-be election candidates."
snip

[number6]

52. you got me there

"would you explain how a chador feels when it's a 110 outside"
you got me there, have no idea how a chador feels. :)

"I thought the poster pretty well explained his points"
we agree to disagree

"I note you make no similar mention of Israel bashing in regard to the Iranian leader's comments for the destruction of another nation"
here ya go
wiping Israel off the map, would pretty much be Israel Bashing.
I mentioned it.

"suffocating Islamic Culture"

well if you made an argument about "suffocating Islamic Culture"
in Saudi Arabia or Iran or under the Taliban.
that I can see ...
How many countries are Muslim ? are they all like Iran ?

[barb162]

26. Along with his Supreme Leader, Khamenei,

Ahmadinejad and Iran seems to qualify as one very fucked-up Islamofascist nation. Maybe Libya and a few others too would qualify for this rather embarassing moniker. (Iran considers itself Persian versus Arab.)

And yes, may fleas....
great line

[JJackFlash]

34. many fleas

Yes, of course I know most of the population of Iran is Persian - I know several Persian Iranians who despise the current govt there and the life-crushing theocratic grip on the nation.
Good to see a fellow Democrat who isn't afraid to use the term ISLAMOFASCIST - and it wasn't invented by Mike Ledeen.
Some of the Islamofascist nations include: Egypt, Libya, Iran, Syria, Afghanistan under the murderous Taliban, and those good friends of the BFEE - Saudi Arabia. I'm not saying we should war with all these countries, but my eyes are open to what they are, the crap they spew in their madrassas and I have no patience with the terrorist leader of Iran and his outrageous statements.
I wish people worldwide would start using their rational minds and throw off the shackles of religion.

[WCGreen]

5. Me thinks that maybe he does have the Bomb.....

trying to provoke and attack and then.....

[Amonester]

7. Count on Allah to stop the incoming 5/10-megaton missile(s?)?

Hope not... :silly:

[Skink]

9. Beat those drums..

[Warren Stupidity]

12. Close but no cigar.

I think what they are doing is trying to provoke belicose unilateral actions by Israel or US/GB. This will then be used to justify breaking off the nuke program talks, reverting them back to square one. It is all part of their dance over their nuke program.

Also it is off balancing. We seem to be focused on Syrian destabilization (although that is insane considering how our successful Iraqi destabilization program turned out) and now Iran suddenly starts making bad noises over on the other side of the Iraqi tarpit. Plus consider that our ability to rule at all in Iraq is based on shiite normality. What happens to that if we do anything to Iran?

Ah the mess we have gotten ourselves into. The pain and blood we are going to pay to get out.

[bemildred]

47. I had thought this might be a deliberate attempt to take heat off Syria.nt

[WCGreen]

50. Syria is predominatly Sunni while Iran is Shi'ite

[bemildred]

51. Yes, and that means what?

Do you think Iran hates Syria because of that? They
are both on the Neocon shitlist, and that makes them
brothers in arms.

FWIW, the ruling class of Syria is considered Shi'ia.

[WCGreen]

58. It is actually a smaller sect,

[bemildred]

60. Allawite, which is considered to be Shi'ia, not Sunni.

Syria has a substantial Kurdish population, and other
minorities. It's been a crossroads for millenia. That
is true of Iran too, it's been a crossroads for millenia,
and there is a good deal more to it's culture and politics
than just noticing that it's predominantly Shi'ia.

Another example:

Hizb Allah says it will stand by Syria

Lebanon's Hizb Allah resistance group has said it would stand by Syria, blasting the United Nations for what it said was political incitement against Damascus over the killing of a Lebanese ex-premier.

"We say clearly that we stand by Syria, leadership and people, in the face of its targeting by the Americans and Zionists and attempts to punish it politically for standing by Lebanon and its resistance," Shaikh Hassan Nasr Allah told a big rally in Beirut's southern suburb on the occasion of Jerusalem (al-Quds) Day on Friday.

--

As for the report itself, the Shia leader criticised it for not producing hard evidence but only suspicions that could be dispelled.

Nasr Allah also slammed Mehlis' mention of a personality he called "X" in his report, saying the remark was tantamount to a "national insult".
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/E815C56F-D371-4119-B498-9958CBDE9A88.htm

[WCGreen]

69. I'm thinking that this way will cause the Middle East as carved

up by Western powers, to disolve and reconstitue along religious and older ethnic divides....

We all no that no one wants the Kurds to have thier own state, that would further destabilize the entire region...

But if Iraq implodes, as is likely if warfare breaks out, that is exactly what could happen...

