The Iran crisis moves closer to home

David

Melanie,
My take on the reason that Iran has focused its invective on the UK is because it thinks the UK is most likely to succumb to it, setting a wider "example" to other Western 'detractors' (Who?!). Put it this way....The Iranian regime would like to detract attention from its suppression of a popular uprising but pointing to external threats (Surpise!). Where are they most likely to find a country that will informally accede to those accusations, thereby validating them? The UK seems a good bet!

Ken

I have to read about news in the US through out of country sources since the American press is fastened firmly to Obammy's ass. Thanks for being here and filling in the blanks.

Pinetop

Simultaneously, the Chinese are waging an all-out offensive against protesters in China. Unbelievably brutal. Iranians have every reason to be very, very frightened. Obama has allowed this to happen. Friend of the dictator.

Archie

Well quite so, Miss Phillips! Perhaps you might find the following exchange - between Senator Graham and Senator Kerry on Obama's press conference - pertinent to your article.

http://pbs.vo.llnwd.net/kip0/_pxn=2+_pxI0=A2247+_pxL0=begin+_pxM0=+_pxR0=10799+_pxI1=A2248+_pxL1=begin+_pxM1=+_pxR1=10800+_pxK=17082/newshour/rss/media/2009/06/23/20090623_senators_iran.mp3

Two things will stand out: the pro-Obama waffle of the erstwhile presidential candidate and the directness and frankly slagging-off of the Republican.

Terry

Everyone has this mistaken idea that dictatorships & totalitatian governements are somehow monolithic - nothing could be further from the truth.
They are ridden by factions, chock full of ruthless ambitious individuals, beholden to various interest groups, to bureaucracies with their own agendas, & never forget the always present factor of plain old greed - plundering a countries resources for personal gain.
Then are are the ''true believers'' - ideologic fanatics, many of them psychopaths, seriously mentally ill paranoids, the criminally insane.
The Islamic Republic is just like Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, or Nazi Germany.

Miranda Rose Smith

If Barack Obama puts himself stoutly behind the protesters(most of whom are just as anti-Israel as Ahmadinajad, I have no doubt), all the left-liberals will say he should also put himself stoutly behind the "Palestinians."
I really am sorry that these people are being imprisoned and tortured and shot in the street. They can't help hating Israel. Their whole culture is hate and lies and propaganda. But I don't think the U.S. should intervene.

John Birch

Sorry, would this be the same Michael Ledeen who in 2007 reported first that Khameini was dying of cancer and then that he had died? He's not a credible source on Iran. As for the the "long-standing American objective to promote human rights and democracy," how does that square with decades of U.S. support for Egypt and Saudi Arabia, including under Republican administrations? And are the Hezbollah Lebanese Shi'ites hiding among the radicalized Sunnis in the UK?

Javad

You are wrong, about many things. Obama has not made any sort of failure, in fact his policy is spot on. As an Iranian, I can tell you that Iranians are particularly touchy about foreign intervention, from the British as much as the Americans - if we do this, we want, we need, to do it ourselves. If we don't then it will be our failure, or merely another step that we have taken towards an eventual goal.
Democracy has to come about by a home-grown process if it is to survive in Iran.
Other than Japan after WW2 there is no other successful example of democracy being imposed on a country from the outside - and in that case they had to drop a nuclear bomb to achieve it.
What Obama also understands is that the Ayatollah will use any sign of foreign intervention as an excuse to punish protestors in the streets. His intervention would cause MORE pain - meddlers like you just don't seem to get that.

Austin Barry

Obama's moment of truth is fast approaching, probably with North Korea, and he will no longer be able to hide behind pompous pseudo-pronouncements and vapid inertia. Currently, he epitomises a self-regarding, swaggering complacency not seen since Sir Ian Blair was defenestrated by Boris.

Tommy

Quote....What a disgrace that this man is leader of the free world....Unquote

Sadly I think the "Peter Principle" applies and the Eloi --too dumb to notice

logdon

And where's the beloved UN in all of this? Or do they reserve castigation for Israel only?

Mustn't dump on their OIC buddies must they?

Kennybhoy

According to President Ahmadinejad's chief adviser, Hassan Abbassi, his geopolitical strategy is based on the premise that "Britain is the mother of all evils".

