MyFox
 

Patch_W_Adams's St Louis Blog

by Patch_W_Adams from St Louis

Last Post 2 hours Ago


Obama quashes Iran's hopes for change

 

By Jim Muir
BBC News, Tehran

If anybody had hoped that Barack Obama's election victory would lead to a swift breakthrough in Washington's relations with one of its toughest adversaries, Iran, the honeymoon seems to be over before it even began.

Barack Obama - 7/11/2008

Mr Obama said he would not react "knee-jerk" to Iranian congratulations

Many Iranians, including some officials, were thrilled by the stunning election victory, seeing it as offering hope of a radical change in US foreign policy and relations.

The two countries have had no diplomatic relations since shortly after the Islamic revolution in 1979, and tensions have risen recently over Iran's nuclear programme.

Both Mr Obama and his future vice-president, Senator Joseph Biden, have in the past advocated unconditional dialogue with Iran.

That was one reason behind the excitement generated in Iran by their election success.

No 'knee-jerk' response

That excitement led the country's quixotic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to break with precedent and send a congratulatory message to the American president-elect.

But it swiftly became apparent that a whirlwind romance was out of the question, as political problems sprang up on both sides.

In Iran, both Mr Ahmadinejad's initiative and Mr Obama's cagey response drew fierce attacks from rival hard-line circles, where the political atmosphere is already heating up sharply in advance of Iranian presidential elections next June.

Ali Larijani It signals a continuation of the erroneous policies of the past... Change has to be strategic, not just cosmetic
Ali Larijani
Iranian Speaker of Parliament

On the American side, while Barack Obama responded gracefully and personally to messages of congratulation from other world leaders, he held back from doing so with Mr Ahmadinejad, mindful of the political implications of such a gesture.

He said he would be reviewing the Iranian president's letter and responding appropriately, rather than reacting in a "knee-jerk fashion".

But Mr Obama made it clear that he will not be a soft touch when it comes to Tehran.

"Iran's development of a nuclear weapon I believe is unacceptable. We have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening," he said.

"Iran's support of terrorist organisations, I think, is something that has to cease."

The Speaker of the Iranian parliament, Ali Larijani - who has been sharply at odds with President Ahmadinejad over parliament's impeachment last week of the latter's interior minister - described Mr Obama's comments as a step in the wrong direction.

"It signals a continuation of the erroneous policies of the past," he said. "Change has to be strategic, not just cosmetic."

Hard-line Iranian newspapers on Sunday took up the theme of continuing American hostility to Iran and a common policy shared by Republicans and Democrats alike.

Some also pointed out that one of Mr Obama's first actions was to appoint as his chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, whose background reportedly includes volunteer service in the Israeli army.

 

To Read the Whole Article Go To:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_20
08/7718603.stm

Add a Comment

Member Comments


Write your comment below:




Patch_W_Adams

www.poedpatriot.blogspot.
com......................
"But war, in a good cause, is not the greatest evil which a nation can suffer. War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. When a people are used as mere human instruments for firing cannon or thrusting bayonets, in the service and for the selfish purposes of a master, such war degrades a people. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice – a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their free choice – is often the means of their regeneration. A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. As long as justice and injustice have not terminated their ever-renewing fight for ascendancy in the affairs of mankind, human beings must be willing, when need is, to do battle for the one against the other." - John Stuart Mill

Member Since: 4/30/2008