Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditAmid scattered deaths and rising protests, the showdown in Iran continues to build. The Iranian regime's crackdown is gathering momentum, with reports of sweeping arrests of opposition figures, militia raids on university campuses, and threats from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps that protestors are liable to be executed. (A contingent of pro-Ahmadinejad backers marched in Tehran yesterday, chanting: "Rioters should be executed!") According to Reuters, the Guard statement said:
"We warn the few elements controlled by foreigners who try to disrupt domestic security by inciting individuals to destroy and to commit arson that the Islamic penal code for such individuals waging war against God is execution."
Of course, the "elements" are hardly "few," they are not "controlled by foreigners," and their actions have been overwhelmingly nonviolent, dignified, and restrained rather than trying to "destroy" and "commit arson." Yet the threat is plain.
Ibrahim Yazdi, the dissident veteran of the 1979 revolution who is a leader of the Freedom Movement of Iran -- and who I interviewed at length at his home in Tehran the day after the rigged election -- is reportedly sought by the Iranian security forces, who came to home to arrest him. He was not there, according to the report. The Washington Post reports that more than 170 opposition figures have been arrested, including senior officials.
The anti-Ahmadinejad coalition is deep and broad. It includes conservative, Old Guard founders of the Islamic Republic, who view Ahmadinejad with disdain and who resent the coming to power of his coterie of Revolutionary Guard commanders; the large and growing majority of Iranian clerics and senior ayatollahs, many of whom have long viewed the Leader, Ayatatollah Ali Khamenei, as an upstart and usurper since he was elevated to his position 20 years ago; nearly the entirety of Iran's business class, especially those involved in high-tech, aviation, oil and gas, and heavy industry, who blame Ahmadinejad for his catastrophic mismanagement of the economy and for the crippling economic sanctions; the entire class of Iranian reformists, from more liberal-minded clerics like former President Khatami to more centrist ex-officials such as former Prime Minister Mousavi, the presidential candidate; a large contingent of Iranian women, energized by the role of Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi's wife, who I met in Tehran, who campaigned vigorously for her husband and for women's rights; and of course, the educated elite of Iran, including students, artists, filmmakers, intellectuals, writers, and musicians.
The pro-Ahmadinejad bloc is a typically fascist one. It includes, first of all, the 150,000-strong Revolutionary Guard, the paramilitary, million-strong Basij militia, thug-like, unofficial vigilante groups like Iranian Hezbollah (unrelated to Lebanon's Hezbollah), the police, and other security forces. Important elements of the national security bureaucracy, who are on Ahmadinejad's payroll, support him enthusiastically. An increasingly isolated, and very hard line, bloc of senior clerics -- including Khamenei, members of the all-powerful Guardian Council, and an ultra-conservative group of clerics in Qom, centered on followers of Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi and his students -- supports Ahmadinejad, though they are arrayed against the opposition clerics. And of course, Ahmadinejad has a loyal base among the religious right, rural and small town voters who've been showered with petty largesse under his rule, and ultra-nationalists who find his appeal to defiant anti-Westernism stirring. The Revolutionary Guard, which has constructed a vast economic enterprise in Iran, is skimming profits, smuggling banned goods, and elbowing out Iran's battered private sector.
My own view -- and this was confirmed by a number of insiders I met with in Tehran -- is that the traditional balance of power has been upended. According to conventional wisdom, Iran's president is a figurehead with little or no power, while the Leader (often mistakenly called the "Supreme Leader") is the all-powerful commander in chief and decision-maker. At the very least, that balance is tilting, and I'll leave it to closer watchers of Iranian politics than me to figure out how far it's moved. But it's clear that Ahmadinejad, his military and paramilitary allies, and the radical clerics that support him have at least surrounded if not neutralized Khamenei, the Leader.
Part of the stuggle that's unfolding now is a struggle for the Leader's allegiance. Key allies of Mousavi, above all Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, the corrupt billionaire and fixer who helped Khamenei come to power in the late 1980s, have been outraged by Ahmadinejad's bungling and mismanagement. If -- and this is a big, big if -- if the entire pro-Mousavi coalition I described above were to continue to challenge Ahmadinejad's rigged vote, if the street protests continue unabated, and if enough of Khamenei's former allies (like Rafsanjani, who met with Khamenei the day before Friday's election) can pull enough strings, it's possible that Ahmadinejad could be ousted in what would amount to a palace coup. That's very unlikely, but possible. And it is far from clear that Ahmadinejad would go quietly, even in that case.
The first inkling that the election outcome could be reversed was the statement from the spokesman for the Guardian Council, Abbas Ali Kadkhodai, that the current review of the vote by the Council, ordered by Khamenei and expected to take a week to ten days, might "result in the nullification of the results and the holding of a new election," as the Washington Post reported. "That is not implausible," Kadkhodai said, to Mehr News, an Iranian press agency with government ties. One analyst has speculated that such a scenario could involve the Council disqualifying enough of Ahmadinejad's votes to bring his total under 50 percent of the vote, thus forcing a runoff election between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. To be sure, such an event would be nearly revolutionary, and it would further embarrass the Leader, who called the election results last Friday "sacred" and "blessed."
More likely is that Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and their allies will circle the wagons. They'll greet protests with an iron fist. Though things are ugly now, they could rapidly get a lot uglier, more violent, and more civil war-like. Thirty years ago, it was the decision of the Shah of Iran not to confront the revolutionaries with violence that allowed the anti-Shah movement to grow strong enough to oust the Shah. Then, as now, a relatively small number of deaths -- "martyrs" -- triggered a traditional, Shiite forty-day cycle of memorial marches and ceremonial protests and led to a crescendo of protest by the end of 1978. A month later, the Shah had fled.
So far it's unclear if the opposition can maintain its momentum. I'd say that the smart money is on Ahmadinejad holding on, backed by outright force. That's why President Obama is hedging his bets, praising the rebellious students and Mousavi voters but insisting that he's ready, willing and able to talk to Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. To the continuing frustration of the neocons, Obama isn't throwing American support to the Green Revolution. And that's a good thing.
As for me, well, I'm biased. I support the Green Revolution. But I'm not being shot at.
