Posted on 06/29/2009 8:58:46 PM PDT by nuconvert
It took two weeks of intensified government repression against protesters in Iran before Barack Obama, the US president, moved from cautious commentary to describing the crackdown as "violent and unjust".
The acknowledged elephant in the room preventing a more robust US response to the Iranian crisis is the Anglo-American-organised coup in 1953, which overthrew Mohammed Mossadeqh, the nationalist prime minister, and brought the 33-year-old Shah, Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, back to the country as unchallenged ruler.
The coup was motivated by Mossadeqh's and the Iranian parliament's decision to nationalise the British-controlled Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in 1951, and by the fear that Soviet-inspired communists might take over the government.
-excerpt-
But does a coup 55 years ago really disqualify the US from standing up forcefully for democracy in Iran today?
It is highly unlikely.
US policies flawed -
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, do not fear the US but rather their own people's desire to live in a country more like the US.
In fact, in poll after poll Iranians have revealed themselves to be among the most pro-American and pro-democratic people in the Muslim majority world.
The Iranian government needs little excuse to beat, jail, and otherwise punish its citizens. It is already doing a thorough enough job without US interference, and seems poised to go even further. However, if it goes too far it risks "losing legitimacy in the eyes of its own people," as Obama said at a June 25 press conference.
Obama is acutely aware of the real reason why he cannot be too forceful in supporting the millions of Iranians demanding to have their votes counted. The problem is not with US administrations long past, but with the policies of the current administration.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.aljazeera.net ...
pong
Everything about Zero is a failure including himself.
can we expect anything else from the dems other than extreme failure.
“The acknowledged elephant in the room preventing a more robust US response to the Iranian crisis is the Anglo-American-organised coup in 1953”
First of all, it’s not acknowledged if it’s an elephant. The entire point of the elephant thing is that everyone in the room ignores it.
Secondly, that is not such a big deal. I mean, on a philosophical level, it may be. We like to call ourselves democrats—though we strictly aren’t—while we sometimes promote dictators. Sounds like territory for a blue-book essay in American history.
Back on track, it’s not important because there’s been a whole new system of government since the late 70s. A decidedly un-democratic system. Also, democratic or not, the Shah was better from our perspective than the ayatollahs.
Wow, that’s al-Jazeera? Stopped clock....
Be that as it may... it's become apparent to the discerning that our elitist president has more in common with the assorted dictators of the world than he has with the American people -- his, supposed, countryman.
STE=Q
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.