Yes, let's clear up a couple of things shall we?

1-YOU are the one who initially brought up the question of re-establisihing the monarchy in Iran not me, which begs the obvious question, if you didn't wish to be questioned on this issue why mention it in the first place?

2- You still haven't explained HOW your abstract romantic notions could be introduced into Western society in the here and now, and you haven't done so because you can't. Or, can you?

Monarchist, you are still not making any sense, and here's why.

As a staunch supporter of the monarchy,  ask yourself the question, does an absolute monarch have the absolute right to either accept or reject the views of his subjects on all matters? And the answer to that question has to be, yes, ABSOLUTELY.

Prince Pahlavi is the next in line to the throne, and should he decide in his absolute wisdom that the introduction of democracy is the way forward for his people, who are you, or any other monarchist for that matter,  to challenge that decision? 

OK, I missed videos yesterday. This is horrific view to watch a Muslim monarch to babble about democracy and violations of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Apparently leftist sickness slowly reaching Muslim world as well. I don't wish this to happen to the worst enemies.

So how Iranian prince see cohabitation of re-established monarchy and democracy? Either this is just temporary alliance with western left or simply price sold himself out to neocons and chose a role of British kind, state subsidised mascot.First option I would call naive, the second is disgraceful.

Atlanticist, I'm independent political observer and I will comment whatever I have a desire to comment. Good monarch listen to voices from outside, of course he is not obligated to act like different advisor would wish to see. I respect every monarch who don't escape from responsibility of being a monarch.

Pale Rider said:

"Obama is an embarrassment to us all. His response, or lack of it, should not surprise us. He's reached out and kissed up to the Iranian regime at the beginning of his presidency and it has lead to zero change. Now it turns out that the Mullah regime actually appointed Ahmadinejad, and wants him to be in charge for the next few years. In other words, Obama has failed and now he's too embarrassed and confused to speak out on the issue. Obama's intention was to use the Iranian threat to ally the Arab World and to pressure Israel into accepting the Saudi peace plan and form a Palestinian state, and thereby unite the Israelis and Arabs against Iran. So it would suit him better if Ahmadinejad remains in power. He's made one fatal mistake, however, and that was his underestimation of the will of the Iranian people to live free. Appeasement is the betrayal of our principles and a condemnation of the Iranians to tyranny."

Well put PR, well said indeed. At the very least the mullah in the White House should have come and and verbally supoorted those protesting and dying, in Iran. NO huevos at all. Pathetic. He does not want to be seen as meddling in other countries affairs except when it comes to France(the burqua comments by Sarkozy) will likely be condemned by Obama and meddling in Israel's affairs. Even England, France and Israel have voiced stronger opinons and support for those in Iran challenging the mullahacracy that has ruled Iran with a bloody fist since 1979. Thank you Jimmy Carter! Obambi is following in your footsteps, Jimmy. Maybe even a greater loser and appeaser than you.

Iran has been changed, the landscape altered no matter what the short term outcome is going to be. This entire event, now way past the election results have trashed Obama's plans for using Iran as a tool he can grovel and appease to. He wanted the status quo in Iran to pressure Israel into making a foolish deal with the islamofacists. He has lost face, especially here at home in the U.S. Awww, too bad. By saying little or nothing(including today, 6/23) Obama has appeased himself into a corner. What a complete and total embarrassment(again).There has been some heavy, negative criticism aimed at Obama from some of the protesters and from other Islamic countries. So much for that dandy speech in Cairo. While Iranians were dying in the streets, Obama played golf and went out for ice cream. Think of the ruckus that would have erupted had Bush done those things while a crisis was blowing up? All he had to do was speak up in support of those brave Iranians. But, as usual, Obama was not able to pass muster. Just like everything else, he screwed this one up big time. Way to go Barry!

The American response to Iranian turmoil is bang on. Though Obama has lost his lustre, and his cabinet members are hardly agents of change, foreign observers must realize the Iranian aversion to outside interference. Many in the West erroneously see the struggle as one between crowds on the streets, and the state and its security apparatus. However, the real battle is being fought in the innermost corridors of power, where insiders and institutions loyal to them clash. The running street battles are mere byproducts. Were the Islamic Republican establishment united, resistance would be brutally crushed. But the Khamanei/Ahmadinejad faction is very concerned over world opinion and unsure of loyalty of the regular armed forces.

