CNN and Talk of Regime Change in Iran?

phoenix80

phoenix80

Banned
I put this piece on my blog and thought I should share it with people here

A few hours ago, Mr. Ken Adelman was on " CNN's The Situation Room" talking about Iran and the possiblity of a democratic regime change in Iran like Poland.

I still can not believe I heard these stuff on CNN but I take it as a good sign and hope the rest of the American Media follow the Cable News Network!

I liked what he said and I wished MSM in the States could allocate 5 minutes of their daily schedules to the events of Iran through a fair point of view!

Let me put parts of his comments here:

http://thespiritofman.blogspot.com/2006/01/cnn-and-talk-of-regime-change-in-iran.html
 
I think I speak for most of the forum when I say we're incredibly lazy ;)

Could you post up a quick synopsis or maybe the best line or two for those of us who don't have the time to read the whole thing?
 
I figured the forum doesnt accept posts longer than 10K words and then i decided to link

BLITZER: The president also went on to say, as he often does, he says he hopes this can be resolved diplomatically, but he never takes any option off the table. But if you say, and a lot of other military experts say, that there really is no viable military option to deal with this issue, what is the incentive on the Iranians to stop their nuclear program?

ADELMAN: Well, because, Wolf, they have no legitimacy domestically, OK. Their last election was boycotted by a majority of Iranians. They have -- the people there hate the regime. It's corrupt. It's illegitimate in a fundamental sense. And to deprive them of legitimacy on the international scene would only complicate their problems.

Plus, they have the fear that there's going to be a regime change in Iran. And I hope there is a regime change in Iran. And then it can come about not by military action but that can come about by subverting the regime right there, using the methods of Martin Luther King to tell you the truth, civil disobedience, peaceful, nonviolent techniques.

BLITZER: Well, should the U.S. and its allies be engaged in covert action to try to result in this regime change?

ADELMAN: Sure, we should have been doing that for the last 30 years. And that's part of the spread of freedom the president talks about, but we haven't done enough on that.

BLITZER: So to encourage the dissidents in Iran right now to overthrow the regime.

ADELMAN: Absolutely.

BLITZER: And you think that is a doable option?

ADELMAN: Well, it's certainly doable to give them support, more support than we are doing. Whether they succeed or not, you just don't know, but one thing you can do is to model it after what you had in the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, what you've had in peaceful demonstrations around the world.

BLITZER: Well, I've heard, you know, that scenario, but the U.S. has been trying to do that in Cuba, for example, for decades unsuccessfully to get rid of Fidel Castro. North Korea, the U.S. has been trying to do that for decades to get rid of Kim Jong-il unsuccessfully. Yes, there was a successful end of the Cold War and all the change, the Democratic reforms in central and eastern Europe, but is Iran, in that model?

ADELMAN: No, Iran is a much more right model. It's more like Poland is at the outset of solidarity.

Why is that?

Because what we know is the majority of people in Iran, the vast majority, can't stand these corrupt and really awful repressive laws. And so you have the conditions, it's a far more educated population. It's a far more open population. It's a far more open country than others. So that you can really go in there and these kind of techniques that you had in Poland, and you in the Ukraine, and you had in Georgia. I mean, this is a proven technique. Now, it's not proven everywhere, and it doesn't work everywhere, but it's not going to work unless you help it.
 
The Cuban regime has repressive laws for the sake of preserving itself.

The Iranian regime has repressive laws for the sake of having repressive laws. :D

I hope there will be a regime change without US influence.
 
Eventhough the regime in Iran is "dubious" and their president ready for some therapy; I do have a remark.

In the story people talk about a regime change as going to the mall. In their opinion it is a wrong regime and it should be removed. Even hinting at this (in the media) is questionable. Wrong regime can be a biased classification. We think they are wrong let's remove them! I'm not protecting the Irian regime in this post, but I reckon it is a Draconian measure which should not be discussed on TV.
 
I argue the fact because I think it is wrong to talk about overthrowing regimes as evening entertainment. The more you talk about, the extremer the regime will get. I understand that some are wrong, but "wrong" can be relative.
I am a ferm believer in upholding international law and agreements. Publicly plotting a downfall somewhere is something I have a hard time with. I see a lot of evil and nothing is done about it. Be straight and consequent, and plotting isn't either one of them. (It is a opinion and I know that this does happen around the world... I just don't like it.)
 
international laws are constantly being abused by Mullahs and dictators so i have lost my respect for the laws a long time ago
 
What is the opinion of the Iranian Armed Forces of the current regime? If there is a large amount of hatred for the current regime in the military the overthrowing the government without foreign military intervention should be, not easy, but easier than if the military supports the government. If the military views the current regime as being "wrong" then it should only take a few enterprising officers to overthrow it because once one person makes that fateful first step another should and another and another. Much like the collapse of the Soviet Union, if you kick out on leg of the tri-pod the whole thing comes down.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top