Iran Election Result

[Tchocky]

Khamenei speaking today, blamed the protests on Western intervention.


Best not to prove him right, I think.

[Steel_Tomb]

How have we "interfered" ??? "Death to the US, UK and Israel" The blokes of his bloody rocker.

[August]

Originally Posted by Max2147

What part of "American intervention would help Ahmadinejad" don't you understand?

Doing nothing apparently helps Ahmadinejad just as much so how is remaining silent the best choice?

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by August

Doing nothing apparently helps Ahmadinejad just as much so how is remaining silent the best choice?

Sort of like America before Pearl Harbor ... we're just sitting on the fence while Hillary is getting her elbow fixed.

[JSLTIGER]

Originally Posted by Steel_Tomb

How have we "interfered" ??? "Death to the US, UK and Israel" The blokes of his bloody rocker.

Yeah, well, what else is new?

[geetrue]

Like the article states this letter can't be proven, but still worth wondering about: Secret letter

Iranian Film Makers: Document Shows Moussavi Won
by Maayana Miskin

Two Iranian film makers met with members of the Europen Union Parliament on Tuesday and displayed a letter that they said proves the recent elections in Iran were rigged. The letter, allegedly written by the Iranian electoral commission, shows that reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Moussavi won over 19 million votes and was the rightful winner.

After Moussavi was Mehdi Karroubi with 13.3 million votes, followed by incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with just 5.5 million, according to the document. The document's authenticity has not been proven.

The film makers, Marjane Satrapi and Mohsen Makhmalbaf, called on the EU not to recognize the official results of Iran's presidential elections. Iranian authorities say Ahmadinejad won the elections with 62 percent of the vote.
The letter was supposedly sent secretly from Iran's Interior Ministry, which runs the nation's elections, to Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The document includes the alleged real results of the election, and a promise to keep Ahmadinejad as president regardless of the popular vote.

"Following your concerns regarding the results of the presidential election and per your given discretion to have Dr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad remain as president during this sensitive juncture. Therefore, everything has been planned in a way that the public announcement will be made in accordance with the interests of the regime and the revolution,” the letter states.

[Max2147]

Originally Posted by August

Doing nothing apparently helps Ahmadinejad just as much so how is remaining silent the best choice?

How does doing nothing help Ahmadinejad?

The United States can't have a positive impact on the outcome in Iran. There's nothing in our foreign policy toolbox that will give us the desired result. Therefore, it's all about minimizing the damage, and doing nothing is the best way to do that.

I know that saying "we aren't able to do anything" offends the American psyche, but it's better to admit a truth you don't like than to pretend that something false is true.

[August]

Originally Posted by Max2147

How does doing nothing help Ahmadinejad?

The United States can't have a positive impact on the outcome in Iran. There's nothing in our foreign policy toolbox that will give us the desired result. Therefore, it's all about minimizing the damage, and doing nothing is the best way to do that.

I know that saying "we aren't able to do anything" offends the American psyche, but it's better to admit a truth you don't like than to pretend that something false is true.

Well my psyche isn't any more offended than it is by the fact we've never paid them back fully for taking our embassy staff hostage back in 1979.

Originally Posted by Max2147

How does doing nothing help Ahmadinejad?

The United States can't have a positive impact on the outcome in Iran. There's nothing in our foreign policy toolbox that will give us the desired result. Therefore, it's all about minimizing the damage, and doing nothing is the best way to do that.

I know that saying "we aren't able to do anything" offends the American psyche, but it's better to admit a truth you don't like than to pretend that something false is true.

In pricncipal you are correct. Iran is a soverieign nation, however deleterious in nature. But Israel is also a soverieign nation and Mr. Obama has no dificulty chastizing Israel. Why the double standard?

[Letum]

Originally Posted by CastleBravo

In pricncipal you are correct. Iran is a soverieign nation, however deleterious in nature. But Israel is also a soverieign nation and Mr. Obama has no dificulty chastizing Israel. Why the double standard?

It's not so much a double standard as much as it is dealing differently with
different nations. Diplomacy can't be effective with a one-size-fits-all attitude.

Originally Posted by Letum

It's not so much a double standard as much as it is dealing differently with
different nations. Diplomacy can't be effective with a one-size-fits-all attitude.

Well adopting the Carter principal is correct in your eyes? Slam our allies to appease the 'enemy'? Or is it economically influenced? Iran has oil and Israel doesn't. Obama is doing this for oil?

[Letum]

"Allies", "enemies"?
There isn't a war on, why use such terms?

Doing so can't possibly lead to healthy relationships with either country.
As for asking why Obama would try to achieve good relations with any
nation; isn't it almost an ends in it's self?

[quote=Letum;1120539]"Allies", "enemies"?
There isn't a war on, why use such terms?
[quote]

Well there is a war on. I guess that is where we part company. Denying the fact is naive and iresponsible. Especially if one has to safe guard 350 million people.

[CaptainHaplo]

Iran - training and supplying terrorists (with stuff like specialized armor defeating explosives) that kill our soldiers as well as terrorize innocent civilians - and continually calls for violence and our national destruction - qualifies as an enemy in my book.....

Israel - not doing any of the above, sharing intel with us, holds a treaty with us and is in good standing per those commitments, etc - qualifies them as allies in my book.

Hope that clears it up.....

[Max2147]

The difference between Obama's comments (or lack thereof) on Israel and Iran isn't an issue of ally versus enemy, it's an issue of domestic affairs versus international affairs.

Given that Obama is actively pursuing the 2-state solution, and the fact that Israel has never formally annexed Gaza or the West Bank (East Jerusalem excepted), Israel's construction of settlements outside of its internationally recognized borders is an international affairs issue. Therefore, Obama's comments about those settlements are not an interference in Israel's domestic affairs.

Now, if an Israel had an election next week and one of the candidates was running on the promise that he would stop the settlement construction, Obama would be wrong to publicly back him, as the election is an Israeli domestic matter. Similarly, if Israelis started protesting that the election was rigged, it would be wrong for Obama to publicly back or publicly criticize the protesters.

On the flip side, if Iran started building settlements inside Kuwait, it would be right for Obama to criticize Iran and take appropriate (but proportional) measures to make them stop.

There's also the issue of backing up our words. Short of extreme measures, there is nothing substantive that the US can do to help the Iranian protesters. If the Revolutionary Guard opens fire on them tomorrow, we won't be able to step in and protect them. It's generally unwise to speak when you and your adversary know that you can't do anything to back up your words.