I feel like pricking myself every time I watch footage of what is happening in Iran right now.
Having been very much politically aware during the last revolution it is stunning how much more intense this one appears to be.
The first overthrew a monarchy, this one is atttempting to dethrone a theocracy.
Monarchs only think they are gods, theocrats "know" they are God's representative on earth.
A big difference is the communication technology available today. How will Iran's technologically-challenged theocrats deal with a phenomenon they not only do not understand but seem to believe they can abolish by fiat...or fatwa as the case may be?
This could be good news for the entire world, not just because of the extraordinary notion that Iran could moderate, but that it may demonstrate a profound willingness of people around the world to take control of the interpretation of religion from authoritarians. One more tool of control may finally be shown to be fragile.
Full Version: The Iranian Revolution of 2009
QUOTE(sportinlife @ Jun 15 2009, 09:49 PM) 
How will Iran's technologically-challenged theocrats deal with a phenomenon they not only do they not understand but seem to believe they can abolish
How? By trying to disconnect it, of course. "No chat. No mobile. No SMS. Nothing. And they are collecting all the satellite dishes. Twitter is blocked too." But they can't keep the Iranian people under their boot nor the technology suppressed as long as the will for freedom exists there.
I don't have cable (and I can't say I miss it, from what I'm hearing), but the best live blogging of the uprising I've found are Andrew Sullivan of the Atlantic and the NY Time's The Lede. Oh yeah, and Nico Pitney on Huffington Post.
Amazing events.
Thanks for quoting my clumsy sentence fenwayguy. I removed the extra "they".
As for the Ayatollah controlling modern communication in Iran, I think that is impossible.
China does a better job and spends a lot of money to do so. I don't think the religious regime in Iran has the technological knowhow or the resources to win the "whack-a-mole" race as some have called it.
North Korea manages a better attempt at it by simply denying the technology to virtually the entire population.
The eastern european and other former soviet satellites were unsuccessful. And I believe it was Ahmadinejad himself who claimed that the current green revolution in Iran will not have an Orange Revolution like Ukraine or, assumedly, a Rose Revolution as happened in Georgia, clearly indicating that he is aware of the possible consequences of the current resistance.
So far he has responded with a cockiness that is reminiscent of every pocket dictator in modern history confronted with legitimate complaints from the people he oppresses. I think the only thing that will allow him to crack down is for his handlers - the religious authorities - to give the word to killl their fellow Iranians.
Edit to add: You know it's serious when sports figures get in on the act. This black power salute merely ended these players careers but, more than just not qualifying for the South African World Cup, taking a positon in opposition to the religious authority in the most extraordinary political movement in recent Iranian history could do a lot more than end a career. Regardless of not these guys, especially the captain, have shown more balls and leadership than anyone you will see in the cup next year.
And at least one player seems to be protecting his.
As for the Ayatollah controlling modern communication in Iran, I think that is impossible.
China does a better job and spends a lot of money to do so. I don't think the religious regime in Iran has the technological knowhow or the resources to win the "whack-a-mole" race as some have called it.
North Korea manages a better attempt at it by simply denying the technology to virtually the entire population.
The eastern european and other former soviet satellites were unsuccessful. And I believe it was Ahmadinejad himself who claimed that the current green revolution in Iran will not have an Orange Revolution like Ukraine or, assumedly, a Rose Revolution as happened in Georgia, clearly indicating that he is aware of the possible consequences of the current resistance.
So far he has responded with a cockiness that is reminiscent of every pocket dictator in modern history confronted with legitimate complaints from the people he oppresses. I think the only thing that will allow him to crack down is for his handlers - the religious authorities - to give the word to killl their fellow Iranians.
Edit to add: You know it's serious when sports figures get in on the act. This black power salute merely ended these players careers but, more than just not qualifying for the South African World Cup, taking a positon in opposition to the religious authority in the most extraordinary political movement in recent Iranian history could do a lot more than end a career. Regardless of not these guys, especially the captain, have shown more balls and leadership than anyone you will see in the cup next year.
And at least one player seems to be protecting his.
This thread raises a perfect ie of what democracy should be. I democratic revolution happens W/IN a country/system, not OUTSDE the country/system. The US's attempt to force democracy upon Iraq was quite questionable from the beginning. You cannot force democracy upon a people. The movement MUST occur W/IN the POPULACE...
