Is Iran at the precipice of a revolution?


Normally open July 4th only---the one day a year when partisan politics, religion, etc. are acceptable topics on this Board (within reason). The forum is now closed.

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:31 am

SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: but even the most liberal pro-Western Iranians support the continuation of Iran's nuclear program.


Because they think its only for energy or they know its for bombs and want nucs?

Probably both, but I think it's more of prestige and nationalism thing. Why should some countries in the region be allowed to have nukes, including their mortal enemy, and not others? Mohamed Elbaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency put it this way:
In areas of longstanding conflict like the Middle East, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction can be expected as long as we fail to introduce alternatives that redress the security deficit. We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rasb » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:31 am

Apparently, Mousavi has called for a giant street demonstration for tomorrow
in Tehran and he is planning to be there. The demonstrations look plenty big enough today, and there are lots of reports of gunfire.
Whether that is allowed to take place tomorrow, or not, and the amount of violence involved, should give us insight into future possibilities.
The Iranian Men's Soccer/Football team all wore green armbands (in support of Mousavi) during the first half of their game in South Korea today,
but not during the second half.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:42 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote: but even the most liberal pro-Western Iranians support the continuation of Iran's nuclear program.


Because they think its only for energy or they know its for bombs and want nucs?

Probably both, but I think it's more of prestige and nationalism thing. Why should some countries in the region be allowed to have nukes, including their mortal enemy, and not others? Mohamed Elbaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency put it this way:
In areas of longstanding conflict like the Middle East, South Asia and the Korean Peninsula, the pursuit of weapons of mass destruction can be expected as long as we fail to introduce alternatives that redress the security deficit. We must abandon the unworkable notion that it is morally reprehensible for some countries to pursue weapons of mass destruction yet morally acceptable for others to rely on them for security and indeed to continue to refine their capacities and postulate plans for their use.


I understand the lodgic behind this but only a madman wants more countries in the middle east with nucs.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Pego » Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:54 am

dal4018 wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
dal4018 wrote:Everyone is talking about the sham electoral process in Iran but no one has mentioned the equally sham elections that took place in Palestine that robbed Hezbollah it was just like the sham Presidential elections that took place in this country in '00 that robbed Gore of the Presidency in Florida.

Hezbollah is in Lebanon, not Palestine and I don't think Hassan Nasrallah would have been so gracious in defeat if he thought that the election was rigged.
Yes your right Jazz thanks forgot about you telling me earlier.Again I still say they should ask for a recount don't trust the jews for a split second.


So far, all geopolitical comments you have made were uninformed nonsense. Now it's bigoted nonsense.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby skiboo » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:21 am

SQUACKEE wrote:Dead man posting.


That ought to be the case. Look what happened to Mennisco when he went on his anti-Kraut rant. :lol:
skiboo
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:00 am
Location: somewhere cold

Postby skiboo » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:22 am

skiboo
 
Posts: 472
Joined: Sun Jan 18, 2009 9:00 am
Location: somewhere cold

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:26 am

The Iranian regime is desperate to redirect the hostility and unrest to the West and try and paint the protesters as American puppets, or even worse Zionist puppets. Nothing would give them more pleasure than for Obama and Netanyahu to make some bellicose statements condemning them. Here is an example of how far they're willing to reach in order to drag us into it:
The Iranian Foreign Ministry, meanwhile, summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents American interests in Tehran, to complain of “interventionist” statements by American officials, state-run media reported. . . . President Obama said a day earlier that it would be counterproductive for the United States “to be seen as meddling.” But he has also said he was “deeply troubled by the violence” in Iran and that democratic values needed to be observed. The Iranian Foreign Ministry officials, without being specific about which comments they were reacting to, expressed displeasure, the official IRNA news agency reported.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby SQUACKEE » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:28 am

skiboo wrote:
SQUACKEE wrote:Dead man posting.


