Down with the USA or Down with Russia?
The Iranian peaceful protests against the regime live on. Have a look at the clip below – while the government buses prompt the crowds to chant “Down with the USA”, they instead shout back “Down with Russia”. And Ahmadinejad’s famous “Death to Israel” not getting the reaction it used to.
Let’s think about this. Can you imagine this happening under the Bush-Cheney presidency? Can you imagine this happening under a McCain presidency? I find it highly ironic that the usual “hawks” express their undying support to the Iranian opposition out of one side of their mouth, and endorse Netanyahu’s wild aggression out of the other side. And make no mistake, no Republican president would ever have opposed Netanyahu. Just something to remember. And Sarah Palin would have been praying for the end times…
Comments are closed.
“Let’s think about this. Can you imagine this happening under the Bush-Cheney presidency? Can you imagine this happening under a McCain presidency”
Geez…do you really need to view this through Republican vs. Democrats filter?
“…and has a morbid disposition for
arguments and verbal disputes.”
This has a lot less to do with Bush and a lot more to do with Russia. Ahmedinejad’s first visit after reelection (sic) was to Russia, where he was warmly welcomed.
Of course, from a strategic standpoint, protesters with opinions like this makeit more likely that Russia will continue to support Ahmedinejad, since the alternative is anti-Russia.
I really don’t believe this has anything to do with who is president of the United States. You are really, really reaching here and if you aren’t conscious of the stretch, I think you are overdosing on politics and starting to see everything in a “does this support my side or theirs?” way. Not everyone in the whole world bases their political lives around Republican vs. Democrat drama, in fact very few people do. Most Iranians don’t. The regime has been losing its grip on the people for a long time. Thank God.
” no Republican president would ever have opposed Netanyahu …”
True. But the real question isn’t whether Obama will oppose Netanyahu, but whether he will oppose Ahmadinejad. Or is it your contention that Israel is secretly behind Iran’s nuclear weapons program?
Can you imagine this happening under the Bush-Cheney presidency? Can you imagine this happening under a McCain presidency?
Yes, I can. As I recall, when the Iraq war was starting, some student demonstrators held up signs saying “Drop the Bombs Here First.”
On the other hand, I can’t imagine Bush or McCain offering the mealy-mouthed response that Obama did to Ahmadinejad stealing the election.
Come on, Ahmadi and his cronies successfully capitalized on the Bush-Cheney aggression to rally a sufficient amount of the population behind him. These guys turned out to be the best recruiters not only for Bin Ladin, but Ahmadinejad as well.
And Bush-Cheney aggressed Iran … when? In fact, they removed from power Iran’s major regional rival and installed a replacement Shiite regime culturally conditioned to a cooperative relationship with Iran. At the same time, they toppled the unstable regime to Iran’s east, allowed the Iranian nuclear program to “mushroom” and restrained Israel from launching a pre-emptive attack on that program.
Sorry to tell you, but protesters in Tehran are no more inspired by the person of Obama than protesters in Tiananmen Square were inspired by the person of George H.W. Bush. They are inspired by the ideal of liberal democracy, as represented – for better or worse – by the United States (I know those are painful words for some here. In fact, many in the Iranian resistance movement were deeply disappointed in Obama’s late and lackluster support while they were dying in the streets last June.
Come on, Ahmadi and his cronies successfully capitalized on the Bush-Cheney aggression to rally a sufficient amount of the population behind him.
My understanding is that Ahmadinejad’s success in 2005 campaign had more to do with his economic populism than with anti-Bush rhetoric (apparently the national news broadcast a tour of his modest house a couple of days before the election and people were shocked to discover that he wasn’t living in a mansion like the typical Iranian pol).
Mark,
That is indeed the ironic part – Bush and Cheney did remove Iran’s two biggest threats. But I’m talking about the openly aggressive dualism espoused by the last administration, the one that dubbed Iran as the “axis of evil”. That would have deeply angered many beyond Ahmadi’s immediate circle.
Also, I’m not sure the Iranians are after liberal democracy. North Tehran is not Iran. What is remarkable about the reformist movement is how widespread it is. The people are disgusted by what they see as a betrayal and corruption of the revolution, not the revolution itself. They don’t want to be the United States (or Sweden for that matter).
Bush’s Iran policy (particularly the Axis of Evil line) was stupid, yes. But Khatami’s unwillingness to do thing things liberals wanted, Ahmedinejad’s economic populism, and Rafsanjani’s corruption were probably all more important factors in the 2005 electoral outcome than George Bush’s rhetoric.
Answers to questions: Yes. Yes. Not sure what the rest of it has to do with anything.