Oh dear, how inconvenient for the White House

Frank P

Another brilliant and seminal analysis Melanie; together with a luminous synthesis of the best of the rest. Thanks - it was worth dragging yourself away from your opus major, though how you cope with it all defeats me.

Kiwi

"Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.
This much we pledge - and more."
JFK - 'Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You' Speech - January 20th 1961
"I am deeply troubled by the violence that I've been seeing on television, "Obama said Monday, more than two days after protests began to break out Saturday in Tehran. "I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all of those are universal values and need to be respected, and whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they are rightfully troubled."
BHO - June 15th 2009

Raymond in DC

For Obama and Clinton to claim any credit for the popular uprising in Iran is laughable. It was Obama, after all, who offered his greetings and best wishes not to the PEOPLE of Iran, but to the ISLAMIC REPUBLIC of Iran. And it was Obama who assured them that he was NOT interested in regime change. Well, clearly, the Iranian people are.

Paul

The fact that President Big-Fat-Nobody's (we call him that in our house because he does not seem a substantive figure to us) appeasement policy going belly up is no surprise to a rational being. I am, though, surprised how quickly it is all blowing up in his face.

Bannana Boy proved himself worthless a long long time ago.

Original Tony

As a christian that strongly supports Israel, I take note that the biggest enemy of the Jews (at the moment - Iran) is beginning to come apart at the seams.

I see this as divine protection and just sit back in wonder and awe as God protects His chosen people and their land. It's a great delight to witness!

Back on Earth, if I was Obama I would be smiling at Dinnermejacket while pumping aid into the resistance, albeit through a third party.

Now is the time we will see Obama's political skills and statesmanship, or does that not exist?

BiB

"Britain’s embarrassing foreign Secretary David Miliband was on the Today programme earlier absurdly implying that President Obama’s famous ‘hand of friendship’ which he extended to the Iranian regime has somehow been responsible for the extraordinary popular uprising in Iran that we have seen over the past few days."

He didn't imply that at all.

Miranda Rose Smith

The protesters are displaying enormous courage in defying Ahmadinajad. But even if he is overthrown, he could be replaced by one more anti-America, anti-Israel nut job.

NICHOLAS KISSEN

And Ahmadinejad was voted into power during and because of Bush's regime.I supported the war in Iraq and Bush's approach to the war in terrorism.However that approach was a catastrophic failure that fanned the flames of terrorism.Obama may not succeed and one should always be cautious.But face it Melanie you and the Washington neo-cons got it all catastrophically wrong.Whether it was liberals,leftists or hard-nosed conservatives anyone with any real knowledge of the Middle East instead of the fantasies you gullibly swallow knew the war in Irag and especially Bush's handling of it would go belly-up.Never mind Melanie you ex-leftists can never be wrong especially when when you are very very wrong.

logdon

This is as good as it gets and Melanie has surpassed herself in the sweep and accuracy of her comment.

Three events this week fill me with hope.

1/ Netanyahu's masterly response to Obama's grandstanding ignorance.

2/ Lebanon's masterly response to Obama's grandstanding ignorance.

3/ Iran's masterly response to Obama's grandstanding ignorance.

Looks like the self proclaimed ruler of the new world order of global love in's has imploded at the first major hurdle.

He propped up despots in his Cairo speech and the people most threatened by those despots have turned around and bit him in the ass.

His silence is revealing. Not quite the rave reviews he's used to from the armchair socialists and Ivy Leaque Arabists back home, these are the people who have to live in or amongst the Islamist utopias he so fondly praised.

Prepare for the new improved Bo and Hill historical revisionist show coming soon to our news channels.

No they will not change one iota of their crazy stance but will attempt to remake this ongoing story fit the pre-ordained narrative hardwired into their synapses.

One big problem is when the Revolutionary Guards start rolling down Main Street, Tehran.

Try talking to a tank and see how far you get.

Augustus

Oh! Marvellous Melanie. Very succint. We all knew Obama couldn't walk on water.