That doesn't mean that I support Iran's reactionary, benighted form of government. As far as I am concerned, a government run by mullahs is so seventh century. Do Iranians want to upend the entire system? Many do. Many Iranians are sick and tired of, and embarrassed by, a regime run by bearded old clerics. How much of Mousavi's coalition is made up of people who want to do away with the entire Iranian constitution and the Islamic Republic that goes with it? My guess? Except for Rafsanjani, his clerical allies, and others in the establishment, quite a few. Many of those who were attracted to Mousavi and Rahnavard supported them because they saw the reformists as a key that might open a locked door to a new Iran, one run by secular politicians. "Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished," said Hamlet. Of course, the princely Dane was talking about suicide. And for many Iranians, opposing the Iranian regime means exactly that.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
"To the continuing frustration of the neocons, Obama isn't throwing American support to the Green Revolution. And that's a good thing."
Actually, Mr Dreyfuss, with the obvious choices of "incredibly stupid" or "incredibly disengenuous" on the Right...I'm going with the latter.
These pundit-induced calls for "Obama to say something more forceful in support of the protestors and against Ahmadinejad" are obviously political.
I think EVEN THEY know it would be counter-productive...as Dubya's rants against Ahmadinejad in the previouis election HELPED him win re-election, not hurt him.
And it's interesting that the same guys who were telling us before the election that "What Obama said in Cairo was meaningless as far as Iran goes"....are now insisting that "Obama has to say something!!!"....heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 09:32am
DREYFUSS: "To the continuing frustration of the neocons, Obama isn't throwing American support to the Green Revolution. And that's a good thing."
Given that the "neocons" are NOT in power, nor in any kinda position to affect Magic's inaction, and the American people's preoccupation with more important things, I think their "continuing frustration" is a little over estimated.
My take, is many Libs' frustration is building up a head of steam.....and just as Ann Coulter (and Ayn Rand) said, you Libs can hold totally contradictory thoughts and the best of you, perhaps Mr. Dreyfuss, never get too frustrated. Sure, you're "biased" and support the Green Revolution......so, big deal....the key is, what do you advocate in substance, that is, ACTION?
Posted by Happy at 06/17/2009 @ 09:43am
the key is, what do you advocate in substance, that is, ACTION?
Posted by Happy at 06/17/2009 @ 09:43am
Taking no action is ACTION Happy.
Posted by OneVote at 06/17/2009 @ 10:21am
I sincerely hope that, whatever the political outcome of the crisis in Iran, the violence does not escalate as Dreyfuss suggests and as seems logically likely.
Posted by syfriendly at 06/17/2009 @ 10:46am
Taking no action is ACTION Happy.
Posted by OneVote at 06/17/2009 @ 10:21am
Perfect DoubleSpeak.....Hopey and Changey forever!
Posted by Happy at 06/17/2009 @ 10:47am
(And President Obama is exactly right, in waiting to see who is in power in Iran before committing to any positions or actions with respect to Iran. The US is going to have to deal with whatever regime emerges in Iran productively.)
Posted by syfriendly at 06/17/2009 @ 10:48am
A Guardian UK piece claims Mousavi won by about 13M votes, but that Interior Minstry's new software warped the results to put the 3rd place loser as 1st place reelected winner. Sounds like Ohio '04 ... did they get the software from Diebold?
Posted by sloper at 06/17/2009 @ 10:53am
you Libs can hold totally contradictory thoughts and the best of you, perhaps Mr. Dreyfuss, never get too frustrated
Posted by Happy at 06/17/2009 @ 09:43am
What our our condradictory thoughts? Frustration? I don't know about frustration but annoyance for sure when ever I hear someone quote the mentally insane like Ann Coulter.
Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 11:12am
Posted by Happy at 06/17/2009 @ 10:47am
Again, HAPP tends to "forget" previous history.
See, sometimes NOT doing something...like actually HELPING the hard-liners in Iran by having the TOTUS deliver a blistering...Dubya-like...speech...
is the truly helpful thing to do.
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 11:14am
iran - the perfection of the fascist neocon state. Where Rush would be a moderate. Where Ann of Ice could chill a populace for the rest of her days. And big Dick, well....
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/17/2009 @ 11:24am
As with all successful revolutions, it must come from within. I think Obama has taken the correct action so far...by not taking ANY action, Happy.
Yes, the lack of taking action is actually an action, Happy, especially if all the options for action are considered (and I believe they are being considered as we speak), and the course determined is to not take any action. In the world of realpolitik, that speaks volumes.
Curious though, what do you suggest the Administration do? Bomb them?
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 12:06pm
Curious though, what do you suggest the Administration do? Bomb them?---Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 12:06pm
About 30-40% of the Right would say "Yes"...the other 60-70% just like to "hint" at bombing Iran.
Oddly, I have more respect for the 30-40%ers....'least they're honest.
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 12:37pm
"But it's clear that Ahmadinejad, his military and paramilitary allies, and the radical clerics that support him have at least surrounded if not neutralized Khamenei, the Leader."
Just a question: Do you think this is similar to Cheney managing Bush from inside, or does it more closely resemble a coup? Cheney seems to have had Bush's tacit backing, all along.... do you think that's true, here?
I tend to be more optimistic, though. I'm also not getting shot at, yet, but I think that every truly revolutionary movement has to be perceived by the majority to be victimized, in order for the movement to grab hold. This is certainly the case, here, and the protests seem to have led to HUGE momentum building for the reformers. It's hard to imagine a scenario where the common perception of Iran could change more quickly and more profoundly than it has in the last week. This has gotta suck for the neocons, as you said. Anyway, thanks again for the great update on a very dicey but potentially amazing situation.
Posted by DejaVu at 06/17/2009 @ 1:14pm
Hey Nation - how about some truly critical coverage of the neo-liberal revolt in Iran? Or, does pointing out your LACK of critical, non-ahistorical coverage make me backwards??? You are engaging in nothing more than another chapter of Anglo-US intervention in Iranian affairs.
Louis Head Albuquerque
Posted by elmolestoso at 06/17/2009 @ 1:33pm
What is needed is not just democracy but an Iranian Workers' and Peasants' Republic, which will set the whole Middle East ablaze.
- Alan Woods.
Posted by Communard115 at 06/17/2009 @ 1:38pm
And while we're at it, let's also stand up for the Palestinian election--you know, the one that Hamas won. OK, forget it. That was a bad idea even if the election was deemed fair (by Jimmy Carter).
Posted by lingum at 06/17/2009 @ 2:06pm
Posted by elmolestoso at 06/17/2009 @ 1:33pm
What are you really asking for? 1)The Iranian government propaganda?, 2)the truth?, 3)or the protestors propaganda? Or maybe an article that examines 1 and 3 with and attempt to reach number 2
Posted by Extraneous at 06/17/2009 @ 2:10pm
Posted by elmolestoso at 06/17/2009 @ 1:33pm
Just so I'm clear, the theory is that the Iranian people DON'T WANT any reforms and LOVE Ahmadinejad?
