What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

[Evo]

what do you feel Zionists have done for America to merit our unwavering support?

Why would they have to have done anything?

 

[kyleb]

I suppose I'm taking for granted that you don't support a free-for-all land grab between any and all groups, at which point only goes to figure that you'd have some reason to give Zionists a special pass for doing it to Palestinians, eh?

 

[Astronuc]

But Astronuc, since you obviously disagree; what do you feel Zionists have done for America to merit our unwavering support?

Neither America nor Israel nor any other country is a monolithic culture or society - rather most nations are pluralistic societies.

Many in the US, who support Israel, do so for many reasons. I do not equate support of Israel with support for Zionists or Zionism, and certainly not all Israelis or Jews are Zionist, just as not all Americans are Republican or Democrat, nor Christian or Atheist.

I don't agree with Ahmadinejad's statements and I find his belligerent rhetoric conter-productive to a meaningful dialog.

I certainly support the existence of Israel and Palestine, both as states. How that's done must be determined by the populations of those two states - hopefully peaceful. I certainly appreciate Israel's concern over suicide bombers and rocket attacks initiated from the Palestinian territories. If I had my way, there would be no violence, but peaceful coexistence. Other people have other ideas.

Also - This might be of interest

Jimmy Carter on Conflict in the Middle East
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6543594

Fresh Air from WHYY, November 27, 2006 · Former President Jimmy Carter addresses the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians in his new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. Carter has founded a conflict resolution organization and won a Nobel Peace Prize for his mediation work.

Since the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty was signed in 1979, much blood has been shed unnecessarily and repeated efforts for a negotiated peace between Israel and her neighbors have failed. Despite its criticism from some Arab sources, this treaty stands as proof that diplomacy can bring lasting peace between ancient adversaries. Although disparities among them are often emphasized, the 1974 Israeli- Syrian withdrawal agreement, the 1978 Camp David Accords, the Reagan statement of 1982, the 1993 Oslo Agreement, the treaty between Israel and Jordan in 1994, the Arab peace proposal of 2002, the 2003 Geneva Initiative, and the International Quartet’s Roadmap all contain key common elements that can be consolidated if pursued in good faith. There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East:

1. Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and

2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.

In turn, Israel responds with retribution and oppression, and militant Palestinians refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and vow to destroy the nation. The cycle of distrust and violence is sustained, and efforts for peace are frustrated. Casualties have been high as the occupying forces impose ever tighter controls. From September 2000 until March 2006, 3,982 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis were killed in the second intifada, and these numbers include many children: 708 Palestinians and 123 Israelis. As indicated earlier, there was an ever-rising toll of dead and wounded from the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza and Lebanon.

. . . .

Hopefully enough people will find a way to make peace work - violence has certainly not.

 

[kyleb]

Neither America nor Israel nor any other country is a monolithic culture or society - rather most nations are pluralistic societies.

Many in the US, who support Israel, do so for many reasons. I do not equate support of Israel with support for Zionists or Zionism, and certainly not all Israelis or Jews are Zionist, just as not all Americans are Republican or Democrat, nor Christian or Atheist.

Sure, and many Zionists are not Israelis or Jews either, but rather rabid bigots who believe in prophecies which suggest that Jewish people will eventually either wind up converting to Christianity or burning in eternally hellfire. However, I am fairly sure those Armageddonists don't make up any majority of our population, and you don't rightly strike me as that type; so I am curious as to why you take issue with Ahmadinejad's suggestion that our public has been fooled into accepting our governments continual support of the Zionists ongoing expropriation of what little is left of Palestine?

 

[ptabor]

Sure, and many Zionists are not Israelis or Jews either, but rather rabid bigots who believe in prophecies which suggest that Jewish people will eventually either wind up converting to Christianity or burning in eternally hellfire. However, I am fairly sure those Armageddonists don't make up any majority of our population, and you don't rightly strike me as that type; so I am curious as to why you take issue with Ahmadinejad's suggestion that our public has been fooled into accepting our governments continual support of the Zionists ongoing expropriation of what little is left of Palestine?

