Deck, FYI ymc believes that a small cabal of Jews falsified intel data to purposefully mislead and hugely influence the U.S. into a war with Iraq for the personal gain of Israel. He also believes that Jews are so powerful in the U.S. they have the power to run it anyway they want (provided they "had half a brain").
Yeah. That's part of my position. But I would add the big oil and military industrial complex lobbies into the mix as well. At the very least, it is now "proven" that at least one Jew, Doug Feith, did exactly that.
First of all, that President doesn't really have the power to dictate things in Iran. The Supreme Leader Khamenei is the one who really has the power. Sometimes you need to learn how to talk to your enemies. If you assume that they don't want to talk, then they will just always be your enemies. I see that historically speaking, Israel and Iran are not really in any genuine hostile situation. They didn't fight during the 60s and 70s. Iranians are not Arabs. They think Israel as Arabs' problem. Jews in Iran are also well respected compare to Jews in Arabic countries. If NK and US can talk, why can't Iran and Israel? NK and US went to war with millions of dead but Iran and Israel never went to war, so why do you think they can't talk and trade?
Actually the President really does have power in Iran. He doesn't have it all, but he certainly holds power, which is why Khamenei is upset with him right now, but can't stop what he is doing. Khamenei has power as well, and maybe even more of it in some situations, but the President is far from just a figurehead.
Israel can talk and trade with Muslim states, as it has with Turkey, for example. But Turkey is a secular state, a member of NATO, and an ally of the United States. I know who the real power is behind the Iranian President, but they "picked him" for the job, and have allowed him to make the most absurd and inflammatory statements about Israel and the Holocaust. Israel isn't going to talk to their front man. They aren't going to trade with Iran. If the government ever changes, I'm sure they'd love to. I disagree with you here, FB. D&D. Glow in the Dark.
But the Supreme Leader can override any order made by the President. So if the President is really doing something detrimental to Iran's national interest, his orders will be overriden.
If they don't like to talk to their President, they can talk to other people in their government, e.g. the Foreign Minister. Or they can keep the talk in secret. But still, the refusal to talk because you dislike someone is not a good idea. This ensures that no peaceful solution is possible. From my point of view, other than the rhetorics, Iran is more friendly to Israel than the Arabic countries since the founding of Israel. If I remember correctly, the hostility between Iran and Israel is a very recent event. It appears to have more to do with their newly elected President's rhetorics. I think Israel should see thru these rhetorics and talk. But if they can't, then just wait until his term expires.
It is my understanding that the President can't just be overriden, and their has been great strife between the President and the Clerics on the council regarding his statements about Israel, nukes, and belligerent attitude towards the U.S. and international community. I think the process for overriding him is to basically overturn him. The clerics chose and approved the candidates including President A. But once he his in, he does have his own powers.
I agree with that Israel and Iran have historically been less hostile to each other but these days Iran is likely Israels biggest enemy. Ahmadinajad's rhetoric has to do with that but I think it has more to do with Iran's patronage of Hezbollah and Hamas along with close ties to Syria.
I believe that he the president in Iran can be overridden. When Khatami was president several of his policies were overridden by the Mullahs.
I think the Supreme Leader can dismiss the President as he pleases. He is also th e one who can command the armed forces and make wars: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Leader So I think the way it works is that once the President is in, he can do whatever he wants as long as it is within the general policies set by the Supreme Leader. If the Supreme Leader thinks he is not doing a good job following the general policies, he can be dismissed. The important thing here is that the President has no command over the armed forces. So no matter his rhetorics, he can't back it up by force unlike Bush.
Hezbollah is not a natural enemy of Israel because they really have no conflicts of interests in terms of organization goals. I think their animosity was from the days of Israel occupation of southern Lebanon. And then things just went down hill from there. I believe their hostility can be resolved if Israel talks to them. Iran was only one of the many donors of Hamas. If Israel is serious about this, they should be more hostile to Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Egypt.
What?????!!!! I suppose then that dogs don't chase cats and cats don't hiss at dogs. Please worry at the very thought of any nation slinging nukes. It will not be tit for tat. These exchanges won't stop -- and the world might have more to worry about than global warming if we are confronted by a Dr. Strangelove scenario.
The Supreme Leader has ultimate veto power regarding any policies. When the reformists controlled the Majlis and the presidency, countless pieces of legislation were vetoed by the Supreme Leader. Also, the Supreme Leader can sack the president at any time and call for new elections. The "mullahs" are really just the expediency council which tries to mediate disputes between the Supreme Leader and the President, but generally whatever the Supreme Leader wants, he will get. Democracy in Iran is pretty much a circular sham. The Supreme Leader regulates the very people and authorities that are supposed to check his powers so it is almost pointless.
I knew that he could sack the President, and have him removed. I just had read somewhere that he didn't have the power to meddle in each individual policy.
Wikipedia says the Supreme Leader can "supervise" his policies. Not sure that includes vetoes or not. On the other hand, since the President has zero control over the armed forces, his threats to Israel or anyone else are just empty threats. Therefore I don't understand why people take his statements more seriously than they deserve.
Well I misspoke a little. The Supreme Leader himself doesn't veto legislation. The Guardian Council (half of which is appointed by the Supreme Leader) actually has the veto power but due to the nature of Iranian politics and the vagueness of constitutional law (which was one of Khatami's main goals to fix - needless to say his bills got vetoed repeatedly), the Supreme Leader's say tends to be somewhat final as well.
Bush: "As you know, I hope, the Quds Force is a part of the Iranian government. Whether Ahmadinejad ordered the Quds Force to do this, I don't think we know. But we do know that they're there." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/14/AR2007021400775.html Well, Ahmadinejad has zero control over the Quds Force. Only Supreme Leader Khamenei has it. Yet another example that Bush doesn't know much about Middle East politics. No wonder we are now having trouble in the Middle East.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070224/ts_nm/cheney_iran_dc "The Weekend Australian newspaper reported on Saturday that Cheney had endorsed U.S. Republican Senator John McCain (news, bio, voting record)'s proposition that the only thing worse than a military confrontation with Iran would be a nuclear-armed Iran." Iran says they are not going to develop nuclear weapon. We don't believe what they say. So we believe they will develop nuclear weapon. Since war is better than a nuclear-armed Iran, we are going to fight Iran. Does this logic sound right?
