The third stage for Iranian totalitarianism?

Mailman

If Mousavi is swept to power, lets just hope it gets through that thick skull of his that he can just as easily be swept out of power by the people if he doesnt deliver freedom and enlightenment.

The reality of the situation though is this. Right now Iran and the world needs a strong US President. A President that is willing to stand up for freedom and democracy and to be counted.

Unfortunately Iran and the world doesnt have a strong US President. What we have is a do nothing, lame duck of a President more concerned with pushing his own political and social agenda than delivering peace and freedom to those who need it the most.

Mailman

Herbert Thornton

The most interesting thing about this is how closely the Iranian situation resembles that in Britain.

If British people have to choose between their country being ruined by the political correctness of Cameron and being ruined by that of Brown their situation is little better than Iranians having had to choose between Iran being ruined by the Islamism of Mousavi and being ruined by the Islamism of Ahmadinejad.

Michael B

There are several templates that can be instructively applied to Iran and the student and popular uprising, none of them are perfect fits. One is Tienamen Square since Iran's present convulsion is, largely, a contained uprising. So it's not clear how likely a wholesale, revolutionary change might be, now or at some more distant point.

But the same could have been said - and was said, often enough with scoffing and invective - at other critical periods, e.g., when Reagan began to target the Soviet hegemon during the incipient days of his own leadership upon the world's stage. A flame that merely flickers should be spat upon and effectively marginalized by the powerful in Western salons and centers of power, foremostly from the White House?

Reagan said Nyet and he did so not by invading the Soviet Union, rather by deploying a range of initiatives, including alliances with dissident factions.

Obama has learned to say Yes, in farsi, or rather in the language of realpolitik that the entrenched and powerful know well, no matter their native tongue.

Whatever this is, in terms of Obama's underlying motives and psychologies, it is highly revealing at a more phenomenal level.

In the Wilderness in America

Melanie,

We live and hope that the movement in Iran survives and prevails.

Natan Sharansky is a hero to all who love freedom and democracy. His assessment is right on.

In America, we cannot hope for any support for those who would challenge the mullahs, not with an apologist in the White House.

sarah

you are so right to blame all this on obama, thank you for your wisdom. peave loving people like Israelis who had nothing to fear, and now the iranian democrats, have him to blame.

pinkiebrown

I don't think you can extrapolate from communism in Russia to Islamism in Iran quite so easily. Communism was a foreign implant but the authoritarian nature of the regime was Russian and that authoritarianism is still there today. Iran is a Muslim society and there is powerful evidence that Islamism is as much a part of that society as authoritarianism is a part of Russia's. Afghanistan, Iraq, Egypt, Pakistan, all have had a chance at western style democracy yet all are more likely to fall under the thumb of Islamism. Is there anybody who thinks that the Brotherhood in Egypt wont eventually take over? Or that Pakistan will never rid itself of the Islamists. Or that the Taleban will not one day succeed in Afghanistan. Iran did not change in 1979. The aberration was the shah and friendship with the west not the other way around. Look at Iran's border and ask yourself why do you think Iran is immune from the beliefs and practices of all its neighbors. There is a powerful faction in all those countries mentioned that will firmly resist becoming western in politics and in lifestyle. Their culture is their destiny. That is why Sharansky speaks from Israel and not from Russia where he would be just as unwelcome today as when he resided in the gulag.

Sleeping dolls

Michael B: Reagan said Nyet by (eg) arming the Afghans. Not sure how useful that has proved in the long term. There is another historical comparison: when the Shiite South of Iraq were "encouraged" by fine Western words to rise up against Saddam. There's a limit to what the West can do, and then there's the unintended consequences if we do do something. Inaction is not neccessarily a bad thing. Tienamen Square is a useful comparison: there has been real change since this occurred. But I don't think grandstanding by Western governments would have made this change quicker or deeper than it has been.

porkbelly

It's worth remembering that the final fall of Soviet Communism came about not because of citizens demonstrating, but because of a failed putsch by a group of drunken, old-guard incompetents, and because Yeltsin persuaded a particular general to disregard his orders. Budapest 1956, Prague 1968, Tiananmen Square 1989...there is no magic involved in crushing a popular uprising; a swift dose of brutality followed by the usual tools of a totalitarian state, plus a few more sausages in the shops. Result: popular apathy, the greatest boon to authoritarians everywhere. Now Ahmedinejad must spread about a little largesse for which he'll need higher oil prices. Let's think...what makes oil prices rise? Oh yes...war!

