It’s Morning in America: The Day After The Inauguration
Posted by Scott Lucas in US Politics
Related Post: Your Obama on Top of the World Updates
Related Post: Welcome to the World, Mr President – Afghanistan and Pakistan
Related Post: Obama Orders Suspension of Military Commissions at Guantanamo Bay
5:30 p.m. Thanks for joining us today. It’s a bit early for a Day 1 Assessment, as there may be developments in the next few hours while we have some downtime. As expected, Obama made the high-profile announcement of Guantanamo’s closure, although the impact was limited by the 12-month timeframe (a concession to the political and legal obstacles to shifting the detainees). He made the first symbolic step of US re-entry into the Israel-Palestine arena with calls to Ehud Olmert and Mahmoud Abbas — the expected appointment of George Mitchell as special envoy is still awaited. On the bureaucratic front, Hillary Clinton’s confirmation as Secretary of State came through.
The most significant event, however, was the National Security Council meeting with top military commanders over Afghanistan and Pakistan. And, as I type this, still no news — no spin, no leaks, no hints — of what steps will be confirmed. Similarly, the re-affirmation of a 16-month timetable for US combat troops from Iraq still hasn’t been made.
Back for Day 2 tomorrow morning….
5:05 p.m. Hillary Clinton has been confirmed by the Senate as Secretary of State 94-2. The two Republican spoilsports? David Vitter of Louisiana and Jim DeMint of South Carolina.
5 p.m. The War on Terror – The Obama Legacy Begins: Taking a leaf from the America-Will-Love-Bush-One-Day crew who have been frantically spinning this week, a reader notes, “I would like to point out that there have been no terrorist attacks under President Obama.”
3:15 p.m. Immunity Now, Immunity Forever. Senate Republicans have stalled the confirmation of Eric Holder, the nominee for Attorney General, for one week to get an assurance that there will be no prosecutions of anyone involved in torture.
2:05 p.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (2): After the attempt to turn a Carter-Clinton non-feud into the downfall of the Democrats, GOP bloggers are going after the size of the crowd on the Mall yesterday: “An ASU journalism professor using satellite images calculated that 800,000 people attended President Barack Obama’s inauguration ceremony.”
Oh, my, “only” 800,000. That’s a pathetic turnout compared to, say, the massive 400,000 who showed up for George W. Bush in 2005.
(Desperate Republican Comment of the Day (1) is at 2:55 a.m.)
1:55 p.m. Reuters has now obtained a draft copy, although it does not reprint it, of Obama’s order to close Camp X-Ray by January 2010. There will be an immediate review of how to deal with all remaining detainees. AP has a copy and prints a few extracts covering the main points: the closure “would further the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States and the interests of justice”.
12:17 p.m. Unconfirmed reports that Obama has order closure of Guantanamo Bay detention facility within a year.
12:15 p.m. Obama has called Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as Palestinian Authority head Mahmoud Abbas.
10:55 a.m. Confirmation that Obama called the head of the Palestinian Authority on Wednesday: “Obama reiterated that he and his administration will work in full partnership with President [Mahmoud] Abbas to achieve peace in the region,” Saeb Erekat, the PA’s chief negotiator, said.
No word on whether Obama calls the leaders of Hamas. (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)
10:40 a.m. Obama’s initial meeting today on Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to members of his National Security Council such as Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, will include the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, General David Petraeus of US Central Command, and, by videoconference, General David McKiernan, the top commander in Afghanistan, and General Ray Odierno, the top commander in Iraq.
9:40 a.m. What’s Happening inIraq: a bomb has killed four people in Baghdad. The target was a university dean who is also a member of the Sunni Islamic Party. Another bomb near Tikrit has killed five policemen and wounded three.
On the up side, US and Iraqi authorities have opened a water-treatment plant in Sadr City, a poor section of Baghdad, only 3 1/2 years after it was begun.
9:30 a.m. In case you think our earlier reference to the intense discussion of Michelle Obama’s dress and designer Jason Wu was just a cultural blip in America’s priorities: The Washington Post covers Page One with a story on Michelle’s entire wardrobe:
For the historic moment when she became this country’s first African American first lady, Obama chose a lemon-grass yellow, metallic sheath with a matching coat by the Cuban-born designer Isabel Toledo. The dress followed her curves — paying special attention to the hips — and announced that the era of first lady-as-rectangle had ended.
8:55 a.m. A judge has just approved Obama’s order suspending military commissions at Guantanamo Bay for 120 days.
8:45 a.m. There’s something disconcerting about watching four Americans discuss Obama’s Inaugural Speech and politics…on Iran’s Press TV. They are generally “disappointed” in the speech and are now having a detailed — and interesting — discussion of Obama’s approach to Israel, Palestine, and Gaza.
7:25 a.m. Before flying to Washington, General David Petraeus meets Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai. Karzai office issues neutral statement, “During this visit, they discussed and exchanged views on their common relations, how to effectively combat regional terrorism and the way to prevent civilian casualties and gain the trust of the people.”
Karzai had told the Afghan Parliament earlier inthe day that civilian deaths at the hands of foreign troops was an important source of instability in Afghanistan. Up to 25 civilians reportedly died in an American attack on Tuesday.
7:15 a.m. Vice Premier Haim Ramon to Israel radio: “Let’s not fear President Obama. I am convinced that President Obama and his team want to achieve what is essential to Israel — two states for two peoples.” (cross-posted from The Israel Invasion of Gaza: Updates)
6:15 a.m. Uh-oh, a Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkey rebuff for Obama. In advance of the President’s meeting with General Petraeus (see separate post), French Defence Minister Herve Morin has ruled out any additional French troops for Afghanistan: “We have made the necessary effort. Considering additional reinforcements is out of the question for now.”
5:40 a.m. Juan Cole also offers a cold shower of reality this morning, noting the killing of seven and wounding of 22, including two US soldiers, in Iraq yesterday. Cole also offers a necessary and timely analysis of the upcoming Iraqi elections on 31 January.
And, just to cast some light of hope, Cole refers to an emotional and telling Inaugural moment when “US troops in Iraq shed tears of joy for Obama” — light years away from the narrative of the US military’s rejection of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton.
4 a.m. Press TV of Iran’s top stories: 1) Iran wants Israeli leaders to stand trial for war crimes; 2) Israel withdraws from Gaza; 3) Obama promises “better relations” with Muslim world. Al Jazeera focuses on Obama’s likely appointment of former Senator George Mitchell as his Middle East envoy.
