No Change In Iran

[wphelan]

Well, I guess this isn't terribly surprising, even though it is disappointing. Ahmadinejad refuses to believe in the Holocaust. Why would believe (or allow) he lost an election?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/14/world/middleeast/14memo.html?ref=global-home

[Americano]

Ahmadinejad, unlike his predecessor, made no moves for social liberalization and has not caved to US/Israeli hegemony demands. He's the #2 man in Iran and that had to please the Supreme Leader, who undoubtedly passed the word of his degree of support to the Iranian citizenry through every mosque and prayer meeting in Iran before the democratic popular vote process.

[Michael]

Ahmadinejad, unlike his predecessor, made no moves for social liberalization and has not caved to US/Israeli hegemony demands. He's the #2 man in Iran and that had to please the Supreme Leader, who undoubtedly passed the word of his degree of support to the Iranian citizenry through every mosque and prayer meeting in Iran before the democratic popular vote process.
Actually, this election was closely contested by all accounts.

And I don't think this one is quite over yet.

[Americano]

Actually, this election was closely contested by all accounts.

Until the votes were counted.

And I don't think this one is quite over yet.

Some rioting but the Revolutionary Guard won't put up with much of that before locking the country down.

[Michael]

Some rioting but the Revolutionary Guard won't put up with much of that before locking the country down.
That may be so. But don't forget the Iranians have already had a revolution while being "locked down" by the secret police, so they are capable of doing things if they have a mind to.

I find Iran to be a tiny bit more civilized, sophisticated and pluralist than most people will give them credit for.

[The Drunk Guy]

I find Iran to be a tiny bit more civilized, sophisticated and pluralist than most people will give them credit for.
I agree, so I'll make the first post to oppose you. ;)

How can you say that? They don't let women hike their skirts up in the street and they hate homosexuals almost as much as Texans do! They are PURE EVIL!


:angel:

[Americano]

I agree, so I'll make the first post to oppose you. ;)




:angel:

Iran is governed by a theocracy, much like Texas and some of the bible elt states.

[partofme]

Iran is governed by a theocracy, much like Texas and some of the bible elt states.

I agree. Restrictions on sell of alcohol, pornography are common in most counties in my part of Kentucky and they are mostly supported by local churches and religious groups. Also the opposition to allowing gambling in Kentucky which is a hot debate right now is mostly supported by religious organizations and social conservatives.

[Michael]

From what I'm reading it looks like a military coup has occured. Pretty strong circumstantial evidence that this is a 'stolen' election that Ahmadinejad may have lost.

This may yet be more 'fruit' of Bush's poisoned foreign policy tree.

[andrewl]

From what I'm reading it looks like a military coup has occured. Pretty strong circumstantial evidence that this is a 'stolen' election that Ahmadinejad may have lost.

This may yet be more 'fruit' of Bush's poisoned foreign policy tree.

It sounds more like the Grand Ayatollah was involved, the way he immediately affirmed the results of the election when by law it was supposed to not become official until after three days...

Andrew

[Americano]

It sounds more like the Grand Ayatollah was involved, the way he immediately affirmed the results of the election when by law it was supposed to not become official until after three days...

Andrew

That's the way I read it. The Supreme Ruler does control the Revolutionary Guard.

[Evangeline]

Can you believe they shut down all texting, and then they shut down all cell service and internet, and then even landlines for a while, so the opposition couldn't organize? It didn't work obviously. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets today. And a few got shot. What a travesty.

Youtube is filled with videos from the HUGE protests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ <----police injured and then saved by the crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBnDsGypvfs <---huge crowd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTmPMeUSr0 <-----marching and chanting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihzjnK0DG4

[dilettante]

This may yet be more 'fruit' of Bush's poisoned foreign policy tree.

How so?

[Americano]

Can you believe they shut down all texting, and then they shut down all cell service and internet, and then even landlines for a while, so the opposition couldn't organize? It didn't work obviously. Hundreds of thousands took to the streets today. And a few got shot. What a travesty.

Youtube is filled with videos from the HUGE protests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSECAvBTanQ <----police injured and then saved by the crowd.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SBnDsGypvfs <---huge crowd

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOTmPMeUSr0 <-----marching and chanting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XihzjnK0DG4

The US no longer has to worry about political protests getting out of hand. If anyone attempts to protest outside an assigned protest zone (usually a municipal area far removed from traffic and surrounded by LE units) off to jail they go.

