Do you even know what you are talking about? The current president is a known demagogue, and the saber-rattling at Israel is just a way for him to gain votes. Most of the moderates, while opposing Israel in the traditional way that most arab countries (YOUR ALLIES) do, don't go as far as the current President say.

The topic on which all (because, FLASH NEWS, there are 4 candidates) of them is the same, however, is the right of Iran to have civilian nuclear power.

Yes, I do know what I am talking about.

Yet you seem to be confusing the Iranian regime with the Arabs. They are different parties with completely different agendas. Most Arab countries (i.e. all of them except Syria and Lebanon) are opposed to the Iranian regime.

Arab opposition to Israel is completely different from Iranian opposition to Israel. (Which is why Iran calls Israel "the Zionist entity" while Arab countries call it "Israel".)

There are four Arab position towards Israel:

1. Recognition and peace: Egypt, Jordan, formerly Lebanon, PLO

2. Diplomatic relations but no full recognition yet: Morocco, Tunisia, Qatar (until recently), sometimes Lebanon

3. Opposition on nationalist grounds: Algeria, Libya, Iraq (especially under Saddam), Kuwait (This is dying out.)

4. Opposition on pseudo-religious grounds: "Muslim" Brotherhood, Saudi-Arabia

(However, Saudi-Arabia is trying to keep Israel alive without having anything to do with it because of Iran.)

Iranian opposition to Israel is purely pseudo-religious. An all allowed presidential candidates belong to that mindset.

Your impression of Iranian "moderates" is completely misleading.

REAL Iranian moderates (who obviously cannot run for president), like most of the educated Iranian population, have absolutely no problem with Israel AT ALL.

In the Arab world only Syria and Sudan (and of course Hizbullah and to some extent Hamas) follow Iran's lead.

On Arab-Iranian relations over the century: http://www.kavehfarrokh.com/articles/pan-arabism/

That's on the Web site of my friend Kaveh Farrokh, a professor of Iranian history and linguistics. My own "expertise" lies more with Kurdistan (the Kurds are an Iranian people) and the Semitic side of things, not Iran as such. But I know about the differences between Iran and the Arab countries and the different (and incompatible) reasons for hatred of Israel and Jews.

This is important.

Most Iranians care about inflation, the economy, and petrol prices. They couldn't care less about Israel or the "Palestinians" or any issue they understand as an Arab issue.

Ahmadinejad's saber-rattling at Israel is not gaining him votes, it's losing him votes.

You seem to think that Iranians, or at least a majority of Iranians, want war with Israel more than anything else (like indeed many Arabs). But that's totally wrong. It's a common western misunderstanding of the situation in Iran.

Most Iranians don't care about the Arab-Israeli conflict. Those who do are usually not on the Arab side (because of the history of wars between Iran and Arab states before and after the "Islamic" revolution).

The trick in this election is to be anti-Israel enough to be allowed to run and then focus on other subjects enough to get elected. It's a balance act and one that Ahmadinejad is not very good at, which is why he could lose.

(If he does win, we'll probably never find out how much they cheated.)

Agreed on that topic, but then again, the majority of his saber-rattling statements happened a few years ago, or trying to surf on the muslim reaction of Danish cartoons. He would be trying to divert the attention from the bad economic situation his country has been through (because of low oil price) by trying to rouse nationalism in his voters.

With any luck, it didn't worked

No, I don't. If anything, I doubt that the majority of Iranians want direct antagonism against Israelis except maybe when it comes to the fate of the palestinians. Some of their political elites might be using an antagonist position to Israel as a platform to try to depict themselves as "good muslim" (as many might have the misguided impression that being a good muslim means opposing Israel).

I just don't see the Iranian people going to war as the aggressors over Israel. But some people on this forum keeps saying that Iran will stop at nothing to wipe Israel from the map, eh. It often comes out as a simplistic view of the situation in Iran.

Today's election might actually be a good start. Iran's moderate might not be extremely moderate, but they are a good step compared to the incumbent president, I'd say. I just don't see the point of dismissing the failure of re-election of the current president as "irrelevant" the way you did. The victory of his opponents, alongside the victory of the pro-western coalition in Lebanon would be another good movement of the muslim world (at least, on paper) regarding a less tense region.

Also, a "real" moderate might still be somewhat opposed to Israel based on the mistreatment of the Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, which is a valid position.

Iranian nationalism is directed against the Arabs, not in any way or form against Israel or the west.

The Iranians think of themselves as one of the advanced nations, not one of the anti-western newcomers.