Louise

Hopey, changey. Changey, hopey. I'm not surprised he's gone coy. All he can do is 'yes, we can' guff.

Welcome to the real world, O'Teleprompter.

Simon

What evidence does Miss Philips have to back up her claim that the invasion of Iraq has contributed to the demands for reform in Iran?

Bill Rees

Melanie, like you I am concerned about the readiness of Obama to cosy up to dictators, and I agree with you that he can be given no credit for the upheaval in Iran, except in a very indirect way.
His words in Cairo clearly emboldened the Iranian regime to over-stretch itself in rigging the election, and it became careless, not imagining that its dishonesty would give rise to the demonstrations we have seen.
The Iranian people as a whole are far too intelligent to be ruled by bigots and fantasists, and, more than any other Middle Eastern country, they see themselves as being part of the west.
I hope there is now an unstoppable momentum for change, regardless of what else happens in the Islamic Republic.

Augustus

Ahmadinejad is currently in Russia attending a summit. Both Russia and China, although sharing to some extent Iran's interest in resisting the combined power of the US and EU, and while any possible future US falling out with Iran could benefit Russia, Moscow is bound to view with alarm the potential of war in Iran. Protracted conflict, terrorism,
and regional insecurity could embroil Russia, complicate its international standing, and destabilize its southern Muslim border. Putin is bound to fear that any potential war won against Iran could lose Russia its advantage and influence in the region.

Maximilian

Even the BBC recognizes that Netanyahu got it right in his policy statement last Sunday, though without phrasing it quite as bluntly as that. Here are the last three paragraphs of Jim Muir's analysis of the Iran vote-rigging protests:

[quote] The outcome has also played into the hands of Benjamin Netanyahu's hardline government in Israel.

Under pressure to come up with what it regards as concessions on the Palestinian issue, Mr Netanyahu has tried to argue that priority should go to what he sees as the true threat to the region - Iran.

If the Iranian election crisis is not somehow defused, he will clearly find it easier to argue his case that "the biggest threat to Israel, the Middle East and the entire world is the crossing of a nuclear weapon with radical Islam" and that there should be "an international coalition against the nuclear arming of Iran", as he said in his policy speech on Sunday. [end quote]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8101841.stm

Richard Pearce

If the US Administration Foreign Policy of "abasement" towards terrorist, theocratic and ethnocratic regimes results in Hezbollah losing an election, public uprising in Iran and even Bibi to acknowledge a Palestinian State (albeit demilitarised), then it appears to me that they are doing a good thing for the region.

It's certainly a good start and better than the Bush Administration managed to achieve in eight years.

Alex Bensky

We abase ourselves before our sworn enemies and either belittle (as in the case of the UK) or attempt to intimidate (in the case of Israel) our allies.

Buried in this is Obama's clear assumption that he is, indeed, something special, something heretofore unseen, and his personality alone is sufficient to break down barriers and change minds.

Now, no one gets to be president who is modest, with the possible exception of Warren Harding. But this is narcissism not heretofore seen. It really is hubris and I am afraid that hubris will be punished as it is in Greek tragedy, with the difference that this time it isn't the lead character who suffers but the western world.

As to Biden: Sarah Palin would not have been my recommendation for the vice-presidential nomination, but whatever her shortcomings, she isn't a fool, and Joe Biden is.

Alex Bensky

It's worth adding that Obama refers to the "violence in Iran" the way he and a lot of other people refer to "the cycle of violence" in the Arab-Israeli conflict (note I do not call it the Palestinian-Israeli conflict), as if it were just some sort of natural force, with no one really responsible for it, and every action or reaction equally blameworthy.

John

I was told if I voted for McCain/Palin we'd have moron in the White House, and they were right!

Ian C

I wonder if O will make his second "I screwed up speech" this week......!

Unlikely, but we can hope and pray for the people of Iran.

