As Iranians go to the polls to elect a president, American neoconservatives are openly rooting not for moderate reform candidate and former prime minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi but for anti-U.S. hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. This is an obvious sign both of the neocons’ preference for conflict over peace between the U.S. and Iran and of the generally bankrupt state of conservatism in America, reduced now to banking on failure for the Obama administration (see Huffington Post, Rachel Maddow).
Should the reformist Mousavi win the Iranian election and become president, it would likely signal a new and more positive direction for U.S.-Iranian relations as well as providing support for the “Obama Doctrine” of engagement with Iran and other adversaries. Such a development would at the same time undercut the neocon attitude of hostility and suspicion toward Iran, as well as undercutting the right-wing Israeli government’s aggressive stance toward Iran. Indeed it is likely that right-wingers in Israel as well as America see nothing good for themselves in any warming of relations between the U.S. and Iran.
This would be like Jews wanting Hitler to win in Germany. Insane!
2
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I agree with# 3 and John needs to fire the people running this website and hire some sharp junior high students to run it for him. They couldn’t do any worse and they might do better besides they could use the job experience. It’s obvieous that the people running it now aren’t learning from past mistakes.
# 32 Mr. Fusion said, “Well, that seems to me to be a well researched bit with citations. ”
No, shoddy journalism. No quoted interview. Surprised the reporter wasn’t fired. Try again.
#24
Right wing nutts thrive on conflict. You gotta have a boogie man to keep the sheep frightened to fall in line
And who would the calm and reasonable Mr. Maddow & Keith Olbermann recommend? Howling at the moon, both of them.
It doesn’t matter which puppet wins, it’s the same arm as before pulling the strings!
#39 – Alfred1
Grandpa hated you, eh?
#24Right wing nutts thrive on conflict. You gotta have a boogie man to keep the sheep frightened to fall in line.
More importantly, a moderate would provide Obama an opportuity to diffuse world tension.
This would be horrible for the GOP. An improved US economy *and* world peace would be disaster.
,Love the lib hypocrisy
A day doesn’t go by when Bush,Rush,McCain or anyone that has a different view as you is a boogieman.I use to be a Dem/Lib but couldn’t stand the double standards and closed mindedness.
#41, jobs,
I use to be a Dem/Lib but couldn’t stand the double standards and closed mindedness.
Which is why you prefer the American economy fail and a serious conflict to break out. Just so you can say “See, I told you so”. What Kool-Aid have all you right wing nuts been drinking?
#40, Jag,
Nope. Alphie was the only one grandpa liked. They had this, what would you call it, a bonding. They shared so much in life, such as polyester undies from the big girls rack.
Troublemaker,
You can call me un-informed but I am probably the only person here who has actually personally gotten to know Taliban and other radical Muslims as well as Evangelicals and other radical Christians.
They are both the same same reactionary neo-conservative response to modernity, globalization and diversity.
I have also met neo-conservative radical Hindus and the seem the same, too, although I have less exposure to them.
The Jews, I don’t know. However, from reading about them in the paper, it seems like the neo-conservative radical Jews are the same kind of reaction to modernity.
I’m sure that Muslim radicals hated the fact Obama won the election because he is all about image repair and better relations; harder to recruit terrorists and whip up an anti-American fervor when the new guy has a Muslim father and Muslim middle name.
Israel is the only reason we have an actual interest in that part of the world. Some would say oil matters, but it can’t matter that much if the price of gas isn’t detering people from fuel inefficient vehicles and if we have little to no interest in nuclear power.
If Israel didn’t exist, they could kill each other up like they do in Africa and we wouldn’t care
It would be nice if we eventually got a president that did want to solve the energy problems, but that would involve nuclear power and even though the rest of the world invests in using it, I’ve seen no politicians of any substance support it.
So no energy policy it is!.
So in case you didn’t understand what ipes is saying, he thinks that Obama will be played by foreign powers, so it’s better to have the guy that is less likely to fool Obama into thinking his superduper diplomacy will heal the planet.
Good luck to mr mousavi, the best hope for Iranians to move their great nation towards a brighter future.
“WTF? Nutty Neocons WANT Ahmadinejad To Win In Iraq Election”
IRAQ election? 😉
[Fixed – ed.]
#7 & 8
Actually we have ourselves to thank courtesy of Eisenhower. He helped the coup that installed Pahlavi that led to the revolution in 1979.
They would have had a democratic republic if there had been no coup. But you see it didn’t sit well with Ike and the boys at the CIA.
Like FDR’s meddling with Saudi Arabia and other subsequent propping up of despots in the region (Hussein & Mubarak under Reagan, Al-Jaber Al-Sabah under Bush Sr.) We have sown the seeds of hate in the region. We have become what the Hessians were to George Hanover.
And then people wonder WHY they despise us? So easily people forget history and we wind up in this condition.
