• 27 August 2008
  • Posted By Patrick Disney
  • Election 2008, Presidential 2008 Elections, US-Iran War

McCain ad hits Obama on Iran

In the most focused ad of the 2008 Presidential election dealing with Iran, Sen. McCain comes out swinging at Sen. Obama’s approach to Iran. The McCain campaign has said it will run the ad in key states in the coming weeks.

Though NIAC does not endorse or oppose candidates, we feel it is important to show what the candidates are saying about Iran. We would like to hear your thoughts in the comments section below.

[vodpod id=ExternalVideo.672958&w=425&h=350&fv=%26rel%3D0%26border%3D0%26]

more about “McCain ad hits Obama on Iran“, posted with vodpod
Posted By Patrick Disney

    12 Responses to “McCain ad hits Obama on Iran”

  1. stmichaeltraveler says:

    Senator McCain Ad makes Iran an Issue

    Senator McCain attempts to divert our attention away from our national problems by creating imaginary threats such as Iran. He forgets that we have seen these puppet masters works and we have learned about their tricks.

    Senator McCain is out of touch with my generation. My generation demanded we should give all children in America the same opportunity irrespective of the gender, color of skin, religion of the parents, and the national origin of the parents, or where they live in America. My generation supported the American workers, farmers, and the middle class.

    The Republican Party represents the “me-generation”. The life objectives of the “me-generation” are to get money as much as you can and where ever you can. Then, use the money to buy more power and self-gratification.

    The Republican Party is responsible for the mass migration of the American industry and technical jobs to other countries; they had one objective to maximize their profits using the cheapest labors at the expense of the environment. The Republican Party is responsible for withdrawing investment in our country’s infrastructures and industries so that they can invest the capital in the other nations; they had one objective to maximize their returns at the expense of the American future.

    The Republican Party and their flag bearer Senator McCain supports multi-national corporations whose sole allegiance is to the profits at the expense of my children and grand children? The Democratic Party supports the workers, the farmers and the middle class Americans.

    Senator McCain, we have seen the Republican Party’s puppet dance before. It would not work again. The issues are: job, medical insurance, transportation, education, housing, and the national infrastructures.

  2. This is the same tactic Bush used in 2004 against Kerry and McCain says he is different than Bush?! Exact same fear mongering. Iran is boo hoo, the devil, public enemy number one, now go fetch.

    Whatever Iran is it is not worse or more dangerous than Soviet Union during the cold war and America talked and negotiated. McCain doesn’t even want to talk. He wants European to do the talking so he can bypass everything and go straight to war.

    Funny neocons pushed Bush to do the same and then abandoned him. Now neocons are doing the same thing huddling with McCain.

    I remember one quote heard on TV from Yitzak Rabin who was assasinated and was closer than anyone to achieving some kind of long lasting peace. He said “we don’t make peace with our friends. We make peace with our enemies.”

    So make peace or at least try.

  3. nobody says:

    McCain’s ad takes Obama’s words completely out of context.


    You might not endorse a candidate, but you could take an objective look at whether an ad is a blatant lie or not before reposting the vid for all to see.

    I’m not saying you should agree with Obama’s take on Iran. But at least call the ad out for what it is.

  4. Michael Mahyar Hojjatie says:

    How many middle-Americans even know the importance of Israel with regards to American policy, or can even find it on a map? I bet the majority of them simply succumb to the token mindset of all those people “over there” are “all crazy”.