One cannot help but ponder about the fact that possibly Obama's election/presidency has (will?) influence other countries/people to seek a democracy in their backyard!
Edit to add:
Ooops, made a slight correction above. That's what I get for trying to multitask right b4 my vacation.
One cannot help but ponder about the fact that possibly Obama's election/presidency has (will?) influence other countries/people to seek a democracy in their backyard!
Edit to add:
Ooops, made a slight correction above. That's what I get for trying to multitask right b4 my vacation.
Maybe take back their democracy is more like it.
The millions of "opposition" protesters aren't challenging their form of government, which is already a type of constitutional democracy. (It's complicated.) They're just angry about... well, it boils down to R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Ahmadinejad and some of the mullahs are crooked and out for themselves, and therefore are not living according to Islam -- placing themselves above God, if you will, and believing themselves unanswerable to the people.
The country has been screwed economically and politically by the current regime. The protesters want change at the top, and they expect their votes to be counted, not thrown in the trash as Ahmadinejad and his cohorts seem to have done.
The millions of "opposition" protesters aren't challenging their form of government, which is already a type of constitutional democracy. (It's complicated.) They're just angry about... well, it boils down to R-E-S-P-E-C-T. Ahmadinejad and some of the mullahs are crooked and out for themselves, and therefore are not living according to Islam -- placing themselves above God, if you will, and believing themselves unanswerable to the people.
The country has been screwed economically and politically by the current regime. The protesters want change at the top, and they expect their votes to be counted, not thrown in the trash as Ahmadinejad and his cohorts seem to have done.
QUOTE(fenwayguy @ Jun 19 2009, 12:37 AM)
No kidding. That diagram is worth posting on its own:
Also worth noting is that the "Unelected Institutions" are actually "elected" by this small number of religious authorities called the "Assembly of Experts".
It is as if our Supreme Court were elected by a group of lawyers who also had the status of priests or ministers of one religion, and also elected their own members.
It is literally an oligarchy.
One of the characteristics that makes the current upheaval different from the two previous ones since the 1979 revolution is that there seems to be a serious split within the Assembly of Experts.
A lot may depend on whether this group can keep a lid on things. I don't think that is a sustainable outcome.
Nice!
Good to see something more than a very superficial understanding of Iranian politics.
Ultimately, the government, which is supervised by the Rahbar (the clerical representative selected by the Aeembly of Experts) is accountable to the the Mullahs and such in Qom, through the Assembly of Experts. The current leader of the Assembly is a political foe of the current government, and to a lesser extent that of the Rahbar as well. The real question here is what the mullahs in Qom think about the ellection. Many, if not most, were dissatisfied with the government and may well resent the fact that it looks like the Rahbar helped fix the election, when the Rahbar is supposed to remain outside politics, even though he endorsed the current president. It is unclear what their current level of dissatisfaction is. But they can remove the Rahbar at any time.
Also don't forget the state securty forces, the Pasdaran. It is unclear to whom they are actually loyal. Their ultimate loyalty is supposed to be the mullahs in Qom, but it is unclear exactly to whom their primary loyalty is now. The Rahbar had functional oversight over the organization, but many of the members, particularly the Basij (local militia's) seem to have loyalty to the government and to a lesser extent, the Rahbar. It is all very complicated.
Lastly, this is not about making Iran more democractic or about reformers. The opposition leader is a hard core conservative, but he is not a fundamentalist. The leader of the Assembly of Experts is a pragmatic conservative. So be careful about thinking this is about reformers against conservatives. This is about two different groups of conservatives, one group of which is more moderizing and open to the West than the other and is using the anger of the obvious fraud to bolster its position, via the mullahs in Qom. But neither side has ANY interest in undoing the '79 revolution. But if the revolution is undone, the ultimate effect will likely be a very fundamentalist dictatorship backed by the security forces, with little or no influence from Qom.
Good to see something more than a very superficial understanding of Iranian politics.
Ultimately, the government, which is supervised by the Rahbar (the clerical representative selected by the Aeembly of Experts) is accountable to the the Mullahs and such in Qom, through the Assembly of Experts. The current leader of the Assembly is a political foe of the current government, and to a lesser extent that of the Rahbar as well. The real question here is what the mullahs in Qom think about the ellection. Many, if not most, were dissatisfied with the government and may well resent the fact that it looks like the Rahbar helped fix the election, when the Rahbar is supposed to remain outside politics, even though he endorsed the current president. It is unclear what their current level of dissatisfaction is. But they can remove the Rahbar at any time.
