The Iran Thread

[Arc-Light]

I am surprised it took them this long to start shooting the protesters....

 

[chaseter]

Ahmadinejad is just the face of corruption in that country. He is merely a puppet.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Going through the mainstream news, this has got to be one of the most biased and atrocious news reporting I have seen since the 2008 love fest.

Not to be Mr. Kill Joy but has people forgotten about Pakistan? Just because they enable the democratic process, it doesn't mean they will vote a American/Western friendly government. I've pointed this out a few times. It won't happen, in our lifetimes. If a pro-Western government ever came into power through the democratic process it WON'T last. It will have to be a dictatorship. It's just the volatile nature of Middle Eastern politics.

I think the mainstream is overestimating the actual voter fraud. I don't doubt there was fraud, but it is probably in the same neighborhood of vote rigging/fraud as the 2000, 2004 and 2008 American elections. In other words, not enough to make that much of a difference. Besides who are we trying to kid, Ayatollah Khomeini is the real ruler.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about because twice Iran was moving towards a democracy and the United States put an end to it. Most believe that the breakthrough would have made them a wordly super power beside The USA and the UK.

Who in their right mind would send Jimmy freakin' Carter to Iran?

I think that was a jab at how the Iranians hate him for what he did with the last revolution.

I am surprised it took them this long to start shooting the protesters....

I'm not. It happened right after the media left.

Ahmadinejad is just the face of corruption in that country. He is merely a puppet.

Ahmadinejad is the real problem and the people know that. They don't actually care about Ahmadinejad or Mousavi. It's more Dictator Vs. Resistance. Both of those men are puppets. Both give orders but they are ordering people to do things that they are already doing. It's futile really. The youth are starting to look to Pahlavi now for leadership.

 

[Paradoxium]

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about because twice Iran was moving towards a democracy and the United States put an end to it. Most believe that the breakthrough would have made them a wordly super power beside The USA and the UK.

So what if America stopped them twice? You assume I am not aware of this, and somehow it debunks what I said. My point is democracies will not last long or work in the middle east. The only solace dictatorships offers is stability (but it doesn't mean I like the idea of dictatorships). Unless of course they become more secularized; which won't happen in our lifetime.

 

[Paradoxium]

I think the voter fraud was a great deal worse than anything here. When you have Mousavi losing by landslide percentages in areas that are essentially a complete reversal from pre-election statistics, something is off.

According this opEd:

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.

Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.

Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.

If this holds, I anticipate in the future Ahmadinejad or someone like him would technically have a even bigger support base.

And in this article:

fifty percent either said they had no opinion (27 percent), refused to answer (15 percent) or favored “none” of the candidates (8 percent).

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Democracy WILL work. Just wait and see. If there is any middle eastern country able to support it, it's Iran.

 

[Paradoxium]

Having a secularized western democracy will NOT change the world views of the majority there. As I cited before: "18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups". It's not going to improve any time soon, if nothing else, it is heading towards the opposite direction.

The only venue for change is a generation of greater education (particularly economic education) and secularization. Change usually doesn't happen until you notice after the fact. I'm sorry but reality is what it is, it sucks.

 

[StorminNorman]

Democracy WILL work. Just wait and see. If there is any middle eastern country able to support it, it's Iran.

 

[Paradoxium]

I would love to be wrong btw.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

Having a secularized western democracy will NOT change the world views of the majority there. As I cited before: "18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups". It's not going to improve any time soon, if nothing else, it is heading towards the opposite direction.

The only venue for change is a generation of greater education (particularly economic education) and secularization. Change usually doesn't happen until you notice after the fact. I'm sorry but reality is what it is, it sucks.

How credible is that if the votes were rigged? I've heard statistics saying 90% of the 18-30 year-olds voted against Ahmadinejad. And what the World thinks of the Iranian people is irrelevant, we're facing a dilemma of basic human rights.

 

[StorminNorman]

I want to believe. Either way, democracy is the best case scenario for America in Iran. Democracy allows of peaceful and fluid political movement.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

I would love to be wrong btw.

Then start loving it.

