Few Iranians see US favorably, despite Obama

[AllieBaba]

I seem to recall various and assorted assholes saying the world would love us if only we had Obama as president.

He's cringing all over them...and they still hate us.

Gosh, didn't see that coming...

Poll: Few Iranians see US favorably, despite Obama

"A rare poll of Iranians says that few of them have favorable opinions of the United States, a view that hasn't changed much from before the election of President Barack Obama.
The survey, taken last month, shows that 29 percent of Iranians view the U.S. positively. In February 2008, a similar poll of Iranians showed 34 percent with favorable views of the U.S."

 

[WillowTree]

ya think????

 

[Toro]

Iranians had a much more positive view of America before Bush.

Of course, pretty much everyone in the world did.

 

[Lycurgus]

I seriously doubt that his weak drooling and groveling will impress many abroad. If anything they will be waiting for feeding time, at Obama's expense!

God Bless the Obama Revolution!

 

[Agnapostate]

Not a very complete assessment, especially considering the likely victory of Mousavi.

Mousavi slams Ahmadinejad's Holocaust denial | Iran news | Jerusalem Post

Mousavi...said that Ahmadinejad's controversial international and domestic policies were a danger to Iran's future. He accused the president of driving the country towards a "dictatorship" and acting as if he owned the truth. "You think you are higher than all," he told Ahmadinejad.

A large part of the debate centered on foreign policy. Mousavi said that Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust had cost Iran much international standing. "Tell me, who are our friends in the region?" he asked the president. Mousavi said the country had became internationally isolated.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I seriously doubt that his weak drooling and groveling will impress many abroad. If anything they will be waiting for feeding time, at Obama's expense!

God Bless the Obama Revolution!

At first glance, foreign policy seems beyond our President. But allow me to inject the following analysis, and you can tell me what you think:
A complex man, our President. At times he seems childlike, at others Machiavellian, with a grasp of foreign policy well beyond his experience.

Playing global strategy like a chess board, he can focus like a laser on priorities.
The return of Jailed US-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi, and the disposition of the Somali pirates, two pluses.
But Kim Jong-Il fires missiles, the Iranian Mullahs reject his open hand, and the EU refuses his requests for help in Afghanistan, three minuses.

So, how to understand his June 4th Cairo Speech, and the demand that Israel stop the building of settlements in the West Bank?
Answer: Brilliant.
1.It has long been US policy that the settlements were an impediment to peace, but has remained merely rhetoric.
2.President Obama has raised the level of emphasis on this subject by repeating it several times in several venues.
3. It is well known that prior Israeli governments have made commitments.
4. The President knows that Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot comply, since the coalition he controls needs the support of the right. Netanyahu gave all he could when he promised no new settlements, only the “natural growth” of the current ones.
5. The Israeli center and left will not allow a break with the US.
6. The crisis that President Obama has created in Israel is a win-win for him.
a. The demand is not an immediate threat to Israeli security, as this would cause a blow-back in the US Congress.
b. “From Obama’s point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn’t give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split as a lever with Islamic states.” Stratfor.com

And here we see the real purpose to the strategy: hoped for help from the Moslem world in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brilliant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Iranians had a much more positive view of America before Bush.

Of course, pretty much everyone in the world did.

You might recall that the mullahs in Iran killed more people just in the span of two weeks in 1979 (about 20,000) than the hated Shah had in 38 years—

and that might explain this:
"These are just one reporter's impressions, but they dovetail with everything else I've read about Iran over the past decade or so. By comparison with (say) Arabs or western Europeans, most Iranians seem to be genuinely pro-American. (And, incidentally, also much less hysterically anti-Israel than anyone else in the Islamic Middle East outside of Iraqi Kurdistan.)"
Jeff Weintraub: Why Iranians like America (Washington Post)

 

[Sinatra]

Yes indeed - the Iranian people - not the Mullahs mind you - but the salt of the earth people, absolutely despise Jimmy Carter, for it was Carter who expedited their nation's descent into socio-political hell.