Also don't forget the state securty forces, the Pasdaran. It is unclear to whom they are actually loyal. Their ultimate loyalty is supposed to be the mullahs in Qom, but it is unclear exactly to whom their primary loyalty is now. The Rahbar had functional oversight over the organization, but many of the members, particularly the Basij (local militia's) seem to have loyalty to the government and to a lesser extent, the Rahbar. It is all very complicated.
Lastly, this is not about making Iran more democractic or about reformers. The opposition leader is a hard core conservative, but he is not a fundamentalist. The leader of the Assembly of Experts is a pragmatic conservative. So be careful about thinking this is about reformers against conservatives. This is about two different groups of conservatives, one group of which is more moderizing and open to the West than the other and is using the anger of the obvious fraud to bolster its position, via the mullahs in Qom. But neither side has ANY interest in undoing the '79 revolution. But if the revolution is undone, the ultimate effect will likely be a very fundamentalist dictatorship backed by the security forces, with little or no influence from Qom.
Interesting Tiger. I wonder what all this will entail for the international relationships in the region though. True the two factions may both be committed to the "Iranian Revolution", but in that context they could certainly define their international goals very differently in substance, as they already have cosmetically.
The Ayatollah's speech today suggests we will not know the consequences for the rest of the region for a while, but the horrors of the Iran-Iraq War suggest the kind of violence could occur in the settlement of the situation.
When I think that our Civil War was proportionately the most deadly in this nation's history, foreign or domestic, I certainly hope that we are not seeing the beginning of something similar.
The Ayatollah's speech today suggests we will not know the consequences for the rest of the region for a while, but the horrors of the Iran-Iraq War suggest the kind of violence could occur in the settlement of the situation.
When I think that our Civil War was proportionately the most deadly in this nation's history, foreign or domestic, I certainly hope that we are not seeing the beginning of something similar.
QUOTE(sportinlife @ Jun 19 2009, 04:58 PM)
The Ayatollah's speech today suggests we will not know the consequences for the rest of the region for a while.
When I think that our Civil War was proportionately the most deadly in this nation's history, foreign or domestic, I certainly hope that we are not seeing the beginning of something similar.
However, we do know the consequences for Iranians. Link below is to a video of the death of a young woman, who was a bystander in one of the demonstrations this past weekend. The video is disturbing. Her name is Neda. I'm beginning to question the wisdom of "measured responses" from foreign governments. Yes, the overthrow of this brutal regime must come from the Iranian people, but they must know that the world stands with them.
Death of An Iranian Patriot
Blessings to the Iranian people and martyrs. My ex boyfriend is an Iranian. He has family and friends there. My thoughts and prayers are with the Iranian people who are standing up to religous tyranny. And there are people of Islamic, Christian and Jewish heritage taking part in these anti government protests in Iran. Iran is an ancient culture with a rich and proud heritage. They deserve better than the mullahs who dominate the society.
Though I realize that any response from the Obama Administration will be twisted by the Iranian governing regime to suit its purposes, I am frustrated and appalled by this administration's "measured response." And now this:
Come join us for a hot dog!
Twenty years on, no one remembers Tiananmen Square! Some change!
Come join us for a hot dog!
Twenty years on, no one remembers Tiananmen Square! Some change!
QUOTE(BigBlueCowboy @ Jun 23 2009, 09:53 PM)
Assuming they stick to this tact against the mounting criticism of being soft on Iran, this could actually turn out to be a diplomatic coup.The most adamant opponents of the religious fundamentalism in Iran have come from the expatriate community. Diplomats tend to be the most cosmopolitan people in any government.
It might not be accurate to assume that all, or any, of them would be supporters of the conservative faction among Iran's religious elite who are the driving force behind the current crackdown.
These invitations may further reveal the rift between them and offer some soft support without obviously serving as a foil for the conservative Iranians to use in justifying tougher anti-protest measures.
It may be a risky but bold move.
Diplomatic coup?? More like a diplomatic gaffe! You are correct, sportinlife, that the diplomatic corps of most countries are a cosmopolitan and well-educated lot. And they are not always mere toadies of the regime. And, no doubt, there are reformers and opponents of the regime amongst them. A good example of such a diplomat was the Polish ambassador to the US, who, along with his wife, defected in protest over the imposition of martial law in Poland and violent crackdown of Solidarity in the early 1980s. However the expatriate community is not the same as the diplomatic mission to a nation. The Iranian expatriate community are in exile from their country for political, economic, and religious reasons.