Jez

"Another point which cannot be ignored is that, as the nightly rallying cries of ‘Allahu akhbar’ demonstrate, at least some of the protesters want to marry human rights with Islam -- which is, to say the least, uncomfortable"

Melanie;

Come to Bradford and you'd hear far worse.

This is a deeply Islamic country. The Iranian 'machine' is against these people and they will be meaning;

"We are not against the iconic structure of this place, we are for reform of the political system only- listen to us; 'God is Great"

Exactly the same as the protesters of Tiananmen Square who rose up seeking reform but did so without ripping down the statues/posters/spirit of Mao.

And then they also got shot for it.

Maybe.

Michael B

"Michael B: Reagan said Nyet by (eg) arming the Afghans. Not sure how useful that has proved in the long term." Sleeping dolls

Reagan said Nyet in many ways (search "The Farewell Dossier" for one only) and that's what was said. But you're invoking a facile comprehension, not a more probative consideration. For example, are you suggesting the Soviet catastrophe, terror and adventurism in Afghanistan should have gone unchallenged? How about the adventurism in Latin America after the failure of the U.S. and the West in general in S.E. Asia? Many similar questions come to mind.

"There is another historical comparison: when the Shiite South of Iraq were "encouraged" by fine Western words to rise up against Saddam. There's a limit to what the West can do, and then there's the unintended consequences if we do do something."

Another facile "historical comparison." No one suggested there isn't a limit, in fact I specifically alluded to the idea that military engagement per se is not warranted. Though I would consider an exception to bombings of nuclear weapon related facilities, by the U.S. or by Israel, in the near term.

"Inaction is not neccessarily a bad thing. Tienamen Square is a useful comparison: there has been real change since this occurred. But I don't think grandstanding by Western governments would have made this change quicker or deeper than it has been."

Deeper?

You're over-estimating the change that has occurred in China. The Olympics and the PR and displays that accompanied the Olympics recently are not probative beyond a very limited range. Internal oppressions continue and are real and severe. China's military and business alliances with powers such as Sudan, Iran and North Korea continue and are real. Some changes have occurred, yes, but to invoke the rubric of "change" in such a generic fashion and without taking note of the lack of change in crucial areas serves what, exactly? Besides, I specifically noted that different templates can be applied to Iran, and, again, also specifically noted military engagement per se would not be warranted, beyond the one caveat.

Also, "inaction," in such scenarios, is but one form of action and decision. We live in the concrete world, not in an abstracted world where "inaction" doesn't have its own consequences. Further, there are many historical comparisons that can be made. A couple of guys by the name of Chomsky and Herman counseled "inaction" on the part of all Western powers vis-a-vis Pol Pot's Cambodia, c. April, 1975. Or, many successfully counseled inaction in Rwanda, C. 1994.

"Inaction," from such perspectives, is itself a form of action; it's abstracted and a delusion to imagine otherwise. Put in such general terms as you've invoked, I'm an advocate for wise decisions and actions, not abstracted and deluded and escapist imaginings that fail to take critical realities into view and into account.

Sleeping dolls

Michael B: thank you for your reasoned reply. Perhaps I should have used the word "template" instead of "historical comparison" as this seems to have vexed you so. I agree with you: Inaction is itself a form of action; it's abstracted and a delusion to imagine otherwise. And I too am an advocate for wise decisions and actions.

I note your comments re China, Internal oppressions continue and are real and severe. But there are significant changes, (my aunt is Chinese, and so is the wife of a very good friend) and my point is that anyone who thinks "tough" words or actions are more likely to lead to substantive, or even quicker, changes, should have their head examined. It's a long game.

