President Obama made his position on Iran clear, today. In short, any US intrusion into this ongoing drama will not end well-primarily for the Iranian people. Their nation has seen the presidential election hijacked and it's long past time that Americans either on the right with an imaginary opening for bellicose rhetoric, or those with a side issue should cool off. As Iran's fortunes go, so too may much of the Middle East. That said, if the US had tried to become an aggressor in this crisis, we would have played into the hands of those who have stolen this election.This is simply not a place where gov't activism and anger will help. We all must hope for the best for the people of Iran.

i agree with cuttar.

My apologies for not reading the comments yet.

As you say: "Young people may not be aware of the history of the 1953-orchestrated coups against the elected government of Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1957 or the American direct involvement in the Lebanese elections in 1954 (as documented in the memoir of the late CIA master spy Miles Copeland."

I've found the same here in the U.S., even with those of our age (35-40). It's like they totally missed history classes, and believe that the Iranians all woke up one day and decided: 'Ah, what a nice day to take over the U.S. Embassy.'

Harry Truman had it correct: "we don't do regime change." Eisenhower got duped.

We now have a worthless party (the GOP) that has called out repeatedly for President Obama to "do something." He's done something. He's issued a couple of statements, although some would like 'stronger, more threatening type language.'

This isn't for the United States to decide. It's for the Iranians to decide. It's their destiny; not ours.

SHOWING SOLIDARITY WITH THE IRANIAN PEOPLE (AND CHINESE PEOPLE TOO?)

June 21, 2009

Good morning and Happy Father's Day to all fathers and those who up with them put!

Today, I have a brief but serious subject.

There has been much discussion about how much President Obama should speak out in favor of the protestors (and hopefully revolutionaries) in Iran. Recently, on the anniversary of the Chinese crackdown in Tiananmen Square, there was nary a whimper from the world about Chinese repression.

About a week ago, I read a story about an American company seeking an injunction against use of its protected software code in computers shipped to China. Apparently, the Chinese government has issued an edict that as of certain date, all computers are to be equipped with a filter that allows certain web sites to be blocked and some say, may allow tracking of what people are doing. The US company complains that its software codes have "mysteriously" appeared in the system being prepared for compliance with this edict.

It goes without saying that shutting down the Internet, cell phone networks, telephone systems and TV and radio broadcasts is inimical to our notions of freedom.

In the past the US broadcast via Radio Free Europe and the VOA.

Now, it's time to enter the modern age.

I think one of the best policy initiatives the United States could implement is to use our Satellites to provide free Internet access for all Iranian and Chinese people to counter government shut downs. Whether this should be expanded to Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and be 24/7/365 are issues to be determined.

The United States should also provide access to a free cell phone network allowing calls and text messages by Iranian and Chinese citizens whenever their governments shut down local networks.

We should also provide free relay broadcasts of TV and radio news and information broadcasts under these conditions.

This is a heck of a lot cheaper than military force or economic sanctions, would frustrate the piss out of the Chinese and Iranian governments, and demonstrate the power of freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Just another thought swirling in my little Bwana head.

Cheerz...Bwana

Have a good rant TIMNGUYEN1 and don't worry about facts or staying on topic,just spit it out mate!.And without doing too much fact checking myself I'm pretty sure North Korea does not have any treaties with the US-which country just on a historical note is the only one to have used nuclear weapons, the second on Nagasaki clearly with no military purpose but a useful experiment on the impact on a large civilian population.It is not Obama demanding a Palestinian state,it is the whole world outside Israel the true terrorist state[also nuclear armed] in the ME.The only actual facts I can find in your post are that Hamas won a clear majority in closely monitored elections and is the most popular group in Palestine.The "moderate" Mousavi was PM of Iran 1981 to 1989 and initiated the clandestine purchase of uranium centrifuges for a weapons programme the US National Intelligence Estimate[2007] and theIAEA both acknowledge was stopped in 2003. Iran,a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty[unlike Israel] is entitled to enrich uranium as a normal part of the nuclear fuel cycle. Worse still Obama, when addressing the "Muslim world" demanded that Palestinians "renounce violence" while failing to make the same demand of Israel-that's nuclear armed Israel with a powerful,modern US equipped Army,Navy and Air Force so recently engaged in slaughtering civilians in the worlds largest refugee camp having imposed a crippling siege on Gaza for the Palestinians having the gall to exercise their democratic right to elect Hamas.Finally and directly on the subject,how is it "pro-democracy" for angry supporters of the loser to burn vehicles and buildings ,throw stones and other missiles and demand a new election because their candidate lost?.

There is evidence that the Iranian opposition has financial support from America and perhaps has CIA and other operatives functioning within Iran.

Kyl Lieberman act of 2005, HR1585, and the Sense of Senate 2007, both indicate US funds go to fund and support efforts to overthrow the Iranian government, including financing covert schemes.