That ought to be the case. Look what happened to Mennisco when he went on his anti-Kraut rant. :lol:


Some rise from the dead. A Canadian, whose goose was cooked, has re-taken flight as a Pheonix i see.
SQUACKEE
 
Posts: 12885
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles

Postby Daisy » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:44 am

skiboo wrote:Look what happened to Mennisco when he went on his anti-Kraut rant. :lol:

Look want happened to MJD when he tried to explain his lame joke about Hilary Clinton, or was it McCain, I forget.

SQUACKEE wrote:has re-taken flight as a Pheonix.

A phoenix? I always thought it was a ghost into winter sports.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rasb » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:21 pm

Meanwhile, all Canada goose jokes aside, (sorry, Captain Sully),
we are indeed living in interesting times (thanks, Confucius), as far as the Iranian situation is concerned.
The leaders are trying to blame the USA, when I think the Americans are showing tremendous restraint, and probably trying to restrain some of the hawks in Israel at the same time.
Also, the attempts to stifle communication from and to the outside world, do not seem to be working. It's a new world, and very difficult to just close borders anymore. It appears that the citizens of Iran (including a large percentage of the younger Iranians) are not going to go away quietly.
I hope for the best, but I fear the worst. The next 24 hours will be tense indeed in Tehran. Peace !!!
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby lonewolf » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:41 pm

I just had a conversation with an Iranian expatriate who has family and sources in Iran and direct TV reception from Iran.
This person does not support either Ahmadinejad or Mosavi and offers the following take on the Iranian situation.
Both candidates, indeed any candidate allowed to run, are only mouthpieces for Khomeini, the real power.
Whereas the 1978-79 revolution deposed unpopular royalty, dumping an unwitting public from the frying pan to the fire, the current flare-up is actually between two factions of the Islamic theocracy fighting for power.
My source had/has live, real time access to the pre and post-election street demonstrations and does not doubt that Ahmadinijad won the election.
What most outsiders do not know or remember is: Mosavi was Prime Minister during the 1979 revolution. He, just as Ahmahdinejad, was instrumental in the US hostage situation and, in fact, was higher placed. Contrary to his talk of freedom and relaxed rule, during his administration Iranians suffered under severe restricitions on dress and public demonstration.
While Ahmahdinejad is not personally popular and makes outrageous statements regarding Israel and the holocaust, he does control the military and has some public support because he is the only Iranian President not to personally profit from his position. Former President Rafsanjani built a worldwide empire. Mosavi is a mullah. He prospered in office and wants back on the gravy train. This is his way of getting there.
The people demonstrating in the streets, although genuinely fed up with non-Islamic restrictons on their life style, were mostly born after the revolution. They have never known the measure of freedom allowed by the Shah but they know about it, want to experience it and are being manipulated by the old guard. Also, the youth believe Iran has a right to nuclear power, despite worldwide distrust of the motives of the mullahs.
So, should it really it matter, to the outside world, who won the Iranian election.? In the opinion of my source, no. All that pre-election talk of change, as elsewhere, was just talk. It will be business as usual.
The only way for Iran to return to the modern world community is to oust the mullahs who impose their personal, medieval, non-Islamic prejudices on the people.
There is the rare mullah who will speak up for separation of church and state. Unfortunately, they are all in Evin Prison.
Last edited by lonewolf on Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Jun 17, 2009 2:49 pm

rasb wrote:The leaders are trying to blame the USA, when I think the Americans are showing tremendous restraint, and probably trying to restrain some of the hawks in Israel at the same time.

The Iranians know that even the most cosmopolitan among us have a bit of nationalism in us. Do you remember how people in this country reacted after 9/11? No one dared criticize Bush. Al Gore gushed about how proud he was to have Bush as his President, Louis Farrakhan called on all of his followers to support the President as he leads us into war and even in Hollywood, all Bush jokes and criticism were verboten at the Oscars. If Israel were to attack Iran, all of the protesters you see in the streets would overnight become Ahmadinejad and Khamenei supporters.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:[If Israel were to attack Iran, all of the protesters you see in the streets would overnight become Ahmadinejad and Khamenei supporters.

