Unrest in Iran

If you want a rundown of reasons to suspect that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in yesterday's Iranian election was fixed, Juan Cole makes the case here. Cent Uygur offers some similar thoughts here. In The New Yorker, Laura Secor writes that "dissident employees of the Interior Ministry, which is under the control of President Ahmadinejad and is responsible for the mechanics of the polling and counting of votes, have reportedly issued an open letter saying" the vote was stolen. Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, on the other hand, believes it was a more-or-less legitimate election in which western journalists mistook Mir Hossein Mousavi's articulate and educated supporters in northern Tehran for the voice of the people at large.

Mousavi himself clearly thinks the contest was rigged, and a lot of his supporters do as well:

Thousands of Iranians have taken to the streets of Tehran in protest against the outcome of the country's elections, in the biggest unrest since the 1979 revolution.

Riot police were deployed in the capital on Saturday after about 3,000 supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi, a reformist candidate, rioted following the announcement of his defeat by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the incumbent president….

Al Jazeera's Teymoor Nabili, reporting from Tehran, said major streets in the north of the city had come to a standstill.

The Iranian human rights activist Hadi Ghaemi offers some wise thoughts about the proper U.S. reaction here. Michael Totten has a bunch of links and video clips about the revolt here, and Smart Mobs is following the coverage in social media here. And BigSoccer.com, of all places, has a bunch of protest photos here. Maybe I shouldn't be surprised to see that at a soccer board -- it isn't the first time the sport has intersected with Iranian dissent.

Comments

[EJM]

I plugged a similar new GlobalPost item earlier; meanwhile, here are some excerpts from the latest DPA round-up...

As the situation grew out of control, police had to resort to using tear gas against large numbers of protestors. There were reports of shooting near the Vanak square in Tehran, causing fear among residents in the rather crowded business district.

What started as a widespread feeling of deep frustration with the electoral process rapidly transformed into anger. While police banned demonstrations and cancelled a press conference for foreign correspondents, the protestors - mainly Moussavi's supporters - wouldn't back down.

As they hurled stones at the police and burnt tyres and garbage, the protestors shouted slogans: 'We want our voices back,' 'Death to the dictator,' [']We don't want the Taliban in Tehran.' Observers described the situation as 'explosive,' as thick plumes of smoke rose over Tehran.

There were no immediate reports available of deaths or injuries.

Some voiced their displeasure more passively - carrying banners that said, 'I want my vote back,' or praying, [']Allaho Akbar' (god is great).

[...]

Moussavi had already declared himself the victor shortly after polling closed, and later claimed there had been large-scale irregularities.

'The Iranians know very well for whom they have voted and will neither accept the vote counting charade on (state) television nor follow those who have come to power with cheating and deception,' Moussavi said in a statement on his website.

A confidant of Moussavi's said that the fraud was apparent because the official IRNA news agency knew at about midnight that Ahmadinejad would remain president, even though the official results were to be announced on Saturday morning. The source called the counting process a sham, mere drama.

The other fallout of Ahmadinejad's re-election and the ensuing violence was that the government clamped down on internet services and cellphones, with Tehran residents complaining that they were unable to send or receive SMS. Popular social networking website's like Facebook were also blocked, as was Moussavi's personal website.

[Alberta Libertarian]

Any bets on how quickly the Iranian government starts to really crack down?

[mahan]

This election was fixed period. The results in the most record breaking turnout was out faster then the polls closed. I have friends and family on the ground and NO they are not from Tehran and are from the provinces and they all say the same: the results were turned around for this bastard.

Shame on the ilks of Christopher Dickey who pronounce a judgment of fairness from these sham elections. The only people happy about these elections is Bibi Netanyahu and his supporters in Newsweak, Fox and other right winger neocons. Now, they can use Ahamadibaboboon as a porpoganda for another 4 years and build settlements and stcik it to Obama! Shame on all of you!

[EJM]

Also, FWIW, both FP's "Passport" and Mr. Kristof are plugging this post by Gary Sick.

[Underzog]

More utter garbage from Reason "Ernst Rhoem Today" magazine!

The humane for the United States to do would be to invade Iran and overthrow the Mullahs. Since the U.S. will do nothing, Israel will probably have to nuke Iran to prevent Armanidinnerjacket from nuking Israel.

The latter action would make "Reason" Magazine scream hysterically, but that is a good thing. If Israel takes action to defend themselves from a second holocaust and it bothers the deviant Libertarians, then it's a double bonus.

"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

[underzog]

Did Ayn Rand (whom the Libertarians parasitize off of) really say that "Arabs are savages who just don't want to use their minds"?

I know that Ayn Rand said during the Iranian hostage crises that they're savages. They steal our oil and try to murder us with it.

"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

[Your Majesty]

Considering that the mullahs pre-approve all candidates for figurehead offices, Iranian elections are -- by definition -- fixed regardless of outcome.

If the mullahs are stupid enough to provoke the masses by denying them a placebo, good.

[Hugh Akston]

Did Ayn Rand (whom the Libertarians parasitize off of) really say that "Arabs are savages who just don't want to use their minds"?
[citation needed]

I know that Ayn Rand said during the Iranian hostage crises that they're savages. They steal our oil and try to murder us with it. [citation needed]

Also, for the record, "parasitize" is not a word.

[underzog]

Also, does anyone want any pictures of me blowing myself? If so, just let me know and I will email them too you. I have tons of them.

"There's no need to fear. Underzog is here!"

[Big Mike]

For Ahmadinejad (that sucks w/o a spell checker) to have carried the election by the margins he did in the cities would have been the equivalent of McCain carrying 90% of the minority vote in the '08 election here. Didn't happen, no way, no how.