Its ironic that David Ignatius reported some time ago that America is financially backing opposition efforts in Iran (backrolling?) and yet WaPo reported an exit poll in Iran of over 60% for Ahmedinejad.

dear sylogizer,
iran is not an arab nation. we iranians are composed of races and ethnicities including kurds, turks, lors, arabs and mainly arians or "fars"s. our language is persian not arabic. iran is a strategic latitude in the middle east region which is itself strategic in the path from europe to the east. iran is a beautiful geography boasting its extension of "four seasons", extended from the north to the caspian sea (the biggest lake in the world) and to the persian gulf from below.
and dear every reader,
(with no identified reason) for intervention in our affairs including wellbeing or other, the western governments and missionaries have made a great attempt during the centuries. see, it is not something new for iranians to face the words of democracy by its frivolous promoters (remember the last residues of slavery in the modern world). we as a genuine people have a good proportion of egoistic sense to distinct between alternatives. by the way, it is for generations that the double situation in front of us is not whether to embrace democracy or reject it, but the way to interpret the kind words uttered by governments who have usurped us to the last drop of our wealth, the last of it, believe it or not. the very who after the end of traditional imperialism have engaged in a whole-hearted endeavor to manage, directly or indirectly, soft or hard, our "being" too.
no one, at least in the capitalist emperor, denies that "money talks". a modest version of this view is believed here as a natural fact, yes. the real and everlasting wealth of oriental nations, however, generally, muslims specifically, and iranians indicated here, is not money but culture, identity, what you might better understand as the source of social capital; the very reason for letting us endure the loss of our material rights after avortex during the mentioned centuries. let us inform it as another fact, a historical one.
would you mind stopping kidding ourselves by favoring the western cultural, political, economic and every thing else's maneuvering over the fates of its former, and in cases still, colonies!
do not forget, nothing in the world, let alone ideologies in iran, is comparable to the savage nazism. comparing a warmonger, racist fraction which heartened most germans as well as some others, with any other group requires caution and consideration.
i think if there was an imaginable way for counting the usurpations by some countries of our national resources (i mean only the material one, i'm sure you have an idea of what oil is), arab, or fars, and presumably paying it back, then it would have remained no time left for those very countries to long for situations in which individuals are waiting for them to set duties. "you revolt, you, hey you coup, you wait, you damned" ha!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA'S APPEASEMENT FOREIGN POLICIES WEAKEN THE U.S.; HE SIDED WITH IRANIAN BRUTAL REGIME!!!

Coward liar Barack HUSSEIN Obama "Apologist in chief", how can he keep his nonsense promise during his campaign, that is, negotiating with U.S. enemies such as North Korea and Iran, which have never respected any treaty with U.S., especially when North Korea just launched many missile and nuclear tests and planned to fire missile toward Hawaii, not mentioning illegally arrested and sentenced two American journalists Laura Ling and Eunu Lee to twelve years of labor, while Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, an extremist who called for Israel to be wiped off the map and denied the holocaust, was just re-elected by fraud. Is Obama going to bow to Kim Jong Il and Ahmadinejas as he did to King Abdulla of Saudi Arabia to gain his peace deals? Is he willing to convert to Islam, his Kenyan father and Indonesian step father's religion, to meet Osama Bin Laden's requirement that in order to end the Iraq war, U.S. troop withdrawal is not enough, Americans must reject their democratic system and embrace Islam? Just recently, Obama said that he would support Iran's right to peaceful nuclear energy with rigorous inspections, giving a green light to Teheran's ambituous uranium enrichment program, which can be used for its discreet nuclear bomb development program as well, without suffering sanctions and economic isolation as it currently endures. Does Obama want Iran to become another North Korea using its nuclear power to terrorize the U.S and its allies? Worst still, Obama refused to show support for pro-democracy protesters and denounce the brutal regime for the deaths of seven demontrators, fearing to be seen as interfering in Iran's internal affairs so that he could not pursue a nuclear deal with Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the country's supreme leader. In fact, Obama sided with the regime, citing that there was not a bit of difference between the two candidates, a moderate Mir Hossein Mousavi and hardcore extremist Ahmadinejad. A big mouth for change at home, he does not want to see any change in Iran. Is he going to turn a blind eye to another Tianamen Square massacre committed by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard? As for a Palestinian state demanded by Obama, it will undoubtedly soon become a TERRORIST state under control of terrorist militant group Hamas, which is the most powerful and popular force with its goal to destroy Israel and which won a majority seats in the current Palestinian National Authority in 2006 election and ousted Fatah militant group of Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas of Gaza in 2007. Last but not least, Obama ordered to stop waterboarding tactic used by CIA, even it worked well on terrorist suspects like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-describer planner of 9-11 attacks who provided CIA with valuable information, preventing more 9-11 attacks and saving thousands of American lives.

All of this is very interesting, but Iranians want jobs. They do not want to be beaten and jailed when they protest for them. They do not want the salve of intermittent money throwing. Iran is a great nation and should be thriving. Jew-bashing and saber-rattling at Israel do not put food on the table and do not allow class mobility.

The author well knows that many have been shot, detained, that jounalists have been arrested, perhaps worse. Everywhere outside of the US, people see more than we. Everywhere. This is neither 1953 nor 1979. Four men are involved in a power struggle to the death. None of them will be the Abe Lincoln of Iran. All of them supported the overthrow of Shah. None of them would want to see the end of an Islamic state.

Blood has flowed on the streets of a great nation.
Students have been shot in the streets. The next twenty-four hours are crucial. No, the West should not comment. Not at all. Iranians in the US are waiting to hear voices from the REGION. Where is the voice from your country?

Are you seeing this in your country? I would imagine so. I would imagine you are seeing worse than what is on this video. I would imagine this given the emails I've received from Iran, Turkey, Pakistan, India, Tanzania, etc.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/19/world/worldwatch/entry5096912.shtml

Link TV's Global Pulse ran this episode. Its 4 minutes long, check it out at: http://www.linktv.org/video/3999/iranian-election-media-matters

Iranian Election: Media Matters
State TV gave President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad more airtime but Mir Hossein Mousavi was the favorite of the Internet. How the Iranian media covered the historic presidential election.

Actually, I think syllogizer is the one confused here. Germany rightly banned the Nazi Party within her own border, for her own protection of her own democratic future. What the neo-conservatives--and apparently syllogizer--want is for the USA to intervene in other countries' democratic elections that do not go our way in order to demonstrate our support for "true democracy." Bad idea.

Democracy is often the God that fails, because people group together to make political choices conditioned by unique historical and cultural circumstances, and the results of those political choices are often inimical to freedom. Syllogizer seems perfectly at ease advocating the expending of US blood and treasure in other parts of the world when elections do not go our way.

No thanks. Interventionism is a dead end; a guaranteed leveraging of the lives and livelihoods of future generations of Americans for current short-term political advantage. There may be victories along the way, but those victories are usually pyrrhic, short-lived, and they bring with them savage costs to the civilians on the ground who suffer enormities that never occur to us, safe and sheltered as we are thousands of miles away.

It would be easy to argue that since Iran meddles in Lebanon and Palestine consistently with the funding of terrorism and at the expense of the citizens of both countries, keeps the fires burning that the U.S. should support an uprising in Iran but that would be entirely wrong. I agree completely with this post.

I suspect that what we are witnessing is both a power struggle at the top and the genuine desire of the Iranian citizens to have a better life. In either case it's an Iranian problem. Personally I wish the protestors the very best but our government does not need to fan the flames and most certainly does not need to become involved.

None of this will prevent the dictatorship from using the tried and true big lie that the U.S. is involved of course. :)

Stay out of Iran? But Neo Cons have been working to oust the Iranian regime for years. Remember the Kyl Lieberman act, now HR 1585? Public funds are permitted to go towards 'democracy' in Iran as America sees fit. Ignatius reported that America has been using funds to support secular democracy in Iran.

But people who think America will simply 'support' any free people in Iran are mistaken. America severely restricted what was said in the Iraqi constitution, much like McArthur did in Japan.
America gave the 'ok' to nullify elections in Algeria in 1991. America gave the 'ok' when the Turkish military overturned the elections in the mid 1990s. America also supports eliminating Islamic groups from partaking in elections throughout the Muslim world.

What's lost here is the actual Iranian electoral process. Ahmedinejad had 3 debates with his opposition and beat them. He ran a superior campaign by unbias accounts. Apparently, opposition party observers were at all major voting sites AND counted the votes a long with the interior officials. Where is the actual evidence of fraud? Which voting places?

BTW, if China or Saudi Arabia funded activists and groups in America to foment protests, what would Americans think?

Since long America is after regime change in Iran with billions of dollars.No chance since Iranians are patriots and Muslims.

USA "intervened" in Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan and....voila, an engagement longer than WWII and no end in sight wecept assured (moral and financial) bankruptcy.

Let Iranians solve their own problems without interventions. Arab countries in the Persian Gulf do not even have elections and they will not tolerate any kind of street protests.

Andoni is seriously confused. If the US were to intervene, the situation would be COMPLETELY different from the previous 'interventions' she refers to.

Why? Because unlike the 1953 intervention, this time, we would intervene FOR the choice elected by the people, just like we did in Panama in 1990 to throw out the dictator and allow the people's choice to take the office he rightfully earned in the election.

But even this intervention is unlikely, because we know the Arabs write our good deeds on water, and our bad deeds -- both real and imagined -- in stone.

As for her Lebanon example, her own wording admits this exists only in perception, not in reality.

But unfortunately, certain dictatorial forces in the Arab world have encouraged this false perception for their own nefarious purposes.

Finally, concerning Hamas. Germany had the right idea: they knew that to preserve democracy they had to BAN the Nazi party -- along with any other fascist party.

But the Middle East has a similar plague on its fledgling tendencies towards Democracy: that plague is the undemocratic devotion to the destruction of Israel that DEFINES Hamas.

Therefore in order to protect democracy in Palestine, they should have banned Hamas, just like Germany still bans the Nazi Party. But they did not, and that is what has created this impossible situation now. By NO means can we support democracy by recognizing Hamas.

On the contrary: recognizing Hamas woudl be RENOUNCING both democracy and peace in the Middle East.

Hmmm, stay out of Iran. Sounds good to me.