Sweeping Hamas Victory in Palestinian Election
 

I must say that at first glance this does not bode well for peace in the Middle East. It's got all the ear-marks of a bloody end game. Any other thoughts on this?

And please, let's keep the discussion civil and respectful of others' opinions.

there's nothing you can do about it. it's what the people want. democracy at it's finest.

Well, it does seem that the Palestinian Authority can't be accused of vote rigging (or at least they didn't try hard enough).

That's democracy for you...

Yep... kind of makes this whole 'push for democracy' in the ME kind of stupid. I mean if the Administration hadn't been pushing for this, Abbas may have been able to make decent strides (assuming that Kadima was still in power). Now? Who knows. If we decide to 'punish' Palestine for the choice, the situation basically will return to late 90s level as Hamas decides to get aid and support from elsewhere.

Seeing as how we are trying to make Iraq decent, this was not needed. Maybe we should rethink the whole every ME country should be a democracy bit, eh? Maybe we should wait a a few years or decades before that? Hmmm?

The sad part is that we knew this would probably happen. Fatah was insanely corrupt and Hamas was the only group working for building schools and trying to bring some order to the country. The foriegn policy didn't even matter for most Palestinians... duh!

This will probably speed up peace over there, if you ask me, although getting there will likely be terrible.

Can you elaborate?

Not particularly surprising to me, about what I expected really except for the majority being a little bigger than I would have guessed. It is what it is, they're going to do whatever they were going to do win or lose anyway, and in the long run it may be as much a good thing as a bad thing.

I don't think it's a coincidence that since our invasion of Iraq all democratic elections in the Middle East have gone in favor of extremists (Hamas, Iran, the fundamentalists' parties in Egypt, etc...).

After the relatively straightforward international politics of the 20th century (stalemate, U.S. vs. USSR) what this new century needs is a new, more subtle, approach to foreign policy. It's a shame no one in the Bush Administration can spell the word.

Sure. All of the initiatives in the past 30 or so years, including recent ones, were destined to lead to nothing but more rhetoric and wheel-spinning. Now, the day is sped up when either Israel becomes the undisputed dominant military power in the area, or ceases to exist.

Not nearly as big a shame as the reality that the Bush Adminstration's detractors can't figure out how to properly interpret events at home or abroad.

Oh that's right, the fundamentalists are winning elections and the terrorists are getting no end of recruits because they just hate our freedom. It's all clear now.

now that was nice :)

Thanks for proving my point :)

Here's a hint for you, just to see if it might help (I know, I know, the chances are remote but I figure it won't cost anything to try).

1)Fish are fish.
2)Birds are birds.
3)Fish swim.
4)Birds fly.

Likewise. :)

Now we can back Israel in wiping out the Palestinians without looking quite as much like the aggressor. Diplomacy and concessions be damned. I wouldn't be surprised if Israel wanted this.

/cynical

As long as earth is here, this will not go away.

This statement can't be supported, like most times jon, you spout rhetoric without substance. Interpretation is an individual process, there is no "right" or "wrong" interpretation of anything, simply a point of view created based on said interpretation.

Your snide remark fails the bullshit test.

As for the quality of this administration, based on its record thus far it should go down in history as the single most flawed and failed administration this nation has ever seen.

i agree. which previous administration had the honor of that distinction?

I'd disagree here. If Hamas took power by force, then maybe there might be some justification (and even then, it would be pretty shaky). But in this instance, we actually would look hyper-aggressive and hypocritical, since Hamas assumed power via a democratic election...

I mean after Hamas acts like Hamas, not right now. If Hamas stays at the table, then no, that won't happen.

Well I know it wasn't William Henry Harrison... he only had 30 days. Not alot you can screw up in that timeframe...

You think the elections in these other nations were democratic? How many thousand candidates were thrown off the Iranian ballot again? It may have been an election in Iran, for instance, but it was much closer to the Soviet one-party model rather than anything in the Western world.

