Posted by
on Friday, February 09, 2007 2:51:56 PM
I came online to check e-mail. (We're waiting to see what our editor says about our newest column.) Instead of simply getting offline at this point, I went wandering in traffic. Imagine my surprise in seeing this on Hot Air's site. (Not because I'm putting Allah and the guys down over there today. They covered the news. But had it not for a simple, random jump, Marcie wouldn't have even noticed Rusty's post today. What piqued my interest was where Allah took me next:
Meanwhile, the LA Times has the latest on the growing unhappiness with Ahmadinejad in Iran. Money grafs:
Analysts here say it is significant that Khamenei, who has been a strong supporter of the nuclear program, has not silenced Ahmadinejad’s critics.
Indeed, Jamhouri Eslami, a newspaper once owned by Khamenei that often reflects his views, has voiced its own criticism of the president.
“Turning the nuclear issue into a propaganda slogan gives the impression that you, for the sake of covering up flaws in the government, are exaggerating its importance. This is harmful for you and your government,” the paper said in an editorial last month.
It remains unknown whether Khamenei will try to rein in public dissent.
Obviously Khamenei would want to distance himself if Ahmadinejad really is that unpopular. But how about this theory — that by allowing criticism of Ahmadinejad, Khamenei’s trying to make the regime look weak in order to discourage an attack on the country for the reasons I explained here? Too clever by half? Maybe, but not even western intel seems to know what’s going on in Iran. Why should I?
Why should he? Because it's very plausible. Knowing what they do know about this administration, Iran isn't willing to roll the dice. They saw how quickly we ripped through Saddam's forces--one of the largest in the region according to military experts prior to our invasion. They saw how we handled al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan. They know we have the ability to remove them from the face of the planet.
for them, it would be best to project dissent and disatisfaction in Iran towards Ahmadinejad. I know it sounds like a long-shot. But if our leaders see something like that, there will be less desire to support the dissident movement in Iran. A false assumption on their part, believing that the dissidents are really causing problems. I know they're a nuisance to Ahmadinejad, but I don't think there is any serious threat to his life or reign as president. I dopn't buy it because it just smells fishy.
Call it a gut instinct, and rarely is it wrong.
There is pressure mounting on Iran from our allies in in the West. His rhetoric over the last couple of days has not exactly been rosy. But with this report coming out, it paints a picture that ahmadinejad speaks for himself, and those who chose him cannot control him. If our leaders misjudge this, then this could be costly. I still believe that you can't trust them. With this report, and the one from Hot Air out there, we can't Iran for granted, and ease up an iota on them. Additionally, it makes the mullahs and clerics look less like a threat.
Remember, our enemy is allowed to lie to us, and they don't see it as a sin against them. Especially when you could lull your enemy into a false sense of security.
Publius II