That it?
Posted by Mask at 06/17/2009 @ 3:12pm
Clearly, something is rotten in Denmark in regards to the so-called "Green Revolution".
Here's another excellent piece from --of all things-- a former Treasury official under Ronald Reagan, Paul Craig Roberts. (He can be viewed narrating "The Death of the Dollar" here: tinyurl.com/mfd6b7
IRAN FACES GREAT RISKS THAN IT KNOWS
By Paul Craig Roberts
June 17, 2009 "Information Clearing House" -- Stephen Kinzer's book, All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, tells the story of the overthrow of Iran's democratically elected leader, Mohammed Mosaddeq, by the CIA and the British MI6 in 1953. The CIA bribed Iranian government officials, businessmen, and reporters, and paid Iranians to demonstrate in the streets.
The 1953 street demonstrations, together with the cold war claim that the US had to grab Iran before the Soviets did, served as the US government's justification for overthrowing Iranian democracy. What the Iranian people wanted was not important.
Today the street demonstrations in Tehran show signs of orchestration. The protesters, primarily young people, especially young women opposed to the dress codes, carry signs written in English: "Where is My Vote?" The signs are intended for the western media, not for the Iranian government.
More evidence of orchestration is provided by the protesters' chant, "death to the dictator, death to Ahmadinejad." Every Iranian knows that the president of Iran is a public figure with limited powers. His main role is to take the heat from the governing grand Ayatollah. No Iranian, and no informed westerner, could possibly believe that Ahmadinejad is a dictator. Even Ahmadinejad's superior, Khamenei, is not a dictator as he is appointed by a government body that can remove him.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 4:00pm
The demonstrations, like those in 1953, are intended to discredit the Iranian government and to establish for Western opinion that the government is a repressive regime that does not have the support of the Iranian people. This manipulation of opinion sets up Iran as another Iraq ruled by a dictator who must be overthrown by sanctions or an invasion.
On American TV, the protesters who are interviewed speak perfect English. They are either westernized secular Iranians who were allied with the Shah and fled to the West during the 1978 Iranian revolution or they are the young westernized residents of Tehran.
Many of the demonstrators may be sincere in their protest, hoping to free themselves from Islamic moral codes. But if reports of the US government's plans to destabilize Iran are correct, paid troublemakers are in their ranks.
Some observers, such as George Friedman [ tinyurl.com/ks3zs9 ] believe that the American destabilization plan will fail.
However, many ayatollahs feel animosity toward Ahmadinejad, who assaults the ayatollahs for corruption. Many in the Iranian countryside believe that the ayatollahs have too much wealth and power. Amadinejad's attack on corruption resonates with the Iranian countryside but not with the ayatollahs.
Amadinejad's campaign against corruption has brought Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri out against him. Montazeri is a rival to ruling Ayatollah Khamenei. Montazeri sees in the street protests an opportunity to challenge Khamenei for the leadership role.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 4:00pm
So, once again, as so many times in history, the ambitions of one person might seal the fate of the Iranian state.
Khamenei knows that the elected president is an underling. If he has to sacrifice Ahmadinejad's election in order to fend off Montazeri, he might recount the vote and elect Mousavi, thinking that will bring an end to the controversy.
Khamenei, solving his personal problem, would play into the hands of the American-Israeli assault on his country.
On the surface, the departure of Ahmadeinjad would cost Israel and the US the loss of their useful "anti-semitic" boggy-man. But in fact it would play into the American-Israeli propaganda. The story would be that the remote, isolated, Iranian ruling Ayatollah was forced by the Iranian people to admit the falsity of the rigged election, calling into question rule by Ayatollahs who do not stand for election.
Mousavi and Ayatollah Montazeri are putting their besieged country at risk. Possibly they believe that ridding Iran of Ahmadeinjad's extreme image would gain Iran breathing room. If Mousavi and Montazeri succeed in their ambitions, one likely result would be a loss in Iran's independence. The new rulers would have to continually defend Iran's new moderate and reformist image by giving in to American demands. If the government admits to a rigged election, the legitimacy of the Iranian Revolution would be called into question, setting up Iran for more US interference in its internal affairs.
For the American neoconservatives, democratic countries are those countries that submit to America's will, regardless of their form of government. "Democracy" is achieved by America ruling through puppet officials.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 4:00pm
The American public might never know whether the Iranian election was legitimate or stolen. The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth. Election fraud is certainly a possibility--it happens even in America--and signs of fraud have appeared. Large numbers of votes were swiftly counted, which raises the question whether votes were counted or merely a result was announced.
The US media's response to the election was equally rapid. Having invested heavily in demonizing Ahmadinejad, the media is unwilling to accept election results that vindicate Ahmadinejad and declared fraud in advance of evidence, despite the pre-election poll results published in the June 15 Washington Post, which found Ahmadinejad to be the projected winner.
There are many American interest groups that have a vested interest in the charge that the election was rigged. What is important to many Americans is not whether the election was fair, but whether the winner's rhetoric is allied with their goals.
For example, those numerous Americans who believe that both presidential and congressional elections were stolen during the Karl Rove Republican years are tempted to use the Iranian election protests to shame Americans for accepting the stolen Bush elections.
Feminists take the side of the "reformer" Mousavi.
Neoconservatives damn the election for suppressing the "peace candidate" who might acquiescent to Israel's demands to halt the development of Iranian nuclear energy.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 4:00pm
Ideological and emotional agendas result in people distancing themselves from factual and analytical information, preferring instead information that fits with their material interests and emotional disposition. The primacy of emotion over fact bids ill for the future. The extraordinary attention given to the Iranian election suggests that many American interests and emotions have a stake in the outcome.
End quote.
That last sentence above bears repeating.
Wake the hell up people!
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 4:01pm
Hey, wingers who come here for a little "unconventional wisdom",
If there were a Republican primary with two candidates and one was endorsed by Obama (or Bill Clinton, or Hillary, or John Kerry, or fill in the socialist you hate most), how would that affect your thinking? Would there be any chance in hell you'd then vote for that candidate, the one endorsed by Obama? Would you even continue to consider that candidate a real Republican? Now do you get why Obama can't step in and endorse the Mousavi opposition or "take action"? Sadly, probably not. Do you wish Iran had true democracy? So do I. Maybe we shouldn't have helped overthrow the one they had in the 50's. Are you so dim that you don't see that sometimes it's better if we just keep our noses out of things? Do you really think we have any real power to accomplish anything (other than screwing things up) in Iran? Should we go back to your previous idea of bombing them into the stone age? In short, what ideas do you have other than to oppose Obama NO MATTER WHAT he does?