Bingo. Hence my take on it. The natural conclusion of this seems to be full-fledged war over there--whether we're directly involved or not, by the way. What are the odds that Israel accepts a Hamas-led government?

i can see Israel accepting a Hamas-led government. what i can also see is Hamas remembering their charter and making the first strike for war. i think this is what Israel wants in the end - a reason. retribution, at that point, would come swiftly and decisively.

You may be right, but I guess my overall point is that the situation just got a *LOT* more volatile, and the odds of the two co-existing are pretty low--regardless of which side strikes first.

Couple comments on this:

1. Depending upon how you define this, Israel already is the dominant military power in the area. :cool:

2. Undisputed? By the Muslim arabs? As long as Jerusalem is part of Israel, the state of Israel's very existence will be disputed. Military power or not.

3. Israel's existence is virtually guaranteed unless the U.S. makes a very radical shift in its foreign policy. Conventional warfare would be the only means for "removing' the Israelis and still retaining Jerusalem intact, and that would be suicidal on the part of any Middle Eastern nations or a coalition of them.

I forsee an escalation in gas prices. ;)

I agree with SkyDog, this may be the beginings of the next World War,a war in wich we would need to back Israel. I am not a warmonger, but I say if it comes, it comes, and America and t's alies will once again hae to rise to the challenge to defeat the Islamic facists of the the Middle East once and for all.

Wait, I thought this was why we were in Iraq?

Excuse me for the poor typo spelling, I'm going quickly and my key board sucks.

Close running between Warren G. Harding's administration or the Nixon administration. Which is interesting, since many of the power players in the current admin were members of the Nixon admin.

That's a bit of a hyperbole because the Iranians did have a very definite choice between a hardliner and moderates in guise of Khatami, as well as pragmatic moderates in the middle of those sides. They chose the hardliner, but had every oppertunity to continue Khatami's path (in the guise of Mostafa Moeen, who finished 5th in the first round) was available to them.

Iraq is only the first of many conflcts we will have in the middle east i the coming years. Step one was getting rid of Saddam, and hopefully disarming him, unfortnately his weapons seem to have been taken elsewhere. Any weapons such as these in the hands of either Saddam, or another Islamic fundamentalist or facist is a very dangerous thing for western civilization. The rougue states are also a problem. We simply can not allow these typesof nationsto posess WMD or nuclear capabilities.

Or... weren't there to begin with :D.

And I thought Step One was Afghanistan, or have we already forgotten about that country, as the Bush Administration seems to have done?

You keep saying that word. I do not think you know what that word means.

That's three comments, by the way....

Let me be clear by what I meant by "dominant:"

Things escalate to the point where either Israel makes a whole lot of glass in the desert, or an eventual Hamas-led coalition causes Israel to cease to exist.

Sarcasm?

I know what the word means, very well thank you, as for Afghanistan, we are still there, but just in another capacity. It is a much morelow key special ops type operation than what we are doing in Iraq. The taiban lives in caves and in the mountains...they are much more difficult to find.

Maybe, but the choice was akin to choosing between Coke and Diet Coke. Coke Zero, Cherry Coke, Diet Coke with Lime, Pepsi, Mountain Dew, and all other choices were excluded because the people overseeing things didn't want those other flavors in the mix.

Here, you meet the filing fee and the laws set by the state for eligibility, you can be a candidate for office, any office. There, you meet not only the law, but must pass the muster of the mullahs. I wouldn't be surprised that the hardliners won because a number of people stayed home and didn't vote out of protest of a lack of a fair choice.

You greatly overstate the case. Hamas as a governing entity will have to moderate its goals (see Sinn Fien) - it maintained its ceasefires with Israel, and has had prisoner exchanges with it before. What many don't get is that Hamas didnt win because of the infatida - it won because it provided better hospital services, better education, and a better standard of life in the areas where it governed - Fatah was corrupt to the core. The Palestinians were voting based on the government's ability to fulfill its basic obligations - something Fatah had failed to do. Ignore that at your own peril.