I agree with the sentiments of Alberta Libertarian. The police in the raw footage of the riots aren't really laying into their victims with those riot sticks. They're intelligently more concerned with the angry mob around them. A military action will be taken, and I would expect to see human rights jettisoned almost immidately.

However, I am extreme distressed to see reports from SoS Clinton that the US is "monitoring" the elections. Talk about something that needs to be at the top of the list of "Not Our Problem"...

[Fascitis Necrotizante]

Fuck underzog, but parasitize is definitely a word.

[Mahmoud Ahmadinejad]

I won you pig fuckers!

Any replies to this comment will most likely consist of ad homs, as libertarians concede my points and show their childish, anti-intellectual nature.

[Artavazd Papazian Odadjian-Gor]

How old is underzog? Because if that's a grown man,that's just sad.

I mean, sure it's fun to troll sometimes, but constantly?

[cosanostradamus]

.
You SEE how these primitives handle a small political problem? Why can't they simply go before their Supreme Court and let the Justices pick their leader? It's the Christian thing to do. Democracy just doesn't work when you get too many people involved. Having only one side is SO much easier. They just haven't evolved sufficiently. Thank GAWD we don't have any of these crazed religious fanatics and political extremists in America!
.

[John C. Randolph]

Any bets on how quickly the Iranian government starts to really crack down?

They've been really cracking down for decades, just like the Romanian and East German governments used to.

When the people see how many others share their dissatisfaction, there comes a tipping point that can destroy a tyrant. I hope the Iranians can bounce the clerics out of power with a minimum of bloodshed.

-jcr

[John C. Randolph]

The only people happy about these elections is Bibi Netanyahu

I'm sure that Netanyahu would be happier than anyone if Iran overthrew their rulers all by themselves.

-jcr

[John Thacker]

The only people happy about these elections is Bibi Netanyahu and his supporters in Newsweak, Fox and other right winger neocons.

Newsweek? Right wing neocons?

Even all that Daniel Pipes said was that he sympathized with the Iranian people, but that the Council of Guardians and other ayatollahs would never let a real reformer win the Presidency and actually make changes. If anyone else did win, they either wouldn't be sincere or would have no power to make changes. Any candidate who was sincere and might be able to have power wouldn't be allowed to win. Therefore, under his opinion, if Mir Hossein Mousavi won, there would be no change. Only if Mousavi lost would there be a chance that there could have been change if he had been allowed to win.

I'm afraid that events are proving him right. I would have loved to have been proven wrong, though. I'd love for the students to be able to overthrow the government, too.

If the election was fixed, that makes me feel better about Mousavi, then.

[Art-P.O.G.]

I'm not saying the outcome of the election was predetermined, but there's a possibility Vince McMahon was involved.

[John Thacker]

Shame on the ilks of Christopher Dickey who pronounce a judgment of fairness from these sham elections...stcik it to Obama!

mahan:

Let's suppose that the protests are unable to succeed, unfortunately. Then for Obama to live up to his plans of engaging Iran, he will be forced to publicly act as though these elections are legitimate. He will not be able to engage Iran's government while insisting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not actually win the elections. Will that be shameful, if he pretends that the elections were fair?

The people "sticking it to Obama" are those fixing the election. He may be forced to make a difficult decision.

[Art-P.O.G.]

And to continue the wrestling metaphor, Ahmadenijad's going to continue to get a lot of heat, because he's like the Corporate Champion instead of the People's Champion. He's the heel that gets a huge push from the management, both kayfabe and real.

It's kind of dissapointing because I'm sure he's not going to lose his belt on Monday Night Raw.

[Alberta Libertarian]

and it begins....

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6495691.ece

//At least 10 leaders of two Iranian reformist groups who backed defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi have been arrested after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's re-election in a deeply-disputed vote sparked riots across Tehran.//

On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high percentage of Iranian women are hawt.

[Anon]

"Unrest in Iran" is redundant. Just "Iran" would suffice.

[Art-P.O.G.]

On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high percentage of Iranian women are hawt.

Yes. I'm sure the conservative mullahs have tried not to notice, though.

[Art-P.O.G.]

How dare women be hawt and demand the vote.

[zoltan]

Let's suppose that the protests are unable to succeed, unfortunately. Then for Obama to live up to his plans of engaging Iran, he will be forced to publicly act as though these elections are legitimate. He will not be able to engage Iran's government while insisting that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did not actually win the elections. Will that be shameful, if he pretends that the elections were fair?

How should Obama "engage" Medvedev? This is weird. Then again, he should also unequivocally condemn both governments and their pseudo-elections.

[Art-P.O.G.]

How should Obama "engage" Medvedev? This is weird. Then again, he should also unequivocally condemn both governments and their pseudo-elections.

Well, with Medvedev and Ahmadenijad, the correct response is to either A) Stroll up on them in the middle of the ring, microphone in hand, impugn their legitimacy, slap them and then run away, jump over the ropes and exit up the ramp with theme music playing or B) Wait until they're in the middle of a match with another wrestler, then slide into the ring with a folding chair. Multiple chairshots ensue and maybe one of those foreign dignitaries ends up "wearing the crimson mask".

[Art-P.O.G.]

:::Sigh::: I wish diplomacy really were as "neat" as pro wrestling.

[Elemenope]

B) Wait until they're in the middle of a match with another wrestler, then slide into the ring with a folding chair. Multiple chairshots ensue and maybe one of those foreign dignitaries ends up "wearing the crimson mask".

Foreign relations usually boils down to some variation on "B".

[Art-P.O.G.]

Foreign relations usually boils down to some variation on "B".

Yeah, true. Of course, half the time it ends up backfiring.

