rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Iran
Jun 19, 2009 15:46:06 GMT -5
Post by rosslynhoya on Jun 19, 2009 15:46:06 GMT -5
Let's back this way up...the "election" was nothing of the sort since the theocrats in Iran get to choose who is sufficiently mentally deranged enough (read: extremely religious) to even run. That's not quite true, and such simplifications really don't help understand the options in front of us now. Contrary to popular assumptions, Ahmadinejad was NOT Khamenei's choice in the last election. The guy the religious establishment, surrogates for Khamenei, backed finished behind three other candidates. As recently as a month ago, there were rumors that Khamanei might now throw his support behind a more dependably religious candidate rather than continuing to back one with a large independent freestanding constituency independent of the mullahs. He is not/has not been in sync with Khomeneist doctrine and openly subscribes to beliefs that are borderline heretical. On the other hand, Ahmadinejad has largely gotten results domestically and ended up with Khamanei's backing in the end. One thing the PR machine for the Iranian regime has had going for it since the Revolution is that every four years, they have generally conducted something approaching a mostly fair election for the populace to choose the head of government. They've lost that now; the regime has a serious internal contradiction to resolve, and the prospects don't look good for anyone involved.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Iran
Jun 19, 2009 18:55:46 GMT -5
Post by EasyEd on Jun 19, 2009 18:55:46 GMT -5
As everybody knows I'm an avid Obama supporter (yeh, right). In this case I think he is doing the right thing in not taking a more active position backing those who are demonstrating against the election and the regime. If we were ready and able to back up any strong support with action, I'd think differently but we are not. I recall the Hungarian revolution against the Soviets in the mid 60s where we gave very strong verbal support to those attempting to overthrow the Soviet-backed regime in Hungary but we then stood by and watched as the Soviets crushed the uprising. Ultimately the regime in Iran is going to crush this "uprising" and the number of casualties would only be higher if we strongly backed those protesting.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,306
|
Iran
Jun 20, 2009 12:14:54 GMT -5
Post by SSHoya on Jun 20, 2009 12:14:54 GMT -5
Andmore recently, George H.W. Bush speaking out about the Kurdish resistance against Hussein in Gulf War I and then standing idly by while Hussein slaughtered the resistance.
|
|
|
Iran
Jun 20, 2009 14:51:39 GMT -5
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Jun 20, 2009 14:51:39 GMT -5
As everybody knows I'm an avid Obama supporter (yeh, right). In this case I think he is doing the right thing in not taking a more active position backing those who are demonstrating against the election and the regime. If we were ready and able to back up any strong support with action, I'd think differently but we are not. I recall the Hungarian revolution against the Soviets in the mid 60s where we gave very strong verbal support to those attempting to overthrow the Soviet-backed regime in Hungary but we then stood by and watched as the Soviets crushed the uprising. Ultimately the regime in Iran is going to crush this "uprising" and the number of casualties would only be higher if we strongly backed those protesting. Agreed. I don't think there's much to do. I think one of the differences in this uprising from those you mentioned is that this one has come after a huge personal telecommunication revolution. If Imre Nagy had a facebook account and his supporters had access to twitter the legitimacy of the Soviet sponsored Eastern European countries would have diminished even faster than it did. The problem for a semi-electoral state that builds the legitimacy of its unelected leaders on a connection to a revolution narrative is that each uploaded video or picture of ordinary Iranians beaten or murdered severely undercuts the story to which they tie their legitimacy. The second problem is that, unless you're North Korea, you can't cut off the flow of telecommunications very long because that cuts off access to the global market. If Iran cuts off telecommunications to stop a revolution but simultaneously cuts off the flow of commerce, the theocracy is still screwed.
|
|
|
Iran
Jun 20, 2009 23:08:18 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jun 20, 2009 23:08:18 GMT -5
The Sunday NYT is running the following column by Roger Cohen tomorrow: www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21tehran.html?_r=1It provides one of many truly inspirational accounts from Tehran and describes Cohen's experiences in Tehran on Saturday. There is much more out there, but this is a good start.
|
|
GIGAFAN99
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 4,487
|
Iran
Jun 21, 2009 17:42:57 GMT -5
Post by GIGAFAN99 on Jun 21, 2009 17:42:57 GMT -5
Let's back this way up...the "election" was nothing of the sort since the theocrats in Iran get to choose who is sufficiently mentally deranged enough (read: extremely religious) to even run. While this is simplistic, I think one thing this observation does help is to temper some of the rhetoric that is projecting a vision of "reform" vs "hard line." Nobody in this election is moderate in a way that changes 99% of our policy towards Iran. Anyone crossing their fingers for the other "slightly less scary because we don't no him yet guy" is kidding themselves that it metters that much. Another reason why essentially standing on the sidelines is the right policy response right now.
