So, the question is, how would things have changed in Iran had Ahmadinejad lost and Mousavi won? Iran is not actually run by the president - the is just a mouth piece, a public face - the country is run by a council of Mullahs lead by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, a Shiite cleric who holds the title of supreme leader. Iran's nuclear program, which claims to be for the development of civilian power, but is actually just a cover for developing weapons, is under Khamenai's control. Mousavi was a former Prime Minister and close ally to then president Khamene and has always supported Iran's nuclear program.
The west spends too much time worrying about things like "fair elections" in these radical third world countries. Look at Chavez in Venezuela, he came to power because of massive public popularity but the second time around his return to power had nothing to do with popularity - it was a rigged election, but it looked "fair" to the outside because so many people came out to support him.
If the Mullahs change their minds and let Mousavi become president - they came out quickly in support of Ahmadinejad when he declared victory - the only change we'll see in Iran is the president's name. Sure, Mousavi may not be so radically vocal as Ahmadinejad and may talk softer toward the west, but Iran will still be a rogue state, supporting world terrorism, working to destroy Israel and still developing a nuclear weapon. The softer public stand will only lull neophytes like the Obama into thinking that Iran wants dialogue with the west, while they slip the knife deeper into the west's back.
Because the Obama has no real foreign policy toward the Middle East, these are dangerous times for America and the world. The Obamocrats are easily fooled by soft talk and fancy rhetoric - heck that's how Obama got elected (Sheep always move in a flock when goaded, its the way of liberal). So, the only question that the Mullah's need to answer is, "What kind of public face do they want for Iran?" I think that the Obama would prefer a less flamboyant face - like Mousave, that way the Obama can ignore Iran and focus on destroying America. Change in Iran, like in America, means nothing.
The west spends too much time worrying about things like "fair elections" in these radical third world countries. Look at Chavez in Venezuela, he came to power because of massive public popularity but the second time around his return to power had nothing to do with popularity - it was a rigged election, but it looked "fair" to the outside because so many people came out to support him.
If the Mullahs change their minds and let Mousavi become president - they came out quickly in support of Ahmadinejad when he declared victory - the only change we'll see in Iran is the president's name. Sure, Mousavi may not be so radically vocal as Ahmadinejad and may talk softer toward the west, but Iran will still be a rogue state, supporting world terrorism, working to destroy Israel and still developing a nuclear weapon. The softer public stand will only lull neophytes like the Obama into thinking that Iran wants dialogue with the west, while they slip the knife deeper into the west's back.
Because the Obama has no real foreign policy toward the Middle East, these are dangerous times for America and the world. The Obamocrats are easily fooled by soft talk and fancy rhetoric - heck that's how Obama got elected (Sheep always move in a flock when goaded, its the way of liberal). So, the only question that the Mullah's need to answer is, "What kind of public face do they want for Iran?" I think that the Obama would prefer a less flamboyant face - like Mousave, that way the Obama can ignore Iran and focus on destroying America. Change in Iran, like in America, means nothing.
Exactly!
ReplyDeleteOnly two persons were on the ballot: both named by the mullahs!
El Greco