Personally, I like to think of the South African experience, where (I was too young to remember) I believe "Western" politicians said virtually nothing to help reform. It was the unending revulsion among the people of the Western world that sealed the fate of apartheid.

As regards Reagan, who you obviously have a soft spot for, as indeed do I, it should be borne in mind that there continued to be bilateral talks and diplomatic ties throughout this period as well as the "initiatives" you refer to. Something that has been sadly lacking, perhaps for understandable historical reasons, in the West's (principally the USA's) relationship with Iran.

Corin

Ahmedinajad is no fool. He can read the writing on the wall.Therefore he maust act sooner, rather than later, in order to achieve his dreams/fantasies.

An American

Forget about Obama doing anything to help the Iranian people...the protestors will soon come to realize that Obama identifies with Ahmendinejad...as far as I'm concerned, both of these men are the personification of evil. Freedom is last thing that they want. They're all about control and destruction.

The US is following in Iran's footsteps, we'll soon have unemployment matching Iran's 20%. And Obama couldn't be happier, he is destroying Capitalism in order to replace it with his brand of far-left socialism.

Many of us knew that Obama would not be good for America but it has turned out to be so much worse then we could have imagined.

If I sound bitter...I am. I'll never forgive the idiotic people who voted for Obama and those that continue to support him...

If you think Iran looks bad right now with people dying in the streets...wait until Americans have had enough of Obama's brand of control.

Augustus

The Grand Ayatollah Khamenei announced the 'divine assessment' of the election result even before it would probably have been physically impossible to count the more than 40 million ballots. Then, following massive protests, he orders an investigation of the results by the Guardian Council,
the very same organization that was responsible for managing the election in the first place.
Well, I ask you, is it any wonder that nobody believed him?
This was obviously going to be a triggering event. Nobody paid any attention either when he then ordered peace and reconciliation. But the energy and drive behind these forceful demonstrations must surely be due to the sense of outrage and betrayal at such gross manipulation of numbers by the regime, than it is about any undying devotion to Mousavi.

The real question now is, how significant is the portion of the Iranian population who have concluded that their social contract with the ruling regime is no longer valid? It appears to this multitude of dissidents that accepting fundamentalist Islamic rule in return for a respectful regard for the opinion of the governed no longer applies. It is mistrust of the rulers by the ruled which has let the genie out of the bottle, and the only way to deal with a genie like that (isn't that always the case?)
is repression and might.

Mehran

pinkiebrown

Your conclusion that 'Iran did not change in 1979. The aberration was the shah and friendship with the west not the other way around...' maybe partly correct, but it's a very defeatist and depressing thought.

So what are we, the modern, secular Iranians, supposed to do? Shall we just accept the thuggery of these medieval clowns and hope for an Islamic reformation some time in the distant future? I'm sorry but we can't just sit around and wait for this pond life to evolve into something approaching intelligent creatures. We simply don't have the time.

History is not about accepting things as they are. It is about forcing change. That's what the much maligned Shah and his father were trying to do....to grab this backward, fatalistic people forever under the thumb of some charlatan mullah or other, by the scruff the neck and drag them into the 20th century (as was).

The only thing that was wrong about this was that the Shah, for all his megalomania, was just not up to the task. There was absolutely nothing inevitable about the Iranian revolution. It could have all been very different. And this is the bitter irony. Today the Shah is condemned as a murderous dictator who's 'mis'-rule led to this catastrophe.

What he actually should have done was to have that evil Khomeini shot in the early stages of the uprising and dealt firmly and resolutely with the hysterical demonstrations on the streets, and today we wouldn't be discussing the merits and de-merits of Mousavi.

What the brave young people of Iran (who have only ever seen the so-called Islamic republic) are doing is to say enough is enough. No more.

You have to push the barbarians back and send them scurrying into whatever holes they crawled out of. If that offends their traditions and culture and all those superstitious nonsense they insist in believing, well, too bad.

Because you know what? Their opinions and 'values' really offend us. And we'll be damned if we're going to take this rubbish any more.