|
|
Buckets
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 1,656
|
Iran
Jun 21, 2009 20:53:39 GMT -5
Post by Buckets on Jun 21, 2009 20:53:39 GMT -5
The second problem is that, unless you're North Korea, you can't cut off the flow of telecommunications very long because that cuts off access to the global market. If Iran cuts off telecommunications to stop a revolution but simultaneously cuts off the flow of commerce, the theocracy is still screwed. Just saw this in the WSJ about this exact thing: online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.htmlIt's apparently something they've considered in the past: www.boingboing.net/2009/06/13/iran-sms-networks-my.html. Seems like they could have been trying to stop people from broadcasting their vote and were just too technologically inept to consider things like Twitter which has now become an unofficial voice of the protesters. China also shut down pretty much anything with user-created content around the anniversary of Tiananmen Square. Any people who actually know anything about foreign policy care to weigh in on the possibility shutting down selected telecommunications as things start to get uglier over there in Iran?
|
|
|
Iran
Jun 22, 2009 13:09:11 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 22, 2009 13:09:11 GMT -5
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506
|
Iran
Jun 22, 2009 13:54:04 GMT -5
Post by theexorcist on Jun 22, 2009 13:54:04 GMT -5
The second problem is that, unless you're North Korea, you can't cut off the flow of telecommunications very long because that cuts off access to the global market. If Iran cuts off telecommunications to stop a revolution but simultaneously cuts off the flow of commerce, the theocracy is still screwed. Just saw this in the WSJ about this exact thing: online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.htmlIt's apparently something they've considered in the past: www.boingboing.net/2009/06/13/iran-sms-networks-my.html. Seems like they could have been trying to stop people from broadcasting their vote and were just too technologically inept to consider things like Twitter which has now become an unofficial voice of the protesters. China also shut down pretty much anything with user-created content around the anniversary of Tiananmen Square. Any people who actually know anything about foreign policy care to weigh in on the possibility shutting down selected telecommunications as things start to get uglier over there in Iran? Information wants to be free. China has the money to set up massive tracking software (the Green something-or-other), and information still doesn't get out. Iran does not. Iran, can, in theory, shut down all their internet links and become a hermit kingdom (essentially North Korea or what the Taliban did to Afghanistan pre-9/11). More precisely, they can try - Iran has a lot of people who are already ticked at the regime, and this would almost certainly tick more of them off. And Iran has enough private business that works internationally that this option isn't sustainable. If Iran's government crushes the riots, then they can win back the people by either a) making a lot of money (the China approach), or b) creating a massive prosecution complex (the 1979 Iran approach). b) might lead to some options involving aggressive nuclear proliferation that might be fun for the world community to deal with.
|
|
|
Iran
Jun 23, 2009 10:48:57 GMT -5
Post by redskins12820 on Jun 23, 2009 10:48:57 GMT -5
Basically, the US should not overtly be involved. The U.S. coming in only provides a scapegoat and someone for the leaders to point to for why there is instability. I'm all for doing a little work behind the scenes, cough cough, but let's not make this seem on the surface that the U.S. is advocating a regime change. It's a much stronger movement/image when this is the Iranians getting fed up on their own and advocating change. If we have to nudge it along behind the scenes, so be it. Is the CIA's new weapon Twitter?
|
|
|
Iran
Jun 23, 2009 14:46:39 GMT -5
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Jun 23, 2009 14:46:39 GMT -5
I think the President is doing the right thing. Stay out of it, but publicly call for the things we believe in: free and fair elections, allowing peaceful protest without coercive force to stop it, freedom of information and the press, etc.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Iran
Jun 23, 2009 15:21:20 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Jun 23, 2009 15:21:20 GMT -5
I think he should say the following:
"Look, hypothetically, JUST hypothetically, and in principle, it'd be really nice if -- when people demonstrated in streets -- they weren't arrested, beaten and/or shot and killed. And as a Constitutional law professor, I know we really like it in the US when the number of votes counted in a region don't exceed the number of people living in that region (even though I am from Chicago). No, no, no. Stop that. Don't write that. You're just writing that to get higher ratings on your news show. And why are you looking at me like that, Jake Tapper? It's very funny that you would look at me like that. I didn't say Iran. Did I say Iran? You said Iran. I know I didn't say Iran. Is it me? It's not me is it? Is it me or is it him? It's him, isn't it? You really should be careful, Jake. We can't say things like that. Iran is an independent nation and we have to respect their election process. Excuse me, one second. I have a tickle in my throat....cough-regimechangenow-cough! Sorry, everyone. It's those damn cigarettes."