No, the Arab extremist groups, including Hamas, call for the murder of every Jewish man, woman and child in all of Palestine. It's in their charter.

Israel is a tiny country, a little smaller than the state of New Jersey. It wouldn't take a lot of warfare to do tremendous damage. I am sure these groups would gladly sacrifice Jerusalem if it meant destroying Israel.

I don't think America could or would act quickly enough to prevent this. Israel knows its fate is in its own hands.

Hamas won because Fatah was seen as ineffective and corrupt. Palestinians, by and large, would like to see Israel destroyed, because they've been told from birth that Jews have caused all their problems. But this election didn't have much to do with that. Palestinians just wanted the old, corrupt, Arafatless government gone. I'm surprised Fatah even scored in the 40s.

I don't see this as good news. Palestine receives a lot of foreign aid, and while America might stop chipping in, other countries won't. That's money in Hamas' pocket.

I don't see much changing in the near future, though. Hamas is aware that a lot of eyes are on them, and Israel has won some points internationally for leaving Gaza. If the level of violence is increased, the world won't be kind.

Btw- Money sent to Hamas has a hell of a better chance reaching the aid targets than money send under Fatah's rule ever will. Jim and I disagree strongly on the middle east, but too many people are ignoring the domestic implications of why Hamas won, in favor of percieved foreign policy ones.

You've got to be shitting me. Have you even spoken to anyone serving in Afghanistan? Roadside bombs, ambushes, mortar attacks, etc.... It's just not making the news like it is in Iraq (and isn't quite as prevalent as in Iraq), but it still happens.

Where do we disagree? Do you agree with the Hamas charter? Do you see Israel as the aggressor in 1948, 1967 or 1975? Do you think Israel has a right to exist? Do you think it has a right to go after those who attack, like we are with Al Qaeda?

Are you saying that Hamas (or whomever) would nuke Jerusalem to annihilate Israel? And if you're not, could you please elaborate on what you are suggesting in terms of "destroying" Israel.

Iranians sent a very clear message when they elected Ahmadinejad over Khatami. There's a pretty real difference between the two.

As long as we don't feel the need to but in, I'm not really concerned.

Of course they would. Read their charter if you have any doubt.

Like Jim, I don't think there will be much change in the near future. Though if Israel catagorically refuses to speak with Palestine because Hamas is the majority in Parliament, things could get very violent, very quickly.

Kinda funny, since "facist" isn't a word.

if Israel is so tiny, how come it's the dominant military power in that part of the world? in terms of sheer numbers, obviously they have a tiny population, and then not everyone who lives in Israel is in the military. so where does the might come from? the odds surely look not in Israel's favor, but like the litle engine that could they seem to persevere. just wondering how.

Ok, this I strongly disagree with. Hamas won't nuke Jerusalem. Destroying the 3rd holiest city in Islam, where Muhammed was supposed to have ascended to heaven would quite clearly outweigh kicking the Jews out. Hell, if they did that, I would imagine Iran would put Fatwas on the entire Hamas leadership!

There have been smaller countries in the past that have been dominent, but they usually have conquered their enemy (ie, Alexander's Greece beating Persia).

Actually, no - I disagree with Israel being selected where it was by the Western powers after the second world war, as a means to assuage their own guilt. I think Israel was clearly not the aggressor in 1948 - on the other hand, why do you choose to ignore 1956 ? As for 1967 - who lauched the pre-emptive attack Jim ? Or 1982 - who invaded Lebanon ?

That being said, my point was more about current policy - no one seriously doubts Israel's right to exist today, even the people in Hamas who recognize that a 50 year old mistake is likely to be erased. Public posturing is not to be confused with actual policy.

Actually, just about every citizen is in the military. Everyone has to join at age 18, so everyone has military training. So while every person is not active duty, pretty much the entire population can be called up in time of war.

They also benefit from access to US technology and training. So while they might be small, they are well trained and have a ton of advanced weaponry.