That poll appears to indicate that America's favorability has actually declined since Obama became president. Perhaps he reminds them too much of Carter?

Well-well-well....

 

[AllieBaba]

At least Carter was Christian. Obama, who didn't want us to use his middle name BEFORE the election, now is using it as a definition of who he is and embracing his Muslim side.

What a lying sack. He said his dad was agnostic before the election.

 

[Agnapostate]

 

[Toro]

Iranians had a much more positive view of America before Bush.

Of course, pretty much everyone in the world did.

You might recall that the mullahs in Iran killed more people just in the span of two weeks in 1979 (about 20,000) than the hated Shah had in 38 years—

and that might explain this:
"These are just one reporter's impressions, but they dovetail with everything else I've read about Iran over the past decade or so. By comparison with (say) Arabs or western Europeans, most Iranians seem to be genuinely pro-American. (And, incidentally, also much less hysterically anti-Israel than anyone else in the Islamic Middle East outside of Iraqi Kurdistan.)"
Jeff Weintraub: Why Iranians like America (Washington Post)

Several years ago, there was a World Cup qualifier between Ireland and Iran in Tehran. After the match, a pro-American demonstration broke out, with thousands of people attending.

The antipathy towards America in the country by the average Iranian is because of the invasion of Iraq as opposed to a fundamental opposition to the United States, as I understand it.

 

[rhodescholar]

Iranians had a much more positive view of America before Bush.

Of course, pretty much everyone in the world did.

Sure they did sweetie, when they chanted Death to America 1,000x per week, instead of the 2,000 when Bush II became president.

 

[Ravi]

I'd like to see the questions asked.

I believe most Iranians like Americans though they may not like the American government. Which is perfectly natural when you think about it...why would a group of people approve of a country they believe wants to control them?

And why would this upset Allie Babble?

 

[Toro]

Iranians had a much more positive view of America before Bush.

Of course, pretty much everyone in the world did.

Sure they did sweetie, when they chanted Death to America 1,000x per week, instead of the 2,000 when Bush II became president.

You know, its not 1979 anymore.

 

[rhodescholar]

Iranians had a much more positive view of America before Bush.

Of course, pretty much everyone in the world did.

Sure they did sweetie, when they chanted Death to America 1,000x per week, instead of the 2,000 when Bush II became president.

You know, its not 1979 anymore.

And you think they don't still chant it regularly in their rallies, have banners of it all over the country, chant it at parades, etc.?

 

[toomuchtime_]

At first glance, foreign policy seems beyond our President. But allow me to inject the following analysis, and you can tell me what you think:
A complex man, our President. At times he seems childlike, at others Machiavellian, with a grasp of foreign policy well beyond his experience.

Playing global strategy like a chess board, he can focus like a laser on priorities.
The return of Jailed US-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi, and the disposition of the Somali pirates, two pluses.
But Kim Jong-Il fires missiles, the Iranian Mullahs reject his open hand, and the EU refuses his requests for help in Afghanistan, three minuses.

So, how to understand his June 4th Cairo Speech, and the demand that Israel stop the building of settlements in the West Bank?
Answer: Brilliant.
1.It has long been US policy that the settlements were an impediment to peace, but has remained merely rhetoric.
2.President Obama has raised the level of emphasis on this subject by repeating it several times in several venues.
3. It is well known that prior Israeli governments have made commitments.
4. The President knows that Prime Minister Netanyahu cannot comply, since the coalition he controls needs the support of the right. Netanyahu gave all he could when he promised no new settlements, only the “natural growth” of the current ones.
5. The Israeli center and left will not allow a break with the US.
6. The crisis that President Obama has created in Israel is a win-win for him.
a. The demand is not an immediate threat to Israeli security, as this would cause a blow-back in the US Congress.
b. “From Obama’s point of view, he wins no matter what Netanyahu decides to do. If Netanyahu gives in, then he has established the principle that the United States can demand concessions from a Likud-controlled government in Israel and get them. There will be more demands. If Netanyahu doesn’t give in, Obama can create a split with Israel over the one issue he can get public support for in the United States (a halt to settlement expansion in the West Bank), and use that split as a lever with Islamic states.” Stratfor.com

And here we see the real purpose to the strategy: hoped for help from the Moslem world in Iraq and Afghanistan. Brilliant.

I disagree with respect to Obama's reasons for these harsh criticisms of Israeli policy and with respect to the likely outcome of the Obama gambit. The Arab leaders will do what they believe is in their own best interests in Iraq and Afghanistan regardless of how harshly Obama criticizes Israel. The real issue at play here is growing Iranian influence in the Arab world and Turkey and Iran's quest for nuclear weapons.

Obama is attempting to change the image of Abbas from an unpopular and ineffective politician to a that of a lion of international diplomacy and champion of Islam in order to weaken Hamas and thereby embarrass Iran and embolden Arab leaders as the time for taking action on Iran's nuclear program approaches. It is unclear at this point whether Obama hopes to gain enough Arab support for taking tough action against Iran to stop its efforts to acquire nukes or if he is trying to soften his landing if he fails to stop them. Buried in the hype about the Obama vs. Bibi fight were two extraordinary statements from the administration.

First, Obama, the champion of windmills and solar panels here, states that Iran needs nuclear energy without explaining why they can't get by with wind and sun as he claims we can. Second, and more alarming, Hillary states that if Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, it should expect a nuclear retaliation from the US and some European countries. How could this happen if the administration were committed to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and unless Obama has decided to disarm Israel of its nukes, why would Israel, widely reported to have over 100 nukes and Jericho III missiles that could deliver them, need any other nation to retaliate for them?

While conceding that Obama is a formidable political adversary, if Netanyahu stays strong and keeps his cool, there's a good chance he can not only survive but that he can force Obama to back down. Obama is trying to bring down the Netanyahu government by forcing Bibi to take positions that will break up his coalition or that will cause anxious Israeli voters to abandon him. Netanyahu can prevail if he can turn the tables on Obama. There are two parts to this strategy. First, Netanyahu and other top officials respond to anything the Obama administration says by saying, "We entirely agree with President Obama that it is vital to the ME peace process to try to preserve the validlty of the roadmap and other documents and Israel is committed to continuing discussions with Washington and Ramallah so that understandings can be reached that will preserve that validity." The building will continue and there will be no public commitment to a two state solution.

At the same time, have stories planted in the media and on the internet arguing that Obama plans to force Israel to give up all the settlements and Jerusalem and to give up its nukes, allow Iran to have nukes, etc - there is some reason to suspect each of these is true. If enough of these stories are planted, eventually he will either have to answer them of be seen as running from them, and regardless of what he does, he will either lose support and credibility among Arabs, among moderate voters and moderate members of Congress or both.

If Netanyahu can convince Israeli voters these things are true, he will be able to stay in power even if Israelis are anxious about the tension, and Obama will have to decide if he would rather beat Netanyahu regardless of the cost or reach some accomodation with Netanyahu that would allow Israel to build just enough to keep the coalition together and accept a commitment to work towards an understanding that would allow an eventual Palestinian rather than state unconditional support for a Palestinian state, an accomodation that would allow both men enough wiggle room to avoid the appearance of defeat.

 

[Article 15]

Link to the entire survey.

 

[Ravi]

Maybe I missed it, but I didn't see anything that backed up Babble's info.

It is disturbing that the majority of them want to wipe Israel off the map.

And funny that they prefer the French to the Americans.

 

[editec]

How does a Washington/Californa based right wing think tank poll Iranians, exactly?

 

[toomuchtime_]

How does a Washington/Californa based right wing think tank poll Iranians, exactly?

Detailed information on how the poll was conducted can be found here.

http://terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/TFT Iran Survey Report 0609.pdf