Posted by PRKL8R at 06/17/2009 @ 5:16pm
The US media serves as a propaganda device, not as a purveyor of truth.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 4:01pm
I actually think the above quote is the most important quote in the whole piece. It holds the ring of truth.
Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/17/2009 @ 5:59pm
The right wing right now is seemingly out of its mind. Somewhere in the deep recesses of their memory banks is the dim reminder of a distant day... a day in which authoritarian fear based media fed fascism made sense... because GWB told us it did. In the hey day of the former administration's self appointed 'war on terror' many if not most of us were amazed at the 'liberties' taken by a consolidated war machine determined to find an outlet even beyond the two wars we were already undertaking... wars, I'm sure I don't need to remind you... that by all accounts, were wars of preference rather than necessity... war being one of the least viable options available to the world community at that time.
A faction's right to choose...;^)
In this glorious hey day... passions were continuously aroused and prodded... to invade and bomb Iran... which was sheer lunacy considering we were sluffing Afghanistan and up to our ears in a confused Iraq...
Most of the right wing was all out for bombing Iran.
This current 'crisis' in Iran... is the fullest expression of a situational renunciation of GWB's approach to 'spreading democracy around the world'... because we have spread democracy by example... without firing a shot.
The method, the madness, the process... were all of poor quality, and cost a lot of lives and money... and freedom.
True democracy can not be forced into being from outside concerns... and Iran is today ascending a steep learning curve.
As are we here in America... the land that started it all.
Posted by ttr at 06/17/2009 @ 5:59pm
Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to poll, the numbers turned out quite different.
Some still charge that Ahmadinejad cheated. That is certainly a possibility, but it is difficult to see how he could have stolen the election by such a large margin. Doing so would have required the involvement of an incredible number of people, and would have risked creating numbers that quite plainly did not jibe with sentiment in each precinct. Widespread fraud would mean that Ahmadinejad manufactured numbers in Tehran without any regard for the vote. But he has many powerful enemies who would quickly have spotted this and would have called him on it. Mousavi still insists he was robbed, and we must remain open to the possibility that he was, although it is hard to see the mechanics of this.
Ahmadinejad's Popularity
It also misses a crucial point: Ahmadinejad enjoys widespread popularity. He doesn't speak to the issues that matter to the urban professionals, namely, the economy and liberalization. But Ahmadinejad speaks to three fundamental issues that accord with the rest of the country.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:13pm
"I think the fist-pumping mullahs wouldn't be too difficult to 'displace from within' given the education and attitudes of many inside Iran's borders."
~Snowball
Et tu NoSay AllBay?
I find it quite annoying how so many ostensibly smart people have such a simplified view of a very complex nation --forget "ttr" (above), he's apparently terminally starstruck.
Allow me to post an excerpt of the superb piece by George Friedman referenced in the Paul Craig Roberts piece I posted above:
Americans and Europeans have been misreading Iran for 30 years. Even after the shah fell, the myth has survived that a mass movement of people exists demanding liberalization -- a movement that if encouraged by the West eventually would form a majority and rule the country. We call this outlook "iPod liberalism," the idea that anyone who listens to rock ‘n' roll on an iPod, writes blogs and knows what it means to Twitter must be an enthusiastic supporter of Western liberalism. Even more significantly, this outlook fails to recognize that iPod owners represent a small minority in Iran -- a country that is poor, pious and content on the whole with the revolution forged 30 years ago.
There are undoubtedly people who want to liberalize the Iranian regime. They are to be found among the professional classes in Tehran, as well as among students. Many speak English, making them accessible to the touring journalists, diplomats and intelligence people who pass through. They are the ones who can speak to Westerners, and they are the ones willing to speak to Westerners. And these people give Westerners a wildly distorted view of Iran. They can create the impression that a fantastic liberalization is at hand -- but not when you realize that iPod-owning Anglophones are not exactly the majority in Iran.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:13pm
First, Ahmadinejad speaks of piety. Among vast swathes of Iranian society, the willingness to speak unaffectedly about religion is crucial. Though it may be difficult for Americans and Europeans to believe, there are people in the world to whom economic progress is not of the essence; people who want to maintain their communities as they are and live the way their grandparents lived. These are people who see modernization -- whether from the shah or Mousavi -- as unattractive. They forgive Ahmadinejad his economic failures.
Second, Ahmadinejad speaks of corruption. There is a sense in the countryside that the ayatollahs -- who enjoy enormous wealth and power, and often have lifestyles that reflect this -- have corrupted the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad is disliked by many of the religious elite precisely because he has systematically raised the corruption issue, which resonates in the countryside.
Third, Ahmadinejad is a spokesman for Iranian national security, a tremendously popular stance. It must always be remembered that Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that lasted eight years, cost untold lives and suffering, and effectively ended in its defeat. Iranians, particularly the poor, experienced this war on an intimate level. They fought in the war, and lost husbands and sons in it. As in other countries, memories of a lost war don't necessarily delegitimize the regime. Rather, they can generate hopes for a resurgent Iran, thus validating the sacrifices made in that war -- something Ahmadinejad taps into. By arguing that Iran should not back down but become a major power, he speaks to the veterans and their families, who want something positive to emerge from all their sacrifices in the war.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:13pm
Perhaps the greatest factor in Ahmadinejad's favor is that Mousavi spoke for the better districts of Tehran -- something akin to running a U.S. presidential election as a spokesman for Georgetown and the Lower East Side. Such a base will get you hammered, and Mousavi got hammered. Fraud or not, Ahmadinejad won and he won significantly. That he won is not the mystery; the mystery is why others thought he wouldn't win.
For a time on Friday, it seemed that Mousavi might be able to call for an uprising in Tehran. But the moment passed when Ahmadinejad's security forces on motorcycles intervened. And that leaves the West with its worst-case scenario: a democratically elected anti-liberal.
Western democracies assume that publics will elect liberals who will protect their rights. In reality, it's a more complicated world. Hitler is the classic example of someone who came to power constitutionally, and then preceded to gut the constitution. Similarly, Ahmadinejad's victory is a triumph of both democracy and repression.