Show me palestine on a map... there is no such nation.

The palestinian people are living on land that is not theirs. Some would believe that the palestinians want to exist side by side with the israeli nation - but I don't think this is the case. The palestinians have demostrated that they are incapable of living side by side peacefully (as evidenced by rocket attacks and suicide bombings against civilian targets). Furthermore, with the election of Hamas to power (a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel), the palestinians have shown they have no desire for separate states - they want israel itself.

If the arab nations truly wanted peace with israel, they would make a good will gesture and convince Jordan or Lebanon or Egypt to grant some of its land to the palestinian people. Instead, Iran gives material support to Hamas to continue their war against the israelis while spewing rhetoric.

As far as I'm concerned, the palestinian people are fortunate Israel hasn't decided to purge them from their land once and for all.

 

[kyleb]

Of course Israel has been purging Palestinians from their land since before the nation was founded, more recent examples of which can be seen in http://www.btselem.org/Download/Separation_Barrier_Map_Eng.pdf" .

That isn't "living side by side", it is the latter part of nearly a century of consist expansion pushing the Palestinians to the side, and suggesting that the violent responses to that plundering of their land is justification to continue the process is almost as absurd as claiming that Arab nations should assist in your vision to ethnically cleanse the whole area. I doubt many Americans would knowingly be signing on for anything of the sort, so I am curious as to what reasons anyone here might have for claiming Ahmadinejad is wrong for suggesting otherwise?

 

[Yonoz]

*Banging war drums*

 

[kyleb]

Jimmy Carter obviously agrees with the suggestion that the American public has been fooled intoaccepting our government’s policies toward Israel, here is a quote out of his new book which Astronuc previously mentioned:

The unwavering official policy of the United States since Israel became a state has been that its borders must coincide with those prevailing from 1949 until 1967 (unless modified by mutually agreeable land swaps), specified in the unanimously adopted U.N. Resolution 242, which mandates Israel's withdrawal from occupied territories. This obligation was reconfirmed by Israel's leaders in agreements negotiated in 1978 at Camp David and in 1993 at Oslo, for which they received the Nobel Peace Prize, and both of these commitments were officially ratified by the Israeli government. Also, as a member of the International Quartet that includes Russia, the United Nations, and the European Union, America supports the Roadmap for Peace, which espouses exactly the same requirements. Palestinian leaders unequivocally accepted this proposal, but Israel has officially rejected its key provisions with unacceptable caveats and prerequisites.

The overriding problem is that, for more than a quarter century, the actions of some Israeli leaders have been in direct conflict with the official policies of the United States, the international community, and their own negotiated agreements.Israel's continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Holy Land. In order to perpetuate the occupation, Israeli forces have deprived their unwilling subjects of basic human rights. No objective person could personally observe existing conditions in the West Bank and dispute these statements.

More quotes from Carter's book, slected historian Norman Finkelstein highlight the key points of the issue, can be found http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=676" .

 

[Yonoz]

Interesting timing kyleb.
I was in Sderot a week ago. FYI that city has been experiencing rocket attacks on an almost daily basis for over a year now, in spite of a ceasefire between Israel and the PA Hamas government (not even mentioning the Gaza pullout). That government's head said only yesterday that the PA will never recognize Israel right of existence. I don't know of any other country that has unilaterally maintained a ceasefire while one of its cities was being bombarded, daily.
So much for "the overriding problem".

 

[Astronuc]

so I am curious as to why you take issue with Ahmadinejad's suggestion that our public has been fooled into accepting our governments continual support of the Zionists ongoing expropriation of what little is left of Palestine?

Because the public is not fooled. The Bush administration does what it pleases, often secretly with very little discussion in the public domain. I think the US public is largely ignorant of world affairs, except those who have a vested political and economic interest in the status quo.

The media also bear a responsibility, but Bush and his administration do not control the media - the management do.

Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans

I have a big problem with Ahmadinejad's belligerent rhetoric as much as I have a problem with George Bush's belligerent rhetoric.

