Iranian President makes clear why Iran would be a responsible nuclear power

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Spiffor]If the big guy in charge is confident that "God will protect him" or something like that, he has no reason to fear MAD, the only actual reason why nukes aren't used. [/q]

By that logic, why hasn't Iran declared war on the US already? If God will protect him, why fear destruction by the United States?

No they don't. They act contrarily to their own interests on a regular basis.

To what you think SHOULD be their own interests. I'll ask you what GePap asked, but in a different guise, give me an example of irrational behavior by a state.

[The Mad Viking]

Isn't the game of using Arab/Parsi rhetoric against them getting a little stale?

I mean, we all know that optics REQUIRES their leaders to make fiery speeches, often with exagerated claims of power and violence.

Don't we all know this?

For 50 years now we have heard it, over and over again, from leader after leader, in country after country.

And in virtually every instance, it is rhetoric for the sake of popularity, and nothing ever comes of it.

How is it that Westerners are still incited by this rhetoric?

WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!

[lord of the mark]

"After the first round of the election, some people, including Mehdi Karroubi, the pragmatic reformist candidate who ranked third in the first round but was the first when partial results were first published, have alleged that a network of mosques, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps militiary forces, and Basij militia forces have been illegally used to generate and mobilize support for Ahmadinezhad. Karroubi has accused hardliners of rigging the election and has explicitly alleged Mojtaba Khamenei, a son of the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, among the conspirators. Ayatollah Khamenei then wrote to Karroubi and mentioned that these allegations are below his dignity and will result in a crisis in Iran, which he will not allow. As a reply, Karroubi resigned from all his political posts, including an Advisor to the supreme leader and a member of Expediency Discernment Council, on both of which he has been installed by Khamenei [2]. The day after, on June 20, a few reformist morning newspapers, Eghbal, Hayat-e No, Aftab-e Yazd, and Etemad were stopped from distribution by the general prosecutor of Tehran, Saeed Mortazavi, for publishing Karroubi's letter.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the leading candidate, has also pointed to organized and unjust interventions by "guiding" the votes, and has supported Karroubi's complaint [3].

Also, some political groups, including the reformist party Islamic Iran Participation Front, have alleged that Ahmadinezhad had only ranked second because of the illegal support and advertising activities for him during the voting by the supervisors selected by the Guardian Council, while the supervisors should have remained impartisan according to the election law [4]. Also, the reformist newspaper Shargh has pointed to an announcement by Movahhedi Kermani, the official representative of the supreme leader in Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, mentioning "vote for a person who keeps to the minimum in his advertisements and doesn't lavish", which uniquely pointed to Ahmadinezhad. [5]

Many of the controversies include the Guardian Council in the illegal activities, including it publishing an opinion poll before the election putting Ahmadinezhad as the front-runner against all other opinion polls, and it announcing the partial results of the election on the day after the election, putting Ahmadinezhad on the second rank while he was still in the third rank in the partial statistics published by the Ministry of Interior, which led to President Khatami going to the Ministry several times and explicitly asking the Council to not announce any more partial results."

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking
Isn't the game of using Arab/Parsi rhetoric against them getting a little stale?

I mean, we all know that optics REQUIRES their leaders to make fiery speeches, often with exagerated claims of power and violence.

Don't we all know this?

For 50 years now we have heard it, over and over again, from leader after leader, in country after country.

And in virtually every instance, it is rhetoric for the sake of popularity, and nothing ever comes of it.

How is it that Westerners are still incited by this rhetoric?

WOLF! WOLF! WOLF!

Except when its not and they go to war. They havent nuked anyone. But then they dont have nukes - yet.

In the last century we were told to ignore the crazed rantings of certain leaders. Its all for domestic consumption. Well the handful who took the rhetoric seriously were right. Invoke Godwin, if you wish.

Im not taking the risk that they are serious. If they dont mean it, let them shut up already.

[lord of the mark]

'France, Spain condemn Iran's call for Israel 'to be wiped off map'

By The Associated Press

France and Spain on Wednesday condemned comments by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad calling for Israel to be "wiped off the map."

The hardline leader, who came to power in August, made the comments to students Wednesday during a Tehran conference called "The World Without Zionism," according to state-run media in Iran.

Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos on Wednesday summoned Iran's ambassador to protest Ahmadinejad's comments. In a statement, Moratinos said he rejected the remarks in the strongest possible terms and had called for an urgent meeting with Iran's ambassador in Madrid.

France was also quick to condemn Tehran's lashing out against Israel. "We have noted these press articles reporting the comments of President Ahmadinejad. If these comments were indeed made, we condemn them with the utmost firmness," French Foreign Ministry spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said.

Ahmadinejad said a new wave of Palestinian attacks would destroy the Jewish state, and he denounced attempts to recognize Israel or normalize relations with it, the media reports said.

He also repeated the words of the founder of Iran's Islamic revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who called for the destruction of Israel.

"As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," Ahmadinejad was reported as saying.

Ahmadinejad came to power in August and replaced Mohammad Khatami, a reformist who advocated inter-civilization dialogue and tried to improve Iran's relations with the West.

Ahmadinejad referred to Israel's recent withdrawal from the Gaza Strip as a "trick," saying Gaza is part of the Palestinian territories and the withdrawal was meant to make Islamic states acknowledge Israel. '


Vive la France! Viva Espana!

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Which is irrelevant BECAUSE HE ISN'T A MULLAH.

And last time I checked, it was the Iranian public that put him there. While the moderates might not have had a real candidate, Rasafanjani (a mullah himself) was a viable candidate, and the security forces backed one of their ex-leaders.

If you got problems, take it up with the Iranian poor who placed on of their own in the Presidency.

And again, its Khameini and his circle that control the country.

werent you the one telling me Iran was a democracy, since its president was elected?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
A rational actor doesn't stop being rational because they have a bigger bomb.

[Ecthy]

No Imran, but with more options at their hands, they can get into a better position to defend their self interest. I don't think anyone is seriously considering the destruction of Israel in the government of Iran, but nor will Israel be able to put Iran under nuclear pressure any longer.

[DanS]

Weird, almost pointless discussion.

Theocracies can be either rational or not, just like other forms of government. They just act rationally in their particular manner (i.e., their actions are predictable based upon certain stimuli).

The IRI seems rational to me after their own fashion. They just appear to value life and their citizens' material well being below jihad. Knowing this, Israel is justified in going to war with Iran and finishing Iran off before Israel gets finished off. Whether or not that would be prudent for Israel at this time is debatable, of course. Unfortunately, there's no Iraq around for Iran to go to war with instead of Israel.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


werent you the one telling me Iran was a democracy, since its president was elected?

You need to get better material. Oh, and also for once address the point.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by The Mad Viking


Huh?

While the Bush administration does tend to blame spite (envy) for all terrorism, I think that is the opposite of what I said.

I said that once their words were backed with nuclear ****ing weapons, people would take them into account, and terrorism would NO LONGER further their goals.

I can't see why on earth having nukes should magically make terrorism no longer in Teheran's interest.

Teheran sponsors Hezbullah because it offers a way to get at Israel, without too much risk of retaliation against Iran itself. Nukes can't replace Hezbullah - nuking Tel Aviv would most certainly provoke retaliation against Iran itself - nor is there any reason to think that they'd changdidn't sponsor Hezbullahe Teheran's attitude towards Israel.

The only way I could make sense of your statement was if you assumed that Iran's sponsorship wasn't intended to achieve a goal, but just a way to vent frustration at not being taken seriously. If this is not your position, well, then I'm at a complete loss to make sense of what you're saying.

[Last Conformist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

No they don't. They act contrarily to their own interests on a regular basis.

To what you think SHOULD be their own interests. I'll ask you what GePap asked, but in a different guise, give me an example of irrational behavior by a state.

America's embargo against Cuba.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap




You need to get better material. Oh, and also for once address the point.

means "ive lost the argument and want to change the subject" ?

You young people know so much more about these emoticon thingies than I do.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

America's embargo against Cuba.

How is that irrational? It serves the domestic political needs of the regime while making life difficult for a supposed enemy state.

The embargo is not irrational. Its utterly ineffective as a tool of policy. There is a difference, Being stupid is not being irrational.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Last Conformist

America's embargo against Cuba.

very good, and illustrates one of the problems of IR theory, taking states as monolithic units.