Has The Anti-Clerical Revolution Started In Iran?
	found on International Herald-Tribune written by NH4, edited by Nick (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Tue 12 Nov 11:30pm
		"The divisions between reformists and advocates of continued clerical rule in Iran are wider than ever and could be on the verge of boiling over. After four days of street demonstrations in Tehran, Tabriz, Isfahan, Urumiyeh, and Hamedan protesting against the death sentence meted out to reformist scholar Hashem Aghajari, the momentum of protests appeared to be growing rather than ebbing. "In the meantime, the political crisis which has arisen out of the efforts of the reformist-dominated Parliament to curb the powers of the judiciary and the veto-wielding Guardian Council has reached such a pass that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has threatened to use 'the force of the people' (a euphemism for the Revolutionary Guards and the Islamist Basij militia) against the President's Administration and against the reformist majority in Parliament. "With popular President Khatami threatening to resign if the curbs on the judiciary and Guardian Council do not become law, and with both reformers and conservatives threatening to resort to force, are we on the verge of something big happening in Iran? And is there anything that the U.S. can sensibly do to ensure that the power struggle in Iran ends with Khatami and Parliamentary reformers in charge rather than the America-hating clerics?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 56 commentsbest: 13 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  History going in cycles...   by Huntred       at Tue 12 Nov 11:56pm score of 2 funny     I guess the reformers will be taking a group of Mullahs hostage soon... Huntred   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

45.  Re: History going in cycles...   by NH4       at Wed 13 Nov 8:43pm score of 1.5 witty   in reply to comment 1     And in the interest of helping history repeat itself, Huntred, the Mullahs can perpetrate their own version of Tienanmen Square, and the Americans can wring their hands and watch as another democratic revolution goes down the drain.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  Not good for conversation...   by rombuu       at Wed 13 Nov 1:49am score of 1.5 succinct     And is there anything that the U.S. can sensibly do to ensure that the power struggle in Iran ends with Khatami and Parliamentary reformers in charge rather than the America-hating clerics? This isn't good for discussion, but I'd have to say, probably not. http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  actually, good for conversation...   by thefadd       at Wed 13 Nov 2:23pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     And is there anything that the U.S. can sensibly do to ensure that the power struggle in Iran ends with Khatami and Parliamentary reformers in charge rather than the America-hating clerics? Rombuu is right on in the wrong way. America can do something to help the reformers win. It can stay the hell out. I'm skeptical of any fairy-based morality system.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: Not good for conversation...   by Symmetry       at Thu 14 Nov 10:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Welll...maybe we won't be needed anyway. It's just possible that the Iranian theocracy has (literally) sowed the seeds of it's own destruction: It seems that after the last "revolution" in '79, everyone was commanded to reproduce like crazy - for the Islamic "Motherland". With women averaging six children each, the subsequent baby boom went and "boomed" to 40 million young people under the age of 25. As per 1999's figures, that amounts to two thirds of Iran's total population.       It seems that these young people, as young people often do, are questioning authority all over the place. While still embracing their religion, they're showing considerable determination to move toward a freer, more open society - and a special desire to eliminate the *#%^$* moral "enforcers" who patrol the streets scolding them for holding hands.       My money is a on the kids. With those population demographics, I think their rise to power is just a matter of time. If Khomeini only knew... "He had but one eye, and the popular prejudice runs in favor of two" - Charles Dickens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  hands off   by chasing       at Wed 13 Nov 2:14am score of 1.5 astute     Given our history with Iran I would venture a guess that it'd be best to keep a relatively hands-off policy toward that country. Let them decide their own future, and we can make more directly friendly overtures after the dust settles. Now, however, considering what we represent to many Iranians, support for the reformers might well backfire and give the clerics an easy out. Also, it would be a mistake to assume that the only other alternative to the clerics would be a pro-American regime. If we meddle and cause resentment we might instead end up with a third option there, and one that is just as unfriendly toward us.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  I hope so   by gordon shumway       at Wed 13 Nov 2:15am score of 1 compelling     Is there a revolution brewing in Iran? Recent events suggest there may be. Large scale student demonstrations have been happening repeatedly. And the government seems to be scared. I'm not sure how active the U.S. should be in Iran now, but I hope that the reason we haven't yet been openly supporting the students and the other revolutionary factions in Iran is because we are supporting them covertly.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  The US should keep well out of it...   by Dop       at Wed 13 Nov 3:57am score of 2.5 astute     I suspect that even a sniff of US involvement on one side would push more Iranians into supporting the other side. Also a lot of Iranians probably remember how America supported Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war... If the ayahtollas get the boot and a reformist modernist government is in charge, then it might be well to make advances - aid to modernise infrastructure, for example. Stop calling them part of the 'Axis of Evil'. But for now, US involvement would be a bad idea.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

25.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by mad_clown       at Wed 13 Nov 2:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Stop calling them part of the 'Axis of Evil'. The "Axis of Evil" rhetoric was dropped months ago. I wish people would stop pretending like it was some ongoing thing. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by Imp777       at Wed 13 Nov 2:38pm score of 2.5 astute   in reply to comment 25     The "Axis of Evil" rhetoric was dropped months ago. I wish people would stop pretending like it was some ongoing thing.       Theres a large difference between dropped and publicly recanted. Onion, Potato, zucchini, carrot, STEW!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   27.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by nyekulturniy       at Wed 13 Nov 2:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     Although a few Americans would like to drop something on Iran on general principles. Nyekulturniy... Proudly confusing readers and editors since 1981!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by mad_clown       at Wed 13 Nov 5:05pm score of 0.5 disingenuous   in reply to comment 26     Theres a large difference between dropped and publicly recanted. Perhaps. But there's also a large different between "continuing to call them part of the Axis of Evil," which was what the original post implied, and "no longer using the phrase after it was realised that it was a stupid thing to say." The Administration is not going to get down on its knees and "publicly recant" anything, nor should it be expected to. Everybody knows it was a stupid, uncouth thing to say in a public speech and the Administration itself has tacitly admitted as much by its discontinuation of the phrase. Bush critics should take pains to make sure they're up to speed on what they're criticizing, since it only saps their credibility when they're constantly referring to an abandoned, months'-old piece of rhetoric in the present tense. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by holgate       at Wed 13 Nov 8:16pm score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 33     Bush critics should take pains to make sure they're up to speed on what they're criticizing, since it only saps their credibility when they're constantly referring to an abandoned, months'-old piece of rhetoric in the present tense. Damn, you must have been on the top table at Ari Fleischer's wedding. Are we now obliged to respond to this week's dissimulation, and forbidden from referring to last week's crass generalisation? Funny, last week I was sure we were at war with Eurasia, but since we're at war with Eastasia now, we have always been at war with Eastasia. Do Clinton critics have to stop talking about 'what "is" is', and Gore critics have to stop talking about 'no controlling authority' and 'I took the initiative in creating the Internet'? Why, thank you for that amnesty. Really, mad_clown, you take the biscuit. If only you were a satirebot, rather than a real, live bullshit factory.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by mad_clown       at Wed 13 Nov 8:46pm score of 1 clever   in reply to comment 43     Are we now obliged to respond to this week's dissimulation, and forbidden from referring to last week's crass generalisation? Funny, last week I was sure we were at war with Eurasia, but since we're at war with Eastasia now, we have always been at war with Eastasia. That's all well and good, but how else do you explain the Administration's dropping of the phrase? I mean... "Homeland security," "War on Terror" and all the other buzzwords that have cropped up recently are still in regular use, but "Axis of Evil," a universally reviled phrase that drew all kinds of negative responses from people worldwide has inexplicably disappeared... hmmmm... It couldn't be that someone in the Administration realized that it was a stupid thing to say, could it? I mean, everyone on Plastic knows it, and the Administration is full of people just as smart as the brainiacs that frequent this place. Why, thank you for that amnesty. No problem. I'm as tired of hearing those gripes as I am hearing inane "Dubya jokes." Really, mad_clown, you take the biscuit. If only you were a satirebot, rather than a real, live bullshit factory. Ho hum. I fucked your girlfriend. Blah blah blah. Ad homs are great and all, but really they don't get us anywhere, do they? Anyways, I'd suggest that you stop being such a close-minded, arrogant snob for a little while. You might just find out that other people can have worthwhile opinions too. Even those of us in the vast, evil conservative conspiracy(tm). Bye for now, sexy. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by Peter Murphy       at Thu 14 Nov 6:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 33     But there's also a large different between "continuing to call them part of the Axis of Evil," which was what the original post implied, and "no longer using the phrase after it was realised that it was a stupid thing to say." The Administration is not going to get down on its knees and "publicly recant" anything, nor should it be expected to. I guess every administration is allowed one fuckup of a phrase that will be trotted out to the public... greeted with horrow and disdain... and then quietly retired, never to be spoken again in polite company. After a few ribbings by the journalists, they get bored with the fun, and only bring up the matter every year or so. You could say this of "Axis of Evil"... but I don't know, mad_clown. Firstly, they sacked the speechwriter who wrote the phrase after a), it fell like a lead balloon, and b) the speechwriter's wife blabbed. That's moral cowardice in my book. If as a President you mouth words spoken by some underling, and the words go down badly, you have no-one to blame but yourself. Bonus points go to the "Axis of Evil" being the most hokey phrase I've heard in foreign policy ever. You expect Dubya to lift his pinkie to the side of his mouth every time he opens it. "Axis of..." [points] "...Eviill!" (Daa-Daah!) Hopefully the damage is done... with Iran and North Korea. But Dubya shows every sign of believing the "Axis of Evil" thing with all his heart when Iraq is concerned. Strange. Osama bin Laden killed more Americans that Saddam Hussein ever did, and he's still running around giving creepy speeches. I'd expect an US President to have different priorities...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by Ernest333       at Thu 14 Nov 8:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 27     Although a few Americans would like to drop something on Iran on general principles. I'm sure a few Iranians would like to drop something on America on general principles too. They managed to develop the only democracy in Arab history and we violently destroyed it and gave them a dictator of our choosing. Why? Because they committed the unpardonable sin of electing a leader who supported using the profits from the sale of their oil to improve their society rather than ship the money to U.S. corporations. The problem with foreign democracies is that pesky tendancy of their voters to assert their own best interest. Gee, if they can't be trusted to put America's best interest first, I guess they shouldn't be trusted to vote at all. If I was Iranian I'd hate America too. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by plutocracywatch       at Thu 14 Nov 8:35am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 49     The sacked speechwriter is David Frum, who recently was awarded a blog on NRO, eponymously entitled David Frum's Diary, for all his deep thoughts. His insight produced DEAD RIGHT about the end of conservatism just in time to be contradicted by the Gingrich sweep of '94. He then bravely predicted the ascendancy of conservatism in time for Clinton's re-election and the Democratic wins of '96 and '98. In 2000 he resurrected the tired yawn that the 60's happened in the 70's (was he the last to know?) in HOW WE GOT HERE... Apparently he knew not of the historical meaning of "Axis." But then again his boss, George Bush, apparently didn't know the historical significance of the word "Crusade." IMO, he's a disingenuous spinner and smearer who supplicates himself to the cause (in his case conservatism) to advance his career, his true calling. He told Brian Lamb in a book TV interview that he went to law school because the law is the centralizing organizing structure of society and that had he lived in the Middle Ages he would have attended Seminary for the same reason - A VIP, eh? He comes from wealthy Canadian stock, his mummy a TV personality. Their gain was our loss as he emigrated to the bigger market. There are rightist writers of substance of integrity, he is not one. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   57.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by NH4       at Thu 14 Nov 12:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Sorry for the nitpick, Ernest333, but the Iranians (Persians) aren't Arabs. The name "Iran" comes from the same root as "Aryan," and was intended to convey the information that Iranians were of the same Indo-European stock as, e.g., the Germans. Otherwise, your veiled reference to the 1953 overthrow of Iranian Premier Mossadeq was fair enough. Still, even as a lot of (young) Iranians don't (or barely) remember the 1979 Revolution, most Iranians don't remember 1953 (except the gerontocrat-theocrats).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   58.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by Ernest333       at Thu 14 Nov 1:46pm score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Sorry for the nitpick, Ernest333, but the Iranians (Persians) aren't Arabs I stand corrected. I should have said the Persian Gulf region I suppose. Still, even as a lot of (young) Iranians don't (or barely) remember the 1979 Revolution, most Iranians don't remember 1953 (except the gerontocrat-theocrats). Yes, Iran is demographically very young, but I would be quite surprised if they suffer from the extent of historical amnesia as you describe. While most American's don't personally remember WWII, as a society we remember it vividly. (Imagine our attitude today toward any of the then-Axis countries if they still retained the same regime.) And while no one in the American South remembers the Civil War, a romantic notion of the Confederacy and resentment toward the "War of Northern Aggression" still persists in parts of their culture. Cultural memory is longer than you might think. Even if they don't know exactly why they resent us, I'd be surprised if the feeling hasn't been passed down to some degree from their parents. government + religion = taliban   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by MuzzleBlast       at Thu 14 Nov 9:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 5     Dear God, I hope we stay out of it. Anytime the US attempts to weigh in on the internal affairs of countries like this, it always, ALWAYS comes back to bite us in the but-tocks. Remember, we installed the Shah, which led to the Islamic revolution. We installed Saddam Hussein, who turned into a homicidal psychopath with Weapons of Mass Destruction (tm). We installed Manuel Noriega, then later had to go uninstall him. The list goes on and on. Some days it just isn't worth it to gnaw through the leather straps.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: The US should keep well out of it...   by NH4       at Thu 14 Nov 12:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 5     As MiceHead and Ardeshir indicate upthread, Dop, anti-Americanism is less of a factor in Iran these days than it is commonly painted in the Western press. At the very least, I would like to hear the U.S. publicly support the struggle of the Iranian people for democracy and freedom and publicly renounce any interest in seeing another Shah, or a military regime, come to power. I'd like to have our public figures remind us that the U.S. and Iran were very close for a significant period of time, which is more than can be said for Iraq. I'd like our government to openly recognize the Iranian people as a potentially important ally in the region, and say that the U.S. stands ready to help Iran overcome the effects of almost a quarter century of economic mismanagement. I'd like to see us praise the "democratically-elected government of Iran" even as we deny the legitimacy of the "self-appointed theocrats" who have served as a source of funds and expertise for anti-Western terrorists. There's no compelling reason to sit around and watch another Tienanmen Square unfold if events start to move in that direction. There would be ways in which the U.S. could assist covertly, and there would be a lot more to gain from a democratic and secular Iran than from an invasion and occupation of Iraq.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Iraq could well be a factor   by chatsubo       at Wed 13 Nov 4:47am score of 1.5 intriguing     in any US plans, covert or otherwise, in Iran. The CSM has a good article about the increasing US dialogue with the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), the Iranian based, Shiite Iraqi opposition group, which it is claimed, has a force of 8,000 to 10,000 men; and an interview with the leader of SCIRI, Ayatollah Mohammad Bakr al-Hakkim. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  "Islamic Revolution in Iraq"? Sounds great!   by dbanjo       at Wed 13 Nov 5:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     After all, fundamentalists don't pose any threat to us. Let's Roll One!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Perhaps someone other than Khatami would be better   by Meltz       at Wed 13 Nov 8:15am score of 2 interesting     If this article is true, then perhaps Khatami isn't the savior he's been made out to be. In fact, according to Michael Ledeen (I know, the NRO again), one sign at these recent protests called for Khatami to resign. In any case, it would seem best for the US to tread lightly here, somehow inconspicuously lending support to the students. One possibility is to quietly throw some funding toward NITV, a TV station run by Iranian exiles, and beamed into Iran from LA. NITV was able to get thousands of Iranians to hold a candelight vigil the day after Sept. 11 ... perhaps they can help persuade the Iranian people to overthrow their government. "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Kierkegaard   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

11.  Iran wants its MTV   by Mighty Ponygirl       at Wed 13 Nov 9:12am score of 2 helpful   in reply to comment 10     NITV is probably our best bet. Most people on this thread were too quick to dismiss any US support of the students, but that's not to say that we should ignore the situation. We should look at what's been happening in Iran and realize that we shouldn't send in the CIA or any other government agency with the express purpose of "regime change" but we shouldn't ignore the impact of western pop culture on the current condition. Over the last few years the government has banned all sorts of "western" entertainment venues/systems for Iranians, including Satellite dishes, most of the internet, Barbie dolls, and have recently gone so far as to outlaw western pets. But this doesn't stop the Iranians from wanting these things--rather, it creates an undercurrent in the populace that wishes the Ayatollah would let them make their own decisions about how righteous a life they want to lead. Yes, the US should stay out of this one militarily, covertly, and diplomatically. The revolutionaries will overthrow the hard liners in their own fashion, and American pop culture is probably the brightest, shiniest face America can show to them to get them on "our side" after the dust settles.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Bah, that is pathetic...   by TheColdKing       at Fri 15 Nov 3:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     There is nothing in the world more annoying than Americans who naively expect the rest of the world to fall down and worship them after being struck blind by the sheer brilliance of their supposedly superior pop culture...Chr-rist, it's as bad as those rabidly overzealous geeks who believe that mere exposure by a disinterested outsider to the object of their fanboy affections ,whether be it for example Star Trek or Star Wars or any one of the myriad of modern entertainment, will automatically make said outsider as devotedly obsessed a worshipper as they are of their particular cult of consumerism...It just goes to show that you must have very little respect or regard for other nations if you think that such trivial inanities will automatically get us to like you so much we'll do whatever you tell us to...it's like the girl who expects guys to love her just because she feels that she's pretty...oh puh-leaze, give us some credit! TRUST NO ONE; USE EVERYONE   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   12.  Re: Perhaps someone other than Khatami would be   by holgate       at Wed 13 Nov 10:06am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 10     In fact, according to Michael Ledeen (I know, the NRO again), I know it's a little ad hominem, but Ledeen's personal animus against any part of the current Iranian political system (and his history as the instigator of Irangate) makes him probably the least objective commentator on the topic in the entire USA. Well, apart from Ronald Reagan, but he couldn't recall that particular murky episode then, and certainly can't now.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Perhaps someone other than Khatami would be   by Meltz       at Wed 13 Nov 10:15am score of 1   in reply to comment 12     Yeah, I know Ledeen despises the Iranian government, but I figured I could still count on him for a description of a sign at a protest... "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Kierkegaard   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: Perhaps someone other than Khatami would be   by mightygodking       at Wed 13 Nov 1:25pm score of 3 astute   in reply to comment 10     In fact, according to Michael Ledeen (I know, the NRO again), one sign at these recent protests called for Khatami to resign. If a secular democracy eventually takes power in Iran - and I believe it will - Khatami's going to end up being Iran's equivalent of Mikhail Gorbachev: a reformer-from-within who was too liberal to be tolerated by the ruling powers that be and too slow (or unable) to take action to be adored by the revolutionaries. On the bright side, this means he will get to shill for Snickers at some point. It's not just a government any more!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: Perhaps someone other than Khatami would be   by Meltz       at Wed 13 Nov 2:21pm score of 2 funny   in reply to comment 18     On the bright side, this means he will get to shill for Snickers at some point. Ah imagine the commerical possibilities: A bunch of Mullahs being held hostage by students. Khatami walks into the picture saying "Not going anywhere for awhile? Have a Snickers" and hands them out to the captive Mullahs. "People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." -Kierkegaard   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

14.  Dicey Situation   by RebolMan       at Wed 13 Nov 11:27am score of 1.5 astute     I can't even say how angry I am at the tarring of Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil". Yes, a lot money and training of terrorists goes thru or on there. But, at least they have the basis of a democratic government, and the potential for change and reform. My current understanding of the situation in Iran points to the adoption of democracy by reformists and the younger generation (at least those who are staying in-country). However there are still a number of people and groups in positions of power who think the "old ways" are still best. Whether these are Imams, or conservative politicians (or both) doesn't particularly matter. Iran has the potential for greatness - especially in that area of the world. The US needs to encourage that flower to bloom. Not through the use of CIA and black-ops. We need to encourage it through economic incentives. A show of good faith to the reformists that things can get better, will get better. This has the potential of backfiring - being perceived as "bribes" - especially by the old-guard conservatives, and potentially even some of the reformists. But hey, that's a risk we take.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

38.  Re: Economic benefits for whom?   by ardeshir       at Wed 13 Nov 6:47pm score of 3.5 compelling   in reply to comment 14     The problem with opening trade with Iran is that most business there is owned by hardline mullahs. The most famous among them, Rafsanjani, got rich selling Coca Cola (European supplied) during the Iran-Iraq war. The deal proved profitable to all sides, so now the EU does a brisk business with the akhoonds, selling them weapons and crowd-control devices. When you read about tear gas being used against the demonstrators, it's made in the UK. Rubber bullets fired? Courtesy of Germany. Since the mullahs control everything, including access to most markets, it would be difficult to keep the akhoonds from getting the vast majority of any profits generated by renewed trade for themselves and their goon squads. Don't take it from me. Daneshjooyan.org has a letter from Manouchehr Mohammadi, urging the EU not to widen trade relations with the clerical regime. a daneshjooyan.org link As far as elections go, although the political process in Iran contains something called an election, it must be understood that only candidates approved by the ultra-hardline assembly of experts are allowed to run. If your response to this is "Well then how did Khatami get in?", my answer is: he is not even close to being as squeaky-clean as the BBC makes himout to be. Public executions and stonings have doubled under his reign. He has been connected to purges taking place between 1982 and 1985. He may be more moderate than some, if having four wives, 3 of which are half your age, and being connected to political purges makes you a moderate. He is a pressure release for the "Islamic" regime. Here's how it works: 1 Government does something abominable and stupid to the people again 2 People take to the streets. 3 People's heads are bashed in 4 Khatami comes on TV, looks sad 5 Tells people to be calm and to avoid disrupting the Islamic system. "Let's just talk about this" 6 People say, "OK, but we won't be so willing to shut up next time" 7 Islamic regime remains in power, things return to step 1 check a www.iranianvoice.org link for more about Khatami's history. a www.iran-press-service.com link has choice words as well Truth is, Khatami has never discussed separation of religion and state, or having real free elections. These issues don't even come close to his sphere of interest. His entire raison d'etre seems to be putting a happy face on the tyranny. No one in Iran believes that free elections exist. They keep voting for Khatami, because the alternatives given to them have been various hardliners with even longer beards. Ask anyone who voted in that last much-vaunted "Khatami landslide". The choices facing the Iranians are: 1: Keep voting for Khatami and hope he actually does something. Fat chance. People are getting fed up. 2: A referendum on a new secular constitution 3: Armed revolt 4: Life in a surreal mix of Stalinism and Islamic Inquisition Should the CIA stay out of this? That might be for the best. Should the US support NITV and the Student Movement website? Why in the world wouldn't we? Should we open trade with the akhoonds so they can get richer, buy more rubber bullets, and hire more Lebanese, Palestinian and Saudi goons to beat up the students? I would think not.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

15.  but will it change anything?   by oysterboysal       at Wed 13 Nov 11:48am score of 1.5 astute     Why do people assume that a secular democracy will somehow align itself with the west and/or American interests?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  Re: but will it change anything?   by Petronius       at Wed 13 Nov 12:47pm score of 0.5 incoherent   in reply to comment 15     Who else would they align themselves with? North Korea? Cuba? Sudan? New Jersey? Every other secular democracy has discovered that as you take on the values of the West, you gain prosperity and freedom. And if you don't take on those values, you shortly cease to be a secular democracy. Its a package deal. Neither the US or the other secular democracies have any serious beef with each other. Oh, we have our disagreements, but when have two actual democracies gone to war with each other in the last century? What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: but will it change anything?   by oysterboysal       at Wed 13 Nov 1:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Who else would they align themselves with? North Korea? Cuba? Sudan? New Jersey? The US has managed to align itself with non-democracies and very undemocratic regimes in the past, why wouldn't Iran follow that lead?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   35.  Re: but will it change anything?   by f1055man       at Wed 13 Nov 5:14pm score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 16     "who else would they align themselves with?" How bout Uzbekistan, Pakistan, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Turkmenistan, China or any of the nasty countries the US has allied itself with at one time or another. If the American democracy can do it why can't an Iranian democracy? "ever other secular democracy has discovered that as you take on the values of the West, you gain prosperity and freedom." Umm, no. This is a horribly closeminded view of the world driven by ignorance and arrogance. What about Japan, South Korea, Philipines, the democracies of South America, the democracies of Africa(Nigeria, South Africa), Russia, etc. Modernization is not the same as taking the values of the West. Sam Huntington, in his overrated(its got problems) Clash of Civilizations, shows that while initially modernization and westernization accompany each other, once a people has sufficiently modernized and gained confidence, their traditional culture reasserts itself.   "Neither the US or the other secular democracies have any serious beef with each other. Oh, we have our disagreements, but when have two actual democracies gone to war with each other in the last century?" ok, now this is just bad democratic peace theory (a little redundant). What's a "serious beef"? What's "war"? What's "democracy"? Democratic peace theory suffers from problems of definition. But even if we can agree on that, there's still lots of evidence to the contrary. Much of Latin America would disagree with you. While we certainly didn't see these as wars the recipients of our beatings did. The US may have only had a hamburger with Chile, but they certainly have an entire herd of cattle worth of beef with the US. If I'm not mistaken, Iran was a democracy back in the 50's until the US had a little problem with its policies. Moving on to other "democracies", just a month or two ago Russia was threatening to invade Georgia. Back when Pakistan at least pretended to be a democracy relations weren't exactly peachy with India. The problem with the democratic peace argument is that there are just too many variables. For the 2nd half of the 20th century, foreign politics was dominated by the cold war, the European powers(the biggest cluster democratic countries) were all rebuilding and isolating themselves after 2 destructive wars. (To further complicate things, lets remind ourselves that the Nazis came to power largely through democratic means as did the Bolsheviks.) Of the other couple dozen or so clearly defineable "wars" over the last 100 years many are regional, civil, or insurgency. Quite a few can also be attributed directly or indirectly to US-Soviet relations. 100 years of democracies is just not long enough a time to exclude other "momentary" policy considerations as factors(the Cold War). Its not the form of government that matters, its how stable that government is and its the policies that that government instates that matters and democracies are perfectly capable of having an expansionist foreign policy. I hope that made sense. I only needed to answer multiple choice questions in my IR class. f1055man   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   44.  Re: but will it change anything?   by holgate       at Wed 13 Nov 8:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Who else would they align themselves with? North Korea? Cuba? Sudan? New Jersey? Sir, I present you: the Non-Aligned Movement. Plenty of secular democracies there. And I don't see secular (if slightly shakily so) democracy India embracing the US right now, given that Bush is happy to play nice with military dictator Musharraf.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: but will it change anything?   by Petronius       at Wed 13 Nov 1:32pm score of 2.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 17     Depends on what you mean by "align". The US has formed partnerships with some very unsavory people, in temporary furtherance of what we saw as more important goals. Hitler was the bigger threat in the early 40's than was Stalin, and we dropped the partnership within weeks of the peace. The same thing happened with the various tinpot dictators we have done business with in other places. Nobody here wept over the fall of apartheid, on either side of the political divide. But I won't call these truces "alignments". Look on the other hand at our relationship with Europe. Our alignment with these democracies is a sharing of cultural, social and political values that influence each other. Does anyone doubt that if Europe was attacked the US would come to her aid, even without NATO? That's an alignment. Should Iran complete its run to freedom, it will find that no matter the cultural divide, it will have far more in common with other nations working their way through self-government, rather than the corrupt regimes that currently surround it. What rescues us from insignificance is the courage of our questions and the depth of our answers. Carl Sagan   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   47.  Re: but will it change anything?   by Polygon Pony       at Wed 13 Nov 11:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 35     Be fair. I kind of agree with you that democratic peace theory is a little sketchy. I also have a suspicion that its nothing more than a construct to give some sort of theoretical basis for claiming liberal democracies are somehow "superior". The theory, however, isn't as simplistic as you make it out to be. While the exact cutoff between minor armed conflict and full-on war may not be cut-and-dried, I'm inclined to give a little lee-way in this respect. Democracies have mobilized armies against each other, and there have even been situations of battlefield casualties but no all-out wars. The stronger versions of the theory explain it not in terms of liberal values, but other ways (I wont go into details because I can't remember and I'm not trying to support the theory). Two liberal democracies can threaten force against each other and even use (very limited) force against each other within the framework of the theory. The theory doesn't even posit that a full-fledged war will never happen; it only states that such an event is extremely unlikely. (To further complicate things, lets remind ourselves that the Nazis came to power largely through democratic means as did the Bolsheviks.) First of all, last I checked the Bolsheviks came into power in a coup. I seem to recall something about an election after the fact, but I seem to recall they didnt even win that. There's also the whole matter of the civil war the Bolsheviks had to win in order to seize control of Russia. While the Nazis did come into power through democratic processes, that is irrelevant to the validity of the democratic peace theory. For the theory to be true, Germany need only have not gone to war with liberal democracies when the german regime itself was a liberal democracy. In fact, if we accept the definition of "liberal democracy" the theorists would like to, no liberal democratic regimes have gone to war against each other for the last two centuries (countries that had such a regime at one previous point in time have later gone to war with liberal democratic regimes, but only when a non-liberal-democratic regime was in power in that country. Additionally, if a liberal democratic regime came back into power later, the absence of wars with liberal democracies re-appeared as well). Seems compelling to me, but more importantly I've read that the data involves enough regimes over a long enough period of time to be statistically significant (I can't link because although the article I read this in is available online, it appears to only be accessible from within the University's network). Really, the only question is whether the definition of "liberal democracy" is insufficient. The way I see it, the there are three possibilities of failure here: (1) The definition was chosen arbitrarily to demonstrate the "fact" of the democratic peace and a theory was cobbled together from there, (2) The theory is sound but applies so narrowly (due to a narrow definition) as for it to not really be that meaningful. I kinda suspect there might be problems on both of these fronts. So, to sum up, I agree with you that the previous poster's argument is wrong, but their argument and the democratic peace theory posited by people who have put serious thought into it are miles apart. I also agree with you that the democratic peace theory is lacking, but feel that several points of your argument are misleading. You are, however, bang on in your assessment that the definition of "liberal democracy" used may be a bit iffy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: but will it change anything?   by zanzibar       at Thu 14 Nov 12:19pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Why do people assume that a secular democracy will somehow align itself with the west and/or American interests? I guess it depends on the people. I don't have any notion of how the populace feels about the US and the West, but if the general opinion is more favorable (or less hateful) than that of the Mullahs, then any sort of democracy will likely result in better relations.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  The Two Faces of Former Persia   by MiceHead       at Wed 13 Nov 1:36pm score of 3.5 informative     Having dated a Persian gal for three years -- and having read the (rather negative) general consensus on some other forums -- I'm rather pleased by the treatment this issue is getting by those posting on Plastic. From the perspective of an Iranian (with whom I spoke about this very issue, yesterday): 1. Revolution seems unlikely - Keep in mind that the country had one just three decades ago. It's not a pleasant event; Iranians seem to prefer the prospect of a bloodless change, even if it's a much slower one. 2. America is...good? - Though it may not seem this way from the outside, most Iranians who would describe themselves as being well-educated do not view America as being the "Great Satan" the Iranian government makes us out to be. American culture is considered a bit -- uh -- forward, but well-admired. 3. Fast food is in - And so is Barbie and the US pop music. There's even a Victoria's Secret in Tehran, though no men are allowed inside. 4. Khomeini, Khamenei, Khatami - President Khatami is popular with the people, being that he's the moderate (reformist) figure. Unfortunately, Khamenei, (the Supreme Leader) tends to veto anything not in the Regime's best interests. As for Khomeini, who led Iran's revolution in 1979 -- despised by the US and the Iranian intelligencia, this fellow was actually knocked out of his air-conditioned casket during his funeral in 1989. Oops. Do Iranians in-the-know believe that a quick, bloody revolution is in the works? No: unless the hard-line regime screws up big-time, they expect it to be a gradual one. And, since many people there do have satelite hookups, I imagine the revolution will be televised. =MiceHead =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

42.  no on Khatami   by ardeshir       at Wed 13 Nov 8:09pm score of 1.5 brilliant   in reply to comment 20     I agree with you on most points. Iran is far more progressive than most Americans imagine. The problem is with the regime, not the people.I do disagree about Khatami, however. While Khatami is tolerated, he is far from being popular. People voted for Khatami to keep the other guys out. These statements come from voter after voter. If you had been in Tehran around the last election, you would have heard as much. The mandate is for change, not so much for Khatami. The Iranians students are always calling for his resignation. Khatami's "reformist" act is just a pretty face on the nasty old problem of theocracy. He is not interested in true free elections, or changing the constitution which concentrates most power in the hands of the corrupted among the clergy. He has been tied to political purges, and repression actually increased under his regime. He does not oppose the institution of the velayate faqih (so-called supreme leader). Most Iranians want separation of religion and state, Khatami can't or won't, deliver. These are reasons why his time is limited. The whole system needs a change. It is time for a referendum. This change cannot come from the current "electoral system" because none of the truly reform-minded candidates are ever allowed to run. A revolution may not be necessary, but a sweeping change must take place some how or other. By the way, congratulations on dating a Persian girl, they are very nice.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: no on Khatami   by MiceHead       at Thu 14 Nov 8:34pm score of 1   in reply to comment 42     By the way, congratulations on dating a Persian girl, they are very nice. She's a lovely girl; sadly, she had to go back to school, and is now on the opposite coast. Choice between getting a PhD and being laid off and going back to Iran. As a result, I'm not a big fan of the INS. =Mice =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  -1 Sarcastic   by Sir Real       at Wed 13 Nov 1:45pm score of 2 witty     Why don't we just sell the revolutionaries guns? The serpent, meanwhile, Sleeps his meal off in Paradise -Smiling to hear God's querulous calling.- Ted Hughes   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  coming this way   by maxconfus       at Wed 13 Nov 1:58pm score of 1 astute     two thirds of Iran is under 30 years old and are coming this way. US being that way. This does not surprise me at all. The wall is coming down here. Why stay in Iran at all? The food? Flora? Fauna? Exactly. a hand up and a foot on every chest...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

39.  Oh no! geography lesson!   by ardeshir       at Wed 13 Nov 7:07pm score of 1   in reply to comment 22     The food? Have you ever had really a nice joojeh kebab? Ghormeh sabzi? Kashke baademjaan? I think not. Persian food is great. Have you ever seen how many beautiful Persian girls there are in Tehran? Persian women are not what you would think by watching propaganda on American TV. (This does not fit under the flora or fauna category, but I just had to make this point) The snowcapped mountains around Tehran are filled with flora, and beautiful parks, which are in turn filled with Persian hotties. Sure beats what passes for a park in Kansas City. Fauna? Iran is one of the last refuges of the snow leopard in the world. More kinds of large game exist there than anywhere in the region. Iran contains many habitats within its borders, from beaches, salt marches and deserts, to dense forests, mountains, plateaus, with all different sorts of weather All of this beauty is exactly what the Iranians are fighting to save from the terrorist regime. The poverty that exists there is a result of 25 years of misrule. The despair that exists there is the fault of truly evil people. It is not endemic to the country. Ask any American who worked there before the revolution. Believe me, if and when the current theocracy falls, most migration will be from abroad into Iran, not vice versa. I know you're just being wry, but do some research before throwing down opinions. Whether Iran is ugly or not, hopefully the mullahs will be appreciating the inner walls of a cell, waiting for the indictment on various charges.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Re: Oh no! geography lesson!   by MiceHead       at Wed 13 Nov 7:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 39     The food? Have you ever had really a nice joojeh kebab? Ghormeh sabzi? Kashke baademjaan? Well, you can't go wrong with chicken kabob. But I always thought that ghormeh sabzi looked and tasted a bit like peat moss. And don't get me started on osh! =MiceHead =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  The problem with Iran is that it is   by wetzel       at Wed 13 Nov 2:46pm score of 3 witty     caught between Iraq and a herd place.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

30.  Remember people power?   by plutocracywatch       at Wed 13 Nov 2:59pm score of 1.5 compelling     In times of revolution, millions of people are in the streets. Society slows to a halt. If the troops and police do not shoot, the popular will prevails. That's how Iran overthrew the Shah and the Phillipines overthrew Marcos. From the fall of the Berlin Wall to the collpase of the Soviet Union, except for Rumania, it was by people power. Of course it can always go the Tienanmen Square or Columbia route of supression or civil war. With the firepower of the modern state, winning through armed insurrection grows ever more difficult. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Re: Remember people power?   by mad_clown       at Wed 13 Nov 5:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 30     With the firepower of the modern state, winning through armed insurrection grows ever more difficult. Bullets kill just as effectively now as they did fifty years ago. The true measure of whether a revolt will be successful is whether things have gotten bad enough that the military is unwilling to fire on the protesters, and instead turns its guns against the government. Consider what would've happened if the Chinese military had been sympathetic to the protesters at Tienamen Square, or if the Soviet military had massacred Yeltsin and other anti-Soviet demonstrators in Moscow, instead of turning around and leaving at the first sign of resistance. No... "insurrection" isn't about the "firepower of the modern state." It's about "hearts and minds," and if things are bad enough that the "hearts and minds" of the police and military lie with the people on the street, then the government's days are numbered. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   48.  Re: Remember people power?   by plutocracywatch       at Thu 14 Nov 6:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 36     You elaborated the importance of winning "hearts and minds" that my earlier post implied by "people power." However, bullets (in the sense of the entire military arsenal) kill much more effectively today than 50 years ago, admittedly this is somewhat tempered by advances in medicine. This is important because advocating armed insurrection today is counter-productive. This is not 1776. Regime change from within requires a strategy that minimizes armed struggle. Even the guerrilla struggles based on a strategy of attrition are of dubious merit. It should also be a cautionary warning to those who advocate installing foreign troops into volatile situations. read   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

32.  "Has the anti-clerical revolution started?"   by n29_w95       at Wed 13 Nov 3:47pm score of 1.5 informative     I seriously doubt if anything is going to "boil over". Other sources are calling the protests peaceful and confined to university campuses, and the reform government's criticism sounds more measured and polite than outraged. Surely we've got some Plasticians from the region. Is a protest march (for whatever reason) involving a few thousand people even a unusual occurrence in the streets of Tehran? ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

41.  Not outraged?   by ardeshir       at Wed 13 Nov 7:53pm score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 32     I agree with you that the revolution probably will not boil over too soon, but..."Not outraged"? Iranians are outraged at their regime every day. This whole flap is over a professor who is got sentenced to death for saying people don't have to listen to everything the clerics say. Not anti-clerical enough? A quote" marg bar taleban, ham tu Kabol o Tehran" which means "Death to the Taleban, both in Kabul and Tehran". These people are pissed. The protests are confined to university campuses because the bassijis have surrounded the campuses and locked the gates. By the way, all universities, and pretty much anything else in Tehran is surrounded by a fence, so all they really had to do was lock the gates. People climbing over the fences, unsurprisingly are quickly picked up by the ever-eager goons, and after a few bones have been broken, taken to a paddywagon. photos: a www.iran-daneshjoo.org link Tehran is a very dense city, where many parts of town only have a few points of access. The military and militias have blocked these crucial streets. Some people broke through the barricades in some places, but were quickly overwhelmed. a www.iran-daneshjoo.org link The stories you quote above are only displaying the old notion that the struggle in Iran is between "reformists" and hardliners. What they do not mention is that the so-called "reformists" are still pro-theocracy and don't want to change the existing Iranian constitution. The existing constitution is the document which was amended after the revolution in a way that gives unlimited power to the clergy. unless this document goes, nothing important can change. Most Iranians have grown very skeptical about the "reformist movement". The students are calling for a referendum that would put the question of a theocratic state in the hands of the people. Neither reformists nor hardliners would allow such a referendum, because according to their own polls, they would be kicked the hell out of their current positions. The British have a snappy trade going with the mullahs, to the point where they don't even want to have a discussion a bout the real issues. They sell tear gas to the mullahs for crying out loud! They buy a bunch of Iranian oil, from, you guessed it, the mullahs, and then sell it with huge profits, to the Brits. It is not surprising the BBC tries to make this seem like nothing is going on, just the same old reformist-hardliner schtick. Any political unrest, any change to the status quo, is bad for existing business arrangements. Same goes for the French and Germans. The SF article does not discount the level of protest in any way. You have to remember old mullah Khatami does not speak for the protesters. The students are asking him to resign! Just because he says "don't make trouble", doesn't mean everyone in the street is in the same mood. You are probably right, it won't boil over right away. No one enjoys getting their head kicked in, so very few are jumping in the way of the goons. You are also right that protests are common in Iran, much more common than usually reported. BUT, every protest that takes place (besides the government-sponsored paid charades)is a protest against the regime, and most of these anti-regime protests are calling for an end to the whole "reformist-hardliner" Laurel and Hardy act. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon enough, this theocracy will be picking its teeth out of its kneecaps. Not outraged? Iranians are outraged at their regime every day.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

60.  I hate to glote, but...nah. I love to glote.   by choodak       at Thu 14 Nov 9:42pm score of 1     Well well, look who likes American style freedom. Do they want a democracy and freedom to make decisions about their own lives? We should have copyrighted freedom and democracy. If you call us infidels and devils then we'll never grant your country a license to use democracy and you'll be stuck with your stupid form of religious totalitarianism till you apologize. I say screw them. Don't get involved, let them figure it for themselves.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]