Iran's New President... A Terrorist?

[Pangloss]

This story just keeps getting stranger and stranger. Today the White House said that it would look into allegations that Iran's new president was one of the people who took Americans hostage when they took over the US Embassy in Tehran in 1979. Here's a story about it from the BBC:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4636955.stm

 

A couple of interesting quotes:

 

Another top student leader, Abbas Abdi, also denied the allegations as did Hamid Reza Jalaiepour, a third hostage-taker.

 

The BBC's Frances Harrison in Tehran says the three former students are now reformists who oppose hardliners like Mr Ahmadinejad, and would have no reason to hide his involvement now.

 

(Emphasis mine. That's really interesting.)

 

One former hostage said he was sure the man was Mr Ahmadinejad.

 

"This is the guy," retired army colonel Chuck Scott told AP news agency.

 

"There's no question about it. You could make him a blond and shave his whiskers, put him in a zoot suit and I'd still spot him."

 

Four other former hostages agreed with Mr Scott, but at least one disagrees.

 

Fascinating. Both sides seem to have some validity to their claims, and it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Pangloss]

This lead the news tonight, at least on the broadcast I usually watch (ABC News). They had a forensic expert take a look at pictures and he couldn't find any inconsistencies between them (but that doesn't make it a match).

 

It's interesting that this seems to have caught Washington completely off guard. The guy was mayor of Tehran for the last two years, and yet this is the first time this has come up. Apparently it came up because former hostages from that event saw his picture in the news.

 

(Of course if it turns out that it's the same guy, I'm sure we'll hear conspiracy nuts claim that this was all engineered by the Bush White House.) (sigh)

[lethalfang]

This lead the news tonight' date=' at least on the broadcast I usually watch (ABC News). They had a forensic expert take a look at pictures and he couldn't find any inconsistencies between them (but that doesn't make it a match).

 

It's interesting that this seems to have caught Washington completely off guard. The guy was mayor of Tehran for the last two years, and yet this is the first time this has come up. Apparently it came up because former hostages from that event saw his picture in the news.

 

(Of course if it turns out that it's the same guy, I'm sure we'll hear conspiracy nuts claim that this was all engineered by the Bush White House.) (sigh)[/quote']

 

If this turns out to be true, it WOULD be a big-time intelligence failure. A blooper of biblical proportion. This is a guy who was sitting there right in front you, running for president, and the CIA has never sniffed it?

[Bettina]

I don't believe its important to determine who or what he is. What is important is that he is a puppet president controlled by the clerics.....and, it is they, who will dictate to him, how their country will be run.

 

Iran has had a presidential name change only.

 

Bettina

[Dave]

This has to be bad news either way. To be perfectly honest, I wouldn't be overly surprised if Bush is trying to add Iran to his portfolio of sheer evil countries of doom™. This is certainly one way of making the country look bad and drum up support for another invasion of the stupidest proportions.

 

Perhaps I'm just being too much of a sadist?

[Phi for All]

(Of course if it turns out that it's the same guy, I'm sure we'll hear conspiracy nuts claim that this was all engineered by the Bush White House.) (sigh)

Engineered? Doubt it seriously. Spun heavily to make it easier when Bush decides to invade? Oh yeah.

 

US defense reviewers are already talking about dropping the two-war strategy we've held since the Cold War. Having one big push in Iraq-Iran could still arguably leave us free to fight terrorism and defend the Homeland. And technically, since Bush declared the major combat ops in Iraq over in May of 2003, invading Iran would just be fighting one war. We just have to convince Korea not to do anything bad.

 

Whether or not Ahmadinejad is confirmed as a former terrorist, he will now be indelibly linked to terrorism in the minds of the American public. So I guess spin-doctoring is a form of engineering.

[Mokele]

Agreed, I've been hearing enough noises about Iran and the "Axis of Evil" that it truly would not surprise me.