The Road Ahead: More of the Same
The question now is what will happen next. Internally, we can expect Ahmadinejad to consolidate his position under the cover of anti-corruption. He wants to clean up the ayatollahs, many of whom are his enemies. He will need the support of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This election has made Ahmadinejad a powerful president, perhaps the most powerful in Iran since the revolution. Ahmadinejad does not want to challenge Khamenei, and we suspect that Khamenei will not want to challenge Ahmadinejad. A forced marriage is emerging, one which may place many other religious leaders in a difficult position.
End quote.
I hope the stuff I posted here will help improve the quality 0f the dialogue.
Sheesh.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:13pm
Ooooops!
My bad. The sequence of 4 posts I sent (above) should be read 2, 1, 3, 4 --In other words, the first post comes after the second post.
Sheeeesh!
:D
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:17pm
Last Friday, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with about two-thirds of the vote. Supporters of his opponent, both inside and outside Iran, were stunned. A poll revealed that former Iranian Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi was beating Ahmadinejad. It is, of course, interesting to meditate on how you could conduct a poll in a country where phones are not universal, and making a call once you have found a phone can be a trial. A poll therefore would probably reach people who had phones and lived in Tehran and other urban areas. Among those, Mousavi probably did win. But outside Tehran, and beyond persons easy to poll, the numbers turned out quite different.
Some still charge that Ahmadinejad cheated. That is certainly a possibility, but it is difficult to see how he could have stolen the election by such a large margin. Doing so would have required the involvement of an incredible number of people, and would have risked creating numbers that quite plainly did not jibe with sentiment in each precinct. Widespread fraud would mean that Ahmadinejad manufactured numbers in Tehran without any regard for the vote. But he has many powerful enemies who would quickly have spotted this and would have called him on it. Mousavi still insists he was robbed, and we must remain open to the possibility that he was, although it is hard to see the mechanics of this.
Ahmadinejad's Popularity
It also misses a crucial point: Ahmadinejad enjoys widespread popularity. He doesn't speak to the issues that matter to the urban professionals, namely, the economy and liberalization. But Ahmadinejad speaks to three fundamental issues that accord with the rest of the country.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:28pm
First, Ahmadinejad speaks of piety. Among vast swathes of Iranian society, the willingness to speak unaffectedly about religion is crucial. Though it may be difficult for Americans and Europeans to believe, there are people in the world to whom economic progress is not of the essence; people who want to maintain their communities as they are and live the way their grandparents lived. These are people who see modernization -- whether from the shah or Mousavi -- as unattractive. They forgive Ahmadinejad his economic failures.
Second, Ahmadinejad speaks of corruption. There is a sense in the countryside that the ayatollahs -- who enjoy enormous wealth and power, and often have lifestyles that reflect this -- have corrupted the Islamic Revolution. Ahmadinejad is disliked by many of the religious elite precisely because he has systematically raised the corruption issue, which resonates in the countryside.
Third, Ahmadinejad is a spokesman for Iranian national security, a tremendously popular stance. It must always be remembered that Iran fought a war with Iraq in the 1980s that lasted eight years, cost untold lives and suffering, and effectively ended in its defeat. Iranians, particularly the poor, experienced this war on an intimate level. They fought in the war, and lost husbands and sons in it. As in other countries, memories of a lost war don't necessarily delegitimize the regime. Rather, they can generate hopes for a resurgent Iran, thus validating the sacrifices made in that war -- something Ahmadinejad taps into. By arguing that Iran should not back down but become a major power, he speaks to the veterans and their families, who want something positive to emerge from all their sacrifices in the war.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:28pm
Perhaps the greatest factor in Ahmadinejad's favor is that Mousavi spoke for the better districts of Tehran -- something akin to running a U.S. presidential election as a spokesman for Georgetown and the Lower East Side. Such a base will get you hammered, and Mousavi got hammered. Fraud or not, Ahmadinejad won and he won significantly. That he won is not the mystery; the mystery is why others thought he wouldn't win.
For a time on Friday, it seemed that Mousavi might be able to call for an uprising in Tehran. But the moment passed when Ahmadinejad's security forces on motorcycles intervened. And that leaves the West with its worst-case scenario: a democratically elected anti-liberal.
Western democracies assume that publics will elect liberals who will protect their rights. In reality, it's a more complicated world. Hitler is the classic example of someone who came to power constitutionally, and then preceded to gut the constitution. Similarly, Ahmadinejad's victory is a triumph of both democracy and repression.
The Road Ahead: More of the Same
The question now is what will happen next. Internally, we can expect Ahmadinejad to consolidate his position under the cover of anti-corruption. He wants to clean up the ayatollahs, many of whom are his enemies. He will need the support of Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. This election has made Ahmadinejad a powerful president, perhaps the most powerful in Iran since the revolution. Ahmadinejad does not want to challenge Khamenei, and we suspect that Khamenei will not want to challenge Ahmadinejad. A forced marriage is emerging, one which may place many other religious leaders in a difficult position.
End quote.
Hope this helps improve the --quite poor, sadly-- dialogue here at The Nation.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:30pm
I have no further comment at this time.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:36pm
b_kool_66...
Cut-n-paste, huh... well... two can play at that game...;^)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8104466.stm
All the best!
Posted by ttr at 06/17/2009 @ 6:50pm
I have no further comment at this time.
;-)
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 6:36pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Jeez...chill Kool will ya?
Dan Rather said just about same thing but with a whisper not a shout -
"don't expect too much change in Iran"
"pictures don't always tell the story - careful what you infer from television"
Posted by OneVote at 06/17/2009 @ 7:05pm
Perfect DoubleSpeak.....Hopey and Changey forever!
Posted by Happy at 06/17/2009 @ 10:47am
Whereas the Bushevik's playbook borrowed from the British sitcom Yes Prime Minister.
"Something must be done." "This is something, so let's do it"
Posted by Shingo at 06/17/2009 @ 7:57pm
"To the continuing frustration of the neocons, Obama isn't throwing American support to the Green Revolution. **And that's a good thing.**"
This doesn't make any sense at all to me, and I have yet to see any evidence to support it. If throwing vocal support behind the Green Revolution would do their cause more harm than good, then why hasn't Obama done it already? Surely the foreign policy establishment in Washington cannot be excited by the prospect of a freer, more democratic Iran, ushered in by a popular movement commanding the sympathies of every rational American; they would lose a key rhetorical pretext behind their continuing game of brinksmanship with that country. It seems far more likely to me that they would be content to let Ahmadinejad crush the Iranian dissidents so as to keep Iran an easy target for their propaganda. The neocon demands that Obama do more to favor the protesters might indeed be politically motivated, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Posted by TomAgnew at 06/17/2009 @ 8:37pm
Posted by Snowball at 7:09pm
Fair enough on that response, Snowball.