Fran

Excellent commentary, Melanie. As for Obama, he is displaying the crass ineptitude of left wing politicians the world over.

Ordnance

When doubts about the election started to surface John Simpson in a BBC news report dismissed the protests with "some want Ahmadinejad to sweep it all under the carpet and get on with it".
What arrogant pigs they are at the BBC - how many Democratic governments would get such sympathy even as they fight deadly enemies. It appears the BBC's "hand of friendship" is even more enthusiastic than Obama's

Pip

Melanie, as usual, you are spot-on.

Jez

A question;

Watching Al Jazeera news last on Sunday night (seriously- we've just aquired Sky 'news-package') there was a chap from the Independant called Fisk.

He said the nuclear programme was in fact driven by the supreme leader, the Grand Ayatollah.

If so, would this actually mean a Presidential change wouldn't actually limit the drive for nuclear 'development' in Iran?

Lloyd

@logdon - has summed the 3 points lucidly and I, like him, cringed at Obama's Cairo speech. But...

With the law of unintended consequences, could the naive 'let's hug a despot' speech have worked counterintuitively to let moderate voters in Lebanon and Iran feel free of US threat and able to oppose their antediluvian and evil national governments?

Richard

melanie.... You're always so interesting.....

Stephen Rothbart

It must be dfficult for the liberals who love Hezbollah because they fight against the Jewish state, to see them coming into Iran to support this odious regime. Now who do they love?

Actually Obama was always going to be useless at foreign policy, but it was Hillary who all my Democrat friends used to say would give him a backbone.

So what did the Secretary of State say on Sunday as the great fraud was still be carried live across the world?

She said that she hoped the Iranians would get the government they voted for, that was what she said.

Along with 'Peace in our time' and 'I did not have sex with that woman' this statement must go down as one of the most insensitive and crass announcments by any serious politician ever. Did she not know only one person's vote counts in Iran?

Well, it just goes to prove that Hillary would have been just as useless in dealing with the world's problems as is her boss.

Dave M

Maybe Obama has been seen in Iran as more moderate and everyday Iranians would like to see Iran have better relations with America and Europe? Let's bear in mind thousands of Iranians feel ashamed of their current leader and the whole idea of presenting Iran as a nation of hollocaust deniers. Not all Iranians want to be excluded from the outside world. Besides, the present leader may only have gotten into office on account of Bush and the fear of invasion.

Rob-NY

Hope and Change in the USA for mindless and pompus drones who crave more government cheese but no hope and change for truely oppressed Iranian people who are willing to fight for their own freedom and not just wear a dumb and garish Obama shirt.

Rob-NY

Obama went to Berlin and Normandy and claimed credit for wars long since won but when given the chance to be a heroic statesman in his own era, he offers a hand of friendship to degenerate fascists rather than side with their tormented people. SHAME

Nat Troy

I don't see it. I listened to the entire interview, and the Foreign Secretary said absolutely nothing even to imply a connection between Obama's approach and events in Iran. He referred to Obama's 'hand of friendship' in the context of U.S. and U.K. diplomatic engagement policy. The point is that the ultimate outcome in Iran (whoever ends up President) will not change how the U.S. and U.K. have decided to pursue their 'core national security interests'(Obama's words) with regard to Iran's nuclear program and support for terrorists. Both Obama and the Foreign Secretary expressed unequivocal support for the protesters. What is critical is that they not say or do something to jeopardize the Iranian democratic movement. Their reactions show a heightened sensitivity to Iranian history and political culture of foreign conspiracies. Obama was very clear about not wanting the U.S. to become a 'political football.' Maybe the author would prefer that the West interject itself into Iranian politics - precisely, what Iranian democratic and human rights activists warn against. It is up to the Iranian people to decide their government.

Suki

"What evidence does Miss Philips have to back up her claim that the invasion of Iraq has contributed to the demands for reform in Iran?"

Have you switched on a TV set in the last 48 hours?

