Iran is on 'explosive' path in Middle East

[24107]

Iran is on an "explosive" course in the Middle East with its pursuit of nuclear enrichment and needs to clear up questions surrounding its program, Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal said on Thursday.

Prince Turki, a former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to the United States, said Washington should not take military steps against Iran's nuclear program to reassure Israelis over the peace process with Palestinians.

"No one denies that a nuclear Iran is a major international danger, but claiming that the U.S. must take military action against Iran to push forward the Israeli-Palestine peace process is to attempt to harvest apples by cutting down the tree," he said.

Saudi prince: Iran is on 'explosive' path in Middle East - Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News

 

[24107]

Kind of odd for him to say that considering his country just bought 60 billion dollars worth of arms.

 

[ecofarm]

Free Iran, before it is too late. Do we want a North Korea (with oil)? The Saudi's plea to not take military action for one reason is tacit approval of such action for other reasons.

 

[kaya'08]

Kind of odd for him to say that considering his country just bought 60 billion dollars worth of arms.

Am i missing something? SA didn't say military action against Iran should not take place. The Prince makes it clear that military action should not take place as a condition for helping the Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Anyway what does declaring war against Iran have to do with any of that? Not too sure i understand what the Prince is getting at.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

Free Iran, before it is too late. Do we want a North Korea (with oil)? The Saudi's plea to not take military action for one reason is tacit approval of such action for other reasons.

Iran is already free. If Iranians want political reform they can do it themselves without US intervention. Iran is not Iraq or NK.

 

[digsbe]

Iran is already free. If Iranians want political reform they can do it themselves without US intervention. Iran is not Iraq or NK.

Did you not see how Iran dealt with protestors of Ahmedinejad's government during their elections? Iran is run by an Islamic theocrat who's word is final. Iranians aren't free.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

Did you not see how Iran dealt with protestors of Ahmedinejad's government during their elections? Iran is run by an Islamic theocrat who's word is final. Iranians aren't free.

Digsbe, Iran was having internal strife. Not any different then what France is currently seeing with its protestors and what US sees with tea party. The Mullahs were in a fight for power and the loser lost. He still is a Mullah however so how can he really have lost anything?

Now freedom is pretty subjective. We have all come to terms on how our society that we are born define freedom.

 

[digsbe]

Digsbe, Iran was having internal strife. Not any different then what France is currently seeing with its protestors and what US sees with tea party. The Mullahs were in a fight for power and the loser lost. He still is a Mullah however so how can he really have lost anything?

Now freedom is pretty subjective. We have all come to terms on how our society that we are born define freedom.

No, Iran was having a political revolution that was silenced. The Mullah is not up for election. Ayatollah Khomeini is not up for election. He is the grand ruler of Iran's theocratic regime. The people can elect a president who is under the power of the Ayatollah. They people wanted a more moderate leader, and those protestors were thrown in jail and shot by police. The Ayatollah pull the strings in that country. Iranians are not free. Religious freedom and speech are tightly controlled, and many "crimes" are worthy of the death penalty. Women are 2nd class citizens and are subject to a special set of rules.

 

[Gray_Fox_86]

No, Iran was having a political revolution that was silenced. The Mullah is not up for election. Ayatollah Khomeini is not up for election. He is the grand ruler of Iran's theocratic regime. The people can elect a president who is under the power of the Ayatollah. They people wanted a more moderate leader, and those protestors were thrown in jail and shot by police. The Ayatollah pull the strings in that country. Iranians are not free. Religious freedom and speech are tightly controlled, and many "crimes" are worthy of the death penalty. Women are 2nd class citizens and are subject to a special set of rules.

But can the people buy food freely and shop whereever they can afford to? Yes. That in itself is a freedom and an essential freedom towards having a populace happy. While the Ayatollah Khomeini is not an elected offical the position where Ahjedmejab(not correct, obviously) is. And the Mullah that won out was Ahjedmejab and not the other one. There were not as many people out protesting as mainstream media made it out to be. Open your eyes to the truth and don't be shock. Most Iranians are content with what they have now. If the movement was the strength that western media made it out to be. Then where are the protestors now? Surely if they were shot and jailed in the number that the media made it out to be. The parents of those arrested and killed would be out protesting and starting trouble which is something the government would not want. And if that did happen then there would be change. But time has shown that the unrest was only temporary and now things are back to status quo.

 

[kaya'08]

How do you suggest Iranians are "freed"?

 

[Mira]

No, Iran was having a political revolution that was silenced. The Mullah is not up for election. Ayatollah Khomeini is not up for election. He is the grand ruler of Iran's theocratic regime. The people can elect a president who is under the power of the Ayatollah. They people wanted a more moderate leader, and those protestors were thrown in jail and shot by police. The Ayatollah pull the strings in that country. Iranians are not free. Religious freedom and speech are tightly controlled, and many "crimes" are worthy of the death penalty. Women are 2nd class citizens and are subject to a special set of rules.

gentle reminder

Ayatollah Khomeini has been dead since 1989, he cannot be up for election.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

No, Iran was having a political revolution that was silenced.

Actually it was quite a minority of Iranians.

The Mullah is not up for election. Ayatollah Khomeini is not up for election. He is the grand ruler of Iran's theocratic regime. The people can elect a president who is under the power of the Ayatollah.

Idk most actually support their government.

They people wanted a more moderate leader, and those protestors were thrown in jail and shot by police.

Many did, vast majority support their current government according to the better polling resources out there.

The Ayatollah pull the strings in that country. Iranians are not free. Religious freedom and speech are tightly controlled, and many "crimes" are worthy of the death penalty.Women are 2nd class citizens and are subject to a special set of rules.

At the same time not good.

 

[kaya'08]

gentle reminder

Ayatollah Khomeini has been dead since 1989, he cannot be up for election.

In all fairness to the guy, he meant Ali Khamenei, the Azeri Ayatollah.

 

[Mira]

In all fairness to the guy, he meant Ali Khamenei, the Azeri Ayatollah.

I think some things are getting mixed up. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but Khamenai is the supreme leader who is always assigned.

He WAS elected as president of the Republic at some point (can't be arsed to check the dates)

Anyway, sorry to interrupt, please carry on.

 

[MKULTRABOY]

Where the ayatollahs placed by a representative process or some democratic process limited to clergy and the religious establishment?