Iran warns about U.S. air incursion - mullah regime "not happy" with election of Obama

Yeah, those hard-liners need confrontation to consolidate their positions of power.

They'll get it before Obama's Inaugurated.

You're right that they need confrontation - not so sure they'll get it now. That would be playing into their hands at the worst possible time..

-------------------------------------------------------

Muhammad Khatami, a former president of Iran, suggests that he may run again in 2009

[link to www.economist.com]
AFP

PRESIDENTIAL elections in Iran next June could be more lively than usual. Muhammad Khatami, a leading reformist who has already served two terms as president (he left office in 2005), is dropping ever clearer hints that he is ready to run against the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is widely expected seek re-election. At a recent international conference on religion, held in Tehran, Iran’s capital, Mr Khatami spoke of his possible candidacy, suggesting that he is ready to toss his turban into the ring.

He is, rightly, wary of saying now that he will certainly run. He faces great difficulties, not least that the country’s reformists are weak. In elections earlier this year they managed to win just 46 of 290 seats in the majlis (parliament) after many candidates were barred from standing. An assortment of conservatives dominate the legislature, and it is they, not the reformists, who have provided most of the opposition to Mr Ahmadinejad. Two leading conservatives, Ali Larijani and Muhammad Qalibaf, have also been touted as contenders for Mr Ahmadinejad’s job.

Nor are Mr Khatami’s previous spells in charge remembered entirely fondly. By the end of his presidency he was seen as a lame duck; his supporters were dejected because he had failed to bring about significant social or political reform. In fact he had been sidelined by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader. In contrast his successor, Mr Ahmadinejad, has succeeded in strengthening the role of the presidency.

Thus Mr Ahmadinejad remains a formidable opponent. He has the support of both Ayatollah Khamenei and the powerful Revolutionary Guards. The conservative establishment see reformist proposals as attempts to overturn the basic principles of the Islamic Revolution and so would not welcome the return of the old president. It remains possible—especially if Mr Khatami were to promise radical reforms—that the supreme leader would stop Mr Khatami competing at all.

Despite all this, however, Mr Khatami has some things in his favour. He is personally popular among voters and Mr Ahmadinejad, the incumbent, is troubled by the dire state of the economy. The government has failed to spread wealth, despite hefty revenues from oil and gas; ordinary Iranians are furious that inflation that is now running at nearly 30%. The country’s powerful merchants went on strike in October to protest against the introduction of a 3% sales tax. With the price of oil tumbling and the prospect of a sharp drop in hard currency earnings, Mr Ahmadinejad’s prospects look bleaker yet. Much depends on the state of the economy: the more it deteriorates, the better Mr Khatami’s chances.

There is appetite too for Mr Khatami’s more conciliatory approach to foreign relations after the years of Mr Ahmadinejad’s bombast. A moderate president is likely to oversee better relations with the West, amid concerns that Iran is developing capacity to build a nuclear weapon. Iranians, especially in the cities, want to avoid isolation and sanctions. Mr Khatami is perhaps more likely to strike a compromise over nuclear development for energy needs, while giving outsiders convincing guarantees that a weapons programme is not intended.

Even as Mr Khatami dips his toe back into the political waters, however, other moderates are paddling forward. Mehdi Karroubi, a former speaker of parliament and fellow reformist, has already announced his wish to run for the presidency. Mr Karroubi is less popular, but he is a credible candidate. If both men were to run, splitting the reformist vote, that would ensure a conservative victory. So Mr Khatami would need, too, to persuade his ally to step aside.

so now we have to wait and see who flinches first, will a itchy trigger finger Iranian shoot on accident or will the US pop of a few rounds at a suspected insurgent enclave?

I wouldn't be surprised to see a few shots fired - but I don't think it would escalate. The Iranians don't have the parts, just like Syria..

No they dont but it would keep tensions high and insure more insurgents take up the cause against the great hand of satan.
They love to call us all sorts of evil names.

You dumbshit.They aint over here killing women and children.We are the insurgents

Oh shit. And we have Obama.

Maybe Barry can get everyone together for a group hug.

It's all here in this pamphlet..

Well they know who's behind him... Brzezinski... that son of a biatch.

The guy behind the carter administration.

The guy who founded and funded Al-Qaeda.

The hardcore anti-russia guy.

The false-flag guy.