I agree that the election has pungent air, but much more needs to surface by way of clarification --seems to be mostly wreathed in a thick hookah smoke at the moment.
From my perspective --having just finished "Legacy of Ashes" by Tim Weiner, an expansive tale of CIA malfeasance over 6 decades (which I highly recommend)-- the strongest impression I have is that the U.S. government has likely been intimately involved in attempting to sow as much confusion as possible.
What's the end game from the U.S./Israeli perspective?
That is the most serious question at the moment in my opinion. Best guess says that the wisest course of action is the one we'll most likely not see.
It's gonna be interesting though, I suppose.
Posted by b_kool_66 at 06/17/2009 @ 10:06pm
I think you guys are out of your everloving minds.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gKL4EDjsl4
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/17/2009 @ 11:23pm
One word comes to mind- men! Listen, I'm Iranian, I'm educated, I was raised an atheist (oh my god!), I live in a Jewish neighbourhood in North America (oh my god!), and I'm female. And guess what? There are millions of us. How old is the States? Iran goes back 2,500 years. We've been through Mongolian, Ottoman, and Arab invasions. The latter bringing with it the cancer of Islam but still we were defiant to the very end. Shia "Islam", that's an Iranian invention. And it's the only country in the region that has never been carved up. This Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's first and only theocracy has a Friday prayer (holiest day of the week) attendance of...wait for it...less than 1% of the entire population. Clearly, the CIA has been feeding the villagers anti-religion tablets and spreading lies about Khomeini. Iran's building nuclear weapons and you guys are in the abyss in Iraq, and still, unbelievably still you think you have a finger in this? hahahahaha this thing would have been dead in the water with your help. The children of the very people who unwittingly allowed you to screw them over with Mossadegh and then again with Khomeini and then again the Iran/Iraq war still own their oil; but they're sick of these turbaned idiots. Khamenei's ill, Rafsanjani wants to replace him, the Imadinnerjacket faction hates Rafsanjani so they throw a coup. Why else would the win be so blatantly exaggerated? But they didn't bank on the uprising. UN inspector said 4 years; it was now or never. We're a very forgiving people. You can thank us by taking your constitution seriously for once, giving it the respect it deserves. Peace, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness (for All). The children of Cyrus the Great are roaring once again. Iran Zendeh Bad! Marg dar diktator!
Posted by sigh at 06/18/2009 @ 04:47am
B_KOOL, apparently is saying "What's The Matter With Khorasan?"...
"not a dang thing!"
(Ref: Thomas Frank...in case you didn't guess.)
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 08:12am
As are we here in America... the land that started it all. Posted by ttr at 06/17/2009 @ 5:59pm | ignore this person | warn this person
good post, EXCEPT: where democracy is concerned, it was the ancient Greeks that started it all. England too was an important milestone as far as democracy is concerned.
watch the "we're number one" trope
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 09:12am
Posted by emile duBois at 06/18/2009 @ 09:12am
Nothing about "Deutschland"?????
heheh
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 09:16am
Posted by TomAgnew at 06/17/2009 @ 8:37pm
Iran as a propaganda tool has some value, but not as much as a great big country opened up to the joys of capitalist globalization, privatization and "normalization." That's why the American and international ruling classes woudn't mind seeing a successful "Green Revolution" in Iran.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 10:10am
Thank you, b_kool, for pasting pieces that added intellegent commentary and balance to this discussion.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 10:13am
Two questions for Mr. Dreyfuss:
1. How do you respond to those reasonable commentators who argue that Iran's "Green Revolution" may in fact share the same foreign roots of the Orange and Rose revolutions?
2. Where is the Iranian working class? Are they part of Ahmadinejad "typically fascist" bloc? Do they instead support the reformist campaign? Or have they not weighed in yet on either side, at least not in any significant numbers? That last option might be comparable to Yeltsin's (drunken) stand on the barricades (and a tank) during the last-gasp Stalinist coup attempt in the old Soviet Union, when the Soviet working class basically said a plague on both your houses. Is the Iranian working class similarly disenchanted with both options that they won't join either side in the streets?
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 10:25am
Not to mention thinking classes everywhere.
Perhaps you're all ashamed of the Great American Rollover of the last 8 + years
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/18/2009 @ 10:28am
I don't think this is a twitter thing. Who cares about dumb-ass tweets? Are a large percentage of those Iranians twitters or whatever the hell this scam is about? Probably not, which is maybe why we haven't received many twits from working people. It may be a little hard to get to work anyway. Oh, and now for something completely different:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIHJ9RMAVGI&feature=related
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/18/2009 @ 10:57am
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 10:10am
So...best that it remain a repressive theocracy with boneyads (sp?) controlled by the Supreme Leader???
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:30am
Posted by IlyaKuryakin at 06/18/2009 @ 12:29pm
I didn't realize Iran's options were:
1. Remain an oppressive theocracy.
2. The US suddenly attacks it.
BTW, have you figured out a way to blame the Israelis for Tienamen Square or Yeltsin on the truck in Red Square?
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 12:43pm
The Opposition's tactics seem fairly effective. The almost nationwide nature of the movement makes it difficult for security forces to rely on force stop them. These isn't enough jail space to handle demonstrations of this size. Even if the present government regains control, it is facing a large number of people who are hostile to it's policies. These tactics may become a model for other countries? It will be interesting to see how this situation is resolved!
Posted by pjcasey at 06/18/2009 @ 12:46pm
So...best that it remain a repressive theocracy with boneyads (sp?) controlled by the Supreme Leader???
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 11:30am
Um, no, but just like I said here a number of times before Bush's invasion of Iraq that while I would love to see Saadam Hussein swinging from a lamppost, I would much rather it were Iraqis who put him there instead of Americans, so I would rather see the workers of Iran overthrow the Islamic Republic than the Iranian or U.S. bourgeoisie.
