NationStates Jolt Archive

US hawks rooting for hardline Iranian candidate
June 24 2005 03:00

As hardliners and pragmatists battle it out in the final round of Iran's presidential election today, rifts within the Bush administration have exposed a lack of coherent US policy towards the Islamic republic, as well as serious differences with much of Europe.

US "hawks", he said, had a bizarre preference for Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, a fundamentalist and hardliner, over Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who sought to establish his more pragmatic credentials in part by making overtures to the US during his election campaign.

For the US hardliners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Mr Rafsanjani presents the danger of exacerbating the divisions between the US, which is essentially trying to contain Iran, and Europe which favours the engagement approach.

And this comes as a surprise to you???

Don't you ever get tired of posting bogus flamebait? Hint: We're not gonna freakout and bite.

Don't you ever get tired of posting bogus flamebait? Hint: We're not gonna freakout and bite.
Who? Me??? :confused:

*snip
I want 4 more years...remember?

;)

Don't you ever get tired of posting bogus flamebait? Hint: We're not gonna freakout and bite.

This coming from you?? You're flamebait central!

Anyway, this is just a case of 'birds of a feather'. Maybe if Iran goes nuclear the hawks wil finally get the chance to nuke something since Cuba and Russia were such big disappointments ;)

If this keeps up though there are going to be a massive split from the Republican base. If the disenfranchised split maybe they'll form another party made of ACTUAL conservatives. Be nice for a change (although I'd rather see more left-leaning parties). The Dems may get a lot more support afterwards.

Time will tell with that I guess.

Anyway, this is just a case of 'birds of a feather'. Maybe if Iran goes nuclear the hawks wil finally get the chance to nuke something since Cuba and Russia were such big disappointments ;) The so called neocon "Hawks" are chickenshit anyways...

they are scared to do something about Nkorea or about the Saudis

The so called neocon "Hawks" are chickenshit anyways...

they are scared to do something about Nkorea or about the Saudis
Hmm, apparently you're eager for anywhere from 500,000 to upwards of 3 million South Koreans to die from North Korean arty and infantry.

Hmm, apparently you're eager for anywhere from 500,000 to upwards of 3 million South Koreans to die from North Korean arty and infantry.

Bah. N Korea aint that stupid.

Goodbye foreign aid. Hello carpet bombing.

If they pull any shit they'll be turned into a crater to keep them from going nuclear.

Bah. N Korea aint that stupid.

Goodbye foreign aid. Hello carpet bombing.

If they pull any shit they'll be turned into a crater to keep them from going nuclear.

Considering that at last count, the artillery batteries were already in place and pointed, Seoul would be a burned out wreck by the time the bombs started falling.

Yes, technically the US could turn NK into a large series of craters, but at the same time, you would have massive casualties in SK as well. That would be a political nightmare no politician who ever hopes to be reinstated would ever want to take part in.

Who? Me??? :confused:

Of course not you Eutrusca, you're one of the few people I respect on this forum. I meant none other than the creator of this and many other non-topics, OceanDrive.

they are scared to do something about Nkorea or about the Saudis

So say the Kings of Inaction. But then again we wouldn't need to do something about N. Korea if some dipshit democrat president hadn't given a lunatic communist dictator fissionable material. Once again, we're cleaning up leftist messes.

...
... But then again we wouldn't need to do something about N. Korea if some dipshit democrat president hadn't given a lunatic communist dictator fissionable material. Once again, we're cleaning up leftist messes.
Leonid Brezhnev was certainly a leftist, but calling him 'democrat' is a stretch.

US hawks rooting for hardline Iranian candidate
June 24 2005 03:00

As hardliners and pragmatists battle it out in the final round of Iran's presidential election today, rifts within the Bush administration have exposed a lack of coherent US policy towards the Islamic republic, as well as serious differences with much of Europe.

US "hawks", he said, had a bizarre preference for Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, a fundamentalist and hardliner, over Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who sought to establish his more pragmatic credentials in part by making overtures to the US during his election campaign.

For the US hardliners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Mr Rafsanjani presents the danger of exacerbating the divisions between the US, which is essentially trying to contain Iran, and Europe which favours the engagement approach.

A few comments:

1) A link would be nice. Having a valid or at least semi-valid source would greatly increase the chances of this having an impact on people. As it stands this is nothing but your own personal opinion, and I doubt highly you know Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, or any other of the neocons.

