Posted on 04/18/2009 7:07:25 AM PDT by nuconvert
IRAN is facing an "international conspiracy" to over throw the Khomeinist re gime with a "velvet revolution," the official Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA) claimed yesterday.
The latest mascot of the plotters is supposed to be Roxana Saberi, a former Miss North Dakota now charged with espionage in Tehran. A US citizen with an Iranian father and a Japanese mother, the 31-year-old Roxana has worked in Iran on and off for years as a freelance reporter.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has called for Saberi's immediate release and safe return to the US.
IRNA claims that the plot was first given "a credible structure" during a conference organized by a German think tank in Berlin eight years ago. It identifies the Heinrich Boll as an annex of the Green Party that is itself "controlled by Zionists." Former German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer is labeled as arch-conspirator and presented as "a close friend" of Massoud Rajavi, leader of the People's Mujahedin, an Iranian armed opposition group based in Iraq.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Wrong that the father will be apprehended by the Iranian regime. The probability is zero. And the regime is not unpredictable if you have any real knowledge of Iran and its current government.
I never said he would be. I said it will be interesting to see if he is allowed to leave (post #8)
“And the regime is not unpredictable if you have any real knowledge of Iran and its current government.”
I think I have quite a bit. I also think you’d be hardpressed to find anyone knowledgeable on Iran (ie; Ledeen, Michael Rubin, and Iranians themselves, etc) who don’t view the regime as unpredictable. Their unpredictability is what they thrive on.
Which would suggest that you were an "employee" of the late Shah, no?
Of course there is. This a great way to test Obama's mettle -- see how high they can make him jump.
Their expectation is no doubt that the American media will help them to make Obama jump through hoops to gain her freedom -- for example, they probably figure that Nancy Grace or Greta van Susternan will give up on their obsessive coverage of dead blonde girls so as to more closely follow the fortunes of this lovely woman. No doubt Messrs. Hannity, Beck, et al., will take great interest, too, as it offerst them the opportunity to bash Mr. Obama. If they can rachet up the pressure a bit, perhaps they can make Obama react as Carter did....
Anyway, it's surely a test to see if Obama can be jerked around. I fear that Obama will fail this test badly.
Nuconvert, I probably shouldn’t butt in on this conversation between you and kabar. Though, I’m interested!
“They enjoy taking Americans hostage, because they can. And they think it shows strength.”
Let’s be more specific: What IRI has taken so far (Roxana Saberi and Esha Momeni), and has been taking (remember, previously, Kian Tajbakhsh, Haleh Esfandiari, Ramin Jahanbeglou, etc..., as examples) are/were Americans of “Iranian Origins”, becasue IRI can, and it shows strength, in the eyes of the world, and particularly Iranians in Iran. Levinson (mentioned in Ledeen’s article), is more of an exception - Levinson is not of Iranian Origins. Ledeen mentioned Levinson, but, Levinson does not figure in Iran for most Iranians.
On the other hand, I also, somewhat, agree with kabar. I do not think IRI is totally unpredictable. I think IRI has been predictable, if you see the pattern. That pattern is that they keep repeating their core stance of hostage taking (as mentioned), as well as hype and propaganda, with same or similar accusations/charges/labels of those taken hostage. IRI’s hostage taking is not new, as you know; it has been ongoing. For Iranian-Americans it seems to be cyclical, when deemed necessary from IRI’s perspective - So far, IRI’s actions thereafter have been consistent too.
BUT, with Obama in office (I agree a little with poster # 25), I would be very interested to see the outcome of June elections in Iran. IRI’s shenanigans, possibly moving a few pegs up & in different directions than during Bush Administration (all 8 years of it), to determine reaction.
BTW, there won’t be an Israeli attack before June elections in Iran, that’s my guess. Anyway, the whole thing is my view of the subject.