[Michael]

How so?
There are indications that Iranian 'fear' of changing President's might look like 'appeasement' of US demands (ie. Bush policy) and thus the 'coup' becomes necessary to prevent Iran losing face. Secondly, the reformist faction in Iran has ALWAYS been contaminated by accusations of being run by the CIA - fostered by Bush's policy of covert funding/supporting of Iranian opposition groups (indeed, US has a LONG history of actively being involved in, and overthrowing, Iranian elections).

US government financial support for Iranian opposition groups (Bush Administration policy) gives the Iranian government all the ammunition they need to crack down on them any time they please.

Indeed, the Bush Administration was warned repeatedly at the time that for US government to offer covert support/finance to Iranian opposition groups would be extremely counterproductive to Iranian reform for this reason.

I certainly got the impression at that time that the neocons in the Bush White House had convinced GW Bush that this was a 'feature not a bug' - that to prevent Iranian reform process that might remove the "Iranian boogyman" from US domestic politics. US politics needs its foreign boogyman so therefore democratic reform in Iran was not considered 'useful' to Republican-run Washington at all.

[Dominick]

You're indicating it yourself by stressing LONG and ALWAYS : the Iran-US issue predates the GW Bush administration. You can lay the continuation of the approach on Bushies' feet but not the origin IMO. That goes back to Reagan, maybe even Carter.

[Michael]

You're indicating it yourself by stressing LONG and ALWAYS : the Iran-US issue predates the GW Bush administration. You can lay the continuation of the approach on Bushies' feet but not the origin IMO. That goes back to Reagan, maybe even Carter.
Yes, US political bellicosity towards Iran goes way back, no doubt of that.

But the Bush Administration raised the political rhetoric up a notch or two - and specifically argued that Bush HAD to be re-elected in 2004 or it would be seen as a capitulation to America's enemies.

The Iranians are apparently buying that argument here. That's fruit of Bush's poisoned policy tree.

[dilettante]

There are indications that Iranian 'fear' of changing President's might look like 'appeasement' of US demands (ie. Bush policy) and thus the 'coup' becomes necessary to prevent Iran losing face. Secondly, the reformist faction in Iran has ALWAYS been contaminated by accusations of being run by the CIA - fostered by Bush's policy of covert funding/supporting of Iranian opposition groups (indeed, US has a LONG history of actively being involved in, and overthrowing, Iranian elections).

US government financial support for Iranian opposition groups (Bush Administration policy) gives the Iranian government all the ammunition they need to crack down on them any time they please.

Indeed, the Bush Administration was warned repeatedly at the time that for US government to offer covert support/finance to Iranian opposition groups would be extremely counterproductive to Iranian reform for this reason.

I certainly got the impression at that time that the neocons in the Bush White House had convinced GW Bush that this was a 'feature not a bug' - that to prevent Iranian reform process that might remove the "Iranian boogyman" from US domestic politics. US politics needs its foreign boogyman so therefore democratic reform in Iran was not considered 'useful' to Republican-run Washington at all.

I can see where your coming from, but I think the connection is speculative at best.

I can certainly see the logic in the Iranian people being swayed to re-elect Ahmadinejad in order to show Iranian independence from foreign criticism. But I think its a stretch to argue that Bush policies convinced Ahmadinejad himself to steal an election and the Supreme Leader to support him in doing so; it seems much more likely that these were personal decisions that had more to do with an antipathy toward Iranian reformists than American political rhetoric. In other words, I doubt that a less bellicose American policy would have convinced Ahmadinejad or Khamenei to let anyone else win this election. I simply can't lay Ahmadinejad's stealing an election in Iran at Bush's feet.

[dilettante]

I agree. Restrictions on sell of alcohol, pornography are common in most counties in my part of Kentucky and they are mostly supported by local churches and religious groups. Also the opposition to allowing gambling in Kentucky which is a hot debate right now is mostly supported by religious organizations and social conservatives.

I don't think that qualifies them as a "theocracy." Just a democracy with lots of religious people in it.

[partofme]

I don't think that qualifies them as a "theocracy." Just a democracy with lots of religious people in it.

Well the results are the same at least.

[Americano]

I don't think that qualifies them as a "theocracy." Just a democracy with lots of religious people in it.

The definition being 51% of that populace denying rights to the other 49%?

[dilettante]

The definition being 51% of that populace denying rights to the other 49%?

That's certainly a possibility consistent with a (pure) democracy, though I doubt the numbers are that stark in Kentucky, or the powers of the majority unlimited.

