Iran. Quale futuro.

[hiram]

A differenza dell'Iraq vi sono grossi gruppi oppositori iraniani all'estero.
Questo fa ben sperare che vi sia un gruppo (possibilmente laico e democratico) che possa assumere la guida del paese.

[Zdenek]

Bush: "In iraq vinceremo". Poi accusa l'Iran
"Vorrei dirvi che la battaglia è vinta ma non posso, ci aspettano ancora caos e carneficine nei prossimi mesi, ma vinceremo".
Il presidente degli Stati Uniti, George W. Bush, ammette che la campagna militare in Iraq e ancora difficile e che vi saranno altri "momenti difficili" e molto "duro lavoro" da fare.
Poi, però, l'inquilino della Casa Bianca assicura che vi sono "segnali di un futuro di speranza": "L'obiettivo della missione è combattere il terrorismo e battersi per l'espansione della democrazia - ha affermato - l'obiettivo della missione è la vittoria. Non perderemo la determinazione. Vinceremo, completeremo la missione".
Il numero uno della Amministrazione repubblicana ha quindi puntato il dito contro il regime di Teheran, reo di sostenere i ribelli che combattono in Iraq.
"Alcuni degli ordigni artigianali che vediamo oggi in Iraq comprendono parti che vengono dall'Iran - ha spiegato - le forze della coalizione hanno sequestrato molte componenti artigianali che sono chiaramente prodotte in Iran. L'America continuerà a sollecitare il mondo a essere unito per affrontare le minacce che vengono dall'Iran".

--------------------
Il cowboy continua a soffiare sul fuoco...

[beppe2]

Anche l'Iraq veniva spacciato per potenza militare.
Poi si sciolse al sole la sua armata:meglio prigionieri di guerra (ma nutriti) degli USA, che schiavi denutriti di Saddam.

.

Siamo sicuri che oggi siano più "nutriti" che ai tempi di Saddam?

[stuart mill]

già io sono contrario all'intervento militare: se però si dotassero VERAMENTE (cioè non come saddam) si potrebbe far rapire/uccidere il nazista che guida l'iran. Questo eviterebbe un massacrom, ma andrebbe fatto dopo aver esaurito tutte le opzioni.

[Zdenek]

Powerful Voices Within Tehran Criticize Iran's Nuclear Policy

By MICHAEL SLACKMAN Published: March 15, 2006
(The New York Times)

TEHRAN, March 14 — Just weeks ago, the Iranian government's combative approach toward building a nuclear program produced rare public displays of unity here. Now, while the top leaders remain resolute in their course, cracks are opening both inside and outside the circles of power over the issue.

Some people in powerful positions have begun to insist that the confrontational tactics of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been backfiring, making it harder instead of easier for Iran to develop a nuclear program. This week, the United Nations Security Council is meeting to take up the Iranian nuclear program. That referral and, perhaps more important, Iran's inability so far to win Russia's unequivocal support for its plans have empowered critics of Mr. Ahmadinejad, according to political analysts with close ties to the government.
One senior Iranian official, who asked to remain anonymous because of the delicate nature of the issue, said: "I tell you, if what they were doing was working, we would say, 'Good.' " But, he added: "For 27 years after the revolution, America wanted to get Iran to the Security Council and America failed. In less than six months, Ahmadinejad did that."
One month ago, the same official had said with a laugh that those who thought the hard-line approach was a bad choice were staying silent because it appeared to be succeeding.
As usual in Iran, there are mixed signals, and the government does not always speak with the same voice.
On Tuesday, both Mr. Ahmadinejad and the nation's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, insisted in public speeches that their country would never back down. At the same time, Iranian negotiators arrived in Moscow to resume talks — at Iran's request — just days after Iran had rejected a Russian proposal to resolve the standoff.
Average Iranians do not seem uniformly confident at the prospect of being hit with United Nations sanctions.
From the streets of Tehran to the ski slopes outside the city, some people have begun to joke about the catch phrase of the government — flippantly saying, "Nuclear energy is our irrefutable right."
Reformers, whose political clout as a movement vanished after the last election, have also begun to speak out. And people with close ties to the government said high-ranking clerics had begun to give criticism of Iran's position to Ayatollah Khamenei, which the political elite sees as a seismic jolt.
"There has been no sign that they will back down," said Ahmad Zeidabady, a political analyst and journalist. "At least Mr. Khamenei has said nothing that we can interpret that there will be change in the policies."
But, he said, "There is more criticism as it is becoming more clear that this policy is not working, especially by those who were in the previous negotiating team."
There are also signs that negotiators are starting to back away, however slightly, from a bare-knuckle strategy and that those who had initially opposed the president's style — but remained silent — are beginning to feel vindicated and are starting to speak up.
A former president, Mohammad Khatami, recently publicly criticized the aggressive approach and called a return to his government's strategy of confidence-building with the west.
"The previous team now feels they were vindicated," said Nasser Hadian, a political science professor at Tehran University who is close to many members of the government. "The new team feels they have to justify their actions."
Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the final say, issued a strong defense of Iran's position on Tuesday.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran considers retreat over the nuclear issue, which is the demand of the Iranian people, as breaking the country's independence that will impose huge costs on the Iranian nation," he said.
"Peaceful use of nuclear technology is a must and is necessary for scientific growth in all fields," Ayatollah Khamenei said. "Any kind of retreat will bring a series of pressures and retreats. So, this is an irreversible path and our foreign diplomacy should defend this right courageously."
In a speech in northern Iran, Mr. Ahmadinejad called on the people to "be angry" at the pressure being put on Iran.
"Listen well," the president said to a crowd chanting "die" as they punched the air with their fists. "A nuclear program is our irrefutable right."
When Mr. Ahmadinejad took office, he embraced a decision already made by the top leadership to move toward confrontation with the West about the nuclear program. From the sidelines, Mr. Ahmadinejad's opponents remained largely silent as his political capital grew.
Iran's ability to begin uranium enrichment, and to remove the seals in January at least three nuclear facilities without any immediate consequences, was initially seen as a validation of the get-tough approach.
But one political scientist who speaks regularly with members of the Foreign Ministry said that Iran had hinged much of its strategy on winning Russia's support. The political scientist asked not to be identified so as not to compromise his relationship with people in the government.
The political scientist said some negotiators believed that by being hostile to the West they would be able to entice Moscow into making Tehran its stronghold in the Middle East. "They thought the turn east was the way forward," the person said. "That was a belief and a vision."
The person added, "They thought, 99 percent, Russia would seize the opportunity and back the Iranian leaders."
The route forward remains unclear as Iran tries to regain a sense of momentum.
There is a consensus here that Iran has many cards to play — from its influence with the Shiites in Iraq to its closer ties to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to the prospect of using oil as a weapon. But the uncertainty of appearing before the Security Council, and the prospect of sanctions, has led some here to begin to rethink the wisdom of fighting the West head-on, analysts said.
Professor Hadian said he believed that for Iran to fundamentally change course the situation for Iran would have to first grow much worse.
"There are concerns to keep the situation calm," said Mr. Zeidabady, the journalist. "We have received orders not even to have headlines saying the case has been sent to the Security Council. Although the situation is very critical, they want to pretend that everything is normal. They do not want to show the country is coming under pressure and lose their supporters."
Nazila Fathi contributed reporting for this article.