Anthony Posner

Obamad: "Great victory Mahmoud. I am so please you didn't fix it like GW Bush did a while back."

Ahmad-inejad: "Oh, thank-you."

Obamad: "And thank you, for allowing me to engage with you!"

Ahmad-inejad: " Yes, we are having a very lovely conversation. But please don't spoil it by harping on about anything that upsets me."

Obamad : " I have no intention of dissing you. After all, you are The President of Iran and I promised everybody that i would always talk nicely. And of course I won't mention nuclear bombs."

Ahmad-inejad: "You are a wise man."

Frank P

Nat Troy

"It is up to the Iranian people to decide their government".

Really? What's all the fuss about then? Why are they on the streets demanding freedom?

It is up to the POTUS to let oppressive dictatorial regimes know that the West will oppose their totalitarianism and not welcome them to sit-downs. Moreover it is up to the POTUS, in his plans to protect the Homeland and everybody else in the West under the US umbrella, to make sure that Army Dinnerjacket does not acquire weapons of mass destruction to threaten Israel and the West and to peddle them to terrorists. The mullahs need to know that dire consequences will follow such mischief and that the two-and-seventy virgins shtick is odds-on horseshit, just like Obama's replacement Messiah syndrome.

Anthony Posner

Bush, the last Republican President, wasn't eloquent. His vocabulary evidently needed improvement. Unlike Obama, he wasn't nuanced, far too simplistic for American academics who voted Democratic.

Post 9/11 and the invasion of Afghanistan, the terrorists were dubbed evil and inhuman "Best to kill them" said the Neo Conservatives, we must attack those Islamic fundamentalists.

Barack does not see things quite so black and white. His views are sophisticated, not nearly so trite. We must not balk at talking to Mullahs in Iran , diplomatic intervention is the road to Tehran.

So.. "nuanced" policy, without the Texan's idiocy will soon bring this fractured world to sanity?

Anthony Posner

As you know, Obamad schlepped all the way to Cairo to deliver a speech. Obviously, his ideas made a big impact on his host...

Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak blasted Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech on Sunday saying "Netanyahu's demand that Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state is ruining the chance for peace," Egyptian news agencies reported on Monday.

D. Chen.

If I was a year aago, my dear Melanie, I wouldn't wait a second to drop a bomb on that f two million crowed to stop "enrichment" of their plans before it is too late !!!

Mike Woodman

I think Obama has already got delusions of grandeur and the effect of his words on world affairs are less than he imagines. However, perhaps freedom-loving people, sensing that they no longer have the USA on their side, have opted for a more self-reliant approach.

Viktor Osasu

I don't really agree with Melanie. Obama is not saying anything to jeopardize the Iranian democratic movement.And that is something to applause. I believe his reaction shows a heightened sensitivity to Iran. And it's about time that the US respects other sovereign countries. Obama was very clear about not wanting the U.S. to become a 'political football.'
Maybe Melanie prefers ... Read Morethat the West interject itself into Iranian politics - precisely, what Iranian democratic and human rights activists warn against. It is up to the Iranian people to decide their government...not the West.

I have my reservations on Netanyahu concessions. I wonder whether proper dialogue can be achieved when one party sets the agenda. Demilitarisation is one thing the Palestanians will say no to....

Adam B.

Just after the first (smallish) protest, John Simpson confidently asserted that the protests would die down. The next day, hundreds of thousands were in the streets.

So much for BBC "insight."

Merlyn

Two nights before the Iranian election, I spoke to a married Iranian couple who were carrying large posters of Zahra Rahnavard here in London. They spoke to me about how upset they were at Obama and the West's courting of Ahmadinejad. They suggested sanctions. But who would listen to the Iranian people?