 

The best way to explain my POV is by annecdote: A few issues back, The Onion, a parody/satire newspaper, ran the main story "Bush announces plan for withdrawl from Iraq:'We'll go out through Iran'." I got distracted by an IM between clicking the link and reading it, and when I read it, there was a small moment when I forgot that it was the Onion and thought it was serious.

 

When it takes concious effort to distinguish your foreign policy from a parody of it, it's time to re-write the policy.

 

Mokele

[Dave]

Quite.

 

Glad my opinion is shared by others. I really, really hope that this isn't going to happen, but I have a gut feeling that it's stupidly likely. They've really been spinning everything recently, especially Iran's nuclear program and the hypothetical weapons of mass-destructionisation that don't exist - except, of course, in Bush's head.

[Pangloss]

I sympathize (and agree with Phi's point about spin), but I also sense anti-Bush sentiment creeping its way onto the map, wedging itself into the most direct path between "Iran" and "non-nuclear" status.

 

We need to avoid such distractions, and remember that it's Europe which has lead the call in asking Iran to remain nuclear-free. Iran is a nation which exports four million barrels of oil per day, much of it to China (which is already making funny shifting noises in its chair that sound suspiciously like a Security Council sanctions veto), and the excuse that it needs nuclear energy is a poor one. (And it's not even much of an excuse, since their politicians openly admit that they feel they have a right to nuclear weapons.)

 

Fish? Cut bait? Make the call, but leave Bush's foreign policy rhetoric out of it, guys. He is not responsible for Iran's nuclear brinksmanship.

[Dave]

Fair enough. I just don't like the way this is going. I do see the reasons behind persuading Iran not to start a nuclear programme, but this is the latest in a series of rather bizarre events that makes me wonder what's going on here.

 

Out of curiosity; who originally brought this issue up? I would doubt that the White House would deliberately publish a press release basically admitting they'd made a monumental oversight.

[Pangloss]

Yah I think that's a reasonable point and I didn't mean to stomp on your opinion there, if I was a little abrupt above. In fact I just popped back in here to see if I needed to ameliorate my tone a bit, but you'd already posted. But I guess you got my point there.

 

Regarding your question, I don't really know more than what's in that first article I linked from the BBC (a startlingly informative source for US political matters, as I've come to discover over the past few months since you guys suggested it in a discussion which you may or may not recall). The general idea is that he was identified by former hostages, who spent well over a year with the students who took over the embassy. But there were said to be over 500 students directly involved in the hostage event.

 

It's plausible. But it's plausible either way. I think Occam's Razor suggests that the conclusions of "he is one of them" and "they're simply mistaken" are the more likely scenarios here, rather than (for example) something like "Karl Rove made a few phone calls to former hostages after the election". (Not that you were suggesting that.)

 

It's worth noting that the new president admits to being a member of that student organization, but he claims to have not participated in the event.

[Bettina]

Quite.

 

Glad my opinion is shared by others. I really' date=' really hope that this isn't going to happen, but I have a gut feeling that it's stupidly likely. They've really been spinning everything recently, especially Iran's nuclear program and the hypothetical weapons of mass-destructionisation that don't exist - except, of course, in Bush's head.[/quote']

 

Irans leaders have been notoriously deceitful, and I know my own president isn't the smartest, but are you willing to let a country led by religious fanatics develop Nukes?

 

Iran, who by there own admission wants to see the destruction of Isreal and any other infidels who don't agree with allah (little a).

 

Don't get mad at my POV, and I don't know about other kids, but I see no future for us if the religious clerics get nukes and I support stopping them now.

 

Bettina

[Phi for All]

"Karl Rove made a few phone calls to former hostages after the election".

I'm withdrawing my support for you being our Political Expert if you don't stop this leftist claptrap!

 

Sorry, I couldn't resist. Never leave quotes like that hanging around where unscrupulous people can take advantage of them.