It would especially suck if the Iranian working class just provided the bodies that overthrew the Revolutionary Guard and the mullahs only to find that their bourgeois and petit-bourgeois leaders merely wanted to turn Iran into a modern colonial/capitalist state with no improvement or even a decline in working and living standards for the vast majority of people in both the cities and the countryside.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 2:19pm
Tuesday 6/16 - I do not think the supreme leader "blinked," as the title in NY Times lead story proclaimed today and some commentators on TV (Charley Rose session) repeated it. It looks more like a pretext: We gave them all the options to pursue their grievances legally and they rejected them, so we have no choice but . . . The signs on Iranian state TV were ominous today. Scenes of charred buildings, scorched busses, and rubble; all blamed on "gangs of conspirators". Commentators quoting from US neocons, Iranian royalists, and Mujahedin, saying the green demonstrations are masterminded by foreign countries. This is of course purely for the consumption of the regime's populist base. And there was the ticker all through the news: Ghanoon, Ghateiyyat, Aramesh; roughly: Law and order with resoluteness through willpower. This I guess means how the rallies should be dealt with. /// A. Kalantari
Posted by abdeekal at 06/18/2009 @ 2:40pm
Among the options always available to the American President is the option to do nothing. Nothing at all. That may be novel in American diplomatic circles, but it is clearly the best option at this time. I am gratified that we have a president who understands "when to hold 'em."
Posted by plover at 06/18/2009 @ 2:41pm
This part of the article "Thirty years ago, it was the decision of the Shah of Iran not to confront the revolutionaries with violence that allowed the anti-Shah movement to grow strong enough to oust the Shah" isn't completely accurate according to the histories i've read.
The Shah sent troops to crush the demonstrators. The first time they opened fire on a group of them, killing large numbers, the majority of the army either refused to fight or joined the demonstrators, the remainder fled.
The Carter Administration was urging the Shah to use more force but instead he finally recognised no amount of force could save him and fled into exile.
Posted by DuncanMcFarlane at 06/18/2009 @ 2:41pm
Wednesday 6/17- Seeing the sea of peaceful demonstrators day after day might give the impression that this is the beginning of the end of the regime as we know it. But it is premature to think so. At least until there's a serious crack in the armed forces. It is more realistic to think that the soft velvet coup by the dominant fascist faction is moving ahead smoothly. There are rumors of purges in the army. There's news blackout with foreign journalists being kicked out of the country. With a unified Sepah and Basij behind them, the coup plotters can easily suppress Rafsanjani's block inside the power oligarchy. That's the major hurdle. After that, dealing with the unarmed, leaderless, and unorganized street protesters would not be terribly difficult, no matter how numerous they are going to be. /// A. Kalantari
Posted by abdeekal at 06/18/2009 @ 2:42pm
Thursday 6/18 – A very clever move by Mousavi: A day of mourning; a tactic in 1979 revolution, where Khomeini turned spontaneity into a planned revolutionary tactic. It must be said that it is a revolutionary tactic even though it wants to be peaceful. It is wise to say we don't want a revolution – not creating panic on top – but it is naïve to believe it. All the classic signs are there like . . .
There is a serious rift on top; there is the emergent "dual power;" (Street vs. Power Block). The power block seems to be shifting rapidly (the concept is Gramsci's; a useful one where the state power is not monolithic). And now we are entering a cycle of escalating measures on both sides. Attack and counter-attack: the moment of reconciliation (aashtee) seems to have passed. Either the new power block consolidates itself or it disintegrates.
It's worth remembering the "revolutionary" role of mosques in 1978-79 and their function of "social networking." Now Thomas Friedman is using "virtual mosque" for the revolutionary role of the new media. Is this Lenin+Gramsci+Derrida? A postmodern revolution? (As in "The Spectres of Marx" where Derrida talks about the virtual-spectral revolutionary solidarity – and he said it 10 years ago!)/// Abdee Kalantari
Posted by abdeekal at 06/18/2009 @ 2:44pm
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 2:19pm
Okay so all 100,000 in the streets of Iran were "bourgeois" stooges for the capitalist oppressors of the West?
Okay, so what are we looking for? An Iranian "Che" to emerge from the tea and saffron fields?
Posted by Mask at 06/18/2009 @ 2:48pm
This is Good. The protesters are ignoring government orders, thousands are in the streets. Obama is smart to declare that we will not meddle. Let Amadinejad react in the usual way-And with any luck we can sit and watch while he hangs himself.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 06/18/2009 @ 3:12pm
>>>The first inkling that the election outcome could be reversed was the statement from the spokesman for the Guardian Council, Abbas Ali Kadkhodai, that the current review of the vote by the Council, ordered by Khamenei and expected to take a week to ten days, might "result in the nullification of the results and the holding of a new election," as the Washington Post reported. <<<
I doubt that the election would be over-turned - I think the best case scenario is a run-off between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. If this happens, the international election monitoring community should mobilize and not miss the boat this time, and have monitors on the ground in most of the key polling places. I am still surprised there were no international monitors at all in the recent election, and their absence tends to give credence to the "Ahmadinejad REALLY won" argument.
At the very least, these monitors should make a very public petition to monitor the election, so there would be a very public rejection of their presence if that happens. If their presence is not rejected, at least we will know for sure whether Ahmadinejad has the popular support of Iran; and if he does, we will have to continue dealing with him.
The idea that Obama should publicly back Mousavi is not very sophisticated because if Mousavi really does not have majority support in Iran, and this can be confirmed, Obama will lose much of what he gained in Cairo by backing Mousavi.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/18/2009 @ 4:03pm
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 2:19pm
Mask, I'm sorry that I can't give you a hard and fast position on this situation, but I was asking Mr. Dreyfuss a couple of questions, you know.
I despise the current regime but am skeptical of the reform movement, not because of its class make-up but because of what its class program SEEMS to be, i.e., a program that would serve the needs of the business and managerial elites and basically allow the working and farming classes to be swallowed up by imperialist globalization.
What I would like to see is a working class that maintains its political independence and has a program oriented to the needs of the majority of the Iranian population, from full civil and social rights to socialist economic development. Is this going to occur in the next few days? No, so if I were an Iranian worker right now, I might very well sit this current struggle out.
To reach such a conclusion as an interested observer, I need a clearer idea of what the protestors stand for, and I just don't have it yet. And Mr. Dreyfuss' breathless reporting is not helping, because I don't think he's giving us the full picture of either side. I can say that I think the U.S. government should keeps its nose out, whether overtly or covertly.
Posted by cka2nd at 06/18/2009 @ 4:24pm
Why is every twit twittering about Iran? Let it go. We don't run the world and the parts that we do run,run badly.
The busybodies here need to give it a rest.