 

[hippie_hunter]

As long as Ahmadinejad remains the President of Iran, Obama must abandon his idea of talking with the Iranian government. You CANNOT legitimize an illegitimate government that openly defies the wishes of their people.

Not only that but Ahmadinejad (nor his masters for that matter) does not want Obama's open hand at all.

 

[StorminNorman]

Not only that but Ahmadinejad (nor his masters for that matter) does not want Obama's open hand at all.

Correct - but Obama knew that before he proposed that anyway. That's why his declaration of sitting down with him was so foolish.

 

[Grievous]

Democracy WILL work. Just wait and see. If there is any middle eastern country able to support it, it's Iran.

I keep seeing the videos and it looks like their using force to make it work.

 

[Asteroid-Man]

It's the only way they can cause a revolution.

 

[Grievous]

really? because if I got attacked by the police for protesting it would only encourge my to use violence right back at them.

 

[hippie_hunter]

The news that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has ordered an investigation into charges of voter fraud in his country's presidential elections has been greeted with skepticism by many in the West. After all, it was Ayatullah Khamenei, who holds the ultimate authority in the theocratic nation, who rushed to embrace incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the victor long before the ballots were counted. But his order to the Guardian Council, the powerful watchdog of the Iranian constitution, to start an investigation may not be as cynical as it appears.

Of course, there is political calculation to Khamenei's investigation. It neutralizes the main demand around which the opposition is rallying on the streets and imposes a de facto 10-day cooling-off period that could sap, even demoralize, the anti-Ahamdinejad demonstrations. The huge rally in support of Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Tehran on Monday is enough to make any ruler, autocrat or not, tremble. All of this opens the Supreme Leader's window of vulnerability to one very powerful enemy.

As much as some Iranian conservatives may wish otherwise, the Islamic republic has never been able to seal tight state rule over society: it is a sloppy authoritarian state with elements of democracy. Iranian democracy may not be recognizably Western, but its dynamic seeps into the highest echelons of power, even if it is embodied in an instinct for consensus among a clerical élite with diverse opinions. It is a dynamic that even Khamenei has to answer to.

Apart from the Iranian electorate, Khamenei has a couple of very important constituencies to deal with. Indeed, while most people describe Khamenei as the unelected leader of Iran, he was chosen by a small but critical institution, the Assembly of Experts. He must also deal with the Guardian Council, which is equally small but also influential — and must certify the election results. Some pundits are now arguing that the Assembly of Experts could find constitutional means to remove Iran's Supreme Leader and that a refusal by the Guardian Council to validate the election could throw the country into further crisis.

The main impetus for this speculation is the influence in both groups of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the last surviving powerful member of the revolution's founding fathers. Rafsanjani was a very loud critic of Ahmadinejad, and thus indirectly of the President's patron, the Supreme Leader. Since 2007, Rafsanjani has been the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, which has the power to call for Khamenei's ouster. He is also the chairman of an important advisory body that has dealings with the Guardian Council. Throwing the investigation into the hands of the council may be an attempt by Khamenei to buy more time to build consensus about what to do next — and to restore the uneasy equilibrium between himself and Rafsanjani.

Before the June 12 vote, Rafsanjani and Khamenei were involved in a public spat over Ahmadinejad, with Rafsanjani wanting the Supreme Leader to censure the President for what he described as slanderous remarks. Khamenei refused. Ahmadinejad's followers continue to see Rafsanjani (also a former President) as the enemy. At Ahmadinejad's celebratory rally on Sunday, almost all chants were directed against Rafsanjani. He is seen as the big threat; there is even speculation that Rafsanjani may see himself as the next Supreme Leader, which would be disastrous for the President.

Political scientists in Iran are skeptical that Rafsanjani would make a move to oust Khamenei. But there is intense internal maneuvering going on right now in the hallways of power, invisible to the massive demonstrations in the streets of Iran's big cities, which in turn feed the backroom dealings. For while it is still unlikely that Rafsanjani will make the unprecedented move to remove the Supreme Leader, the more chaotic Iran gets, the more it allows Rafsanjani to find some lever to pull or to do something dramatic. It is in Khamenei's interest, then, to cool down the demonstrations.