Cursor_
Republican Ism is based on a need to punish. Look at US “War on (fill in the blank) mentality, plus a need for various “czar” heads of programs. Neocons are simply extreme Repubs, lost without a continuing cold war mentality in position for a fight.
I think the Neocrumbs do a terrible disservice to this country, bordering on… or well embedded in… the spirit of treason. They supply comfort to our enemies by welcoming them at the level those enemies choose, and by wanting conflict, they are betraying the safety of peace that can preserve the government, constitution and safety of the American people.
Jerks.
Well Well looks like Omaba magic powers are having no effect in Iran. Looks like the True Believers once again got ahead of themselves .
?There is an election in Germany
It just struck me- a Neocon is like a true Conservative with advanced AIDs and dementia, and wearing an evil clown mask
and clutching a machete.
#43 – Mr. Fusion
LOL
#44 – Greg Allen
In short… There are fundamentalists in all religious movements.
Jägermeister said, on June 13th, 2009 at 6:15 am
#44 – Greg Allen
In short… There are fundamentalists in all religious movements.
… and in atheism, too.
In recent years we’ve seen a rise of neo-conservative atheists who have mixed up their “religion” with nationalism, aggression, jingoism and a wildly inflated sense of being the only right perspective and wanting to abolish those who differ from them.
# 60 Alfred1 said, “Uncle Dave misunderstood or misrepresented (surprise?) the STATED neocon argument”
Par for the course.
#45, Meyers,
If Israel didn’t exist, they could kill each other up like they do in Africa and we wouldn’t care
Once again we find common ground.
I do think the oil though is an important part of the equation and we would be supporting those that had oil against those that didn’t. Sort of a natural affinity.
Riots have started in Tehran
see images here
do something if you can, Ahmadinejad is NOT our elected president.
Maybe one of the admins can start a new post about this?
#61 – Greg Allen
You’ve confused yourself with communism. Communism isn’t atheism.
It’s like this in Iran, the president is not much more than a figurehead. The neocons want him to win anyway because his reactionary rhetoric is good for the neocon fascist cause. Besides, the election is bought and paid for by the ruling clerics who are really just the flip side of the neocon coin anyway. The reformer candidates actually had a chance to win without interferrence from the ruling religo-nutballs anyway but that was back before Shrub shot his mouth off and screwed over any hope of reasonableness from taking over in its natural course in Iran and guaranteed 20 more years of zeolots running things. As I said though, this is what Shrub wanted since it furthered their plans to make money off a U.S. pro-war stance.
Political parties are total nutsos.
The Repubs want anything that makes the Demos look bad.
Pretty simple really.
@Fusion
I once took a college course on Jewish studies in the summer to fulfill a history requirement and I did enjoy the class but I was deeply disturbed by the level of propaganda and the justification elements.
This was shortly before 9/11.
Afterwards an army of USA-Israeli dual citizens sought to control US foreign policy with highly dishonest propaganda and very questionable facts.
And I was left somewhat aghast by why we allow this to happen? Whose interest is being represented?
I felt then and now that invading Iraq was the right thing to do because any good opportunity to be rid of a highly suppressive dictator is worth doing (I’d be for invading North Korea, but not Iran — I think North Korea is run for the benefit of one man who runs it like an iron fist; Iran has democratic elements and I believe Iran will evolve).
I think the word neo-con appropriately catches the opportunist type of people the word represents.
re: oil
This country could easily be energy independent if we choose to do so. I like the policy of no-drilling not because I’m against drilling but I believe we are wasting our resources big time.
I think the way people in this country waste resources that drilling for more oil here would be similar to giving a drunk money to buy alcohol.
Europe for sure has a vested interest in the Middle East due to oil and proximity, but I don’t see why we should be involved when we could simply reform ourselves.
Case in point, I think I read today that a whopping 20% of the work force in the USA (my god, I had no idea) is employed by federal and state government.
With a wave of the hand, I bet the federal government could drastically alter fuel consumption just by buying fuel efficient vehicles (no — not hybrids, but 50 mpg compact cars).
Instead of those 20 mpg pieces of crap General Motors and Ford make.
Sigh.
while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it’s best that he remain in office. When Mohammed Khatami was president, his sweet words lulled many people into complacency, even as the nuclear weapons program developed on his watch. If the patterns remain unchanged, better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.
Daniel Pipes today
#69 – Hmeyers – I felt then and now that invading Iraq was the right thing to do because any good opportunity to be rid of a highly suppressive dictator is worth doing (I’d be for invading North Korea, but not Iran — I think North Korea is run for the benefit of one man who runs it like an iron fist; Iran has democratic elements and I believe Iran will evolve).
The Iraq invasion wasn’t put in motion to give freedom to the Iraqis. Remember the non-existing WMDs?
Iran having democratic elements? Haven’t yesterday’s election taught you anything?
You’re going to be very busy if you’re going to overthrow dictators and non-democratic countries… here’s a list over countries with questionable governments. Some are very good friends and trading partners with the USA.