Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Ahmadinejad On the Outs?
Posted by: Dale Franks on Wednesday, November 21, 2007

I have to say, this is an unexpected development.
In a rare attack on Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a hardline newspaper has accused him of behaving immorally towards his political rivals.

The Islamic Republic daily, close to Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has said Mr Ahmadinejad's behaviour is dangerous for Iran.

The publication is seen as a newspaper with impeccable Islamic credentials.

The attack would be difficult to imagine without at least tacit support from Ayatollah Khamenei.

In a hard-hitting editorial on Wednesday, the Tehran paper said the president's treatment of his critics was immoral, illogical and illegal.

It was referring to a recent speech by Mr Ahmadinejad when he described people opposed to his nuclear programme as traitors and accused some senior former nuclear negotiators of spying for foreigners.
Everyone has been assuming that Mr. Ahmadinejad was operating with the advice and consent of the Mullahs. They are the guys running the show over there, whatever the results of their "elections" may be. But if Ayatollah K (or his close associates) says Mr. Ahmadinejad is a weasel, then you have to wonder how bright his political future will be.

Also, it's important to note that, by criticizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the editorial gives implicit support to the country's domestic opponents of his nuclear strategy and negotiations.

In addition to the dimming of Mr. Ahmadinejad's political future, one has to wonder if this presages a less hard-line approach to Iran's position on the nuclear issue.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Ahmadinejad was acting as expected. The Iranian leadership either has had a recent change of direction or this is just another stall tactic.
 
Written By: jpm100
URL: http://
I guess that the one good thing about the Iranian government is that it does have credible division of powers. It’s interesting to see how that structure can be effective even in relation to the likes of Ahmadinejad and Khamenei.
 
Written By: Rob
URL: http://
The difficulty in our dealings with Iran has always been their internal disconnect. By and large, the folks there like America - their government however, wants (Ahmadinejad demands,) a seat at the big table.

I think this editorial is a clear indication of Patraeus’ success in quelling sectarian fighting in Iraq. Saber rattling and covert actions against the US led nation-building attempt aren’t working anymore. Add on top that Israel quietly, and without any major international opposition, took down what may have been a Syrian nuke site. The path Ahmadinejad has chosen may have had early potential, but now, I hope, the mullahs are recognizing that a half a loaf baked normally is better than the illusory full loaf instantly baked sans flour and yeast. I suspect that the mullahs, unlike Ron Paul, see Ahmadinejad’s audacious steps as increasingly counter-productive and will not countenance them, nor him, indefinitely.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
In addition to the dimming of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s political future, one has to wonder if this presages a less hard-line approach to Iran’s position on the nuclear issue
Blame Bush?
 
Written By: Jimmy the Dhimmi
URL: http://www.warning1938alert.ytmnd.com
I think this editorial is a clear indication of Patraeus’ success in quelling sectarian fighting in Iraq. Saber rattling and covert actions against the US led nation-building attempt aren’t working anymore. Add on top that Israel quietly, and without any major international opposition, took down what may have been a Syrian nuke site
Bains...Quite so.

So, so much for the arguments of the usual suspects, who have been claiming that the Bush Foreign policy is ineffective. Clearly, it’s working and working well. As seems clear, now, the left would have negotiated and capitulated us into a war with Iran. What worked was a steadfast and some would say, militaristic approach.

The speed with which the Democrats switch from complaining about it, to ignoring it, will, I predict, be nearly as great as the transition from their meme of ’Iraq is a failure" to the complete silence which greated our vast successes there.

And look, the change of tack on the part of the Mullahs was not unexpected. True, Ahmadinejad was indeed working with the advice and consent of the Mullahs... who have just figured out how badly they have erred. The reality of Iran’s situation is now such that they need to dump Ahmadinejad to save face. Ahmadinejad’s going to be their sacrificial lamb.

Couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Not everyone has been saying that he’s been operating with the advice and consent of the religious leaders. I’ve been arguing for some time that one shouldn’t take him too seriously and that there are signs the conservatives are down on him. That’s actually been mentioned I think by McQ in a blog awhile back, if memory serves me right. So I think the idea that Ahmadinejad reflects the views of the Guardian Council has long been questioned or even rejected. This just verifies it.

To those who try to credit Iraq with this, that’s hilarious. The real credit goes to China and Russia, who have behind the scenes continued pressure on the Guardian Council to essentially quiet Ahmadinejad or risk having them side with the "West" on tough actions against Iran. It’s geopolitics.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
To those who try to credit Iraq with this, that’s hilarious. The real credit goes to China and Russia, who have behind the scenes continued pressure on the Guardian Council to essentially quiet Ahmadinejad or risk having them side with the "West" on tough actions against Iran. It’s geopolitics.
And that dynamic wouldn’t have occurred had Iraq not happened, Scott. Iran wouldn’t have been dealing with any outsiders at all.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
It’s typical that Scott will never credit the US or Iraq with any positive developments.

It’s a complex backchannel game to be sure, but you can bet that the US’s increasing publicity that Iran is supplying weapons and troops to kill Americans and Iraqis in Iraq has something to do with China and Russia getting cold feet about Iran, and thereby pressuring Iran to back Ahmadinejad down.

Does Scott suppose that Russia and China act out of some heartfelt concern for global harmony that the United States, being a declining adventurist state, lacks?

I suspect that the breathtakingly successful Israeli strike on the Syrian nuclear facility in September also has something to do with it. Israeli, with some US assistance, blew right past the Syrian air defenses that Iran had paid for from Russia. Those are the same air defenses that Iran uses to guard their nuclear facilities.

No, I’d say that Russia, China, Iran and Syria got the word about US strength and this is what is changing the balance in the Middle East.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Hush guys, don’t spoil the American decline story.
Anything positive that happens from now on is a result of Putin shaking his fist at the West and China doing, something or other.

Nothing positive that occurs will be because of the US, as we are in decline, and no one is listening to us.
Certainly NO good will come of any policy Bush has anything to do with,
and for heaven sakes, don’t get all emotional about any of it.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I’m not sure Iran’s mullahs much care about Russia or China. They banned the Tudeh party which caused the Russians to get very angry with them back in the day.

But the mullahs have many internal factions.
 
Written By: Harun
URL: http://
I’m not sure Iran’s mullahs much care about Russia or China. They banned the Tudeh party which caused the Russians to get very angry with them back in the day.
Perhaps not. But even if true, it’d be as I’ve said. they’d not be dealing with ANY outsiders, given the chance.

But more... I note this in the WaPo, just now:

BAGHDAD, Nov. 21 — More than 300,000 Shiite Muslims from southern Iraq have signed a petition condemning Iran for fomenting violence in Iraq, according to a group of sheiks leading the campaign.

"The Iranians, in fact, have taken over all of south Iraq," said a senior tribal leader from the south who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared for his life. "Their influence is everywhere."

The unusually organized Iraqi rebuke illustrates the divisions that Iran has provoked among Iraq’s majority Shiites. The prime minister and major political blocs are closely tied to Iran, but the petition organizers said many citizens are fiercely opposed to Iranian meddling in Iraqi affairs.

Several sheiks leading the campaign traveled to the capital from the southern province of Diwaniyah and showed The Washington Post and other news organizations an electronic file filled with images of signatures they said endorsed the petition. Their effort is being supported by the People’s Mujaheddin Organization of Iran, or Mujaheddin-e Khalq, an Iranian opposition group that is listed by the U.S. government as a terrorist organization but that nonetheless enjoys U.S. military protection in Iraq.

The petition, which the organizers said was signed by 600 sheiks, calls on the United Nations to send a delegation to investigate what it termed crimes committed by Iran and its proxies in southern Iraq.