2) Rifts in the Bush administration. Who supports what side? All this post says is Cheney and Rumsfeld support the hardliner.

3) This source (assuming you aren't making this up) seems highly biased. More neutral sources may help.

4) The articles mention "he said" (without any quotation marks around what "he" saids uggesting that this source is very unreliable because they can't even quote properly), but it doesn't tell us who "he" is, suggesting that either you butchered the article or the article is incoherent rambling. As well, the he in question could be the Joker from Gotham Peneitentiary for all we know about him. What puts "him" in a position to know about this.

Overall I do no believe you and won't until such a time as my concerns are dealt with. I have a suspicion you may be making this up. As well I believe that post is nothing but flamebait or trolling.

3) This source (assuming you aren't making this up) seems highly biased. More neutral sources may help.

4)...he in question could be the Joker from Gotham Peneitentiary.LOL who is this Joker?

and what line on my post makes you say the source is "highly" biased?...

are you saying (any part of it) its a lie?

LOL who is this Joker?

and what line on my post makes you say the source is "highly" biased?...

are you saying (any part of it) its a lie?

Until you provide a viable source of proof? It will be treated as an opinion. No element of truth or untruth. Source of proof will change its standings.

4) The articles mention "he said" (without any quotation marks around what "he" saids uggesting that this source is very unreliable because they can't even quote properly), but it doesn't tell us who "he" is, suggesting that either you butchered the article ....
I picked the part that i find most interesting...sometimes people like me do not want to read long articles...

here is the full enchilada.
_______________________________________________

US hawks rooting for hardline Iranian candidate
June 24 2005 03:00

As hardliners and pragmatists battle it out in the final round of Iran's presidential election today, rifts within the Bush administration have exposed a lack of coherent US policy towards the Islamic republic, as well as serious differences with much of Europe.

"The Bush administration is as deeply divided as the Iranian government," commented Ken Pollack, analyst at the Brookings Institution.

US "hawks", he said, had a bizarre preference for Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad, a fundamentalist and hardliner, over Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president who sought to establish his more pragmatic credentials in part by making overtures to the US during his election campaign.

For the US hardliners, led by Vice-President Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, Mr Rafsanjani presents the danger of exacerbating the divisions between the US, which is essentially trying to contain Iran, and Europe which favours the engagement approach.

The US hawks also believe that a convergence of hardliners in Iran with the victory of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad is more likely to precipitate the collapse of the Islamic regime through popular unrest than the "Chinese model" of social pacification likely to be embraced by Mr Rafsanjani. One hardline official told the FT he saw no evidence that Mr Rasanjani was less committed to developing nuclear weapons. The Bush administration, he said, harboured deep scepticism over the prospects of success in the nuclear freeze talks with Iran led by France, Germany and the UK.

Even before Iranians had cast a vote in the first round last Friday, the Bush administration and conservatives in Washington had denounced the election as a sham and illegitimate.

President George W. Bush said on the eve of the vote that the Iranian electoral process, where all candidates are vetted, "ignores the basic requirements of democracy". He said it was a regime that "brutalises its people".

Iranian activists said the exiled opposition had lobbied the administration and members of Congress to condemn the vote in advance.

Even analysts like Mr Pollack who advocate a constructive and united US-EU diplomatic approach towards Iran admit that Mr Rafsanjani would be a "deeply problematic" president for the US. "No one trusts Rafsanjani," he said.

Much would hang on the position - as yet unclear - of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, who has shown pragmatic inclinations of his own on occasion but is heavily under the influence of hardline clerics vehemently opposed to rapprochement with the US.

Hadi Semati, an Iranian analyst at the Woodrow Wilson Center in Washington, said Mr Rafsanjani might be able to persuade the conservatives in Iran to be more receptive to dialogue with the US but only if the US was willing to moderate its position. And there was no sign of that, he said.

The most recent exposition of US policy towards Iran was delivered to a Senate hearing on May 19 by Nicholas Burns, under secretary of state for political affairs. He spoke of the "perverted process" of the Iranian elections, the intolerance of its theocracy, the pain still felt by the US by the storming of its embassy in 1979, Iran's "appalling human rights record" and its support for terrorists.

European diplomats said yesterday that a victory by Mr Ahmadi-Nejad would complicate nuclear talks as the UK, France and Germany prepare to make a detailed compromise offer on curbing Iran's enrichment activities.

