How should the United States deal with protests in Iran?
With protests worsening in Iran over the weekend, many are wondering if the United States should step in already and help.
President Obama has only made comments about protests instead of taking any action. According to the BBC, he said:
I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process, free speech, the ability for folks to peacefully dissent, all those are universal values and need to be respected.
Obama has also explained why he does not want to take action in an interview with CBS’ The Early Show last week according to an Associated Press article:
The last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. We shouldn’t be playing into that.
But those statements were made before police began attacking protesters with tear gas and shooting live bullets in the air over the weekend. The death toll also rose sharply. A total of 13 protesters were killed on Saturday according to Iranian State Media reports on Sunday bringing the death toll to 20 since the protests began, according to a Times Online article.
There’s even been a video posted on YouTube of a woman getting shot during the protests.
Despite the growing violence, Iranian leadership doesn’t want any help.
According to Fox News, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned the United States and Britain yesterday to stop meddling in Iran’s internal affairs. He said:
Definitely by hasty remarks you will not be placed in the circle of friendship with the Iranian nation. Therefore I advise you to correct your interfering stances
They (Western countries) want to portray as small the great and powerful position that has been created for the Iranian nation inside and outside after the recent election, by which of course they made a mistake and they showed they still do not know the Iranian nation.Definitely recent events will add to the Islamic Republic of Iran’s greatness and might.
Should the United States disregard the comments made by Iranian leadership and interfere anyway for the sake of protestors? How much worse do the protests need to get for the United States to have a duty to interfere? What could be a consequence of interfering? And if we should interfere, how should we do it?
D. - You can stop worrying about the Republicans because they are so neutered and out of power, they can do nothing to influence Obama or his allies in congress. Unless the power shifts in Washington after the 2010 election, leave the Republicans out of it. For better or worse, this is the Democrats show….I hope you don’t take this as an insult, but your faith seems to be running second to your politics these days. You had me fooled there for a while.
People of Iran, you are being used! This is a repeat of the US-backed overthrow of Iran’s elected government in 1953 and the installation of the Shah. Even if Ahmadinejad is brought down, the media is prepared to destroy Mousavi because of his links to terror attacks against the USA.
That will leave Iran without a clear leader, ready for the USA to install, by force if necessary, the next Shah of the Pahlavi Dynasty. And a new SAVAK to keep him there!
Yes so obvious. Reza Pahlavi, son of the former Shah of Iran, is positioning himself to become the new US-backed puppet leader of Iran should the current regime be toppled by protests still sweeping the country after the disputed election, following revelations that Mir-Hossein Mousavi directed terrorist attacks against the United States in the 1980’s.
Should the popular uprising, which some allege is being fomented by western intelligence as a gateway to regime change, be successful, Mousavi’s plans to take power are likely to be derailed by his bloody past.
According to a report by CQ Politics;
He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran’s ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.
The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency.
The man standing in line to usurp the discredited Mousavi is none other than the son of the late Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi, who is emerging as a prominent figure and a staunch advocate for the protesters.
Pahlavi’s reaction to the tragic death of the slain protester “Neda,” who was apparently killed by pro-Ahmadinejad militia forces on Saturday in Tehran, has propelled the former crown prince of Iran to national prominence.
In an emotional press conference yesterday, Pahlavi said that Neda was one of his daughters as he fought back tears in front of the cameras.
He also warned on Monday that the defeat of the demonstrators protesting the election in Iran could eventually lead to a nuclear war, stating, “Their defeat will encourage extremism from the shores of the Levant to the energy jugular of the world.”
Pahlavi has long planned to help overthrow the current regime in Iran. Five years ago he called for “a revolution sparked by massive civil disobedience in which the masses in the streets are backed by elements of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,” adding that he was in contact with members of the Guard who shared his vision.
Pahlavi left Iran in 1978 and was educated in the United States before training as a jet fighter pilot at the Reese Air Force Base in Lubbock, Texas.
According to writer Michael Edwards, Pahlavi “Has continually appeared on satellite radio and TV shows beamed into Iran, repeatedly calling for civil disobedience in order to topple the Islamic Mullahs. He promotes a US-UN backed referendum to decide whether Iran is to be governed as a constitutional monarchy, which he says he can lead as Shah, or a “secular democracy.”
We are again seeing history repeat itself. In 1953, the United States orchestrated a violent coup in Iran under the auspices of Operation Ajax to topple the democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh and replace it with the western-compliant yet brutal regime of Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, before its overthrow following the 1979 revolution.
The Shah’s son is now positioning himself to be installed as the next stooge by US, British and Israeli interests should the regime of the Mullahs be brought down by the mass demonstrations. It appears that Mousavi is merely a stop gap for the Anglo-American establishment and that his terrorist past will swiftly be used to discredit him and prevent him from assuming power, leaving the path clear for Pahlavi to step in.
Our President and Congress have done the right thing regarding Iran. They expressed their concerns about the mistreatment of the people of Iran, We as a country can not and should never try to tell another country how to live. We have so much crime, and other things wrong in this country we should be caring about and let the people of Iran deal with the government that is doing them wrong. How would you feel if another country came over here and started changing our way of life? Congratulations President Obama, for the great job you are doing. Hopefully you can keep our country out of war and not be trying to rule the World. Protect our borders and our citizens here at home.
May the Spirits keep you and your family safe from harm and keep our country crime free and safe from intrusion by others who wish not to live in peace.
As President “Obey me” struggles to deny CIA involvement in the near-coup in Iran, a short history of the fact that overthrowing democratically-elected foreign governments and installing puppet dictators is what the CIA’s main job appears to be!
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html