Terry

I think there is a further point to raise here. The regime, the clerics, & the military are obviously split.
If this were not the case, the repression would be much harsher & Mousavi would no longer be alive. I realized this within the first few days.
Thousands would have been killed, not hundreds.
A further point to consider is that those close to Khamenei & Ahmadinejad may realize more than we just how crazy they are.
Many in the ruling clique may see Ahmadinejad as irrational & dangerous to Iran.
Which brings me to another point - Islam is not nationalism. The ''true believers'' don't care about Iran or Iranians, they care about the Islamic victory. They would sacrifice Iran for the glory of Islam & to hell with the Iranian people. Many Iranians, including many in the ruling clique may not agree.
Nothing has been said either about the "Persian revival" - an interest in pre-Islamic Persian culture & history. Islam is a foreign ideology imposed on Iran. In my opinion, it is the ideology of Arab imperialism. You'd be surprised how many peoples conquered by Islam feel that way.

Michael B

Sleeping dolls,

Ultimately, as applied to all particulars, Iran is sui generis and needs to be approached on its own terms; Tiananmen was a noteworthy touchstone only. To that extent we're presumably in agreement. Otoh, I don't care for the type of "Farsi" - realpolitik - Obama has adopted, so apparently on that scale we disagree and profoundly so.

Btw, Obama has indulged plenty of "tough talk" - as applied to Israel (**). Thus, here too we're seeing revealing echoes of a Jimmy Carter II, albeit with better rhetorical and teleprompter skills and with far better political/media machinations and alliances.

** This odd and telling juxtaposition, this "get tough with Israel but not with Iran [and others]" theme, echoes everywhere, from the hoi polloi, to the media and commentariat class and on through to the salons and halls of power previously alluded to. In the latter class the only exceptions that come immediately to mind are Merkel and perhaps Sarkozy.

Not even the U.N. has spoken out forcefully against the murderous brownshirted oppression that has been occurring in Tehran. Likewise, no massive demonstrations in N.Y., London, Paris, Rome, or from Hollywood types, against the Mullahs and in alliance with the students and others (shameful, and telling, given the contrasts that come to mind); no talk of a legal action brought before the ICJ or the ICC; no talk of boycotting Iran; no concerted hand-wringing among the cossetted professoriate class or the tranzi class; none of Barack Obama's cadenced rhetorical displays (au contraire, it's largely been displays of dissimulation and belated CYA); etc. Chin-pullers and talking-heads of the world, unite!

Kiwi

It's time for this Mousavi, or if not, someone else, to step up to the plate and display some leadership, for if they don't history will repeat itself, and the opportunity for regime change will be lost, as it was when the ruling Chinese dictatorship crushed the popular uprising in Tiananmen Square in 1989.

Alex Bensky

Sorry, Melanie, the US isn't going to do much except offer words, and not many of those. We don't want to interfere with Iran's internal affairs because frankly, we're too busy interfering in the internal affairs of France and Israel and letting our most important ally, the UK, know that we consider it just one among many countries.

Slight correction on one of the posts: Noam Chomsky didn't urge inaction on Cambodia; he supported the Khmer Rouge. And it took years before he allowed that yes, possibly Lon Nol and his minions might have overreacted a bit.

pinkiebrown

Mehran,
I agree with every word you wrote. I wish I had an answer to your question of what should the young people of Iran do but I don't. And I think it is wrong for me to exhort people to fight when they risk life and limb while I sit safely at my computer. I was arguing against the facile analogy of Sharansky more than talking about the election protest.

JohnR

It may get even more interesting, AP is reporting the Iranian Embassy in Sweden has been attacked by demonstrators.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090626/ap_on_re_eu/eu_sweden_iran_embassy

Sam Armstrong

Herbert Thornton, how irresponsible of you to draw a parallel between Iran and Britain. Lib Lab Con may all be the same animal, yes, but as far as I was aware none of us has to live in fear for our own lives if we dissent against any three of them. You have parroted a distorted Islamist/lefty argument about why we should not intervene in Iran. I am sure that many of those protesters would love the luxury of our parliamentary system. Your comments made me rather angry.

