In his acceptance speech Thursday night at the
Democratic National Convention, President Barack Obama promised not to waiver on Iran
and Israel’s security.
“The
Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear
ambitions,” the president said. He added that during his first term in office,
he “strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to
stop the spread of nuclear weapons.”
On Israel, Obama said, “Our commitment to Israel’s security must
not waiver and neither must our pursuit of peace.” (News Wires)
Photo credit: President Obama delivering his acceptance speech at
the Democratic National Convention. Charlotte, 6 September. (Doug Mills/The New York
Times)
Nixon to China he ain't, I'm sorry to say.
ReplyDeleteGood balanced speech when it comes to Iran and Israel.
ReplyDeleteIran hating obama is like Iran hating carter. We all know what happened to iran when the more hawkish president Reagan got elected.
Obama is Iran's best hope to normalize relations with the USA, if the regime is serious and doesn't insist on keeping "death to America" at the center of its domestic and foreign policy.
@Jabber
ReplyDeleteWe all know what happened to iran when the more hawkish president Reagan got elected.
And what did Reagan do to Iran when he got elected?
@anon 2:48
ReplyDeleteOne word: "Sadam" happened!
@Jabbar Fazeli MD 12:40 AM
ReplyDeleteCarter was worse than Reagan with his so called human rights agenda.
When the Ayatollah was installed, what happened to human rights then?
Iran's best hope is for the nation to unite and overthrow the fascist theocracy.
Also I can't believe you mentioned the fact that Obama is the best hope of normalizing relations with Iran.
Have you forgotten what happened when Obama backed the regime instead of backing the people in the so-called 2009 elections?
I wouldn't trust Ayatollah Obama as far as I could spit.
You seem to have lapsed into the false assumption that you can have normal relations with this anti human terrorist regime.
So by removing "death to America" everything will be hunky dory and business as usual?
Make your mind up and stop dithering regarding this issue.
You are either for the complete removal of this terrorist regime or not.
Which is it?
they shot passenger planes from the skies and decorated the killers.
ReplyDelete@anon 12:40
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with you about the need for change in Iran, I disagree with you on who should be responsible for the change. The Iranian people should be the ones overthrowing their regime, not the American president. Even if the US president decides to go to war with Iran, it won't be to overthrow the regime, the Iranians can use the war to do so, or not.
President Obama is primarily responsible for the American people, and not the Iranian people. He has made no secret of the fact that he didn't care what regime existed in Iran, so long as it behaved responsibly vis-a-vis the USA. I'm sure human rights would be a factor in the relationship, but American interests will come first, such as the nuclear issue, the situation in Iraq, iran's support for Hezbollah, etc. If iran meets the US half way on these issues, president Obama will likely normalize relations with the hated regime, and there wouldn't be anything wrong with that from the prospective of American voters.
Jabber Fazeli MD
ReplyDeleteFriend,read my post again!! Where do I mention that the Americans should overthrow the regime?
I said the Iranian people must unite to overthrow the fascist theocracy!
I'm saying that the US and Britain is indirectly supporting the regime through VOA and the BBC.
These networks only support the regime sponsored so-called opposition towards Ahmadinejad.You and I know that Khameini and IRGC are the true power behind the farcical presidency of the IRI.
So indirectly the US and Britain are already interfering in our internal affairs by reinforcing the state sponsored so-called opposition.
If they want to help,they should just stay away from playing this game created by the IRI and just broadcast sitcoms and songs.
It may not be wrong for the prospective American voters. But it would be a disaster against the Iranian people for the US to normalize relations with this present regime.
Because this regime like Saudi Arabia will survive for years to come.
And we don't want that,do we?
@Jabber
ReplyDeleteAnd I would like to add three words:
"Iran-Contra scandal" happened! The scandal nearly destroyed the Reagan presidency.
@anon 12:37
ReplyDeleteI agree you never said the Americans should overthrow the regime, but you are saying that the US should never normalize relations with Iran unless the regime changes.
This leaves the US with only one way forward in order to protect its interests that involve Iran, and that is to actively instigate regime change in Iran. President Obama is trying to stay out of that messy scenario.
I agree that it would be a set back for all iranian dissidents if relations with the US were to normalize now, but we can't blame the president of the united states for trying to do his job by promoting US interests at the expense of our cause.
With regards to VOA and the BBC, they are simply reacting to events on the ground. Since the only movement on the ground is the token, half ass, intrinsic regime opposition, they have no choice but to cover. I'm confident that if you managed to stir up real revolt and opposition they would be forced to cover that to. I see No conspiracy here.
Just because some of us feel that we get it, doesn't absolve us from the duty to contribute, in a practical way, to actual steps that affect change in iran. For example:
-are you willing to not demonize everything religious, so that a large segment of the Iranian population would feel safe with the prospect of toppling the regime?
-can some of us agree to accept our differences and agree on the bare minimum required for a real push for regime change within Iran? Like democracy, equality, and rule of law?
-can the non-loyalists agree to respect the loyalists point of view, while disagreeing with it wholeheartedly?
-can the communists or MKO take their chances with the Iranian people instead of being ruled out by some of us as a viable part of the opposition.
We have a long way to go my friend, and the people standing in our way are not president Obama, or even Khamenei, it's ourselves.
@anon 1.03
ReplyDeletePresident Reagan was and still is one of the most popular presidents of the united states. Iran-contra resulted in the release of American hostages, and gave sadam a propaganda tool against the IRi as they displayed Iranian military equipment that had the star of David on it. Remember the weapons shiped to Iran where actually borrowed from the Israelis.
Iran gained nothing from the Reagan presidency. They hated Carter at a time when they should have been rooting for him against Reagan. Half a million lives could have been saved.
Evn simple truths take a while to sink in, in our part of the world.
JF-- Iran gained a good deal from the Reagan presidency and the gullibility of the Gipper.
ReplyDelete...and BTW, when you dismiss Iran releasing US hostages in return for the US sending weapons to Iran...please do not forget Col Buckley and others....
@anon 2:21
ReplyDeleteI usually don't like responding to tangent arguments, but I feel compelled to correct you as you have the timeline wrong. Iran-contra wasn't about releasing the US hostages in Iran. The iran-contra was about the US secureing the release of US hostages in Lebanon, presumably kidnapped by Hezbollah, in return for giving Iran Israeli weapons.
Just FYI, You may want to read one more memo on that one.
Jabbar Fazeli, MD 1:40 PM
ReplyDeleteInteresting and thoughtful.However I like you to know that I don't disagree against anybodies religion or political affiliation.
What I don't agree with is the use of religion as a political weapon instead of a personal belief.
So I say that in the future Iran should not allow religion into its new constitution,unlike the 1906 one.
And as I mentioned in my earlier posts,I'm for woman's rights 50/50 with men. The freedom to choose ones religion if wanted or none at all,without harassment.
As for the regime elements,by all means they will be given a equitable judicial examination in the most civilized manner.After all we want to show to the world how cultured we are despite the hardships our people suffered under the fascist theocracy.
JF---- The iran-contra was about the US secureing the release of US hostages in Lebanon, presumably kidnapped by Hezbollah, in return for giving Iran Israeli weapons.
ReplyDeleteJust FYI, You may want to read one more memo on that one.---
---- perhaps you're the one confused.
Col Buckley was CIA chief-of- station in Beirut.
----" Buckley was kidnapped by Hezbollah on March 16, 1984 from his apartment building when he was leaving for work. It was thought that one of the reasons he was kidnapped (along with two other Americans at different times in Beirut) was because of the upcoming trial of 17 Iranian-backed militants was about to begin in Kuwait. Army Major General Carl Stiner had warned Buckley that he was in danger, but Buckley told him that "I have a pretty good intelligence network...I think I'm secure." However, according to Stiner, Buckley continued to live in his apartment and travel the same route to and from work every day.[5]
William Casey, who was by then the Director of Central Intelligence, asked Ted Shackley for help in securing Buckley’s release.[6] Three weeks after Buckley’s abduction, President Ronald Reagan signed the National Security Decision Directive 138. This directive was drafted by Oliver North and outlined plans on how to get the American hostages released from Iran and to “neutralize” alleged "terrorist" threats from countries such as Nicaragua.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Francis_Buckley
-------
http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/timelines-what-cia-operative-was-kidnapped-and-tortured-to-death-by-hezbollah-march-16-1984-206290.html
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=william_francis_buckley_1
-------
I hope that helps lift your confusion.
Anon 11:02
ReplyDeleteIt is still a tangent but Point taken, indeed I was the one who misunderstood what you meant.
you're a good and gracious man, JF.
ReplyDelete