Streams

Monday Morning in Iran

Monday, June 22, 2009

Fawaz Gerges, professor in Middle East and International Affairs at Sarah Lawrence College and author of Journey of the Jihadist: Inside Muslim Militancy and Azadeh Moaveni, journalist, essayist and author of Honeymoon in Tehran discuss the latest developments in Iran and the role young Tehranis are playing in the protests.

Guests:

Fawaz Gerges and Azadeh Moaveni

Comments [17]

Kamal from Jackson Heights, Queens

Obama's speech in Cairo emboldened the Islamists. Only reason why after 30 years you're finally seeing some revolt in Iran is the ECONOMY, stupid.

And some thanks go to American ingenuity, too for Twitter...

I don't think know if Obama should be more or less forceful right now with Iran - as long as he supports the anti-Mullah revolution.

Jun. 22 2009 04:43 PM
DAT from Nathan Straus Projects

USA government has a long history of
intervening in the internal affairs of
foreign nations, to protect the interest
of the USA.
Iran, is no exception.
As most people know, in 1953, the USA & UK
overthrew the democratically elected
government of Iran, because the USA/UK wanted
control of Iran's oil reserves.
The government of Iran, had the idea,
that Iran's oil should be used for the
benefit if the people of Iran, and not
for the benefit of USA Corporations.

I think, President Obama low key handling
of Iran is right on target.
Hopefully, our CIA is not involved,
again, in the unrest in Iran, trying to
destablize Iran.

President Obama has been right on the money,
when it comes to the ME, with respect
to Iran and in pressuring Israel to stop
building settlements on Palestinian land.

I didn't vote for President Barack Hussein Obama,I voted for Senator John Sydney McCain.

However,I am very happy with how Obama
handles things.

I'm glad Obama is President.

Jun. 22 2009 12:29 PM
HARRY from NIMBY

The idea that the demonstrators do not want the US to make strong statements is ridiculous. The Mullahs don't have to convince their supporters, and the "reformers", if that is what they are, wouldn't mind if the support by the US was explicit! Both guests' line of logic is bogus!
An Iranian friend told me that after the US invaded Iraq, Bush would have won an election in Iran! That is how strong a sense of freedom the Iranians have. Obama's tepid support is cowardly and does not reflect a moral rectitude. Of course this is what we have come to expect from his administration.

Jun. 22 2009 11:31 AM
Amy from Manhattan

The 1st caller (Sean, I think?) said that in 1979 Iranian youth supported putting the ayatollahs in power. But what I remember is that most of the students involved in the revolution were Marxists & that the alliance between them & the Shiite clerics, based on a common interest in overthrowing the Shah, was very strained. It was shored up by the students' (not the clerics', & not the government's, as George H. W. Bush said in the VP debate not that long after it happened) taking over the US embassy, even after they turned the hostages over to the government (which by then *was* the ayatollahs) just after Ronald Reagan was elected. The alliance didn't last long after the election, though, & many of those students had to flee the country.

I'm relying on my memory for most of this--historians certainly may dispute it, & I'd actually like to hear if I'm recalling any of it wrong. (Maybe on Follow-up Friday?)

Jun. 22 2009 11:24 AM
scnex from harlem

its the 'southern cross' a good christian would know this... haha...

Jun. 22 2009 11:18 AM
ted from manhattan

lindsey graham? haha speaking about civil rights? haha the senator from South carolina where a confederate flies at the state capital? haha. lindsey graham? haha.

Jun. 22 2009 10:31 AM
seth

Lindsey Graham, John McCain, and Eric Cantor are 100% wrong. They have no understanding of history or context. Obama needs to ignore and tune them out.

Jun. 22 2009 10:28 AM
James Case Leal from Greenpoint Brooklyn

what role does all this media attention play in polarizing Iranian posistions? Why were all eyes so focused on the Iranian election in the first place? Is it because of Bush era demonizing of the Iranian government.

I'd like to see more media coverage of the disenfranchised people of oppressive governments we (Americans) directly support and potentially have an enormous amount of non-military influence over (Saudi Arabia, Qatar, & Kuwait come to mind) rather than putting us (readers) in the awkward position of adding fuel to the fire and hardening an Iranian anti-American platform just because we are following our natural tendency to care.

Jun. 22 2009 10:26 AM
Robert from NYC

Linsey Graham usually is wrong...most of the time

Jun. 22 2009 10:21 AM
bob from huntington

the GOP hardliners who are accusing obama of not taking a strong enough position on iran apparently aren't sufficiently perceptive (or simply choose to willfully ignore) the effect his speech in cairo may already have had in fomenting some of the growing opposition to the iranian regime. do they think the timing of that statement, just days before the iranian elections, was a coincidence?
think again.

Jun. 22 2009 10:15 AM
Peter from Sunset Park

scnex,

Great points. I wonder what the Democratic White House and Congress will do for voter rights. So far, nothing.

Jun. 22 2009 10:14 AM
scnex from harlem

whether it is 3 million or a few thousand the ideals of the people have little to do with the governments that claim to sever them... it is not the role of government to adhere to the will of the people. it is clear that even in the states the notion of democracy is just that....

Jun. 22 2009 10:14 AM
mike

Just curious, but isn't it possible that they actually won the election?

Jun. 22 2009 10:13 AM
Steve from Manhattan

Who cares what Obama's Republican critics are saying? Given their track record over the eight years of Bush-Cheney, any foreign policy suggestion from that party should be immediately dismissed.
They have proven their incompetence repeatedly...

Jun. 22 2009 10:11 AM
Smokey from LES

To those who want Obama to be more forceful in condemning the election in Iran: How much would we have appreciated Iran stepping up to help us figure out the 2000 and 2004 elections here?

Jun. 22 2009 10:09 AM
scnex from harlem

how about the 16,000 votes as well as the support of the congressional black caucus when so called democracy had taken place in 2000... very few in this country can say much for the people of iran have much more restrictions and look how they support their ideals...

it is a shame that the people here care more about others sense of democracy than their own...

Jun. 22 2009 10:07 AM
Peter from Sunset Park

Hey Brian,

The government of Iran is beating and firing bullets at democracy protesters. The reports coming out of Iran are that Iranian police and troops appear to actually enjoy such brutality. But you haven’t asked the two big question yet on your show.

1. Is the Iranian government’s use of force disproportionate? Or does proportionality only apply to one country – Israel?

2. Where is the United Nations? Every time Israel is involved in conflict you have shows that always end up wondering about UN resolutions to stop the violence. When are you going to ask your guests about UN resolutions to protect Iranian people against the brutality of their own government? Or does the UN only matter when it comes to Israel?

In January, 2009 Professor Fawaz Gerges wrote in The Nation, “Once again, Israel and the Bush administration have handed the Iranian leadership a sweet victory.” However, it looks like the Bush policy of refusing to appease Iran has had the desired effect – the Iranian people are rising up against false democracy, brutality and a dictatorship. This is what the Bush administration always promised. Now, President Obama can sit back and have his people say that the President does not wish to interfere with the will of the Iranian people. Perhaps Professor Gerges will wish to finally give President Bush the credit he deserves for staying firm on Iran?

And lastly, for years Professor Gerges publicly said that Egypt and Jordan were a major reason for the existence of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Back in the mid and late nineties, Professor Gerges said numerous times that both Egypt and Jordan should give the Palestinians pieces of Egyptian and Jordanian land that border the future state of Palestine. Why has Professor Gerges stopped making this argument? Is it because Israel is so unpopular now that fair blame and fair solutions for all the parties involved is no longer necessary?

Jun. 22 2009 08:28 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.