They also know that Obama threatenned to bomb Iran if they ``wanted the bomb``.

And of course bomb Pakistan and invade Pakistan ``to look for Bin Laden``.

Iran this, Iran that... all propoganda. It's soooooo obvious.

mullah regime "not happy" with election of Obama?

Not happy with a fellow muslim being elected president of the U.S.? I suppose the dumb americans are the only ones that don't know Obama is another in a long line of bought and paid for Zionist stooges. If the zionists didn't want him elected he would not have gotten another coverage in the MSM.

.

you dumbshit, you know why they are not here? because we are there.

and last i checked we are not in iran so blow me

That article is from mid-October, Grizzled. I think he's clarified his position since then.

October 29, 2008

Khatami says not willing to run in presidential election

[link to www.tehrantimes.com]

November 1, 2008

Khatami says has no interest to return to power

[link to www.tehrantimes.com]

To whoever reads this: Do not listen to "news" stations, or read mainstream sites. None of them can be trusted anymore. Wake up!

and last i checked we are not in iran so blow me


Sorry. We've been in Iran blowing stuff up since 2005. My source is Seymour Hersh.

right we are blowing shit up in iran for almost 4 yrs and know one knows about it? wait let me guess iran is in on it and they are keeping it quiet right. lmao.

one thing's for sure and that is that
Obama and Ahmadnejad do not speak the same
soul language and any dialogue
between the two will likely
end in a stand off

and as they are both
changing and evolving
things might get rather tense or heated
over the next year or so if not
the first three months 2009!

or I could be all sh!t n feathers and none
of this will come to pass... lol.

p.s. they both smile a lot..baring teeth.

-

""""""""This is a clear message to the American president-elect because radicals are not very happy that Obama has been elected," the politician is quoted saying, speaking anonymously.""""""


Ah Yes-again that famous anonymous politician is quoted.

The ruling religious nuts (Imajarhead) loves Obama, almost worships him.
The question has made the rounds in Iran since last month, when a pro-government Web site published a Hadith (or tradition) from a Shiite text of the 17th century. The tradition comes from Bahar al-Anvar (meaning Oceans of Light) by Mullah Majlisi, a magnum opus in 132 volumes and the basis of modern Shiite Islam.

According to the tradition, Imam Ali Ibn Abi-Talib (the prophet’s cousin and son-in-law) prophesied that at the End of Times and just before the return of the Mahdi, the Ultimate Saviour, a “tall black man will assume the reins of government in the West.” Commanding “the strongest army on earth,” the new ruler in the West will carry “a clear sign” from the third imam, whose name was Hussein Ibn Ali. The tradition concludes: “Shiites should have no doubt that he is with us.” (Ahmadinejad’s is a Shiite)

In a curious coincidence Obama’s first and second names–Barack Hussein–mean “the blessing of Hussein” in Arabic and Persian. His family name, Obama, written in the Persian alphabet, reads O Ba Ma, which means “he is with us,” the magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition.

Mystical reasons aside, the Khomeinist establishment sees Obama’s rise as another sign of the West’s decline and the triumph of Islam. Obama’s promise to seek unconditional talks with the Islamic Republic is cited as a sign that the U.S. is ready to admit defeat. Obama’s position could mean abandoning three resolutions passed by the United Nations Security Council setting conditions that Iran should meet to avoid sanctions. Seeking unconditional talks with the Khomeinists also means an admission of moral equivalence between the U.S. and the Islamic Republic. It would imply an end to the description by the U.S. of the regime as a “systematic violator of human rights.”

Obama has abandoned claims by all U.S. administrations in the past 30 years that Iran is “a state sponsor of terrorism.” Instead, he uses the term “violent groups” to describe Iran-financed outfits such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Obama has also promised to attend a summit of the Organization of the Islamic Conference within the first 100 days of his presidency. Such a move would please the mullahs, who have always demanded that Islam be treated differently, and that Muslim nations act as a bloc in dealings with Infidel nations.

Obama’s election would boost President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s chances of winning a second term next June. Ahmadinejad’s entourage claim that his “steadfastness in resisting the American Great Satan” was a factor in helping Obama defeat “hardliners” such as Hillary Clinton and, later, it hopes, John McCain.