The Danish cartoons were a major issue in Sunni countries, because pictures of Muhammed (and images in general) are a problem for Sunni extremists. Shia Islam has little problem with pictures as such and the average Iranian wouldn't see a Muhammed cartoon as such a major issue like a Sunni would.

The average Iranian doesn't care about the fate of some Arabs. For them Arabs are the people who killed two million Iranians during Saddam's attempted invasion.

The entire anti-Israel (and anti-Jewish) position of the Iranian regime is due to their theology. They have remade Islam, specifically Shia Islam, into a monster. And part of that reform means having to get rid if a lot of Islamic history which directly contradicts their interpretation. That is a problem Shia Islam has had for over a thousand years.

The only thing the Quran says about Israel (the people) is what the Hebrew Bible says: that G-d commanded them, via prophet Moses, to live in the holy land and not run away. (The Quran says a few other things about Jews in general but only this one thing about the holy land, unless you count the description of the location of Abraham's other son's place of worship, which is also in Israel.)

In order for the reformed "Islam" of the Iranian regime to make sense, the memory of parts of the Quran must go, specifically all parts that talk about the relationship between Mecca and Jerusalem and between Muhammed and his family (including Abraham and hence Moses and ultimately the Hashemite clan). The problem is that Shia Islam claims that the Umma (all Muslims) must be ruled by the family of Muhammed (the Hashemites). And that's quite a big problem for the mullahs to explain away.

If they don't manage to explain it away, it would mean that the current government of Jordan (the Hashemite clan, who are pro-western and descendants of Muhammed's familt) has a legitimate claim to command the Muslim world. This particular problem has often led to wars between Sunnis and Shiites in the past. Shia Muslims refer to it as the betrayal of the Hashemites when the Hashemites supported orthodox (Sunni) Islam rather than the Shiites.

Israel is the most visible symbol of the part of the Quran the mullahs need to suppress. If Israel keeps surviving, it means that the Quran's predition that there will only be two exiles is true. And if any part of the Quran is visibly true, people will focus on it. And this means people would focus on Abraham's family and that would call the Iranian regime's great bluff.

You'd be surprised how little sympathy non-Arabs in the middle east have for Arabs who attack someone and then get "mistreated" in the attempt.

Don't forget that most non-Arab peoples, especially the Iranians, have also been attacked by Arab terrorists and armies.

The "Palestinians", Saddam's allies, for the Iranians are the same Arab nationalists who murdered two million Iranians and tens of thousands of Kurds (who are also of Iranian stock) in the 1980s and earlier. They have very little sympathy for them.

Don't confuse western sympathies for Arab imperialism with the middle east. Even your average Arab has less sympathy for the "Palestinians" then most people think, and those in the middle east who are not Arabs usually tend to be indifferent about the Arabs' wars or openly hostile to the Arab side for their own reasons.

In my street lives in Arab Iraqi butcher who knows both my religion and my sympathies for Israel. And his major problem with me is my bad pronunciation of Arabic words. Non-middle-easterners in Europe are usually less sympathetic to the entire Jew-Israeli thing.

Such a "real moderate" would be even more opposed to the Arab side based on the mistreatment of fellow Muslims in western Sudan and, specifically and here most of all relevant, Iranians and Iraqi Shiites during the 1980s.

real arab moderates get their heads chopped off for being "traitors" and "israel/US sympathizers"

Take for example, the intifada. During the first intifada, according to the PLO, 1150 or so palastinians were killed, according to israel they killed 34, according to the PLO about 1000 palastinians were executed for being israeli sympathizers, and also according to the PLO, only 40% of which were actually even SUSPECTED of being israeli sympathizers and none of which were verified YET (if they HAD verified them to be, they would have been executed).

So the difference really is, did israel kill 34 palastinian terrorists like it claims, or 150 palastinian civilians like the PLO says... while 600 palastinian civilians were outright murdered by palastinians for no reason by people who disliked them and looked for an excuse (probably to steal their property and rape their wives and daughters), and 400 palastinian civilians were murdered by palastinians for MAYBE wanting peace with israel.

Part of the absurdity is that organizations like hamas don't DENY those kind of figures, to US it sounds like it makes them sound bad... to THEM it makes it sound like they are in charge, powerful, and doing their part to destroy traitors and enemies in the name of allah.

You just need to watch some videos where the hamas goes in and executes an entire family for having dancing and music in a wedding (because that is not allowed at weddings), or when they round up palastinian youth's (look 15-20ish, multiple people) who were not sufficiently pro hamas, put a bag on their head, march them around town for public beatings, and then tie them to the back of a car and drag them to death.