Exactly. This reminds me of the organizational saying "where you stand depends on where you sit". Now that Hamas is in the position of having to govern (or now that it has its lips on the lucrative teat of foreign aid, depending on how cynical you are), I would not be surprised in the least if Hamas would act more pragmatically to assure its continuing hold on power, now that it has more to lose.

Second strike nuclear capability.

I suggest you read up a little about what happened in 1967. With troops from several nations on their borders, blockades on their shipping and extraordinary rhetoric coming from several Arab leaders, Israel had to do something in response. Or do you disagree with that?

In 1982, Israeli forces responded to the PLO, which was launching attacks on Israel from its camps in Lebanon. There would have been no need to go into Lebanon if the Lebanese government had ousted the PLO on its own. It's exactly the same situation as our going into Afghanistan to go after Al Qaeda. Or do you disagree with that?

As for Israel's creation, nothing about it was ideal, but at least they had some connection to the land. Just a tiny piece of land, smaller than New Jersey. Sure, I wish it were elsewhere, too. But it's not their fault.

Hamas does want to get rid of Israel. That has not changed and won't change. They pledged just months ago to build up their supplies of Qassam rockets and, at a certain time in the future, will start sending them into Israeli cities. Including and specifically mentioning Jerusalem.

Qassam rockets are very crude and have no guidance system and limited range. But if sent randomly into Jerusalem, as Hamas has pledged to do, they could just as easily destroy an historic location as kill someone.

Hamas is not warm and fuzzy by any means. It exists for one purpose only.

By no means was Israel innocent in 1967. To be fair, they bombed the Egyptian airstrip and removed their aerial capability, which is a legitimate military target.

Of course, then they destroyed a US ship in the Med Sea so we wouldn't know what was going on, and we let them because public opinion was on their side.


-Anxiety

Firstly, I'll continue to note your selective ignorance of 1956- I'll take that as a concession.

Secondly, Hamas is warm and fuzzy ? where on earth have I ever made that ridiculous stance ? That's a strawman -nothing more.

In 1967, Egypt closed the Straits and Suez Canal to Israeli shipping - as is their right, since that was Egyptian territory. Do you dispute that part ?

Lets talk about Israel's human rights record Jim - the killing of Egyptian POW's in that war - or the massacres in Lebanon. I'm clear that no one here has clean hands - and to pretend otherwise is willfully ignorant. To its credit, Israel has done a far better job of accomodating its minorities than the Arab world - but its role as an usurper in the first place is the root of much of the conflict.

Wow. A U.S.S. Liberty conspiracy theorist. Even though that angle has been thoroughly investigated and debunked.

Meanwhile, Egypt ordered the UN peacekeeping troops off of the Israeli/Egyptian border and said the following:

"As of today, there no longer exists an international emergency force to protect Israel. We shall exercise patience no more. We shall not complain any more to the UN about Israel. The sole method we shall apply against Israel is a total war which will result in the extermination of Zionist existence."

So, what in the high holy fuck was Israel supposed to do in response? Sit around and wait for the Egyptian troops to come in their homes and massacre them?

aha yes- the USS Liberty, a fact that too many people are unaware of. American seamen died because the Israeli's did not want the US knowing what was going on there.

Debunked ? The damn NSA records suggest that Israel was directly responsible for attacking the Liberty, a ship that was flying the American flag rather prominently. There is no doubt that the Israeli's sunk the ship - the only debate has always been about whether they knew it was an American ship.

No, it is not their right to blockade Israeli ships, as they did in both 1956 and 1967. That's part of a declaration of war.

In 1956, Nasser blockaded ships and sent fighters to attack the Israeli border. He pledged there would never be peace with Israel. Israel, with the backing of France and England, took the Sinai in response.

I didn't mention it because it isn't on the top three in the Arab hit parade. Israel did go too far in response, they did not show enough restraint once the war was won. But it's far cry from the repeated pledges from the Arab countries to kill every Israeli man, woman and child.

There's no doubt Israel attacked the Liberty and that people were killed. There's also no doubt that the attack ceased when the Israelis realized it was an American ship and they did make restitution.