  5. AnIranianinMontreal says:

    In view of my national interest, “tough diplomacy” is nonsense as it is “all options are on the table”. If the U.S wants to engage Iran, it should be in an equal position. It can’t bully the others, dismiss their dignity, and at the same time talk about engagement. In that sense, diplomacy is another face of military. I prefer to die proudly rather being humiliated by smart diplomacy. Iran policies are reactionary. It tries to seize maximum opportunities, with its great achievements in doing asymmetrical policy, which are arisen at least with current arrangement. Some may say the course will change otherwise, but that is sort of guess and threat perception which of course can be channeled out in other direction. It doesn’t have that many realistic choices. So, if the U.S wants to change it, it has to look at its insulting policy toward Iran at the first place, instead of sending the ball on Iran’s court, talking about tougher sanctions (especially from democratic side) and so on. However, it’s obvious that the fact that the U.S gov., our some sects of it, feel to engage Iran is as a result of their weakness but not because of American idealism that some people might think about. That itself also shows the level of Iran’s foreign policy achievements. Although, I myself am a strong advocate of the U.S engagement of Iran, in the other hand I think, why didn’t the U.S want to engage Iran when it was at its all powerful status, let say after the collapse of the U.S.S.R? and finally, I don’t think republicans were bad for Iran. Their past 7 year’s policy in the region actually helped to strengthen my country, as they say so. To me as an Iranian, both are the same, they won’t definitely think of my national interests which is quite normal, nor some ridiculous excuses like human rights are their business in Iran. We are mature enough, culturally, historically,… to solve our internal problem ourself. The fact that they pressure us for human rights and stuff like that actually is sort of insult to the understanding, history, tradition… of my nation. How has given the Americans the moral permission to talk about human rights in other countries? Their own records, even in recent history, is extremely problematic. What of course I want them, both parties I mean, to know is we can cooperate in many issues that can satisfy their interests as well as ours, and America should not play tit for tat.

  6. There may be some difference between Republicans and Democrats. We just have to wait and see.

    Remember during Clinton and Albright, they ‘apologized’ to Iran for US’s support of Iraq drring the war. They also tried to open dialogue with Iran. Except at that time Iran didn’t want to talk.

    At that time reform movement was just new and the official policy of Iran was no talk, just like it is Bush’s policy now.

    Compare Iran’s position during Khatami of no talk to today’s position during Ahmadinejad (of all people 🙂 of “US lost a golden opportunity to talk to Iran” or he is ready to talk to Bush. Big difference.

    Time will change policies. We just need couple of level headed people in both countries to set aside these childish yet dangerous games and talk.

    The 911 commission who spent a lot of taxpayers money concluded US should engage and negotiate with Iran. There is simply no longer any reason left for not talking.

  7. Babak Talebi says:

    Nothing seems to get the discussion going like a discussion on US policy 🙂 I do wish we would get some Iranian American Republican points of view into the discussion – and I hope when we do (we are going to try very hard), I hope you all engage in a constructive discussion…

    for the time being, we seem to have far more Democratically oriented participants…

    I guess in truth, its not surprising considering the positions that McCain and Obama have taken towards US-Iran policy…

    let me ask this… do you all fall on the more conservative or more progressive side of things when it comes ton non-foreign policy questions? taxes, abortion, guns, tort reform… etc…

  8. AnIranianinMontreal says:

    To me as an Iranian (I am not an Iranian-American), Republican or Democrat is not the issue. So long as my country’s interests can be satisfied, it’s ok. Whether democrat or republican. As far as I see, republicans are more powerful than the democrats and would be able to sideline Israeli lobby more effectively, as well as have more interest, in the field of energy particularly, not to agitate ME more than what it is. Democrats are great in talk! Just look at what Obama says that Israel will attack Iran in case diplomacy doesn’t work. Whether this is to gain political objectives or anything else, the fact that he is emphasizing on the theme shows his, or his party’, weakness in dealing with foreign challenges. I am seriously skeptical about his promises in engaging Iran. From what I have seen in the past 15 months of his speeches, he has lost his vision about Iran. Some naïve Iranians are talking emotionally about Obama’s victory as if he is our cousin! I think, we should not fall in the promises of this party or that one when it comes to our national interest, that’s an American internal issue! that might not necessarily come out favorable for us.

    And, who said that conservative is non-progressive? I doubt you are not aware of conservative ideology and motives. After all, one can’t make an army with cats!

  9. Republicans are powerful now. Actually they are loosing their grips on their power. Their rise to power started in 1994 with Gingrich’s so called Contract with America.