Anyway, I just thought the distinguishing feature between a democracy and a theocracy wasn't what laws were passed but where legitimate legal/political authority lies. In a democracy it lies with the majority (regardless of why the majority wants to do what it wants to do), in a theocracy it lies with whoever is supposedly speaking for God (regardless of whether or not anyone agrees with him).

[The Drunk Guy]

That's certainly a possibility consistent with a (pure) democracy, though I doubt the numbers are that stark in Kentucky, or the powers of the majority unlimited.


I don't think anyone gets denied anything here in Kentucky except a cold beer in most counties, a seat with an ashtray in most cities, and a horse track without slot machines. Personally, I'm for the slots and think they're idiots for fighting them based on religious fervor. At least there's an argument and vote rather than it just being ordered into law.

About Iran, it's hard to find decent information out there because the articles are written with such political slant. Any suggestions for low-bullshit reading?

[Americano]

I don't think anyone gets denied anything here in Kentucky except a cold beer in most counties, a seat with an ashtray in most cities, and a horse track without slot machines. Personally, I'm for the slots and think they're idiots for fighting them based on religious fervor. At least there's an argument and vote rather than it just being ordered into law.

No cold beer literally screams for a revolution.

About Iran, it's hard to find decent information out there because the articles are written with such political slant. Any suggestions for low-bullshit reading?

I like Asia Times:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF18Ak01.html

[dilettante]

About Iran, it's hard to find decent information out there because the articles are written with such political slant. Any suggestions for low-bullshit reading?

Not from me; all my serious academic reading these days is on eighteenth-century Britain (which I'd hazard to say was rather unlike modern Iran). For contemporary issues I mostly just piece things together as best I can from the news, NPR and occasionally wikipedia :) .
Michael always seems to have a scholarly article at hand for any given topic. Maybe he has one for Iranian politics?

[Michael]

I don't think anyone gets denied anything here in Kentucky except a cold beer in most counties, a seat with an ashtray in most cities, and a horse track without slot machines. Personally, I'm for the slots and think they're idiots for fighting them based on religious fervor. At least there's an argument and vote rather than it just being ordered into law.

About Iran, it's hard to find decent information out there because the articles are written with such political slant. Any suggestions for low-bullshit reading?
Americano's linked article is a damn good one onthe 'political background' to what's going on in Iran right now. I can't find anything better than this. Everyone else is just speculating about what is happening. Some are better speculators than others, but it is all speculation at this point.

Unfortunately, western journalists are effectively under 'house arrest' in Iran right now and all media is under a lock-down. Under these conditions, no one outside of Iran really knows what's going on inside Iran and those inside Iran are unable to communicate with people outside Iran.

And most western media companies can't be bothered to have any foreign correspondants on the ground any more, so they are all dependent upon the same wire service information feeds anyway.

I'm sure we'll see some excellent articles about what is going on right now in a couple of weeks from now.

[dilettante]

Looks like things may heat up tomorrow if protesters turn out in spite of Khamenei's rather ominous remarks this morning.

[Greendruid]

Michael definitely called this one earlier on this week. The Iranian people have my undying respect to oppose some of their leaders, no matter how official, in this manner. I can't imagine a similar show of support in my own country.

[The Drunk Guy]

No cold beer literally screams for a revolution.




In some counties. I moved. ;)

[Michael]

Michael definitely called this one earlier on this week. The Iranian people have my undying respect to oppose some of their leaders, no matter how official, in this manner. I can't imagine a similar show of support in my own country.
Mohawks have done it a few times (being armed with rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank weaponry does help though).

[Greendruid]

Mohawks have done it a few times (being armed with rocket-propelled grenades and anti-tank weaponry does help though).

You're right - that is one group within Canadian society that not only protested but held an armed protest to defy the internal authority of the country, successfully I might add. They seem to still be capable of this in Caledonia and Montréal as I write this.

[Michael]

The tense situation continues in Iran. I admit that even I am surprised at the extent of the situation. I'm not too surprised to see Iranian riots in the streets. I am surprised to see the Iranian leadership make such an obvious and major mistake in rulership - they've done remarkably well over the last forty years since the revolution to stay in power and now they make an 'unforced' error? That's odd.

And that is indeed a sign that the regime may in fact be tettering on the edge. The resort to hard-line violence at such a late stage in the game, marked by as much by the announcement as the actuality, is a sign of desperation on the part of the regime (a 2nd error to compound the 1st!). They are obviously much weaker than they may appear to be. Even still, it takes a powerful force against a weak rulership for a public revolution to succeed. I don't see that happening here - yet.

