Iran is blowing hot and cold...
Via the BBC.
After Ahmadinejad's shocking "wipe Israel off the map" gaffe and no retraction or apology, Tehran now says it's never contemplated using violence against Israel. Well, at least that's a little reassuring. But the damage to Iran's international reputation has been done and may yet have more consequences.
Iran's foreign ministry said Tehran respected the UN charter and had never used or threatened to use force.
But it also rejected a UN Security Council statement condemning President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his remarks.
The comments were seen by the outside world as a threat and the reaction from Iran is an effort to calm the outcry, says the BBC's Tehran correspondent.
The BBC's Frances Harrison says this is the closest Iran has come to saying it will not attack Israel.
Keywords: Ahmadinejad, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran, Israel, Middle East, Islam, Muslim
posted by Gert @ 5:04 PM
18 comments
18 Comments:
This new President ran on this sort of bombast - and is still on his learning curve as a diplomat.
This should come as no real surprise to any of us. This past election in Iran was a chance for the people to return to a modern, viable nation with western-like freedoms. Despite a huge movement among young Iranians, they failed to make that happen - whether by an actual lack of a majority or (more likely) a fixed election.
Ahmadinejad gained his momentum with this strategy: He is a self-described principlist (acting politically based on Islamic and revolutionary principles). One of his goals is "putting the petroleum income on people's tables", referring to Iran's oil profits being distributed amongst the poor.
The biggest advantage, perhaps: Ahmadinejad was the only presidential candidate who spoke out against future relations with the United States. This went over well with middle-aged and elderly islamists and patriarchal conservatives, who fear a return to the days of femaile near-equality back in the Shah's 1970's Iran.
timmer, you wrote:
The biggest advantage, perhaps: Ahmadinejad was the only presidential candidate who spoke out against future relations with the United States. This went over well with middle-aged and elderly islamists and patriarchal conservatives, who fear a return to the days of femaile near-equality back in the Shah's 1970's Iran.
My reply:
The days of near female equality in the Shah's 1970's Iran... Let's not forget that Iran's rabid anti-US stance is a relic of the demise of the Shah's regime, which was installed after an Anglo-American, CIA-led coup against the democratically elected Government of Mohammad Mosaddeq, in 1953.
No, that particular example of America's endless meddling in other peoples' affairs wasn't about the old neocon "spread a little freedom" mantra, it was about control of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which was about to be nationalised. Now, we can't have that, can we? I mean, that's tantamount to Communism, isn't it? No, it isn't, actually...
That this coup, in the medium-long run, was an unmitigated disaster for Iran and US-Iranian relations is something few people will now deny, but to you it's probably just more "liberal twaddle". But going by your own blog, you would consider a lot of what many Brits and many of your own fellow countrymen have to say about previous American (and now once again Anglo-American) interventionism, as liberal/leftie/socialist/communist twaddle...
Gert,
Thanks for your comments on MY site. Let me address this comment of yours first:
I was only drawing the parallel to women's equality in the last generation - I DID NOT mean to imply that I agreed with that regime. Furthermore, Gert, you are mistaken about my opinions relating to past American involvements. Vietnam was ridiculous, but who can say that communism was not contained by the actions of Ronald Reagan and your own Maggie Thatcher?
I do believe that my country ALMOST ALWAYS means well, often does not understand the wider world, but is usually misunderstood itself. And no quesiton, I agree with the need for war on terror...should have been waged ages ago. But MANY mistakes have been made.
On the other matter:
I am at a loss why you should be surprised at my measured comments on your site - I tend to respect folks on their own websites, regardless of their politics, until they disrespect me or others.
The little row you encountered on my site with Nath goes back a bit - and he has been anything but respectful...especially to fellow blogger Amy. I call him "matey" because he has well-earned my disrespect. It's not about his homosexuality (I couldn't care less about that) nor his liberal politics.
It wouldn't be difficult to do - if you follow Nath's link back to his journal and peruse it, put it together with the comments on my site that you have read here, and also visit Amy P's blog (if the comments are still there), youwill see that he has engaged in some very nasty tactics - simply because he disagrees. He brags about it, in fact, atateing that his goal is to shut down her site. And the last straw - he took Amy's own image off of her blog, then using photoshop (I presume) he added a "666" to her forehead and then dripping fangs -- then posted the doctored image onher blog.
Now, I can tell you finally that Amy is a very nice, conservative and religious woman who's husband is in the forces - and she tried to be nice to Nath at first, but to no avail. Still he persists, and she has had to take drastic measures with her website.
Now that you know the story, I trust you will see my point? I am only telling you this because you chimed into an argument you might not have fully understood. If you still agree with Nath and his tactics, then we do have an issue.
I am all about freedom of speech, and definitely will argue for your rights as well. Fair enough?
Timmer, you came across Proctor's site only recently well after we had encountered it. There were plenty of "niceties" exchanged between us until she decided to ban us like she does to anyone who disagrees with her fascism. She and her husband just can't deal with people who prove her wrong, period.
Gert -
Regarding you last comment on my site, fair enough! I live on dissenting commentary and debate, so long as we all play nice. In fact, some of my closest blog-buddies are on the other side and we have each other on our respective blogrolls - that's OKLiberal and GunTotingLiberal.
When it gets personal and childish, like in Nath's case, then I engage much differently...as I suspect you do as well. And HEY! I'm a big beer fan as well and have my own "local" hereabouts...see, common ground already!
Purplehaze -
She (Amy) tells a very different story about you, but that is your war. It is her blog, after all - if you don't agree with her tactics, why go there? And let me float one other possiblity -- there have been LOTS of impersonators throughout the blogosphere starting pissing contests in the name (and site URL) of others. I suggest that, if you are not the one to have started this with her, that might have been the case.