“President Ahmadinejad has taught Americans a lesson,” says Hassan Abbasi, a “strategic adviser” to the Iranian president. “This is why they are now choosing someone who understands Iran’s power.” The Iranian leader’s entourage also point out that Obama copied his campaign slogan “Yes, We Can” from Ahmadinejad’s “We Can,” used four years ago.

A number of Khomeinist officials have indicated their preference for Obama over McCain, who is regarded as an “enemy of Islam.” A Foreign Ministry spokesman says Iran does not wish to dictate the choice of the Americans but finds Obama “a better choice for everyone.” Ali Larijani, Speaker of the Islamic Majlis, Iran’s ersatz parliament, has gone further by saying the Islamic Republic “prefers to see Barack Obama in the White House” next year.

Tehran’s penchant for Obama, reflected in the official media, increased when the Illinois senator chose Joseph Biden as his vice-presidential running mate. Biden was an early supporter of the Khomeinist revolution in 1978-1979 and, for the past 30 years, has been a consistent advocate of recognizing the Islamic Republic as a regional power. He has close ties with Khomeinist lobbyists in the U.S. and has always voted against sanctions on Iran.

Ahmadinejad has described the U.S. as a “sunset” (ofuli) power as opposed to Islam, which he says is a “sunrise” (toluee) power. Last summer, he inaugurated an international conference called World Without America–attended by anti-Americans from all over the world, including the U.S.

Seen from Tehran, Obama’s election would demoralize the U.S. armed forces by casting doubt on their victories in Iraq and Afghanistan, if not actually transforming them into defeat. American retreat from the Middle East under Obama would enable the Islamic Republic to pursue hegemony of the region. Tehran is especially interested in dominating Iraq, thus consolidating a new position that extends its power to the Mediterranean through Syria and Lebanon.

During the World Without America conference, several speakers speculated that Obama would show “understanding of Muslim grievances” with regard to Palestine. Ahmadinejad hopes to persuade a future President Obama to adopt the “Iranian solution for Palestine,” which aims at creating a single state in which Jews would quickly become a minority.

Judging by anecdotal evidence and the buzz among Iranian bloggers, while the ruling Khomeinists favor Obama, the mass of Iranians regard (and dislike) the Democrat candidate as an appeaser of the mullahs. Iran, along with Israel, is the only country in the Middle East where the United States remains popular. An Obama presidency, perceived as friendly to the oppressive regime in Tehran, may change that.

(LINK to Forbes.com Amir Taheri is the author of 10 books on Iran, the Middle East and Islam. His new book The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution will be published by Encounter Books in November.)

The real reason Iran isn't happy with the election of Obama is two facts.



1. Obama's father was a Muslim

2. Obama is a practicing Christian


In Islam this is called being an "Apostate" and it is considered the WORST POSSIBLE CRIME any man can commit...


To give you an idea how upset this makes Iranians

1.Its a felony to talk to an Apostate in Iran.

2.Iran reserves the right to summarily execute any Iranian who becomes an Apostate...even if the person moves to another country first.

3.Apostates cannot be buried in Iran.

4.Apostates from other countries are not allowed to speak to Iranian authorities...EVER.


(So much for Obama's plan for "Face to face" talks with the Iranian President)

"...An Iranian politician quoted by Reuters said the statement seems to have been timed with the election victory of Barack Obama, suggesting they are "not very happy".

This is because Iran's hardline leaders thrive on confrontation with the US, correspondents say, and Mr Obama has spoken about the possibility of opening direct political dialogue with Tehran.

"This is a clear message to the American president-elect because radicals are not very happy that Obama has been elected," the politician is quoted saying, speaking anonymously. ..."

We see words like "seems" and "suggesting" and "possibility." ANONYMOUSLY gets used, as well.

The little article doesn't have a by-line and it's listed under "One Minute World News."

I think someone's attempting to

HOPE! CHANGE! YES WE CAN!!!!

Bush can still vaporize them until January.

Reuters is stirring the shit? Whatever for?

Before we can deal with the radical corrptors, evils, liars and propagandists over there, maybe we had first deal with the ones taking over the U.S , our government and our currency system and NOW our military.

So they aren't here, because we are over there, even though we aren't over there?

That's why we gotta kill all them brown skins over there, so there's nobody left alive to come over here and get revenge.

And we gotta kill em NOW, before that brown skin takes over the House of White and mucks everything up.