If Mr Ahmadi-Nejad presides over the executive in Iran, said one diplomat, Iran's engagement with Europe promoted by outgoing reformist president Mohammad Khatami would become more "difficult".

MAHMOUD AHMADI-NEJAD

CAREER

Age: 49:

Elected mayor of Tehran in 2003. A leading member of a rising hardline group calling themselves 'fundamentalists' and seeking to return to the ideals of the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This new generation of politicians are fiercely loyal to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in matters of state.

ON RELATIONS WITH US

"We should announce firmly that we will not accept imposed relations. But if the US gives up hostility and recognises our nation's rights, then there is the possibility of considering relations."

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6614e78-e44b-11d9-a754-00000e2511c8.html

Considering the entire election's a sham, doesn't really matter does it?

http://www.publiuspundit.com/?p=1245

Read and learn, or not, makes no difference to me really.

So the reason why anybody other then Ken Pollack would care what Ken Pollack thinks would be...? o_O

I picked the part that i find most interesting...sometimes people like me do not want to read long articles...

<snip>

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6614e78-e44b-11d9-a754-00000e2511c8.htmlNevertheless, you should at least include a link to the whole thing in the opening post of your topic so that people know you're not making stuff up. A friendly, but official, suggestion from a Moderator.

Thank you for posting a link.

--The Modified Democratic States of Cogitation
NationStates Game Moderator

So the reason why anybody other then Ken Pollack would care what Ken Pollack thinks would be...? o_O
I dont care who KenPollack is.

I could care about what he has to say...if -in my opinion- it was interesting.

what the finantial Post says about Cheney and Runsfield is interesting enough for me.

Until you provide a viable source of proof? It will be treated as an opinion. No element of truth or untruth. Source of proof will change its standings.http://news.ft.com/cms/s/d6614e78-e...000e2511c8.html

i dont have proof...
but i trust the contents of this article.

you killed the FT server, and as I provided evidence of before, the elections are a sham. If the president is nothing more than a puppet of the mullahs, then the question becomes would we want the one that looks nice or the one that looks nasty. The latter makes the most sense.

you killed the FT server...holy shiite !!!

:D

Considering the entire election's a sham...you mean more than Florida 2000?

And this comes as a surprise to you???
Yes, it is a surprise that the Vice President of the USA wants as much emnity as possible with Iran and Europe. Isn't it?

Mind you, They have a point about the hardliner inspiring internal popular unrest in Iran, which would be far preferable to an American invasion (which actually would be another Vietnam).

If this keeps up though there are going to be a massive split from the Republican base. If the disenfranchised split maybe they'll form another party made of ACTUAL conservatives.
There are no actual conservatives left, thankfully.

you mean more than Florida 2000?
You misunderstand. The elected president of Iran has very little power. He's a figurehead.

Seriously though, let's not get started with the 2000 election ranting again.

you mean more than Florida 2000?


There are still people whining about this?

hmmmm, things were so much simpler when we had the communists to blame everything on, i say we declare a new cold war...on Canada!

... let's not get started with the 2000 election ranting again.I hereby serve notice to all bushites that:
I reserve myself the right to bring up FloridaGate whenever I feel like it...

*God i love Freedom of speech* :D

I heard this too. That the US hardliners want the Iranians to dispell notions of a negotiated settlement. By placing a hardliner in power, Iran is less likely to pussyfoot around with the Europeans, and thus less likely to "negotiate" for the next couple of years as it quietly builds its first few nukes.

Iran going nuclear is a significant threat, and if the US "hawks" are worried about the (very real) possibility that the Iranians have no intention of brokering a deal with the EU, this might be a credible way of doing business.

But this plan relies on the hardliners actually breaking down talks with the EU, by no means a garuntee.

I wonder what else is being planned. I mean, IF what I've heard is true, than the talks are useless anyway, but if the talks break down...What else is left besides force? That would be a horrific blow to US intrests if they had to resort to force to resolve the conflict, the PR fallout would be extreme.

Not to mention that N.Korea would likely wet its pants, knowing its next. I don't like that idea much etheir; an flatly insane government with nothing to lose? Once again, I find that we have been placed in the situation of simply having to hope that the powers that be actually know what they are doing.

Iran going nuclear is a significant threat.why?

why?