This of course would draw Turkey and Russia into the fight and we thus have another situation similar to 1914...

[Warren Stupidity]

73. Iraq has imploded.

The presence of our unchallengeable air power and its support of our 160,000 troops on the ground prevent the implosion from transforming itself into the collapse of the post WWI order the region is still stuck with and its resolution into a new order based on ethnic/religious/cultural affiliations. So Iran is testing the parameters here.

We are putting off the inevitable at a cost of $80-100B and 1,000 soldiers/year. At the moment our 'leaders' think that somehow they can put it all back together neat and tidy. They are deluded. Sometime in the relative near future, depending on US political dynamics and events in Iraq, we will pull out and the collapse we are holding back will occur.

[WCGreen]

78. Agreed, but the country hasn't as of yet imploded...

Eventually the US will have to pull out and leave the country to itself...

Then, no matter when we pull out, the time will come when the whole area will dissolve into nationalistic warfare...

[bemildred]

75. Hmm ...

I'm thinking that this way will cause the Middle East as carved up by Western powers, to disolve and reconstitue along religious and older ethnic divides....

Probably. The twentieth century was not good to empires and there is no reason to think the 21st will be better for them. Given that we all theoretically support self-determination of peoples, that seems like a good thing.

We all no that no one wants the Kurds to have thier own state, that would further destabilize the entire region...

A lot of us don't care if the Kurds get a state or not, the Israelis seem to like the idea somewhat, and the principle of self-determination of peoples would suggest it's a good thing. OTOH Syria, Iran, and Turkey all think it's a terrible idea.

But if Iraq implodes, as is likely if warfare breaks out, that is exactly what could happen...

Yes. Although the final outcome is far from clear. The Kurds must already consider that they have made great progress.

This of course would draw Turkey and Russia into the fight and we thus have another situation similar to 1914...

Turkey yes, Russia and China won't get involved unless they have vital interests at stake, which does not appear to be the case to me. I would expect them to be more than happy to stay out of it.

[WCGreen]

77. Russia could be drawn in for the same reason they were drawn

into Afghanistan in the 70's; destabilization of the region along their southern flank and the continued march of fundamentalist Islam.

China, as well... They need oil and they are probably thinking about some ways to get more influence in the middle east, other than building refineries to process the heavier and dirtier crude coming out of Saudi Arabia...

[bemildred]

79. Sure they could, but I would wager

that they won't be that stupid again.

[WCGreen]

80. They might not have a choice.... They may have to draw a line..

[bemildred]

82. Pigs may fly out of my butt singing "Kum Bah Yah" too.

But that doesn't seem like the way to bet.

[WCGreen]

84. Look where Turkey and Iraq and Iran and the former Russian

Territory comes together...

That could easily spill over into the southern Russia if things get dicey... that is where I think it could flare up... Just a possibility...

Light candles when the pigs come out....

[bemildred]

86. Possibilities are a dime a dozen.

Anybody can think up a dozen possibilities in half
a minute. Likely possibilities are a different matter.

If things should "spill over", Russia would defend it's
territory, assuming they could tell there was something
different going down there in the first place. The whole
N. Caucasus is in a state not much better than Iraq right
now. That's a completely different matter from invading
the region S. of the Caucasus and getting involved in
that mess. It takes someone like Bush and his idiot
advisers to do something like that.

But whatever, if I pleases you to think that Russia and
China are going to be forced to intervene in the Middle
East somehow, than go right ahead.

Edit: It is worth observing that to get to Russia from Iraq
or Iran you have to go through a couple other countries.

[WCGreen]

87. New countries, former Soviet provinces.....

Anyway, all I am saying is that this whole territory has been up for grabs for centuries...

It is inevitable that ethnic rivalries will rear their ugly heads and could, as they have in the past, spill out of control...

Just because this region has been rather passive as of late, don't think it can't erupt and drag unwilling participants into a shooting war

[daleo]

11. I can't really tell how credible this source is, but here is their blurb

It seems probable to me that they are a western propaganda outlet, though:

"Iran Focus is a non-profit news service provider that focuses on events in Iran, Iraq and the Middle East. With a network of specialists and analysts of the region and correspondents and reporters in several countries, Iran Focus is able to provide fast and reliable news and analysis on the political, social and economic situation in the region.

Iran Focus is dedicated to providing comprehensive, up-to-date information and news on the Persian Gulf region in a fair and balanced manner. We provide a wide array of daily news, weekly and special feature packages, commentary, news analysis, and investigative reporting. Through editorial initiatives and access to intelligence sources, our stories offer an insight into the complex situation in the Persian Gulf region that is indispensable to scholars, journalists, politicians, business people and all those interested in this sensitive part of the world.