Drakken

In case it has escaped everyones mind and memories, this Mousavi chap is the same terrorist that blew up my barracks in Beiruit in 83. So too hope that this hunyuk is somehow a reformer is ludicris. All your trading is the wolf we know to a wolf in sheeps clothing. Both are hard core islamists and both won't change a thing! A Pox upon both their houses !
To all the British Soldiers who came to our aid on that dreadful day in October, I hoist a pint and a heartfelt God bless you all!

Lance Grundy

“Every totalitarian society consists of three groups: true believers, double-thinkers and dissidents. In every totalitarian regime, no matter its cultural or geographical circumstances, the majority undergo a conversion over time from true belief in the revolutionary message into double-thinking. They no longer believe in the regime but are too scared to say so.”

Interestingly, I think this applies to Britain too. Britain has undergone a much slower, but no less radical, cultural revolution over the past forty-odd years. Because the revolution itself was slower, the “conversion” as described by Natan Sharansky, has been too. We have now arrived at the point where the majority have lost their “true belief” and are now into the “double-thinking” stage.

That is why it is imperative that “dissidents” such as yourself, Peter Hitchens and numerous social commentators and bloggers who ‘get it’ keep up the good work.

We will win in the end.

Terry from Oz

I don't doubt that the iranian islamonutcases will fall. No regime can keep a lid on the pressure of a major part of its popualace without eventually succumbing. The problem is more in the timing. Iran is (according to what I have gleaned from those who know more than I do) a few years from getting a credible nuclear arsenal. But it is rapidly protecting its nuclear installations and the point of no return will be reached, not when iran has its nukes, but when it is about to make its nuclear installations safe from attack. Just prior to that stage Israel and/or the US may have to decide whether to destroy these installations while they can.

Such an attack may well coalesce support behind the regime. Iran under attack from the west (most likely Israel) could well provoke a nationalist backlash. If Iranians throw out these modern fascists before such an attack then the whole nuclear enterprise could collapse for internal reasons.

The most likely scenario, however, is Israel having to make a decision to destroy iran's nukes whilst it is physically possible. And that may be sooner rather than later, gratis the emasculated western and un response to the iranian nuclear threat over several years. As always, appeasement ends up costing more than justified confrontation.

Dixon

re Terry From Oz:
" But it is rapidly protecting its nuclear installations and the point of no return will be reached, not when iran has its nukes, but when it is about to make its nuclear installations safe from attack. Just prior to that stage Israel and/or the US may have to decide whether to destroy these installations while they can."

No installations will ever be safe from attack. Even if they deploy the Russian air defences they are trying to acquire ( with Russian personnel needed to operate them, a genuine indication of the backwardness of this third world state, even if it has stolen the technology of nuclear weapons ) Israel has already demonstrated in Syria that said systems are an expensive pile of junk. They didnt stop Israel roaming freely in Syrian air space and nor will they stop Israel hitting anything in Iran.

This is leaving aside the now implausible prospect of a US strike. The exact status of the project is unknown ( classified ) but the US was in the process of converting Trident ballistic missiles to carry non-nuclear warheads designed to burrow deep underground. A technology which nothing Iran can ever do will protect them against.

Most political problems have a technological solution...so long as there are people with sufficient gonads to choose these options. which of course Obbammie hasnt.

The biggest problem facing an Israeli strike on Iran is the sheer vastness of the distances and number of installations to hit. Paradoxically, however, that also makes them very difficult targets to protect.

