Middle East News
Iran welcomes Obama victory, warns US forces (Roundup)
Nov 5, 2008, 15:43 GMT
Tehran - Iranian officials on Wednesday welcomed Barack Obama's victory in US presidential elections, calling it a sign of failure of President George W Bush's policies and Americans' demand for essential changes.
'Obama's election as the US president shows the American people's demand for essential changes in the country's domestic and foreign policies,' Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki was quoted as saying by the official news agency IRNA, while urging the new administration 'to distance itself from the wrong approaches of current politicians.'
As the first reaction by an Iranian official earlier on Wednesday, Gholam-Ali Hadad-Adel - senior advisor to Iran's supreme leader - said the victory of the slogan of 'change' is the admission of the American people to the failure of Bush's policies.
'The next US president should abandon the course taken by President Bush and the American people have to change their policies in order to get rid of the quagmire that he created for them,' former parliament speaker Hadad-Adel was quoted as saying by Iranian media.
The reactions to the US elections came after a harshly worded statement issued earlier this morning by Iran's military, warning American forces in Iraq that it would strongly respond to any violation of Iranian airspace.
'American military helicopters were recently flying in short distances from Iraq's joint borders with Iran and while the borders are not straight there would be the possibility of violating Iran's airspace,' Iran's army headquarters said in a statement carried by IRNA.
'So Iranian armed forces would strongly respond in case of any violations,' said the statement.
Washington, which has no diplomatic ties with Tehran, accuses Iran of fuelling an insurgency in Iraq by equipping and training militants and also has accused Tehran of seeking nuclear weapons.
Tehran denies the charges saying instability in Iraq is due to the presence of the American military and says that its nuclear programme is peaceful and aimed at generating electricity.
Observers believe that although Iranian leaders prefer Obama as the next US president they are aware that there would be no major change in Washington's policies towards the Islamic Republic and the army's statement was a clear message to the new US president about Iran's vigilance.
'The Islamic republic (of Iran) needs to keep its enmity with America, so you will witness the same stance towards the US as before, but probably with a softer rhetoric if they see the same rhetoric from the new American administration,' one political analyst told Deutsche Presse-Agentur dpa under the condition of anonymity.
'This could be the best opportunity for Tehran to ease the tensions with Washington but through a moderate (Iranian ) administration, not the current radical one headed by President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad,' said the analyst.
COMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Middle East
- 1. Jerusalem prelate tells Arab Spring youth to have confidence
- 2. More than 100 killed in Syria ahead of ceasefire deadline
- 3. At least 43 killed in Syria, despite UN criticism
- 4. 19 killed in Syria as ceasefire deadline approaches
- 5. Pilgrims flock to Jerusalem for Easter, Passover
Older Talkback
page: 1
Thank you, Justin! You've articulated what a great many of us are feeling but are too stranded in the moment to express coherently.
Sonno joi!
(We ARE winning in Iraq) nope that is wrong.
(People are better off there and they have many more freedoms than they ever did) nope, completely wrong, 2 million dead due to war and occupation, 4 million refugess, 8 million homeless with out food or water guranteed on a daily basis, jobless rate at 70% and so on and on, all in a country of 27 million pre invasion, unknown current.
(What about Al-Qaeda? Will we start to negotiate with them as well? I'm sure (please, don't take this the wrong way) they support Obama because his administration will make it easier to operate in and outside the US.)
Mccain along with REGAN did infact fund and gave weapons to the people of Bin Laden while fighting the russians in agfanistan, i cannot tell you what they think of Obama , but im sure they are very thankfull to Mccain and Bush and REGAN.
To the person who replied to me:
I suppose you know what it's like in Iraq or Afghanistan, don't you? I'm sure you've been there and know what you are talking about, right? Wait, I'll bet you don't. I speak from experience, you speak from what you see on the news. You make me sick, as well as the rest of the media that wants us to fail so badly in that part of the world. For more than two years I spoke to the Iraqi people for 8 to 10 hours a day. Do you have that? No. Shut your mouth, never again spread your opinion.
As far as Al Qaeda being supporters of Bush and McCain? Who did Bin Laden publically support when Bush ran against Kerry in 2004? As for funding Al Qaeda when they fought the Russians, believe me the irony is not lost on me that we did the same things Iran, Syria, and Saudia Arabia are doing and we call them out of control. I also find it funny that the easiest way for us to prove that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction (chemical) is that we could probably produce receipts from when he bought them from us when he was fighting Iran and subsequently used them on the Kurds.
In short, please reply and give yourself a name so I know what to call you when I ask my Lord and Savior (no, not Barack Obama) to kindly remove your tongue so that you cannot spread your one-sided propaganda. I thank you.
We DO need to think about the U.S. and the poor economics that is ruining this country. The battles in the Middle East can't always take priority in our government's thinking nor in the vast amounts of money spent there.