Augustus

Melanie states that Obama now stands exposed. How true. Of course, if you start with the wrong assumptions, no matter how logical your reasoning is, you will end up with the wrong conclusions. And Obama is a brilliant example of the genre.
He starts with certain assumptions that are unsupported by history and an objective study of the ideology of Islam. In his speech in Cairo he asserted that tensions
exist between the US and Muslims around the world, which is, of course, correct. Unfortunately, he then proceeded, incorrectly, to lay virtually all the blame for these tensions at the feet of America and the West. He blames Western colonialism, the Cold War, and even modernity and globalism. A student of world history would know that for all the acknowledged evils of Western colonialism, these evils pale in comparison to the 14 centuries of islamic colonialism that began in Arabia under the leadership of Mohammed. The student of history would know that Islamic forces eradicated all Jewish and Christian presence from Arabia after Mohammed's death, and then succeeded in conquering North Africa, most of the Middle East, much of Asia Minor, and significant portions of Europe and India, eventually creating an empire larger than Rome at its peak.

Now, the issue is not that all Muslims are terrorists or radicals or extemists. the majority of Muslims are themselves peace-loving victims of Islamist violence. The issue is this: What drive hundreds of millions of Muslims worldwide to call for the death of Jews?
What drives millions of them to riot, destroy property, and take innocent lives in reaction to English books or Danish cartoons? What drives tens of thousands to demand the execution of a British teacher whose only crime was to allow her students to name their teddy bears Mohammed? What drives countless Muslims worldwide to actively participate in, or fund, or provide nurture to, terrorist organizations? What drives Muslims in Mosques throughout the West to proclaim and distribute materials that call for hatred and destruction of infidels? What drives entire Muslim countries to prohibit the building of churches or synagogues? To assume, and to publicly assert, as Obama appears to do, that what drives these actions is not an ideology
embedded in the holy books of Islam, but rather in other root causes, most of which are laid at the feet of Ameria and the West, is naive and dangerous in the extreme. Unless Obama is willing to take seriously the admonitions throughout the Koran and Hadith to convert the world to Islam, and by force if necessary, and bring it under the rule of Allah. Unless he is willing to courageouly and honestly accept this, his aspirations for worldwide comity, and peace in the Middle East, are doomed to fail.

Sharon

"........you believe that then you must realise the Bush "Grand Plan".

I wondered why he went for Iraq rather than Iran so I checked the map and lo and behold there was my answer.

Iran lies neatly between Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran is and always was a harder target to hit directly. However, caught between two countries under US control, they are caught in an almost pincer grip. .......... How this will pan out I do not know, but I do not imagine head on war. I think the pincers will be squeezed tighter and tighter until change is affected. ...........

So this is why I am more terrified of a Kerry administration than Al Qaeda. Kerry does not understand geo-politics and will in his attempt to be a "liberal humanitarian" "spare the rod and spoil the child" so to speak. There has been too much of that under Clinton and his predecessors and it must not be allowed to re-invent itself. The American people must realise that the world depends on them as the sole super state so they have the burden of not only making decisions on local issues, but on world conflict and resolution as well. Just like Israel has always to elect a government on foreign policy and take their chances on local issues.

Well that's my view for what it’s worth!!........"

I wrote the note above in 2004 when Kerry was running against Bush. It took a while, but I guess my analysis was right - Iran has been squeezed by the "Bush Plan" and is on the route to change that has simply nothing to do with the appeaser Obama and his sidekick HRC!

serkthescholar

hezbollah won the elction with the popular vote a population census 60 years out of date which puts christians as a majority is the reason why they lost shia muslims made up 15% of lebanon in 1943 now they are 60% if a real census was taken also the constitution prevents muslims from becomming president only a maronite can be president hardly a democracy the shia are allowed to become parlaiment speaker the sunnis prime minister

Frank P

Recommend Gerard Vanderleun's last three posts on Iran. Riveting stuff:

http://americandigest.org/

Tom the Redhunter

Melanie, this is one of your best posts.

We are at the tipping point in Iran. There are specific times in history where a small push could have taken events in another direction. There were Five Days in May, 1940, where Britain teetered between accepting a Hitler dominated Europe and fighting (John Lucas, "Five Days in London: May 1940").