We are all inclined towards the good, and towards extending a helping hand to one another, particularly to those in need.

We all deplore injustice, the trampling of peoples' rights and the intimidation and humiliation of human beings.

We all detest darkness, deceit, lies and distortion, and seek and admire salvation, enlightenment, sincerity and honesty.

. . . .

We all condemn terrorism, because its victims are the innocent.

I see that Ahmadinejad is rather disingenous. Various groups in Iran are subject to repression. I do not see Ahmadinejad calling for a dialog and/or reconciliation with Israel. He simply condems Zionists and calls for their destruction. And his comments are in contrast to the support of Hezbollah, who fire rockets into Iraeli cities and towns, or engage in military action against the territory of Israel.

When it comes to the nuclear program, the Iranian government has been less than forthcoming with the facts.

Certainly there is the matter of the Israeli detention of Palestinians, including many children and youth, and the 'collateral damage', those innocent bystanders who are maimed or killed when the Israeli military kills an Palestinian militant. But then there is the matter of suicide bombers who target unarmed non-combatants, i.e. civilian population.

Many Americans support Israel, even while disagreeing with some of its policies, and it is not because the US government or media misleads the public.

Again, the US is not a monolithic culture. The Bush administration is largely composed of Americans who generally support Bush's policies. There are many more Americans, including the political opposition, who disagree with Bush, but still support Israel.

Finally it is difficult to determine if Bush and his administration are 'blind' to Israeli policies, or are indifferent, or support Israeli policy, or some combination thereof.

Even Zionism is not a monolithic movement, but there is a spectrum of thought and ideas. The core however is a belief that a 'nation state of Israel' has a right to exist, in peace and with security. The Palestinians also belief they have a similar right. I don't see the two ideas as mutually exclusive. However, having two governments controlling the same territory is not possible, and therein lies the conflict, and the fact that elements of each population apparently seek the eradication of members of the other population is also a source of a seemingly intractable conflict.

At the moment, I do not have a satisfactory solution to the problem.

However, as for Ahmadinejad, I doubt/question his sincerity and integrity as much as I question Bush's integrity.

 

[Anttech]

I think you omitted a key point regarding Zionism, which is the crux of many problems, you stated:

The core however is a belief that a 'nation state of Israel' has a right to exist

I would add to that, in the historic land of the Jews.

 

[Yonoz]

I would add to that, in the historic land of the Jews.

Technically that's not exactly right, there have been Zionists who called for the Jewish homeland to be established in other locations. Herzl himself proposed Uganda, and before that there have been attempts to settle Jews in South America (Jewish cowboys, would you believe it?). There was also the http://www.naa.gov.au/Publications/research_guides/guides/haven/chapter2.htm" which some consider to be a Zionist enterprise.
Here's an interesting interview: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/ark/stories/2006/1534158.htm"

 

[kyleb]

Interesting timing kyleb.
I was in Sderot a week ago. FYI that city has been experiencing rocket attacks on an almost daily basis for over a year now, in spite of a ceasefire between Israel and the PA Hamas government (not even mentioning the Gaza pullout). That government's head said only yesterday that the PA will never recognize Israel right of existence. I don't know of any other country that has unilaterally maintained a ceasefire while one of its cities was being bombarded, daily.
So much for "the overriding problem".

The occupation and colonization has been happening for far longer than the rocket attacks or the PA, so how exactly are you trying to claim the occupation is anything but the overriding problem here? And in regard to the part I italicized; would you please provide a direct quote of what and explain exactly who you are referring to here so we can discuss the facts behind your claim?

 

[kyleb]

Because the public is not fooled. The Bush administration does what it pleases, often secretly with very little discussion in the public domain. I think the US public is largely ignorant of world affairs, except those who have a vested political and economic interest in the status quo.

How is that anything but being fooled?

The media also bear a responsibility, but Bush and his administration do not control the media - the management do.

And as Ahmadinejad specifically mentions the media's responsibility in what you https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1175356&postcount=454", which makes me even more curious as to hear what you were taking issue with in that? What responsibility are you claiming the media bears here, if not that of fooling the public?