Americans seem to get a charge about being the agent for freedom and democracy in the world. ("But not in my backyard") Maybe it's because we feel guilty about killing off our indigenous population and bringing in 10 million slaves to do the heavy lifting or the wars that got us California, Cuba and the Philippines.
We were supposed to be a shining light, a city on the hill for all the world to admire our goodness. But we fell short. So we tell the world how to act right: no nukes for Iran and North Korea ,yet nukes for Israel and India; free and fair elections for Iran , yet we don't respect the outcomes when Hamas wins in a free and fair election.
So, Americans, how about a new ethic? He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone...
Posted by hkaplan at 06/18/2009 @ 4:44pm
Hkaplan, are you arguing that because American history, like the history of every nation in the world, is filled with horrendous crimes, that the American public should not care about the violation of inalienable rights wherever it occurs, or sympathize with those valiantly resisting oppression, in order to stay consistent with the attitude of the American government? If there is hypocrisy in applauding the advance of liberty abroad while decrying it at home, shouldn't the best remedy be to applaud the advance of liberty at home as well, rather than to decry abroad?
Posted by TomAgnew at 06/18/2009 @ 5:17pm
Excelent article!
I agree with Dreyfuss. I think the majority of the people who supports Mousavi, specially the students, want a radical change to a secular society.
Ahmadinejad is acting exactly as Shah did 30 years ago. I hope that Medieval regime would have the same destiny that the tiranny had.
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/18/2009 @ 8:49pm
Obama Pressured to Strike a Firmer Tone
Richard Perry/The New York Times
Published: June 17, 2009
WASHINGTON -- As tens of thousands of Iranian protesters take to the streets in defiance of the government in Tehran, officials in Washington are debating whether President Obama's response to Iran's disputed election has been too muted.
......Even while supporting the president's approach, senior members of the administration, including Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, would like to strike a stronger tone in support of the protesters, administration officials said.
.....several administration officials acknowledged that Mr. Obama might run the risk of coming across on the wrong side of history at a potentially transformative moment in Iran.
Mr. Obama also drew criticism from politically neutral observers when he said in an interview on Tuesday with The New York Times and CNBC that from an American national security perspective, there was not much difference between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hussein Moussavi, his closest competitor in the election.
....The remark struck critics as off key and dismissive toward Mr. Moussavi, when he has become a symbol of freedom and democracy in Iran...
Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama's measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.
"For Barack Obama, this was a serious misstep," said Steven Clemons, director of the American strategy program at the New America Foundation."...
Mr. Obama's comments deflated Mr. Moussavi, who is rapidly becoming a political icon in Iran, even supporters of Mr. Obama's Iran policy say....
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 10:04pm
>>>Many Iran experts lauded Mr. Obama's measured stance just after the election. But some of that support evaporated on Tuesday when he said there was not much difference between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Moussavi.<<<
Mousavi is part of the inner circle and his candidacy was APPROVED by the cleric who is the Supreme Leader. Mousavi has been part of the CONSERVATIVE wing of Iranian politics his entire life, and appears to "suddenly" have embraced reform for political purposes (to get the votes of the reformists)
As a purely political matter, he could not compete with Ahmadinejad for conservative votes so he runs to his left, sort of like John Kerry pretending he is a progressive and running to the left of Clinton because he thought there was political space there before Obama showed up. Why divide the center if you think you can dominate the space on the left?
Like Kerry who was a political centrist his entire political life, there is reason to doubt Mousavi's reform credentials, and Obama is only pointing this out. I agree that he probably should have kept this view private, but he really is not far off the mark when you look at Mousavi's history and support from the Supreme Leader.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/18/2009 @ 10:31pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/18/2009 @ 10:31pm
Remember some guy named Gorbechev?
I don't pretend to know how similar or different the two are (AhmaDineinYourJeans and Mousavi), but if the massive street protests are real and not staged, Mousavi better be more different than similar; though they may share similar views on Iran's nuclear policy.
Just as Obama is essentially (a weaker) Bush on foreign policies, except on domestic `stuff'.
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 11:03pm
Posted by DuncanMcFarlane at 06/18/2009 @ 2:41pm Yes. The highly publicized secret police activities and the brutality of the state's repression of dissent produced a tremendous, pan-national backlash as I recall. Lots of marching in NYC. I remember my reaction looking at the various types - and there were some Basiji-looking types there as well. I remember the infamous quote attributed to the dying Shah: "I never should have stopped paying off the mullahs."
I was angry when the American embassy folks were held captive and abused for a year and I perceived no message of concern from the progressive elements of the Iranian people (I didn't read The Nation back then) but now I think finally I can understand - when I look into the faces of the generations we see in the images from Iran's awful struggle. Dunno what else to say so... here ends my post
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/18/2009 @ 11:07pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/18/2009 @ 10:31pm
Yup. "Talk is cheap, that's what I've heard. So if you want to prove something to me, Actions speak louder than words."
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 06/19/2009 @ 12:31am
Posted by snowball666 at 06/18/2009 @ 3:06pm
Shhhhhhhhh...."Guevaristas" like to think that revolutionaries pop up out in the fields or on the assembly line.
They don't like to learn that "bougeouis" intellectuals and elites are usually, if not always, the ones who actually run the Revolution.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 08:20am
Posted by Happy at 06/18/2009 @ 11:03pm
Hey, HAPP...might want to check out Pat Buchanan on that.
Believe it or not, he's the "voice of reason" on the Right about Obama and "saying something" about the Iranian situation.
Posted by Mask at 06/19/2009 @ 08:21am
Posted by Metteyya at 06/18/2009 @ 10:31pm
I meant to say John EDWARDS in my above post, not John Kerry!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/19/2009 @ 09:01am
Acording to AP, thousands of Iranians in Tehran are crying "Death to Dictator!" and "God is Great!", defying the Supreme Leader Khamenei.
If that is true, the end of that regime could be soon...
Posted by jerryespinoza at 06/19/2009 @ 8:33pm
"I'm biased. I support the Green Revolution" YES YOU ARE BIASED. AND IT IS NOT YOUR COUNTRY TO ASK FOR AN "UNINTERESTED FOREIGN INTERVENTION". Relative to your report, you do not distinguish social classes. Did You know, by the way, that Rafsanjani owns the majority of private schools, including Universities? Did you know that the multimillionaire searches more facilities to private participation with foreign companies on oil derivates? To which extent your "biased " perception distorts the facts of the Iranian inner process?
Posted by Artra at 06/22/2009 @ 7:11pm