3:30 a.m. But Not Quite A New Morning in China, as the BBC reports:
China has censored parts of the new US president’s inauguration speech that have appeared on a number of websites. Live footage of the event on state television also cut away from Barack Obama when communism was mentioned. China’s leaders appear to have been upset by references to facing down communism and silencing dissent.
3 a.m. Definitely One to Watch: General David Petraeus, the commander of the US military’s Central Command with responsibility for the Persian Gulf and Central Asia, returns to Washington today to brief Obama. Yesterday Petraeus had extensive discussions with Pakistani political and military leaders.
2:55 a.m. Desperate Republican Comment of the Day. Don Irvine, the head of Accuracy in Media (accuracy as in “We Won Vietnam”, “Last Eight Years Fantastic”, “ABC News Flunks Race Test”), sees the downfall of the Democratic Party at the Inauguration:
As [Jimmy] Carter passed fellow Democrats Bill and Hillary Clinton, the two men did not appear to acknowledge each others presence at all. A total snub. This could be a very interesting four years indeed.
2:50 a.m. One more comparison for the record: while the Obama Inaugural celebrations ranged from Pete Seeger to Bruce Springsteen to Aretha Franklin, former President George W Bush’s return to Midland, Texas was welcomed by “country music performers Rodney Atkins, the Gatlin Brothers and Lee Greenwood”.
2:40 a.m. Israeli officials are busily telling the press that “Barack Obama is a ‘true friend of Israel’ who identifies emotionally not only with the state, but also with the people of Israel”. (cross-posted from The Israeli Invasion of Gaza: Updates)
1:59 a.m. And just to bring out our previous point, Alive in Gaza has posted an audio interview with photojournalist Sameh Hameeb on his perceptions of what Obama’s inauguration means for Gaza: “Obama neglected the Palestinians.”
1:45 a.m. Global Contrasts: There has been a sharp division, as soon as Obama’s image ended, in broadcast coverage between US channels and those overseas.
While US outlets such as Fox and CNN focused on the parade, the parties, and the first formal signing of documents by President Obama, the BBC and Al Jazeera have been all over the question, “What Next?” The best and most detailed analysis and questions have come from Al Jazeera, who had incisive panel discussions on Guantanamo Bay, Israel-Palestine-Gaza, Iraq, Iran, and the US Economy last evening.
This morning, while CNN concentrates on Michelle Obama’s Inaugural Gown and Fox has a “presidential historian” burbling over “the peaceful transfer of power…Bush and Obama got along so well”, Al Jazeera is focusing on Obama’s promise of “mutual respect” for the Muslim world. This is unsurprising, of course, given Al Jazeera’s core location and audience, but it still points to the immediate scrutiny that President Obama will face on his first full day in office.
Morning update (1:40 a.m. in Washington):
Even as we finally called it a night in Britain, the parties, the enthusiam, and the energy were still going strong in the United States.
I’m just watching a recording of Obama’s speech to the Youth Ball, where he gave a possibly impropmptu speech which was better than his prepared one at the Inaugural:
Young people everywhere are in the process of imagining something different than what has come before. Where there is war, they imagine peace. Where there is hunger, they imagine people being able to feed themselves. Where there is disease, they imagine a public health system that can work for everybody. Where they [see] bigotry, they imagine togetherness.
And so he closed, to “Yes We Can” chanting from the crowd, “I promise you that America will get stronger and more united, more prosperous, more secure. You are going to make it happen.”
So, hours after reacting to the Inaugural with a mixture of hope and concern, I’m indulging in a bit of hope with a cup of tea. Now to see what the Day After brings.
Entries (RSS)
Meanwhile… the Arab Plummet divides itself over whether to send the aid money to the traitor Abbas or the resistance Hamas. And ends up leaving aid money out of the resolution.
Obama has not only let down the Palestinians. He’s let down the world. If he can’t address a genocide before he addresses Guantanamo, that’s a facepalm right there.
I’m not drinking any tea on this one.
“And, just to cast some light of hope, Cole refers to an emotional and telling Inaugural moment when “US troops in Iraq shed tears of joy for Obama” — light years away from the narrative of the US military’s rejection of the last Democratic President, Bill Clinton.”
—————
Most military personnel supported McCain.
Forget tea, AbdullahBR. Down a SCOTCH AND SODA.
From Joshua Trevino http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3754
“This moment in history, destined to be a where-were-you moment for the present crop of twentysomethings, was mostly missed by me. A morning en route from California to Texas via the miracle of aviation left me with a few minutes in the Phoenix airport, where I did not watch the televised Inauguration in progress, but rather those watching it. The scene is now familiar to anyone who has watched the watchers of Barack Obama over the past year: misty-eyed, rapt, mostly young, mostly female, disproportionately minority — and strangely possessed by a weird admixture of joy and anxiety that recalls nothing so much as the aftermath of a difficult birth.”
What can one say about a president who remained silent during the slaughter of Palestinian children in Gaza? American has little to be proud about.
Wow- writing him off on his first day in office. What a commitment to contructive dialogue that is. I think Obama will have his chance to apply some constructive rhetoric on the Middle East NOW he is president.
The president of Iran on the other hand has had 4 years to say something constructive- and has failed. Having uncrossed my fingers following Obama’s win, I now recross them for the Iranian elections this year.
“The president of Iran on the other hand has had 4 years to say something constructive- and has failed. Having uncrossed my fingers following Obama’s win, I now recross them for the Iranian elections this year.”
——
The US could have extended its hand to Khatami a decade ago.
Whoa, I am not writing him off — far from it: he is an incredibly talented politician with a well-qualified team around him. I just think he faces massive challenges, both at home and abroad, and has to move quickly in response. Just because I’m reading closely his response to two of those challenges, on Israel-Palestine-Gaza and on Afghanistan (where I think the key development was today, with his meeting with NSC and Petraeus), doesn’t mean I’m being “destructive”. Far from it, I’m hoping — very much — for something constructive.
Scott- I wasn’t directing my comments to you!
While I’m not a fan of the president of Iran, there is no comparison to be made. He condemns apartheid, racism, and Zionism, while Obama supports the Zionist state. Iran has not invaded any country, but Obama has never condemned the US invasion of Iraq. He called it a stratigic blunder and he says Bush is a good man. McCain, who bombed the Vietnamese is also an honorable man to be proud of, according to Obama. Sorry I can’t accept that. Obama just doesn’t compare to Ahamadinejad or Khatami. He stands far below both of them, even though the US president belongs to the “civilized world”.