That is true. Iran is a highly nationalistic country and will unite if attacked. Many/most still consider themselves Persians, with a proud tradition of science and culture.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby bad hammy » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:34 pm

lonewolf wrote:I just had a conversation with an Iranian expatriate . . .

Thanks lonewolf - your posts about Iran are much more informative and lucid than your posts about the 2000 election! :P
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby rasb » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:37 pm

Thanks, all, for enlightened commentary and insight. My comment regarding possible Israeli hawks was only meant to suggest that there are some of the "right wing" in the country of Israel, that are looking for any excuse to get Iran off the map, before they develop their own nuclear presence.
I am not offering any new perspective on that situation, just observing, and hoping for the best.
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby dakota » Wed Jun 17, 2009 3:58 pm

deleted
Last edited by dakota on Thu Jun 18, 2009 12:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
dakota
 
Posts: 1413
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bad hammy » Wed Jun 17, 2009 4:49 pm

dakota,

Some of us would like to read your posts but you have to throw us a paragraph break now and again. Thanks . . .
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bambam » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:36 pm

Garry must not be online or this thread would be dead several times, and several people would not be posting for awhile. Hey, how 'bout those Red Sox, eh?
bambam
 
Posts: 3848
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Durham, NC

Postby TrackDaddy » Wed Jun 17, 2009 5:41 pm

bad hammy wrote:dakota,

Some of us would like to read your posts but you have to throw us a paragraph break now and again. Thanks . . .


Ha!
TrackDaddy
 
Posts: 4785
Joined: Tue Nov 27, 2007 5:06 pm
Location: The Command Post

Postby rasb » Wed Jun 17, 2009 7:45 pm

Must be about morning in Iran.... A big day in current World events, I predict...I hope it goes well...
rasb
 
Posts: 2008
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 4:48 pm
Location: South of the 49th

Postby Friar » Wed Jun 17, 2009 11:25 pm

If arson and violence get out of control, are the military willing to use significant force? They did in China, they were not in Romania. Islam is an X-factor that makes things hard to read?

It's amusing the Swiss have been called in to deliver the message that a tacit US, is to blame somehow? Obama is being criticized from the right but he's playing it smart.
Friar
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Sittin' on the dock of the Bay.

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jun 18, 2009 4:44 am

Friar wrote:Obama is being criticized from the right but he's playing it smart.

The people who are criticizing Obama's handling of the Iran situation tend to be the people who think that all foreign policy consists of is starting wars, making threats, imposing sanctions and making bellicose statements. They would handle our foreign policy the way an eight grader would handle it. During the Presidential debates, Ron Paul tried to talk about what the CIA calls "blowback", and explained that we should do things to reduce our exposure to blowback. Almost on cue, the other Republican contenders began to ridicule him, and Rudy Giuliani even went so far as to say that the U.S. had never done anything in its entire history that would give another country reason to resent it. :shock: I agreed with Colin Powell when he said that when conducting foreign policy, we should always conduct it under the assumption that the folks who are going to be on the receiving end of our actions will always react the same way we would if we were on the receiving end of such actions.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby dal4018 » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
Friar wrote:Obama is being criticized from the right but he's playing it smart.

The people who are criticizing Obama's handling of the Iran situation tend to be the people who think that all foreign policy consists of is starting wars, making threats, imposing sanctions and making bellicose statements. They would handle our foreign policy the way an eight grader would handle it. During the Presidential debates, Ron Paul tried to talk about what the CIA calls "blowback", and explained that we should do things to reduce our exposure to blowback. Almost on cue, the other Republican contenders began to ridicule him, and Rudy Giuliani even went so far as to say that the U.S. had never done anything in its entire history that would give another country reason to resent it. :shock: I agreed with Colin Powell when he said that when conducting foreign policy, we should always conduct it under the assumption that the folks who are going to be on the receiving end of our actions will always react the same way we would if we were on the receiving end of such actions.
McCain is even attacking Obama saying that he should state publicly that the elections were a sham.
dal4018
 
