Unfortunately, Khamenei is now calling the election over, and threatening a crackdown if people don’t stop protesting. They’re not going to relinquish one iota of power. If the Republican Guard is fully on board with Khamenei, then it seems to me that either this will quietly fade away, or we’re going to see some brutal repression in the next few weeks.
It’s hard to see how a new revolution can happen in this case. If the armed forces can’t be turned, and there is no leader with high religious credibility to lead the people, as Ayatollah Khomenii was in 1979, then it’s hard to see how these widespread protests can turn into something with enough firepower to actually topple the government.
I also notice that the Congress has passed a resolution condemning the Iranian government’s actions, with an almost unanimous vote (Ron Paul being the only nay vote). Good for them. If only Obama had half their good sense in this case
Think the USSR, not Yugoslavia. The core-state of Russia, an entity with very deep historic roots, could lose non-Russian territories such as the Ukraine and still remain Russia, and keep the name and, as a “successor state,” inherit the USSR’s embassies and armed forces and treaty commitments. Likewise, Iran could lose some or all of its non-Persian territories and remain Iran.
Sam, there are religious leaders of credibility coming out with other POVs. It is not at all clear that Khamenei has the capacity to call for a brutal crackdown if the Council itself is splintered. Of course it isn’t clear that he does not. It also is not clear what would happen if he did. BG’s multiple knives yielded by multiple overlapping and conflicting interest groups might indeed be unsheathed and the end results of such an event may be hard to predict.
As to Congress’s resolution. What stupidity. A self-serving action most assured to have either no effect or the exact opposite than that desired. If you want to help the powers in charge put down this protest then this resolution is what you do. I can assure you - Moussavi and his supporters would much rather not have the explicit support of American politicians and Khamenei is no doubt grateful that they now have it.
Iran is already blaming the U.S. The Iranian people are not. The fact is, the Iranian people themselves are generally quite pro-western, and they are very young. A word of encouragement from Obama would be a morale booster for them, I’d think. Yes, the bloviating assholes running the country would bluster on about it, but no one takes their rantings seriously.
The governments of France and Great Britain have managed to rouse themselves enough to make formal statements of condemnation. The U.S. is conspicuously silent.
On the other hand, Obama may be worried about repeating the mistakes of previous administrations - I’m thinking about the U.S. encouraging the Shiites to revolt in Iraq after the first Gulf War, then doing nothing as they were mowed down by Saddam’s goons.
It won’t quietly fade away. Iran has had these rumblings for a while, as in more than a decade and it only seems to be growing, not fading.
Revolution or real reform, either way.
Thank God he has the good sense NOT to say anything. Congress condemning them is all well and good and Obama staying silent is the perfect response. Thank god we finally have a diplomat in the White House and not a blustering fool.
I think this is part of it, yes. We are in no position to commit military force to Iran in support of the protestors, and unless we are, condemnation is empty. Isn’t it the right that’s always going on about the toothlessness of the UN’s sternly worded resolutions?
Obama needs to keep this at arm’s length for the time being. There may come a moment at which stronger US intervention might be called for, but I haven’t seen that moment yet.
Obama remembers Mossadegh. That’s all that needs to be said. He doesn’t need to remind the world that last time they had a real democratic election we overthrew their government.
Hey Ali, y’know I’m getting kinda tired out with all this marching. And now our Supreme leader is threatening to fire on us. Whaddaya say we just go home?
What? Oh, the President of the United States, that country that has done such a great job in Iraq next door and that supported the Shah and all that, that United States, has given us a word of encouragement? Oh. Fine. Then let’s go! I’m boosted now!
:rolleyes:
OTOH there is Realpolitik.
Possibility one: Real reformists win. Okay unlikely. But they will be willing to work with the US whether or not we clumsily tried to support them or not.
Possibility two: Faux reformists win but are just as bad to the people and to our interests as the current crop. Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss. Just a few hundreds dead and much instability introduced along the way. And we helped! No easier to work with because we tried to butt into their process.
Possibility three: the current administration comes out on top. Bloody massacres along the way that we facilitated by words of support to go in the streets against an army. A great way to win friends and influence people. And now we want to negotiate about that nuclear program without having to resort to force. OTOH if we stayed out of it other that encouraging restraint from a forceful response and condemning only the use of force but not taking a position on that which we cannot actually know, then maybe we are no worse off or perhaps even in a better position relatively than before.
Possibility four: the protests fizzle. As above.
Attempting to explicitly encourage what may turn into a revolution, velvet or otherwise, is a losing bet in which the only option in which we at least don’t lose big is a longshot. It risks putting our country’s interests in a poorer place with no real potential for gain. It is posturing done by politicians who are not thinking about the real consequences. Thank god McCain lost as he seems to be leading the idiotic bluster brigade.
Thank goodness we are. Let’s jog our memories a little bit.
Remember Rafsanjani?
It looked like he had the backing of young people, reformists, and even had some cross-party support. And the US president had shown his support. Did this helpmuch? He was crushed.
I am relieved that Obama can learn from past mistakes and is keeping his mouth shut.
BBC TV has been doing a good job of staying balanced. They’ve been reporting on the pro-governemnt rallies all along. I just saw their man reporting from one. It was yesterday (Friday) rather than live, but it was originally shown live yesterday. Of course, the pro-government rallies are the only ones they’re allowed to report from now, but they were doing so even before that restriction. This has made it particularly galling for the British government that Iran publicly called the UK “evil” yesterday. The Iranian ambassador in London was called in and an explanation demanded.
Assyrians - Non-starter. This one is beyond a pipe-dream Re:Iran. Regardless of the level of support in the community ( which given its unreality probably isn’t huge ), the Assyrians et al. are a dominant minority nowhere in Iran. Their great stronghold outside urban Tehran is Urmia where they form less than 10% of the population. Total number of Assyrians in Iran = less than 70,000.
If you read carefully, you’ll see that all demands for a state center on Iraq, where Assyrians have a bit stronger concentration ( even then it isn’t much of a majority and since the recent diaspora, may no longer even be that ).
Kurds - the only ethnic secessionists of significance. Many certainly would like a state of their own. However the form a much smaller minority than in Iraq and over a third of them are Shi’a Kermanshahi Kurds ( most Kurds are Sunni ), who are much more assimilated and purportedly far less interested in secession or autonomy. Still if any group were to form a significant splinter it would be them.
Baluchi - A rather smaller minority than the Kurds. Very internally divided ( still a very tribal society ) and its hard to say how much violence can be attributed to seperatism as opposed to spats over banditry and smuggling. Far as anybody has been able to determine it’s pretty small potatoes compared to the Kurds. They’re a bigger and more organized threat ( such as it is ) in Pakistan. This one may be ramping up actually, but it’s very difficult to tell and regardless due to their isolation and small numbers probably doesn’t represent much of a threat to any central government.
Arabs - Pretty quiescent. Even if they weren’t, they’re a minority even in Khuzestan province ( which is very ethnically diverse in general ) and completely entwined with other populations, rather than forming a homogenous bloc anywhere.
Azeris - Some grievances, but on the whole heavily assimilated into the Iranian state, with many individuals and families in positions of political power ( among the elites in particular, intermarriage is common ). Witness Mousavi ;). Annexation of the former Soviet Azerbaijan would be far more liklely than the other way around ( note the “supported by a small minority tag” ).
SH appears to have expected ( or at least hoped for ) great things, but his attack went over like a lead balloon. The Khuzestani Arbs overwhelmingly rejected his overtures.
Shocking or not, it’s pretty much the opposite of what DSeid claimed.
Whether or not we should listen is another question entirely, and one on which I offered no comment. Learn to read, quit making assumptions, and rolleyes your own damn self.
Asking that the generic “governments of the world … not recognize the government of Ahmadinejad as the representative of Iran” is not asking for and happy to get “the explicit support of American politicians.” “International community” ≠ America, even if America is part of the international community - at least unless you think this is also begging for explicit Israeli support of their movement as well.
Show me a quote asking for and grateful for specifically American explicit support for their movement and then you have earned your smug snark pass for the day. Until then …
Um, no.
Learn to read your own self. Whether you be damned or blessed.
Meanwhile events unfold. The line is being crossed. We indeed must support the right to protest without violent consequences. The more strongly worded phrasing will come out of Obama’s mouth within a few hours. Of that I cannot assure but I can predict with some high degree of confidence.