Personally I take this as a compliment, as in, "Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free".

Sometimes our enemies,even in the depth of their wickedness, see more clearly than we do ourselves....

Mike

America and West must stay out of it. It's meddling. We've done enough inept meddling in this part of the world to disastrous effect.....Iranians have long memories.

Iran is a proud, powerful and sophisticated country and Iranians must be left to work it out for themselves. What we are seeing now on the streets of Tehran and elsewhere is nothing compared with what would happen to thousands of innocent civilians if the 'Dogs of War' were unleashed among them.

Have we learned nothing from history, and more recently from the horrors of Iraq?

Mark

We might well accept that support for regime opponents by Western governments may not be helpful but for ordinary people in those countries to offer solidarity is surely different. One looks however in vain to the left who should be in the vanguard of such solidarity for such leadership. Many if not most seem to be backing the regime!

Well I suppose nothing surprising about those who were "All Hezbollah" now being "all AHmadinejad". "Follow the money" as they say, and simply remember that the latter bankrolls the former.

elixelx

"Other than Japan after WW2 there is no other successful example of democracy being imposed on a country from the outside"....
India? Pakistan? Iraq? Lebanon?
Colombia?
Javad, you must think that Democracy dropped like the gentle rain from heaven on all these countries!

Simon

I regret that the opposition did not win the recent election in Iran - always assuming of course that it did not in fact win. Yet Miss Philips seems to assume rather too readily that an Iranian government that was more democratic would be a government pursuing policies more to her taste. What if the democratic will of the Iranian people is for their country to be a nuclear power? What if Iran's population actually wants their government to pursue a policy of soidarity with the Palestinian people? What if the Iranians actually see Israel as an expansionist power seeking to adust its borders at the expense of fellow Muslims. Some of Miss Philips own comments in the past seem to imply that she would favour a redrawing of Israel's borders. Finally what if the opposition did in fact lose the presidential election? If they did then what we are seeing at the moment would appear to be an attempted coup. For the US to back regime change in such circumstances would expose Americans to the charge that they only support democracy when elections produce results they like.

Richard Pearce

I suggest that you read the articles by Michael Leeden and (in particular) Steve Schippert in their entirety; they are rather enlightening, unlike some of the disingenuous drivel that is published elsewhere. You may notice that they do not appear to reflect Melanie's opinion regarding Obama's "belated condemnation".

Joseph Ashby also "devastatingly notes" that "the president's neutrality (which is actually an endorsement of the current regime) has not stopped Iranian leaders from lobbing accusations of Western meddling", he goes on to quote from the LA Times which has reported the Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi has singled out the BBC and Voice of America who "are the mouthpiece of their government's public diplomacy".

I am not of the opinion that Obama's lack of intervention is "an endorsement" of the theocracy in Iran and I believe that it has weakened rather than strengthened Khamenei's position. I would also suggest that Obama's lack of perceived support has prevented the regime from using the US as another scapegoat to direct public anger at, which in turn will leave the door open to future negotiations (if a regime change occurs) with a more moderate government that does not sponsor Hamas and Hezbollah terrorism.

During his press confrence yesterday, Obama stated "I think that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not. OK?". Clearly, the US Administration has it's eye on the long term rather than the knee-jerk squealing from it's opponents.

Augustus

Iran has definitely been changed
and the landscape altered no matter what the short-term outcome is going to be. The entire event, well past the election debacle, has trashed Obama's plans for using Iran as a tool he can grovel and appease to. He wanted the staus quo in Iran to put pressure on Israel into making a foolish deal with the Islamofascists. He has now lost face, especially in America. By saying little or nothing he has appeased himself into a corner.
what a complete and total embarrassment (again!). So much for that super dandy speech in Cairo! while Iranians were dying in the streets Obama played golf and ate icecream. Think of the ruckus if Bush had done that while this crisis was blowing up. All he had to do was speak up in support of those brave Iranians, but, as usual, Obama was not able to pass muster. Barry the embarrassment. As the Americans say: Way to go!

Paul

David - the irrational BBC and Sky news are both working hard at undermining our perception of reality. It IS our fault, even though it blatently isn't.