Why would they care if Americans knew about the air strikes on Egypt? The whole world knew pretty much immediately and the Americans certainly wouldn't have warned anyone in time or stepped in to prevent the air strikes.

I wouldn't say the fact that the USS Liberty being attacked deliberately was debunked when people like then CIA Director Richard Helms, then SecState Dean Rusk, and former Head of the JCS Admiral Thomas Moorer think it was deliberate.

This an article written by Admiral Mooner on the issue:

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article....49&categ_id=15

Some, even in high places, believe in conspiracy theories.

Why did Moorer's office approve the CIA report that the Liberty did resemble a known Egyptian fighter - this after the US had reported to Israel it had no warships in the region?

Rusk, by his own admission, never studied what was written about the attack. Not sure about Helms.

The fact remains that there was no sane reason for attacking the Liberty and it was an active combat zone.

For further information, here's a link to a June 2003 article on the Liberty incident and follow-up in the USNI Proceedings magazine:

Proceedings article

So the usual bickering aside, I'm thinking this is a step forward for peace in the Middle East. It's been clear since Oslo that Hamas has the power to veto any peace agreement they didn't agree with. It's a power Israel gave them by running away from the negotiating table every time a bomb went off. Meanwhile Israel refused to negotiate with Hamas, even when Hamas was interested in talking. Israel gave Hamas the power to cancel negotiations but barred them from the negotiating table. Consequently no peace negotiation since then has had any chance of success. Now they'll have no alternative. There is no one there to talk to but Hamas. If a settlement is negotiated with Hamas, it has a chance of sticking, something that was never true of negotiations with Fatah. And Jim's ranting aside, it seems pretty clear that Hamas is open to peace negotiations. This situation has been stuck in a deadlock for more than a decade, but today the particular political alignment causing the deadlock has been flipped. If Israel and the U.S. don't overreact, something worthwhile could come out of this...

Mojo,

Given your statement above, what's your feeling on how Hamas will approach negotiations with Israel, if they occur? What will be their stated goals to the Palestinian people? To Israel?

Yup. The Economist has been arguing the same thing -at some level, much like Sharon was the guy who the Israeli's will take seriously on peace talks - Hamas holds a similar position for the Palestinans.

Actually, they're supposed to sit there with their hands folded quietly so as not to disturb those poor oppressed Arabs who would never harm a fly & certainly have no intention of disturbing Israel (no matter how evil those damned Israeli's are).

Or, in other words, yes Jim, that's exactly what a lot of people think they're supposed to do.

Those who think they should are damned fools ... but that really doesn't stop them from thinking so.

Mojo's ignorance aside, here's a link to the Hamas charter:

http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

That is who these people are. They have no interest in peaceful coexistence.

Just read the damned document. Then read any of a number of recent statements Hamas has made about its pursuit of the destruction of Israel.

Hamas negotiating peace. That's a good one.

I honestly have no idea. Nor do I mean to suggest for an instant that it will be easy for the two sides to reach an agreement. I'm sure Hamas will be a difficult negotiating partner. But I think it can be done. And I think it is the ONLY way there will be peace between Israel and Palestine.

Charter charter charter charter charter

charter charter

Yeah, ok. Thanks. That must be the end of the story.

Since when did anything written on a piece of paper matter in international politics? Governments, including our own, disregard rule of law and even their own rhetoric when it suits them.

While Hamas is certainly not a group to be trusted, historical evidence does seem to point to the idea that outsiders do tend to act more pragmatically realative to their prior rhetoric, once they rise to power. For some outsider groups, once they become insiders the preservation of power becomes more of a motivating force than the ideals they once stood for. Again, those in power have more to lose than those without...

One critical piece of information now though is that Hamas will be depending on the EU and the US for large amounts of aid. They came to power due to their ability to aid the people of Palestine domestically, and now they will have to choose between terrorism and aid, a choice that they have not faced before.

Well, now that they are in power let's see how quickly they correct their "misguided" charter...

