< HOME  Tuesday, March 14, 2006

Ahmedinejad's Last Stand

After months of posturing and heated rhetoric, we've reached what appears to be the end of the road. The US, Israel, and their western allies have painted Ahmedinejad into a corner from which he cannot escape without surrendering his pride and the independence of his nation's domestic policies.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue ... as breaking the country's independence which will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," Khamenei said, according to state television.

"This path is irreversible and the foreign policy establishment has to bravely defend Iran's rights," [Khamenei] told the diplomats.

In a nationally televised speech, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also vowed to resist pressure from the Security Council, saying "no power" can take nuclear technology from Iran.

"They should know that through propaganda, political pressures and games they play nowadays ... (they) can't prevent the Iranian nation from pursuing its path," he said, referring to the West.
How can the US expect this strategy to work? What do they think they'll achieve? They may have military might, but they're fighting a losing battle when it comes to hearts and minds.
"[The] Enemy should know that Iranian nation will not keep calm against plots and heads of the bullying state should know that they are viewed as the most hated individuals by all and Iranian nation's slogan is the voice of all nations," said Ahmadinejad in an address to the locals.
Ahmedinejad is not only charismatic, enjoying broad and strong support from his countrymen, but his courageous stand against the world's greatest superpower has transformed him into a global legend.
Ahmadinejad called on the people to "be angry" at the pressure being put on Iran.

"Listen well," the president said to a crowd chanting "die" as they punched the air with their fists. "A nuclear program is our irrefutable right."
Much to their chagrin, the man's a hero. A sling-shot is the only thing that's missing in this image of Ahmedinejad's last stand against the neo-con Goliath.

To attack Iran without more, would be a strategic disaster. The neo-cons must have something else up their sleeve. Even if Iran defies the Security Council, goes ahead with full scale enrichment, AND decreases its oil output, something more would have to happen before the neo-cons could "sell" this war to the American people and the world without risking serious reprisals, even if only economic.

They wouldn't dare attack now with nothing more to justify their brazen aggression than an uncomprimising opponent and some threadbare evidence cooked up by dissaffected political dissidents. The West would not only incur the political wrath of its own populations, but they would unleash the unbridled fury of the world at large.

As it stands now, the Security Council is at an impasse.
China and Russia insisted . . . that negotiations with Iran be allowed to continue. France, Britain and the US want political pressure on Iran to stop its uranium enrichment activities.
Wednesday, the permanent members meet for the fifth day of talks, while the whole council is expected to meet again Thursday or Friday.

The question remains, what provocation do the neo-cons have planned and when will it unfold?


At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Unknown said...

Two options:
1. Either the US policymakers are real dumb and are stoking nationalism and pan-Islamism.
2. The US has decided to annihilate everyone sooner or later so it doesn't give a damn any more.

This Iran fiasco started with the sneak confirmation of Bolton as US ambassador - a regular Iran-hater.

Straw tried to mend fences, but I am almost 100% sure US is going to backstab Britain after using them:


Ignorant US congressmen angered UAE over the ports deal, and the two countries that border the Straits of Hormuz: Iran and UAE.

Meanwhile - please investigate the unrest in Pakistan's Baluchistan province, which borders Iran and is a Taliban stronghold. US may be hitting THREE birds with one stone there.

At Wednesday, March 15, 2006, Blogger Red Tulips said...

The U.S. should have taken the Russian plan.

This could really lead to WWIII. Oh well, if there is WWIII, at least I have no kids, so I don't have to worry about them. If I die, I die. It will happen anyway, if not now, then years down the line. You really have to have a c'est la vie attitude towards life nowadays...or move to the mountains and live in a shack hidden in the woods.

And Akber, the UAE deal was pretty gruesome. It's not even that it's the UAE - read up on details of the plan. It was an inside deal, with money lining the pockets of key US politicians. I also think that the US, and not a corporation (be it foreign or American-based) should be controlling the ports.

At Thursday, March 16, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The "problem" with WW3 is no that many people may die, but the radiation will make it pretty darn hard for everything else to thrive. Radioactive dust can circle the globe in no time.

Anyone running a poll on when another "9/11" will happen?


Post a Comment

<< Home