This is topic And this would be the Islamic Fundie Uprising? in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/1128.html

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
http://www.msnbc.com/news/876550.asp?0cb=-51b133692

quote:
TEHRAN, Iran, Feb. 28 � Thirteen months after President Bush called Iran part of an �axis of evil,� and on the eve of a possible U.S.-led war against Tehran�s similarly vilified neighbor, Iraq, the Iranian government has quietly weighed its reputation as an international pariah against America�s superpower might. The Islamic theocracy�s conclusion, analysts and sources say, is that U.S. plans to topple Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein should be viewed as an opportunity rather than a threat.
quote:
And in the Persian Gulf, Iran has reversed its blind-eye policy toward Iraqi oil smugglers doing a brisk trade in illegal crude. Although not officially part of the international coalition that enforces the blockade, the Iranian navy also thwarts Saddam�s contraband.
In its most serious engagement ahead of a war with Iraq, Iran has agreed to help the United States in search-and-rescue operations for U.S. pilots. The deal was worked out in a secret dialogue between Tehran and Washington last month.

quote:
Analysts say Iran�s readiness to participate in the periphery of a U.S. war on its borders demonstrates the Islamic republic�s practical approach to the Bush administration�s policy in the region.
�It�s called active neutrality,� said Hermidas Bavand, an international relations professor and a former Foreign Ministry official in the shah and Islamic governments. �By accommodating U.S. military engagement in Iraq, the expectation is that [the war] could be used as a sort of breakthrough as far as the relationship between Iran and the United States is concerned.�

quote:
Iran�s cooperation with the United States could be the Islamic theocracy�s ticket off Bush�s black list.
�Certain circles in Iran believed that a controlled Saddam is better than any other alternative. But common sense shows that the removal of Saddam would serve Iranian national interests,� said Bavand.

quote:
If Iran succeeds in winning assurances from the United States that it is not next for �regime change,� Tehran�s ability to keep Islamic fervor in check during a conflict with Iraq will be crucial to America�s attempts to stabilize region after a war.

 
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
And let's watch as all this blows up in the U.S.'s face about 10 years later.

Me? I don't like the idea at all. I'm a little shocked that the U.S. would even consent to this. Not in a country when democracy is consistently stomped like ants on a pavement every day. But then, you have to wonder: could American influence fuel such an "uprising"?
 
Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 
Yes, that does seem to have a tendancy to happen...
 
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
 
But at the same time, there has been a growing reaction to the fundie government there -- civilian officials pushing for liberalization, a few of the political prisoners being released... granted there's still a long way to go, but since when did everything happen all at once?
 
Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :
 
Despite being part of the alledged Axis of Evil, Iran has no reason to love Iraq.
 
Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
And now that the venerable Ollie North has been let loose again and is "fighting the good fight", Iran should be twirling their moustaches about now. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :
 
quote:

I'm a little shocked that the U.S. would even consent to this. Not in a country when democracy is consistently stomped like ants on a pavement every day. But then, you have to wonder: could American influence fuel such an "uprising"?

It's not like it's a new thing, we supported the shah in his time, and Marcos, and a bunch of other questionable governments over the years. And Iran hate Sadam. They had a war with him before we did.
 
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet:

US voices Iran nuclear concern

Iran Nuke Program Seen Accelerating
 
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
 
Oh, good. Another one.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Thank Russia.

You know, the other disapproving UNSC mmember with a veto?
 
Posted by Cartmaniac (Member # 256) on :
 
Veto rights are the best thing to ever happen to members of the SC.

[ March 12, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Cartmaniac ]
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
A statement you will disavow the instant the US vetoes something.
 
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
 
Maybe this is what they mean by "bloody street-to-street fighting against Iraqi who will NEVER surrender..."

http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/12/sprj.irq.iraq.secret.surrender/index.html

quote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- U.S. officials told CNN Wednesday that "secret surrender" negotiations have begun with key Iraqi military officials in hopes some military units will not fight U.S. and coalition forces should there be a war.

Communications with these Iraqi military officials are not being handled by the Pentagon, but instead by other "elements" of the U.S. government, the officials said.

One senior official said some elements of the Iraqi military may have already agreed not to fight. This underscores assessments by both the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency that the leadership around Saddam Hussein is "brittle." Officials have been making that assessment somewhat public as part of their effort to publicize Saddam's vulnerability.


 


© 1999-2024 Charles Capps

Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3