There was some hilarious coverage this morning and last night. The BBC claimed that the Irananian government had been rattled by Obamas open hand - this is why the masses had been encouraged to protest.

Sky news had a potted history with no context (the sort of thing that some people - even those who post here - gobble up to validate their self-hatred), and the first item was: Britain stages a coup in Iraq in whatever year it was (53?).

Yes, we are soooooooooo evil.

Is Obama, in all his insubstantial stuffness, being blown away ALREADY by the winds of history? Well, I knew he would, but I didn't think for one moment that it would be so soon.

Paul

Javad

What Obama doesn't seem to understand is that the Ayatollah doesn't need the excuse of actual foreign interference to brutalise his people.

We have a saying: may as be hung as a sheep than a lamb. Interpret it like this, if you are being condemned for nothing or a little crime, then you might as well commit the larger. Obama wants to remain lamb-like, and people who know about these things make their judgements accordingly.

J Pousson

The United States has turned its back on the average people of Iran. Our worthless amateur of a President goes out for ice cream while the screams of freedom fighters split the night in Iran as they are dragged from their homes by the Basij and the evil, Murderous Mullahs ramp up their "courts" to consign thousands upon thousands of Iranians to death or to torture just for standing up for Freedom.

Obama is a disgrace, the worst president the United States of America ever foisted upon itself.

America IS the last hope of the oppressed in the world, a nation that turns its back not upon the little guy trying to take down the tyrant, but upon the uncaring facade of Realpolitik that says that the sterile stability of the status quo is more important than the principles upon which we were founded. Under this current president, we are foresaking our role in this world and allowing tyranny to overtake the tiny tottering steps of a true popular revolution in Iran.

I beg and plead with the Iranian people: RISE UP! Do NOT be disheartened by the disinterest of the president in the US, you are in the streets for YOU, for your SONS AND DAUGHTERS and your GRANDCHILDREN! FIND the Basij, catch them when they are alone, and reap your vengeance upon them. Make the Basij afraid of YOU! You know them, you know where they live, they are among you: Stand up for the thousands they have murdered and deliver justice upon the Basij, undermine the iron fist of the Mullahs by making their stormtroopers afraid to show their faces. THAT is the ONLY way the Green Revolution will survive! Unite under the banner of Cyrus the Great and take Persia back from the Stone Age masters who have enslaved the Persian people!

Kyda Sylvester

You're absolutely right, Melanie, this president is a disgrace. His abandonment of the principles of individual liberty, democracy and everything else America has stood for for over 250 years is unfathomable. The "leader of the free world" no longer cares about freedom. There's never been one like him before and, God willing, there will never be one like him again. His adoring, worshipful, sycophantic press following is an even bigger disgrace. How did we come to this? God bless and keep the people of Iran.

Adam B.

Javad, what about Germany?

Adam B.

Re: meddling - the Iranian regime doesn't mind meddling in Lebanon, Iraq and Gaza, does it?

Is expressing support for the demonstrators "meddling" or simply having a policy? Is it "meddling" to condemn the generals in charge of Burma and the disgusting incarceration of Aung San Suu Kyi?

Why must Obama not say anything?

flabslab

"The question is why Britain has been thus singled out"

I've been wondering about that. On the face of it, it seems absurd, but the Mullahs always have an angle and I reckon I've figured it out.

Since the kidnapping and humiliation of British sailors the Mullahs have, correctly, booked the Brits as total mugs who can be relied on to react in a predictably comical and cringing manner.

By accusing the utterly ineffectual Brits, the Iranians have consigned Barry to the lowly category of inconsequential wuss. Too pathetic to even be regarded an enemy. Brilliant. Now that's what I call nuanced statesmanship.

In fact, those wiley foxes have done him up like a kipper. Once they've dealt with all those pesky dissidents (and now they really know who they are), then what? Obama's going to sit down and talk with that bunch of Fascist thugs? What a jerk.

The scary thing is, he'll probably get on fine with them.

Don Campbell

Barak Obama: "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, the beatings, and imprisonments of the last few days. I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that is lost."

Dear Melanie,
Where was your outrage when New York city cops were videotaped beating and running vehicles into lawful protesters in New York City during the GOP convention 2004?