 

 

 

I think politicians have always used the media to influence how we're going to view their decisions. Whether it was a broadside leaflet passed out condemning slave emancipation or a casually leaked inference on a Sunday moring news show, information and misinformation has a huge impact on how we view our world, and the spin doctors are at the peak of their game.

Iran' date=' who by there own admission wants to see the destruction of Isreal and any other infidels who don't agree with allah (little a).

 

Don't get mad at my POV, and I don't know about other kids, but I see no future for us if the religious clerics get nukes and I support stopping them now.[/quote']All I would ask is that you try to empathize with how the Middle East's muslim communities felt when Bush announced that god (little g) personally told him to invade Iraq. Nukes and religious fanaticism don't go together on either side of the equation.

[john5746]

As long as we are not talking a regime change again. No need to invade the country. Just ask for inspections, concessions with the threat of bombing the plant.

 

Otherwise, there will be "rumors" about WMD again.

[Bettina]

I'm withdrawing my support for you being our Political Expert if you don't stop this leftist claptrap!

 

Sorry' date=' I couldn't resist. Never leave quotes like that hanging around where unscrupulous people can take advantage of them.

 

 

 

I think politicians have always used the media to influence how we're going to view their decisions. Whether it was a broadside leaflet passed out condemning slave emancipation or a casually leaked inference on a Sunday moring news show, information and misinformation has a huge impact on how we view our world, and the spin doctors are at the peak of their game.

All I would ask is that you try to empathize with how the Middle East's muslim communities felt when Bush announced that god (little g) personally told him to invade Iraq. Nukes and religious fanaticism don't go together on either side of the equation.[/quote']

 

If I recall, it was some guy who heads the nuclear watchdog society whose name is Muhammed that first raised the nuclear threat in Iran...That doesn't sound like spin.

 

However, the Arab fanatics have for years shown the world their contempt for human beings not believing in there way of life. If you were a girl, how would you like your life in Iran...

 

Sorry for being so mad, but I can tell you Iran with nukes is a disaster in the making of proportions not previously witnessed. I hope we destroy those nukes before they use them, and they will.

 

And, I suppose you can show me the Bush/god article?

 

Edit: I only sound mad....I'm not

 

Bettina

[-Demosthenes-]

Again when it boils down to it, it's wether you care what happens in other places thousands of miles away. Some people really just want to mind their own business, is that wrong? Some want to help others, make the world safer for themselves (maybe a little selfish). Theses are the same who don't have it in them to sit a watch. Maybe it's not the smart thing to do, maybe it's the wrong thing to do, but you got to try.

 

Why care whats going on in Asia?

[lethalfang]

I don't believe its important to determine who or what he is. What is important is that he is a puppet president controlled by the clerics.....and' date=' it is they, who will dictate to him, how their country will be run.

 

Iran has had a presidential name change only.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

This is very true.

However, it is also not uncommon for a talented politician to make well calculated political maneuvers to gather influece and power, weakens those curretly in position of power, and then eventually move against them.

The hard-line clerics do take this office of president very seriously. That is precisely what they fear.

What I really don't understand is, the CIA knows absolutely nothing about a PUBLIC figure from a hostile camp.

[Dave]

As far as I'm aware, he'd only become "public" since this election campaign began. Since the CIA analysts are extremely busy with things like Iraq and Afghanistan at the moment, I daresay that he slipped their attention somewhat.

 

Another key to the entire thing is that I doubt there are many informants in Iraq. Since it's pretty much impossible to get an external agent into their government, the best you can hope for is some kind of informant. I'm pretty willing to bet that, because of the religious fanaticism and brainwashing from birth, there's not too many of these about.

[Dave]

Irans leaders have been notoriously deceitful, and I know my own president isn't the smartest, but are you willing to let a country led by religious fanatics develop Nukes?

 

If there is clear, solid evidence that Iran is developing nuclear warheads and, furthermore, intends to use them against neighbouring (or other) countries, then I'd be completely in favour of getting rid of the damn things. The evidence needs to be presented to the public, classified or not, and the government needs to be truthful about what actions are taking.