We hope our services give you a new perspective on major developments in the region. Our editors welcome your comments and suggestions."

[muriel_volestrangler]

14. The firing of those 3 ambassadors is in the New York Times as well

I suppose the reasoning could be disputed, but the firing is a pretty plain fact that they'd look very stupid for stating.

In what the critics consider another blow to Iran's foreign policy, Mr. Ahmadinejad removed four veteran ambassadors from their posts this week - Sadegh Kharrazi in Paris, Hossein Adeli in London, Shamsedin Khaghani in Berlin and Mohammad Alborzi in Geneva.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/29/international/middleeast/29iran.html

[daleo]

45. I suppose the thing to watch, is who he replaces them with.

Although one would have to be very well versed in Iranian politics to make such judgements.

[54anickel]

76. Perhaps it was somewhat taken out of context. I posted this in another

thread. It's a commentary from the Turkish Weekly - something to think about.

Let’s fill in the Blanks in the Speech of Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad

http://www.turkishweekly.net/comments.php?id=1805

The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was addressing a conference in Tehran entitled "The World without Zionism", attended by around 3,000 students on Wednesday and the following day, we could find “Israel should be Wiped of the Map” title in nearly all of the news sources around the world. The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad prompted a chorus of international condemnation. Sometimes it seems easier to copy paste some parts of a speech or article and create a noisy atmosphere. Hence, it will be better to analyze all dynamics of this event and try to find out the missing points.

At the beginning, it will be helpful to explain the aim of this conference. In 1979, the Iranian leader Ayatollah Khomeini declared the last Friday of the Muslim month of Ramadan as an international day of struggle for the “liberation” of Jerusalem (in Arabic Al-Qods) and against occupier Zionist Regime. Henceforth, on “Al-Qods Day”, Muslims all over the world were to demonstrate against the existence of the state of Israel. Annually, the Iranian regime organizes a big Al-Qods Rally in Tehran and prior to this rally there is always a conference related to the Palestine Problem. “The World without Zionism” conference is also one of these organizations and the speech made by Mr. Ahmedinejad was aimed the liberation of Al-Qods and Palestinians.

It would be wiser to have a look at full text of the speech rather than selecting some parts of it. Doubtless it would make sense and would give some clues about the reasons of such a speech.
But before discussing about the context it will be noteworthy to remind some points:

1. The main topic of the organization was “liberation of Al-Qods and anti-zionism”
2. The hostility among two countries is not a secret
3. Anti-zionism is a pillar policy of Islamic Republic of Iran since its existence

Now we can review the speech quickly. At first, he explained the real meaning of Palestine adventure from his point of view. “The Palestine problem is not a conflict among Jewish and Muslims, it is not a conflict between Jewish and other sects; it is neither a fight among two countries nor a fight between a country and the rest Arab world. The establishment of the occupier Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world” he said in his speech. Later on he talked about the historic fight among Muslim world and the world oppressor. “It dates back hundreds of years. Sometimes Islam has advanced. Sometimes nobody was winning. Unfortunately over the past 300 years, the world of Islam has been in retreat," he said and talked about history for a while.

more...

[daleo]

83. That is a useful article.

I interpret it as saying:

- much of this was conventional bluster.
- the phrase in question can be interpreted as being directed against a political ideology, not a people or a nation. The west used to do the same when it called for the end of the Soviet Union, or the end of communism. This wasn't meant to be interpreted as a call for genocide against the Russian people.
- this is a sensitive time, and there are elements on both sides who want to stoke the fires of fear and war.

[lovuian]

13. Ya he is getting to be a very scary character!!!

just like Our Prez!!!

[NashVegas]

33. Hey! It's Nothing to Worry Over! One Iran Sandwich Coming Right Up!

We're in Iraq. We're in Afghanistan. Look at a map.

And then we can all rally around our president.

[barb162]

48. where did you get that "we" business in the last sentence

[JJackFlash]

56. I had thought the military was too broken

to take on Iran, but according to Scott Ritter, the Bush Junta is still on track to attack. They wanted john bolton in place at the UN, first, and there he is, by recess appointment.
Junior's base want to see him bring on Armageddon so they can be Raptured ... again we see religion as an impediment to civilization.

[occuserpens]

61. Who said Ahmadinejad is an amateur?

He acts quite professionally and uses the occasion to get rid of pro-Western liberals. This is frigging revolution, not mutual admiration society.