But a line has been crossed. The regime in Tehran has lost all legitimacy. The murder of Neda is the albatross that now hangs around the neck of the regime. Her blood is on their hands and they will never be able wash it away. Even if they win this battle, they've lost the war. The regime has shed it's legitimacy. Winners of democratic elections don't have to go around murdering innocent civilians to maintain state authority. That's the act of a guilty party and that is plain for all to see now.

* * *

And what is most remarkable about this event (from my cozy and comfortable western perspective) - is the role of technology here. Not twitter and not email and not texting - that's just media talking heads trying to grasp the lingo of something they don't fully understand. No, the role of technology here is found in the digital camera and the internet (both have been around for quite a while now). The long-standing monopoly in corporate (or state) controlled media communications is being broken. Signs of the revolutionary political role of these new corporate media-busting tools have been apparent for a while, but it is only now that the true political power of this technology is made plain for all to see.

I am reminded here of a brilliant article (http://withoutbanisters.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-was-algerian-warwhy-should-you.html) I read recently that focused on a study of the use of torture by the French government during their Algerian War - and the specific lessons to be learned for the USA in a similar situation. What was most memorable about the article was the question, framed from an American perspective, was "did some French political faction argue that what was done was not actually torture?"

Thinking through why that difference exists is helpful for recognizing certain features of the current American debate. Like, wow, cell phone cameras really changed the world. Because the main reason the French torture-defenders didn't argue that stuff like simulated drowning was no big deal was because they didn't have to: they didn't have to admit simulated drowning was happening AT ALL. In the absence of certain forms of highly-circulated, red-handed visual evidence, like the Abu Ghraib photos in Bush-era America, "deny, deny, deny" (even if massive, overwhelming proof actually does exist) remains a plausible public-relations strategy.

The digital camera and the internet are increasingly making it impossible for governments to control the 'presentation' of actual events through their state/corporate controlled media. This new political trend stretches from Washington and Paris right through to the streets of Tehran.

I offer my most sincere hopes and wishes for the Iranian people in their opposition to the tyrannical and murderous regime that claims to rule them.

[Lily]

The tense situation continues in Iran. I admit that even I am surprised at the extent of the situation. I'm not too surprised to see Iranian riots in the streets. I am surprised to see the Iranian leadership make such an obvious and major mistake in rulership - they've done remarkably well over the last forty years since the revolution to stay in power and now they make an 'unforced' error? That's odd.

And that is indeed a sign that the regime may in fact be tettering on the edge. The resort to hard-line violence at such a late stage in the game, marked by as much by the announcement as the actuality, is a sign of desperation on the part of the regime (a 2nd error to compound the 1st!). They are obviously much weaker than they may appear to be. Even still, it takes a powerful force against a weak rulership for a public revolution to succeed. I don't see that happening here - yet.

I think it's most interesting to now see a few Mullahs mixed in with the protesters. This is most definitely a change, an outright rebellion of the clerics against the supreme leader Khamanei. Perhaps just another sign of the weakness of the current regime.

[Michael]

I think it's most interesting to now see a few Mullahs mixed in with the protesters. This is most definitely a change, an outright rebellion of the clerics against the supreme leader Khamanei. Perhaps just another sign of the weakness of the current regime.

A few Mullahs in mixed in with the protesters is indeed significant news. I'd not heard of that at all.

[Lily]

A few Mullahs in mixed in with the protesters is indeed significant news. I'd not heard of that at all.


CNN ran a photo the other day along with a story. Here it is: Source (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/23/iran.protest.faces/index.html)

[Americano]

I think it's most interesting to now see a few Mullahs mixed in with the protesters. This is most definitely a change, an outright rebellion of the clerics against the supreme leader Khamanei. Perhaps just another sign of the weakness of the current regime.

I don't find that too surprising considering Rafsanjani controls 40 of the 86 votes in Iran's Assembly of Experts, mullahs, (who appoint and oversee the Supreme Leader).

[Lily]

I don't find that too surprising considering Rafsanjani controls 40 of the 86 votes in Iran's Assembly of Experts, mullahs, (who appoint and oversee the Supreme Leader).

Wasn't he recently "detained" by the powers that be in Iran, and just as quickly released?

[Americano]

Wasn't he recently "detained" by the powers that be in Iran, and just as quickly released?

That was his sister, her daughter and two other family members.

[Lily]

That was his sister, her daughter and two other family members.

Ah. So, just a bit of state sanctioned intimidation. Gotcha.

[Americano]

Ah. So, just a bit of state sanctioned intimidation. Gotcha.