[joshua corning]

The key force behind this is the next generation, the Millennials, who elected Obama in America and may oust Ahmadinejad in Iran. They want freedom; they are sick of lies; they enjoy life and know hope.

Is it just me or does Andrew Sullivan make everyone want to vomit?

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/the-revolution-will-be-twittered-1.html

[jr]

@ Joshua

Nope, I read the post and promptly barfed.

[DJF]

Why are those slut Iranian women not wearing their Hijab? Why isn't Iran enforcing proper dress like the United States great ally in the Middle East Saudi Arabia. Why is Iran even having elections, hasn't the US shown that by its support that hereditary dictatorships is the proper form of government. The US even fought a war against Iraq to make the world safe for the hereditary dictatorship of Kuwait

Iran needs to follow US demands and install the proper kind of hereditary dictatorship. The Shah was OK but too soft hearted, they needs someone tough who will keep those Iranians in line. Maybe the Saudis can provide a prince to take over? [/s]

[John]

"On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high percentage of Iranian women are hawt."

You are not kidding. Wow, they are beautiful.

@Joshua and JR.

Me either. I can't read Sullivan without choking my own vomit. How he still has a job is beyond me. I guess they feel sorry for him because he is sick. What a clown. Every event in the world is just another excuse to lick Obama a little harder.

[John]

"Then again, he should also unequivocally condemn both governments and their pseudo-elections."

He won't because he honestly thinks that his shit doesn't stink. He has all the wisdom and knowldege of foreign policy as a college kid who just joined the Peace Corps. He really believes that he can just solve everything once he has a chance to talk it out with people. He ought to support the dissendents publicly and not recognize dumb ass as the President. But Obama won't, he will set up some meeting and blow Amedinejad in front of the entire world and give the Mullahs legitimacy in crushing dissent.

[Tricky Prickears]

I foresee long, drawn out battles, between teams of lawyers that are in the pockets of special interest groups, in both the established court system, and the court of public opinion. The final decision will be made by a split decision of judges, who ignore the actual vote counts, and make their decisions based on their own self-serving, self-righteous opinions.

[Tricky Prickears]

Don't be surprised if Warren Christopher and Jim Baker make an unexpected trip to Iran.

[dbcooper]

Me either. I can't read Sullivan without choking my own vomit. How he still has a job is beyond me.

Well they hired that Ta-Nehisi Coates guy to blog about rap videos and video games, so the standards can't be too high at the Atlantic these days.

[John]

"Well they hired that Ta-Nehisi Coates guy to blog about rap videos and video games, so the standards can't be too high at the Atlantic these days."

True. Their idea of deep thinking is Megan McCardle.

[jr]

"On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high percentage of Iranian women are hawt."

"You are not kidding. Wow, they are beautiful."

It is almost enough motivation to seriously consider converting to Islam in order to get a piece of the action.

Their political system is shitty, but their women are one hell of a consolation prize.

[dbcooper]

True. Their idea of deep thinking is Megan McCardle.

McCardle ain't so bad though - she posts some interesting links and isn't an Obama cheerleader.

[John]

"McCardle ain't so bad though - she posts some interesting links and isn't an Obama cheerleader."

She is not so bad. But she can't get over the fact that she is a rich white girl from Manhattan. She gets on these "it is irresponsible to live in the suburbs" kicks and her stupid white girl shows. Whenever she talks about cities and driving and global warming, she is beyond annoying. This is a woman who admits that she can't spend a night in the suburbs of Washington because being in a house with a yard alone scares her. No kidding. She can't take spending a night in the wilds of Bethesda.

[John]

"It is almost enough motivation to seriously consider converting to Islam in order to get a piece of the action."

There is a woman who works in my office who is Iranian and she is Christian. So you never know. She is so hot it is hard to have a conversation with her. She is very nice and pleasent. But, she is so hot any straight male has a hard time thinking straight. She is literally distractingly attractive.

[me]

The most important fact in knowing whether or not the results were fixed is the record high turnout. While there are unlikely but possible scenarios in which Ahmadinejad gets 60% with a low/normal turnout, there's no way that there are that many Ahmadinejad voters. All the people who ordinarily boycott came out to vote for... the status quo? When unemployment is rampant?

[Jiffy Lewis]

LOL, Bought and paid for thats all I can say! Bought and paid for!

Jiff
http://www.absolute-anonymity.us.tc

[John]

Depsite hating their government, Iranians still don't like the US. No one should think President McHopey can get naked and ride his unicorn over to Iran and patch things up. At this point, I don't see what we can do beyond voicing support for the dissenters and staying out of it. I fear, however, that McHopey will find a way to do something stupid and counter productive.

[hmm]

Isn't this election basically a matter of elected dictator v. elected dictator backed by religious dictator and a few old dudes? It's basically what we have going on here in the U.S. You can have an elected asshole in flavor A or flavor B, but you're still getting a worthless asshole.

The last time they had a revolution they started the process of being ostracized by the "free" world. If it gets as far as last time lets hope the outcome is a little better.

None the less it sucks for them. At least their population is willing to take up arms for their rights. Unlike some nations that just roll over like a beat dog.

[jr]

"It's basically what we have going on here in the U.S. You can have an elected asshole in flavor A or flavor B, but you're still getting a worthless asshole."

Please cast your votes for either Giant Douche or Turd Sandwich.

[MaterialMonkee]

Have to agree with the Andrew Sullivan view
that the reformist movement in Iran and the recent election result in Lebanon are a reciprocation of internet savy Muslims responding to the open arms that internet savy Americans sent out by choosing Obama.

The problem here is that internet using voters make up a far smaller percentage of the Iranian population (Iran 34.9%)(USA 72.5%).

http://www.payvand.com/news/08/sep/1146.html

http://www.internetworldstats.com/am/us.htm

If you assume that people without internet access are more likely to vote for a conservative candidate and maybe 25% of people with internet access are still fairly culturally conservative.