It appears to me to be directly related to the points Bruce makes... and it also seems to me that the move by the 600 sheiks in Iraq, is what pushed the Mullahs in Iran to raise this complaint.

And who would argue that the complaints of the sheiks in Iraq isn’t being driven by the US?

OK, beyond Erb, I mean.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
To be sure there is much fine-grain and many cross-currents to everything in the Middle East. No group is completely on any other group’s side. No country is fully one way or another.

Nonetheless, if Iran is to realize its long-term ambitions for dominance in the Middle East and in the Muslim world, it can’t go it alone. It needs allies and it needs technology. That means Russia an ally and a source of military technology, and China as an ally and as a customer for oil.

The US is a very serious enemy and now resides on Iran’s border. Al-Qaeda’s and Iran’s Tet offensive in the months leading up to Petraeus’s testimony failed, and thus the Democratic leadership lacks the evidence to press its agenda home of declaring the Iraq War lost and forcing American troops to withdraw. If Iran via Ahmadinejad continues to agitate about its desire for nuclear weapons, the eradication of Israel, and continues to make war against US/Iraqi forces, it is serious business indeed and at some point, the US might well attack Iran. Which is bad business for all, but especially for Iran, China and to a lesser extent Russia.

Prof. Erb not withshstanding, the current success of the US in Iraq changes the geopolitics of the region considerably. In fact I find it rather amazing that Prof. Erb with all his expertise in international relations can possibly imagine that this large sea change in Iraq guaranteeing the continued presence and likely success of the US in Iraq would not change the balance in the region, and that Iran, Russian and China would not be forced to reassess and scale back their strategies for the time being.

It seems another case of Prof. Erb’s ideological blindness to inconvenient truths.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://

It seems another case of Prof. Erb’s ideological blindness to inconvenient truths.


LOL! You guys have a set script that’s for sure. Any time anything good happens, credit the US. Any time anything bad happens, blame someone else. The idea that the US "success" is causing change in simply based on fantasy. The idea that the Guardian Council would completely alter its position in the international sphere because of complaints from Iraq is downright funny — it stretches the interpretation so far that it’s like someone crediting President Bush for a sunny day.

Here’s the deal: Iran’s policy has not changed. Iran is pursuing a nuclear energy program, and wants to be prepared to get nuclear weapons as well. Their goal is to be a strategic player in a region which is geopolitically important, connecting the Persian Gulf to Central Asia, Russia and China. Banning the Tudeh in Iran is irrelevant in terms of foreign policy, this is a geopolitical game, and they are playing it well. They are naturally more powerful than other states in the region (outside of Russia and China) and sit in the crossroads, right on the Persian Gulf.

As far back as 2005 there were rumblings that the Guardian Council disliked the tone of Ahmadinejad. In local elections back when things were at their worst for the US in Iraq Ahmadinejad’s allies were trounced. Their policy requires Machiavellian realism, and bombastic assertions of power or needless rhetorical provocations simply gives the international community reason not to trust Iran, and pushes Russia and China into an awkward position (Iran’s most important allies, especially on issues of sanctions and economics). Ahmadinejad is on the outs because of his style, not his substance. Iranian policy towards Iraq, and involving nuclear energy is long term, and they are convinced (probably correctly) that they have time on their side. They don’t want some bombastic blowhard to mess things up.

But I love this alternative reality where bad news and problems are poo-pooed away (such as the US policy helping cause Ahmadinejad to get elected, continuing problems throughout Iraq) by slogans such as "slow steps," while anything "good," like the Guardian Council deciding Ahmadinejad was doing them more harm than good with his big mouth are explained by trying to credit the US. It’s such an obvious bias that I’m going to have to use it as an example when explaining how one has to work to avoid biases in analyzing foreign policy.

The bad news for the hawks on Iran is that once Ahmadinejad is gone — probably after the next election — they’ll get another very pleasant and reasonable President like Khatami, the international pressure on Iran will go down considerably, but the policy will remain essentially the same. It has for decades.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, by the way, my blog from JANUARY 18, 2007 — back when the US was having some of its worst problems in Iraq, noted the following — clearly Ahmadinejad’s problems are not dependent on US policy:

January 18, 2007 - Meanwhile in Iran...

