It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Does Ahmadinejad need Bush?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I thought it might be interesting to have a discussion based on the ideas put forward in this article:

Iran's leaders need enemies like Bush.

The basic premise is that the actions of the upper levels of the Bush Administration are inadvertently propping up Iranian hard-liners by giving them an excuse for their bellicose foreign policy and clampdowns we've seen in recent months (on 'un-Islamic' dress, on Western music and movies, on Iranian academics attending debates and discussions outside the country and so forth) and diverting attention away from the dire economic situation and repressive culture inside Iran at the moment (the stagflation, high fuel prices/low oil productivity etc.)

To what extent do you think the West is responsible for saving the Ahamadinejad government from what might otherwise have been a very short-lived presidency for the Iranian leader?

I think it's difficult to deny that we haven't played some part (I would argue an important part) in giving Ahamadinejad political ammunition with which he can divert the attention of ordinary Iranians from the oppression and economic hardship they suffer at home. From the perspective of the West, it's too late to back down now since to do so would look like a huge sign of weakness. We may have unintentionally trapped ourselves into another war that I'm not yet convinced has to be fought. Of course we should keep our options open but attacking Iran (or anyone, for that matter) is a last resort, not something you steadily march towards using diplomacy to keep the public on-side.




posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
No, Bush needs Ahmadinejad.

Iran is not the country with a 9 trillion dollar debt who is putting weapons in space, starting a new cold war, while threatening to attack whatever enemy who happens to live where the oil is.

America is. You have to be pretty blind if you dont see how the US administration planned 9/11 to be the new Pearl Harbor in order to get public support for starting chasing "terrorists" and introduce stuff like the Patriot Act designed to rip the constitution apart.

All this was planned well before Bush cheated his way into office. Maybe you should do some research of who the real enemy is.


[edit on 29-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 29 2007 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Copernicus
 


With respect, I think that's a different debate. I was asking to what extent people think the regime in Iran needs Bush to stay afloat, not the other way around. So for the moment, ignore whether Bush needs external enemies to maintain his presidency


For example, let's say that Iran is still a problem after 2008 and the next US President decides to extend an olive branch towards Iran and offer direct talks - would this put the Iranian government at risk from collapsing because the nation they demonise so much has taken the initiative and offered to talk?



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 02:40 PM
link   
You are spot on. I have said a number of times that the Iranian president is playing into the "Everything at home may be disastrous - but we are united with a common enemy". Remove the common enemy i.e. US start being nice and I think Iran's own people will turn on him.

One noteof caution - he was put in this position at the height when there was a lot oif pressure on Iran.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
Any Iranian leader that cozies up to the US will soon be a former Iranian leader because the Iranian people and the spiritual leader will not stand for warm relations with "The Great Satan"!



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 03:09 PM
link   
I have posted a number of times that Iran's leadership thrives on an extremist environment and their younger population has been going the direction of moderation for awhile now. This I’m sure is starting in weaken the current leadership’s hold. I say leadership for the president is just a front man for the Twelve Imam.

Bush doesn’t need Iran, but Iran sure needs an evil empire to hate.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 03:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xtrozero
Bush doesn’t need Iran, but Iran sure needs an evil empire to hate.


And Bush doesnt? Maybe you havent followed the last couple of years of the US foreign policy of invading middle eastern countries and lying about how dangerous they are.


Personally I think Bush is much more dangerous to the world than Iran can ever be.


[edit on 31-10-2007 by Copernicus]



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Copernicus
And Bush doesnt? Maybe you havent followed the last couple of years of the US foreign policy of invading middle eastern countries and lying about how dangerous they are.


Personally I think Bush is much more dangerous to the world than Iran can ever be.


[edit on 31-10-2007 by Copernicus]


Bush doesn't need Iran for we are already in the Middle East and pushing into Iran would not be good for anything. We got everything we need in Iraq, and so we will push into North Africa next. Iran is just a waste of time and effort with nothing to gain that we don’t have already.



posted on Oct, 31 2007 @ 11:51 PM
link   
Someone else makes all the decisions. Virtual leaders. Must have been a 'put' pretzel and subsequent bruising. This I believe. Long live the military industrial complex. (Sarcasm)




top topics



 
0

log in

join