John Hancock 2.0

More than 250 Iranian intellectuals have signed a petition criticizing Ayatollah Khamenei and stating:

People (and their elected lawmakers) have the right to fully supervise their rulers, criticize them, and remove them from power if they are not satisfied.

That comes close on the heels of unprecedented public calls for the Ayatollah's hanging. Not long ago, of course, signing this kind of petition would've been tantamount to signing your death warrant. Since authoritarian regimes ultimately rely on a thin layer of fear to maintain control—there aren't enough police to keep an entire population in subjection without it—the fact that it's gone this far is a pretty good sign that the tipping point has been passed. This story, though, is not a little disconcerting. Let's hope the G8 countries don't decide that democratic reform in Iran just isn't convenient right now.

Comments

[joe]

The mullahs can re-impose fear any time they want. They could have done it long before now. Is it possible that this regime, itself born of a popular revolution, might be susceptible to civil disobedience and unwilling (beyond a certain points) to crush popular dissent? This is not to heap praise on the Iranian government, but those regimes that got changed nonviolently, such as England in India, the civil rights south, or the USSR, didn't have clean hands either.

[Lefty]

I'm reminded of the encouragement we gave to the Kurds and Shiites after GWI to rise up against Saddam. Then when they did, we stood by and watched them get slaughtered - these are most of the graves we are now seeing uncovered.

We are in no position right now to back these poor bastards up. If we sent them signals, overtly or covertly, to do so and they meet the same fate as the Iraquis, somebody should do some really hard time in hell.

[JDM]

Lefty,

What policy exactly would be acceptable to you? You think simply dealing with these regimes is wrong (Saudi Arabia), embargo is wrong (Cuba), sending in troops is wrong (Iraq), covert aid to revolutionaries is wrong (South and Central America), partial open aid to revolutionaries is wrong (Afghanistan, Kosovo), vocal notional support for revolution is wrong (Iraq after GWI), and more tepid statements of support for revolutionaries is wrong (Iran today.)

Is it possible for you to come up with a position on anything that isn't merely an exercise in anti-Americanism for its own sake?

There is a popular democratic revolution starting in Iran, do you expect the President of the United States to say nothing about it?

joe,

The mullahs have not lost the will to impose terror on their people, they are losing the ability. They are actually bringing in foreign Arabs to crack down on dissenters. Local police forces have been intervening on behalf of the protestors.

[Lefty]

Honesty is the best policy. Don't write checks you can't cash. What goes around, comes around, power not used is power, indeed, etc.

JDM, you have caught the power bug. That bug that makes you think you can control everything in the world and support others who think the same. Daddy can't fix everything.

[Chuan-ho-shim]

To me, this business going on in Iran sounds like Tiananmen Square-II, the sequel.

[Douglas Fletcher]

Gee, joe, don't you think it might be that it's the mullahs who are afraid at this point?

[Britney]

"regimes that got changed nonviolently, such as England in India, the civil rights south, or the USSR"

Nonviolently? Joe, what fairy tales have you been reading?

[Lefty]

"dealing with these regimes is wrong (Saudi Arabia), embargo is wrong (Cuba), sending in troops is wrong (Iraq), covert aid to revolutionaries is wrong (South and Central America), partial open aid to revolutionaries is wrong (Afghanistan, Kosovo), vocal notional support for revolution is wrong (Iraq after GWI), and more tepid statements of support for revolutionaries is wrong (Iran today.)

[Can you] come up with a position on anything that isn't merely an exercise in anti-Americanism ...?"

HERE'S ANOTHER QUOTE (note the author):
"Friendly economic relations with all nations. Entangling alliances with none." -- Thomas Jefferson

Anti-Americanism?

Excuse me??

[Lefty]

I have an admiring poser. The above post was not me, although I do like the quote at the end.

[joe]

Doug, I don't fear is a zero-sum game in politics. If the regime is afraid, it is more likely to do things to make its opponents afraid - if it feels that it can get away with doing so.

Britney, Fair enough, I wasn't very clear. I was refering to nonviolent resistence being an effective political force, not positing a theory that violence was not involved in those struggles. Some regimes are willing to crush nonviolent resistance (USSR 1956). Some are not (USSR1989). Most will go part of the way, but are not willing to actually wage war against their own populace to stay in power. My point: how far will the mullahs go when faced with massive, nonviolent popular resistance?

[john]

It suck really bad!