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



Ancora buone notizie per una soluzione pacifica.
Mi auguro che si continui così.

[Zdenek]

Gli Usa: "Serve un'azione diplomatica
non escludiamo scontro con l'Iran"


WASHINGTON - L'Iran è la prima sfida: lo ribadiscono gli Usa in un nuovo documento strategico sulla sicurezza nazionale. "Per evitare uno scontro con l'Iran", gli Usa chiedono uno sforzo diplomatico internazionale per dissuadere Teheran dalle sue ambizioni nucleari. "Non abbiamo sfide maggiori da un singolo paese di quelle che pone l'Iran", si osserva nel testo, che parla anche dei problemi posti alla sicurezza nazionale degli Stati Uniti dalla situazione in Iraq, dal Medio Oriente, dalla Russia e dalla Cina.

Il documento, 49 pagine, riafferma la dottrina dell'amministrazione Bush che contempla possibili attacchi preventivi contro terroristi e "paesi ostili", nonostante il sostanziale fallimento della missione in Iraq. "Non escludiamo l'uso della forza prima che un attacco del nemico possa avvenire, anche se ci fosse incertezza sulla data e il luogo dell'attacco stesso.


Gli Usa tracciano una linea di demarcazione tra il regime degli ayatollah e il popolo iraniano. "La nostra strategia è bloccare le minacce poste dal regime e allo stesso tempo estendere il nostro impegno e raggiungere la gente oppressa".

--------------------------
Attacchi preventivi come quelli in Iraq?
Cos'è restato delle strutture industriali?

"Condoleeza" ... ecco perché l'impiegato dell'anagrafe rinunciò
a chiamarla "Con Dolcezza".

[larth (POL)]

Siamo sicuri che oggi siano più "nutriti" che ai tempi di Saddam?

non solo PIU' " nutriti", ma anche PIU' " curati" ,PIU' " istruiti" PIU' " occupati " e PIU' " protetti" dal nuovo stato " democratico" ..:

...beh di sicuro PIU' " occupati" lo sono ..

[frontista]

Per l'Iran prevedo un futuro di morte e distruzione.
Ovviamente sempre a causa dei soliti, che siano maledetti!

[Ormriauga]

Anche l'Iraq veniva spacciato per potenza militare.
Poi si sciolse al sole la sua armata:meglio prigionieri di guerra (ma nutriti) degli USA, che schiavi denutriti di Saddam.

L'Iran ha spazi (magari solo apparenti, ma li ha) di pluralismo.
La popolazione sembra' piu' subire che condividere i preti.

"Sembra"? A chi sembra? Alla Bonino?

[Ormriauga]

A differenza dell'Iraq vi sono grossi gruppi oppositori iraniani all'estero.
Questo fa ben sperare che vi sia un gruppo (possibilmente laico e democratico) che possa assumere la guida del paese.

E quali sarebbero questi "grossi gruppi oppositori"? Ci sono i "mujaheedin del popolo"; e poi?
Senza contare che anche a loro stanno sulle palle gli americani ...