And how would you have responded if Vladimir Putin had called the US election of 2000 a sham and announced he was standing in solidarity with the Democrats?

Finally, would you please outline in concrete terms the mechanism that the US can implement to back up your statement: "If he had put America stoutly behind the protesters and championed them against the regime, by now they might have toppled it."

Dixon

Other people commenting here seem to miss the point. Its of no concern to us what is best from the Iranian point of view. Indeed, from a British point of view, when a commentator declares themselves to be Iranian... as several here have...that in effect makes their opinion utterly irrelevant. Its how things pan out for US that matters.

From that point of view, it doesnt matter whether we are seen as "meddling" or not BY THE IRANIANS, of any persuasion. Not does it matter in the least if giving support to anti-government forces renders them suspect. All that should matter is that we seize the opportunity to sow as much trouble, strife and disruption for the Iranian state as possible.

This is a perfect opportunity to throw some spanners in theuir works. Obammie has just suesd for surrender, as we know he always will.

Frankly, I dont give a monkeys ( or even, as someone corrected, a rats ass ) how many protesters are butchered as a result of our endorsing them. The more bloodshed on the Iranian streets, on the hands of the Iranian regime, the better it is for us, in the long run.

Chaos, mayhem., strife, bloodshed and suffering, give it to them. Fuel unrest. Foment insurrection. Anything that weakens them is in our advantage.

The gentle middle

I simply can't tell you how much I disagree with this post.

Even if you disagree with Obama's approach, no-one can sensibly describe it as "disgraceful". Also, there is absolutely no reason to believe as far as i can see that if Obama "had put America stoutly behind the protesters and championed them against the regime, by now they might have toppled it".

So far, in the wake of his Cairo speech we have seen a concerted swing to moderation in Lebanon and a popular uprising in Iran. Those would have been beyond the wildest dreams of the Bush administration. In addition, under the Obama administration, we have finally seen the Pakistan army stiffen its sinew and push back the Taliban.

Of course, you may say that these are all merely coincidences, but there must come a point where even you would accept that a regular sequence of benign occurances is causally connected to the foreign policy adopted.

In the end, you can only do things and if you get good results you might think you've done the right thing. By contrast, Bush did many things and got very bad results.

Wills

Melanie Phillips, I disagree. You say the president's remarks are "too little, far too late and still far too inadequate," but for what? To prevent the Iranian Regime's crackdown on its own people? No, the regime's domestic behavior would be no different no matter what the U.S. or any other western nation had said. Rather, the president has sidestepped a simple trap created by the regime to muddle the issues in the minds of its own people and Muslims abroad.

David MacKinnon

Don Campbell,

Are you seriously comparing protests at the 2004 GOP convention and the contested 2000 election in the U.S., with what is going on in Iran today?

Any points you attempt to make after that are entirely lost in the absurdity of your comparison.

Suki

Javad, Wills: "Rather, the president has sidestepped a simple trap created by the regime to muddle the issues in the minds of its own people and Muslims abroad."

Er, why has he just contradicted his 'I won't meddle stance' by condemning the mullhas.

Obama's own words have overtaken the rubbish you two have spoken.

You can't blame Melanie Phillips for the fact that Obama can't make a simple decision from one day to the next.

Marty

As long as the US loomed large as the an imminent threat on the Iranian political stage, it was impossible for reformers to openly challenge Ahmadinejad without appearing to side with the Great Satan. The underlying fissures in Iran's political class, and between the people of Iran and the Ahmadinejad government, are only now exposed because Obama has taken a step back from the aggressive tone of the Bush administration.

But simplistic chest-thumpers insist that Obama should posture like am American television wrestler--as if bellicose threats and cheerleading are somehow the decisive factors in political struggles.

That was the conservative approach to the the most recent American election, and the conservatives lost badly. Why don't they learn from experience?

John Edwards

I agree with Javad, who as an Iranian possibly knows what he is talking about

Mr R

logdon, 9 am: You make a very good point, and one in fact made by the Dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, who said as follows: "An election, in the minds of millions of people in Iran, has been stolen. And the question is, ‘What is the world going to do about it?’ Is there an electricity strike at the United Nations that the lights went out and they can’t act?"