In any case, I don’t see why my criticism of the US (as an American citizen by the way) should be answered with an attack on the Iranian president. The problem between the US and Iran goes back 56 years and it has little to do with the current Iranian president. He wasn’t around when the US supported Saddam’s gassing of Iranians and Iraqis and he wasn’t around when the US backed the Shah’s repression. Iran has lost hundreds of thouands of lives because of the US. Iran’s problem with the US is that the US want’s to lead the world (as our new dictator Obama stated yesterday) and Iran (like almost everyone else in the “uncivilized world”) just wants the US off its back. That will not change no matter who the next president is.
I would suggest that if your criteria for judging future US presidents is limited to them denouncing Israel as a racist barbaric regime and denouncing war veterans- you will remain dissapointed for some time…
As in Iran, there are parameters in which political discourse operate within. Denouncing conflicts in which thousands of US troops have died as immoral wars of American world domination in support of a vicious zionist regime is one such example. I would suggest you apply more a more rational analystical framework.
I am the first to condemn US policy in Iran and have a record of only ever doing so. But Saddam was backed by most of Iran’s neighbours (Syria a notable exception) during the Iran-Iraq war. Why are you not still so bitter with them? Iraq was mainly resupplied by the Russians and not the Americans. In fact, the Soviets would have been happy to have backed the Shah’s repression if they could. They tried extensively to improve relations. Why not the bitterness with Russia?
Iran was of course also happy to receive arms from both the vicious zionist regime and America in that conflict..
Iran cannot blame America for all its troubles and I think the 100,000s killed is a wild exaggeration. That analysis, I presume, is taken from its support of the Shah- when there is no real evidence that his repression depended entirely on the US. Again, many more Iranians were killed by Russian weapons.
As regard to ‘Obama stands below Ahmadinejad’- I suspect that analysis would be in the global minority. Ahmadinejad has been a diplomatic failure, even judged so by many Iranians, whilst Obama is generally perceived as representing diplomatic hope. Re- Khatami, I am a great admirer of his. It is a shame his reforms in Iran, including greater press freedom, met with such a harsh backlash.
Dave- I think the US has missed several opportunities to extend its hand to Iran. Khatami is a notable example. However, rapprochement with the US is not a matter for any Iranian president and will be decided by the Supreme Leader when, I presume, he perceives a suitable change in US policy.
Sorry, Chris, I can be really scatter-brained these days….
I’m sorry, I thought racism, apartheid, the bombing of Gazan hospitals and schools as well as the bombing of the Vietnamese was something that should be denounced. Thank you for enlightening me.
The neighbours that Supported Saddam and gave him tens of billions of dollars were unpopular US backed dictatorships such as Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, and Egypt. Hundreds of thousands of Iranians were killed as a result of US policies and it is disturbing to see anyone downplay this. Have any of your friends died as a result of chemical weapons? It’s a terrible death. Believe me I’ve survived two such attacks and I’ve lost a number of friends. These are human beings that we are talking about. True, they are not western, but they are still human.
Iran’s relationship with the Soviet Union was not good at all and Iran supported the Afghani resistance (but unlike the US they did not support Al-Qaeda elements).
Iran never bought arms from the Israeli regime. No credible evidence has ever been provided to prove this. The Iranians purchased weapons from the US in return for the help they gave them in freeing the Americans held in Lebanon. In return, the Americans sent American made weapons to Iran which had been stockpiled in Israel and that was one reason why the Iranians lost trust in the American side.
“As regard to ‘Obama stands below Ahmadinejad’- I suspect that analysis would be in the global minority.” — An amazing claim. Where do you get your imformation? How do you know what the globe thinks about the two men? In any case, this is certainly not true in the parts of the Middle East that I’ve travelled to. In any case, no matter who is more popular, facts are facts.
President Khatami has repeatedly stated the same criticisms of the US as I have.
“Iraq was mainly resupplied by the Russians and not the Americans. In fact, the Soviets would have been happy to have backed the Shah’s repression if they could. They tried extensively to improve relations. Why not the bitterness with Russia?”
——————–
20+ years ago, The US and the USSR shared the world’s hate. Since the USSR’s demise, the US has had it all to itself.
Even Soviet relations with the Arab countries were not that good. So, it doesn’t surprise me with Iran. The Arabs did what they wanted and they didn’t care what the Russians thought. “We call the shots. Deal with it or else..” They were nowhere near as warm and friendly as US-Israeli relations.
The US did supply Iraq with weapons, but it also shared intelligence with Iran. It didn’t want to see either side emerge as a clear victor.
Israeli weapons sales to Iran:
http://www.wrmea.com/backissues/1186/8611002.html
Acknowledgement of America’s misdeeds in Vietnam, Iraq, Guant Bay and elsewhere has been represented in major American films, in documentaries, in the writings of former political leaders, in academia and in the media. Is the same true in Iran?
Just like acknowledging the cries of ‘death to America’- politicians have to operate in certain parameters. Obama should be judged on the basis of the fact that he would not have launched the war in Iraq- not that he doesn’t now characterise it as some neo-imperialist massacre on behalf of racist zionists.
With respect to your own painful experiences in the war, I am aware of them and my analysis doesn’t in anyway legitimise the kind of emotional blackmail you choose to buttress your analysis with. Accusing me of racism is not how you win an argument or express your point of view.
US support for Saddam was morally bankrupt. That is, and has always been, my position. I would also say that Iranian support for suicide bombers is also a morally bankrupt position- a position shared by moderate and liberal people all over the world.
But from an objective analytical point of view, it is ridiculous to place the responsibility of the Iran-Iraq war entirely at the feet of the US. Historic Iran-Iraqi tensions, especially around the border disputes, have nothing to do with America. Equally, it is ridiculous to suggest that all of Iran’s regional neighbours supported the war simply on the behest of America.
That analysis ignores Arab-Persian tensions and regional rivalrys- rightly or wrongly, many of Iran’s Sunni neighbours wanted to contain Revolutionary Shi’ism. This was both because of their own Shia minorities, who they felt were being incited by some Iranian statements, but also in a more geo-political sense.