Posts: 555
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 5:32 am

Postby Pego » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:32 am

lonewolf wrote:I just had a conversation with an Iranian expatriate who has family and sources in Iran and direct TV reception from Iran.
This person does not support either Ahmadinejad or Mosavi and offers the following take on the Iranian situation.
Both candidates, indeed any candidate allowed to run, are only mouthpieces for Khomeini, the real power.
Whereas the 1978-79 revolution deposed unpopular royalty, dumping an unwitting public from the frying pan to the fire, the current flare-up is actually between two factions of the Islamic theocracy fighting for power.
My source had/has live, real time access to the pre and post-election street demonstrations and does not doubt that Ahmadinijad won the election.
What most outsiders do not know or remember is: Mosavi was Prime Minister during the 1979 revolution. He, just as Ahmahdinejad, was instrumental in the US hostage situation and, in fact, was higher placed. Contrary to his talk of freedom and relaxed rule, during his administration Iranians suffered under severe restricitions on dress and public demonstration.
While Ahmahdinejad is not personally popular and makes outrageous statements regarding Israel and the holocaust, he does control the military and has some public support because he is the only Iranian President not to personally profit from his position. Former President Rafsanjani built a worldwide empire. Mosavi is a mullah. He prospered in office and wants back on the gravy train. This is his way of getting there.
The people demonstrating in the streets, although genuinely fed up with non-Islamic restrictons on their life style, were mostly born after the revolution. They have never known the measure of freedom allowed by the Shah but they know about it, want to experience it and are being manipulated by the old guard. Also, the youth believe Iran has a right to nuclear power, despite worldwide distrust of the motives of the mullahs.
So, should it really it matter, to the outside world, who won the Iranian election.? In the opinion of my source, no. All that pre-election talk of change, as elsewhere, was just talk. It will be business as usual.
The only way for Iran to return to the modern world community is to oust the mullahs who impose their personal, medieval, non-Islamic prejudices on the people.
There is the rare mullah who will speak up for separation of church and state. Unfortunately, they are all in Evin Prison.


This is how I see it, for all it's worth.

Clergy, primarily Khamenei, is firmly in charge. All depends, which one of the candidates he considers a better choice, will be installed as a PM (his puppet by all standards). Popular anti-islamist revolution is not going to happen in the near future.

BTW, analysis of the political situation by expatriates has been historically inaccurate. Before the Iraq war, we heard a lot of expatriates, how all the country is against Saddam and how they'll all embrace us :shock: . During the Iranian revolution in 1979, the expatriates were talking about which political parties are having the best chance to establish a post-monarchy democracy. Theocracy was hardly mentioned (if at all), until Khomeini triumphantly arrived.
Pego
 
Posts: 10197
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:54 am

Pego wrote:BTW, analysis of the political situation by expatriates has been historically inaccurate. Before the Iraq war, we heard a lot of expatriates, how all the country is against Saddam and how they'll all embrace us :shock: .

The thing that people tend to overlook is that expatriates very often have ulterior motives, especially when they are two-bit con men like Ahmed Chalabi. You really have to question the intelligence of anyone who took Chalabi's pronouncements at face value.

Man's most valuable trait is a judicious sense of what not to believe. - Euripides
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Flumpy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:00 am

Iran was on the precipise of a revolution but then Michael jackson died and everyone forgot about it :roll:
Flumpy
 
Posts: 3899
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:09 am

It ain't over till its over. The US MSM has been temporarily diverted but MIchael Jackson carries no weight in Iran. ..
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby bad hammy » Thu Jul 02, 2009 10:28 am

lonewolf wrote:It ain't over till its over. The US MSM has been temporarily diverted but MIchael Jackson carries no weight in Iran. ..

