(08.04.09): "Get tough with the toughs: Iranian repression shows why world must unite against Tehran thugs" (NY Daily News- OpEd)

[Laura Cereta]

Following a path well worn by Stalin and Mao, the Ahmadinejad-Khamenei regime is crushing its people and rewriting history with systematic efficiency. The beast that lives beneath Iran's pretense of democracy stands exposed before the world.

In the six weeks since fraud-riddled elections sparked an uprising, the lords of Tehran have moved from wielding truncheons to staging show trials as tools of repression.

Step one: Break the troublemakers. When people took to the streets, they were beaten, shot and thrown into black holes.

Step two: Accuse outside agitators, meaning, of course, Western powers, of filling Iranian heads with lies.

Step three: Use drugs and torture to get confessions. The regime has put almost 100 Iranians on "trial" for "crimes" against the government.

The wife of one politician, a former Iranian vice president, told The Associated Press that her husband was drugged when she saw him in jail before his televised prosecution.

Said a newly enlightened confessor: "Preservation of the regime is the greatest of all necessities. ... What happened during the electoral rivalries must be considered as a great deviation in the political history of the Iranian nation."

Step four: Consolidate power and forge ahead to obtain nuclear weapons, an accelerant that would enable the Iranians to behave even more ruthlessly, both inside and outside their borders.

That crossroads may be fast approaching. Intelligence sources tell The Times of London that Iran is less than a year away from having a nuke in hand.

The White House is said to be mullling stepped-up muscle in the form of a global embargo on shipping gasoline into Iran, which produces tons of oil but lacks the refining capacity to meet its own needs for fuel. Time's a wasting.


http://i649.photobucket.com/albums/uu212/2059911/hdr_sec_nydn_logo.gif (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/04/2009-08-04_get_tough_with_the_toughs_iranian_repression_sh ows_why_world_must_unite_against_.html)

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2009/08/04/2009-08-04_get_tough_with_the_toughs_iranian_repression_sh ows_why_world_must_unite_against_.html

[StacyinBoston]

I don't buy this "Iran's a year away from a nuke" stuff. Here's why (http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/02/whoohoo-atoms-of-fissionable-material-everywhere.html), in part.


**==

[Ikasu]

I don't buy this "Iran's a year away from a nuke" stuff. Here's why (http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/02/whoohoo-atoms-of-fissionable-material-everywhere.html), in part.


I'm not buying it either.

[foxyladi]

get tuff with the toughs.i agree

[sadie]

get tuff with the toughs.i agree

But, but, we wouldn't want to be seen as meddling. People are being beaten & imprisoned, and many have been murdered...but we don't want to step on any toes.

[Laura Cereta]

I don't buy this "Iran's a year away from a nuke" stuff. Here's why (http://whirledview.typepad.com/whirledview/2009/02/whoohoo-atoms-of-fissionable-material-everywhere.html), in part.


**==


The concentration of U-235 is 3.49% in the enriched uranium that the Natanz plant is turning out. The IAEA has found no evidence (Download Iran 0902) that any higher enrichment is being produced. 3.49% is not enough to make a bomb. Iran is not in a position to make a bomb, unless there is a bunch of hidden stuff that nobody has found, involving big buildings that can be seen by satellite surveillance.


The article makes a valid point. Even without the nukes, Iran is trouble, though.

[Ikasu]

But, but, we wouldn't want to be seen as meddling. People are being beaten & imprisoned, and many have been murdered...but we don't want to step on any toes.

What do you suggest to be done? Should we interfere in every country/region where people are being oppressed?

[StacyinBoston]

The article makes a valid point. Even without the nukes, Iran is trouble, though.

So, what do we do to them to get tough on them? Because I am honestly not sure. They control a majority of the Strait of Hormuz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz)- they could turn around and get tough on us.

I'm a bit confused with our Iran policy- we talk about dialogue with them while in the same sentence essentially saying they have about 15minutes to respond to our overtures or the proverbial shit is going to hit the fan- that seems to be a mixed message. And yes, Israel is really making this more difficult. Sorry, but they are.

This is another area where I hear a lot of criticism of Obama and the admin coddling terrorist sympathizers but absent starting another war, I'm not sure what they want done. I'm interested in hearing other viewpoints because I certainly don't have an answer. I just try to remind myself that getting "tough" on Iran really means getting "tough" on the people we saw dressed in green being beaten and murdered in the streets of Tehran.