He pointed out that the UN can put together a resolution condemning Israel in less than 12 hours, but so far not one member country of the UN Security Council has come forward to call an emergency session about the flawed election.

Which simply means that if the UN is so partisan, and so selective about the "wrongs" it wants to "right", is there any reason at all that the Israeli Govt, or indeed any reasonable person, should pay any attention to its pronouncements?

Suki

Yes, John Edwards, and Gordon Brown is British. Doesn't make him an expert on running Britain, though, does it?

Dixon

John Edwards
June 24th, 2009 8:17pm
I agree with Javad, who as an Iranian possibly knows what he is talking about"

And I stand by my earlier comment. The opinions of Iranians, what is best for Iranians or in the interests of Iran are all things utterly irrelevant to the only valid question, how can we exploit the situation to our advantage?

Original Tony

Simon, you need to study ancient Iranian history...you say maybe the Iranians want to be a nuclear power...maybe they want to support the Palestinians (who hate Israel).

Actually, the answer is no to both of these comments. The Iranians are tolerant people, led by a few nutters who have tried to make them hateful, radical human beings.

For many centuries large poulations of Jews lived happily in Iran and so did Christians. Iranians were well disposed towards Judaism.

I do not believe they want to keep up this facade of being the world's baddies but want to return to a state of national pride and acceptance in the world community.

The regime has turned on Britian because, like a cornered Tiger, it goes for the weakest opponent to get out of its fix. They sure got it right there with our bumbling buffoons in power who are cosying up to Hizbullah as I type this!

Adam B.

John Edwards, isn't it a bit silly to presume all Iranians think alike? I think the events of the past few weeks prove they do not!

I know an Iranian who thinks differently to Javad - so what does it prove?

Peter

"During his press confrence yesterday, Obama stated "I think that we don't know yet how this thing is going to play out. I know everybody here is on a 24-hour news cycle. I'm not. OK?".

Of course he isn't,his spin doctors are.They are also watching the internal polls and focus groups.

America should keep its nose out,not as if it is Iranian munitions which were and are killing Americans in Iraq,now is it? Not as if the Mullahs ordered those munitions to be used? Not much it isn't!
Face it, Obama doesn't have a clue

Michael B

From within Iran, an eyewitness video

"... to express our opposition to these killings ... and demanding freedom"

"... but the black clad police, they stop everyone ... some five-hundred ... with clubs ... came out of [a mosque] and ... started beating everyone and they tried to beat everyone on [a pedestrian bridge], throwing them off of the bridge ..."

"... they beat a woman so savagely she was drenched in blood, her husband who was watching the scene he just fainted"

"... the security forces shooting young people"

"... they were trying to beat people so that they would die"

"... they were beating old men ... this was a ... massacre"

"... people were being shot like animals, they beat the people like animals"

"... they are killing students with axes ... they put the ax to the heart of young men"

"...it's so devastating, this is horrific ... this is a massacre ... this is [like] Hitler"

zhombre

Does basiji mean acorn in Farsi?

Prisca

Im from the US and it seems to me that Iran has to pick on someone and blame them, and they picked on Britain instead of the US because if they silence this rebellion, Ahmadin may choose to talk to Obama as a way of using the US to legitimize him as leader by viture of the fact that he sits down with him. If Iran attacks the US too much before such talks could happen, maybe they think he'll take them off the table--so they are focusing there usual blame game tactic on Britain instead of the US

An American

What was it that Obama's Michelle said..."For the first time in my life, I'm proud of my country"...Well, I would like to state that "For the first time in my life, I'm ashamed of my country"...all because of Michelle's pathetic, cowardly excuse of a husband who has absolutely no concept of what 'freedom' means to Americans and Iranians alike.

An American

Dixon,

Pretty hard hitting comments...but you do have a point. This is also about survival of the West.

With Iran getting the bomb and they will get it eventually because Obama and the UN will allow them get it...we need to think of our survival.

But, unlike you, I do care about the brave Iranians that are risking their lives to overthrow this Islamic theocracy. And I do believe this protest has more to do with freedom from repression than about a vote miscount.

I wish the Iranian protestors victory for themselves and in turn, ourselves.

