Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei Tweets image of President Obama with a gun to his head: reports

[oberliner]

Apparently this is the Ayatollah’s idea of diplomacy.

Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei, known as Iran's supreme leader, Tweeted a picture of President Obama with a gun to his head on Saturday.

“US president has said he could knock out Iran’s military,” Khamenei wrote above a silhouette image of Obama pointing a pistol in his own ear. The post appeared on an English-language account that hasn’t been officially verified as the Ayatollah’s but is widely attributed to him, USA Today reported.

“We welcome no war, nor do we initiate any war, but if any war happens, the one who will emerge loser will be the aggressive and criminal U.S.,” the Tweet said.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/iran-khamenei-tweets-image-obama-gun-head-article-1.2304560

[JI7]

1. most Iranians do not agree with him

[oberliner]

5. He is the Supreme Leader

What he says, goes.

[delrem]

3. Ah yes, a "tweet" from a "twitter account".

As if the Ayatollah Khamanei wouldn't send official and verifiable messages, like every other politician on the planet.

[oberliner]

4. Twitter is used by every politician on the planet to send out official and verifiable message

Here's the account:

https://twitter.com/khamenei_ir

[delrem]

6. "The post appeared on an English-language account that hasn’t been officially verified"

Come on. Be real. It's OK to not like the man, or Iran, but sheee.

[oberliner]

10. Pretty sure he could get it shut down if it's fake

Or at least put out a statement to that effect.

Glad you think it's OK not to like the man, though!

[geek tragedy]

7. Iran trolls Obama on Twitter, zzzzzz.

I'm more troubled by people like Ehud Barak trying to commandeer the US military to get the US into a war with Iran.

[oberliner]

8. "Ehud Barak trying to commandeer the US military ...."

Wow.

[geek tragedy]

15. .

http://www.timesofisrael.com/ehud-barak-on-iran-close-the-door-and-tell-them-dismantle-or-else/

In an interview with CNBC, Barak said the US should hold direct negotiations with the Iranians and send “a clear message.” He downplayed fears that a military strike on Iran would spark a full-fledged war, saying the operation would more closely resemble the assassination of Osama bin Laden than the 2003 Iraq war and could be carried out in one night.

“It’s the [world powers’] last moment to stand firm and to make a position and to make sure that Iran will eventually understand, that either they dismantle their nuclear program or else,” Barak said.

“I think that what is really needed is a clear message — it’s not too late to send an authoritative envoy of the president to come to [Iranian Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei, [Iranian President Hassan] Rouhani, close the door behind and tell them: ‘Gentlemen, we fully understand you, we are not going to embarrass you, we’re not going to humiliate you, but you have to understand: either you agree once and for all to dismantle your nuclear military program – or else.’”

...

“Technically speaking, the Pentagon and the armed forces of America under the backing and probably directive of the president create extremely effective means of destroying the Iranian nuclear military program over a fraction of one night, in an operation which is much closer on the spectrum between the war on Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden, it’s much closer to killing Osama Bin Laden, and it’s something that should be understood — the Iranians can do nothing about it except for attacking Israel,” Barak said.

So, the Israeli plan to deal with Iran's nuclear program is:

1. US threatens to bomb Iran if Iran doesn't capitulate.
2. US bombs Iran

With friends like this . . .

[oberliner]

18. He is not trying to commandeer the US military

He's presenting his opinion - which Obama will disregard.

If an Israeli who thinks the deal puts his country in danger of a nuclear attack wants to speak out in this way they have the right to do so and Obama has the right to ignore them or tell them they are misguided.

[geek tragedy]

19. if the Israelis were content to state their opinion, it would be one thing.

but they are trying to control our foreign policy by applying political pressure on members of Congress in an attempt to hijack a purely internal US policy debate.

The Israelis do not respect the right of the US to set its own foreign policy--note the temper tantrum (de facto endorsed by Netanyahu) by formerly respectable Michael Oren, who complained that Obama had allowed "daylight" between what the US did and what Israel wanted, and had refused to allow Israel to edit Obama's speeches.

Imagine if China were deploying lobbyists in order to defeat the TPP. Sending Chinese governmental officials over to the US to whip support against President Obama.

That is what our friends, and would be taskmasters, the Israelis are doing.

[oberliner]

24. The US made the Iranian deal even though the Israelis were vociferously opposed to it

We are making a deal that the PM of Israel has been railing against for months in the strongest possible terms.

The US government is literally doing exactly the opposite of what Israel would have wanted them to do on the foreign policy issue that they consider the most critical.

[geek tragedy]

26. The Executive Branch is doing so.

Congress has always been the ones to play lapdogs to AIPAC.

Congress tends to get captured by parochial interests (Congress still opposes normalizing relations with Cuba).

From the wiki entry on the sale of AWACS to Saudi Arabia in 1986.

The Reagan Administration actively sought to diminish Israel's voice and influence over the deal. In public speeches, Administration officials admonished Israel for getting involved in a U.S. foreign policy matter. Secretary of State Alexander Haig said the President must be "free of the restraints of overriding external vetoes," and went on to say that were the AWACS deal blocked by Israeli influence, there would be "serious implications on all American policies in the Middle East. ... I'll just leave it there."[8] Reagan himself declared, "It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy."[12]

[oberliner]

30. Republicans in Congress oppose everything Obama does

From health care to foreign policy, if the idea comes from Obama, they all vote against it.

With respect to your Ronald Reagan quote, Congress still approved the AWACS deal, in spite of Israeli objections, and Ronnie was able to get his billions of dollars worth of weapons sold to Saudi Arabia just like he wanted.

[geek tragedy]

31. They voted for the TPP.

A Republican (of this era) president would never negotiate a deal like this.

They don't oppose this on partisan grounds. Republicans just like war. A lot. Especially when it means dead Muslims.

And that is why they love Israel so much. Because Israel can be counted on to kill Muslims in places like Gaza, Lebanon, etc.

If Israel were a bunch of peace-loving leftwingers, the GOP wouldn't support them at all.

The Republicans are thrilled that Bibi abandoned the two-state solution. They've hated that idea since Oslo and view it as some kind of politically correct pablum that they have to recite to appease UN Bureaucrats, Euroweenies, and Saudi petrosheiks.

Bibi has liberated them. No Palestinian state means eternal conflict.

Reagan, for all of his evil policies, was driven by tangible goals and interests, not an ideological thirst for conflict.

[sadoldgirl]

9. Are you really surprised about this, after

getting the threatening letter from 47 members
of Congress, and realizing how AIPAC is trying
to cancel the deal?

[still_one]

11. and how do we know that tweet is from the Ayatollah? Regardless, your argument is that "this is

their idea of diplomacy"

However, it can also be pointed out that bush and Walker were both arguing who would attack Iran sooner if elected president. Walker said on the first day of being elected, and bush said soon thereafter. How is that for diplomacy?

Every candidate running for office on the republican deal has said they would undo the deal if they were elected. How is that for diplomacy.

However, this isn't about diplomacy. This is about an agreement of preventing Iran to develop and obtain nuclear weapons. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not solve all the problems of the Middle East.

As to your argument,it most likely is the Ayatollah's tweet, why did the article say the account has not been verified?

[oberliner]

12. I didn't make any argument

I just posted the first four paragraphs from the NY Daily News article.

[still_one]

13. Sorry, I thought the first sentence, "Apparently this is the Ayatollah’s idea of diplomacy. ",

was a point made by you not the article. I should have clicked the link, sorry my fault

[oberliner]

16. No problem

My own view on the subject is that it is important to remember that Iran is run by a far RW religious fundamentalist who is looking out for his own best interests.

With that in mind, I think we should all support the deal for the reasons Obama has laid out.

Those two opinions, disdain for the Supreme Leader and support for this deal, are not mutually exclusive.

[still_one]

20. We are definitely on the same page. I have no illusions about The Iranian leadership

[foxface666]

23. calling

Iranian rightwing is pretty wrong

[oberliner]

28. The Supreme Leader of Iran isn't right wing?

Is that what you are suggesting or am I misunderstanding?

Please elaborate.

[foxface666]

32. the

supreme leader is left to Hillary Clinton on economic issues.

[oberliner]

33. No he isn't

Income inequality has been staggering under his rule. The wealthy oil oligarchs continue to make millions on the backs of the poor, and economic policies continue to be strengthened to ensure that is the case. The mullahs live lives of extravagance and waste while most of the 99 percent suffers in poverty. The Supreme Leader himself is said to be worth $36 billion - his son is worth $21 billion.

And of course I assume you know how far right he is on social issues - and the role of religion in government.

[spanone]

14. sure.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

17. Zzzzz. Who cares.

[Rex]

27. His version of Ted Cruz cares. Probably a Shuckabee or two over there.

They all like the guy, no doubt they all rattle sabers together at parties.

[polly7]

21. Highly doubtful. nt.

[kelliekat44]

22. Consider the source. nt

[Rex]

25. I guess the Great Satan moment was overdue, got to scare the Tea Party er extremists

whatever...no doubt the GOP had a positive response. Same kinda fundie stupidity and paranoia.

[killbotfactory]

29. Perhaps he might be less hostile if we stop threatening to bomb his country?

Food for thought.

[Bluenorthwest]

34. You mean like if we were to do a deal about peace and ending sanctions in spite of great political

pressures to do otherwise? Have you read the current events?

Here is one of my fav Supreme Leader quotes:
Ali Khamenei: The European races are barbaric. They wear freshly pressed suits and ties, and they smell of eau de cologne, but deep down, they still have the same barbaric nature known from history. They kill with ease. They murder people without any problem. Therefore, beating women in their homes is of no consequence to the [Europeans] and Americans, whereas in an Islamic environment, it is unimaginable.
http://www.memritv.org/clip_transcript/en/3844.htm

Another really good one, that shows him constantly reaching out with reason and kindness:
"Our people say "Death to America," and this is like saying "I seek God's refuge from the accursed Satan," which is recited before any chapter of the Koran, even before "In the name of Allah the Compassionate, the Merciful." Why is this? So the believer will never forget, even for a moment, the presence of Satan. So he will never forget, even for a moment, that Satan is ready to attack him and to destroy his spiritual shield and is faith... The saying "Death to America" is for this purpose."

Food for thought.