

The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. Psalms 2 v2
Nobody can be unaware of President Ahmadinijad and his oft repeated threat to wipe Israel off the map once he has acquired his nuclear weapons. However many people continue in denial about his sincerity or Iran's capability - even as the missile test launch are blatantly televised and the International Atomic Energy inspectors are given the run-around.
But would the problem go away with a change of leader in Iran?
by Daniel Pipes
June 13, 2009
updated Sun, 14 Jun 2009
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/06/assessing-the-iranian-election.html
Better put, the Iranian "selection," as the exercise yesterday appears to have been window dressing for Supreme Leader Ali Khamene'i, the real power in Iran, to re-appoint Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. According to the authorities, Ahmadinejad received 63 percent of the vote, Mir-Hossein Mousavi 35 percent, and the remaining two candidates each about 1 percent.
Ahmadinejad proclaimed a "great victory" but Mousavi called the elections a "dangerous charade" and the two other candidates agreed with him. Many analysts see Ahmadinejad having stolen the election but I interpret it as Khamene'i stealing the election on Ahmadinejad's behalf.
What to make of this? I think it about the best result possible. I also find it a mystery. First, why it pleases me. Count the ways:
Ahmadinejad remains the lunatic face of Iran to the world, making it difficult to argue that the mullahs' regime is mellowing and its possession of nuclear weapons poses no threat. Had Mousavi won, policy would have remained roughly the same because, as one Iranian insider puts it, "the government of Iran executes foreign policy decisions made by Iran's supreme leader," yet the regime would have appeared much less threatening.
Ahmadinejad symbolizes the rejection of Barack Obama's overtures to Iran and, as such, his selection represents a slap in the face of the American president's pro-Islamist policies.
Ahmadinejad remains in charge of the Iranian economy, which he is progressively wrecking, thereby reducing the country's capabilities to make mischief abroad.
Ahmadinejad also determines the social mores, which he has tightened to the point of rebellion, assuring that his subject population grows more alienated from the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Supporters of the opposition candidates have not accepted the results, leading to riots in Tehran. In the description of the Los Angeles Times, "Searing smoke and the smell of burning trash bins and tear gas filled the night sky. Protesters poured into key squares around the capital, burning tires, erecting banners and hurling stones at riot police on motorcycles, who responded with truncheons."
Yesterday's sham election may be a turning point, the moment when the much-suffering population found its collective voice against the regime. It bears noting in this regard that the Iranian population in 1978-79 mounted what was perhaps the largest-scale rebellion ever against a government. It could do so again.
Then the mystery: Why did Khamene'i select Ahmadinejad to "win" the election? Why did he not choose a president-puppet who would present a smile to the world, including Obama, handle the economy competently, not rile the population, and whose selection would not inspire riots that might destabilize the regime? Has Khamene'i fallen under the spell of Ahmadinejad or does he have some clever ploy up his sleeve? Whatever the answer is, it baffles me. Put differently, the West makes plenty of mistakes, so it's a relief to learn that its enemy sometimes does likewise. (June 13, 2009)
Amid Iran’s current political turmoil, the outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency told the BBC on Wednesday that Iran is seeking the ability to build nuclear weapons to secure its place as a major power in the Middle East and also as an “insurance policy” against outside meddling in its internal affairs. "My gut feeling is that Iran definitely would like to have the technology... that would enable it to have nuclear weapons if they decided to do so," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei openly admitted for the first time. "[Iran] wants to send a message to its neighbors, it wants to send a message to the rest of the world: Yes, don't mess with us, we can have nuclear weapons if we want it… [It’s] an insurance policy against what they heard in the pas t about regime change, axis of evil," he said. Meantime the US envoy to the IAEA, Geoffrey Pyatt, stated that "Iran is now either very near or in possession of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to (further) enrich it to weapons-grade." Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election last week has cast doubt on Western powers' hope of a dialogue with Iran aimed at curbing its uranium enrichment program.
Did you notice the name of the IAEA chief ? - Mohamed ElBaradei. Could his origins be influencing the spin he is putting on this revelation?
Created 16/06/09 - Updated 18/06/09
Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page

