Skip to comments.A shift in Iran would not change nuclear policy
Posted on 06/22/2009 10:54:29 PM PDT by CutePuppy
The widespread protests in Iran, even in the improbable event they deliver presidential challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi to power, are unlikely to dramatically change the country's nuclear ambitions or the strategic complications the West faces in countering Tehran's political gambits across the Middle East.
Iran's nuclear program, which Washington alleges is intended to produce atomic weapons, is ingrained in the national psyche. It was begun decades ago and is embraced across the Iranian political spectrum. Its future rests more on the wishes of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the ruling clerics than it does with hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the more moderate Mousavi.
The nuclear endeavor, along with geography, vast oil supplies and resistance to Western pressure, are crucial to Iran's stature in the region. The political tumult and bloodshed over the June 12 elections may force a shift in domestic policies, but not a scientific mission that predates the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
"The elections are a crisis from within the system itself," said Hassan Nafaa, a political scientist at Cairo University. "It might change internal issues, but the nuclear agenda will not be modified. Iranians are united around this.
The battle between Ahmadinejad, who was declared winner of last week's election, and Mousavi, who is claiming fraud, illustrates the schism Iran faces in engaging the West: Ahmadinejad's harsh screeds or Mousavi's more conciliatory tone. Mousavi, who has a long history of support for atomic energy, is perceived as more amenable to defusing international tensions that could lead to Iran working with the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon.
The Obama administration, which has sought a diplomatic opening with Tehran, has voiced support for the protesters while trying to avoid statements that would make it more difficult to work with Iran's leadership.
(Excerpt) Read more at mobile.latimes.com ...
That and general unhappiness about economy in Iran (like everywhere else) is all this is about?
Obama is Ahmadinejad’s coward. We have a President who refuses to stand against murderous thugs that shoot down people in the street.
The people in the streets are wearing jeans and surfer t shirts carrying signs written not in Farsi, Russian, French, Chinese or Spanish but in English.
I’d rather they be in control of a nation wirh Nukes than the rag heads.
Turkey is a great example of a Islamic nation that works.
The reason the LA Times wrote this is because liberals would like to see Islam rule nations.
So did Obama voters in Novemeber and illegals in USA on May Day parades.
Id rather they be in control of a nation wirh Nukes than the rag heads.
Why would they be "in control" if (which I don't expect) the mullahs somehow decide to declare Mousavi a winner? I am not sure you have read the entire article. Speaking of Iran's nuclear activities, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio: "Iran is in the midst of a very dangerous process. Steps must be planned in advance within a time frame that is not long. We don't have too much time. ... We've resolved not to take any option off the table and we expect others to do the same." The resolution of the political crisis is now the Iranian leadership's consuming concern. How that unwinds could -- at least in tone -- affect the nuclear question and other regional issues. .....
..... "With Ahmadinejad as president, it is easier for Israel to explain the significance of the Iranian threat, and there is less chance that the American administration or the European governments will be tempted to believe that it is possible to achieve a comprehensive deal on the Iranian nuclear issue," said Ephraim Kam, deputy head of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.
Speaking of Iran's nuclear activities, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak told Army Radio: "Iran is in the midst of a very dangerous process. Steps must be planned in advance within a time frame that is not long. We don't have too much time. ... We've resolved not to take any option off the table and we expect others to do the same."
The resolution of the political crisis is now the Iranian leadership's consuming concern. How that unwinds could -- at least in tone -- affect the nuclear question and other regional issues. .....
As well, the "national psyche" is something only liberals can judge with any accuracy, and we are wholly dependent upon them for this information. The rest of us have to judge things by apparent facts, such as whether the president of the country screams "death to Israel, death to the US" every day. You know, those little bits of information we glean on our own, since we are so cut off from the yutes.
Considering that the protests have moved beyond challenging Immanutjob to crossing the red line of challenging the Ayatollahs themselves and the legitimacy of their rule I’d say the LA Times is reporting about 1 week to 10 days behind the times.
Which of course is pretty good for a MSM dinosaur. Hell, they still think they’re relevant in this story.
I’m not so sure. I think the Iranian people are fed up. They don’t buy the theory that the west is out to get them.
The LA Times just admitted Iran has its fingers in all pies with their “Mousavi is the butcher of Beirut” story.
If the issue is Isreal’s ability to keep Iran balled a threat, they can do so just as easliy with the “Butcher of Beirut” as they can with Mullahs supported Machmood.
The LA Times just admitted Iran has it’s fingers in all pies with their “Mousavi is the butcher of Beirut” story!
If the issue is Israel’s ability to keep Iran labeled a threat, they can do so just as easily with the “Butcher of Beirut” as they can with Mullahs supported Machmood.
But I love the left admitting Iran is involved in Beirut.
No Blood and treasure.
And as we see with Ron Paul , not even non binding emotional support to those that fight tyranny.
The US is no longer the leader or even a proponent of a free world.
0bama’s apologists are going to make him come out of this looking good if it kills them. “Riots? What riots? It was all a handful of rich Iranian kids having a tantrum. Believe us, not your own lying eyes.”
I would not shed a tear if it kills them. The problem is that their words and actions (or inaction) usually lead to death or impoverishment of other people... for naught and often en masse.