Of course the IRI’s relationship with the Soviet Union was poor, although the SU initially supported Khomeini once he came to power and there was some lucrative trade done. That is why America tried very hard to repair relations with the IRI in 1979 (I understand the basis on which Iran rejected America’s efforts to restore the pre-existing Cold War paradigm).
My point was that the Soviets until late 1978 didn’t have that bad relations with the Shah and were looking to grately improve them. They were not concerned by the Shah’s repression and would gladly have had him as an ally. Again, the Soviet Union was more responsible for Iranian deaths because they were Iraq’s chief weapon’s sponsor.
I say again- why not the bitterness towards Russians?
I think it’s worth remembering that, heinous as America’s support for the Shah was, he was not simply an American lacky who did exactly as he was told. Also, the 1953 coup was funded by the US, planned by the CIA and MI6- but it was led by Iranians, Zadehi was an Iranian, SAVAK were Iranians. The Shah depended much more on Iranians than on Americans for his rule and for his torture.
Re-Iran-Contra. It depends on your standard of proof. It is an Iranian admission then there is none. If you discount all American or Israeli accounts then there is none. Otherwise there is plenty- not least the testimonies of those involved to the US Congress. The Israelis provided detailed documents and interviews to the Joint House Committe detailing their involvement.
Are you honestly saying that no Iranians were aware that Israel was involved in Iran-Contra?
President Khatami, in the language of his interview with CNN and his commitment to a dialogue of civilisations, was a lot more constructive than your comments. Whatismore, has he not been critical of Ahmadinejad’s diplomatic style? It is also a matter of fact that his reforms provoked a backlash amongst the hardline elements of the Iranian government/political system.
American misdeeds are not being shown. What have American’s (and many Europeans) seen on TV during the cruel and barbaric massacre of the people of Gaza? Almost nothing. The US and the EU have been supported the inhuman siege of the people of Gaza for many months. Did the NYT condemn this crime? Did it even criticize this criminal act? How about CNN,…? The scenes that I’ve seen from Iraq over the last few years, have not been shown in the US or the UK. You would be amazed to see what crimes have been carried out by your brave young men and women in uniform. Contemporary Iran on the other hand has never launched a war of aggression.
You straw target your opponents, because you have no response. Obama never condemned the war in Iraq. He never said it was immoral. For people like me, that is completely unacceptable. Forget the fact that he threatened to bomb Pakistan, his silence on Gazza, or the appointment of Clinton who threatened to totally obliterate Iran.
You are not aware of any painful experiences in the war. You know nothing of death so please don’t claim otherwise. You have not seen dead children in Halabche.
One is definitely a racist if he accepts apartheid or Zionism. It is racism if one tries to erase history and the lives of hundreds of thousands of non-western people to justify ones argument. You have no credible response so you call it emotional blackmail. You say US support for Saddam was morally bankrupt. It was much more than that. It was a crime against humanity and all those who were involved (politicians, the military, the media,…) have blood on their hands.
Most of Iran’s regional neighbors did not support the Iraqi invasion of Iran (Pakistan, India, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon,…). Despotic and pro-American Arab regimes supported the war against the wishes of their own people.
Iraq has a Shia majority, but a secular dictator with western support started the war. You can not hide the crimes of western regimes by blaming the victims.
The Shah quite often did almost exactly as he was told. The US and UK ambassadors in Tehran had more influence that government ministers. “Also, the 1953 coup was funded by the US, planned by the CIA and MI6- but it was led by Iranians, Zadehi was an Iranian, SAVAK were Iranians.” — That’s like saying President Diem, in South Vietnam was Vietnames. Therefore, the Vietnamese people were implicated just as much as the Americans if not more. Diem, with American support, went and killed all of his political opponents and terrorized the population into accepting his rule.
President Khatami spoke of dialogue among civilizations. That has nothing to do with what I have written. He regularly condemns US and Israeli brutality in the region. What does that have to do with dialogue among civilizations? Does US government actions around the world reflect “American civilization”? If ordinary Americans were more imformed would they approve of such acts?
Your knowledge of the Middle East and Iran is understanably limited so I’ll leave the other issues for some other time. However, regarding the current Iranian president, I do not admire his style (although what you read in the western media is mostly nonsense and a caricature of his personality and style). However, he opposes what the US and the Israeli regime have done and he has not launched or threatened to launch a war on any country. Hence, he and Khatami are far above Obama.
I should add one point, though. The Iranian government never received intelligence from the US. Iraq did though. As I pointed out, at one point Iran purchased weapons from the US (at an inflated price), because Iran was hoping that through this deal it could come to some sort of agreement with the US over Saddam. Then the US did a foolish thing by suddenly sending McFarlane to Iran…Iran never purchaced weapons from Israel and a few articles written by Israelis or Americans are not evidence.
Once, during the war, the late Ayatollah Khomeini joked and ridiculed such claims and said that by claiming Iran bought weapons from the Israeli regime, Americans and Israelis are effectively admitting that the zionist regime is morally bankrupt. The fact that they attempt to discredit Iran by associating it with Israel reveals the filthy nature of the Israeli regime and how it can tarnish one’s reputation.
Scott,
If I sound too harsh feel free to censor whatever needs to be censored. I don’t mean to offend (usually!).
What hope is there for dialogue if those in the west, like me, who call for the reversal of almost every tenet of US policy in Iran (and wider ME) are labled (by those in Iran who accept no criticism of their own country) racist, inhumane and ignorant people?
I now nothing of your personal suffering, I’m sorry for it. I don’t think my analysis amounts to justifying it. I don’t think we can engage in rational debate if every time I venture an opinion contrary to your own you bring up personal anecdotes of dead children. My opinion is that Saddam Hussein was responsible for launching that war. He murdered the children. He was supported by the Russians and the US. I’ll ask you again- why do you not reserve equal venom for Russians? The West and East all have blood on their hands…on that I don’t disagree. Does not then Egypt have blood on its hands for refusing to lift the blockade on Gaza (largely because Hamas’ associaiton with the Muslim Brotherhood?).
We are living in the real world here- and if you are ruling out any kind of positive movement on US-Iranian relations until the US joins a global effort to destroy Israel then what kind of analyst are you? The US is never going to withdraw it’s recognition of Israel- you will have to get over it.
Furthermore, it is painfully obvious that condemnation of ‘zionism’ in the Middle East strays clearly into anti-semitism. If you want I can list countless quotes by Hamas leaders etc. Claiming that only the west is racist is just another example of your slanted approach.