I think we are at that point in Iran. The government may be able to regain control, even though it will be permanently damaged. But it could also lose control, with the whole theocracy swept away. What the United States says or does could make the difference.

Unfortunately, it looks like Obama will miss his opportunity. As the blogger Confederate Yankee put it, "Obama got his 3:00 AM call, and refused to pick up the phone."

Ronnie

Hysterical drivel but yes, Milliband should learn to keep his mouth shut.

Terry

There is a report today in the JPost that there are Hamas members fighting against the demonstrators. Think of that, Palestinians fighting for Ahmedinejad in Iran, beating up Iranians on the streets of Teheran.

Terry

By the way, just an observation, but now would be the perfect time to have a military strike against the Iranian nuclear installations.
But, unfortunately, Winston Churchill is not president, instead we have Neville Chamberlain.

Mike_W

Obama is voting "Present and wonderful" ... again.

Hey, maybe he really is just an insubstantial socialist idiot.

Simon

With reference to the comment made by Suki. I have indeed been watching television over the l;ast forty-eight hours. My question stands - what evidence is there to support Miss Philips assertion that the current events in Iran are in any way linked to the invasion of Iraq. Merely saying there is a link does not make it so.

Keith Farrington Evercreech

Both Obama and Miliband are mistakes. The US will ultimately learn to its distress that Obama like Carter was a terrible error of judgement on the part of the electorate. However, Miliband is OUR mistake and it is up to his constituents to remove him and a lot of his colleagues from office. He has embarassed our nation for so long with his simplistic Trotskyist vision he inherited from his father. Elevated beyond belief as a useful idiot by Blair, he must go as soon as possible before he does more damage. I see him teaching politics in a regional Polytechnic somewhere.

Dee Ranged

Carter became unstuck in Iran!

Now Obama becomes unstuck in Iran.

.

J

The sad part is, is that our democrats in congress have the same opinion of liberty as the president of the USA.....we little people are too stupid, we need rulers to make our decisions. And that is why they are so sympathetic to dictators.

John Birch

If the invasion of Iraq was responsible for these protests against the Iranian election results, was it also responsible for Ahmadinejad's election triumph in 2005?

Jane G

John Birch: "If the invasion of Iraq was responsible for these protests against the Iranian election results, was it also responsible for Ahmadinejad's election triumph in 2005" But this is not to do with straight elections, is it?

It's to do with what is widely believed to be a rigged election (Sarkozy calls it 'fraud') and mass protests. As suc,h it bears no relation to the previous Iranian election. I know ii's all terribly embarrassing for the Mickey Mouse Club that worships The One but if you tell a man like A'jad you can do business with him what do you think he will do ? Flinch or become so bold as to do as he pleases? Apparently the political wisdom of Barack Obama doesn't extend so far as to know the right answer to that question.

Barely 12 months in and this is where this clown and his disciples have led us.

Never mind the reality, look at the quality of his speeches etc, etc.

Madness.

Susan

What is continually astonishing is the incredible narcissism of the Obama administration. He's got not clue what to do with any foreign policy. He's a total and incomplete incompetent who is not qualified for the Office that he holds.

John Birch

Jane G: So the Iraq invasion only has an impact when things you approve of happen? One could make the counter argument that toppling Iran's great enemy has emboldened Tehran and also restricted the U.S. from dealing more forcefully with Iran out of fear of the chaos that would ensue in Iraq. Could you (or Melanie or others on this list who like to portray complex events in a simplistic right-left binary) also explain Daniel Pipes' support for Ahmadinejad in the election?
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/06/rooting-for-ahmadinejad.html

Frank P

A bit off topic, but a fan of Melanie Phillips - Dan Collins, late of Protein Wisdom fame (he once expostulated on PW, after drawing attention to a characteristically excellent post by Melanie "I'd like to have her baby") has branched out and set up his own blog:

http://powip.blogspot.com/2009/06/hellogoodbye.html?zx=29997da57d07f710

Most of the frequenters of this blog who come to support Melanie would enjoy his work; those who come here for other reasons would make good cannon fodder for his acerbic rapier wit.

blue_&_white_Avenger

Dear Mel,
You write that the Iranian election appeara to have been rigged.
Isn't it strange that the results were announced (at least in part)before the counting had even begun?
And also, altho' Andy Murray won in two straight sets at Queens, ArmadJaninimad won hands down in every constituency.
Sounds like he served only aces or there was no opponent?