;D
(my apologies to Martin Short)
|
|
|
Iran
Jun 23, 2009 16:31:48 GMT -5
Post by AustinHoya03 on Jun 23, 2009 16:31:48 GMT -5
|
|
TC
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 9,450
|
Iran
Jun 23, 2009 16:49:17 GMT -5
Post by TC on Jun 23, 2009 16:49:17 GMT -5
Bah, I bet this doesn't happen if they advanced.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Iran
Jun 24, 2009 13:08:27 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Jun 24, 2009 13:08:27 GMT -5
I don't know if I buy the hypothesis here that this had something to do with Obama's initial reactions to the situation in Iran (or to his plans for Gitmo), but I don't really even care about that aspect right now. The fact -- well, not fact yet, but this seems pretty well documented -- that we even engaged in something of this nature is simply and utterly appalling: article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODFkYTU2MjBmMTE5MDUzZTEzZWMyMTE5ZWZjNWI4Mjg=If someone can or wants to defend or explain this, I'll be happy to listen, but I'm not sure I can see too many ways in which this, if true, isn't completely indefensible.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Iran
Jun 24, 2009 13:53:52 GMT -5
Post by Bando on Jun 24, 2009 13:53:52 GMT -5
I don't know if I buy the hypothesis here that this had something to do with Obama's initial reactions to the situation in Iran (or to his plans for Gitmo), but I don't really even care about that aspect right now. The fact -- well, not fact yet, but this seems pretty well documented -- that we even engaged in something of this nature is simply and utterly appalling: article.nationalreview.com/?q=ODFkYTU2MjBmMTE5MDUzZTEzZWMyMTE5ZWZjNWI4Mjg=If someone can or wants to defend or explain this, I'll be happy to listen, but I'm not sure I can see too many ways in which this, if true, isn't completely indefensible. I'd be willing to entertain it if it were from another source. Andy McCarthy is an insane person, who still thinks the Uighur Muslims that Bush cleared as innocent are still dangerous terrorists and that Barack Obama is a secret foreigner with a forged birth certificate. He's an absolute uber-hawk who thinks any association with a Muslim person is damning. I'm willing to bet a lot of money that there's a whole lot he's excluding from this report.
|
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Iran
Jun 24, 2009 14:22:57 GMT -5
Post by Boz on Jun 24, 2009 14:22:57 GMT -5
Actually, bando, I agree somewhat. I almost didn't post it just for that reason...not that he is crazy, but that, for the moment, this is uncorroborated. And I am looking to try to find more reporting and investigating on this. I wouldn't say insane person, we'll differ on that. IMO, National Review is not in the business of employing nutbars (we'll probably differ on that too ). But he's clearly not anywhere near objective on it and I need to hear what others, even other conservatives, let alone the administration, are saying/thinking. One report of something that, if true, is really damning isn't enough. If I sounded outraged, that is because that is my natural reaction to something like this. I'll only be truly outraged if this reporting turns out to be accurate. As I said, if this is the case, it's pretty inexcusable, IMO.
|
|
Bando
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
I've got some regrets!
Posts: 2,431
|
Iran
Jun 24, 2009 15:14:05 GMT -5
Post by Bando on Jun 24, 2009 15:14:05 GMT -5
Actually, bando, I agree somewhat. I almost didn't post it just for that reason...not that he is crazy, but that, for the moment, this is uncorroborated. And I am looking to try to find more reporting and investigating on this. I wouldn't say insane person, we'll differ on that. IMO, National Review is not in the business of employing nutbars (we'll probably differ on that too ). But he's clearly not anywhere near objective on it and I need to hear what others, even other conservatives, let alone the administration, are saying/thinking. One report of something that, if true, is really damning isn't enough. If I sounded outraged, that is because that is my natural reaction to something like this. I'll only be truly outraged if this reporting turns out to be accurate. As I said, if this is the case, it's pretty inexcusable, IMO. I'd actually take this more seriously if it were any other writer at National Review. It's Andy McCarthy specifically I think is off his gourd. Well, maybe Michael Leeden too, but only because he's been arguing for an invasion of Iran since the first Bush administration.
|
|
SirSaxa
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 747
|
Iran
Jul 4, 2009 23:12:01 GMT -5
Post by SirSaxa on Jul 4, 2009 23:12:01 GMT -5
It appears the Iranian story is not yet over. The massive public demonstrations against the phony election results has not yet been quashed by the heavy hand of the govt. and their hired thugs. EXCERPTS CAIRO — The most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.
A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult — if not impossible.
“This crack in the clerical establishment, and the fact they are siding with the people and Moussavi, in my view is the most historic crack in the 30 years of the Islamic republic,” said Abbas Milani, director of the Iranian Studies Program at Stanford University. “Remember they are going against an election verified and sanctified by Khamenei.”
Leading Clerics Defy Ayatollah on Disputed Iran Election
|
|
|
Iran
Dec 29, 2009 1:44:02 GMT -5
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Dec 29, 2009 1:44:02 GMT -5
The Iran protests have returned in earnest with the recent death of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri - an opposition/dissident figure. Arrests of opposition leaders and the killing of Mousavi's nephew have been reported in the protests/gatherings that followed. President Obama commented briefly today on the developments, and more discussion follows at www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/world/middleeast/29iran.html?ref=world
|
|