Whatismore, many countries that the US has good relations with (China, India, Russia etc..) also recognise Israel. In fact the vast majority of countries in the world recognise Israel. Why then is Iran trading with such racists?
I think you are going to have accept that both sides find each other’s statements unacceptable. America finds Ahmadinjad’s views/actions on homosexuality, women’s rights, human rights, press freedom, suicide bombers, the holocaust unacceptable.
You think it is acceptable for Obama that people chant ‘Death to America’? Do people chant ‘death to Iran’ every friday in the US?
The point is that rapprochement must begin without such baggage. I personally think that Iran has got considerably more grievances than America- I have always said that.
The Shah’s support primarily relied on a network of hundreds of thousands in the army, police and secret police. He paid for it with oil he sold to the whole world. It seems far from clear that the only thing preventing his demise until 1979 was US support. He could have maintained a brutal repressive regime using his arms of the state, as Saddam did. This doesn’t excuse American support, it simply refutes your assertion that the US is directly responsible for the death of 100,000’s of Iranians.
Much of the US public and the right wing media has an extremely slanted view of the current crisis in Gaza- on that we totally agree. However, America’s atrocities in Abu Ghraib and My Lai, its atrocities during the Cold War, are the subject of literally thousands of books and films available in any bookstore in the US. Whatever you say about the moral inequivalency of Iran and America’s foreign policy, even you cannot deny that there is no equivalency in freedom of dissent and expression.
Re- regional support for the Iran-Iraq war. Nearly all of the regional Arab countries, apart from Syria and unsurprisingly Lebanon, supported Iraq for exactly the reasons I said and not simply at America’s behest. That is not to justify their support- it is purely a fact.
Oh and regarding your final post, I can supply documents that prove CIA analysts briefed Iranian officials on intelligence between February and October 1979. The US was trying to repair a strategic anti-communist alliance by providing intelligence on Soviet troops movements on the border.
According to US officials, the Iranians received it but were generally uninterested in this intelligence on the external Soviet threat- but showed interest on any intelligence that showed Soviet support for internal communist or MEK groups within Iran (arms/agents crossing the border etc).
I presume, actually, that because some of the embassy memos discuss these meetings- the documents should be avaialble in Iran (having been stitched back together following the embassy seizure).
“I don’t mean to offend (usually!).”
Hmm.. really? Do you often accuse people who disagree with you as ignorant racists and associate their analysis with support for chemical attacks on child and the death of your close friends?
Wow- I’d love to see how you would respond to someone who actually has a negative view of Iran and a positive one of American foreign policy…
I have already criticized the Iranian president, but what I pointed out was that Obama’s position is immoral. I have also pointed out that Iran and the Soviet Union has extremely poor relations and that Iran funded the Afghani resistance. However, as the war went on the US and the EEC became more and more involved. They provided Saddam with WMDs (unlike the USSR), the US downed an Iranian civilian airliner, and the US entered the war on Saddam’s behalf during the final months of conflict. In the eyes of most Iranians that I know, the governments of the US, UK, Germany, France,…are just as criminal as the former Iraqi government.
Personal suffering is not the issue. I’m trying to help you understand that real people are involved. The issue is that the US has caused many nations to suffer and these nations are comprised of millions of people with names and individual lives just like ourselves. That is why so many people chant “Death to America” (which of course means the US government). That is the real world.
If I have to accept Zionism and apartheid for you to accept me as an analyst, then I’d rather be called something else. Palestinians are Semites so that argument is useless. Let’s leave that for the US media and the Israeli propaganda machine. I should also add the same with regard to Ahmadinejad’s views/actions as portrayed in the western media.
Yes, Egyptian regime does have blood on its hands and don’t be so certain about Israel’s future. If and when these corrupt pro-American despotic regimes are swept away, the Israeli regime with find things far more difficult than what it faces today. The last few years have demonstrated the limitations of US and Israeli power to determine the fate of the region.
When a powerful regime like the US, which does not have hundreds of thousands of hostile troops stationed just across it’s boarders and is not threatened with obliteration, jails people for up to 15 years for helping a few Arabic speaking families view Almanar TV, we can gauge the extent of freedom and dissent in the country.
If you look you will see that I was writing about intelligence during the Iraq-Iran war.
If one support Zionism and Israel, then that person is a racist. Israeli laws for it’s own Palestinian citizens are officially racist.
Most people in the west have negitive views about Iran, I meet them all the time. Usually, their views are one sided, because they only get one side of the news. Hence, as an “analysts” one must put forth alternative information for those who do not have access to Farsi, Turkish, Arabic…and who do not live in the region.
You have not criticised the President in relation to any specific issue- you just said you don’t like his style. I criticise Bush on every aspect of his policy and world view. Who is more willing to engage in self-criticism?
How about the summary executions in the early 1980s- the elimination of the political left? How about the assassination campaigns in Europe (Bakhtiar etc)? How about the numerous criticisms of human rights reports of Iran by independent observers (who are equally critical of the US)? How about the closing down of reformist papers? How about the barring of candidates from the presidential election? How about the extrajudical killings of ‘dissident’ Iranians in the late 1990s? How about ‘torture’ at Elvin?
You won’t consider engaging with any criticism of these issues- instead you will simply list the perceived crimes of the west.
The point is not that I wan’t to get involved in a tit-for-tat debate. The point is that we are having a one-sided exercise in self analysis here.
You say that Obama’s recognition of Israel is unacceptable to Iran and a major obstacle to rapprochment. I say that Ahmad’s views on the holocaust, homosexuality and suicide bombings are viewed as unacceptable. If both of these observations are true- how then to proceed?
If personal suffering is not the issue then why do rely on it as your foremost tool for debate? You also presume that we in the west are entirely ignorant of Iran- but reserve the right of Iranians to cast judgement on western society?
It is through forum such as this that mutual understanding can be achieved- not, however, by accusations of racism and ignornance.
I’m not asking you to even recognise the legitimacy of Israel. I am observing that hopes for America to do likewise are incompatible with having a realistic grasp of the American political system. Whether you or anyone else like it- Israel is a geo-political reality that short of a major genocide has to be accepted. To do otherwise is as unrealistic as Israel not recognising Hamas as a political entity.
Again- you dodge the question of Russia. Who killed more- US supplied WMD or Soviet supplied tanks, munitions, arms?