In 1979, everyone wanted the Shah to fall, but no one believed that is was thinkable. Then, suddenly, it became so. The 1979 Revolution, once in motion, took months to play out. Even to those within it, none knew what was exactly happening, how long it would take or whether there would be a successful conclusion. The same applies to the situation now.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904729,00.html?cnn=yes

 

[Asteroid-Man]

really? because if I got attacked by the police for protesting it would only encourge my to use violence right back at them.

Wait, what are you arguing exactly?

The news that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has ordered an investigation into charges of voter fraud in his country's presidential elections has been greeted with skepticism by many in the West. After all, it was Ayatullah Khamenei, who holds the ultimate authority in the theocratic nation, who rushed to embrace incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the victor long before the ballots were counted. But his order to the Guardian Council, the powerful watchdog of the Iranian constitution, to start an investigation may not be as cynical as it appears.

Of course, there is political calculation to Khamenei's investigation. It neutralizes the main demand around which the opposition is rallying on the streets and imposes a de facto 10-day cooling-off period that could sap, even demoralize, the anti-Ahamdinejad demonstrations. The huge rally in support of Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Tehran on Monday is enough to make any ruler, autocrat or not, tremble. All of this opens the Supreme Leader's window of vulnerability to one very powerful enemy.

As much as some Iranian conservatives may wish otherwise, the Islamic republic has never been able to seal tight state rule over society: it is a sloppy authoritarian state with elements of democracy. Iranian democracy may not be recognizably Western, but its dynamic seeps into the highest echelons of power, even if it is embodied in an instinct for consensus among a clerical élite with diverse opinions. It is a dynamic that even Khamenei has to answer to.

Apart from the Iranian electorate, Khamenei has a couple of very important constituencies to deal with. Indeed, while most people describe Khamenei as the unelected leader of Iran, he was chosen by a small but critical institution, the Assembly of Experts. He must also deal with the Guardian Council, which is equally small but also influential — and must certify the election results. Some pundits are now arguing that the Assembly of Experts could find constitutional means to remove Iran's Supreme Leader and that a refusal by the Guardian Council to validate the election could throw the country into further crisis.

The main impetus for this speculation is the influence in both groups of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the last surviving powerful member of the revolution's founding fathers. Rafsanjani was a very loud critic of Ahmadinejad, and thus indirectly of the President's patron, the Supreme Leader. Since 2007, Rafsanjani has been the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, which has the power to call for Khamenei's ouster. He is also the chairman of an important advisory body that has dealings with the Guardian Council. Throwing the investigation into the hands of the council may be an attempt by Khamenei to buy more time to build consensus about what to do next — and to restore the uneasy equilibrium between himself and Rafsanjani.

Before the June 12 vote, Rafsanjani and Khamenei were involved in a public spat over Ahmadinejad, with Rafsanjani wanting the Supreme Leader to censure the President for what he described as slanderous remarks. Khamenei refused. Ahmadinejad's followers continue to see Rafsanjani (also a former President) as the enemy. At Ahmadinejad's celebratory rally on Sunday, almost all chants were directed against Rafsanjani. He is seen as the big threat; there is even speculation that Rafsanjani may see himself as the next Supreme Leader, which would be disastrous for the President.

Political scientists in Iran are skeptical that Rafsanjani would make a move to oust Khamenei. But there is intense internal maneuvering going on right now in the hallways of power, invisible to the massive demonstrations in the streets of Iran's big cities, which in turn feed the backroom dealings. For while it is still unlikely that Rafsanjani will make the unprecedented move to remove the Supreme Leader, the more chaotic Iran gets, the more it allows Rafsanjani to find some lever to pull or to do something dramatic. It is in Khamenei's interest, then, to cool down the demonstrations.

In 1979, everyone wanted the Shah to fall, but no one believed that is was thinkable. Then, suddenly, it became so. The 1979 Revolution, once in motion, took months to play out. Even to those within it, none knew what was exactly happening, how long it would take or whether there would be a successful conclusion. The same applies to the situation now.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904729,00.html?cnn=yes

That article only begins to scratch the surface. If Khamenei sees a threat in the council of high clerics he'll just persecute them like he has this past weekend placing many of them under house arrest. His investigation will be just as corrupt as the vote count. I agree with the last paragraph completely though!