The appropriate Western response is to underscore that democratic elections must be legitimate, even in Islamic republics, and to deplore state violence against peaceful and unarmed demonstrations. Even Iranian experts agree that "hands off" is the best approach.

How can Iran participate in international affairs when the legitimacy of its representatives is in doubt, not merely amongst the man in the street, but the the clerics and generals as well. Until the concerns of Mousavi, Rafsanjani, Karroubi, Rezaee and their supporters are addressed, or they acquiesce to Khamanei/Ahmadinejad, Iran is effectively without leadership. This makes accepting Obama's

The opposition are not necessarily to Western taste, and even their victory may not resolve Western grievances i.e. Iran's nuclear programme and sponsorship of Hizbullah and Hamas.

Caution is preferential than the humanitarian interventionism characteristic of Bush and Blair. McCain declared "we are all Georgians", before a proper investigation had been done into the causes of the South Ossetia War, responsibility and war crimes. The outcome of investigations made McCain look as reckless as Saakashvili.

He DID have something to say about his support for democracy. Watch and listen to  the (first) video again if you don't believe me. 

Try convincing Monarchist about the quality of the people involved being the limiting factor, because I am already aware of that obvious  fact, not me. 

As a monarchist and anti-democrat, I don't see how you can justify your  democratic  right to question  the reasons and motives of the Prince P's of this world.

Oh, for God's sake, Monarchist, YOU are the one who asked why nobody talks about the re-establishment of the monarchy in Iran not me, and when the next in line to the throne disagrees with YOU about what HE believes is best for the people, HIS people, of Iran, YOU criticise HIM. I give up.

@ Monarchist***

It would appear that the Shah's son, and wannabe future monarch of Iran, Prince Pahlavi, disagrees with your analysis.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/pahlavi_iran_conflict/2009/06/22/227840.html

Iran? This is not a problem of western people! Iranian regime is not as bad as neocons (I have read that they already joined Obama camp) would wish to show them to the world. I guess that they would wish to establish controlled democratic regime over there to suck Iranian gas and oil. Why they don't talk about re-establishment of monarchy? Obviously because democratic regime would be completely dependent and thus willing to abuse the system in their favour.   What average European citizen gain out of it? Oil and gas prices would go up again and  politicians would spend taxpayers cash to help our 'allies'. 

The Mullahs rule Iran. The brutality of the Iranian regime falls directly upon them. None of the candidates would have changed the nature of the mullahs' rule. Mousavi is as much a scorpion as Achmedinajab [sp.?]. For the Iranian people - or us - to believe the former is better than the latter is self-deception. 

I think that our best course of action is to declare that the rule by cleric - a "mullaharchy" - is the core problem; that this type of government is by its very nature illegitimate. The U.S. would then be seen as pro-democracy yet would really be seeking to disrupt and destabilize the Iranian government. Two Muslim scorpions going at each other benefits us.

My thoughts on the current Iranian situation have been broadly in line with those of Daniel Pipes. Sorry if that disappoints, but I genuinely can't get any more enthused or animated on this issue.

http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2009/06/ahmadinejad-or-mousavi.html

Al Gore a British plant? And which British plant might that be, 'American Elder' (or 'American Skunk cabbage') ? (see: www.ukwildflowers.com/ ). In fact, Al Gore might well be a "plant", but let's face it,  he is no shrinking violet when it comes to pushing his global warming agenda which suggests to me it's more likely that he is an  Iranian Green Party plant.

PS If your appreciation of British humour gets any sharper, some Americans might start thinking that YOU are a British plant too ;-))

PPS If we Brits aren't careful we are going to wake up one morning to find that we have a British born European president invited to play chess AT Chequers.

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/the-eurosceptics-are-just-as-phon...

Checkmate?

@onecent

Missing something? An appreciation of Irony, a sense of humour?

One of the reasons we are in the mess we are in, here in the Colonies, is precisely because the Russians, like the Brits, have a positively wicked sense of humour. It is also why the Iranians worry about the Brits and the Russians a lot more than the Americans.

@Atlanticist

If this was 20 years earlier, you might have just compromised a ...

......Party is about what exactly?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but, I don't see it having anything relevant with what is going on in Iran.

Come on, mpresley, those dead protesters in Iran didn't have the best election choices, but, they chose the lessor of two evils which is forward movement and got cheated in return and had the courage to take it to the streets. It's cheap and easy to condemn others from a safe cushy western location. 

