{"id":9122,"date":"2011-02-03T18:47:17","date_gmt":"2011-02-04T02:47:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/?p=9122"},"modified":"2011-02-03T18:47:17","modified_gmt":"2011-02-04T02:47:17","slug":"thursday-iran-talking-points-23","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/2011\/02\/03\/thursday-iran-talking-points-23\/","title":{"rendered":"Thursday Iran Talking Points"},"content":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog<\/a>: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for February 3rd, 2011:<\/em><\/p>\n

National Review Online<\/a><\/em>: Foreign Policy Initiative<\/a> Executive Director Jamie M. Fly<\/a> opines that the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood taking control in Egypt is concerning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153but the solution is not for conservatives to cling to the supposed stability represented by Mubarak.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d He argues that Mubarak\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s presidency is \u00e2\u20ac\u0153finished\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153As long as chaos and uncertainty reign, the more likely it will be that extremist elements in the Muslim Brotherhood or elsewhere take advantage of the situation, just as the Islamists did during Iran\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s drawn-out revolution in 1978\u00e2\u20ac\u201c79.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The New York Times<\/a><\/em>: Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a fellow at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute<\/a>, writes that she knows the Muslim Brotherhood from her experience in a 2002 political campaign, on behalf of the conservative party, in the Netherlands. She repeats the oft-used Islamophobic meme that the Brotherhood, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153argue[s] for taqiyyah, a strategy to collaborate with your enemies until the time is ripe to defeat them or convert them to Islam.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d Hirsi Ali warns that secular democrats in Egypt must explain to the Egyptian people why a \u00e2\u20ac\u0153Shariah-based government\u00e2\u20ac\u009d would be a disaster but, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153unlike the Iranians in 1979, the Egyptians have before them the example of a people who opted for Shariah \u00e2\u20ac\u201d the Iranians \u00e2\u20ac\u201d and have lived to regret it.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d She concludes, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153The 2009 \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcgreen movement\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 in Iran was a not a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcno\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to a strongman, but a \u00e2\u20ac\u02dcno\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 to Shariah.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d and \u00e2\u20ac\u0153ElBaradei and his supporters must make clear that a Shariah-based regime is repressive at home and aggressive abroad.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n

The Weekly Standard<\/a><\/em>: Thomas Donnelly<\/a>, another fellow at the American Enterprise Institute<\/a>, writes about the comparison of the fall of Hosni Mubarak with the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. He writes, \u00e2\u20ac\u0153It is one thing to acknowledge that we cannot determine or dictate the outcome of the changes coming to the greater Middle East, quite another to act as though we don\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t care enough to continue to exert a shaping influence,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d calling on Obama to assert greater support for the protesters and to not cut the Pentagon budget. \u00e2\u20ac\u0153In sum, at the moment when the movement to create a new order in the region is accelerating \u00e2\u20ac\u201c and who can seriously think that the likelihood of violence is diminishing, will be self-regulating, or can be met only with \u00e2\u20ac\u2122soft power?\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the United States appears to be backing away,\u00e2\u20ac\u009d says Donnelly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for February 3rd, 2011: National Review Online: Foreign Policy Initiative Executive Director Jamie M. Fly opines that the possibility of the Muslim Brotherhood taking control in Egypt is concerning \u00e2\u20ac\u0153but the solution is not for conservatives to cling to the supposed stability represented by Mubarak.\u00e2\u20ac\u009d He […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":71,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"","_seopress_titles_title":"","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"coauthors":[],"class_list":["post-9122","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"meta_box":{"disable_donate_message":"","custom_donate_message":"","subtitle":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9122","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/71"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9122"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9122\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9123,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9122\/revisions\/9123"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9122"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9122"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9122"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.antiwar.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=9122"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}