The election results in Iran look very realistic

expected % of vote for reformist = 0.75 x pop% with internet access

54% in the USA
26% in Iran

Even if there wasn't vote tampering I get the feeling the silent conservative moral majority would have won it fair and square in Iran.

(I dont consider either Obama or Mousavi socially liberal/libertarian but they are the least conservative in either respetive countrty(can't be arsed to start an argument on that one!))

[Nemo]

Shut the fuck up Lone-

Shut the fuck up Underzog. Also, Iranians aren't Arabs.

[P Brooks]

Exhibit A for the mainstreaming of right-wing extremism is Fox News's new star, Glenn Beck. Here we have a network where, like it or not, millions of Americans get their news - and it gives daily airtime to a commentator who, among other things, warned viewers that the Federal Emergency Management Agency might be building concentration camps as part of the Obama administration's "totalitarian" agenda (although he eventually conceded that nothing of the kind was happening).

Paul Krugman's vagina hurts.

A lot.

[P Brooks]

Fourth, the political class is going to attempt the politically unthinkable. The U.S. is going to have to move toward a consumption tax, to discourage spending and encourage savings. There's also a crying need for tax reform. As economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin points out, the tax code is rife with provisions that encourage leverage and discourage investment. The government will have to spend less on transfer payments and more on investments in science and infrastructure.

The members of the Obama administration fully understand this and are brimming with good ideas about how to move from a bubble economy to an investment economy. Finding a political strategy to accomplish this, however, is proving to be very difficult. And getting Congress to move in this direction might be impossible.

Congressional leaders have been fixated on short-term conventional priorities throughout this entire episode. There is no evidence that the power brokers understand the fundamental transition ahead. They are practicing the same self-indulgence that got us into this mess.

-David Brooks

Unfortunately, I think this part:
The members of the Obama administration fully understand this and are brimming with good ideas about how to move from a bubble economy to an investment economy.
is one hundred per cent wishful thinking.

[Tricky Prickears]

Since the U.S. will do nothing, Israel will probably have to nuke Iran to prevent Armanidinnerjacket from nuking Israel.

In all fairness, this action would probably gain support from the Cristian Conservatives who believe that all of this "nuking" will bring about the second coming.

[yikes!]

No one should think President McHopey can get naked and ride his unicorn over to Iran and patch things up.

That's a disturbing glimpse into John's fantasy world.

[J sub D]

All of this (presidential election) would be very important if the president of Iran was anything more than a front man for the Ali Khamenei led theocracy. My guess (and that is all that this is) is that Mousavi was perceived as not being sufficiently sycophantic and Ahmadinejad was given the go ahead to rig the election.

I alternate between cynical amusement and righteous infuriation regarding the sham elections in so many parts of the world.

[Alice Bowie]

Iran would probably NOT have developed nuclear weapons had GW Bush not named them as members of the "Axis of Evil".

If Israel were to Bomb Iran, rest assure that the Mid-East NUCLEAR ARMS Race would be ON!!!
If these countries would not be able to develop them...they will probably buy them...from somewhere.

It is NOT TO HARD TO UNDERSTAND why Iran wants Nuclear Weapons. And, contrary to popular belief, it is NOT to destroy Israel...It's from stopping the US/ISRAEL from destroying them.
You see, the President of Iran does not want to be executed on http://www.YOU-TUBE.com. The Iranian people don't want to be invaded by the US or Nuked by Israel. The only way to avoid this is with a Nuclear Weapon. Once they have one, Israel and the US will leave Iran alone...as they do to North Korea, China, Russia, Pakastan, Indea, Israel, and other countries with NUKES.

Do you know you can be PERFECTLY SURE THAT GWB and Dick Cheney knew that IRAQ had no weapons of MASS DESTRUCTION...they INVADED.

Once Iran tests that nuclear weapon in the Indian ocean or underground...I know 100% from WORLD EXPERIENCE that there will be NO war between US/ISRAEL and IRAN.

[J sub D]

He won't because he honestly thinks that his shit doesn't stink. He has all the wisdom and knowldege of foreign policy as a college kid who just joined the Peace Corps. He really believes that he can just solve everything once he has a chance to talk it out with people. He ought to support the dissendents publicly and not recognize dumb ass as the President. But Obama won't, he will set up some meeting and blow Amedinejad in front of the entire world and give the Mullahs legitimacy in crushing dissent.

How is that any different than this?

I looked the man [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

I was able to get a sense of his soul.

[John]

"I looked the man [Putin] in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

I was able to get a sense of his soul."

It is not. And how did that work out for us? But who cares? In case you missed it, Bush isn't President anymore. You need to get some therapy over your obsession with the man.

[Elemenope]

I'm not understanding exactly people's objections to Andrew Sullivan's point about how communications technologies are playing a serious role in how dissidents can organize.

Is it simply that "we hate Andrew Sullivan" and thus whatever he writes, correct or not, we should dismiss? Or is there something wrong with his point?

Is he the Libertarian's gay, British Oliver Wendell Holmes, the guy you love to hate...'cause?

[J sub D]

It is not. And how did that work out for us? But who cares? In case you missed it, Bush isn't President anymore. You need to get some therapy over your obsession with the man.

My point was that with the change of administration we are still saddled with a leader who is both gullible and an egotist.

Perhaps I should have added the Pete Townsend lyrics for those who are unable to detect nuanced cynicism.

Feel free to link to any H&R comment of yours mocking or taking to task GWB's statesmanship. I've found the site search function at the top of the page is actually pretty good for digging up my old comments.

[Richard Hoste]

Newsweek's Christopher Dickey, on the other hand, believes it was a more-or-less legitimate election in which western journalists mistook Mir Hossein Mousavi's articulate and educated supporters in northern Tehran for the voice of the people at large.

There's probably something to that. Elites, for all their supposed open-mindess, do live in a bubble. Remember when the neocons thought all Iraqis were like educated, secular Ahmad Chalabi?

HBD Books

[Alberta Libertarian]

//The key force behind this is the next generation, the Millennials, who elected Obama in America and may oust Ahmadinejad in Iran. They want freedom; they are sick of lies; they enjoy life and know hope.//

Andrew Sullivan's a moron. Has he ever written something half decent before joining the Jim Jones club?

//It is NOT TO HARD TO UNDERSTAND why Iran wants Nuclear Weapons. And, contrary to popular belief, it is NOT to destroy Israel...It's from stopping the US/ISRAEL from destroying them.
You see, the President of Iran does not want to be executed on http://www.YOU-TUBE.com. The Iranian people don't want to be invaded by the US or Nuked by Israel. The only way to avoid this is with a Nuclear Weapon. Once they have one, Israel and the US will leave Iran alone...as they do to North Korea, China, Russia, Pakastan, Indea, Israel, and other countries with NUKES.//

Yep, we just want to steal their hawt women.

//Once Iran tests that nuclear weapon in the Indian ocean or underground...I know 100% from WORLD EXPERIENCE that there will be NO war between US/ISRAEL and IRAN.//

Glad you could share your "100% world experience" with us proles.

[Paul]

If you want a rundown of reasons to suspect that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's victory in yesterday's Iranian election was fixed, Juan

Dude, they declared a 63% landslide victory for Ahmadinejad 18 seconds after the polls closed. That's your first sign right there.

[Paul]

Oh, and help me out with this Iranian politics thing here. NPR and BBC world service, gushing about how young, university students are driving this new reform minded push in Tehran. Fine. Great. Swingin' with the young people. They always go for freedom and openness, right?

Wasn't it university students who were behind the revolution in the 70's that made Iran the kick-ass, lively and free democracy it is today?

University students, keep your eye on them is all I'm sayin'.

[John]

The we don't really disagre J Sub D. Where Bush failed was in his belief that big fixes, rather than incrimental fixes or at best living with the least bad alternative, were possible. Obama is the same way. He thinks he can go over take the measure of people and solve things by talking it out like some Hollywood movie. Sadly, the world is not Hollywood.

[J sub D]

John,
Yep.

And reality is also that in realistcdiplomacy, you have to deal with unsavory and illegitimate regimes. That includes those who are despised by blue teamers and those hated by team red.

[John]

"And reality is also that in realistcdiplomacy, you have to deal with unsavory and illegitimate regimes."

Sometimes. But that shouldn't be an excuse to be a crapweasel like the Europeans. Some people really are our enemies and can only be delt with force or threat of force. As a general rule no country is going to side with us unless it is in their interest to do so. Sometimes, the only way to make it in their interest is to make it clear that not doing what we want will result in us bombing the shit of them. That is the only kind of diplomacy some understand.

[The Angry Optimist]

the fastest way to set Iran back 100 years is to follow your advice about treating them as outright belligerents, John.

I mean, really, enough with the warmongering already. Have the going-on-ten-years of war not worn you out yet?

[John]

"the fastest way to set Iran back 100 years is to follow your advice about treating them as outright belligerents, John."

Who said I was talking about Iran? About Iran, it is totally in their interest to build nuclear weapons. Possessing nuclear weapons will make them the only nuclear middle eastern power other than Israel. It will mean that every time they confront the US, the US does so with the knowledge that they are risking a nuclear war. Like China and Russia, it would give them the ability to crack down dissidents with impunity. I mean is anyone going to risk nuclear war over the Iranaian people?

We have three choices with Iran, pay them not to make nukes and hope they honor the deal, bomb them or let them have nukes and understand that if they should say attack us via terrorism or do anything else short of all out war, we are going to have to take it like a man an do nothing. No amount of talking and bullshit changes those options or givess us any others.

[The Angry Optimist]

given that the thread is about Iran and you were responding to a post by J sub D about dealing with Iran, I just kind of assumed that you were talking about Iran.

How, exactly, would Iran "attack us via terrorism", John? Do you think you can just carry nuclear missiles around in your pocket or something?

Perhaps if we didn't have a 160,000 Soldier target sitting right next door, we might not be sabre-rattling yet again. If you want to make sure United States interests are protected from Iran, withdraw U.S. interests outside of the limited range of whatever non-ICBM they can get their hands on.

[John]

"How, exactly, would Iran "attack us via terrorism", John? Do you think you can just carry nuclear missiles around in your pocket or something?"

Every terrorism intel person I know says that Hezbollah is about 100 times better organized the Al Quada and has sleeper cells all over the US. They wouldn't use nukes against us. They will attack us using low level terror. What are we going to do about it? Imagine if the purpetraitors of 9-11 had been funded by a nuclear Iran rather than AFghanistan, what would we have done? Not a God damned thing. Once they have Nukes, Iran can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants internally and in places like Lebanon and anywhere else in the middle east.

They really do mean us harm AO. Will they nuke us? I doubt it. But who knows. People have done crazier things. Even if they don't nuke us, they certainly can cause us lots and lots of problems with impunity. Confronting a nuclear power is a lot different than confronting a conventional one. That is why they are going to get nukes. When they have them, I guess we can hope for the best and hope they like us or feel sorry for us or something. Because our ability to do much to them will be limited.