[happyslug]

70. Iran is a limited Democracy, but a Democracy.

What I mean by Limited Democracy is that they have elections THAT ARE CONTESTED but who can contest is restricted. South Africa under Apartheid was a similar "Democracy" if you were white you could vote, blacks could not. Such governments can be very resilient, for example South Africa stayed with its Apartheid program until the Economic Sanctions (and the increase cost of the Repression of Black South Africans) forced the whites to accept Black majority rule. England was such a limited Democracy in the 1800s till the pressure of WWI forced England to finally give everyone the Right to Vote.

In the case of Iran, almost every one can vote. You have a limited right to protest, and people can petition not only the President, his cabinet and Iran's Legislature, they can also petition the Supreme Leader who is the real leader of Iran.

Now the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini when he came up with plan for the Iranian Islamic Republic, wanted two things, he wanted the President and Legislature to Rule and make laws, but subject to restrictions of the Shiite Religious hierarchy. You can view the present Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, like a Super Supreme Court, not ruling himself but making rulings on the Legality of the actions of those that do rule. This veto over Secular actions is what Khomeini wanted in the Supreme leader and that is what the Supreme Leader has to this day.

I remember the Revolution of 1979 and the protest the proceeded it both in the US and Iran. One of the things I remember is the number of women who VOLUNTARY agreed to wear the Chardor as a sign of opposition to the Shah. I remember walking on the Sidewalks of Pittsburgh (They had been denied a Permit to hold a march on the Street) the Iranian males dressed like westerns (But with hoods on their faces) and the Women walking in protest with them wearing Chardors. The Iranians wanted a voice in their Government and the only way to get such a voice was with Khomeini and their were willing to accept what he wanted as a government as the price to get rid of the Shah.

Since that time you have had several elections in Iran, and these have been fair and open elections (The Supreme Leaders and his Council can veto candidates, which they do on a frequent basis, but other than that people have right to petition to have their candidate on the ballot, protest the removal of that Candidate by the Religious leaders, and then vote for one of several candidate that do make the ballot. That is something you can NOT say of any other Moslem Country at the present time (Pakistan did have an elected President but the present President overthrow him in a Coup) with the exception of Turkey (until its Military takes over again to prevent any attack on the Secular Government installed by the Military since 1921) and the possible exception of Indonesia and Malaysia (Indonesia had been a Dictatorship but revert to a Democracy when things became bad economically and is still trying to find a solution to its economic problems, Malaysia is also a Democracy but with strong authoritarian tendency.

You can say Iran is the closest thing to a Democracy in the Mid-East (with the Exception of Turkey) for it leaves almost all of the people under its control to vote. While Israel is A Democracy, it is only a Democracy for Jews or for Arabs who live in Israel Proper. The Palestinians who live in the West Bank and Gaza do NOT get a chance to vote for the Government Occupying the West Bank and Gaza (Arabs living in Israel proper do get to Vote as do the Druze living in Israel).

Is Iran a western Style Democracy? No, its does restrict its women and gives its religious leaders to much say in the Government but Compared to its neighbors it is a full blown Democracy. All of Iran's neighbors, with the Exception of Turkey, are Dictatorships, some with pretense of being a Democracy (Egypt, Syria etc), others without even the pretense (Saudi Arabia and Kuwait for example).

In fact the closer any Moslem Country gets to Democracy the more radical the country get. Who can Forget Turkey's Refusal to permit the US to invade Iraq from Turkey (the proposal was killed by the Turkish Parliament)? Indonesia has seen the raise of Islamic radicals, Malaysia has had to crack down on such radicals. The Moslem and Arab people have been suppressed for so long that they see their only hope for reforms is with the Radicals. 50 years ago that was the Communists, but since then it has been Islamists. The Communists failed do to the connection between them and the old Soviet union. The Islamists are prospering do to the fact their are local and often local solution to people's problems. As long as the only people addressing People's problems are the Radical Islamist you will see increase support for such Islamists.

[bemildred]

74. Yep. nt

[daleo]

81. It sounds like Iran and Israel have some things in common

They both have democratic structures, but each has substantial limitations on the franchise, either in who can vote or who can run.

They both have an uneasy partnership between explicitly religious aspects of the state, and secular aspects.

They both see themselves as regional superpowers, and they are both right on this score, in somewhat different ways.

Each is a civilization with a very long history, and both often have had an uneasy relationship with the west.

[happyslug]

85. Republics and Democracy tend to be very Stable.

The average length of the rule of a Roman Emperor was Two Years, an American President 6 years, a European Chancellor of Prime Minster five years. Some Dictators tend to last for decades but once gone their state collapses, disintegrates or just spin out of control (Or worse like the old Soviet Union holds on do to corruption).