Iranians braced for crucial day

[Newshound]

Tensions are high in Iran after the supreme leader's order of an end to street protests that have shaken the establishment.

More...

[Soulmate7]

Crucial day, indeed.

REUTERS: BOMB NEAR KHOMEINI'S SHRINE KILLS ONE PERSON - IRAN'S FARS NEWS
about 1 hour ago

HUNDREDS OF IRANIAN SECURITY FORCES INJURED IN RECENT CLASHES.
8 minutes ago

Iranian state media reported that "sporadic clashes" are continuing in Tehran and said opposition leader Mousavi will be held responsible.
1 minute ago

[peaceandlove]

Neocons for Ahmadinejad!

Posted by Doug Bandow on 06/20/09

The neocons present themselves as great humanitarians, organizing wars for democracy to be fought by others (a leading example was Richard "I had other priorities" Cheney, whose five deferments kept him out of the military during the Vietnam War). Yet some of them frankly admit that they hope for an Ahmadinejad victory, since it will make it easier for them to whip up war fever.

Observes Stephen Zunes:

The only people happier than the Iranian elites over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's apparently stolen election win Friday, were the neoconservatives and other hawks eager to block any efforts by the Obama administration to moderate U.S. policy toward the Islamic republic.

Since he was elected president in 2005, Ahmadinejad has filled a certain niche in the American psyche formerly filled by the likes of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Qaddafi as the Middle Eastern leader we most love to hate. It gives us a sense of righteous superiority to compare ourselves favorably to these seemingly irrational and fanatical foreign despots.

Better yet, if these despots can be inflated into far greater threats than they actually are, these supposed threats can be used to justify the enormous financial and human costs of maintaining American armed forces in that volatile region to protect ourselves and our allies, and even to make war against far-off nations in "self-defense."

Such inflated threats also have the added bonus of silencing critics of America's overly-militarized Middle East policy, since anyone who dares to challenge the hyperbole and exaggerated claims regarding these leaders' misdeeds or to provide a more balanced and realistic assessment of the actual threat they represent can then be depicted as naive apologists for dangerous fanatics who threaten our national security.

The neocons have not been subtle about their desire for Ahmadinejad to continue playing this important role. For example, right-wing pundit Daniel Pipes, at a panel discussion at the Heritage Foundation just before the election, said that he would vote for Ahmadinejad if he could, because he prefers "an enemy who is forthright, blatant, obvious."

Obviously, we should sympathize with foreign peoples seeking liberty. In the case of Iran, the recent election is only a small part of the problem, since the greatest repression occurs beyond the formal government.

But the worst thing the U.S. government could do would be to intervene, making the issue one of the U.S. versus the Iranian government. Washington made its reputation in Iran destroying democracy and promoting autocracy. As Phil Giraldi here for Campaign for Liberty and the Cato Institute's Chris Preble explain, the U.S. government needs to stay out. Only the Iranian people are going to be able to win their own freedom.

SOURCE: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/bl...cpg=1#comments



Help Iran by Ignoring It

Posted by Phil Giraldi on 06/19/09 4:12 PM

There has been a lot of agitation from both the left and the right to intervene in the politicial turmoil taking place in Iran by supporting the reformers. There a number of good reasons to leave Iran alone. First, it is none of our business anyway and the record on US interventions over the past fifty years has been universally bad. Second, it is up to the Iranian people to sort out their own political future. Outsiders weighing in will only make that process more difficult. Third, Ahmadinejad just might have won in a fair election. Attacking him because we don't like him will only harden the conservative case that the West really does not want democracy. Fourth, linking the US and Europeans to the cause of the reformers will only be useful in discrediting them.

Everyone should note first and foremost that Iran held elections at all, a relatively rare event in that part of the world. It indicates that the regime there does recognize that there exists a popular mandate for its continued rule. When the Iranian people are ready to change their government they will do so all by themselves, without the help of the CIA and the NED. Fantasies about democracy sweeping the world coupled with threats of intervention and regime change will only slow the process of political liberalization, not help it. It will also encourage the growth of phony pastel revolutionaries, as we have seen in Eastern Europe, nearly all of whom are just as corrupt and authoritarian as the communists they have replaced.-Phil Giraldi, American Conservative Defense Alliance

SOURCE and COMMENTS: http://www.campaignforliberty.com/bl...cpg=1#comments