Suki

John Birch: “So the Iraq invasion only has an impact when things you approve of happen?”

Iraq, Iran’s neighbour, and I know this is terribly difficult for you and Alan Rusbridger & Co is now a democracy. Saddam has gone. He is no more. How would that not whet the appetite for real democracy in neighbouring Iran?

“One could make the counter argument that toppling Iran's great enemy has emboldened Tehran and also restricted the U.S. from dealing more forcefully with Iran out of fear of the chaos that would ensue in Iraq.” There was no suggestion that the last election was rigged, was there? What’s the difference this time? Some One decided to, ahem, engage with A’jad. To a man like A’jad, engaging means grovelling. How many times do you have to be told this?

“Could you (or Melanie or others on this list who like to portray complex events in a simplistic right-left binary) also explain Daniel Pipes' support for Ahmadinejad in the election?”

Thank you for posting the link to the excellent Dr Pipes’ website. We have seen it already referred to on The Spectator on Alex Massie’s blog.

What part of this don’t you understand, John Birch:

“Therefore, while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it's best that he remain in office. When Mohammed Khatami was president, his sweet words lulled many people into complacency, even as the nuclear weapons program developed on his watch. If the patterns remain unchanged, better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.

“And so, despite myself, I am rooting for Ahmadinejad.”

Dr Pipes knows full well that despite the people’s appetite for reform, this is unlikely to happen until there is a proper democracy in Iran - not just candidates approved by the mullahs.

As we have seen (thanks in part to your contributions on this blog, John), many people in the West struggle to understand the global jihad. That’s because many jihadists use taqiyya techniques to hide their true intentions. A’jad is not so subtle a politician and so his politics present an ABC of Jihad for people like you who seem to struggle to understand how you‘re being duped. I know it’s very hard for you still, but it’s a starting point.

Allan D

It might be interesting to ask Obama where he thinks the Supreme Leader of Iran, whom he says is "investigating" the results, gets his authority from- presumably God. After bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia, the hereditary Keeper of the Holy Places, he now sucks up to God's Chosen One.
Whatever happened to "government of the people, by the people, for the people."

Dave M

"My question stands - what evidence is there to support Miss Philips assertion that the current events in Iran are in any way linked to the invasion of Iraq."

Melanie is supposing the democratic process in Iraq spilled over to Iran (as a result of Bush's intervention in Iraq). Personally, I doubt it. It's already known younger Iranians have been fed up with the regime for some decades so it's maybe a little similar to what happened in Russia under Gorbachev. There are thousands of Iranians who don't want a conflict either with Israel or America but merely want to open up more. It may be the regime will fall although that still doesn't mean the nuclear issue will go away. Whatever happens politically Iran still can't be allowed to develop nuclear weapons

Sergey

Oppressive totalitarian regimes like Russia under communists and Iran under Ayatollas have a limited shelf life. They can not survive generation change, unable to transfer revolutional fervor to youth. Apathy and anomy replace ideology, and only wish for change and personal freedom remain. 70% of Iranian population is now below 30, moral corruption is rampant, and regime is ripe for collapse.

Suki

The superb Daniel Finkelstein:

"The protests in Iran show the neocons were right. No people, whatever their culture, want to live under despotism."