The Obama administration was wrong to invite Iranian diplomats to US embassies for celebrations, no matter how trivial, marking US independence, i.e. a celebration of the rule of law and individual liberties. It would signal diplomatically that the US has normal relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It does not. Events over the past few weeks in Iran have demonstrated that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognize the rule of law and individual liberties. Moreover, the Iranian regime has funded, trained, and given comfort to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan who have killed American servicemen. That reason alone should have raised red flags when the idea of invitations for hot dogs and fireworks was first raised.
Yes, Iranian-American relations need to be on the path toward normalization, but not at the expense of everything the US holds dear.
You're not Welcome at our Barbecues.
If you want interesting viewpoints of two Iranian expatriates, watch this on HBO:
The Queen and I
The Obama administration was wrong to invite Iranian diplomats to US embassies for celebrations, no matter how trivial, marking US independence, i.e. a celebration of the rule of law and individual liberties. It would signal diplomatically that the US has normal relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. It does not. Events over the past few weeks in Iran have demonstrated that the Islamic Republic of Iran does not recognize the rule of law and individual liberties. Moreover, the Iranian regime has funded, trained, and given comfort to insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan who have killed American servicemen. That reason alone should have raised red flags when the idea of invitations for hot dogs and fireworks was first raised.
Yes, Iranian-American relations need to be on the path toward normalization, but not at the expense of everything the US holds dear.
You're not Welcome at our Barbecues.
If you want interesting viewpoints of two Iranian expatriates, watch this on HBO:
The Queen and I
QUOTE(BigBlueCowboy @ Jun 25 2009, 11:42 AM)
It would signal diplomatically that the US has normal relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran.
I don't think that is accurate since we did not have diplomatic relations with Iran when the invitation was extended.It was intended as part of the US's "open hand" policy and I suspect was rescinded due to internal pressure within the Obama administration over the appearance and potential political repercussions for the Democratic administration, not based on detriment to US interests.
A more tangible indication that Obama's overall strategy in the middle east may yet work was the participation by the Mullahs in protests before Ayatollah Ali Khamenei forbade such displays.
This is significant since their current silence does not mean agreement, only a willingness to "obey the law", which is the Ayatollah's word in this case.
An analogy might be drawn to the willingness of citizens in the USA to rally round the flag after 9/11. It did not mean that there were not many, eventually a majority, that disagreed with the policy of pre-emptively invading Iraq due to that tragedy. Obama has some time on this issue and I believe he has played it perfectly so far. He has to be careful as he walks softly to also use his "sticks" wisely. Sticks cut both ways.
The Obama administration was also subject to a great deal of external pressure too on the invite. In diplomacy, gestures speak volumes.
There is an interesting analogy made in the WSJ today concerning the parallels between Iran and Poland in the early eighties and what the Reagan administration's response then might offer as an example to the Obama administration. I'll provide a link to the article, but the WSJ at times requires subscription, so I'll also quote it in full, if I may.
Solidarity with Iran
There is an interesting analogy made in the WSJ today concerning the parallels between Iran and Poland in the early eighties and what the Reagan administration's response then might offer as an example to the Obama administration. I'll provide a link to the article, but the WSJ at times requires subscription, so I'll also quote it in full, if I may.
Solidarity with Iran
QUOTE
REVIEW & OUTLOOKJUNE 27, 2009
Solidarity With Iran
Reagan's Polish lesson for Obama and the American left.
President Obama finally found his voice on Iran this week, saying the world was "appalled and outraged" by the regime's suppression of peaceful protests. Mr. Obama also hinted that he was prepared to reconsider direct negotiations with the regime. "We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community," he said. "What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path."
So where do we go from here, particularly now that demonstrations are abating in the face of increased repression?
* * *
One place to begin is by studying the example of U.S. policy toward Solidarity, the Polish trade union that challenged the Communist regime in the early 1980s. As with the "Green Revolution" in Iran, Solidarity did not begin as a frontal assault on the regime itself, but rather as a peaceful shipyard strike. But it quickly grew into a broad social movement, encompassing shipyard and factory workers, intellectuals, priests and nearly everyone who didn't have a direct stake in the regime's survival.