"U.S. passports are valid for travel to Iran. However, the Iranian government does not recognize dual nationality and will treat U.S.-Iranian dual nationals solely as Iranian citizens. Thus, U.S. citizens who were born in Iran, who became naturalized citizens of Iran (e.g. through marriage to an Iranian citizen), and children of such persons - even those without Iranian passports who do not consider themselves Iranian - are considered Iranian nationals by Iranian authorities. Therefore, despite the fact that these individuals hold U.S. citizenship, under Iranian law, they must enter and exit Iran on an Iranian passport, unless the Iranian government has recognized a formal renunciation or loss of Iranian citizenship. Dual nationals may be subject to harsher legal treatment than a visitor with only American citizenship. (See section on Special Circumstances below.)”
http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/cis/cis_1142.html
that is very clear. Is it safe to assume Iranian-Americans are made to understand the language as well as it is written?
This woman was a sitting target and any jealous wife, or someone mad at her for any reason could accuse her and that’s the end.
lol. Yes, IRI predictably takes hostages and will continue to do so.
“that is very clear. Is it safe to assume Iranian-Americans are made to understand the language as well as it is written?”
Most should. Best advice for any Iranian holding a non-Iranian passport, IMO, is to seek specific and clear advice from their Foreign Affairs Department (or its equivalent) e.g. State Department in the U.S. - before they travel to Iran, to be sure - it can save loads of potential headaches.
As you can see from my homepage here on FR I am an Australian citizen.
I think the Israeli attack is scheduled for Aug, Sept, Oct.
Just my guess
Maybe this is also a setup and either Hilary, Obama or Holbrooke will ride in to bring her out with great fanfare.
Which means, you think there is a possibility he may not be allowed to leave. I don't consider that a reasonable possibility in this specific case hence I stated that I am sure he will be allowed to leave.
I think I have quite a bit.
I noticed that you had the Lion and Sun motif over the Iranian flag. Are you or your family Iranian?
I also think you’d be hardpressed to find anyone knowledgeable on Iran (ie; Ledeen, Michael Rubin, and Iranians themselves, etc) who don’t view the regime as unpredictable. Their unpredictability is what they thrive on.
Sorry, but Iran is very predictable. We know they will press on to achieve a nuclear weapon no matter what they say publicly. We know that the regime will continue to support islamic fundamentalists around the world. We know that they will continue to support anti-government forces in Iraq and arm them. We know that the mullahs will do whatever is necessary to remain in power. I could go on and on. As much as the MSM tries to characterize the Iranian regime as a bunch of unpredictable nut cases, the opposite is the case. They are very calculating and cautious.
This latest apprehension of a dual citizen, American/Iranian is not new. It has happened several times before in recent years. Prof Haleh Esfandiari was held in 2007 on trumped up spying charges. There are reasons why the regime takes such actions, much of it having to do with domestic problems and the need to divert attention away from them by creating some sort of external threat.
The State Department has been warning dual citizens not to travel to Iran for years and warned that "the Iranian government has blamed the U.S. and/or UK governments for involvement in the February 2007 bombing that killed Iranian military forces in Zahedan in the southeast and the 2005/2006 bombings in Ahvaz/Khuzestan in the southwest."
No, I was an employee of the US Embassy as a Foreign Service Officer.
Ah. The reason I asked is because I used to work with a fellow who was “employed” by the Shah during that time.
I would be very interested to see the outcome of June elections in Iran. IRI’s shenanigans, possibly moving a few pegs up & in different directions than during Bush Administration (all 8 years of it), to determine reaction.
Whoever is elected will still be mostly a figurehead. The Supreme Leader and the Assembly of Experts still run the country, i.e., the mullahs. A more moderate face might be desireable so they can continue their nuclear program under the cover of being more moderate and it may help the regime in dealing with the domestic opposition and the sad state of their economy. Iran has a negative population growth rate and a huge brain drain that the IMF deemed the highest in the world among the 90 countries it measured.
BTW, there won’t be an Israeli attack before June elections in Iran, that’s my guess. Anyway, the whole thing is my view of the subject.