    Republicans were the one who invented Conservative and Liberal terms in the mid 90s. Lobby groups who represent large corporations have noticed they can manipulate Republicans more than Democracts. Since corporations are powerful entities the only thing that can make them more powerful is access to Govt which they achieved with Republicans. Now Democrats are trying to get in on some of that money to get back to power that they held for decades.

    There are differences between the 2 parties. Obama is not Iran’s savior. His positions are better on Iran than McCain. If we are to assume that it doesn’t really matter and at the end of the day they are both the same then ok.

    I believe giving the man a chance before making a judgement. If Gore were to become president in 2000 would Iran and US be in the same positions they are today? What if Kerry were to become president in 2004?

    Some politicians in the congress have taken position against Israeli politics. They are in congress and get reelected despite those positions.

  10. Babak Talebi says:

    Montreal – although I personally disagree with you on some of your assesments, there is a very valid point you made that I want to highlight – the fact that we Iranian Americans (I know you are IC not IA, but still) cant just sit back and wait for some ‘leader’ to look out for our best interests.

    In the American political system, which is based on the expectation of self-interested and self-pormoting factionalization – our community MUST represent itself or remain unrepresented.

    noone, not even “oo-baa-maast” (as they call him in Iran), is going to look out for the best interests of our community unless and until we do our own pushing.

    That said – wouldnt you agree that his starting point on US-Iran policy is more in line with what the majority of IAs (and Iranians and Americans) want? which is to say dialogue without pre-conditions vs’ McCain’s call for isolationism and more severe sanctions, even a blockade?

    are those two positions the same?

  11. AnIranianinMontreal says:

    well, I am not IC either! let’s not to open this controversial issue here, and now! It’s ok to be IA or IC or whatever.

    in politics, there is talks, and actions. above all is of course power. As far as I see, Obama’s negotiation solution is nothing more than rhetoric or lack of insight as his region’s trip show. The negotiation that he promises is one side of the problem, it has to be a guaranteed for normalization of the relation or the de facto one at worse, otherwise any negotiation that held in the position of weakness is doomed to failure, and the failure of negotiation is equal to an awesome pretext of war.

    The point that I was interested in focusing on was this: that we should not put all our eggs on one basket. It’s good that you want to push them, but please try not to push one side too much! we may better have the dissatisfaction of American public as a force the works in our side. That will result in a less resolute foreign policy for the U.S gov. at least, I believe. The Obama’s ticket, for now at least, is sort of gamble. If that doesn’t work, then the consequences are unpredictable. In case Obama wins, I prefer he wins with a narrow lead. Not a far reaching one.

    As per The U.S-Iran’s relation, the starting point seems to be less important, as the history of IR rule shows. The finishing point is of particular importance that has never reached out in the recent history. Blockade or sever sanctions or …, what has really prevented Americans in applying these models was their own calculation, otherwise, if self interests that you talked about necessitate, I think, Obama will bomb Iran harsher than any republicans.

    And there is still time to the election day! I think, it’s still too soon to favor one of the candidates.

  12. maji says:

    I think that the opportunity to talk with all nations whether we agree with them or not is important. I do not agree that the republicans are more effective with the Israelis than Obama. If GWB were going to accomplish something important concerning the Israeli-Palestine issue, it would have received more of his attention, and the meeting at Camp David would not have had to wait until the last years of his administration. I am a firm believer in not using force as a lever to intimidate and anger other countries. They are entitled to their sovereignty just as we are entitled to ours. We would not welcome other nations’ interference in our country, and they are justified in not welcoming ours. If all America knows is aggression, intimidation, warfare, and violence, it does not provide the world a positive view of us. Many republicans love to trot Teddy Roosevelt out as an example of an ideal president, all while forgetting his dedication to preserving the environment, but mostly forgetting his advice to walk softly and carry a big stick. I see nothing wrong with republicans criticizing Obama on his statements regarding Iran, but these statments should be substantive, not used to score political points. Criticism used for political gain, in my opinion, is not acting in the best interests of America and contributes very little to solving our common problems in dealing with other nations. It is as Peggy Noonan stated, solipsism. I don’t know about the neo-cons, but I want to live in a world where, although different nations have disparate goals and ideologies, we can agree to disagree and not incite each other to violence. Unnecessary aggression and war is just what it is, unecessary.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Sign the Petition


7,350 signatures

Tell Google: Stop playing Persian Gulf name games!