The U.S. initially adopted a cautious approach toward Solidarity. The Carter Administration rewarded the Polish government with foreign loans and credits for not cracking down on the movement. Then-Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan also took a restrained view, saying he "didn't believe it was our place to intervene in a purely domestic affair." But Solidarity gained greater traction with the American public and particularly with Lane Kirkland's AFL-CIO, which began collecting donations for Solidarity while refusing to off-load cargo from Polish ships.
Not surprisingly -- and as with Iran today -- these expressions of public sympathy gave the regimes in Warsaw and Moscow the opportunity to blame the West for "meddling," even as the U.S. gave Poland financial and food aid. But that ended in December 1981 after Warsaw imposed martial law, to which Reagan responded by suspending Poland's most-favored-nation trading status and imposing sanctions.
Reagan also offered Solidarity crucial political support, even when the movement seemed crushed. "There are those who will argue that the Polish Government's action marks the death of Solidarity," he said in an October 1982 radio address. "I don't believe this for a moment. Those who know Poland well understand that as long as the flame of freedom burns as brightly and intensely in the hearts of Polish men and women as it does today, the spirit of Solidarity will remain a vital force in Poland."
That support did not go unnoticed inside Poland, despite the arrest of Solidarity's leaders and thousands of others. The U.S. government also coordinated with the AFL-CIO, which smuggled money, printing presses and other equipment necessary to keep Solidarity an active, underground force.
Also crucial was Pope John Paul II, with whom Reagan coordinated a clandestine aid program. It was an angle Reagan understood intuitively: "I have a feeling," he wrote a friend in July 1981, "particularly in view of the Pope's visit to Poland, that religion might very well turn out to be the Soviets' Achilles' heel."
The Church's involvement made a martyr of Jerzy Popieluszko, the charismatic priest whose sermons were broadcast on Radio Free Europe until his murder, by the secret police, in 1984. The confrontation served to underscore that the regime was morally bankrupt and could only be sustained by force. Ultimately, it was brought down by the combination of internal rebellion, economic pressure, Western support for Solidarity and a Soviet patron no longer prepared to send in tanks. When parliamentary elections were finally held in 1989 -- before the fall of the Berlin Wall -- Solidarity took every seat but one.
* * *
Today's Iran is different in many respects from 1980s Poland. The Iranian economy is a shambles, but the regime can sustain itself through oil and gas exports. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can claim his own religious authority. And opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi appears to be a man more in the mold of an Alexander Dubcek than Lech Walesa.
Then again, the Iranian regime is now openly detested by a huge segment of the population, which has produced its own roster of martyrs. The repression has united the opposition and inspired global support, including some prominent former apologists for the mullahs. A large and restive trade union movement could become a locus of opposition, as could a growing number of prominent Shiite theologians who reject the idea of theocratic rule. The country is profoundly vulnerable to a gasoline embargo, for which there is pending legislation in Congress. Digital links to the outside world make it nearly impossible for the regime to arrest or murder dissidents without the world noticing.
All of which means that there are opportunities for the Obama Administration to exploit, provided it envisions a democratic and peaceful Iran as a strategic American aim. That doesn't mean military confrontation with the mullahs. But it does require taking every opportunity to apply consistent pressure on Iran while exploiting its internal tensions and contradictions.
"I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity," Mr. Walesa wrote in these pages after Reagan died in 2004. "Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for."
The circumstances aren't so different. With similar vision and leadership, the endgame could be the same.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
Solidarity With Iran
Reagan's Polish lesson for Obama and the American left.
President Obama finally found his voice on Iran this week, saying the world was "appalled and outraged" by the regime's suppression of peaceful protests. Mr. Obama also hinted that he was prepared to reconsider direct negotiations with the regime. "We have provided a path whereby Iran can reach out to the international community," he said. "What we've been seeing over the last several days, the last couple of weeks, obviously is not encouraging in terms of the path."
So where do we go from here, particularly now that demonstrations are abating in the face of increased repression?
* * *
One place to begin is by studying the example of U.S. policy toward Solidarity, the Polish trade union that challenged the Communist regime in the early 1980s. As with the "Green Revolution" in Iran, Solidarity did not begin as a frontal assault on the regime itself, but rather as a peaceful shipyard strike. But it quickly grew into a broad social movement, encompassing shipyard and factory workers, intellectuals, priests and nearly everyone who didn't have a direct stake in the regime's survival.
The U.S. initially adopted a cautious approach toward Solidarity. The Carter Administration rewarded the Polish government with foreign loans and credits for not cracking down on the movement. Then-Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan also took a restrained view, saying he "didn't believe it was our place to intervene in a purely domestic affair." But Solidarity gained greater traction with the American public and particularly with Lane Kirkland's AFL-CIO, which began collecting donations for Solidarity while refusing to off-load cargo from Polish ships.
Not surprisingly -- and as with Iran today -- these expressions of public sympathy gave the regimes in Warsaw and Moscow the opportunity to blame the West for "meddling," even as the U.S. gave Poland financial and food aid. But that ended in December 1981 after Warsaw imposed martial law, to which Reagan responded by suspending Poland's most-favored-nation trading status and imposing sanctions.
Reagan also offered Solidarity crucial political support, even when the movement seemed crushed. "There are those who will argue that the Polish Government's action marks the death of Solidarity," he said in an October 1982 radio address. "I don't believe this for a moment. Those who know Poland well understand that as long as the flame of freedom burns as brightly and intensely in the hearts of Polish men and women as it does today, the spirit of Solidarity will remain a vital force in Poland."
That support did not go unnoticed inside Poland, despite the arrest of Solidarity's leaders and thousands of others. The U.S. government also coordinated with the AFL-CIO, which smuggled money, printing presses and other equipment necessary to keep Solidarity an active, underground force.
Also crucial was Pope John Paul II, with whom Reagan coordinated a clandestine aid program. It was an angle Reagan understood intuitively: "I have a feeling," he wrote a friend in July 1981, "particularly in view of the Pope's visit to Poland, that religion might very well turn out to be the Soviets' Achilles' heel."
The Church's involvement made a martyr of Jerzy Popieluszko, the charismatic priest whose sermons were broadcast on Radio Free Europe until his murder, by the secret police, in 1984. The confrontation served to underscore that the regime was morally bankrupt and could only be sustained by force. Ultimately, it was brought down by the combination of internal rebellion, economic pressure, Western support for Solidarity and a Soviet patron no longer prepared to send in tanks. When parliamentary elections were finally held in 1989 -- before the fall of the Berlin Wall -- Solidarity took every seat but one.
* * *
Today's Iran is different in many respects from 1980s Poland. The Iranian economy is a shambles, but the regime can sustain itself through oil and gas exports. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei can claim his own religious authority. And opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi appears to be a man more in the mold of an Alexander Dubcek than Lech Walesa.
Then again, the Iranian regime is now openly detested by a huge segment of the population, which has produced its own roster of martyrs. The repression has united the opposition and inspired global support, including some prominent former apologists for the mullahs. A large and restive trade union movement could become a locus of opposition, as could a growing number of prominent Shiite theologians who reject the idea of theocratic rule. The country is profoundly vulnerable to a gasoline embargo, for which there is pending legislation in Congress. Digital links to the outside world make it nearly impossible for the regime to arrest or murder dissidents without the world noticing.
All of which means that there are opportunities for the Obama Administration to exploit, provided it envisions a democratic and peaceful Iran as a strategic American aim. That doesn't mean military confrontation with the mullahs. But it does require taking every opportunity to apply consistent pressure on Iran while exploiting its internal tensions and contradictions.
"I often wondered why Ronald Reagan did this, taking the risks he did, in supporting us at Solidarity," Mr. Walesa wrote in these pages after Reagan died in 2004. "Let's remember that it was a time of recession in the U.S. and a time when the American public was more interested in their own domestic affairs. It took a leader with a vision to convince them that there are greater things worth fighting for."
The circumstances aren't so different. With similar vision and leadership, the endgame could be the same.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A12
Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved
This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints at 1-800-843-0008 or visit
www.djreprints.com
If Obama is to take any example from the Reagan administration - and he has often mentioned his admiration for some of the things Ronald Reagan accomplished - he will probably also take into account the Invasion of Grenada and the reasons behind it. Many "liberals" opposed the invasion and felt that the few students in Grenada who were under little or no threat were merely pawns to justify Reagan's war on communism, which also involved Iran-Contra, etc.
Reagan had a rather distant relationship with religion until after his retirement from office. Obama's confessed "Christianity" likewise does not dictate his policies.
However Iran's situation is all about religion, and one with which Ronald Reagan had little experience, unlike Obama who enmeshed himself in the politics of the black intellectual class that has long experience with Islam and Islamists, not to mention the fact that Obama spent a formative part of his youth living in an Islamic country and for a time had a nominally Islamic father. None of this is lost in the popular image of him among citizens of the Islamic world.
Likewise Islamic citizens were most likely well aware of Reagan's Presbyterian background and Catholic father when the marine barracks was bombed days before the Grenada invasion. The Islamic world is in many ways still a very different place than the judeo-christian one. I believe Obama is well-suited to deal with the Iran unrest.
Reagan had a rather distant relationship with religion until after his retirement from office. Obama's confessed "Christianity" likewise does not dictate his policies.
However Iran's situation is all about religion, and one with which Ronald Reagan had little experience, unlike Obama who enmeshed himself in the politics of the black intellectual class that has long experience with Islam and Islamists, not to mention the fact that Obama spent a formative part of his youth living in an Islamic country and for a time had a nominally Islamic father. None of this is lost in the popular image of him among citizens of the Islamic world.
Likewise Islamic citizens were most likely well aware of Reagan's Presbyterian background and Catholic father when the marine barracks was bombed days before the Grenada invasion. The Islamic world is in many ways still a very different place than the judeo-christian one. I believe Obama is well-suited to deal with the Iran unrest.
The only way to confront fundamentalist religion is from within, be it Iran, the USA, Israel or any individual.
I greatly admire the scholarly comments on the Iranian situation that have come from Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment, especially those such as the admonition that sanctions would be ineffective against the current Iranian regime.
However I disagree with his opposition to a possible trip by Senator John Kerry to talk with that same regime as expressed in this largely unfair and unbalanced article which also opposes the trip, albeit for different reasons I suspect.
Wars start when people lose faith in talking. Obama himself has repeatedly said something similar, and he is consistent in not openly opposing a potential Kerry trip, yet.
The fastest way for us to unite the fundamentally opposed forces in Iran now is to apply exterior pressure. The blood-brother feud occuring could switch gears immediately and remind all Iranians - and the rest of us - that there is absolutely no disagreement between any politician of importance on either side of the issue in Iran that the nation has a full right to develop peaceful nuclear technology.
Bellicosity of any sort on our part only brings us a little closer to that reminder. Talking to them now will not.
However I disagree with his opposition to a possible trip by Senator John Kerry to talk with that same regime as expressed in this largely unfair and unbalanced article which also opposes the trip, albeit for different reasons I suspect.
Wars start when people lose faith in talking. Obama himself has repeatedly said something similar, and he is consistent in not openly opposing a potential Kerry trip, yet.
The fastest way for us to unite the fundamentally opposed forces in Iran now is to apply exterior pressure. The blood-brother feud occuring could switch gears immediately and remind all Iranians - and the rest of us - that there is absolutely no disagreement between any politician of importance on either side of the issue in Iran that the nation has a full right to develop peaceful nuclear technology.
Bellicosity of any sort on our part only brings us a little closer to that reminder. Talking to them now will not.
A cover article in today's Toronto Star: The Iran Railroad for Queer Refugees leads to Toronto
Related video: Life on the Line
Related article: Iran's solution to 'gay problem'? State-funded sex change surgery
Interesting and a bit odd, if you think about it, that while being gay may be punishable by death in Iran, sex change operations are paid for by the State. Transexuality seems to be seen as OK, whereas sex with anyone other than a spouse is considered a punishable offense.
Related video: Life on the Line
Related article: Iran's solution to 'gay problem'? State-funded sex change surgery
QUOTE
While six other countries, including Saudi Arabia and Somalia, have the death penalty among punishments for homosexuality in their criminal codes, they rarely use it. Iran does. In 2005, pictures of two young men sped around the world on the Internet. The pair was blindfolded and fitted with nooses by hooded executioners. They were hanged in the holy city of Mashhad after being convicted of raping a 13-year-old boy, although it was widely believed they were having a consensual relationship with each other.
Amnesty International estimates 400 people were officially executed in Iran last year, but there's no way of knowing how many were homosexuals or how many “secret” hangings take place each year. The 2005 election of ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president marked a clampdown on information entering and leaving Iran.