[John]

AO,

You may have a point. One option of dealing with a nuclear armed Iran is just to go home. Let them have Iraq and Saudi Arabia. If they had nukes and no one but Isreal did, they could pretty much walk over any of the other countries or certainly dominate them into orbit. We can always roll the dice with a united nuclear armed middle east ruled by the Mullahs. I mean really, how coud anything bad happen there?

[The Angry Optimist]

good Christ, Chicken-Little, yes, the sky really is falling.

Does Iran show any signs or interest in rolling through Iraq and Saudi Arabia? Given that the most powerful military in the world is having difficulty in Iran, why would you assume that it would be all peachy-keen for Iran to hold it?

you're willing to toss about the words "nuclear" and "terrorism" to scare people into being worldwide bullies.

it's just fucking amazing. 9/11 happened and we didn't hesitate to invade Afghanistan, but you assume that the United States will sit there like a dumbass and just take whatever Iran has to dish out, all because they have...dun dun dun...a couple of medium-range missiles.

you really act like a coward sometimes. we do not need to keep acting like dickheads with that nation, and we certainly don't need to keep implying that we're going to bomb their populace at the drop of an isotope.

[Neu Mejican]

Depsite hating their government, Iranians still don't like the US.

Yet 60% favor open, honest negotiations as the way to bridge the gap between the countries.

BTW, John...thanks for the morning chuckles...have you considered suing Stephan Colbert?

[The Angry Optimist]

I mean, really, the United States coexisted (tensely sometimes, we should readily admit) with the Soviet Union for seventy years, and forty of those years, the Soviet Union had nukes (more nukes than we did, probably). But now we're afraid of one pissant country with buffoonish leadership?

When did we lose our balls?

[John]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090608/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iran_poll

Currently 29% of Iranians hold a positive view of the US New Mexican. They don't like us. They never will. Some of them in fact hate us. And the fact that they hate us has nothing to do with who is President.

Of and thanks for being your normal dickhead, uninformed self. It is good to know some things never change.

[John]

"I mean, really, the United States coexisted (tensely sometimes, we should readily admit) with the Soviet Union for seventy years, and forty of those years, the Soviet Union had nukes (more nukes than we did, probably). But now we're afraid of one pissant country with buffoonish leadership?

When did we lose our balls?"

Tersely my ass. We almost went to nuclear armagedon with them several times. Further, we know now that the Russians almost accidently launched a nuclear war in 1983. The cold war and MADD sucked. It was a miracle we didn't destroy the planet. No sane person could ever want to repeat that kind of madness.

[John]

Nue Mexican,

You are by far the most unpleasent ill informed smug poster on Hit and Run. You never know anything. You never have anything new or interesting to say. It is just the same bullshit day after day. Hell, at least Lonewacko is kind of funny sometimes. At least Joe sometimes made a good point. You? Not so much.

[Neu Mejican]

John,

The 60% figure comes from the same poll you are citing. 29% hold a favorable view. 60% favor restoration of diplomatic relations and unconditional negotiations with the US.

[Neu Mejican]

John,

I am more smug than you...tis true.

[The Angry Optimist]

john, you have a whole series of questions to answer:

1. Have you any evidence that Iran desires a "unified, nuclear middle East" under its banner?
2. What evidence do you have that, even if Iran desired that goal, that they would have the troops, abilities or wherewithal to commit to such a huge project?
3. Why do you think that Iran can easily hold Iraq when not even the United States can easily do so?
4. Are you really trying to justify the Iraqi invasion because of a possibly-nuclear Iran?

[Tulpa]

Dude, they declared a 63% landslide victory for Ahmadinejad 18 seconds after the polls closed. That's your first sign right there.

Maybe their exit polling technology is superior to ours.

[Tulpa]

3. Why do you think that Iran can easily hold Iraq when not even the United States can easily do so?

Well that one's easy -- Iran is willing to do what it takes to put down insurgencies, not worry about those pesky human rights concerns. The same way Saddam was able to hold power there for 25 years until he got a bug in the Bush family's ear.

[Neu Mejican]

An informed view of the world?

Every terrorism intel person I know says that Hezbollah is about 100 times better organized the Al Quada and has sleeper cells all over the US. They wouldn't use nukes against us. They will attack us using low level terror. What are we going to do about it? Imagine if the purpetraitors {sic} of 9-11 had been funded by a nuclear Iran rather than AFghanistan, what would we have done? Not a God damned thing. Once they have Nukes, Iran can pretty much do whatever the hell it wants internally and in places like Lebanon and anywhere else in the middle east.

[Neu Mejican]

And while we are looking at polls about public opinions as the the right approach...

60% of Iranians favor open, unconditional negotions...

53% of Americans agree...

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/06/11/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5081696.shtml

Also,

Moreover, there is little desire among the public to engage Iran militarily. A February CBS News/New York Times Poll found that just 13 percent of Americans expressed the view that Iran is a threat to the U.S. that requires military action now. Most - 58 percent - said Iran is a threat that could be contained through diplomacy. In recent years, Americans have consistently favored diplomacy with Iran over military action. On this matter Democrats (69 percent) and Republicans (50 percent) agree that Iran can be contained through diplomatic means.

[Oatwhore]

One of the comments on the HuffPo was very good.

Why are people surprised that Ahmadinejad won? Until the past couple of weeks, when Mousavi support became a little more visible, there was never any sign that any of his challengers would even come close. No polls - nothing. I'm sorry - but a few badly constructed questions by journalists too lazy to talk to Iranians who aren't the suave educated types in the North of Tehran (notice how they all speak English) does not a reliable polling method make.

As for the Azeri part of Iran - yes, Mousavi is an Azeri - but Ahmadinejad is a former governor of that province and responsible for opening the only university in the country that teaches in Azeri. He is popular in that part of Iran - it is perfectly possible that people voted for their self-interest and not on ethnic lines.

