SEARCH RESULTS

VIDEO

(2:46)
February 12, 2010
(3:33)
February 10, 2010
(2:57)
December 12, 2009
(2:32)
October 7, 2009

SEARCH RESULTS

DISCUSSION

No PhotoRosa Sow
February 21, 2010
06:29 PM
Zakaria makes a realistic point. the U.S. has spent years trying to put out the decentralized guerilla flames of jihadist terrorists. It is far easier to negotiate with a highly centralized dictatorship. It's getting harder to dispute that that is indeed what Iran is quickly becoming.  View
Claire HananClaire Hanan
February 22, 2010
09:33 AM
I agree with you, Rosa. A government, dictatorship or not, would be easier to deal with. Second, I agree with the Iranian uranium specialist who said that the West is going to think what it wants, and truly, how can anyone know for certain what Iran's intentions are?  View
Connor ColeConnor Cole
February 11, 2010
09:57 AM
I'm not advocating war, but international sanctions have done nothing. Since we've been committed to Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran and North Korea have grown stronger.  View
IndigoIndigo
February 8, 2010
03:02 PM
There's so much politics behind this it's ridiculous. Interestingly, Russia seems to be reacting rather similarly (politically, if not militarily) to how the US reacted when Iran insisted its own weapons developments were intended for peace-keeping.  View
OstroffOstroff
December 30, 2009
12:24 PM
Yeah Leiberman, because pre-emption has worked so well for us in the past. I thought the CNN commentary was dead on, terrorism is a symptom of a greater disease. The strategy of playing Saudi Arabia against Iran is interesting, it sounds like a conspiracy theory on face but it would be a good tactic.  View
robotsoulrobotsoul
December 29, 2009
09:12 AM
I love the timeline segment in this story. It highlights the extent to which Montezeri's death catalyzed this rash of violence. The Times Online is right about this being a different kind of proletariat movement, but I don't think change will come to Iran any time soon. It will most likely be the result of concentrated political action not violent protest.  View
robotsoulrobotsoul
December 29, 2009
12:46 PM
I gotta disagree, history is on the side of revolution in Iran, the last major social movement in the country was successful in the short-term. Granted, the revolutionaries of that era became the oppressors in the current era. But the demographics of the region point toward a see change, and state unwillingness to honor traditional mores during Aeshura has angered even conservatives.  View
No Photo
December 14, 2009
11:47 AM
We shouldn't give Iran an excuse to get angry and take it out on their people and neighboring countries. The fact that they are so close are scary, I think this is another one of Bush's failures that aren't prominent as the rest.  View
robotsoulrobotsoul
December 14, 2009
01:14 PM
I think The Nation underestimates the effect economic consequences have on a social level in Iran. One of the central reasons for the rise in opposition to Ahmadinejad during the election this summer was directly related to his gross mishandling of the economy. What became the hint of a social revolution essentially started as a bread riot.  View
No Photo
November 27, 2009
01:53 AM
nuke the scum--------or take em out -in a good way for the earth mmmmmmmm-----screw it --nuke em --------and iran and a few others like the perverted child kidnappin saudis ---ooooooooooo---not suppose to say that--------its ok to deal drugs and rape and kid nap women----huh ?? cause were fuckin rag heads get this through your fuckin heads if it smells bad -looks bad -----does bad shit----its bad no how much money they greese the busches and obammas with nuke em  View

SEARCH RESULTS

STORIES

There currently are no stories on this topic.

Newsy