Iranian election
 

I've been trying to follow this as I think it's a pivotal moment. I had pretty high hopes leading up to the election and it looks like the country did too. People are dying for their right to representation and are finding ways to report it even as the state run media tries to blot them out. They shut down hardwire internet but Twitter via phone has been a lifeline of observations and photos.

Here's some good news - the most senior Ayatollah has denounced the election.

This is huge. It not only will hopefully bring real change to Iran but shows the world that their crazy government does not represent the people. Their middle class has developed and changed the landscape and it's time for them to bust out of their shell.

The link tries to go through Facebook.

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.ph...u=UxynJ&ref=nf

I also heard that the regular military is starting to come over to the protesters' side.

It really demonstrates the power the internet has in being a conduit for change, as as a means to organize masses of people, and for the rapid dissemination of news and information. A true People's medium - the likes of which we have never seen before.

While I'm more than happy to see the current regime overthrown (though hopefully that includes dumping the theocracy and not just its puppet), I'm withholding judgment on whether it is actually going to lead to any kind of improvement. After all, a similar protest turned uprising is what got us the current structure.

Roseanne Roseannadanna:

What's all this talk about the Presidential Erection?

Here's a better link.
http://www.rollingstone.com/national...decries-fraud/

Fark has someone who, I think, is in Iran and has been sending out a timeline of updates and info that farkers have deemed very newsworthy. It's worth reading I think:

http://www.fark.com/cgi/comments.pl?IDLink=4452999

(first post of that thread and all the other Iran threads that have rec'd thousands of posts)

I think Colbert did a good job demonstrating why, while it is good for the people of Iran to insist they get to pick their leadership, there isn't much to be happy about in the person they're currently insisting on.

I suppose, Alex, it's similar to elections here and everywhere ... the only choice is the lesser of two evils.



Which candidate is hotter?

But in this case it is more a choice of "lesser of two evil figureheads." It is only a slight exaggeration to say (from the American point of view) that caring who's president of Iran is about as useful as caring who's queen (or king) of England.

Unless the theocracy is booted by all of this, regardless of who ends up in the presidency things will change as much as Ayatollah Khamenei wants.

Mousavi's hotter. Looks more professorial.

It's all a matter of degree. Certainly the president is all but (yet not quite fully) a figurehead in Iran.

But the president of the U.S. is so beholden to corporate interests, I've never considered that position much less of a figurehead. If you're not acceptable to the corporate power structure in America, there's no chance of becoming a major presidential candidate in this country ... and Obama is no exception.



(Except that Obama's way hotter than McCain.)

Well, Mousavi is way hotter than Jon. He certainly has more hair.


I think what is happening in Iran is interesting, but I'm not that excited about it. Mousavi is not a lot better than the lunatic running the asylum now, and the clerics are the real power in Iran. I am happy to see people there refusing to give in to corruption- it seems like the stranglehold of apathy has been broken in yet another nation- but I don't think it's going to bring about any real change.

Plus, we've seen a lot of massive popular protests in recent years that have come to nothing much even when they changed those in charge (the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, Tibet, Georgia, and Kyrgystan have all had relatively non-violent revolutions in recent years without significant short term change).

So while I'm rooting for the protesters in Iran to accomplish something of significance I don't yet have any strong feeling that they will.

Hey, if it distracts them for a moment from their hatred for the US and Israel, then that's better than nothing, right?

I'm fascinated with the story as well. The demographics of the country are so young, so it is interesting to see what this generation wants and is willing to do. The Internet/Social Networking aspects are also interesting to me, thinking how totalitarian regimes maintained their control over the monolithic broadcast mediums, on wonders how anyone can cut or block these communication ties without damaging themselves.

Of course the fear is another Tienanmen Square - China is the one totalitarian regime that seems to have mastered these things at the moment, though one wonders about her growing youth culture that has come of age in a much more materialistic society than their parents. The world is changing, and I hope it works out okay.

I still think it's important. Snips from Wikipedia:
I don't think you can change Iran overnight. If you get things like freedom of information, freedom of expression and even slight governmental transparency truly going, it can cause all kinds of other things to fall.