It could go either way. In terms of any substantive change in the Iranian nuclear program, the election will have little to no effect. The optics are a different story. If Ahmadinejad is reelected, the Israelis could use it as a pretext to attack. However, a more "moderate" President, might actually make such an attack more difficult. And the Israelis must consider the factor of the sale of Russian missile defense systems to Iran. The longer they wait, the more difficult the attack will be.
If there is an attack by Israel, the US will be blamed regardless, which will have ramifications for our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan and our relations with Pakistan. Perhaps, this will force Obama to publicly condemn Israel, the possible action that Biden alluded to prior to the election, i.e., their supporters might not agree with their decision initially but would see that it was the right one in the long run.
Possibly. And it will help Obama maintain the facade that personal diplomacy works and that he can convince Iran to stop its nuclear program.
Some thoughts as somewhat of an outsider to U.S.-Israel-Middle East Policies:
“Whoever is elected will still be mostly a figurehead.........”
No argument. But, each figurehead will try to deliver his own spiel...
“In terms of any substantive change in the Iranian nuclear program, the election will have little to no effect.”
True, it won’t. I dare say, Iran will become a nuclear power because the West does not seem to have the Will to stop Iran. Best the West (Israel too) seem to want to do is to set IRI back a few or several years in that arena. Helping to foster & facilitate longer term Democratic Leadership & moving away from Theocracy in current Iran would be a much better strategy (an opinion).
“If there is an attack by Israel, the US will be blamed regardless, which....”
Please!! US has been blamed for anything and everything so far, so what’s another blamegame?!
I think the US should really set things in concrete for Iraq and Afghanistan - can the US continue this “we want to stabilize things in Iraq & Afghanistan”? The ramifications for both should have been outlined some 7 years ago; sorry for being critical, but one can’t go into war without knowing & ensuring some solid future projections of the outcome. As some say, every battle or war even is won or lost before it begins.
“Relations” with Pakistan is not the issue per se. Issues are Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Obama may publicly condemn Israel too. On that note, I do not think Obama is a Jimmy Carter. I do not endorse Obama, I am not sure what he has or is planning, but, to me, Obama appears more resolute - that is only my assessment, at this stage.
Honestly, I do think before, U.S. can take some serious “independent” political, military or diplomatic actions, she should try and rid itself of certain investment burdens & financial dependence on certain countries that have been holding back the U.S. all these years or even decades.
“Sorry, but Iran is very predictable. We know they will press on to achieve a nuclear weapon no matter what they say publicly. We know that the regime will continue to support islamic fundamentalists around the world. We know that they will continue to support anti-government forces in Iraq and arm them. We know that the mullahs will do whatever is necessary to remain in power. I could go on and on. “
You are right on the big picture items. Too bad our gov’t hasn’t accepted that. They would have realized decades ago that talking to the regime won’t change it.
However, when it comes to specific actions and everyday decisions, the regime is very unpredictable. Ask anyone who lives there.
Which gets back to the foolishness of this girl. She was lulled into thinking that she was okay there. She hadn’t been bothered much, so she was fine. Then wham, out of the blue, she’s arrested.
You have no idea how many times I’ve heard that story.
Life is not predictable in Iran. You never know what’s going to happen from day to day. Something that was ignored or seemed okay for weeks or months, gets you arrested the next day. The regime is unpredicatble on purpose, and it is something they thrive on, as I said earlier.
Our objective should be regime change. The only way the so-called War on Terror can be won is by removing the mullahs and getting some sort of democratic government in Iran. Several years ago, Ed Luttwak wrote an excellent [and long] piece, , "Three reasons not to bomb Iran - yet" that still obtains today. In that piece. he states,
"The greater question, however, is neither military nor diplomatic but rather political and strategic: what, in the end, do we wish to see emerge in Iran? It is in light of that long-term consideration that we need to weigh both our actions and their timing, lest we hinder rather than accelerate the emergence of the future we hope for. We must start by considering the special character of American relations with the country and people of Iran."