Let me tell you something, if I was a muslim in any of those countries and my options were:

1. Play the sheep and voice my support of the evil bastards in charge.

2. Voice my desire for peace with the assholes who support their war on decency, freedom, and human rights.

I would choose 1. You have to EARN the support of people. And supporting a nuclear iran, a hamas regime, a withdrawl from iraq, and so on... that only convnces people that putting their life on the line to call for peace is a fools errand. You cannot make everyone like you. You should make the evil religion fanatics fear you, and the moderates beleive you will be their ally. Not cowtow and appease the evil, making the evil fanatics think you are weak and easy plucking, and making the moderates think you are weak of character and not willing to step in and help them.

I'm not sure of this because according Cikomyr's logic you have to wait and see. You can't compare him to Carter because Carter had 4 years.

Now with that logic in mind here are 2 former presidents you can compare him to: William Henry Harrison and soon Zachary Taylor.

With Harrison, he tried to not load up his administration with his own party but was eventually force to.  Obama took great joy in filling up his administration with his own party. Obama hasn't yet finished this task something that Harrison did.  This is a daunting task for Obama to undertake compared to what Harrison had.

Harrison did prevent a possible meltdown with Great Britian and the United States within a week of being elected.  Obama didn't do that with either Iran, NK, or the Taliban although the Taliban did give him a response that 'We do not know what he is referring to as moderates.  There are no moderates and the thought is just illogical'.  I guess he did get a response so that's something right, so we should give him that.

On a final note, he did spend more than Harrison did in office and also ran a larger more lucrative campaign.

This is almost a toss up here because Harrison did calm the raging fires brewing in GB yet BO did get a reaction from the Taliban.

Fine Fine, I guess BO wins against Harrison, for he spent more and ran a larger more lucrative campaign.

A friend of mine who lives in Gaza his mom, brother, and sister were killed. His brother was killed because he wasn't a religous muslim and a offended a prodomient family.  His sister was raped by a guy who then accused her of being a whore, so she was killed. His mom was killed due to a Hamas attack.

I am sorry for your friend.

This is exactly why trying to appease the evil as they oppress, murder, rape, and abuse is utterly wrong. It is not "cultural differences"... Europeans had a similar thing going on in the past, we call it the "dark ages".

The world doesn't care. I have heard similar stories and it has been going on since Hamas are in power. At least the PLO managed to run a dictatorship in which people were not randomly killed or raped.

Anyway, the focus is now on Iran: http://forums.joeuser.com/356194

Tal, thanks for empathizing.  It shows the world is not a friendly place.

I don't remember Carter doing that in the first few months of his presidency. 

It took him a year.

But by June 1977 he probably already cut intelligence cooperation to the extend that the Shah no longer had access to every information he could have used.

I think he was referring to the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  Which took place in the last 500 days of Carter's administration.

BTW, AD I got your PM.  I just haven't had the time to respond.  The weekend are always packed with things.  I do understand what you're saying and I'll respond to your PM soon.

Ah no worries mate.  I have a tremendous amount on my plate right now as well.  We have some big things happening...I'll indulge you later.

Could be, but I 'wonder' if Leauki is talking about some legislation that began the process of leading up to this situation with Iran?  Kind of like Clinton's legislation that limited CIA and FBI working and talking together (which is arguably why we didn't prevent 9/11).  

Maybe Leauki can indulge me on what legislation he is referring to?

This article explains it best:

http://plateauofiran.wordpress.com/2007/06/21/father-of-the-iranian-revolution/

In his anti-war pacifism, Carter never got it that Khomeini, a cleric exiled to Najaf in Iraq from 1965-1978, was preparing Iran for revolution. Proclaiming “the West killed God and wants us to bury him,” Khomeini’s weapon of choice was not the sword but the media. Using tape cassettes smuggled by Iranian pilgrims returning from the holy city of Najaf, he fueled disdain for what he called gharbzadegi (”the plague of Western culture”).

Carter pressured the shah to make what he termed human rights concessions by releasing political prisoners and relaxing press censorship. Khomeini could never have succeeded without Carter. The Islamic Revolution would have been stillborn.

Gen. Robert Huyser, Carter’s military liaison to Iran, once told me in tears: “The president could have publicly condemned Khomeini and even kidnapped him and then bartered for an exchange with the [American Embassy] hostages, but the president was indignant. ‘One cannot do that to a holy man,’ he said.”

("gharbzadegi"! That's interesting. "gharb" is the Arabic word for "west". Must be a loan word in Iranian.)