I want that nutcase Fake President out of office too, but lets be realistic, sanctions don't hurt him or the Supreme Leader, they trickle down to the already oppressed masses. And guess who is buying a lot of Iranian oil? CHINA! So our sanctions may well be offset by them, unless they were on board, which I doubt they would be. I wonder if that was addressed when they came to DC for the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue?

And yes, the appearance of "meddling" in Iranian politics DOES matter, particularly given we essentially overthrew the Iranian govt and instilled the Shah- that was a great success story, wasn't it?

I'll admit, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here but I am really shocked at how we seem to a) totally ignore or forget the history of US "meddling" in Iran even though the Iranians haven't and b) totally ignore or forget, that the same sort of rhetoric used to justify a misguided war in Iraq, is being repeated VERBATIM for intervention in Iran.

[Ikasu]

So, what do we do to them to get tough on them? Because I am honestly not sure. They control a majority of the Strait of Hormuz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strait_of_Hormuz)- they could turn around and get tough on us.

I'm a bit confused with our Iran policy- we talk about dialogue with them while in the same sentence essentially saying they have about 15minutes to respond to our overtures or the proverbial shit is going to hit the fan- that seems to be a mixed message. And yes, Israel is really making this more difficult. Sorry, but they are.

This is another area where I hear a lot of criticism of Obama and the admin coddling terrorist sympathizers but absent starting another war, I'm not sure what they want done. I'm interested in hearing other viewpoints because I certainly don't have an answer. I just try to remind myself that getting "tough" on Iran really means getting "tough" on the people we saw dressed in green being beaten and murdered in the streets of Tehran.

I want that nutcase Fake President out of office too, but lets be realistic, sanctions don't hurt him or the Supreme Leader, they trickle down to the already oppressed masses. And guess who is buying a lot of Iranian oil? CHINA! So our sanctions may well be offset by them, unless they were on board, which I doubt they would be. I wonder if that was addressed when they came to DC for the US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue?

And yes, the appearance of "meddling" in Iranian politics DOES matter, particularly given we essentially overthrew the Iranian govt and instilled the Shah- that was a great success story, wasn't it?

I'll admit, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here but I am really shocked at how we seem to a) totally ignore or forget the history of US "meddling" in Iran even though the Iranians haven't and b) totally ignore or forget, that the same sort of rhetoric used to justify a misguided war in Iraq, is being repeated VERBATIM for intervention in Iran.

You're not the only one here who shares this view. I agree with you. The appearance of meddling matters a lot since we overthrew the democratically elected of Mohammad Mosaddeq in 1953 (which led to the '79 Iranian revolution). Iranians have not forgotten. Our policy towards Iran is selective indignation. The Iranian government is oppressive, but our "friends" Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey are also oppressive governments. We rightly laud the Iranian protesters, but why is there not the same level of press attention to similarly oppressed groups like the Uighurs in China or the Burmese people who protest against their respective governments?

[sadie]

What do you suggest to be done? Should we interfere in every country/region where people are being oppressed?

As opposed to sitting by and watching people be deliberately slaughtered, imprisoned, and silenced by a government run amok? I find that deplorable. If we all actually practiced that in our lives, we wouldn't act when we witness children being abused...because it's not our business to interfere. I happen to be of the opinion that when lives are being taken or endangered, it's always the business of anyone who knows it's happening to do something about it. Do I think our military should storm in and take over? Of course not. But to continue to legitimize and recognize a government that treats it's people this way is disgusting.

[StacyinBoston]

As we speak, China is engaging in a massive anti-democratic crackdown against the Uigurs- torturing and murdering them, not to mention continuing to disappear Tibetan monks and others who will not renounce the Dalai lama. What is the US doing? NOTHING. We are treating the Chinese govt like our most favorite VIPs.

I really understand the frustration with these tinpot dictators, but the fact is, they show just how powerless the US can be at times. What do we do with Iran? What I would LOVE to know is what Mousavi wants President Obama and Secretary Clinton to do or say publicly, because Mousavi (in Iran) and his "officers" (in Iran and those that have escaped to Europe), have been pretty mum on this subject. I would think that what they want would matter a great deal. And for all I know, the State Dept and/or the WH has been or is in contact with them? Or maybe not.

I personally think Obama and others in the admin. really need to [behind the scenes] put the squeeze on other Muslim nations who understand that Iran is the neighborhood bully, and try to get them to ALSO try to force some change in Iran? What, I don't know. Because other than "regime change" I'm not sure what we do and if we try to depose the regime, we are possibly looking at another major war and we could end up weakening the somewhat more moderate Mousavi movement.