Hear, hear.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/daniel_finkelstein/article6514202.ece

Frank P

The pussyfooting on Iraq by the MSM is deluded. Gerard Vanderleun on American Digest blog explains why in pictures. Riveting! No words needed: http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/iwar/tehran_demonstr.php

Seems to me that what is about to happen there can go one of two ways: a deal between Dinnerjacket and Mousavi brokered by the Mullahs; or a brutal crack-down.

Either way makes all other petty partisan political issues pale into insignificance. And Bill O'Reilly has said tonight that he has been informed by sources close to Obama that the POTUS is hog-tied by a deal that was struck by Bush with the Mullahs to quell Muqtada al-Sadr in return for a free pass pro tem.

At the moment Al-Sadr is 'in counselling'. If this is true it's put up or shut up time, as there are many thousands of Americans troops in jeopardy in Iraq and Afghanistan at the sharp end and if al-Sadr is let loose in Iraq again.... But then, if the wheel comes off, we're all at the sharp end!

And of course QT tonight was devoted mainly to putting our sleazy pygmy politicians in the stocks; giving Polly Gruniad a chance to wear her baubles and prejudices and slip in a plug for proportional representation and letting Esther Rantzen prove beyond any doubt why we should refrain from voting for Independent Candidates in any General Election that may be deigned by the current Administration.

It also gave Charlie Faulkner, the man who usurped the office of Lord Chancellor, then destroyed it, to make the most hypocritical denunciation of Brown that I have so far seen; and that must be a Guinness Book of Records jobbie. At least Don Scotia Nostra of 'This Week' (and this parish) covered Iran in some depth - albeit giving Obama a free pass, as usual. I was pleased to see that even The Proclaimers have accepted that Cameron will defeat Brown in the General Election (unless our barmy dictator really flips, declares Brown Rule in Perpetuity and thereby causes HM QEII to find three suitable duly authorised officers to deem him and make him King of Ealing in a quiet room in St Bernard’s). He'd probably settle for that just now, in view of Lord Butler's drubbing over the "Independent Iraq War Inquiry”.

Frank P

Apologies - typo alert - in first sentence of my last comment; for 'Iraq', read 'Iran' or better still 'Persia'.

Frank P

Another great link to enlighten the debate: http://azarmehr.blogspot.com/

More pictorial evidence. George Galloway gets a mention.(Spit!)

Highlander

What most people are too dense to realize, is that Obama is cleverly manipulating events in Iran by the subtle use of reverse psychology. His plan, which is the result of his superior brain and his magnificent heart (he's still working on the courage part, but two out of three ain't bad),is to say the opposite of what he really wants to have happen. The Mullahs, inferior beings that they are, are looking to Obama before deciding upon their course of action. His statements appear so weak and craven for an American president, that they are totally at a loss as to what to do. He is completely within their decision loop as they find themselves unable to do anything but react to his brilliant stratgic moves. Soon they will abdicate their positions of power to him and fade into history quietly muttering their lamentations to Obama - er, I mean God.

Awesome!

Tennessee

Let's hope the brave Iranian people can stiffen the spines of Americans. We estimate 1,000,000 people turned out for "tea parties" on April 15. The next one is July 4 and we're seeing exponential growth. Strangely, the local media who promoted the first tea party will not touch this one.

John Birch

Suki: Have you ever been to Iran? Do you know any Iranians? Do you know the difference between Sunnis and Shi'as? Do you understand why al-Qaeda sees Shi'as as heretics and why they were late in supporting Hezebollah against Israel in 2006? Or why the Iranian government hated the Taliban when they were in power and initially worked with the U.S. post 9-11? The real Middle East is far more complex than the cariacture that you offer.

Suki

John, there are plenty of places I've never been. It doesn't disbar me from having a view on international politics. Iran's supreme leader spent Friday slagging off Britain. I don't see why I shouldn't have a right to reply.

Laura

Gerald Warner notes "President Pantywaist latest: Iran unclenches its fist - to slap Barack Obama's face"

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner/blog/2009/06/19/president_pantywaist_latest_iran_unclenches_its_fist__to_slap_barack_obamas_face