Ahmadinejad's letter to Americans

I have a big problem with Ahmadinejad's belligerent rhetoric as much as I have a problem with George Bush's belligerent rhetoric.
...

Understood, but I certainly am not, and I don't think anyone is, trying to claim the man is a Saint or anything of the sort; rather my interest is specifically about what you contested above.

 

[Yonoz]

The occupation and colonization has been happening for far longer than the rocket attacks or the PA, so how exactly are you trying to claim the occupation is anything but the overriding problem here?

I really don't want to go down the "who started it" road again... May I remind you the occupation is the direct result of the Arab nations' refusal to accept Israel's existence and corresponding acts. Before Hamas there was the PLO, before the PLO there were the Fedayeen and so forth. Different name, different weapon, same ideology.

And in regard to the part I italicized; would you please provide a direct quote of what and explain exactly who you are referring to here so we can discuss the facts behind your claim?

It's at the beginning of the second paragraph of the quoted text in your post.

 

[kyleb]

I'm sorry, I forgot about the fact that the forum italicizes the whole quote, I'm curious as to hear what statement you are referring to here:

That government's head said only yesterday that the PA will never recognize Israel right of existence.

?

 

[Yonoz]

I'm sorry, I forgot about the fact that the forum italicizes the whole quote, I'm curious as to hear what statement you are referring to here?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6161477.stm"

 

[kyleb]

Extrapolating from a translation is a bit of a logical leap, he could arguably be talking in regard to the pre '67 boarders there.

 

[grant9076]

Extrapolating from a translation is a bit of a logical leap, he could arguably be talking in regard to the pre '67 boarders there.

It is likely that if Ismail Haniya was quoted in his native language, some would still deny it as evidence on grounds that they cannot understand it. Regardless, the fact that he reiterated that his government will not recognize Israel clearly indicates that he is referring to the present and future (not some past conflict).

Also, regarding the original topic, Ahmadinejad's recent conference with the holocaust deniers speaks volumes.

 

[Yonoz]

Extrapolating from a translation is a bit of a logical leap, he could arguably be talking in regard to the pre '67 boarders there.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5016012.stm"

 

[kyleb]

Regardless, the fact that he reiterated that his government will not recognize Israel clearly indicates that he is referring to the present and future (not some past conflict).

That is how I understand it as well, and that is what I'm getting at. Would you be willing to recognize a nation that is colonizing your homeland under force of military occupation?

And yeah Yonoz, I'm familar with their charter, but I'm also familiar with http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/08/world/main1294380.shtml" as well.

 

[Yonoz]

And yeah Yonoz, I'm familar with their charter, but I'm also familiar with http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/02/08/world/main1294380.shtml" as well.

A truce is not a permanent peace treaty. As far as I can see, every time they struck a truce they only used it to refresh their armed forces, since they can move people and arms freely without fearing an Israeli assault. They know the IDF will not attack them until it has evidence that an armed attack is being planned.

 

[Astronuc]

A truce is not a permanent peace treaty. As far as I can see, every time they struck a truce they only used it to refresh their armed forces, since they can move people and arms freely without fearing an Israeli assault. They know the IDF will not attack them until it has evidence that an armed attack is being planned.

That has also been my observation.

If Hamas and Ahmadinejad (Iran's ayatollahs) are serious/sincere about peace, then let them recognize Israel, reconcile and find a peaceful solution to problems that plague the Palestinians and Middle East, e.g. the conflict between Fatah and Hamas.

Gunmen kill three sons of Abbas aide in Gaza
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061211/wl_nm/palestinians_dc

GAZA (Reuters) - Unidentified gunmen killed three sons of a Palestinian intelligence official loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas in Gaza on Monday, firing at a car as it dropped the boys at school, police and hospital officials said.

An adult bystander was also killed in the attack in Gaza City, which came amid growing tension between Hamas, the governing militant group, and Abbas's more moderate Fatah.

Angry mourners firing automatic weapons later stormed into the parliament compound during a funeral for the boys, who were aged between 6 and 9. There were no reports of injuries.

Some 2,000 people took part in the funeral, including the boys' father, Colonel Baha Balousha, who was heavily guarded. Relatives carried his three sons in their arms. The bodies were wrapped in white sheets.

http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/news/world/16219778.htm

In Monday's attack, masked assailants who blocked the road with their vehicle jumped out and sprayed gunfire at the car carrying the children, killing Balousheh's three sons, Osama, 9, Ahmad, 6, and Salam, 3, along with a bodyguard, witnesses said. At least two other people were wounded.

This is sick! This is pure evil!

This event seems similar to sectarian violence (civil war) between Sunni and Shii in Iraq. There is concern that Sunni nations my support Iraqi Sunnis and Iran and Shiite nations will support the Iraqi Shii in a continued sectarian conflict which may spill over the borders into a regional war.

Saudis Say They Might Back Sunnis if U.S. Leaves Iraq
http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html

WASHINGTON, Dec. 12 — Saudi Arabia has told the Bush administration that it might provide financial backing to Iraqi Sunnis in any war against Iraq’s Shiites if the United States pulls its troops out of Iraq, according to American and Arab diplomats.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia conveyed that message to Vice President Dick Cheney two weeks ago during Mr. Cheney’s whirlwind visit to Riyadh, the officials said. During the visit, King Abdullah also expressed strong opposition to diplomatic talks between the United States and Iran, and pushed for Washington to encourage the resumption of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, senior Bush administration officials said.

The Saudi warning reflects fears among America’s Sunni Arab allies about Iran’s rising influence in Iraq, coupled with Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. King Abdullah II of Jordan has also expressed concern about rising Shiite influence, and about the prospect that the Shiite-dominated government would use Iraqi troops against the Sunni population.

A senior Bush administration official said Tuesday that part of the administration’s review of Iraq policy involved the question of how to harness a coalition of moderate Iraqi Sunnis with centrist Shiites to back the Iraqi government led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki.

The Saudis have argued strenuously against an American pullout from Iraq, citing fears that Iraq’s minority Sunni Arab population would be massacred. Those fears, United States officials said, have become more pronounced as a growing chorus in Washington has advocated a draw-down of American troops in Iraq, coupled with diplomatic outreach to Iran, which is largely Shiite.

 

[Yonoz]

This event seems similar to sectarian violence (civil war) between Sunni and Shii in Iraq. There is concern that Sunni nations my support Iraqi Sunnis and Iran and Shiite nations will support the Iraqi Shii in a continued sectarian conflict which may spill over the borders into a regional war.

Saudis Say They Might Back Sunnis if U.S. Leaves Iraq
http://travel.nytimes.com/2006/12/13/world/middleeast/13saudi.html

Yours is a very genuine concern. It's unfortunate that this division in the Muslim world has only become general knowledge for most people because of the war in Iraq.

 

[Astronuc]

Yours is a very genuine concern. It's unfortunate that this division in the Muslim world has only become general knowledge for most people because of the war in Iraq.

Yeah - Bush didn't realize that there were Sunni and Shii. Various members in his administration and congress were oblivious to the divisions in the Muslim world, and those who had some idea seemed to minimize or ignore it. It seems that various administration officials assumed they could simply impose US (or rather Republican) ideas on Iraq and it would happen.

Galbraith points out that the existence of Iraq was forced and that the partitioning of Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiistan and a Sunni Region is a logical and inevitable consequence of the US invasion. The problem is that Bush is still trying to impose his view (delusion) on the Iraqis.

 

[Yonoz]

Galbraith points out that the existence of Iraq was forced and that the partitioning of Iraq into Kurdistan, Shiistan and a Sunni Region is a logical and inevitable consequence of the US invasion. The problem is that Bush is still trying to impose his view (delusion) on the Iraqis.

I think that some of Iraq's neighbors strongly oppose the formation of a Kurdish state.

 

[MeJennifer]

Astronuc unless you live in the Middle East why would we be concerned about that? If they hate each other and want to kill each other well what it that up to us. I suppose you think we are our brother's keeper of so right, that we need to be the world policeman to keep people from fighting?