 

However, after the farce of Iraq, I'm not sure I can trust the government on anything anymore.

[Bettina]

If there is clear' date=' solid evidence that Iran is developing nuclear warheads and, furthermore, intends to use them against neighbouring (or other) countries, then I'd be completely in favour of getting rid of the damn things. The evidence needs to be presented to the public, classified or not, and the government needs to be truthful about what actions are taking.

 

However, after the farce of Iraq, I'm not sure I can trust the government on anything anymore.[/quote']

 

I think we would know if they are building by studying signatures, but how can there be "clear, solid evidence" that the intent is to use them. It will be too late by then.

 

Again when it boils down to it' date=' it's wether you [i']care[/i] what happens in other places thousands of miles away. Some people really just want to mind their own business, is that wrong? Some want to help others, make the world safer for themselves (maybe a little selfish). Theses are the same who don't have it in them to sit a watch. Maybe it's not the smart thing to do, maybe it's the wrong thing to do, but you got to try.

 

Why care whats going on in Asia?

 

Yes its wrong. I care because they don't want to mind there own business. Iran, before the problems with the middle east started, always considered us "The great Satan" and we should be destroyed because of the wicked way we live. I don't believe they would use them themselves, because it would be disastrous to them. BUT....they will give them away to anyone who will do Allahs work for them...like Britains subway system, or our economic system.

 

I don't see a good future for earth at all.

 

Bettina

[Dak]

I think we would know if they are building [nuclear warheads'] by studying signatures, but how can there be "clear, solid evidence" that the intent is to use them. It will be too late by then.

 

as i understand it, the problem is that all of the instalations which are required to make nuclear warheads could be used for other purposes... from my very scetchy memory, heavy water is required (ditrium₂O) to enritch the uranium, but it can also be used to prep the nuclear material for use in reactors... uranium mines are obviously required for both nuclear warheads and nuclear generators... rocketry factories are required for conventional missiles.

 

basically, a national nuclear-power program, combined with a few instalations to safely dispose of the nuclear waste, and some conventional rocketry instalations, would allow the production of nuclear warheads.

 

so its possible they could make them without us having clear evidence that they are doing so.

 

but considering how many nukes the US and western europe have, and how scared we all are of a nuclear holocaust, i dont believe that any country, no matter how rabid its leader, would ever be stupid enough to actually launch a nuke... the entire world would unite against them through fear.

[Phi for All]

And, I suppose you can show me the Bush/god article?

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=310788&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0&listSrc=Y

As spoken to the Palestinian Prime Minister (from the link above):

Abbas said that at Aqaba, Bush promised to speak with Sharon about the siege on Arafat. He said nobody can speak to or pressure Sharon except the Americans.

 

According to Abbas, immediately thereafter Bush said: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them."

 

http://rawstory.com/exclusives/avery/who_would_jesus_invade_1019.htm

From a presedential debate (quoted from the above link):

“We've unleashed the armies of compassion.” Bush said quite clearly, “To help heal people who hurt. I believe that God wants everybody to be free. That's what I believe. And that's been part of my foreign policy. In Afghanistan, I believe that the freedom there is a gift from the Almighty.”

 

I think it was a conscious effort to match the religious fervor of the Islamic extremists. What al Qaida has clearly shown is that this type of religious fanaticism is wrong. Why is it right for Bush to invoke it in us?

 

Nuclear proliferation is not a desirable option. I also would not like to see Iran making nuclear weapons. But using more flimsy evidence of WMDs, or worse some God-given mandate, to invade yet another country is doubly wrong. If Iran is caught making nuclear weapons against the wishes of the world, then it can be dealt with by a world organisation. I'm a little leary of trusting this president's word about WMDs when so many lives on both sides are at stake.