It isn't. But it's certainly a major piece. It cannot be ignored.

Look how they've continued to attack Israel, and how they've promised to continue to try and drive Israel into the sea.

What if our Constitution demanded that we, by God's wrath, were required to drive all Muslims from the face of the earth? Should we then still get any benefit of the doubt when dealing with Al Qaeda? Or with any Muslim nation? Would we, as citizens of a supposedly free country, stand for this in our Constitution?

Hamas refuses to accept Israel's right to exist. Again, they are not fuzzy little adorable creatures manning a resistence. They live to hate. They would, and have, given their lives to the elimination of Israel. They feel it's their duty, under their god, to do so.

Charter: I'd just like to point out that one should take a look at Sinn Fein's charter, for example, and see how an organization can change over time. I'm not saying that this will happen with Hamas, but I wouldn't place it outside the realm of possibility. Never say never and all that.

The PLO had the destruction of Israel in their charter, too, and they changed, although not enough. Every Arab country had the destruction of Israel as an official policy goal at one time. Some of them have since made peace treaties.

Over on the other side, Ariel Sharon at one time stated that Jordan should be the Palestinian homeland. That's not all that different from the other side as the Hamas stand. Sharon changed.

The first peace agreement between Israel and an Arab country was signed by two former terrorists, Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat.

To say that there's no possibility of Hamas changing is a pretty big denial of something that we've seen happen in others just as militant in their day in that region. Maybe Hamas won't change. But nearly every other extremest group on both sides in this conflict that has come to power has moderated itself once in power.

The Yom Kippur War of 1973 proved that Israel can and will mobilize reservists quickly. I assume it will be the same when the next attack comes.

Dola: Doesn't democratic elections usually represent the collective view of the people? Thus in the case of Palestine electing a majority of Hamas then it basically means that the people (Palestinian voters and citizens) agree in principle to Hamas' political ideologies and, charters of all kinds.

Kind of like how only Nixon could go to China? I can buy that. Hamas is probably the only people that can make peace with Israel and not look like pansies. Similar to Sharon's actions as PM of Isreal.

Do you agree with everything your representative believes in? I don't think anyone does. There is more than ample evidence that Hamas benefited from Fatah being extremely corrupt and stealing aid money for their own purposes.

I lean in agreement with Jim, though my area of expertise is North Korea and not the Middle East, but I do know the history. I think Hamas is capable of anything, and if they even get an inkling that they should be wiping someone out for their religious beliefs, they will not hesitate to do it. Fanaticism will not care about sanctions.

And I have never believed in one conspiracy theory that is out there, to my knowledge.

I had been thinking that they might even welcome that, in making it more of an us vs. them, Islam vs. non-Islam fight. A reason to further incite, if you will.

[quote=biological warrior]Dola: Doesn't democratic elections usually represent the collective view of the people? Thus in the case of Palestine electing a majority of Hamas then it basically means that the people (Palestinian voters and citizens) agree in principle to Hamas' political ideologies and, charters of all kinds.[/QUOTE

It's more like Palestinians saw Hamas setting up schools and health centers while the leaders of the PLO drove around in BMW's. The domestic angle is one a lot of people are ignoring so they can continue to say, "damned Arabs. Bomb 'em all to glass."

I've noticed that many of you speak of Palestine as if it is a country. Who in this thread thinks Palestine is an actual country recognized by the United Nations? Does anyone posting in this thread think Palestine is a country or is it just a term you are using? If you believe it is an actual country, can you reference any documentation that supports that claim?

I'm curious, because I believe it is a term used to identify a geographic area and not a nation. If I am wrong, I would like to clarify that.

It's a de facto country. They have elections, they get aid, they send out diplomatic missions, etc.

You do realize what is going on over there, don't you? Ahmadinejad was perceived as an outsider. So the masses elected him over Khatami. The power brokers there want to oust Ahmadinehad, so he is spouting off all this rhetoric. The power brokers are banking that the masses who look favorably on the West, will stop supporteing Ahmadinejad, so he can be thrown out of power. The election of Ahmadinejad was a slap in the face of the powers that be in Iran, but what happened after the election, I don't think anyone fore saw.

I agree with both Senator and Jim, and I will throw this out. If Hamas does moderate its views to consolidate their power, those that choose to abide by the charter of Hamas will split off and start causing trouble over there.

I also suggest that people, rather than study Islam, study Muhammad and how he actually ruled and led. Additionally, look at the history of the Caliphates in the area as well.

Okay, so what you're saying is advocating the destruction of a race of people is "not all that different" from saying they have a right to exist, but that Jordan (which has agreements in place with Israel) should take over the West Bank. Huh?

Sharon was trying to propose a solution there. Jordan wants no part of the West Bank since the war of 1970, so it didn't fly and it won't fly. He certainly wasn't advocating the massacre of Palestinians.

I know it's upsetting to some, but I strongly urge you and others to read the Hamas charter, then come back to this item. Someone compared Hamas to Sinn Fein, which is the political wing of the terrorist IRA. The IRA is a terrible organization, and I lived in London during a period of active bombing. But not in terms of religious fervor and desire to wipe out an entire race of people. Sinn Fein never started with that kind of speech. Just read the Hamas charter.

Hamas has to undergo complete reform here, but all they'll say is that they have their missiles ready and they're honoring the cease fire for now. They still refuse to acknowledge Israel's right to exist, and they still claim their capital is East Jerusalem, which isn't going to happen. You can't negotiate from that stance.

I think that's a key. From cnn.com: Israel would be completely justified by issuing an ultimatum: no negotiations with Hamas-led government until Hamas renounces its charter. Period.

Wha? Ahmadinejad was backed by the guys in charge. You know, the Ayatollah's guys? Khatami's successor (Moeen) didn't get far, but it is hard to say that Rafsanjani was a Khatami clone. He was/is a fairly pragmatic guy who did say that perhaps there should be reproachment between Iran and the US.

No, he was an outsider. Actually, the big guys are trying to figure out how to get him out, but are afraid of what the people would do. I think all the saber rattling is because it would galvanize the people and the power brokers if the US invaded, at least it is what the people in power hope would happen if we did. I think the people would rise in support of us, if we did.

All politics is local. Hamas ran on a clean up the corruption campaign, and that carried the day. The biggest surprise I had was that this was a surprise. They will have to do as they promised in the campaign, clean things up, or they will fall along the wayside.

You're nuts. We already tried that with Iraq and it failed miserably (referring to the failure of the people rising in support of us, not the operation as a whole). And in Iraq, we weren't taking on a Muslim government.

I think you've bought into the propaganda. Ahmedinejad, while running as a populist, was very much a favorite of the hardliner crowd. He was one of two conservatives on the slate in the last Presidential election (Ali Larijani wasn't expected to win, however). It seems kind of strange to claim how much of an outsider he was when he was the one backed by the extreme faction of Iran (and in fact Rafsanjani and Karroubi accuse the Iranian state of vote manipulation to help Ahmedinejad win).

I see no evidence that the Ayatollah Khameni or the Guardian Council are trying to get Ahmedinejad out.

And if you think that the people would rise in support of the US if we invaded Iran, you HAVE to be smoking something!

What's an outsider. Given that the Ayatollahs vet all candidates for the Presidential election, can any of them be an outsider? Plus, his previous role was Mayor of Tehran, a job to which he was appointed.


I'm sure there are parts of the Iranian power structure that are unhappy that he's in place. But this quote only serves to prove my point - Ahmadinejad still won the election, and beat the "moderate" to do it. Given his campaign rhetoric and given what his grass-roots supporters have said as to why they voted for him, he was voted in as an anti-American vote.

Again, our overt and prolonged presence in the Middle East, especially Iraq, does little but serve as a galvanizing factor for Muslim radicals. And you can see this in the election results in places such as Iran and Egypt, and it certainly hasn't hurt recruiting for organizations like Hamas and Al-Qaeda.