That may be, but I am trying to figure out a reason to get more worked up about what happens in Iran more than what happens in say, Outer Mongolia.
bad hammy
 
Posts: 10880
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby jazzcyclist » Thu Jul 02, 2009 11:14 am

The bottom line is that if the Iranians want to free themselves from the yoke of the mullahs, they'll have to do it themselves. I see Iranian expatriates protesting in cities as far away as Los Angeles and I wonder how they imagine that their signs will affect change in Iran. If they're waiting for a knight in shining armor to come in and save the day, they'll be waiting for a long time. Until the masses decide that they're willing to die by the thousands, nothing's going to change, unless of course, inside players like Rafsanjani and Khatami can pull a rabbit out of their turbins.
Last edited by jazzcyclist on Thu Jul 02, 2009 4:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Thu Jul 02, 2009 1:17 pm

You are right, jazzcyclist, the Iranians have to do it themselves. Any direct outside intervention would be counter-productive.
You may not remember that Iranians demonstrated against the Shah all over the US prior to his overthrow and many did die in confrontation with the Shah's forces. The difference this time is the clerics are ideologically driven and initially were more brutal than the Shah in putting down the revolters.
Eventually, enough of the Shah's men turned against him that he was forced to flee.
There were incidents in the current riots where IRI forces refused to fire on the demonstrators. If the resistance persists the same thing can happen, the tide will turn against the mullahs..
The current regime is deservedly bad mouthing Rahsanjani, trying to discredit hime. Although not personally popular with Iranians, he is powerful enought to use disenchanted Iranians to pull off a coup.
Same with Khatami. Although neither would immediately result in separation of church and state, it could be a step in that direction.
There are powerful clerics currently held as political prisoner for advocating a secular, non-theocratic government. That is what the majority of Iranians want.
The problem is, they do not have the physical forces or economic staying power to bring down this regime.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:33 am

Fareed Zakaria summed it up this way:
it has become a naked dictatorship, losing the facade of the Islamic and democratic political ideals that are important to it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/ ... cnnSTCText
The Iranian people were willing to tolerate a theocracy despite the fact that they really wanted a democracy. At least in previous Presidential elections, no one ever accused the regime of miscounting the votes. But now, Khamanei and Ahmadinejad have returned them to dictatorship, and I've read that Khamanei is even maneuvering to have his son succeed him. It took the Iranians 26 years to overthrow their last dictatorship, but I have a hunch that it won't take that long this time. Khamenei obviously never heard the axiom that those who forget their history are condemned to repeat it.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby mrbowie » Sat Jul 04, 2009 6:44 pm

Yes, I believe a revolution has already begun. It will be fueled, as the Iraq war was, by expats that will lie, cajole and do whatever it takes to egg the West into military action. The rationale for the West will be nukes, but the excuse will be democracy. And the Middle East will ride along because they fear Iran as much as we do.
mrbowie
 
Posts: 1474
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Lexington, Kentucky

Postby richxx87 » Sat Jul 04, 2009 7:08 pm

Who would you most like to give a fashion makeover?

Brüno: Ze President of Iran, Ahmadinejad. I love his look – 'taxi driver chic' – but he would look even cuter if he broke it up vit some splashes of colour und simple accessories. Ich have got to admit something. Bruno's got a crush on him. He's SO cute – he's like ze Arab George Clooney! He famously said zat zere are no gay people in Iran, so he must be very sexually frustrated. Ze only nuclear bomb vaiting to go off in Iran is hidden underneath zose grey slacks of his, und Bruno vould like to press ze red button.

http://www.stylelist.com/
richxx87
 
Posts: 1833
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Bali

Postby lonewolf » Sat Jul 04, 2009 8:56 pm

To answer the original question in a word, Yes...
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby jazzcyclist » Sun Jul 05, 2009 5:39 am

lonewolf wrote:To answer the original question in a word, Yes...

It would appear that Rafsanjani has indeed pulled a rabbit out of his turbin.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31745151/ns ... ork_times/

This news should re-energize the protesters.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10858
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jul 05, 2009 3:30 pm

Next rumble July 9.
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest