Senate Iran — now discussing the nuclear deal and Congress

I'm tempted to say something like "Just incredibly idiotic arrogance on his part", but, when push comes to shove, he still holds almost all the power, and no matter how much the opposition demonstrates, he's probably going to come out on top, so he probably figures its more important to keep the other hard-liners on board.

 

A heavy part of his spin was to say that outside forces are meddling in this. He mentioned the zionists 7 different times, I believe. He talked about how outside groups, the enemies of Iran, are trying to make this seem like the conflict is a new revolution when it is not, he made a comparison toe the velvet revolution in Georgia and said that the world didn't understand Iran in thinking the two were alike. He said that months ago the outside world tried to suggest that the election would be corrupt and when voter turnout was high, said that it surprised the rest of the world, so they decided to claim that the election was a sham.

I'd say a VERY large part of the Ayatollah's tactics were to try to play this as not between an oppressive regime and its people, but between Iran and its enemies in the west.

Incidentally, a quote from the Guardian's correspondent in Tehran, Robert Tait, about the speech's audience: "There is no sign of Mousavi or Karroubi but all Ahmadinejad's cabinet ministers and additional hangers-on are there. Those in the audience are clearly government employees and plain-clothed volunteer militia types."

The initial things I'm seeing on some of the blogs staying up to the minute on this seem to indicate that the feel of Iranians thus far is that this isn't going to be enough to stop it, and I've seen some stuff on twitter saying that there are protests again today even though this was, at points, a very clear threat to protesters.

For anyone that doesn't want to filter through dozens of tweets a minute, the Guardian has daily rundowns of whats going on from 7:30 am til around 11 pm UK time here and the Huffington Post has a similar thing that seems not QUITE as reliable but is updated much later since its US based, located here
Those two are great sources of finding video, articles, and tweets coming out in an accessible, semi-reliable timeline.

 

The NY Times's blog The Lede also has liveblogging of the situation, as does the NIAC blog.

 

With the slow but gradual process this is taking and the efforts to remove foreign media, I wonder if the government is putting themselves on footing to enact another Tiannamen -- which also took some time by the government to plan things out.

It would be a little tougher since this is a bit more spread out, but it's looking like the government is opting for the crackdown.

 

Well, the people of Iran now realize they live under a dictator, and that the dictator is not the President. Even if the protests stop now, the protestors now realize that the Supreme Leader is the problem.

Some influential Ayatollahs have already told the military and police to not obey any orders that involve firing upon the protestors. If it comes to that, which it seems it now will, it will be interesting to see if any military/police refuse to fire. Mousavi (the protest leader) was Prime Minister while Khamenei (now Supreme Leader) was President, back in the 1980's. Mousavi's supporters include other original revolutionaries and past presidents as well.

All the elements of Revolution are now there in Iran, whether it happens immediately or in a few years time, we just have to be patient. The only thing that could mess this up is if the United States or some other power tries to interfere.

 

I don't know, it all depends on how firm a grip there is on the military itself. If it doesn't come to a head now I don't know what things portend for later on down the road -- these things often fizzle after years have passed as it seems to have happened in China.

But I think at the moment Obama would be well advised to focus on North Korea, which I suspect he is. If the Iranian problem doesn't take care of itself, I think it's clear through these events that there's still years to spare concerning Iran before the situation demands something more drastic. If Pakistan can be convinced to move against the Taliban and Al Qaida and keep things on an even keel with India, then the only major situation on the table is Kim Jong-Il... who also happens to be the most troublesome and dangerous, and always was.

 

I don't know about revolution....the Ahmadinejad camp still has a chunk of the population behind it, and the Supreme Leader has been untouchable for three decades. Trying to knock him out is going to take some serious guts.

 

I agree it will be hard to revolt against the Supreme Leader, but the seeds have now been planted. It could happen now if the military gets behind the protestors, or it could happen later down the road. But the elements are now there.

Ahmadinejad is only popular among the poor because he's been giving them handouts, and is more leftwing on domestic policies, but it has really put the poor in an even worse place because of the current economic conditions. Mousavi is a bigger advocate of the free market and ending the handouts to the poor, since the oil revenue has dried up and inflation is at 25%.

 

What? Unlike the American media, the Iranian people have always been pretty well aware that the President was not the central authority figure in their form of government.

I think you're misreading things a bit. This was the layout from the beginning. Rafsanjani is the one backing the protestors, and is rumored to have supported Mousavi long before (Ahmadinejad accuses him of recruiting people to run against him). The two have been enormously pissed off at each other for years now, because Ahmadinejad accuses Rafsanjani of corruption, and using his position of power to make himself wealthy. Rafsanjani, meanwhile, is by some accounts angling to make himself the next Supreme Leader, and is in fact part of the government body that has the power to impeach a sitting Supreme Leader. Now, it may be that the movement is growing too large for anyone to control, but at the moment there's a lot more insider baseball and internal jockeying for power than is being acknowledged. The other Ayatollah's have hardly been swept up in some great revelation that the political system to date is flawed.

 

Yes, but they now know that the Supreme Leader is helping subvert the whole system to his will, backing the fradulent elections and ruling out any possibility that they could not be a divine mandate for Ahmadinejad. The protestors, if they keep protesting, will now be forced to see the Supreme Leader as part of the problem.

I know it was the layout from the beginning, but it has now evolved from going against Ahmadinejad to against Khamenei himself. The establishment itself may now head into civil war, if they keep backing the protestors.

 

Actually, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montazeri) did speak out against the elections and crackdown. He is the main dissident cleric and was going to be Khomeini's successor before he spoke out against Khomeini's abuses during the late eighties. He's a potential candidate to replace Khamenei if Khamenei is somehow removed from power. It was suggested in a manifesto supposedly circulating among some protesters in Iran that he is their choice to replace Khamenei at least temporarily. Khamenei likely considers him a threat.

 

There's been some commentary saying that a Tienanmen Square situation would NOT work for the gov't to silence this because Iran has a strong focus on the idea of martyrs, as that was a key rallying point when the Shah was overthrown. Hopefully there won't be further bloodshed and this can be done peacefully, but if they try for a violent crackdown, then that may just inspire people more.

Supposedly, the protests are still going to happen, but the numbers of people will be the question. If the crowds stay on the numbers they've been on, that could mean this will work, if only the students are out there, it may be fizzling out.


Also of note, there's been several rumours that members of the Revolutionary Guard have been arrested, which seems to indicate that there's dissent and that they may not be able to count on the military for this.

 

Err, IIRC the Revolutionary Guard is separate from the regular Iranian military and they're supposed to be the ultra-loyal elite guard for the religious clergy....which means that their main function is not to fight against foreign forces but to guard against military coups. The same was true of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard, which got the best training and equipment to ensure that loyalists would always win out. Incidentally, this meant that the Iraqi military promoted loyal officers rather than competent ones, hence the completely one-sided outcomes of both Gulf Wars.

Now, unless I'm horrendously misreading things, I would guess that Revolutionary Guard members being arrested would be due to internal purges of individuals rather than widespread dissent turning into actions. You don't get any higher up than the Revolutionary Guard, which means that if heavens-forbid they somehow revolt, Khamenei would be history and we wouldn't be having protests in Iran to begin with.

 

I would think that the main power base for the status quo are the basij or militias here, at least thus far. They're the groups that have been harassing protesters the most.

Incidentally, a post here summarizing some things coming from tweets in Iran suggests the possibility that some in the military there are viewing what was done by the current government as the coup, not what the people are doing now as a coup.

 

Riot police are using tear gas, water cannon, batons, and (so far) other non-lethal methods to break up and block the protestors.

Their media is saying that Mousavi has called of the protests, but his website says they are on.

There have been reports of some explosion at the shrine of Ayatollah Khomeini that has injured 2 people.

 

Of course, the neocons will blame any problems the protestors are having on Obama's choosing not to meddle.

 

I'm sorry, but when someone holding the office of President of the United States cannot speak out against a regime that beats and kills people for peaceably assembling for the purpose of expressing their grievances, then that person is a coward at best. Or, if I were being less than charitable, he holds more sympathy for a theocratic regime than for those who seek freedom from said regime.

 

This may be difficult to understand, but Iran is its own country, and most Iranians really don't care much for the United States. They want to be left alone and to be able to handle their own affairs. Anything that Obama or any other major American official says is going to be used by the current regime to help support their hold on power. Why is it so difficult to understand this? If Obama did speak up loudly, what precisely do you think would happen? The regime would suddenly see the light and back off? There would be another round of elections? Something else? They don't want our support, Smuggler. The people in power want Obama to speak up, because it's just more they can use to inflame passions and steady their hold on power.

 

So full of left-wing talking points

Was Reagan meddling when he spoke up for Solidarity, called the Soviet Union the Evil Empire, and demanded that Gorbachev tear down the Berlin Wall?

Was it meddling when Bush Sr. intervened in Panama after Noriega engaged in similar post-election conduct and attacker and/or murdered American citizens (as Iran has done for 30 yars).

At least the neocons are willing to act in defense of this country.

 

Ease up a bit you two.

 

The US backing the protestors?or even the appearance of it?would be one of the worst things possible for them. Iran has a very poor history with US involvement, and Khamenei has been doing all he can to paint the protestors as agents of Western imperialism. The last thing we need is to toss more fuel onto the fire for the sake of a soundbite. As much as some may think otherwise, the US saying "Don't do that" is not going to do anything; the world, and especially Iran, is not hanging on our every word.

The cynical part of me thinks the hawks know this, and want the theocracy to stay in power so as to maintain Iran's status as "the enemy".

 

Lord posted:

The cynical part of me thinks the hawks know this, and want the theocracy to stay in power so as to maintain Iran's status as "the enemy".

They can show the bogeyman all they want, people are less scared of Iran.

 

I'm sorry, but when someone holding the office of President of the United States cannot speak out against a regime that beats and kills people for peaceably assembling for the purpose of expressing their grievances, then that person is a coward at best. Or, if I were being less than charitable, he holds more sympathy for a theocratic regime than for those who seek freedom from said regime.

Yes because clearly he's run away from the North Korea situation as his predecessors did. You hereby flunk Poli Sci. 101.

You are, however, up for the Darwin award.


Was it meddling when Bush Sr. intervened in Panama after Noriega engaged in similar post-election conduct and attacker and/or murdered American citizens (as Iran has done for 30 yars).

You mean the same Noreiga that worked for the CIA?

 

Obama is in a no win here. If he doesn't meddle it's pointless because Iran will make the media say he is anyway, so Obama loses moral authority in the rest of the world. If he supports the protestors he damages their cause and gives power back to the theocracy.

As far as I'm concerned unless Iran starts purging the protestors by the thousands Obama should continue to play it cool, let congress make their little letters, and non binding resolutions saying Iran is bad if it makes them feel any better. If there's a revolution and the people take power Obama can show his support for them then.

Though if everyone in Iran hates America and whoever America likes, maybe Obama should come out and give full support to the theocracy.

 

Though if everyone in Iran hates America and whoever America likes, maybe Obama should come out and give full support to the theocracy

I think they hate/hated the government, not necessarily the country.