Amnesty's 2008 figures indicate Iran, with a population of 70 million, led the world in executions per capita. It was second only to China in total executions.
Amnesty International estimates 400 people were officially executed in Iran last year, but there's no way of knowing how many were homosexuals or how many “secret” hangings take place each year. The 2005 election of ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president marked a clampdown on information entering and leaving Iran.
Amnesty's 2008 figures indicate Iran, with a population of 70 million, led the world in executions per capita. It was second only to China in total executions.
Interesting and a bit odd, if you think about it, that while being gay may be punishable by death in Iran, sex change operations are paid for by the State. Transexuality seems to be seen as OK, whereas sex with anyone other than a spouse is considered a punishable offense.
QUOTE
Sex changes have been legal in Iran since Ayatollah Khomeini, spiritual leader of the 1979 Iranian revolution, passed a religious edict 25 years ago authorizing the operations for “diagnosed transsexuals.”
Doctors in Tehran, often called the sex-change capital of the world, perform gender-reassignment surgeries in unprecedented numbers. The Iranian government promotes and even subsidizes the operations, which help people define themselves as a man or a woman.
In the 2008 documentary Be Like Others, by American-Iranian film maker Tanaz Eshaghian, an Iranian cleric explains the government’s simple logic: If a matter is not specifically addressed in the Qur’an, it is not a sin. Transsexuals are not mentioned, so such changes are permitted, even encouraged. “You take wheat and turn it into flour and turn that into bread. That’s a change. You cut a tree down and make a table or chair,” says the cleric.
Doctors in Tehran, often called the sex-change capital of the world, perform gender-reassignment surgeries in unprecedented numbers. The Iranian government promotes and even subsidizes the operations, which help people define themselves as a man or a woman.
In the 2008 documentary Be Like Others, by American-Iranian film maker Tanaz Eshaghian, an Iranian cleric explains the government’s simple logic: If a matter is not specifically addressed in the Qur’an, it is not a sin. Transsexuals are not mentioned, so such changes are permitted, even encouraged. “You take wheat and turn it into flour and turn that into bread. That’s a change. You cut a tree down and make a table or chair,” says the cleric.
It is likely that Initiatory Pederasty was practiced was practiced by many early war-like cultures, including both the pre-Zoroastrian Persians and the Ancient Greeks.
Which may be why Alexander the Great found it so easy to openly have a Persian mastress (I am not sure what you would call his real relationship with Bagoas because I don't think any such word exists in today's English) while conquering a Persian people.
The Indian scholar in the second link also makes some other intriguing comments on the movie "300" which are worth investigating.
Which may be why Alexander the Great found it so easy to openly have a Persian mastress (I am not sure what you would call his real relationship with Bagoas because I don't think any such word exists in today's English) while conquering a Persian people.
The Indian scholar in the second link also makes some other intriguing comments on the movie "300" which are worth investigating.
Calling the Tunisian uprising a Jasmine Revolution may be no more legitimate than calling it an Intifada. Or maybe another Green Revolution would be more appropriate.
But what is certain is that it is an Islamic revolution occurring in an Islamic country.
And like Iran it will have an Islamic outcome.
How this will change Islam is not clear.
But what is certain is that any change in an Islamic country that does not change which religion is predominate among the people will eventually change that religion from within.
That is to say that change happens. It is human nature because it is nature.
It is ironic that this change started with the revelation of the opinions of USA diplomats toward Tunisian rulers in the very Wikileaks for which the USA is now trying topersecute prosecute the leakers.
It makes you wonder which is more effective at overthrowing corrupt regimes: a war such as that waged in Iraq or the release of the truth about the corrupt leaders to the population they oppress. Why bother asking?
But what is certain is that it is an Islamic revolution occurring in an Islamic country.
And like Iran it will have an Islamic outcome.
How this will change Islam is not clear.
But what is certain is that any change in an Islamic country that does not change which religion is predominate among the people will eventually change that religion from within.
That is to say that change happens. It is human nature because it is nature.
It is ironic that this change started with the revelation of the opinions of USA diplomats toward Tunisian rulers in the very Wikileaks for which the USA is now trying to
It makes you wonder which is more effective at overthrowing corrupt regimes: a war such as that waged in Iraq or the release of the truth about the corrupt leaders to the population they oppress. Why bother asking?
Much of the muslim world is starting to look like "The Iranian Revolution Part II - Islam They Can Believe In".
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.