I don't know. The only news I've read about that was their participation in a protest that caused property damage.

[Michael]

Seems like my assessment of Iran's election is holding true. Yes, the establishment is going to survive and yes, they've apparently lost all legitimacy to rule inside Iran. Seems that protests have been continuing and the country is anything but settled at this time.

Additional signs of the continued weakness of the government are shown in the increasingly strident rhetoric coming from Supreme Leader Khamenei. Indeed, that Khamenei is reduced to being his own 'spokesman' speaks volumes about how serious and how discredited the Iranian government is right now.

As several commentators have pointed out, it is far beneath the dignity of the Supreme Leader to be publicly berating people for not following his commands. That is a major loss of 'face' for him. Strong and successful leaders use proxies to fight their public battles for them. The conclusion here is that leaders who don't have any respectable proxies are by definition, weak and failing leaders.

The days of the Iranian regime are numbered. They may have won the 'election battle' but they've lost the war. The next election will be a landslide against the ruling regime and that's all there is to it.

[Americano]

Seems like my assessment of Iran's election is holding true. Yes, the establishment is going to survive and yes, they've apparently lost all legitimacy to rule inside Iran. Seems that protests have been continuing and the country is anything but settled at this time.

Additional signs of the continued weakness of the government are shown in the increasingly strident rhetoric coming from Supreme Leader Khamenei. Indeed, that Khamenei is reduced to being his own 'spokesman' speaks volumes about how serious and how discredited the Iranian government is right now.

As several commentators have pointed out, it is far beneath the dignity of the Supreme Leader to be publicly berating people for not following his commands. That is a major loss of 'face' for him. Strong and successful leaders use proxies to fight their public battles for them. The conclusion here is that leaders who don't have any respectable proxies are by definition, weak and failing leaders.

The days of the Iranian regime are numbered. They may have won the 'election battle' but they've lost the war. The next election will be a landslide against the ruling regime and that's all there is to it.

I think what happens to Iran's economy and Israeli paranoia will be the deciding factors of who rules Iran.

[Michael]

I think what happens to Iran's economy and Israeli paranoia will be the deciding factors of who rules Iran.

My assessment is entirely predicated upon domestic Iranian issues as they are in evidence.

Future Israeli "leibenstraus" warmongering or American imperialist warmongering cannot be rationally predicted.

[Americano]

My assessment is entirely predicated upon domestic Iranian issues as they are in evidence.

Future Israeli "leibenstraus" warmongering or American imperialist warmongering cannot be rationally predicted.

European requirements and current foreign capital investment in LNG will be a big factor.

[Michael]

As I predicted above, the political repercussions of the July election are still playing out in Iran. The Government still controls the state, but they've lost their moral legitimacy with a large segment of the Iranian people. The seemingly endless ongoing protest movement is proof of that.

Iran opposition protesters clash with security forces

In the capital Tehran, police and militiamen used batons and teargas, and witnesses said there had been gunfire.

The protests, led by Iranian students, were over the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and suppression of academic freedom.

It appears to be the most widespread unrest in Iran for months.

Foreign journalists were banned from reporting on the rallies, and the Iranian authorities closed down mobile phone networks and severely restricted internet access.

Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8398615.stm)

No surprise here at all. The only question is how long will it take?

However, that being said, here's a good opinion column (http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/14/be_careful_what_you_wish_for_would_regime_change_h elp_Iran) from Stephen Walt on the possible implications of actual Iranian regime change. Quite rightly, Walt cautions Americans to be careful what they wish for. I agree with Walt - any indigenous regime change movement inside Iran isn't going to produce an American-friendly regime in Tehran. If anything, a more democratically legitimate and competent administration in Iran is more likely to cause greater problems for US imperialist policy in the Middle East rather than less.

[Zarquon]

The only question is how long will it take?
I don't think it will change given the strong-arming and coercion of reformers by the 100,000 strong and fascist Basij (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij) militia and the lack of material support to the indigenous reformers from outside the country.
If anything, a more democratically legitimate and competent administration in Iran is more likely to cause greater problems for US imperialist policy in the Middle East rather than less.
I couldn't care less about so-called U.S. interests, and would love to see those people free.

[Michael]

I don't think it will change given the strong-arming and coercion of reformers by the 100,000 strong and fascist Basij (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basij) militia and the lack of material support to the indigenous reformers from outside the country.
One ounce of material support from outside the country would doom the movement and kill thousands.

Sovereignty is inviolate. That is the guiding principle of the UN Charter and I fully support it.