I think the only thing we in the western world need to watch for is that no state in the middle east becomes powerful enough to form some kind of a military theat to us.

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc unless you live in the Middle East why would we be concerned about that? If they hate each other and want to kill each other well what it that up to us. I suppose you think we are our brother's keeper of so right, that we need to be the world policeman to keep people from fighting?

Because I am concerned about war and human suffering. I don't think the US has any business being the world's policeman - it has done a rather poor job so far.

The US does not observe international law, particuarly in the case of Iraq. Upon occupation of the country, the US became responsible for security in Iraq having destroyed the sovereign government. The Bush administration failed miserably in its obligation.

It would take an extraordinary person to bring peace to the Middle East, someone along the lines of the Islamic equivalent of Buddha.

 

[Astronuc]

I think that some of Iraq's neighbors strongly oppose the formation of a Kurdish state.

Well, Turkey seems more amenable to a Kurdish state - possibly as a buffer to Arab Iraq. The Kurds are pretty mild compared to Sunni and Shii at the moment.

Al Qaida is a militant Sunni organization and apparently the al Qaida extremists consider Shii as apostates. Such extreme negative feelings do not bode well for the future.

 

[MeJennifer]

Because I am concerned about war and human suffering.

Everybody is, especially for their own suffering!

But sometimes it is a thing of "us versus they". When someone attacks you there are basically two things you can do, you can defend yourself and make sure they cannot attack you anymore or you simply do nothing and hope the problem will go away.
Which of the two strategies will reduce your personal suffering and your family's Astronuc?

I don't think the US has any business being the world's policeman - it has done a rather poor job so far.

The US is simply defending itself against the Muslim threat out of the Middle East. Attack is most often the best defense!

The US does not observe international law, particuarly in the case of Iraq.

The US is a sovereign nation and does not need to justify its actions to anybody!
Let me guess, you would like to see a world government who will judge what countries can do and cannot do right? But if that ever will happen then the law of the strongest will simply make those in power more powerful. Unlike Jesus I do not think that the meek will inherit the earth, those who take power and who use opportunity will.

Upon occupation of the country, the US became responsible for security in Iraq having destroyed the sovereign government. The Bush administration failed miserably in its obligation.

Perhaps by your moral standards but it is hardly practical. Have you ever read world history Astronuc? Every conquered nation is either assimilated or is up against a long period of hardship. Now you may not like that, it may be against your principles but history seldom does not repeat itself. Politics is about pragmatism not about showing high morals.

It would take an extraordinary person to bring peace to the Middle East, someone along the lines of the Islamic equivalent of Buddha.

Well IMHO religion is one of the sources of a lot of the trouble in the world. As long as we have the "priest" figure, who "knows" and is obliged to tell others on how to behave and think we have reason to be suspicious. And to me that means shoot first and ask questions later if we have to.
Having another religious nutcase is the last thing we can us IMHO.

Don't get me wrong Astronuc, you seem like a very nice and likeable person and definately someone with a heart but in matters of politics and power it is not the heart that rules.

 

[Astronuc]

. . . , but in matters of politics and power it is not the heart that rules.

"Closer To The Heart" - Rush

And the men who hold high places
Must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality
Closer to the heart
Closer to the heart
The blacksmith and the artist
Reflect it in their art
They forge their creativity
Closer to the heart
Closer to the heart

Philosophers and ploughmen
Each must know his part
To sow a new mentality
Closer to the heart
Closer to the heart
You can be the captain
I will draw the chart
Sailing into destiny
Closer to the heart

 

[Astronuc]

Local Elections Test for Iran President

By NASSER KARIMI
The Associated Press
Thursday, December 14, 2006; 3:52 PM

TEHRAN, Iran -- Iranians go to the polls Friday for local council elections that are expected to be a first test of support for hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad since he took office more than a year ago.

Ahmadinejad could face dissatisfaction among conservatives, some of whom feel he has been too caught up in confrontations with the West and has failed to deal with Iran's struggling economy.

Reformists _ whose movement was largely crushed by hard-liners after dominating the councils, parliament and the presidency in the late 1990s and early 2000s _ are hoping the vote will show popular support on which to rebuild.

All 233,000 candidates, including some 5,000 women, for town and city councils across the country were vetted by parliamentary committees, which are dominated by hard-liners. The committees disqualified about 10,000 nominees, reports said.

. . . .

Voters also will elect the Assembly of Experts, a body of 86 senior clerics that is charged with monitoring Iran's supreme leader and choosing his successor.

. . . .

It will be only the third time that Iranians vote for local councils, a reform introduced by former reformist President Mohammad Khatami in 1999.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/14/AR2006121401042.html


Well - the results

Ahmadinejad opponents leading in local Iranian elections!

TEHRAN: Conservative opponents of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are leading in Iran's local elections, according to partial results announced by the Interior Ministry on Monday.

The trend appears to be an embarrassment for Ahmadinejad, whose anti- Israeli rhetoric and unyielding position on Iran's nuclear program have provoked condemnation in the West and moves toward sanctions at the UN Security Council.

Partial results of Friday's polls provided by the Interior Ministry suggested that Ahmadinejad's allies had largely failed to win control of local councils. Instead, candidates supporting the Tehran mayor, Mohammed Bagher Qalibaf, a moderate conservative allied with the former president, Hashemi Rafsanjani, and opposed to Ahmadinejad, have taken the lead.

The partial results also indicated that reformers were making a comeback, after having been suppressed in the parliamentary elections of 2004 when many of their best candidates were barred from running.

From the results declared on Monday, it looked as if Qalibaf supporters were due to win 7 of the 15 seats on the Tehran City Council and reformists would get another 4 seats. Three seats would be won by the president's allies and one would go to an independent.

. . .

Rafsanjani, who lost to Ahmadinejad in the 2005 election runoff, won a Tehran seat on the Assembly of Experts with a high number of votes.

By contrast, an ally of the president, Ayatollah Muhammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi, won an assembly seat with a low toll. Yazdi is regarded as Ahmadinejad's spiritual mentor.

A political analyst, Mostafa Mirzaeian, said Iran's political lineup was changing in favor of moderate voices within the ruling Islamic establishment.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/12/18/news/iran.php

Seems to be a positive development.

What we need is dialog - not war.

 

[Astronuc]

Seeking Iran Intelligence, U.S. Tries Google
Internet Search Yields Names Cited in U.N. Draft Resolution


By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, December 11, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/10/AR2006121000959.html

When the State Department recently asked the CIA for names of Iranians who could be sanctioned for their involvement in a clandestine nuclear weapons program, the agency refused, citing a large workload and a desire to protect its sources and tradecraft.

Frustrated, the State Department assigned a junior Foreign Service officer to find the names another way -- by using Google. Those with the most hits under search terms such as "Iran and nuclear," three officials said, became targets for international rebuke Friday when a sanctions resolution circulated at the United Nations.

Policymakers and intelligence officials have always struggled when it comes to deciding how and when to disclose secret information, such as names of Iranians with suspected ties to nuclear weapons. In some internal debates, policymakers win out and intelligence is made public to further political or diplomatic goals. In other cases, such as this one, the intelligence community successfully argues that protecting information outweighs the desires of some to share it with the world.

Maybe they could use Wikipedia too!

Whatever happened to letting the fingers do the walking through the Yellow Pages? Oh - that was before the internet.

 

[Astronuc]

Iranians Vote for Change in Local Elections
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6645702

Morning Edition, December 19, 2006 · Partial returns from last Friday's elections in Iran indicate a setback for conservative President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad. The President's supporters have apparently failed to gain control of either the Tehran city council or the powerful Assembly of Experts, a group of clerics who appoint the country's Supreme Leader.

So there's hope - I hope.

 

[Rach3]

What do you do with a problem like Ahmadinejad?

Oh!

How do you solve
a problem like
Mahmoud...