 

[chamber-music]

Correct - but Obama knew that before he proposed that anyway. That's why his declaration of sitting down with him was so foolish.

I thought it was a good move. Obama offering them an olive branch made america look good. Obama was reasonable and atleast showed he was willing to sit down and move things forward. If anything it made Iran look petty, stubbon and stuck in their ways.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

The news that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has ordered an investigation into charges of voter fraud in his country's presidential elections has been greeted with skepticism by many in the West. After all, it was Ayatullah Khamenei, who holds the ultimate authority in the theocratic nation, who rushed to embrace incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the victor long before the ballots were counted. But his order to the Guardian Council, the powerful watchdog of the Iranian constitution, to start an investigation may not be as cynical as it appears.

Of course, there is political calculation to Khamenei's investigation. It neutralizes the main demand around which the opposition is rallying on the streets and imposes a de facto 10-day cooling-off period that could sap, even demoralize, the anti-Ahamdinejad demonstrations. The huge rally in support of Mir-Hossein Mousavi in Tehran on Monday is enough to make any ruler, autocrat or not, tremble. All of this opens the Supreme Leader's window of vulnerability to one very powerful enemy.

As much as some Iranian conservatives may wish otherwise, the Islamic republic has never been able to seal tight state rule over society: it is a sloppy authoritarian state with elements of democracy. Iranian democracy may not be recognizably Western, but its dynamic seeps into the highest echelons of power, even if it is embodied in an instinct for consensus among a clerical élite with diverse opinions. It is a dynamic that even Khamenei has to answer to.

Apart from the Iranian electorate, Khamenei has a couple of very important constituencies to deal with. Indeed, while most people describe Khamenei as the unelected leader of Iran, he was chosen by a small but critical institution, the Assembly of Experts. He must also deal with the Guardian Council, which is equally small but also influential — and must certify the election results. Some pundits are now arguing that the Assembly of Experts could find constitutional means to remove Iran's Supreme Leader and that a refusal by the Guardian Council to validate the election could throw the country into further crisis.

The main impetus for this speculation is the influence in both groups of Ayatullah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the last surviving powerful member of the revolution's founding fathers. Rafsanjani was a very loud critic of Ahmadinejad, and thus indirectly of the President's patron, the Supreme Leader. Since 2007, Rafsanjani has been the chairman of the Assembly of Experts, which has the power to call for Khamenei's ouster. He is also the chairman of an important advisory body that has dealings with the Guardian Council. Throwing the investigation into the hands of the council may be an attempt by Khamenei to buy more time to build consensus about what to do next — and to restore the uneasy equilibrium between himself and Rafsanjani.

Before the June 12 vote, Rafsanjani and Khamenei were involved in a public spat over Ahmadinejad, with Rafsanjani wanting the Supreme Leader to censure the President for what he described as slanderous remarks. Khamenei refused. Ahmadinejad's followers continue to see Rafsanjani (also a former President) as the enemy. At Ahmadinejad's celebratory rally on Sunday, almost all chants were directed against Rafsanjani. He is seen as the big threat; there is even speculation that Rafsanjani may see himself as the next Supreme Leader, which would be disastrous for the President.

Political scientists in Iran are skeptical that Rafsanjani would make a move to oust Khamenei. But there is intense internal maneuvering going on right now in the hallways of power, invisible to the massive demonstrations in the streets of Iran's big cities, which in turn feed the backroom dealings. For while it is still unlikely that Rafsanjani will make the unprecedented move to remove the Supreme Leader, the more chaotic Iran gets, the more it allows Rafsanjani to find some lever to pull or to do something dramatic. It is in Khamenei's interest, then, to cool down the demonstrations.

