Iran's Clerics Lean Towards Kerry to Ease Pressure

[DrFunkenstein]

Kerry is unlikely to ease the pressure on Iran, which will remain a key U.S. foreign policy challenge whoever wins the Nov. 2 vote. But the Massachusetts senator's emphasis on a multilateral foreign policy approach and hints he would negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program appeal to the country's bazaar-rooted instincts to bargain its way out of a crisis.

Iran has tended in the past to favor the pragmatic, business-oriented style of Republicans over Democrats who were perceived as more pro-Israel and tougher on human rights. "We should not forget that most sanctions ... were imposed on Iran during the time of (former President Bill) Clinton," he told state television. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era, despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran, he did not take, in practical terms, any dangerous measures against Iran."

Arguments that Bush rid Iran of two arch foes and is a known quantity compared with Kerry hold little water, said Alinejad. "Bush did topple Saddam and the Taliban but he certainly didn't do that as a favor for Iran."

In Tehran, concern that it may be next in line for regime change after the swift military victory over Saddam Hussein has given way to growing confidence as U.S. forces struggle to stabilize Iraq. "Even if Bush wins, an attack on Iran is not on the agenda," said Mohebian. "The cost is too high. Bush's hands are empty."

After loudly cheering pro-democracy protests last year, U.S. officials appear to have backed away from theories that Iran's clerical regime is ripe for collapse, analysts said. The risk that surgical strikes against Iran's nuclear plants could unite one of the region's least anti-U.S. populations behind the clerical leadership is also a concern in Washington.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=6&u=/nm/20041027/pl_nm/campaign_world_iran_dc

I think the author should have at least clarified the distinction between moderate and radical clerics. The title is completely misleading, because the article - almost despite itself - more often makes the case that Kerry and Democrats have long supported pro-democracy forces within the moderate realm while keeping Iran free from nuclear capability.

Bush on the other hand, is a dream for radical clerics trying to gain power and legitimacy. Not only does Bush infuriate Iranians and unite them behind radical anti-American forces (keep in mind that the general population has been actually more pro-U.S. than most of the Middle East), but at the same time Bush has done less than nothing against Iran - except rid them of their enemies and tie up their entire military in an Iraqi quagmire.

Iran is one of the major unspoken reasons we can't cut and run. Along with radical elements within Iraq, Iran is salivating at the prospect of Iraqi civil war followed by a power vacuum once U.S. forces leave.

So, yes, moderate clerics have normally favored the Democrats with their focus on human rights, while the ruling class have favored Republican "pro-business" oil interests and radicals benefit greatly from Bush's bluster.

Of course, none of them are thrilled at the prospect of Kerry's plan to greatly increase the burden of U.S. energy upon renewable, domestic (and clean) sources.

[LimpingLib]

1. Iran wants civil war because the ONLY thing slowing down...

...the US war juggernaut from aiming the crosshairs over Iran is if we are stuck in the mud in Iraq.

If I was Iranian I would be praying endlessly that we get stuck in Iraq for as long as possible , and thats just prolonging the inevitable.


Its the multilateral sanctions Kerry proposes that could ruin Iran for 100 years. Also could invite terrorism on our shores for 100 years though not by Iranians (they rarely use terrorism contrary to popular propaganda)but by disgruntled Muslims from already opressed Arab states.

[DrFunkenstein]

2. Or the threat of a nuclear escalation with Israel

Or the unification of radical clerics against a common foe, rather than a fractured enmity with the ruling class. Or reversing pro-democratic forces that had been building under Clinton's watch (and sanctions). Or destabilizing oil prices yet again.

Kerry's human rights record in foreign policy is well known in these circles (though not covered much during the campaign). Kerry's negotiations with Iran's ruling class over nuclear capability and humanitarian concerns are not likely to ignite a 100 year jihad (especially considering that pro-American sentiment actually rose during Clinton's sanctions in Iran).

I'm sure you meant your comments sincerely, but the facts and history don't bear them out.

[LimpingLib]

3. Lets see.We tell the world to sanction Iraq,a million dead children later

That didnt hurt our reputation one bit Im sure. Leaving leaders in charge but hurting the people will breed love of the USA. Negotiations are fine but we are talking life and death when multilateral sanctions are discussed. Clinton lifted some sanctions to allow Iran to export nuts and other important products when Khatami was elected as a goodwill gesture. Thats when relations improved.

Iran needs major forign investment or it will be anet oil IMPORTER in 5-6 years or sooner. Sanctons will screw us this time but will savage the Iranian people.

Iran has been attacked by WMD and is surrounded by nations that have had them at one time or do have them on almost evey corner PLUS Israel. Israel has alot of WMD aside from nukes and good R&D plus a history of invadings nighbors either on foot or airspace. WE..US..USA have WMD and agressive behavior. Why wouldnt Iran want a deterant?

[DrFunkenstein]

4. Don't Conflate Iraq Sanctions And Iran Sanctions

Kerry is on record attempting to lift Iraqi sanctions as a humanitarian failure, leaving only sanctions on military capabilities.

I can't go into the archives, but Kerry's major foreign policy speech outlines a broad, but very specific trade policy with the Middle East to lessen corruption, encourage trade with the outside world - but also bewteen Arab nations, heavily promoting education resources, and so forth.

Kerry has an excellent plan for raising the quality of life in the Middle East as a fundamental part of his policies (and war on terror), but it doesn't translate well into succint stump speeches for swing voters.

[LimpingLib]

5. So will the 24 year streak of vetoing UN resolutions continue?

Thst whats holding up peace in many areas plus rendering our credibility at roughly ZERO on nearly every "sincere" pontificating edict.

Anyway I suppos I have high hope for Kerry (or for the world).