Because it complicates the equation tremendously. Iran is not friendly with the US and many of its allies, and with the US acting increasingly aggressively things could spiral out of control quickly.

There is also the old bogeyman of Iran spreading Nuke-technology to other parties...parties that the US might not be keen on becoming nuclear.

Third is simply that the US is not keen on a problem area having even more Nukes on hand; more nukes equals more potential for accidents to happen.

Last is the most troubling to me; the US might be planning an invasion of Iran. As much as I hate the idea of that, Iran having nukes would be an excellent pretext for war, and a tremendously dangerous wild card for the Iranians to play.

Israel has already pretty much said that it would move militarily to remove Iran's nuclear capability. Their thinly vield threats will spark new unreast throughout the mideast; something nobody needs right now. They've done it before with Iraq remember, so there's little doubt they would shrink from it now.

The dissemination of nuclear technology has always been a cause of great concern, to suggest that more nations should join the nuclear club is simply asking for trouble. Nukes should be reduced and kept to a minimum, not increased and made easily available. Furthermore Iran has not made it clear that it is commited to not spreading nuclear technology to other parties or nations.

The idea of of a new war with Iran is deeply troubling, but if the US continues to push in that direction, Iran having nukes is certainly a good way to justify such an action. The WMD argument was used before, and could certainly be dusted off for a return. And if Iran DID devolp nukes, such a war would be exceedingly dangerous, a great risk to everyone.

Last is the most troubling to me; the US might be planning an invasion of Iran. As much as I hate the idea of that, Iran having nukes would be an excellent pretext for war.
Actually its the other way around...the US would not invade a nuclear state.

that why all the kiddie scenarios USA vs France are laughable...

the US is not going to engage France...and vice versa.

Iran wished to have the same peace of mind that China, franc e UK and Israel enjoy today.


Nukes are the ultimate deterrent.

If I was the President of Iran I would get my country that capbility...specially since Israel already has them.

Actually its the other way around...the US would not invade a nuclear state.

Iran wished to have the same peace of mind that China, franc e UK and Israel enjoy today.

Nukes are the ultimate deterrent.

If I was the President of Iran I would get my country that capbility...specially since Israel already has them.

You might think that, but bringing nukes online and setting them up for deliver will take time, time in which military action could be taken. Even an initial surgical strike could be exploited and turned into a general offensive.

In addition, the timing of such an invasion could easily be made months or weeks before the Nukes were completed. While it may be true that IF Iran can manage to set up a credible number of nukes, delivery systems, and do it all in secret before military action is taken, they'd have gambled and won. But that's a big If. Right now readiness assessments indicate that the Iranians have a number of months to go before they could even build a bomb, let alone a significant number.

And secrecy is a difficult thing to ensure, remember Iran still insists that it only is pursuing a civilian program; it assures the EU that it is not building bombs. Very few people believe them though, it hardly seems likely that they are limiting themselves to civilian reactors.

Iran seems to have made the same equation you have, and see this as working in their favor, but the moment they OPENLY pursue nukes, the Israeli army will move. And if not them, the US army will likely take the job. Both nations have a vested interest in preventing Iran from getting that "peace of mind"

N. Korea also has nukes, but its future is not secure. Obviously troop movements and dispositions indicate that the US is giving them a free pass, but US allies like Japan are considering their own military expansions to counter the N.Korean program. Its still a very volitile situation despite N. Korea's "peace of mind"

A free democracy with nukes, i hate to say, is probably safer than a fanatacal theocracy with nukes. Both are dangerous, but one is signifigantly less.

A free democracy with nukes, i hate to say, is probably safer than a fanatacal theocracy with nukes. Both are dangerous, but one is signifigantly less.

Looking at the track record in the use of force outside national borders, I am forced to disagree with that statement.

Were there a US invasion of Iran, we'll see it done with the blessing of EU states. Unlike the recent unpleasantness in Iraq. I don't know if they will send NATO troops initially, but I bet they'll be there eventually.

It may be a replay of the Balkan campaign. And having EU countries participating will eliminate the contentiousness and international political tensions that plagued the US efforts in Iraq. Whether Russia participates (or whether they sanction the action at all) is, of course, of some concern.

The Iranian military is in poor condition, primarily infantry and mechanized infantry. Same doctrine as during Iran-Iraq war. Very poor tank force and severely degraded air force.

The Iranians should be concerned. They're pushing the brinksmanship envelope.