Oh, and recognizing the Holocaust? That's pretty f'n amazing right there.

I don't think the president of Iran can change Iran at all, let alone overnight.

He may wish to see the constitution changed but he has no power to get it done. If there is some indication that the ayatollah supports such changes then they're lost in the fact that he likely supported election fraud to ensure Mousavi's defeat.

As soon at the unrest looks like the theocracy is at risk I'll start to get excited.

I understand that the president does not have these powers. What matters is that the people support these ideas, and if they can elect someone who actually says these things, the country can move in that direction.

Yes, Tianamen and other events have not lead to more freedom, but what other hope is there for oppressed people? They have to start somewhere and hopefully the momentum will gain traction.

I think we agree on the merits of them trying, just not on how excited and hopeful we should be about the current events.

I'm just trying to separate support for the popular unrest from endorsement of Mousavi. While he's probably incrementally better than Ahmadinejad rhetorically. On the subject of the three issues most important from a foreign relations perspective (acquiring nuclear weapons, recognizing Israel, fiddling with things in Iraq) things would remain mostly the same. Yes, it is great that he doesn't deny the Holocaust, it is more important (in my opinion) that he denies Israel.

But putting the fear of the people into the government would definitely be a good thing.

Yes, we could use a little of that right here.

As long as it is also be kept in mind that "the people" are frequently very stupid about what they want.

Just not quite as stupid as the usual powers-that-be (imo).

We've discussed this in the past, but I don't think "real" revolution is possible any more. Back in the 1770's the rural farmers were almost as well armed as the British. What are the people of Iran or China supposed to do with governments that don't value the lives of their citizens more than they value their own power?

By the same token, the periodic revolutions that Jefferson recommended for this country are no longer possible either.

Indeed.

I wonder about that - and China I guess is the model. How much control can a totalitarian regime really claim? Revolution seems as much ideology as weaponry. I think of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the vast efforts that went into East Germany's security state. To some extent authority must be believed in to be claimed.

Wow, I found this very moving, as her voice breaks throughout.

Even as I believe that many of the supposed freedom fighters may still hate Jews or America, or at the very least have misconceptions about me and my affiliations, I still wish them their freedom. Perhaps if the light of day is let into their lives they will be able to grow past hatred.

And as for those who truly support equality and peace among all people...I could break down and cry for them, there and in China, North Korea, and elsewhere.

And for those who desire freedom, my heart goes out to those in Palestine.


I don't think freedom in Iran would do a whole lot to reduce hatred of jews and Americans, when we are so beautifully represented in the region by the Israeli and United States governments and war machines.

I've come to agree with this.

I try not to think about it too much, but as a jew, Israel upsets me SOOOOOO much.

Here's the one reason that while as a people I feel sorry for the Palestinians, but do not fault Israel nearly so much as their neighbors.

Israel came into possession of of disputed territories after the were invaded in 1967 during the 6 day war. They were not the aggressors. These territories are now vitally important to them in terms of national defense. I do no blame them for looking to hang on to possession of them.

I do not believe it simply comes down to a Palestinian state. Arafat was offered a full 98% of all the territory he wanted and yet refused. This happened during the Clinton years. Why refuse that if you are Arafat and your goal isreally a Palestinian state? I think it is because he was, and a large portion of the Palestinian leadership still is, for the elimination of Israel as a state. Iran has threatened to obliterate them. Hamas is sworn to kill Jews.

I am certainly no expert in the creation of present day Israel except that there was an international agreement to do so in...1947? Not exactly sure. To the extent that the creation of Israel screwed over Palestinians I cannot speak but suppose that I wouldn't have been happy should I have lived there. This is indeed history and Israel isn't going away.

It seems to me as if cease fires are typically broken by Hamas or whomever, and Israel is supposed to simply accept missiles randomly launched into their country. They respond with overwhleming force......I might expect any country to do so.

^Well put Leo.

Already posted 7 posts up.

Can I just use the one Betty posted?

No

Then I'll use the one JWbear included.

No - it's ok. Use mine. You'll feel better about it.

Yeah, this is the standard line that Jews everywhere are told. The thing is that when the international community (via Britian who technically owned the land) gave the territory to the Jews in 1948 they did not care who was already living there, and the people already living there were practically tribal villages without any idea what was going on. They did not have a united country or united culture, and now they had nowhere to live. It's much like simply telling the American Indians to pack up and move because we bought their land from an outside entity who had laid claim to it, except that we actually had a place for them to go.

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of the tactics of the Palestinians. I think they have come to thrive on their victimhood. Any people who send children into battle and then cry foul when they are killed so that they can scrounge sympathy has some serious issues. But even so, more war OBVIOUSLY isn't the solution. I mean, hello, we all know what's been going on there for decades. Just within my lifetime it's abundantly clear that tit-for-tat simply creates another tit to tat and it will never end.

Here's a simpler way to look at it, through an American lens. These people are not represented by their government. The government is decidedly a "Jewish State" and by definition is not for them. They wish to have their own. Makes some sense to me.

I believe that you can only have peace with those that want to have peace with you. I would be much more supportive of your arguments were it not for the refusal of nearly everything the Palestinians have asked for in terms of a state. This is why I don't think there is desire for peace. There is desire for eradication of Jews.

There is no desire for peace on the part of the Israeli government and its supporters, either. They want nothing less than to take over all Palestinian lands and eradicate or nullify completely those people.

And while I don't think a country with military superiority should be constrained from using overwhelming force, the purposeful use of that force on civilians, on United Nations targets, and including in that force banned phosphorus weapons makes the Israely military no better than those who bomb marketplaces or busses full of purposeful civilian targets.

A pox indeed on both their houses, but in such cases where neither side plays fair ... my sympathes go to those who are outgunned, being systematically exterminated, under permanent seige in Gaza, and Walled out of practical existence in the West Bank.

I wish Yaweh would come back for a curtain call of 40 days and 40 nights to wipe out the entire region with 40 different, gruesome plagues and make the area and bloody Jerusalem uninhabitable forever.

Oh, um, Iranian elections.

Well, word I've heard this morning there was a crackdown over the weekend, and hundreds may have been killed. Mousavi (sp?) is defining the Supreme Leaders* orders, and urging his followers to keep demonstrating.

And for the first time, the Iranian government is admitting there were "irregularities" in the election, with 3 million votes in dispute. Amenadinijad(also sp?) is purported to have won by 11 million.




* Hahahah, CP and I were cracking up on Friday about this guy's title actually being Supreme Leader. Hahahahaha! Too many comic books in Iran??

Interesting that you claim such certainty in knowing the motivations and goals of the people involved while also claiming know knowledge of the history involved. 60 years is hardly a blip in the thousands of years of conflict in the region, so what happened then most certainly remains relevant. and his hardly just history. And the fact that you mention Iran in this discussion really shows a lack of understanding as Iranians are NOT Palestinians, they aren't even Arabs. They may nominally play the role of ally against a common enemy, but Ahmedinijad's lunacy has little to no connection to whether a 2 state solution is a viable option or not.

As iSm points out, and I've argued before, if you're going to paint the Palestinians with the wide brush of wanting to wipe the Jews out, than the Israeli Jews are certainly in need of that same coat of paint. Because they are in control and HAVE their own state, they can play the part of the maligned victim, only defending itself from the viscious attacks of terrorists (which of course they have a right to do as long as they are actually targeting militants and not just indiscriminantly bombing using the weak "but they put children in the line of fire!" excuse). And because they know their bluff won't be called they can smuggly offer peace, knowing full well it won't be accepted because the Palestinians have no faith that Israel will keep their side of the bargain.

Hmmm...Iran is state sponsor of terrorism. They sponsor Hamas. Hamas is quite widely involved with the Palestinians and the entire conflict. I didn't think that really needed to be spelled out in discussing Iran and the Palestinians, but apparently it did.

I don't need any sort of magic insight into what Hamas wants to do. It's in their charter. So that's not too hard to figure out either. I don't need any terrific insight into Ahmahdenijad. He has said he wants to obliterate Israel.