“why so many people chant “Death to America” (which of course means the US government). That is the real world”
You insist that Obama’s words on Iraq matter more than his deeds to the Iranian public but complain that the West can’t tell what is meant explicitly and said symbolically in Iran. I am aware of this- I don’t give credence to the vast majority of negative reports in the Western media. Part of the problem of Ahmadinejad is that he has provided endless ammunition to those who want to portray Iran in a negative light.
The Iranian president hasn’t waged any wars nor has he supported any racist ideologies. The two aren’t morally equivalent. Do I have to say that he is as bad as the US president for you to accept my argument? Is it so difficult to imagine that leaders from the “Free World” may be morally inferior that leaders from a Muslim country? You raised the issue of style and I agreed. I am an American citizen and of Middle Eastern origin, and according to your definition above, my criticism of the US government is self-criticism. That is, unless, I am considered less American than others. If that is the case, is it because of my race or my religion or both? I’m sure that is not what you meant, but what you wrote can be read to imply that.
Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and the US State Department are not independent observers. They receive most of their information from the dreaded MKO (or MEK) terrorist organization, which for many years worked for Saddam Hussain in Iraq. They receive support from western courses and they are ideologically bound to the west. That doesn’t mean that everything they say is wrong or biased, but it should at least raise questions
Interestingly, the MKO has offices (under different names) in all major western capitals and they receive financial support from western regimes despite the fact that they are officially recognized as a terrorist organization.
The information that you have is misleading. Most of the newspapers in Iran are critical of the current administration and the newspapers that were close (what you are referring to happened a decade ago) were receiving funding from abroad and that is illegal. that doesn’t mean that Iran is a utopia, but it is not at all what you depict it to be.
Once upon a time, apartheid South Africa was also a geo-political entity and the ANC was considered a terrorist organization by the US.
Unless of course you consider there to be elements of racism in Hamas’ ideology. Which many in the West, out of extreme ignorance of course, do.
So, in conclusion, there is nothing in the short history of the ISI that warrants any measure of criticism. All reports of human rights abuses are fabrications written by terrorists and, in any case, the self evident evil doings of America remove any obligation to criticise anyway. Anyone who asks you to do otherwise is, once again, a racist. Glad we cleared that up.
I have already stated Iran has much greater grievances against America than vice versa and has ‘blood on its hands’. Obviously that is not enough. How far down the moral pecking order must I place America before you are willing to engage in any criticism of Iran? If I said Obama was worse than Hitler would that be enough for you to accept human rights violations occur or that it is wrong to remove candidates from an electoral list?
I have found this an interesting discussion- but we have probably said our pieces and it must be getting late in Iran. Thank you.
It’s only 9:00 in Tehran so don’t worry about me.
All I can say is that I find your representation of my arguments fascinating.
Have a good day.
I just wondered if you wanted to spend your evening arguing with me!
Thank you and apologies if you feel I have misrepresented your arguments. I felt a bit agrieved by some of your assumptions about my attitudes to non-westerners.
Good evening and I hope it isn’t too cold in Tehran.
As salâm ‘alekum.
Mo, do you think there is any way forward for the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States? Do you set certain preconditions for dialogue (i.e. rejection of Israel?) I appreciate earlier efforts have been rebuffed-’91 with Pico, ‘95 with the Conoco deal, anything in ‘98 has to be within this context, and then from 2001-2003 the Khatami gvnt held bilateral talks with U.S. officals in Geneva offering co-operation and this ofcourse led to the Axis of Evil label. I appreciate the past Mo- but what do you see as the future for U.S.-Iranian relations?
Ma’a salama
Sallamun allaykum. I don’t think that Iran would ever set such a precondition. That would make dialogue impossible. However, the point is that as long as Israel exists in the Middle East there can be no real and long lasting peace and stability. Regardless of its immoral nature, racism results in perpetual hostility.
the Iranians are ready to make steps towards some sort of rapprochement with the US. However, the problem in the eyes of many Iranians is American exceptionalism along with the ideology of demonization which seems to be too strong in the US at the moment to bring about real change. When Obama says the US is “ready to lead once more”, Iranians see that as the source of America’s problem with the world and Iran. when he says the the “nation is at war”, they recall almost 8 years of needless turmoil and bloodshed which has caused the deaths of perhaps up to a million people in the Middle East.
Many Iranians are concerned that the new administration in Washington will bring about a change in tactics, but not a change in attitude with regards to the Middle East. Many suspect that the US wants to have talks with Iran not so that issues can be resolved, but so that they can state their demands and when the Iranians do not bow down the US can say “we tried” and then have an excuse to increase sanctions and hurt the Iranian people.
When Obama chooses Rahm Emanuel, Hillary Clinton (“totally obliterate Iran”), as well as Robert Gates among others one should not expect Iranians to be optimistic. The US needs to learn to treat Iran (and other countries) as its equal, otherwise it will not get very far. If this doesn’t happen one can conclude that most probably major trouble lies ahead.
A must-read:
“Exterminate all the Brutes”: Gaza 2009
By Noam Chomsky
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20316
Sorry to jump in late, but I thought I’d throw a few bits in:
Firstly, I find the abundance of cliché’s thrown around a bit off-putting. My all-time favourite is the “barbaric Zionist regime”. This hacks me off a bit as it only really displays a lack of understanding of Israel and Israeli politics. Just like Iran, Israel has a very diverse political culture, with some elements being ardently opposed to the conflict, some being fanatically dedicated to it, and a lot more in between. Simply labelling the whole state as “Zionist” is a pretty weak position (especially as the term “Zionist” is as inflated and unspecific as “Islamist”).
And as for the Shah doing exactly what he was told, one seems to forget Iranian economic policy during the early mid 70s, when he had an agreement to up production to dampen the effect of the oil embargo and then completely abrogated on his commitment to the Americans (and made a lot of money in the process). Like anyone, he was an independent player and did a lot of business with all sides (as you would if you were an oil-rich dictator in a strategic position).
Moreover, earlier on in the string there was a question as who what the public perspective on Iran among Iran’s neighbours. Specifically this one:
“Most of Iran’s regional neighbors did not support the Iraqi invasion of Iran (Pakistan, India, Turkey, Syria, Lebanon,…). Despotic and pro-American Arab regimes supported the war against the wishes of their own people.”