"That, as it happens, is one excellent reason not to move forthwith to bomb Iran’s nuclear installations. For the long-term consequences of any American military action cannot be disregarded. Iranians are our once and future allies. Except for a narrow segment of extremists, they do not view themselves as enemies of the United States, but rather as the exact opposite: at a time when Americans are unpopular in all other Muslim countries, most Iranians become distinctly more friendly when they learn that a visitor is American. They must not be made to feel that they were attacked by the very country they most admire, where so many of their own relatives and friends have so greatly prospered, and with which they wish to restore the best of relations."
"There is a second good reason not to act precipitously. In essence, we should not bomb Iran because the worst of its leaders positively want to be bombed—and are doing their level best to bring that about."
"There is a third reason, too. The effort to build nuclear weapons started more than three decades ago, yet the regime is still years away from producing a bomb."
"When a once broadly popular regime is reduced to the final extremity of relying on repression alone, when its leadership degenerates all the way down from an iconic Khomeini to a scruffy Ahmadinejad, it can only benefit from being engaged or threatened by the great powers of the world. The clerics' frantic extremism reflects a sense of insecurity that is fully justified, given the bitter hostility with which they are viewed by most of the population at large. In a transparent political maneuver, Ahmadinejad tries to elicit nationalist support at home by provoking hostile reactions abroad, through his calls for the destruction of Israel, his clumsy version of Holocaust denial that is plainly an embarrassment even to other extremists, and, above all, his repeated declarations that Iran is about to repudiate the Non-Proliferation Treaty it ratified in 1970."
I think the US should really set things in concrete for Iraq and Afghanistan - can the US continue this “we want to stabilize things in Iraq & Afghanistan”? The ramifications for both should have been outlined some 7 years ago; sorry for being critical, but one can’t go into war without knowing & ensuring some solid future projections of the outcome. As some say, every battle or war even is won or lost before it begins.
I don't necessarily buy that line of reasoning. When we were hit on 9/11, we were more concerned about eliminating the people who did it rather than basing our actions on what kind of final outcome we wanted in Iraq or Afghanistan. Certainly, when we entered WWII or Korea, we were not sure of the outcome or what it would be. As is often said the first casualty of war is your plans after you make first contact with the enemy.
We did draw up a list of particulars as to why we went to war in Iraq, Text of Joint Resolution On Iraq Passed By The United States Congress and something similar was done for Afghanistan. NATO also invoked Article 5 for the first time in its history, which meant that NATO was involved in Afghanistan.
“Relations” with Pakistan is not the issue per se.
Pakistan is very important to the outcome in Afghanistan, logistically as well as harboring AQ and many Pak sympathizers. The Islamic Republic of Pakistan was one of the few countries that recognized the Taliban regime. It is a nuclear power. It is the reason that Obama is now offering Pakistan over $5 billion in no strings attached aid. And Pakistan has some very disturbing internal problems that could have serious consequences for us.
Issues are Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I don't view Saudi Arabia as an enemy, but rather, an ally--at least in terms of commonality of interests. Saudi Arabia is very afraid of Iran and the impact it can have on the Kingdom and its large Shi'a population in the Eastern Province. Saudi Arabia looks to the US for protection and it is in our strategic national interests to do so.
Obama may publicly condemn Israel too. On that note, I do not think Obama is a Jimmy Carter. I do not endorse Obama, I am not sure what he has or is planning, but, to me, Obama appears more resolute - that is only my assessment, at this stage.
More resolute compared to Carter is like trying to measure virtue among whores. Obama is a weak leader who is indecisive and an ideologue whose world view resembles more of that of our enemies than our friends. He is going to embolden our enemies.
Honestly, I do think before, U.S. can take some serious “independent” political, military or diplomatic actions, she should try and rid itself of certain investment burdens & financial dependence on certain countries that have been holding back the U.S. all these years or even decades.
Care to more specific. The US is the world's largest debtor nation. We are fast approaching the position of the UK and the rest of Europe in terms of having to choose between guns and butter. And like them, we will choose butter because it is more politically expedient to do so. The world is going to become a more dangerous place as a result.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.