[Pangloss]

Phi, I don't think that's a sufficient support, re: your statement that Bush said that god told him to invade Iraq. It's third hand, and I don't know that news source. In other words, Abbas is just saying how he interprets what Bush told him. I realize you were talking about Arabic interpretation of Bush's motivations, but there was a clear implication to the readers here that Bush's motivations were religious in nature, which I feel would require kind of defense or qualification before I would agree with it. (Just my two cents here, in terms of finding common ground -- you're welcome to your opinion on it, of course, I'm just talking about my reaction to it.)

 

Do you have a more direct attribution? (The second source you listed is irrelevent to me because he's not making the same claim there at all.)

 

 

Another key to the entire thing is that I doubt there are many informants in Iraq. Since it's pretty much impossible to get an external agent into their government, the best you can hope for is some kind of informant. I'm pretty willing to bet that, because of the religious fanaticism and brainwashing from birth, there's not too many of these about.

 

I've read from various sources in the past that this has been a congenital problem in Iran since the 1979 revolution. I've started to wonder lately, however, if it might have changed somewhat. The reformist movement has gained a lot of ground over the last ten years, opening up some civil rights for women and so forth (not as bad as the Taliban, for example). Also there seems to be developing a kind of rift between "government" and "religion" in some ways -- analysts no longer seem to view them as being one and the same anymore. The new president, for example, while a fundamentalist, actually ran on a platform of reform and opposition to the clerics, and that platform was said to be very popular with the underpriviledged side of the Iranian voting populace. (Many observers, of course, feel that was all a ruse, but it's an interesting ruse.)

 

All of which suggests to me that things have changed quite a bit in Iran, and it might be possible now to get better intel on the ground.

[Pangloss]

Nuclear proliferation is not a desirable option. I also would not like to see Iran making nuclear weapons. But using more flimsy evidence of WMDs, or worse some God-given mandate, to invade yet another country is doubly wrong. If Iran is caught making nuclear weapons against the wishes of the world, then it can be dealt with by a world organisation. I'm a little leary of trusting this president's word about WMDs when so many lives on both sides are at stake.

 

However' date=' after the farce of Iraq, I'm not sure I can trust the government on anything anymore.[/quote']

 

 

These sentiments are so common today that I think they illustrate how impossible it's going to be to stop Iran from getting the bomb. Whether one wishes to thank the 9/11 terrorists or George Bush's foreign policy blunders for this situation is really a matter of closing the barn door on empty stalls at this point.

 

No real attention seems to be getting paid to the evidence we already have on Iran. Iran's own statements and paperwork tell us that they had a nuclear weapons program as recently as 1998, three years after they told us before that they no longer had one. And there's no physical evidence that they've destroyed that capability.

 

But my main point here is this: It's going to be nearly impossible to stop them at this point.

 

Bear in mind that Iran hasn't invaded anybody, so we have very little leverage. We can't say "Well you invaded Kuwait so you'll comply with whatever we tell you to do." Setting aside internal matters, telling Iran not to build nuclear weapons is diplomatically equivalent to telling Canada not to develop nuclear weapons. There is no difference from the perspective of foreign relations between sovereign nations.

 

Even worse, very few countries have any economic leverage to use against Iran, because of years of ostracization following the 1979 uprising. Their major trading partners are China (the merchant mercenaries of the world), and Japan (who does care but desperately needs their oil). In fact, oil is the one thing we cannot stop Iran from exporting, because we need every drop that's produced in the entire world right now (and more).

 

So in many ways, coming up with a unilateral agreement to physically stop Iran from building nuclear weapons is a far more difficult prospect than it was with Iraq. Many would say "impossible", and I'm hard pressed to find any evidence that they're wrong.

[Douglas]

And' date=' I suppose you can show me the Bush/god article?

Bettina[/quote']

Bettina, "Bush, and God made me do it" articles are posted on almost all left wing web sites.

 

I don't think you'll find the "God told me" story on any responsible web site, or any responsible newspapers.