I’d like to know how you can come to that position. How can that be verified? If it’s a despotic pro-American regime, no effective opinion polling is possible. I’m not sure the Saudi Central Department of Statistics is given much support for conducting opinion polls on how much its citizens love regional competitors – I imagine not very much and certainly less so in the 80s. Moreover, I would wager there weren’t any polling efforts of that kind going on in Pakistan or the Gulf States either.
One last bit I might add – hypothetically, if Iran was a great global power again, who is to say they would act any differently? Would the balance of national and economic interest calculations not compel them down the same process?
The idea of a ‘chosen people’ is racist. There was a great deal of diversity in apartheid South Africa too, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t based upon the idea that one set of people had exceptional rights. The crimes committed against the Lebanese and Palestinians are truly barbaric and I don’t think there is any question about that either.
I think if you read the text below you will see that Professor Noam Chomsky goes much further:
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/20316
The Shah was installed by the Americans and he relied upon them a great deal until the very end. there are many memoirs out there that have been written and none that I know of deny that the shah always relied heavily on the US. His sister Ashraf said that during the revolution he was constantly fearful that the Americans would withdrawl support and that he would fall from power.
The Revolution in Iran had a lot of support in the region and the Saudis as well as the Iraqi regime were fearful of similar movements in their countries. At that time the Wahhabis were not very influential and there was a lot of support for Iran. At that time this could be seen especially among the large numbers of Hajj pilgrims who would go to the Iranian centers.
I do not know how Iran, Turkey, or India would act, but if they acted like the US does today that would be completely unacceptable. Such a question does not justify US hegemony and aggression.
If you actually read what the Shah said whilst in exile, his concerns went beyond America withdrawing its support. The Shah feared that America was actively plotting to bring him down. He felt this for two reasons- One because he felt the Moralpolitikers in the Carter administration always hated him. More importantly, he believed, as Richard Cottam did, that Brzezinski favored a “de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of Iran.” This was part of his wider strategy to develop radical Islam as a bulwark to the Soviet Union (the so called ‘green strategy’ that Brzezinski is on record of being proud of).
Thus, the Shah said “I did not know it then, perhaps I did not want to know? But it is clear to me now that the Americans wanted me out”
This seems to suggest that he believed that he was not reliant on US support- instead he was reliant on the US not turning against him and forcing him out. That is a very different proposition.
I am not convinced, however, that the US was trying to force him out- though it did, of course, work very hard to restore an anti-soviet alliance with the post-revolutionary government (even after the hostage crisis).
However, it is still probably more accurate to say that US regional strategy was much more dependent on the Shah’s ability to crush dissent than the Shah was dependent on America for his crown. The US was of course in no position to save him, if they had wanted, in 1979.
The US sold the Shah high military technology that made him a regional player- they were not applicable to his dometic control. There is no evidence that the Shah would not have simply used his money to buy the weapons elsewhere had America refused. The Shah had the money to fund his vast security network- it was not American money.
The situation in Vietnam was entirely different- the US put in 100,000s of US troops, billions of dollars in aid, and millions of tons of bombs to try and support the corrupt and despotic Southern government. In Iran, the Shah was strong and rich enough to crush dissent by himself. We see exactly the same thing in Saudi Arabia- the US is not simply propping up the barbaric regime there.
The Iranian Revolution did have some support in Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and I believe Bahrain (I’d be interested where else). I’d also be interested in your analysis of why it largely failed to export it. In my mind there are four possible explanations:
1. The Revolution had such a strong sense of Iranian nationalism and unique historical trajectory running through it that it was actually quite hard to export to other countries (this is certainly the view of Ervand Abrahamian).
2. Khomeini’s doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih was not widely supported by other senior grand Ayatollah’s (Sistani, Baqir al-Sadr etc)
3. Khomeini didn’t believe Iran should try and actively export the revolution.
4. Other countries were successful in supressing their Shia minorities.
You would probably know more about the validity of these point than I, but I would be interested in your thoughts.
Turkey has massacred a million Armenians and 100,000s of Kurds. The Turks had an extensive empire up until 1918. India has fought a succession of bloody wars in Kashmir. Do these wars not come under your definition of aggression and hegemony?
One of the points that angered Iranians was that the US did not sell the Shah high military technology. They merely sold him weapons that costed the country tens of billions of dollars. In other words, much of Iran’s oil wealth went straight back into the US economy. Iranians weren’t even allowed to touch many of the purchased weapons systems. For example, only American advisors (there were 40,000 American advisors who were being paid by Iran) were allowed to repair Iranian owned F-4. F-5, and F-14 jets. By the time of the Revolution Iran didn’t even produce all of the components of it’s own Army’s general-issue rifle. In other words, Iran was almost completely dependent on the US for its military needs and it was spending a large amount of it’s oil wealth purchasing weapons that it couldn’t use independently.
At the time of the Revolution Ayatollah Sistani was an unknown figure and Ayatollahs Sadr and Hakkim supported Ayatollah Khomeini (Sadr’s famous letter to Ayatollah Khomeini sent a few months before being arrested and excecuted by Saddam). The concept of Welayat-e Faghih was not Ayatollah Khomeini’s doctrine, it goes back more than a thousand years (there are numerous books in Arabic and Farsi on this). Also, many of the groups that supported the Revolution were not (and are not) Shia.
It’s obvious that any massacre whether Turkish, Indian, Canadian, Bolivian, Fijian, Iranian, British, Chinese, French, Gambian, Hungarian, German, Malawian, Mexican, Brazilian or American is a crimeagainst humanity and those responsible must be punished.
Your point on Iran’s lack of military independence is well taken. I have read documents that show fears amongst US policy makers that had the Shah become involved in a regional conflict- the US would essentially become embroiled also because US citizens would have to service his planes etc. On the other hand they acknowledged that this gave them considerable leverage on any decision he would make to enter a major war. The US thus had considerable say on Iran’s military, if not necessarily political or economic, policy.
The point remains, however- was the Shah dependent on the US for retaining his domestic control? On this I am much less sure- not least because of America’s ultimate inability to save him, but more importantly because the Shah’s control did not rest on the kind of technology America was providing. It relied on torture and a large network of Iranian secret police, army and informers. His authority did not, as in Vietnam- the case you raised, rest on American boots or aid on the ground.
What was the extent of the threat to his regime until the 1970s? I don’t believe even Ayatollah Khomeini’s vocal criticisms of his regime actually called for his overthrow until maybe the late 60s? He stressed that he wanted the shah to reform so that he would not go the same way as his father, namely, into exile (Ruhani, Nahzat-e Imam Khomeini, vol. 1, p. 195)
Again, on this I defer to you.