Although you won’t hear much about this from those who demonize Iran, the fact that it is a democracy (albeit a limited one) is creating interesting political developments. President Ahmadinejad, who many in this country consider very dangerous, and whose rather wild rhetoric is paraded as an example of what Iranian intentions are, continues to find himself under attack and weakened. Not only did his fundamentalist allies lose big in elections last month (essentially assuring that there won’t be a radical fundamentalist as the next Supreme Leader of the Guardian Council, and weakening the fundamentalist grip on government), but he is facing an internal revolt by even conservatives against his policies.

Ahmadinejad has failed to deliver on his economic promises, meaning unemployment and a stagnant economy remain major problems. The game of nuclear chicken he is playing with the West strikes some as being an unnecessary distraction while Iran has to deal with internal difficulties. Moreover, within Iran there is a sense that Ahmadinejad could overplay Iran’s new position of power and create a constellation of Sunni Arab states willing to engage in punitive actions against them.

. . .

Iranian intellectuals are especially put off by Ahmadinejad’s anti-intellectual populism (this includes Islamic conservative intellectuals), and many believe that the goal of becoming a major regional power with valuable connections to China and Russia is being endangered by needless provcation of the Americans and the Sunni Arab world. After all, America is a in quagmire in Iraq, and Iran doesn’t really need to kick mud in our faces. Iran is gaining a fellow Shi’ite state as an ally in the new Iraq, there is no need to do things that create fear in the Sunni Arab world.

. . .

So the pressure is building for Ahmadinejad to stop being bombastic in foreign affairs and to focus more on problems at home. I suspect that pressure will work; the President of Iran is not any kind of dictatorial post, and there is even talk of impeachment. But if the US were to attack Iran or Iranian facilities, all bets are off. Ahmadinejad could again play the nationalist card, and use anger at the US (which would be similar to the anger Americans felt on 9-11) to regain support. But as it is, we need to recognize the complexity of Iran’s political system, and the diverse views that have clout there. A simplistic "Iran evil" view that far too many pundits and politicians espouse is dead wrong.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
LOL! You guys have a set script that’s for sure.
Yes indeed. It’s called "the truth".

Any time anything good happens, credit the US. Any time anything bad happens, blame someone else.
Reverse projection, Erb... as we’ve already discussed.

The bad news for the hawks on Iran is that once Ahmadinejad is gone — probably after the next election — they’ll get another very pleasant and reasonable President like Khatami, the international pressure on Iran will go down considerably, but the policy will remain essentially the same. It has for decades.
If you think this recent push for nuclear arms on the part of Iran is anything but a very recent situation, brought about by foreign policy imposed by the Clinton administration,(Particularly as regards N Korea) you are sorely mistaken. Nothing unusual about that, I suppose.


 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
If you think this recent push for nuclear arms on the part of Iran is anything but a very recent situation, brought about by foreign policy imposed by the Clinton administration,(Particularly as regards N Korea) you are sorely mistaken. Nothing unusual about that, I suppose.
Your partisan interpretation of reality is amusing. I would say that it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re talking about here, but I think it’s worse. You said in the past that whoever wins wars determines truth, and defending that power determines truth idea. I don’t think you care about reality, you will embrace any argument, make any claim, attack any person, if it promotes your political agenda. That goes towards the kind of political ideology Mussolini put together, and I find repulsive.

But maybe it’s just lack of knowledge on your part.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Your partisan interpretation of reality is amusing.
Implicit in your phrasing is the claim that you’re not being partisan. I think everybody else in your but you knows what a crock of bull that is.
You said in the past that whoever wins wars determines truth
Not quite. What I said was the winner gets to enforce his own version of truth. That doesn’t necessarily make it right or wrong from objective point of view, but look at your own comments and tell me what subjective. Tell me what is ’objective’. You can’t, because you’re not. For example; if we hadn’t won the second world war, we’d be speaking German right now. Has it never dawned on you that in every war in history, the winner has always been able to enforce his own morality on both the winners and losers? That’s the reality that you apparently don’t care about. I mean, welcome to the world... did you just get here?