Rob-NY

For me, this uprising exposes the left, liberals and "progressives" as the frauds they always were who are against dissent and freedom. Notice how they go out of their way to give the benefit of the doubt to Iranian facists and seek to undermine the thousands of Iranians being arrested and tortured as we speak. The leftists are frauds and this proves it.

mahan

Hello
My name is mahan
I'm a boy/age 28
I'm from iran
I like mousavi and
all good iranian like the mr.mousavi
Down whith khamenei.. because the khamenei is a bad killer..
the iranian dont like the khamenei and ahmadinejad because khamenei and ahmadinejad are 2 cheat dictator.

mahan

You are in my heart nice Neda"

Dave M

I now find myself wondering how the Beeb is going to interpret their perception of Iran during future broadcasts. It's customary for Beeb female reporters to broadcast updates from Iran suitably veiled and dressed in a traditional, religious mode. It's not so much out of necessity either and more an outright willingness to dress up accordingly. In fact, one wonders whether Beeb reporters will opt for the full burkha at some point in future. Now I wonder if the whole idea behind Beeb fashion is to show "empathy" and "identify" with Iranian culture what do they do now? Would any of this current sensitivity "identify" with the protesters who no doubt prefer western fashion to veils? Isn't the Beeb, in fact, now in danger of looking downright stupid as all the people protesting clearly depict a more liberal Iran that no doubt wishes to break away from repression. It's really amazing how the Beeb and most Labour elite have their own idea of what Iran is supposed to represent and that somehow they're defending these norms on air.

Michael B

Dateline Tehran, the Mullahs have seemingly won, at least for now, and have advocated the leaders of the dissenters be put to death. These same Mullahs, with Ahmadinejad, have also preached that Neda Soltan was murdered by protesters rather than the regime. Hubris and a rank contempt evidenced at the top of the Iranian power-mongers' heap, the same heap Obama has - repeatedly - sought to engage as a wouldbe sophisticate and realist, while indulging "tough talk" with Israel.

In other news, the UNHCR (U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees, not to be confused with the equally bemusing UNHRC and UNRWA), in cooperation with Naif Arab Univ. and the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), is publishing "The Right to Asylum Between Islamic Shari'ah and International Refugee Law: A Comparative Study." In a foreword, OIC Sec-Gen Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu asserts the volume "demonstrates the equitable and tolerant rules Islamic Shari'ah applies to refugees and how it is keenly concerned with their welfare and interests ..."

Now, a question. Who said: "I do not believe it is acceptable for any country to allow the heart of its national capital to be occupied by dissidents ..., however appealing to foreigners their propaganda may be. Such ... a "student uprising" on behalf of "the goddess of democracy" should expect to be displaced with dispatch from the ground they occupy."

That is Barack Obama's erstwhile appointment to head the NIC, Chas Freeman, another sophisticate in the "realist" mold. Charming. (Freeman was conceiving of Tiananmen's protesters being "dispatched.")

Watching and listening to Obama, aka Jimmy Carter II, is a bit like watching Wile E. Coyote reified on the world's stage: the lean profile, the self-regard, the exaggerated confidence and affectations, the protracted indulgence in delusion, the CYA and other forms of posturing and posing. All of it spun and enhanced by a made-to-order ACME media class.

Oz Roy

It would appear that any, ANY lack of response or rhetoric completely condemning what the Iranian Mullocracy has done is seen by same as a sign of weakness, and exploited for all its worth. For those who would draw on the Tiannamen analogy: Deng had already realised that the genie was out of the box and while crushing dissent ruthlessly, was careful not to interfere with the right of anyone to make a dollar! Its this last part that has not occurred to Ahmedinejad and his puppet-master Khameni - blinded as they are buy their own vitriolic ideology. Their repression will crush the 'democracy' movement but the complete mess the economy is in will ensure that they will never be able to eliminate political dissent in the way the Chinese Communist government did. The moral cowardice of the Obama govt will add to this - they are accurately seen by the current Iranian government as weak and vacilating and will not provide any lasting inspiration for the reformers in Iran to rally around or be inspired to continue their resistance in the face of brutal opression.

Shaun Harbord

Absolutely spot on.

George Fuller

Yah, Mousavi's candidacy - like the other 3 candidates - was approved by the Ayatollahs. That said, it can't be denied that he has rolled with the democratic-revolutionary forces. Similarly, during the Hungarian Revolution, a Warsaw Pact Colonel, Pal Maleter, changed sides during the revolt. Revolutions change minds.