It also seems fairly clear that the Shah’s westernisation programs were not directed by America but based on his own convictions (and that of his father).
Your point that by the time of the revolution Iran was not producing all of its own gun components is interesting. It still doesn’t really prove whether America was in the position to use the cessation of these parts to bring about the overthrow of the Shah. Again, I suspect he was a desperate man and would simply have purchased them elsewhere with his considerable wealth. The question is- did America control the Shah’s state apparatus?
I raise these points not to undermine the basic immorality of America’s support for an immoral dictator. I raise them to question as to whether or not that dictator’s sustained ability to persecute his own people rested on American support. The extent of the Shah’s domestic reliance on America is an interesting analytical question…
Regarding your point on massacres- I completely agree. I just question why Russia- responsible for massacres, responsible for occupying Iran, responsible for aggression on its borders, which recogises Israel, has a long colonial legacy in the region, supported leftist opposition groups in Iran, is co-responsible for the forced abdication of Reza Shah and indirectly responsible for the deaths of 100,000s of Iranians (arms sales to Iraq). Why then is there not the same viceral animosity towards Russia as there is America?
Are there any lessons in how Iran and Russia overcame history to recognise each other and have at least cordial, and lucrative, relations? Are they of any use to US-Iranian relations?
Mo- what do you think about the recent story in the Tehran based Baztab online that membes of a parallel intelligence agency inside Iran have been arrested after being caught spying on Tehran Mayor and presidential candidate Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf?
What do you think Ghalibaf’s chances are in the next election? What are the differences between Ahmadenijad and him on economic policy? Do you think Larijani’s decision not to run will aid his chances? What is Ghalibaf’s relationship like with Khamenei? And how much influence will Khamenei have on the next election?
When will President Obama appoint a special envoy to mediate the conflict in the comment section of this blog entry?
Are you offering? :)
ChrisE- The Iranian military (like SAVAK agents) were trained by Americans and often in the US. Iran’s dependency was extensive. He, his family, and the pro-Shah elite spent a great deal of time in the US and Europe. They all kept large amounts of money in western banks and the Shah had numerous estates in the US. He was far too attached to the US and the west to change direction or to become independent.
Iranian Soviet relations were very poor throughout the 80s, even though their support for Saddam decreased over time and Saddam turned more and more to the US and Europe. Iran supported the armed Afghani resistance against Soviet occupation and it arrested members of the pro-Soviet Tudeh party who were caught spying for the USSR (they subsequently banned the party). Basically, what changed the relationship was the collapse of the Soviet Union (pehaps the fall of the US empire could help improve relations!).
Loopin- I check Baztab every day and I haven’t seen such a report. I doubt that it is true, because it would be big news over here if Baztab Online or any other credible news source reported it. What sort of parallel intelligence agency would be behind such an act? Can you send me the link to the specific story?
At the moment, it seems that Ahmadinejad has the best chance of winning the election, but it is really far too early to tell. He is still quite popular and many people like his leftist policies.
Ghalibaf has been a successful mayor and he is a war hero (that is why most senior members of the Revolutionary Guards and military supported him in the previous presidential election). He is also a professor at the University of Tehran. However, his popularity is limited to Tehran and his home city Mashhad. Outside of Tehran, I don’t think he is all that well known. Larijani has already said that he will not run and so far President Khatami has not yet made a final decision (it would not look good for Khatami if he loses).
Personally, I think that Ghalibaf has a better chance of beating Ahmadinejad than anyone else, but time is not on his side. I think he is waiting to see what Khatami will do. If Khatami enters the race, Ghalibaf will not oppose Ahmadinejad even though they do not have the best of relations. The longer Khatami takes to decide the harder it becomes for a Ghalibaf candidacy, because he will need time to campaign. Ayatollah Khamenei will not take sides and he has good relations with all of the potential candidates that I’ve mentioned.
Here is the page: http://baztabonline.com/fa/pages/?cid=19842
Let me know what you think. Thanks for your thoughts on Ghalibaf- do you know any good resources where I can find out more about him? Im partic interested in his domestic and economic policies and how they are different to Ahmad? Thanks
Mo- Thanks for a facinating insight into the election. If Khatami doesn’t stand, who would be the reformist candidate- Mousavi? What would his chances be? I assume from you not mentioning him, negligible…
Would you argue that the Shah was always reliant on the US for his domestic position- or only following the Nixon doctrine and his increasing unpopularity? Also, what would you say his point of no return was for him?
Re Iran-Soviet relations in the 1980s- undoubtedly very poor (despite their considerable overtures- esp through the NVOI in early stage of revolution). They did at least have relations! Do you think that the Iranian government, at any point 1979-early 1980s, felt a potential military threat from the Soviets?
Thank you
Loopin- I should have been more careful. Baztab, which has changed it’s name to Tabnak (www.tabnak.ir), is the most popular news website in the country and not http://baztabonline.com. Baztab Online is just using the name Baztab because the name is famous. To be honest, I had never seen the website before this morning and since this news hasn’t been reported on any well known website, it is probably not true.
I checked Ghalibaf’s website, but it is no longer active. The most popular newspaper in Iran called Hamshahri belongs to the city of Tehran and is for obvious reasons close to Ghalibaf (www.hamshahrionline.ir). This may also help a bit: http://www.tehran.ir/Default.aspx?alias=www.tehran.ir/en
ChrisE- I think Prime Minister Mousavi has a chance, because most people aged 40 and above remember him as a good prime minister at a time of crisis. However, younger people don’t know him and name recognition is very important. Either President Khatami, Mr. Mousavi, or Aref will run on behalf of some ‘reformists’, while Karrubi will be backed by others. If Mr. Mousavi runs, many ‘principalists’ will possibly back him too. However, according to polls, Ahmadinejad is well ahead of all of them at the moment. Still there are over 5 months left until election day.
No. I don’t think Iran ever felt a potential military threat from the Soviets (but they were concerned about the activities of the Tudeh Party). They were stuck in Afghanistan and Iranians felt that the Soviets would even have to pull out of Kabul sooner or later.
The Shah was installed by the British when he was only 21 (I think) and he returned to power after the Americans overthrew Mossadegh. In addition, despite being a despot, he always had a weak personality. Therefore, he really didn’t have the potential to be really independent.