I think wealthy Iranians have been living in an echo chamber - they are interviewed by the foreign press (because they speak English and slum-dwellers don't) and tell them they are voting one way. The foreign press reports back to them that this is how it will turn out - etc...

The election of moderates only extends the life of the revolution. People seem to think that Mousavi would ride in on a white horse and *presto* Iranians would be free.

Mousavi was PM during the Iran-Iraq war - during the worst abuses against Bahais (a very repressed political sect) and political prisoners. "Reformer?" I think not!

Followed by

I only have one thing to add to your well informed response which was how In 1989, Mousavi called for Salman Rushdie to be killed.

[Oatwhore]

Dude, they declared a 63% landslide victory for Ahmadinejad 18 seconds after the polls closed. That's your first sign right there.

All of our news agencies declared Obama the winner before all the polls had even closed.

[Mike]

"60% of Iranians favor open, unconditional negotions...53% of Americans agree..."

Great. Here's how it would go:

Obama: Could you stop sponsoring terrorism? It really makes us worried about what you're going to do when you get nukes.

Ahmadinejad: Terrorism! We don't have anything to do with that! How could you say such a thing!

Obama: Well, you sponsor Hezbollah and Hamas, both of which are sworn to destroy Isreal.

Ahmadinejad: Nonsense, Hezbollah and Hamas are just charitable organizations.

Obama: But, they fire missles are Israeli cities.

Ahmadinejad: That's just Zionist propaganda!

Golly, I can't wait for that to begin. When a nuclear bomb goes off in either Tel Aviv or Los Angeles, don't say you weren't warned.

[MNG]

"They will attack us using low level terror."

So THEY are respondible for the latest Terminator film? Fucking Hezbollah!

[MNG]

Wouldn't a nuclear strike by either Iran or Israel on the other have very likely disasterous effects on the striking nation as well? I mean from things like fallout. I'm not a nuclear physicist though...

[Tulpa]

Due to wind patterns it would probably hurt Iran more to attack Israel than vice versa. But they're also batshit crazy, so it might be a moot point.

[J sub D]

Wouldn't a nuclear strike by either Iran or Israel on the other have very likely disasterous effects on the striking nation as well? I mean from things like fallout. I'm not a nuclear physicist though...

Tel Aviv and Tehran are seperated by 955 mies.

Lots of folks lived within that distance for the above ground nuke tests in the southwest. It's not that big a deal actually.

[John C. Randolph]

Didn't I just hear eight years of pinkos telling me that GWB was going to do this?

-jcr

[Tulpa]

JsubD,

Those were just A-bombs, though, much less powerful than the stuff we have today (as ONDCP would say). And there's a lot more weather in the fertile crescent to carry fallout and such than we have in NM.

[hmm]

Paul Krugman, the economist that will take a single incident and claim it is directly correlated to and possible representative of an entire news channel or group of people with zero statistical backing. The man is a disgrace to his profession.

[Franz Kafka]

Test

[John]

"Tel Aviv and Tehran are seperated by 955 mies.

Lots of folks lived within that distance for the above ground nuke tests in the southwest. It's not that big a deal actually."

The world almost had a nuclear war several times during the cold war. We got very lucky during the cold war. There is nothing to say the middle-east will get so lucky. Maybe it will. I hope dumb fucks like Neu Mexican are right in their belief that the Iranians and Mullahs are just groovy religous people with a few exotic views, because ultimately we are betting a lot of people's lives that they are.

[Jon H]

Anyone who thinks that what the situation in Iran needs is for the US to butt its nose in probably thinks it was a good idea for John Yettaw to make an uninvited swim to visit Aung San Suu Kyi.

Ahmedinejad would love an excuse to paint the opposition as another US coup attempt.

John wrote:"Currently 29% of Iranians hold a positive view of the US New Mexican. They don't like us. They never will. Some of them in fact hate us."

Why shouldn't they? We toppled their government and installed a dictator.

I'm guessing how *you* feel about people is determined by how they've treated you in the past.

[Neu Mejican]

I hope dumb fucks like Neu Mexican are right in their belief that the Iranians and Mullahs are just groovy religous people with a few exotic views, because ultimately we are betting a lot of people's lives that they are.

John...

I know you are a simple man, but you can't really be equating the idea that the solution to a problem proposed by the majority of those polled in both countries (diplomacy, open negotiations) is premised on the non-existence of the problem.

If everyone in the US who supported diplomacy (recall that is 53% of Americans) thought that the current Iranian regime was groovy, then there would be no need for a diplomatic approach to the problem...'cuz there wouldn't be a problem to solve.

You, on the other hand, see the solution to the problem as ????????????????? Threats? Military strikes? What?

[Neu Mejican]

Back to the issue at hand...the election.

Given that only those approved by the supreme leader were allowed to run, the election was illegitimate from the get go. I am not sure how this election being even more fucked up than usual is really much of a game changer. Sure we should point out the irony to the leaders and sure we should support those that call for free elections. But if the leaders of Iran decide to change their mind a pick a different puppet, I am not sure we should call that a win for democracy.

[dhex]

I am not sure how this election being even more fucked up than usual is really much of a game changer.

pretty much. their democratitude or lack of 'tude is more akin to trivia.

[felix_jones]

Golly, I can't wait for that to begin. When a nuclear bomb goes off in either Tel Aviv or Los Angeles, don't say you weren't warned.

Good. Now that I've been warned, what happens exactly? It's not as easy or fun as preparing for zombies.

[the innominate one]

joshua corning, jr, and John:

If Andrew Sullivan makes you want to vomit, you should reconsider deep-throating him.

Hugh Akston:

Many, many biologists, including myself, will be surprised to hear that "parasitized" is not a word.

Tulpa:

"Tulpa | June 14, 2009, 6:44pm | #

JsubD,

Those were just A-bombs, though, much less powerful than the stuff we have today (as ONDCP would say). And there's a lot more weather in the fertile crescent to carry fallout and such than we have in NM."

What "we have today" is irrelevant in a discussion of Tehran ordering Israel to be bombed.

"No one should think President McHopey can get naked and ride his unicorn over to Iran and patch things up." - John

Ok, that's pretty funny, as long as you don't actually form the mental image.

[joshua corning]

joshua corning, jr, and John:

If Andrew Sullivan makes you want to vomit, you should reconsider deep-throating him.

Hugh Akston:

Many, many biologists, including myself, will be surprised to hear that "parasitized" is not a word.

Is it irony that you totally missed how Sullivan parasitized the events in Iran to aggrandize Obama's election?

[Les]

Thinking that the U.S. government can keep us safe from other governments by threatening them and/or invading/bombing them, is no different at all than thinking that the U.S. government can efficiently provide high-quality education and healthcare for all its citizens.

Both beliefs require a devout faith in the state.

[Les]

And before someone brings up World War 2, please think about it, first.

[Enough About Palin]

"On the lighter side, did anyone else notice that a high percentage of Iranian women are hawt."

Oh yeah. Have known this for years.

[R C Dean]

Unfotunately, Obama-style negotiations-without-preconditions will send the message that we regard the current Iranian regime as legitimate negotiating partners, and hence, well, legitimate. We will become invested over time in maintaining our negotiating partner as a partner, and hence as the rulers of Iran. Regime change, including peaceful regime change, will not be a goal, really, of the United States. We will not even the little we can to encourage the popular resistance to the mullahs, and will thus discourage it.

[Neu Mejican]

RC Dean,

Although I appreciate your point, not engaging does nothing to encourage popular resistance. Not engaging does nothing to reduce the internal power the current leadership has over their country. The only party that matters in terms of their legitimacy is the Iranian people. Since the leadership uses our rift with them as a distraction/excuse, non-engagement plays into their hand.

There is not a perfect solution. But the course we have been on for the last couple of decades ain't been too productive.

[R C Dean]

Although I appreciate your point, not engaging does nothing to encourage popular resistance.

Who said anything about not engaging? Its the way we engage that matters. My fear is that Obama is so committed to dialogue that he doesn't care who he is talking to, and doesn't see how dialogue-without-conditions legitimizes his negotiating partner and demoralizes the opposition.

By all means, talk to the Iranians. But don't do it like some naif fresh out of grad school.

Tell them we think their regime lacks legitimacy, that we think it is a destabilizing influence on the region, that we offer our moral support to those elements of the population seeking a more legitimate government, and that we are prepared to reward behavior that is conducive to those ends.

[Neu Mejican]

RC Dean,

Indeed, it matters how we engage.

Please explain how "negotiations WITH preconditions" does anything to de-legitimize the Iranian leadership. It seems to me, it primarily helps them maintain their position with their people, which adds to their hold on power.

Open negotiations without condition takes away one of the excuses the leadership has for their belligerent stance with the US and the world.

It seems.

[Neu Mejican]

I think this comes down to an interesting feature of political life. Leadership says things they don't mean to the populace that, in the end, can keep them as leaders or rise up and kick them out. They say things that they think the people want to hear...platitudes about all men being equal before the law, democracy, etc...

They may not mean these things, but the people who hear them believe them, and begin to expect them. When the leadership does not live up to those ideals, the people push for them and chip away at the limits the leaders attempt to impose.

Open negotiations with the US, could push this process forward in Iran, just as, I believe, this election cycle has (however minutely).

Get the leaders saying that they are not the aggressors, that they don't want nuclear weapons, that they want peaceful engagement, and their people will expect them to follow through. As long as they can, however, point to the outsiders threatening them at every turn, they have a rationale to present to their people.

[R C Dean]

Please explain how "negotiations WITH preconditions" does anything to de-legitimize the Iranian leadership.

Preconditions is really code for non-negotiable demands that we make that must be met before any of our commitments are engaged. I would suggest:

(1) Shutting down their nuke program, or at least re-engineering it under complete transparency so that it cannot be weaponized.

(2) Shutting off all support for Hamas and Hezbollah. If they want to support peaceful humanitarian efforts elsewhere in the region, go right ahead, just not those two. Perhaps we could even offer to match their contributions dollar for dollar in joint humanitarian projects.

(3) The internal dynamics are the hardest. On that one, probably our best course is to make lots of flowery speeches about how the Iranian people should be enfranchised, blah, blah. I know just the guy to make those speeches.

Open negotiations without condition takes away one of the excuses the leadership has for their belligerent stance with the US and the world.

Without doing one thing to reduce their belligerent stance, while legitimizing and entrenching the current regime. Our diplomatic stance toward Iran is a pretext, not a cause, for their aggression.

[Neu Mejican]

RC Dean,

Our diplomatic stance toward Iran is a pretext, not a cause, for their aggression.

I agree. In fact, that is what I just said.

I don't have a problem with your list, however, I believe those would be the GOALS of the negotiations. If they are non-negotiables, then there is no reason to talk and you maintain the pretext.

[JB]

Go look at the data. It's obviously rigged and rigged badly. The retards can't even rig an election properly.

[Paul]

Given that only those approved by the supreme leader were allowed to run, the election was illegitimate from the get go.

So their elections are publicly funded.

[wizard of oz books]

With many new announcement about the wizard of oz movies in the news, you might want to consider starting to obtain Wizard of Oz book series either as collectible or investment at RareOzBooks.com.

[mbt]

hi,
everybody, take your time and a little bit.sartsrt