At the end of the day, I like this free speech blog thing. You, and Gert, are welcome to my blog any time you'd like to engage. Notice that I have kept all comments, and only delete when it gets OTT (with the "C" word or that level of nonsense).
Cheers for now....T
Wow, Timmer, that's quite mudslinging match you've got going there, over at your comment section. I try to refrain from that "as much as possible" but do get caught up in it too.
At the end of the day, using inflammatory language is rather counter-productive as it drives the opposing sides further apart, when really we could do with finding some common ground like you suggested. By negating the latter we're reaping what we've sown.
At the personal level, I think most of us would get along just fine, but our world views do tend to tear us apart and that's not helping the situation. It's good to step back and reflect a little too...
As regards your remarks about Amy Proctor being a nice, conservative and religious woman, I have no reason to question that and she's entitled to her opinion just like everyone else. But simplistic linear thinking along the lines of "gay = heterophobic = christianophobic = communist" makes her come across like the cardboard cartoon character that she probably isn't is in real life. Again, we'd probably get along fine on a personal level.
I mean, who still uses that term "communist" still, unless time has stood still for that person? The Cold War is over and perhaps that's not all good either...
Some Americans consider all Europeans communists. Why? Not sure. Let me guess. Because we have shared (communal) values (so do you)? Because we prefer a strong public sector of health, education, transport and security to be administered by the state and not a bunch of profiteering corporations?
Long live free enterprise, but it's not suited to run things that should be essentially non-profit activities like the public sector.
gert,
You said,
*we prefer a strong public sector of health, education, transport and security to be administered by the state and not a bunch of profiteering corporations?
Long live free enterprise, but it's not suited to run things that should be essentially non-profit activities like the public sector.
Well, for what it's worth, I've said the same - for about 50 years. What's more, I'd even raise a glass and drink to that with you - if only I wasn't a grumpy old T-totaler. Heh.
Richard, I could have guessed you are an old Stalinist too (insert winking smilie here).
Unfortunately, privatisation of public services seems to be an Anglo-Saxon affliction, even if it goes wrong at every turn...
My wife is a staff nurse and she's going on a course which costs £400 (to be paid in advance) and is organised by a private company. The bastards have got us right where they want us...
Cheers Gert - as I said on my site, all politics aside I knew you were one of the good ones when I came over here and perused some of your material.
I'll be back for more debates, mate, and will be adding you to my "other side" blogroll after I attend to this Halloween stuff!!!
Cheers, Timmer
Iran is yet another ticking time bomb the Bush Administration is going to have to deal with. I'm glad Bush has such a strong, intelligent and courageous ally in Tony Blair.
Let's all recall that Ahmadinejad was an integral part of holding 444 Americans hostage back in '79. He's no moderate. He's a hard-liner. As my buddy Timmer correctly said above, Ahmadinejad essentially played the 'nostalgia card' by advocating no relations with the US.
This guy is a nut.
Gert, I must take umbrage with your comment of 'America's endless meddling.'
As the world's lone super-power, the United States is EXPECTED TO MEDDLE. We are expected to provide food and clothing and medical care and 'endless' finances. Which we do, around the globe.
But enough politics. Let's go grab a few pints.
Timmer and Kent,
Looks like all the common ground we're going to find here is... beer.
But I guess that's something at least.
Re. Ahmadinejad, watch my next post...
gert,
Would you believe I'm just plain old 'traditional' labour?
And hey, you and I have more in common than I relised. My wife is a retired SRN, who still works three days a week in a hospital - for nowt.
She's on of those ladies of a certain age (wink, wink) who do what they see as their voluntary, civic duties as best they can - via the W.R.V.S.
Btw, thank your wife for me. If it wasn't for the likes of her there may not even be an N.H.S.
And there most definitely wouldn't be a 'me' - nor a missus 'me'.
Erm, sorry to go so far off topic but, 'they can't touch you for it'. Er, can they? ;^]
Richard,
Traditional Labour: you don't know what you've got until it's gone, eh?
They moved to the "centre" but forgot to put the brakes on, now they're right of centre right.
What's the fucking matter with these MPs? They behave like poodle puppets...
Thanks for your kind comment about my wife's profession, it's been passed on.
The new generation of nurses will know more about "empiricism, rationalism and historicism", as well as paperwork, than actual nursing, I'm afraid...
The minute that the United States stopped 'meddling' (think: PROVIDE free shit for everyone in the world) people like Gert would call America selfish and uncaring.
We lose either way, regardless of what we do.
Kent,
No, no, by all means let the US stop providing "free shit". Could you include free explosions with that?
In per capita terms, U.S. development assistance is near the bottom of the heap, averaging roughly 13 cents a day--or under $50 a year--for each of its roughly 280 million citizens.
Read the rest here
Interesting article, Richard.
Can someone write an article on the upcoming Iranian Oil Bourse, before the US sends a nuke into Iran? The Iranian Oil Bourse (See www.energybulletin.net/8379.html )
Iran has stated it will establish an Oil Bourse that will use euros to sell its oil exports on March 20th 2006.
Iraq started using the euro as an alternative to the dollar to sell their oil in September 2000 . The war in Iraq & the subsequent installation of a US puppet government in Iraq (backed by the corporate-military-industrial network conglomerate) reverted Iraq's oil selling back to the US dollar standard. (For an indepth study of this, see www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html )
Google Iran +Oil +Bourse for a number of web & news articles, but none in any MainStream Media locations. There is a total MSM blackout of this issue.
Post a Comment
<< Home