May 14, 2012
Larry Page
Chief Executive Officer
Google Inc.
1600 Amphitheatre Parkway
Mountain View, California 94043

Dear Mr. Page:

It has come to our attention that Google has begun omitting the title of the Persian Gulf from its Google Maps application. This is a disconcerting development given the undisputed historic and geographic precedent of the name Persian Gulf, and the more recent history of opening up the name to political, ethnic, and territorial disputes. However unintentionally, in adopting this practice, Google is participating in a dangerous effort to foment tensions and ethnic divisions in the Middle East by politicizing the region’s geographic nomenclature. Members of the Iranian-American community are overwhelmingly opposed to such efforts, particularly at a time when regional tensions already have been pushed to the brink and threaten to spill over into conflict. As the largest grassroots organization in the Iranian-American community, the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) calls on Google to not allow its products to become propaganda tools and to immediately reinstate the historically accurate, apolitical title of “Persian Gulf” in all of its informational products, including Google Maps.

Historically, the name “Persian Gulf” is undisputed. The Greek geographer and astronomer Ptolemy referencing in his writings the “Aquarius Persico.” The Romans referred to the "Mare Persicum." The Arabs historically call the body of water, "Bahr al-Farsia." The legal precedent of this nomenclature is also indisputable, with both the United Nations and the United States Board of Geographic Names confirming the sole legitimacy of the term “Persian Gulf.” Agreement on this matter has also been codified by the signatures of all six bordering Arab countries on United Nations directives declaring this body of water to be the Persian Gulf.

But in the past century, and particularly at times of escalating tensions, there have been efforts to exploit the name of the Persian Gulf as a political tool to foment ethnic division. From colonial interests to Arab interests to Iranian interests, the opening of debate regarding the name of the Persian Gulf has been a recent phenomenon that has been exploited for political gain by all sides. Google should not enable these politicized efforts.

In the 1930s, British adviser to Bahrain Sir Charles Belgrave proposed to rename the Persian Gulf, “Arabian Gulf,” a proposal that was rejected by the British Colonial and Foreign offices. Two decades later, the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company resurrected the term during its dispute with Mohammad Mossadegh, the Iranian Prime Minister whose battle with British oil interests would end in a U.S.-sponsored coup d'état that continues to haunt U.S.-Iran relations. In the 1960s, the title “Arabian Gulf” became central to propaganda efforts during the Pan-Arabism era aimed at exploiting ethnic divisions in the region to unite Arabs against non-Arabs, namely Iranians and Israelis. The term was later employed by Saddam Hussein to justify his aims at territorial expansion. Osama Bin Laden even adopted the phrase in an attempt to rally Arab populations by emphasizing ethnic rivalries in the Middle East.

We have serious concerns that Google is now playing into these efforts of geographic politicization. Unfortunately, this is not the first time Google has stirred controversy on this topic. In 2008, Google Earth began including the term “Arabian Gulf” in addition to Persian Gulf as the name for the body of water. NIAC and others called on you then to stop using this ethnically divisive propaganda term, but to no avail. Instead of following the example of organizations like the National Geographic Society, which in 2004 used term “Arabian Gulf” in its maps but recognized the error and corrected it, Google has apparently decided to allow its informational products to become politicized.

Google should rectify this situation and immediately include the proper name for the Persian Gulf in Google Maps and all of its informational products. The exclusion of the title of the Persian Gulf diminishes your applications as informational tools, and raises questions about the integrity and accuracy of information provided by Google.

We strongly urge you to stay true to Google’s mission – “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful” – without distorting or politicizing that information. We look forward to an explanation from you regarding the recent removal of the Persian Gulf name from Google Maps and call on you to immediately correct this mistake.



Share this with your friends: