Iran is on the verge of revolution. People are using 60s style protest methods to bring down an evil theocracy. This will end up either as triumphant event equivalent to the falling of the Berlin Wall. Or it will be another Tianamen Square. This is most extraordinary, and far reaching, thing happening in the world right now.

Yet this issue is being ignored by the left because it is perceived as a "right wing" issue. Think I'm exaggerating? Check out this lefty blog -- Protests in Iran -- which starts with this telling line: "These stories about the Iranian student movement have been so relentless hyped on rightwing sites that I think we on the left have been shying away from the story."

According to blogger Don Watkins, cited on the invaluable instapundit site:
Why is this? Is it because the protestors are pro-American and pro-Bush? (Imagine that! I thought we were hated the world over!) Is it the fear that if the ayatollahs and mullahs fall in Iran -- and democracy returns -- it will vindicate President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld and their regime change policy?

You have a popular uprising against an evil theocracy right next door to Iraq. Not a peep on the P&R forum about this, yet we have about 885 threads on the search for WMD in Iraq, all saturated with premature accusations that BUSH LIED!!!! Why is the left ignoring Iran?

P.S.: Andrew Sullivan declared July 9 as the day that blogs should focus on freedom in Iran. Hopefully, the day of freedom will come before then. As this messageboard sorta kinda functions as a blog, July 9 sounds good to me.

Jeez CITT, I don't know which "lefties" you're picking -- where and who is this American left anyway? -- but The Nation has been addressing political turmoil in Iran for awhile, like with this March article.
They're hardly on the side of the fundy clerics...

I don't think all the progressives in Iran who've been supporting Khatami and the reform movements are "pro-Bush." The great filmmakers who've emerged from that country (in spite of being censored by their government), Mohsen Makhmalbaf to name one, don't seem to be. In this part of the world, the general population doesn't want to be f**ked over by the US instead of by theocrats.

[ June 17, 2003, 01:37 PM: Message edited by: Bill W ]

CITT -- just what do you and this Watkins guy want liberals to do? A fat lot of good it's gonna do the folks in Teheran if Ann Richards and Jim Hightower get on the blogs and declare: "We support the students. Iran's regime must fall"

The implication that the liberals are somehow supportive of the ayatollahs et al. is farcical.

That being said, the latest political columns I've read (Dick Morris and the like) are advising the Dems (and not just liberal ones) to ignore the war on terrorism, Iraq, Iran etc. in the upcoming election and focus on domestic issues if they have any hope of winning.

However, should a regime change occur in Iran, those Dems will be applauding just as loudly and vigorously as the GOPers.

Oops -- I meant to follow up the quote with the comment -- excellent question! Exactly what should "the left" be doing?

Ann Richards and Jim Hightower.....ahhhhhh (for this Texas boy), the good ol' days!

Blindly supporting the Administration, whatever their goals, and if they can't do that, shut up.

naturally the dems would not support Iran, if they fell right now W gets credit. Why do you think they are being told to concentrate on domestic issues?

The only chance the Democrats have to win is to hammer away at the mountains of lies, deceptions, and falsehoods that this Administration has gotten away with for so long on so many issues; Iraq, terrorism, the 9/11 probe, Enron, the economy, etc, etc, etc. Democrats can't win by being Republicans. You can't hope to win by saying "me too." The last thing the Democratic Party needs is to move more to the right than it already has.

As for Iran, the popular uprising should be just that, a popular uprising. Not a US invasion, not another set of lies justifying "regime change," it should be something that the Iranian people themselves bring about, work through, and resolve.

Bush wants to invade--if anything that would strengthen the hardliners against the reformers.

Bush wouldn't get credit for anything--the Iranians would.

I'm not really interested in seeing the Dems win per se. But I am interested in seeing all American citizens doing their best to inform themselves of domestic and foreign policy blunders by the Administration and Congress.

Rather than pursue the Dem vs. Rep angle, would it not be wiser to focus on truth, freedom and justice? It seems all political parties, whether they control the Administration or not, lose sight of this uniquely American attribute.

In transcending the Dem vs. Rep problematic, we become better Americans. And better world citizens.

Exactly - we should all applaud the internal changes that are happening in Iran, but I really don't think there has been any move by the "left" (I assume we are talking about the media here? or politicians?) to squash reports of what is going on. According to today's Post, these kinds of demonstrations have happened in the past, and roaming bands of vigilantes have taken revenge on the protesters. Apparently the difference this time is that the government has tried to stop the vigilantes, something it has never done before.

The Post also reported that it is extremely difficult for the press to get anywhere near the demonstrations, or even to some of the cities where they are happening. Perhaps the lack of media focus is caused by a lack of solid information, and the lack of certainty as to what will happen over there.

sorry there kid, but everything i've ever heard was that Iran would fall from within and there was no need to use military force. To say that he wanted to is nothing more than some libs opinion.

Nope, once again you're wrong. Members of W's administration (Perle, Wolfowitz, etc.) have not only talked about a war against the Mullahs, but they have only declared that they are going to use various means to help spur an uprising. So one aspect of this "popular" uprising, which mainly consists of university students as opposed to the masses (which was the case in the Islamic revolution) is that it appears increasinly likely that it's being spurred on agents provocateurs who have CIA/DIA connections and Iranian-exile sponsorship.

Second, the "Left," which CITT is braying about, has repeatedly urged that the previous administration and the current one work with Mohammad Khatami, the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED reformist president of Iran. The LEFT pushed Clinton towards détente with Khatami as far back as the late 1990s. And yes, that's correct, the majority of Iranians ELECTED Khatami, a former university professor and moderate cleric who is descended from the prophet Mohammad and who, along with numerous local and nationally elected reformers, has repeatedly stood up to the mullahs. Because the masses of Iranians ALSO DEMOCRATICALLY elected the reformist parliament. Even now, Khatami has urged that the students NOT be arrested, jailed or harmed. The majority of Iranians, like Americans, DON'T WANT THEOCRATIC CONSERVATIVE FANATICS running their country.

Third, the current standoff with Iran occurred AFTER W. took office. His agenda towards Iran has been hostile since day one, except when he needed Khatami to seal the borders with Afghanistan. However, his subsequent comments about Iran, its democracy, and the political transformations there were so ignorant, offensive and provocative that Iran paid lip service to the U.S.'s requests during the Iraq War. This is a problem because we NEED Iran--and nation of over 50 million people--to assist in the War on Terror. But the fanatics in W.'s regime could care less; they want something new to crow about, so who knows what lies and schemes they're up to in this current mess? I find it quite interesting that members of W's administration support the Shah's son...the former Shah himself was a brutal dictator whose failure to open up the economy, allow political freedoms, and permit the open expression of religious faith--all things W. supposedly supports--led to the 1979-80 Islamic revolution there. What side is W. really on? Oil and power, if you ask me. Spare us the spun pieties, please.

[ June 17, 2003, 09:32 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

What could the indigenous left do? Two ideas.

Idea #1: Participate in the dialog.
What is the right approach in Iran? The pro-democracy demonstrators dislike the so-called "moderates" like Khatami just as much as they hate the theocratic ayatollahs and mullahs. (And President Bush's inclusion of Iran in the Axis of Evil was well-received by some in Iran.) Supporting Khatami could put us on the wrong side of Iranian history. On the other hand, clearly he's an improvement over the ayatollahs.
What should U.S. policy be? Who should we support? Let's talk about it. Let's have a debate. I'm seeing Iran thoroughly debated in the conservative media and being discussed much less by the mainstream and liberal media. Has Iran even been mentioned by any of the Dem presidential candidates?

Idea #2: Stop undermining U.S. policy in the region.
Until the reign of Tom Daschle over the Senate Democrats, foreign policy in this country was generally conducted in a relatively bipartisan style. Yes, there was some carping over some of Clinton's Wag the Dog moves, but generally the Republicans were playing poodle to Clinton on matters regarding foreign policy.
Right now the Iran situation is fluid. Does the policy of the Democratic party need to be that the U.S. is a dangerous rogue nation? So far, the Bush policy has been very successful in Afghanistan and Iraq. Give some time to see if he's on the right track in Iran and Israel/Palestine.
There's plenty of time to find out the truth about Iraq's WMD program. We know they had the weapons in the past -- they used against Iran and later the Kurds. What happened to them? We'll know well in advance of the November elections. There's plenty of time to raise this as a political issue.

I'd prefer Idea #2. I'll settle for #1.

Putting Iraq (and Afghanistan -- remember that one?) on the backburner so Iran can be centerstage seems astoundingly shortsighted to me when our personnel are being picked off at the rate of ten or so a week (when they're not firing into crowds, in self-defense or not), and MORE children are suffering from malnutrition there than under Saddam's blighted rule... not to mention chaos between the ethnic groups, disagreement about the constitutional mechanisms, lack of water and power etc.

The LAST things Dems need to do is take advice from a craven ass**** like Dick Morris, who has gone from john to whore.

They are getting lessons from LCR.

How exactly is the "left" undermining US foreign policy? It is not as if everyone who is not a Republican or conservative speaks with one voice or all think the same thing. I have seen many times on this board gay Republicans take others to task for assuming a monolithic conservative mentality, and I think the same consideration must be given to those of us who disagree with the current administration.

The policy of the Democratic party, and certainly of most "liberals" I know, is not that the US is a "dangerous rogue nation." We may believe we have a dangerous rogue leader, but he, thank God, does not speak for all Americans.

I doubt there is anyone on the left who believes Iran is better off under a theocratic regime (although it wasn't that well off under the Shah, but he was anti-communist, so we officially liked him). What the left may be concerned about is the US interfering, yet again, with the political situation in a foreign country. We simply cannot demand that every nation put in the government we like, and although I think we should support the protesters officially, I would hate to see us launch covert actions to take down the government of Iran (as we did in Chile, Iran in the 50's and a host of other nations).

I am a little lost, so help me out please.
We have not completed the job in Afghanistan, Iraq is spinning into another west bank, and now us lefties are wrong because we are not pushing for a change in Iran?

Dont worry about Iraq, the commander-in-chimp got all dressed up and proclaimed "mission accomplished", what could possibly go wrong....

Do you have evidence for this? I can well believe they're impatient with Khatami, but Khatami does have broadbased support. He had a resounding election victory, and--unlike some previous elections--the electoral turnout was very strong.

I found an interesting article on Iran's politics--it's a few years old (2000), but still relevant, I think

http://www.biu.ac.il/SOC/besa/meria/journa...e3/jv4n3a4.html

What on earth is in the air out in Las Vegas? Take off the blinders! "Bipartisan?" What was Iran Contra? The Grenada war? Henry Kissinger's orchestrated coups in Latin America, or Africa, or South Asia? What planet are you on???

Second, what "very successful" policies are you talking about in Afghanistan and Iraq? Afghanistan is mired in sheer chaos; it's a divided, extremely violent country divided up between warlords some of whom are allowing the Taliban to regroup and in some places attack women and non-fanatics, and impose Shari'a; and it is worse off financially and in terms of resources than when the hateful Taliban were in control. Bush knocked them out of office, installed an oil-affiliated puppet, yet has given him minimal assistance and aid in rebuilding that country.

Iraq is also a quagmire. We do not have enough troops, we have lost 42 soldiers with nearly triple that number wounded since W declared (for show purposes) an end to the war, there's no civilian administration, the vast majority of Iraqis LOATHE the US presence, and we've yet to get a truthful accounting either of the pre-war intelligence OR the costs of this mess. YOu call this success? I guess you'll settle for anything that comes wrapped in GOP bunting, no matter how pathetic it is.

I know i am goint to painted as a liberal eek!
or a french loving democrat, but.... I think to win the "War on Terrorism" we need to understand the seeds of hate towards the US that made 9/11 possible. The thought of our troops in that many Muslim nations, and active involvement in toppling elected gov'ts in others makes me think more attacks are sure to come. And please spare me the chest thumping over Afghanistan, yes i supported our actions there. And In Iraq I did not support Mr Bush, but did support our troops- Yes you can do one without the other.

Thank you, CPT. CITT's comments about Iran may be au courant in right-wing circles, but the fact remains that Khatami won BOTH elections--the first and his re-election, along with the reformist parliament, overwhelmingly. IT is also true that Clinton began a process of dialogue with Khatami which W shut off. Rather than support him and bolster the HOMEGROWN democratic movement there, right-wingers would like to see a version of the despotic shah reinstalled, especially since his family and related members of his clique, like the Farman-Farmaians, controlled the oil industry until the Islamic revolution.

Given how pathetic our media are--they can't even muster the courage to ask the administration necessary questions about its regular spate of lies--we can't be sure WHAT is going on over in Iran, though from what I've come across in the foreign press, there are numerous suspicions of US meddling and fomenting of the student protests. I mean, didn't CITT, echoing the administration's line, tell us for several months that a popular revolution was going to overthrow the mullahs and ayatollocracy? Yes, the mullahs have got to go. Help out Iran's democracy, don't underwrite a coup there. AT any rate, this fervor about Iran takes the heat of W for his 9/11 failures, the lousy economy AND questions about the WMD/Iraq-al Qaida lies!

But then, should we be surprised by any of this? W doesn't respect democracy here, so why should he respect it on foreign shores (Venezuela, etc.)?