Ahmedinejad Rebuked at Polls

[DinoDoc]

How?

[Sandman]

It would make them appear like non-hypocrites, friends of small countries, long-termists and free of Western dominance.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman
It would make them appear like non-hypocrites, friends of small countries, long-termists and free of Western dominance.

Iran isnt a small country, its an aspiring regional hegemon.

[Sava]

In Soviet Russia, the polls rebuke YOU!

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Iran isnt a small country, its an aspiring regional hegemon.

In the eyes of the world, it's obviously the underdog.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


In the eyes of the world, it's obviously the underdog.

Given the vote in the IAEA on referral to the UNSC, Id say thats not so. The talk now is that a resolution for limited, targeted sanctions, could pass 15-0 (we shall see) We can then see how that works out, before determining if it is necessary to push for stronger sanctions.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


I know of many rightwingers who say the same thing you do. Im willing to give the Chinese and Russians a chance.

Chance of what?

Russia and China on principle oppose the kind of sanctions that you would like imposed on Oran because, OMG! they don't actually believe in a moralistic we are holier than thou foreign policy that the West believes in.

And the West has no method of making Russia or China do anything. YOu really think the West can impose market pressure on either of those countries??? NOt currently, and certainly not in the future.

The main reason the West is failing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions is because it is trying to set up a new double standard. Iran obviously violated the NPT by carrying out secret nuclear activities. But the Western demand that it give up forever the ability to enrich uranium is an added demand that Iran won't give in too, and few countries in the third world would support in principle. The West got the whole IAEA to back it because Iran was violating the NPT, period, not because the rest of the world views Iran as a threat.

[Ramo]

Rafsanjanis ultmate goals are not moderate, but hes pragmatic about pursuing them, and seems to want to avoid diplomatic isolation. Its seems, therefore that the Iranian electorate fears Irans diplomatic and economic isolation.

You really think that ranting about the Holocaust by a relatively powerless figure in the gov't is the sort of thing that has lead to economic isolation?

Now its possible they simply dislike Ahmadinajads needless provocations, and like Rafsanjanis more pragmatic pursuit of similar goals, and that IF we used our strength to threaten further isolation unless they give up enrichment, they would rally around Rafsanjani. OR its possible that, seeing the possibility of isolation (which is not there yet, as the UNSC has yet to act) they would NOT support Rafsanjani if we were to hold out for enrichment.

This is all premised on the idea that Rafsanjani wants to pursue a hard-right foreign policy. I don't see it. He was on board with the normalization that Khatami was pushing in '03 (an offer that Bush rejected out of hand).

[One_more_turn]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Iran isnt a small country, its an aspiring regional hegemon.

If they want to do it, let them at it. That will most likely bring them in conflict with Pakistan and Saudi, which would be great for us anyway.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Chance of what?

Chance to vote for sanctions. It looks like they probably will vote for limited, targeted sanctions (I see you have retreated to "sanctions that will really harm Irans economy") Perhaps that will be enough pressure to lead to a more positive outcome. If it is not, the West will return to the UNSC. At that point we may well see Russia and China given a chance to vote for more serious sanctions. They may well veto them. That too would be significant in international politics.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ramo


You really think that ranting about the Holocaust by a relatively powerless figure in the gov't is the sort of thing that has lead to economic isolation?



This is all premised on the idea that Rafsanjani wants to pursue a hard-right foreign policy. I don't see it. He was on board with the normalization that Khatami was pushing in '03 (an offer that Bush rejected out of hand).

1. Yes, the ranting about the holocaust together with other words and actions.

2. Even if Rafsanjani is more moderate than I believe him to be, he still wouldnt be independent of the conservative clerics.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by One_more_turn


If they want to do it, let them at it. That will most likely bring them in conflict with Pakistan and Saudi, which would be great for us anyway.

Irans ambitions mainly lie to the west, in the ME, not in South Asia. I dont share your judgement that an Iranian - Saudi conflicet would be great for us.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


Chance of what?

Russia and China on principle oppose the kind of sanctions that you would like imposed on Oran because, OMG! they don't actually believe in a moralistic we are holier than thou foreign policy that the West believes in.

And the West has no method of making Russia or China do anything. YOu really think the West can impose market pressure on either of those countries??? NOt currently, and certainly not in the future.

The main reason the West is failing with Iran and its nuclear ambitions is because it is trying to set up a new double standard. Iran obviously violated the NPT by carrying out secret nuclear activities. But the Western demand that it give up forever the ability to enrich uranium is an added demand that Iran won't give in too, and few countries in the third world would support in principle. The West got the whole IAEA to back it because Iran was violating the NPT, period, not because the rest of the world views Iran as a threat.

"UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) - Britain on Wednesday predicted a U.N. Security Council vote before Christmas on a resolution imposing sanctions on Iran after Europeans dropped a mandatory travel ban opposed by Russia.

"The expectation is that this text will be voted on Friday morning," British Ambassador Emyr Jones Parry told reporters after a meeting of the 15 council members.

But Russia said there were two or three provisions it wanted changed and hoped they would be resolved shortly. The U.S. envoy said Washington was still studying the text.

In preparation for a vote, Britain and France, who, along with Germany, drew up a third version of the resolution, distributed the draft to the 15 U.N. Security Council members.

In the main, the resolution bans imports and exports of materials and technology relating to uranium enrichment, reprocessing and heavy-water reactors, as well as ballistic missile delivery systems.

And in a concession to Russia, it has excluded any mention of a light-water reactor Moscow is building at Bushehr in southern Iran, the country's first nuclear power plant.

The measure is a reaction to Iran's failure to comply with an August 31 U.N. deadline to suspend uranium enrichment work and resume negotiations. Iran says it is pursuing nuclear power for peaceful means while the West says its research is a cover for bomb-making."


We'll see how many third world countries vote against this text.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Given the vote in the IAEA on referral to the UNSC, Id say thats not so. The talk now is that a resolution for limited, targeted sanctions, could pass 15-0 (we shall see) We can then see how that works out, before determining if it is necessary to push for stronger sanctions.

Those sanctions are pretty minimal, no more than a slap on the wrist. You can push for stronger sanctions all you want, but it's hard to see any responsible power agreeing to them.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sandman


Those sanctions are pretty minimal, no more than a slap on the wrist. You can push for stronger sanctions all you want, but it's hard to see any responsible power agreeing to them.

1. Minimal they may be, but they are directed at enrichment, and put the UNSC on record as not accepting enrichment, and support for them shows this is about enrichment, and not just past violations of the NPT.

2. Glad to hear y'all now think this is minimal, interesting that a few months ago the Iran-apologist chorus was all opposed to even IAEA referral to the UNSC.

3. If these dont work, I expect UK, France and Germany will all support stronger sanctions. Indeed they accepted sanctions this weak to keep Russia and China on board. You may think that UK, France and Germany are nont responsible powers.