Why don't you join us ocassionally at Conservative Cabbie.com We could use you to stir things up...

An American

Augustus,

I agree that the genie is out of the Iranian bottle. It may take some time, but hopefully something better will come out of these riots and the sacrifices the protestors are making.

I can't imagine what it must be like to be an intelligent, informed, educated Iranian and have a leader that believes, and is looking forward to the day that his Messiah will soon be crawling out of his well to lay waste to the world...

If you have time...check out Conservative Cabbie.com We could use your insightful take on American politics.

Mark

Melanie

The reason Iran has focussed on the UK is simple. Obama and the Mullahs have an agreement in place. This was obvious eevn before the revelation that Obama had sent them a letter.

Geoff M

The demonisation of Britain IS a call to arms.

Only last week we had senior security people saying that our previous terrorist attacks were carried out by amateurs - in future they will be well trained, funded and organised.

The only way our political "elite" will change tack is if we are subjected to a number of successful attacks - and only then if the public at large turns against them.

Weird isn't it.

The only hope for us staving off the creeping Islamisation of the UK is if Islamic Terrorists have a successful campaign.

Linda Smith

Iran demonizing England - oh well, makes a change from demonizing Israel.

tom durkin

"might it be because Britain is where the most radicalised Islamic community in Europe contains the most significant number of Hezbollah sleepers waiting for the signal to attack?"
oh my god melanie you're so smart and the only one brave enough to speak the truth!!
wikd article - hope you have told british intelligence where they are all staying
lmao

Dixon

Original Tony
June 25th, 2009 12:05am
Simon, you need to study ancient Iranian history...
The Iranians are tolerant people..."

Original Tony, I am shocked at your choice of sides!!!

Your charge that the other bloke needs some "ancient history" is rather ironic given your conclusion drawn from...well, a lack of such knowledge yourself!

Ancient history: Persia invaded and sacked Greece. Unprovoked. They kept up their attempts to conquer and subjugate our fellow Europeans and founders of democracy until finally pounded to dust by overwhelming forces at the battle of Plataea. Thats the one alluded to an a recent Guinness advert. So I guess the makers of Guinness assume you know more ancient history than you reveal!

The lesson of ancient history, therefore is that if you give them an inch theyll try biting off your arm, head, legs and torso.

Not that I believe in the idea that "ancient history" can tell us anything about 21st century national identity.

Dixon

Re An American. Is there really a website for Conservative Cabbie? I shall look.

Meanwhile, I do like to stir things up...but that includes myself. I am a very mild mannered person ( unless provoked ) and as upset by TV images of suffering as anyone. BUT>>BUT>>>BUT, I maintain a distinction between my political world-view and my feelings. In my world-view, there is no basis for morality, ethics or concern for anyone outside the sphere of what is useful to oneself.

My views may seem extreme by todays criteria, but they are essentially those that would have been considered "normal" less than fifty years ago, when nuclear weapons were openly considered as a means of putting a quick end to North Vietnams invasion of its southern neighbour.

Clearly, the existence of the USSR made such pragmatic policies hazardous. But now there is no USSR, the real "peace dividend" was that we were suddenly free to wage any war by any means we liked. And our leaders threw away that freedom!

I think thats how this era will be regarded by posterity.

Ellen

Mark Steyn: "What's striking about the Bystander-in-Chief is that the more he does nothing, the more credit he gets for everything. In the New York Times, Helene Cooper attributes events in Iran to the Obama "stealth effect." The fellows in the street shouting "Death to the dictator!" were apparently inspired to rise up by Obama's outreach to the, er, dictator.'

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTQyNmJjYzAxYTE3ODNmMjI0MjA3YzViYTRhMzVjNjA=

He also has some choice words on Boris Johnson's Obama grovelling.

David

"What a disgrace that this man is leader of the free world; and at such a point in history. If he had put America stoutly behind the protesters and championed them against the regime, by now they might have toppled it."

Really? What's the logic behind this reasoning?

Drakken

The more we in the West get blamed for meddling the more we should meddle. As for the so called average Persian we should send arms and know how and see how the mullahs like it. The more we sow chaos, panic and disorder the better for us.