You don’t honestly think that the nuclear deals that went down between North Korea and Iran, and Syria, got started the day the George Bush was elected president, now do you? That stuff was going on all through the nineties, all through the Clinton administration and was only recently culminated. And you’re going to tell me I don’t know what I’m talking about? Laughable.

And personally, I take your finding me repulsive as one of the best compliments I’ve received all week. As for me, when you get up to repulsive, I’ll let you know. K?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Oh, before I forget.... here... read and learn.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Not quite. What I said was the winner gets to enforce his own version of truth.


Nope, that’s not what you said.

By the way, you make a really bizarre claim here:
For example; if we hadn’t won the second world war, we’d be speaking German right now.
No. Germany couldn’t have taken over the US or much beyond eastern Europe, even if it had been successful. It simply wasn’t that powerful. At best Germany could have defeated the Soviet regime, reconstituted Russia as a puppet state, grabbing eastern lands for itself (much like how it dealt with France), and Germany would have been the dominant European state. We may have learned German as a second language more often because of that status, but it’s not like they had any chance of occupying the US.

Allerdings, habe ich nichts dagegen, wenn wir Deutsch sprechen.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Allerdings, habe ich nichts dagegen, wenn wir Deutsch sprechen.
And eatinzee sh*tzkie and barkenzieatt der moon! WTF was that all about? Jeez, Erb - you been smoking the herbs they grow in the faculty lounge again?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Nope, that’s not what you said.
I think we may have identified one of the problems as regards your lack of comprehension; you have a reading issue. It would also explain how you so seriously under-estimate the threat posted by the Axis.

Andererseits kann jedermann sehen, daß Sie ein Dummkopf in jeder möglicher Sprache sind.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Gee, Bithead, you can call names and make assertions. But can you back anything up? Can you actually make an argument? Any one can assert they said something they didn’t, insult another person, or call names. Can you back anything up?

Ich meine, Herr Shiell, ich spreche gern Deutsch. Nichts weiteres.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Everyone who has tried that with you, gets ignored. After several years of your playing that game, (Where and elsewhere)you simply don’t qualify for more than what I’ve given.



 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Oh... quick example... I note you ignored the links I provided in support of my argument in this very thread. On what basis should I expect that situation to change?

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Your links said nothing to support your argument, Bithead. In fact, they went to a google search. Pretty lame. And you’re lying when you say I ignore people who actually substantiate their arguments. Those are the people I take seriously. But you have to make a specific point and support it, not just link to google and pretend that anything that might be there might support you!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Your links said nothing to support your argument, Bithead
You’re either blind, or a liar. Which will you have?
It’s as I said elsewhere:
By the way, Billy, your reference to Saint Andrew the incontinent, lends itself very nicely to that point. He’s not been very long on substance lately, either, anymore than Erb has of late. And I think there’s a point to be had there; if they ever actually got into the meat of the thing, their arguments would never survive. They know that, which is why they never do get into anything heavier.

In Erb’s case, it’s what caused me to simply give up on trying to make a dent in that facade of his. Break out the heavy facts, and the guy ducks faster than the average mortal can blink. You know as well as I know you’re never gonna change his mind based on facts, because his arguments were never based on fact. Bromides, that’s all. Pure bromides. I’m not playing that game with him anymore, and the fact is I have precious little patience for it in anybody else, anymore, either.
 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
Your links said nothing to support your argument, Bithead

You’re either blind, or a liar. Which will you have?
Where exactly do those links support what you said. Be specific. You can’t, because they didn’t. You’re bluffing. Gotcha!
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider