Washington Post:
For months, the reports percolated in Washington and other capitals. Iran was constructing a major beachhead in Nicaragua as part of a diplomatic push into Latin America, featuring huge investment deals, new embassies and even TV programming from the Islamic republic.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
i love the hillary photo she looks beautiful. enough already about fear of the unknown.
The US's true feelings on competition.
Either Clinton is ill-informed or she's deliberately disseminating propaganda to push an agenda which isn't really that different than that of the previous incumbent.
So much for change.
Read the article and chillax:
"The Iranian presence here, as elsewhere, is a concern to us," a U.S. official in Managua said. "So, naturally, we pay attention to what they're doing. But although they are here, we haven't seen a lot of activity on their part."
...and, exhale.
Now, I'm no fan of the IRI (to make an incredible understatement), but considering we flank them in Iraq and Afghanistan and have many more bases in the region, plus mega-embassies of our own, -- wow. US needs to do a little more therapy-style role playing for some much needed perspective.
That Qur'anic usury thing is B.S. They could always draft up some sort of fatwa to override it or otherwise justify it. Please, like the IRI is all of a sudden concerned with the Qur'an and honesty. I also wonder what would happen if Venezuelans and Nicaraguans en masse figured out (maybe they have, this region isn't my speciality) Ahmedinejad isn't quite the populist hero he's pre-packaged to appear, but alas, that's a whole other subject only briefly touched upon in this article.
Folks, you can't just read the headlines - you have to read the stories. And this is a good example of why.
Why is there a picture of Jane Pauley with this story?
It's understandable that Iran would want stronger ties with the leftists in Latin America. Islamic economics and Socialism are very simular in that they represent the interests of the majority working class and poor. It's against Islam to charge interest on loans and Islamic economics is more inclined to tax wealth rather than labor.
The US is rightly concerned because the people of Latin America, with the exception of the ruling class, want a diminished American presence. (even recent history is good reason why they're fed up with us)
If we intended to change our policy in Latin America, we would shut down the school of the Americas. Everyone knows what it's for and it remains a symbol of our exploitive involvement south of the border.
This, in itself, would signal a change in policy.
You are repeating a leftist cliche that the people of Latin America want a diminshed US presence.
I live in Costa Rica and travel the region. While the latinos want more from the USA, they still feel very closely connected with the USA and consider themselves Americans. Chavez is not very popular outside his own country except for Nicaragua - where Ortega stole the last election. Latinos want freedom and they love the USA - there are exceptions but your comments are cliche riden and patently untrue.
So are yours. This is why we have polls instead of anecdotes.
IRI is not an alternative to anything. It's not only a capitalist economy, but it harasses union leaders, and of course has an abysmal record on human rights and free association. The 'islamic' practices of IRI have more to do with a noxious blend of feudalism and capitalism than anything to do with socialism. Why are you holding a right wing, reactionary mess as a model for anything?
The Nicaragua mega-embassy in Iran could balance the U.S. mega-embassy in Iraq, which is by far the world's largest embassy.
Soon to be dwarfed by the US mega embassy in Islamabad, Pakistan
Indeed.
This article summary is very deceptive. If you look at the actual article its titled "Iran's Invisible Niceragua Embassy" and the article emphasizes that in spite of the rumors and official reports: "here in Nicaragua, no one can find any super-emba
Irony, considering the presence of US mega-embassy in Iraq:
Amusing.
In Honduras, the people have the audacity to hope that their government runs by the rule of law, by their constitution--and Obama takes the other side, coming out foursquare for totalitarian dictatorship!
Isn't that strange...
Except it's not being run by the rule of law. The new government has suspended the freedom of press and the freedom of association. They replaced the possibility of a dictatorship through the use of borderline judicial activism with the certainty of a military junta where peoples' rights have definitively been curbed.
In Iran the people had, it would appear, the audacity to hope for freedom, and Obama squatted on the fence.
"Brave individuals who challenge the status quo in authoritarian societies—and expect our support."
WSJ.comom
Totally decpetive title; as the article CLEARLY states no such mega-embassy can be fund anywhere in Managua and this is just more hyped-up "propuhganda" sponsored by we all know which "ally" (yeah, riiight!) we supposedly have in the Middle East which is itching to go to war with Iran.
If there is no basis in fact for the story of a super embassy in Nicaragua, then the story really is, why has the contention been worked into the Congressional Record on several occasions in the last two years? Who is attempting to plant this idea in the American mind?
"Last month, Rep. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) even told reporters in a call organized by the Israel Project that 'the growing influence of Iran in the Western Hemisphere reminds me of the relationship between Russia and Cuba when we dealt with the Cuban missile crisis.'"
Loading comments…
First Posted: 07-13-09 12:46 AM | Updated: 07-13-09 12:51 AM