In 1979, everyone wanted the Shah to fall, but no one believed that is was thinkable. Then, suddenly, it became so. The 1979 Revolution, once in motion, took months to play out. Even to those within it, none knew what was exactly happening, how long it would take or whether there would be a successful conclusion. The same applies to the situation now.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904729,00.html?cnn=yes

This is the only article that I see touching the truth. this is where the real power lies and not with any president.

If Khamanei had any sense he would just call a re-election to calm down the crowds. Even make Moussavi President.....it does not change much because the "reformers" cannot reform anything. I just take some hope from how this generation seems to be fed up with the situation they inherited because of the folly of their parents.

Rhafsanjani could achieve higher power but he is still part of the same system and he will not change it much.

Also, just to add on what Asteroid Man stated and in response to Para, Asteroid Man did accurately state that the Shah was ousted not only by the population but more importantly by Western governments. Iran was gaining too much influence in the region and was no longer sharing in the wealth from the oil which he had agreed to do in the early 50s.

Whether the country would have gone to democracy is possible based on the current beliefs of Reza who would have inherited the throne in the early 80s (Mohammed Reza was dying of cancer when he was exiled) but nothing is for certain because his current beliefs were certainly affected by the crisis his family went through. In any case, the previous system was not anywhere near as corrupt as the current system. The richest people in Iran today tend to be the Mollahs and they did not gain their wealth because they succeeded in business.

Iran has gone to hell as a result of a revolution and that saddens me more then anything despite my own personal losses which resulted from the revolution.

 

[Paradoxium]

This is the only article that I see touching the truth. this is where the real power lies and not with any president.

If Khamanei had any sense he would just call a re-election to calm down the crowds. Even make Moussavi President.....it does not change much because the "reformers" cannot reform anything. I just take some hope from how this generation seems to be fed up with the situation they inherited because of the folly of their parents.

Rhafsanjani could achieve higher power but he is still part of the same system and he will not change it much.

Also, just to add on what Asteroid Man stated and in response to Para, Asteroid Man did accurately state that the Shah was ousted not only by the population but more importantly by Western governments. Iran was gaining too much influence in the region and was no longer sharing in the wealth from the oil which he had agreed to do in the early 50s.

Whether the country would have gone to democracy is possible based on the current beliefs of Reza who would have inherited the throne in the early 80s (Mohammed Reza was dying of cancer when he was exiled) but nothing is for certain because his current beliefs were certainly affected by the crisis his family went through. In any case, the previous system was not anywhere near as corrupt as the current system. The richest people in Iran today tend to be the Mollahs and they did not gain their wealth because they succeeded in business.

Iran has gone to hell as a result of a revolution and that saddens me more then anything despite my own personal losses which resulted from the revolution.

I am contending not of the what if in the past (nor am I trying to justify it), but the what of now.

An honest question is, would a stable Democracy work now? The things I hear and the feeling get is, no. I think the demographic and generational shift won't allow it.

 

[VampElvis]

I thought it was a good move. Obama offering them an olive branch made america look good. Obama was reasonable and atleast showed he was willing to sit down and move things forward. If anything it made Iran look petty, stubbon and stuck in their ways.

I think it was a perhaps a good attempt to influence an election but once the old guard won (the rigged) election it now actually gives the existing government credibility to their constituency by them thumbing their nose at "the great satan" and standing in defiance.

 

[Marx]

IRAN'S TOP CLERIC DENOUNCES ELECTION RESULTS
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html

One of the day's most important developments -- that Iran's most senior cleric Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri had denounced the election results -- wasn't given nearly enough attention.

"No one in their right mind can believe" the official results from Friday's contest, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri said of the landslide victory claimed by Ahmadinejad. Montazeri accused the regime of handling Mousavi's charges of fraud and the massive protests of his backers "in the worst way possible."

"A government not respecting people's vote has no religious or political legitimacy," he declared in comments on his official Web site. "I ask the police and army personals (personnel) not to 'sell their religion,' and beware that receiving orders will not excuse them before God."

 

[Asteroid-Man]

More dead today. People are fighting back with sticks and batons themselves. Resistance shows its true colours: Black. They no longer answer to Mousavi. Pahlavi appeared on CNN last night:
[YT]sHdfkLsIosk[/YT]