So Ahmahdinejad feeding weapons and support to Hamas, and Hamas playing a large roll in the leadership of the Palestinians, and Iran saying it wants Israels destroyed, and Hamas having sworn to kill Jews....Yeah, I'd say they are pretty well linked and it matters a whole hell of a lot to the leadership (and people) in Israel.

Let's do this - let's have Hamas take that out of their charter, and let's have Ahmahdenijad say he doesn't want to destroy Israel as a starting point. I don't think that's going to happen any time soon.

Besides, we need the Arabs and Jews to go to war. It is the requisite first step of the end times and Jesus's return.

I thought Arabs and Jews making peace was a sign of the end times. Shows you what I know.

I want to have sympathy for those fighting for democratic reform in Iran, I really do. But when I try, I am reminded how they feel about me--how they would summarily jail and/or execute me just for being who I am. So I'm finding it very difficult to muster up any feelings of good will. I'm not proud of this, I'm just saying how I feel.

In the sense of a humorous response yes.

In the sense of there being a very significant strand of Christian Zionism among fundamentalist evangelical Christians in the United States (not all but a significant portion) that believes that total dominion over the Holy Lands by Israel is a necessary element to Jesus's return (and therefore any compromise reducing that territory is not acceptable and the human/civil rights of Palestinians are irrelevant). That's the minimum, some strands see actual conflict as being necessary.

In fiction, see the Left Behind series. More significantly see The Late Great Planet Earth (while maybe the biggest seller of these ideas it is hardly a lone voice in the wilderness in certain evangelical circles), which was the best selling work of non-fiction in the 1970s. Its position is Biblical prophecy says that re-establishing Israel was just the first step but the final step will be an apocalyptic battle between Islam and Israel (at Megiddo, recreating a 7th century BC battle between Egypt and Judea). The conclusion of which will see the return of Jesus to rule over the world.

Of course, once Jesus returns, all of those Jews in Israel will be converted or suffer the fate of all the other unfaithful. To non-believers (like me), the creepiest part of much evangelical support for Israel is that it is not offered altruistically but because it is seen as a step to ending the world.

Israeli politicians have not been at all shy about taking advantage of this strand of uncritical American support (see Netanyahu appearing at John Hagee's Cornerstone Church in San Antonio).

Many of the banners and signs seen in the demonstrations are in English. I don't think it's just a cynical ploy to enlist the aid of the west, but rather an indication to the world that the current regime is not representative of the people in general. Iran is a very complicated country- the people are mostly Persian, not Arabic, and although they share a religion it is (or was, prior to the revolution) different enough to be branded 'Persian Islam'. They have always been relatively independent and a wild card in the region. I think the majority of Iranians do not despise the US, at least not to the degree that other nations in the Middle East do, and I have sympathy for them. They were taken over by the fanatics, and are trying to find their way out.

Just curious (I really do not know the answer), but could that be because you are watching Western television which is only/mainly showing the English signs knowing that their viewers would not be able to read Arabic?

Two thoughts I've been having:

1. Wouldn't it be wryly amusing if the current government of Iran fell due to erroneous perceptions of election fraud (this is not to say that even if not a single vote were tampered with that the results are legitimate, due to societal intimidation).

2. Assuming the vote totals were manipulated, what would have happened if they'd just given Ahmadenijad a 55% victory?

Since most of the reports are coming via Tweet and YouTube, I don't think so.

Lol- I meant Twitter.

I find the whole prediction of the end times somewhat ridiculous. Hitler was the antichrist. Then Stalin. Israel being a state in 1948 was a sign of the end. Then a biblical generation of 40 years went by and 1988 was to be the beginning of the end. I find it amusing, for those who believe in the Bible when it says the no one knows the time of Jesus' return, that so many try to predict it.

I agree that predicting the end times (though we do know roughly when the universe will likely cease to have any matter) is ridiculous. But then I also think it is ridiculous to believe in the divinity of Jesus so to me they're both pretty much equally odd. Once you've accepted the latter, the former seems like a baby step.

That said, this particular strain of end days prediction doesn't so much set a date as say that the Bible details some pre-requisites and seeks to bring them to fruition (thus their support for Israel, they may not know when exactly the end will happen but if it won't happen until after Israel is re-established then seeing that done would be a good thing).