Obama, America's lefty wimp isn't very comfortable with a forceful will of the people demonstration against tyrannical governments.  Why would an arrogant lefty narcissist have empathy with such a democratic concept.

Andy McCarthy at NRO sums Obama up best:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=OTM0NTQ2OTdlZTNjNTJjYjgxNzFkN2JkOGE3YTgxZjM=

Victor David Hansen has his number too:

http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/what-do-these-first-six-months-mean/

No one is suggesting the US physically interfere, but, either we believe in human rights or we don't therefore if we do we have a moral responsibility to condemn the government's violence against its citizens in Iran.

I'm not sure what is wanted from the US?  Is Mousavi, should he "win", our friend, now? Would a Mousavi led regime be something good for America?  It seems that many US commentators have an idea that once Ahmadinejad is gone, Iran will somehow become a bastion of liberal democracy, and an ally of the US.

So far, all I've heard are vacuous slogans, but has anyone really thought any of this through?  Also, I'm not sure why the events in Iran somehow constitute a "damning indictment of the US." 

Anything with Middle East written on it, or even remotely associated with Islam cannot be helpful to America.  

Obama is an embarrassment to us all. His response, or lack of it, should not surprise us. He's reached out and kissed up to the Iranian regime at the beginning of his presidency and it has lead to zero change. Now it turns out that the Mullah regime actually appointed Ahmadinejad, and wants him to be in charge for the next few years. In other words, Obama has failed and now he's too embarrassed and confused to speak out on the issue. Obama's intention was to use the Iranian threat to ally the Arab World and to pressure Israel into accepting the Saudi peace plan and form a Palestinian state, and thereby unite the Israelis and Arabs against Iran. So it would suit him better if Ahmadinejad remains in power. He's made one fatal mistake, however, and that was his underestimation of the will of the Iranian people to live free. Appeasement is the betrayal of our principles and a condemnation of the Iranians to tyranny.

Seriously folks, can you imagine the confusion and uproar  we'd likely hear from Western liberal elites if Western governments and individuals alike started pumping vast sums of cash aid into the coffers of "Green" parties across the Middle East, ostensibly in support of their local environmental issues?

Look for example at what we're promised should the Green Party ever take power in Iran:

WAR

The Green Party of Iran believes that engaging in war with another country is NEVER acceptable...

With an administration like that in power in Tehran, Damascus, Riyadh etc.,  Obama could achieve most of his foreign policy objectives and then some.  

Shah Mat?

My deepest sympathies to the Iranian people for bearing such an unhealthy regime, made up of embearded mullahs and ayatollahs. It is beyond dispute that the results were rigged, otherwise Ahmadinejad would have no misgivings whatsoever about letting Western officers in to tally votes. But the proponents of democracy, however near to our ideals, should assume this new combat as theirs. Let's not forget Mousavi has been a supporter of the 'Islamic Revolution''s regime for three decades and still is, although he mitigates his views better than in past years. The infatuation of Western media for such a man is dodgy and should be distrusted. Obviously, I regret the bloodshed and the missed opportunity for Iran, but this struggle is not ours. We should not meddle in Iran's affairs, if the people of Iran are in effect tired of such an oppressive regime, it is their right and duty to rise up in arms in order to overthrow the embearded tyrants who are their self-proclaimed rulers. This is a natural right, guaranteed by various Constitutions and by mere common sense. A regime derives its legitimacy from the consent of the governed, if there are no uprisings or other elements likely to induce an overhaul of the regime, then there is tacit assent and there is absolutely nothing we can do for Iran, unless we want to stride into another quagmire. La Boétie's teachings are clear as to such issues. All we can do is offer our moral support (as citizens, not as states) to Iranians sympathetic to democracy, individuals could finance them underhand, but there is no way we should be bound to interfere, let alone militarily, for we cannot conduct revolution for the Iranians, this is not our right but theirs, just as the Americans and the French carried out their own revolutions to overthrow ancient orders.

Oh, come on people, get a grip. This isn't principally about politics, it's about the protection of the  global environment, stupid. So, let's forget the burning, rioting and looting  on the streets of Tehran, which only increases the size of Iran's carbon footprint anyway and give our undivided support instead to the Iranian Green Party, you know it makes sense. And if you don't believe me ask kappert.

visit: http://www.iran-e-sabz.org/eindex.html

Get those donations pouring in.