The Obama team is desperate for these protests to go away and forcing the media to cover it as little as possible. Looks terrible for them.
There is a relative media quiet on the protests because none of the major US media outlets have a Tehran bureau. And stop parroting every tweet from a Breitbart 'reporter' @RocketsLegend. The US government including Obama’s Administration would love nothing more than to see the end of the current Iranian government. But one sure fire way to keep them in power for another 10 years is to somehow make these protests look like they’re sponsored by the US. Anything we touch in Iran delegitimizes it. And people complaining about the nuclear deal and the concessions the US had to make to get them: the alternative to no deal was an overt Israeli campaign against the nuclear program. This would destabalize the whole region, give the current Iranian government another generation of legitimacy, and cost the world significantly more than the billion or so of assets the US unfroze (e.g. trillions). From what I understand, these 2017 protests were originally from the hardliners encouraging protesting the “moderate” government. But it turns out the anti-government protests became anti-regime. The young masses are jobless and they are laying blame to the government. I remember the blacklash after the 2009 election protests, and I fear what’s in store this time.
Lots of people reported on the Iran protests without a Tehran bureau. CNN waited until the 3rd day...... you believe the only options were to a) give IRan whatever they wanted including $1.7 billion in US tax payer money, $100 billion blocked by sanctions over seas, and let Hezzbollah go unchecked, while legally only stopping Iran's nuclear weapon building for a few years or b) destabilize the whole middle east ? Please don't try to negotiate any deal ever. hire someone else to do it for you. There is a reason Obama's administration tried to hide the aspects of the Iran nuclear deal (such as the 1.7 billion). Even they knew it was total ****. Obama had no clue how to negotiate and probably went in with the same attitude you have and got man handled because of it. 'well i don't want war so better give these Iranian terrorists whatever they want, hope they don't ask for much'. BTW this is how you negotiate a disarmament
True. But it's not much of a story on the first day. By the second and third day it becomes a story. I believe that if the Iranian government walked, then you'd have IAF fighter jets flying to destroy the reactors that were apart of the deal. If Iran signaled they were going to make a nuclear weapon, Israel would have to respond. Instead, we got a 'nuclear deal'. In addition to the averted military conflict, there was the financial winners in the US as well (I think Boeing signed a $17 billion order with the Iranian government). And if these protests achieve any good in the long run for the Iranian people, then that nuclear deal was well worth it over the alternative.
The Iranian government as it exists is because of its anti US and anti Israel rhetoric. The US's show of force would not cause an about face in a government that sent thousands to become martyrs in the Iran-Iraq war, nor was the US in a position in the late 2000s and early 2010s to have another war anywhere let alone Iran. The Iranian government would not have voluntarily given up anything, especially after seeing what happened to Gaddafi and his government. Instead they thing they get the best deal they can. And if those few years bought enough time to avoid an Iranian government nuclear weapon while still giving the Iranian people a country that has no desire to be an antagonist to the US led hegemony or a nuclear power in the long run, I'll chalk that up as a win in the US books.
right. who wants to be first to a story. being 25th is where its at. how does this equate to 'destabilizing the region'? Iran and US already had taken out Iranian centrifuges once before.
Another Obama foreign affairs blunder Who would call giving billions to terrorists a 'win'? wtf? It totally felt like a win when i go to work early every morning to pay for some bombs to blow up some schools. You know how many terrorists i funded for stuxnet? 0. good thing Bush didn't think there were only two options.
The facts are that Iran has shut down it's nuke program. It was on the verge of having them and now it doesn't. If the deal was such a bad thing, why is Trump not withdrawing from it??? Seems like you need to get your facts straight. Obama got Iran to give up its nukes, and the protests are happening because now the regime can't blame America for all its economic problems. That is exactly what is happening no thanks to Trump. Oh, Trump is doing such a wonderful job slowing down N. Korea by the way. The idiot is useless.
Stuxnet was not flying an Israeli flag when it destroyed those centrifuges. An IAF fighter would be. Could you imagine how different the US response would be if Russia killed a presidential candidate rather than hacking their emails in a covert way.
Isreal and the US have said it was a joint operation. You think Iran thought it was whom? Russian hackers?\ 'In April 2011 Iranian government official Gholam Reza Jalali stated that an investigation had concluded that the United States and Israel were behind the Stuxnet attack.' they knew. Region not destabilized. In your opinion Azadre, why did Obama not support the 2009 Iranian protests? In your opinion, why isn't Obama's team out touting how awesome the current protests are? Most of them have given out one tweet that amounts to 'lets not talk about it'.
Because candidate Mousavi was very similar to Ahmadinejad in the grand scheme of Iranian politics. At the end of the day, they're still the same side. They protested in 2009 because they thought their voices weren't being heard. They protest now because inflation has crippled them. To your credit, people were critical for Obama not being more vocal about this in 2009. But nothing legitimizes power more than an external existential threat. Obama was not going to be that threat. Trump shouldn't be that either. Obama 6/15: Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States. Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled. We will continue to pursue a tough, direct dialogue between our two countries, and we’ll see where it takes us. But even as we do so, I think it would be wrong for me to be silent about what we’ve seen on the television over the last few days. And what I would say to those people who put so much hope and energy and optimism into the political process, I would say to them that the world is watching and inspired by their participation, regardless of what the ultimate outcome of the election was. And they should know that the world is watching. Obama 6/16: “Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as has been advertised. We’ve got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election.”
Again there is a difference between malware that destroys 1,000 centrifuges and covert assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, and flying into Iranian airspace and dropping a bomb. The Iranian government would not want a war, but they'd be forced to retaliate in that case because of the 'optics'. Also, the Iranian government already thinks everything bad is the fault US and Israel. Stuxnet? US/Israel plot. Inflation? US/Israel plot. Young women not wanting to wear their hijabs? US/Israel plot. Government office closes early because the worker wants to watch a game? US/Israel plot.
I know something that legitimizes power. Billions of dollars. Getting the president of the US to give you whatever you want legitimizes power too. This is about as much as a 'no comment' as you can get. Not once does he say he support the protesters position or say the Iranian regime needs to go. Here is Trump's for comparison: 'Iran's leaders have turned a wealthy country with a rich history and culture into an economically depleted rogue state whose chief exports are violence, bloodshed, and chaos' 'Oppressive regimes cannot endure forever, and the day will come when the Iranian people will face a choice.'
Trump isn't trying to negotiate with Iran, and he is saying what almost every politician in the GOP would say. I don't think this kind of rhetoric does anything positive in the short or long term if your goal is to avoid empowering the hardliners. On the other hand, he can Tweet what he wants: Russia supports the current Iranian government. He has never shown the will to act against Russia with the exception of the recent arming of Ukraine which probably was done without his knowledge. The Iranian government also knows this. Sorry for going off on a tangent about the nuclear deal. Though there is already speculation from some redditors that these protests may be worsened because of 'covert' social media support coming from the Saudis (KSA). KSA does not care about Russia's allies in the region, and would love to see Iran end up like Syria today if the Iranian government keeps opposing KSA's powerplays in the region. Sadly, those same 'rumblings' will be used to justify a brutal crackdown of the legitimate protestors. And rumor has it the mobile internet and almost all social media is shut off in Iran, so there will be a significant blackout for western followers of the unrest in Iran.
Too bad OP is one of those who claimed to not vote for Trump. I bet he wishes he could take those posts back now.
because Trump vocally supported a protest? its nice but hardly worth voting for. gary johnson would of done the same.
[Premium Post] Can you believe the Obama Administration cut a deal with this horrible, repressive Iranian regime? It was indefensible, and likely done for two reasons: 1) Because of Valerie Jarrett's ties to Iran (born there, speaks the language); and 2) Obama needed a foreign policy legacy accomplishment. He actually permitted Hezbollah drug trafficking as a way to not risk upsetting the Iran deal. That's how badly he wanted this absurdly flawed deal. The Obama foreign policy legacy will go down as one of the weakest, most ineffectual, and most misguided in history. It's evident how a strong leader, with executive experience, can improve our nation's economy and foreign policy. That's happening now and it's great for the standard of living of all Americans. Fortunately, the stain of the Obama Administration has been almost wiped clean from the history books. I expect 2018 to wipe the stain fully clean. Maybe even go a step beyond and throw the criminals in prison who spied on Trump, excused Hillary's and Huma's felonies, tried to overturn the 2016 election, and then used the FBI to cook up a false narrative to try to derail the Trump Administration. GOOD DAY and HAPPY NEW YEAR