Invading Iraq WAS a bad idea, and the Iraqi people want the U.S. out of there. It's past time for them to take charge and use their own money to brebuild their country. The majority of the voters spoke and spoke loudly, and we need to stand behind that decision. Continuing on the usual attack mode on this site to anyone who differs in their opinion still reeks of Republican.
Invading Ira was illegal,no such thing as preemptive war is justifiable .As such perhaps all battles in Iraq might end but an unjust war,involving millions of refugees,then thousands or more Iraqis killed,the economy destroyed,mercenaries from Blackwater operating with complete impunity mean there is no victory as such,there is just a lucky outcome of a tragic mistake.At the cost of 1 trillion dollars.Anybody calling this crime a victory is out of his head.
By the way Iran has every right to support the insurgents,it is Bush who invaded ,right?
In 1984, Donald Rumsfeld was in a position to draw the world's attention to Saddam's chemical threat. He was in Baghdad as the UN concluded that chemical weapons had been used against Iran. He was armed with a fresh communication from the State Department that it had 'available evidence' Iraq was using chemical weapons. But Rumsfeld said nothing.
He was too busy kissing Hussein's ass.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTldYbqlJc8
can anybody explain these images?
Tonny from Belgium: Why do you have an opinion of world affairs? What does your country contribute to world security? Wait....nothing. Once your country contributes in a meaningful way to the UN you can talk. Until then kindly keep your opinion inside your crap country.
I speak from real exprerience, my father works there and ive been there many times so its best that you switch off your FOX NEWS, and go see some professional to help you with your brainwashed NAZI STYLE PROPAGANDA.
There are mass graves there more than there are hospitals and public service buildings, every family has lost at least one person and most of the times far more to the war related poverty, violence and so on....
page: 1
JustinNov 5th, 2008 - 16:16:49
What does this tell us when one of the most radical nations in the world supports our president? When the goals of America and the goals of this nation do not parallel each other (i.e. the acquisition of nuclear weapons for a nation that is obviously our enemy and destruction of Israel), how do we feel good about the election?
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not looking to be called a racist or ignorant in this forum (which seems to happen every time you support any of Bush's policies), I'm look for an educated outside opinion. I will tell you this as I know from first-hand experience: We ARE winning in Iraq and Iran IS supporting the insurgency. The reasons for going to Iraq I do not support, so don't sharpshoot me on that one either. But good or bad, we ARE helping. People are better off there and they have many more freedoms than they ever did. However, Iraq is still weak in it's security and need or presence to stabilize. Iran is working directly against that.
Bush=Bad. Got it. But if Bush=Bad, how does that mean Obama=Good? Because he has said he will meet with any world leader without preconditions? That makes no sense. Does that mean he will be meeting with whoever the president of Burma happens to be this week, adding legitimacy to their claim to power? How about if there is a violent revolt in some nation and they name someone their 'president'? What about Kim Jung Il? Will our president work with him to aid his impoverished, suffering nation in order to strengthen his psychopathic way of rule? I hope not.
What about Al-Qaeda? Will we start to negotiate with them as well? I'm sure (please, don't take this the wrong way) they support Obama because his administration will make it easier to operate in and outside the US.
I'm not saying McCain was the answer, I just think that we need to seriously re-evaluate the people we put on the ballots. It seems like every year it's the special olympics of politics and we all get worked up and pissed off at each other, when ignorant and biased bottom-feeders like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and everyone at CNN and the New York Times (and almost every publication that has a political agenda, because they all do) add fuel to the fire an keep us distracted from the fact that we are forced to vote for people who are not the most qualified person for the job.
The president of the United States should be the MOST qualified person in the country to do the job. Can anyone HONESTLY say it is Obama? Or that we have ever really had that person in charge?
I understand also, that foreign policy was not the big issue, economics were the big issue. My problem with both sides of this election were the housing crisis discussions. BOTH candidates and their VP nominations blamed the real estate businesses and loan officers for giving Americans too much financial freedom in choosing too expensive of a home and now we are all expected to bail them out? The housing crisis is EVERYONE'S fault if you bought a house and could not make payments at some point. It is not my responsibility to help bail you out because you made poor financial decisions. I'm not rich by any means, I'm as middle class as they get....none of our candidates were honest in what they could/would do for us.
Sorry to everyone who reads this that it's a jumbled mess, just looking for someone else's opinion. Good luck to Obama, I support him because I'm an American and even if I don't like the outcome it's my responsibility to believe in the system that made our country the great nation it is.
One last thing, if you aren't an American, don't reply to what I'm saying. Honestly, stay out of our politics. Most other countries don't like the US or you all have this illogical notion that Obama will fix everything and 'bring us back into the world community'. What is good for us isn't always good for you, and I'm an American so I want what's best for my country, not yours.
Report this comment