In Iran, Public Tide Turning Against Ahmadinejad? (Iraq, enemy, Israel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A story about an enthusiastic rally for a moderate candidate running against Ahmadinejad.
"Days before June 12 vote, Mir Hossein Mousavi gets 'savior's' welcome in a former presidential stronghold"
The result in Birjand was an opposition rally in which thousands of wildly cheering supporters draped in green welcomed their candidate in a sports arena with deafening cries of support and "Death to the dictator."
***
Since the debate, especially, Mousavi's statements at rallies have shed their earlier polite veneer in favor of more direct attacks against Ahmadinejad.
***
The last time Ahmadinejad had visited, schools and universities were closed and people told to go to his rally
***
Ahmadinejad's supporters were on the streets of Birjand also, shortly after the Mousavi rally broke up.
Some 30 to 40 motorcycles with two or three young men riding each roared down the road carrying Ahmadinejad signs, not unlike the right-wing Hezbollah toughs who once attacked reformist rallies. They were flying a yellow flag of Lebanese Hezbollah militia.
A young government worker standing on the dark sidewalk as the motorcycles roared past was not impressed. Said Hossein: "Those things are not effective anymore, because people have seen the true face."
But "Ahmadinejad has received frequent support from Iran's supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Sayed Ali Khamenei. And he has the quiet institutional backing of the ideological basiji militia and Revolutionary Guards, who have benefited hugely from presidential largesse."
Ahmadinejad has more in common with Bush than either would like to admit, use hyper patriotism to mask the collapse of your economy. Eventually the bread basket trumps paranoia.
I believe that the brilliance of Obama's speech in Cario is that it is the first attempt by a US President in a very long time to separate moderate from extremist factions among the Muslim community.
As I have stated and eluded to in prior discussions on Iran and other similar topics, when faced in a confrontational manner, it more often is the cause of national solidarity among our opposition. Just as American's joined together in the aftermath of 9-11 and for a brief time, became as one, so too does this occur when other nations face a threat.
Obama's attempt at splitting the extremist from the moderates may or may not work, only time will tell. In the case of Iran, Ahmadinejad's popularity is very much directly related to the tone and speech coming out of Washington and Israel. People will naturally gravitate towards even a big mouthed foul leader who shouts back at those threatening them. When a hand is extended, they will shout louder in hopes to incite, but the people will take pause and consider the opportunity of another direction. While no guarantees, it is something that has rarely been attempted in the last decade, so to say it will not be effective is difficult since it is rarely tried.
“You see, when a nation threatens another nation the people of the latter forget their factionalism, their local antagonisms, their political differences, their suspicions of each other, their religious hostilities, and band together as one unit. Leaders know that, and that is why so many of them whip up wars during periods of national crisis, or when the people become discontented and angry. The leaders stigmatize the enemy with every vice they can think of, every evil and human depravity. They stimulate their people’s natural fear of all other men by channeling it into a defined fear of just certain men, or nations. Attacking another nation, then, acts as a sort of catharsis, temporarily, on men’s fear of their immediate neighbors. This is the explanation of all wars, all racial and religious hatreds, all massacres, and all attempts at genocide.” --Taylor Caldwell, "The Devil’s Advocate"
In the meantime we will deal with a lot of "It can never work, just because", never mind it having never been attempted.
Did you know the Cairo speech wasnt broadcast in Iran? Satellite signals were jammed there. I've looked around at English-language sites for forums and comments from Iranians but havent found any, or any translated forums. Public comments on it in English at Al Jazeera are mostly from Westerners.
In just a week Iran goes to the polls. Obama's Cairo speech appeared to attempt to undermine the demagoguery of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
A few hours before the speech, the leading moderate in Iran's election, former prime minister Mirhossein Mousavi, accused Ahmadinejad of humiliating the Iranian nation by adopting "extremist" foreign policy.
It was the first televised debate in country since the 1979 Islamic revolution and the streets in Tehran were largely deserted as millions of Iranians gathered around their TVs.
"The Iranians have been humiliated around the globe since you have been elected. I truly feel sorry for them," Mousavi said.
Then Obama's speech. If Ahmadinejad loses it might be seen as a watershed moment in the US use of "smart" power. Obama made the extraordinary admission that the US was involved in the overthrow of the democratically elected government in 1953. His speech could help do the same job next week.
That would be an astonishing result - and without a shot fired. Let's hope it works.
Also the moderate candidate in the OP is a former prime minister - didnt know that.
But Iranian quality of life is affected by their president.
I hope by you dont mean this thread should be shut down because it doesnt provide a decent topic for discussion
Didn't mention shutting the thread down at all. My point is that many folks in the USA expect internal changes in Iran if Ahmadinejad loses, and I believe that they will find that the changes are very minimal (especially concerning nuclear weapon development and Iran's relations with other nations).
Didn't mention shutting the thread down at all. My point is that many folks in the USA expect internal changes in Iran if Ahmadinejad loses, and I believe that they will find that the changes are very minimal (especially concerning nuclear weapon development and Iran's relations with other nations).
Okey-dokey
I understand about the Ayatollah being the supreme leader, but not sure that the president has little influence on him or on the people's positive or negative psychology.
In Mousavi's current campaign, '[h]e has stated that his main goals are to institutionalise social justice, equality and fairness, freedom of expression, rooting out corruption as well as to speed up Iran's pending process of privatization and thus move Iran away from what he calls "an alms-based economy".[3]' - Mir-Hossein Mousavi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
As PM during the Iran-Iraq War he "managed" the economy and "protected" civilians; I cant tell how much influence the PM has on the military.
OTOH:
"Presidential hopeful Mir-Hossein Mousavi says he will push ahead with Iran's nuclear activities and will never halt uranium enrichment"....but "He said if elected, his policy would be to work to provide 'guarantees' that Tehran's nuclear activities would never divert to non-peaceful aims." - Mousavi: Iran will never halt enrichment
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
