The Office of the President of Iran does not serve the same function that it does in a traditional Western-style democracy such as ours. We have to
remember that Iran is still a Theocratic state, meaning that the President is actually subordinate to the 'Supreme Leader'. One should also
note that as much as the MSM hypes up Ahmadinejad as being 'extreme', he is actually considered to be a
moderate in their political environment. Until now,
Ahmadinejad has had a fair amount of 'moderate' support in the Iranian Parliament.
It is now being reported that the Iranian fundamentalist groups (supporters of Khamenei), such as the the United Fundamentalists Front and the
Stability of Islamic Revolution Front, are beginning to
parliamentary seats and political power. There is a major power struggle in Iran between the current powers and the Islamic Fundamentalist
groups, and it's predictably being ignored by the corrupt and incompetent MSM. Ahmadinejad's sister even
lost her election in their home town.
Here's what I've gathered from these developments: the sanctions on Iran and threats from the West are being used as a
tool for Khamenei
to gain Fundamentalist support. As shown by the results (so far) of the parliamentary elections, it seems to be working quite well. I'm no
warmonger, and I doubt that the current Iranian regime poses an external threat (even with a nuclear weapon). That being said, if these foreign
policies continue, I think we may see a major shift in Iranian politics in the near future; a shift towards radical Islamic fundamentalism -
That, I believe, may pose a real external threat - regardless of their nuclear capability.
edit on 3-3-2012 by CaptainIraq because: (no reason
Good post and a good rational view on the matter.
Unfortunately, complex learning and political decision-making still seems to be more related to partisan agendas instead of to a rational evaluation
of the results and merits of a particular policy.
edit on 3-3-2012 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)
I apologize for having a difficult time with quoting, so you will have to forgive me as I am new to this site.
Take an objective view of US foreign policy, and you'll come to one conclusion: It's not our freedom, it's our foreign policy.
I know the rules on this site say we cannot simply post to say we agree with what was said, but to be honest this is the absolute truth and I could
not agree more. Freedom is loved by all men, but US foreign policy has a great amount of impact against peoples freedom in their countries.
In an effort to understand and placate Syrian opposition groups, Secretary Clinton invited them to a meeting in Washington. Most of those invited,
however, have links to the Muslim Brotherhood. Missing from the invitations are Kurdish leaders, Sunni liberals, Assyrians and Christian spokesmen.
According to various reports the State Department made a deal with Turkey and Muslim Brotherhood representatives either to share power with Assad to
stabilize the government, or replace him if this effort fails. One organization, the Syrian Democracy Council (SDC), an opposition group composed of
diverse ethnic and religious organizations, including Alawis, Aramaic Christians, Druze and Assyrians was conspicuously -- and no coincidentally --
omitted from the invitation list.
I feel it is important to note that the muslim brotherhood is an actual terrorist organization that the US has neglected placement on their terrorist
organization list! To me, this is purposeful, and this is what should be terrifying people, the alignment of the US with people in AL-qaieda, the
Muslim Brotherhood, and other such terrorist organizations and helping these people gain power, such as was done in Afghanistan with the Taliban and
Iraq with Saddam Hussain. It is no wonder the American government is hated, its against democracy as demonstrated by her unwillingness to support it
in places such Egypt, Libya and now Syria.
edit on 3-3-2012 by Jameela because: (no reason given)
Here's a decent article on sanctions and if they work. Note its from 2008, and was written to discuss if they should be applied to Zimbabwe at the
time. I include it because it provides a good bit of history...
The article examines sanctions over the years and concludes they worked in about 1/3 of the cases. It does make a notable point on Iraq..
Why did they fail in Iraq?
Because the comprehensive sanctions there ended up hurting the people they are designed to help. The 13 years of UN sanctions brought poverty and
hardship for ordinary Iraqis and almost certainly caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children when water and sanitation systems collapsed
and spare parts were unavailable thanks to the sanctions.
I think this is what we are seeing in Iran. It would seem very difficult to starve a people into liking you - and also very easy for any government
in power to point out who was really hurting you. No wonder they are having the opposite effect.
This is not looking good. This situation is still going largely ignored, and the Western powers are discussing even more sanctions. I fear that
any more sanctions/military threats and we may see a major power grab by Khamenei and his supporters, the most extreme case being a hostile
takeover/coup by fundamentalist forces within the year, if not months.
Parliament doesn't have that much power in their government, though it still poses a major political threat to Ahmadinejad and does represent a
change in public opinion.
This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.