Pfft, 2012. Everybody knows that.



Just you wait.

I totally dig what you're saying, and I'm glad you brought it up. This is the trap America fell into after 9/11 (and the trap the Israelis and Palestinians have been in forever) - they hate us so let's hate them, they would torture us so let's torture them. It may feel good, but I state unequivocally - this is not the path towards peace.

The "leftists" over there may not be support even the more conservative stances in America, but still, oppression is oppression, and these people are being oppressed. The main issue Mousavi ran on is Freedom of Expression, which is a pivotal way that a group can open itself up to all kinds of ways of life, including yours and mine.

The predominant religion there is Shiite Islam. Shiites put a lot of emphasis on martyrs, which is why this story is now huge. In 1979, there were demonstrations, and then the martyrs of those riots were celebrated in other demonstrations, which then created more martyrs, and the crowds grew and grew. After a year of this the Shah fell.

I've only been half heartedly following the protests, but today I watched the Neda Soltani video, and yeah... I don't think I'll ever be the same. I may have to avoid the news about Iran altogether for a few days now. I pray that some good comes of her tragic end. Just such a waste...

I've seen the Neda vid described and I have no need to see it myself. The idea is clear...

I know this may seem like blasphemy... but I did see the Neda video, and there's a small part of me that wonders if it's staged.

Clearly, I hope that it is, because who wants to see someone die?

But I also wonder why I should even feel guilty about questioning someone other than the right-wing.

Argh.

I started to watch the video when it was posted on a viral video website.

It's one thing to see a movie or tv show where someone is shown dying and quite another to know what you're viewing is real.

I watched about 5 seconds and shut it down. I don't need to see that.

Can you imagine this happening to us? Can you imagine feeling so strongly about being oppressed that at some point your fear of dying is overcome by your will to not live that way any longer. Just consider for a moment that you were in their shoes. What would you do? Hide? Go to your roof top? Would you be willing to protest and posisbly die in the process?

Some things are worth dying for...but it's definitely case by case. I count myself among those who would stand up and say something, though it's hard to know what you'll do in such extreme situations.

But as the "Neda" video as the ultimate propaganda... First I heard that it was someone shooting from a roof, then shooters on motorcyles... this morning John McCain refers to "government sharpshooters". Then McCain talks about twitters, and quotes a tweet the "originated from Tehran" to make a point... didn't we all change our Twitter location to Tehran to confuse the Iranian government? Now, our tweets are being used as propaganda too?

And now that McCain called out Obama, it looks like Obama is now stepping up his rhetoric. I'm smelling war. I'm unhappy.

The ultimate irony is that Neda wasn't really even protesting. Every report I've read states that she had just stopped with her music teacher and was standing on the sidelines watching, from a "safe" distance. If they're willing to take out bystanders, I can't imagine being in the vanguard of the demonstrations.

Just curious, but what about the video gave you that vibe? It looked pretty legit to me. I'm not going to rewatch it again to be sure though. If it does turn out to be fake, then it's one hell of a success.

Staged or not I'm not going to watch it. I don't need those images in my head.

MP, I have no doubt we're going to get involved, somehow. We just can't resist being World Police.

Sure we can. See Darfur. See Burma. See Georgia. See Kyrgystan. The United States really has no history of getting involved simply because of internal civil unrest.

I just can't see open military intervention by the U.S. short of a legitimate nuclear threat. If it somehow escalated into something without being a nuclear issue it would probably be through U.N. peacekeeping forces and for reasons of PR despite any level of support I imagine they'd try to keep American and European countries out of those forces.

I watched it. I'm not sure how it could be staged.

It's pretty disturbing. I wonder, if she wasn't so beautiful, would this have gotten so much exposure in the press? I know, that's cynical but I was just curious.

That Neda was a beautiful young woman is a plus for the propaganda aspect of her death. Whether that's right or wrong doesn't matter. It just is.

Because Neda has become a symbol, she won’t be forgotten. There is immediacy (beautiful young woman) and there is distance (so far away) in the footage of her martyrdom. Apparently, martyrdom is a very important tradition for Neda's people.

My .02.

Found another website for tracking Iran news: http://tehranbureau.com/