Iranian democracy

[...]

It's very good stuff. Wasn't so hard, now, was it?

 

[josef k.]

This website is blocked in UK...which episode was it?

It featured numerous quotes from House Republicans comparing their plight to that of the Iranians.

**

In other news, cracks in the regime are developing. From the Huffpost:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/13/iran-demonstrations-viole_n_215189.html]

"Clerical association releases aggressive statement. The NIAC has the full statement by the Organization of Combatant Clergy released today."

Millions of informed and decent people who believe that their votes have been tampered with, and that their intellect has been insulted, and for the defence of their rights and dignity have in a spontaneous manner come into the streets to express their pain and sense of oppression. You (the regime) insult them, and have stolen thousands of them from the streets and from their homes and taken them to unknown places. You have attacked the students and to these people who call out God is Great or Ya Hossein - you attack them like Moghuls.


You dare to blame these attacks on the people themselves.

We strongly support Mr. Mousavi - especially against the accusations that all the unrest and damage is due to his actions. This damage is the responsibility of those who turned our city into a barracks. They should be identified, arrested and charged.

Also:

8:07 PM ET -- 'Rafsanjani poised to outflank Khamenei.' An analysis by Eurasianet, a project of George Soros' Open Society Institute:

Looking past their fiery rhetoric and apparent determination to cling to power using all available means, Iran's hardliners are not a confident bunch. While hardliners still believe they possess enough force to stifle popular protests, they are worried that they are losing a behind-the-scenes battle within Iran's religious establishment.


A source familiar with the thinking of decision-makers in state agencies that have strong ties to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said there is a sense among hardliners that a shoe is about to drop. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani -- Iran's savviest political operator and an arch-enemy of Ayatollah Khamenei's -- has kept out of the public spotlight since the rigged June 12 presidential election triggered the political crisis. The widespread belief is that Rafsanjani has been in the holy city of Qom, working to assemble a religious and political coalition to topple the supreme leader and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

"There is great apprehension among people in the supreme leader's [camp] about what Rafsanjani may pull," said a source in Tehran who is familiar with hardliner thinking. "They [the supreme leader and his supporters] are much more concerned about Rafsanjani than the mass movement on the streets."

 

[crackerjack]

It's very good stuff. Wasn't so hard, now, was it?

He has, as you know, played it perfectly - kept a respectful distance to allow the demonstrators to build their own momentum unsullied by Great Satan interference, then gradually turned up the heat as the regime's true face became clear to all, especially the Iranians.

 

[crackerjack]

It featured numerous quotes from House Republicans comparing their plight to that of the Iranians.

!!!!!

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

It's very good stuff. Wasn't so hard, now, was it?

yeh I guessed you'd like a lot of it.

also reckon Crackerjack's dead right - he's played it very well & that despite a great amount of (gross & disingenuous) Republican/neo-con pressure.

Forget where the point was made - in a comment or in a link - that POTUS & other major U.S. political figures need to be wary of making bold statements about other countries' internal politics if they're not prepared to back up their statements. Lest we spur people on & then leave them twisting in the wind a la Iraqi dissidents during/after Gulf War I.

 

[...]

that POTUS & other major U.S. political figures need to be wary of making bold statements about other countries' internal politics if they're not prepared to back up their statements. Lest we spur people on & then leave them twisting in the wind a la Iraqi dissidents during/after Gulf War I.

Well obviously I agree with that.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

!!!!!

yeah it was hilarious (& more than a bit sickening).

some highlights:

Rep Pete Hofstra, Michigan - "Iranian twitter activity similar to we what did in House last year when Repubs were shut down in house."

the winner:

Rep David Drier, "I wonder if there isn't the more freedom on the streets of Tehran right now than we are seeing here." in re: to Dems shutting down a debate on spending

I didn't see the interview but fittingly the guest was crazy fundamentalist/ex-ARK guvna/pres. candidate Mike Huckabee

 

[josef k.]

I didn't see the interview but fittingly the guest was crazy fundamentalist/ex-ARK guvna/pres. candidate Mike Huckabee

OT, but I was quite impressed with that interview... Huckabee at least seemed humane to me, while the earnestness with which the discussion was conducted seemed like a throwback to another era. Definitely superior to Stewart's occasional interviews with stupid bimbo actors and actresses.

 

[crackerjack]

OT, but I was quite impressed with that interview... Huckabee at least seemed humane to me, while the earnestness with which the discussion was conducted seemed like a throwback to another era. Definitely superior to Stewart's occasional interviews with stupid bimbo actors and actresses.

Huckabee seemed OK once the campaign was over - he was one of few Repubs to explain that Jeremiah Wright's comments had to be seen in the context of centuries of slavery and segregation. He has a Fox show now, doesn't he? That way madness lies.

 

[scottdisco]

which one was it, either Huckabee or one of the other GOP men, not McCain, that had a reputation for delivering a few funny lines now and again?

i saw a YouTube of whoever it was once (already forgotten everybody from the GOP side that wasn't McCain or Huckabee) and they were quite witty on the stump.

well there was Romney right, wasn't there.

him, maybe, i dunno.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

sorry to get more OT

yeh the weird thing about Huckabee is that he delivers all that crazy stuff - literal Bible, creationism, absolutely vile stuff about gay people, etc. - in an affable, charming manner. he seems - at least comes across as a genuinely nice dude (unlike, say, Mitt Romney, who looks like the wax statue of a SWPer's caricature of a smarmy capitalist).

and I remember during the campaign there was a bit of a to-do (ah yes, American politics) about his classic rock band called, actually kinda wittily, Capital Offense.

 

[crackerjack]

Imagine if the Bush administration still governed. Had they continued to issue threats and provoke confrontation with Iran Mousavi would probably not have disputed the voter fraud and called on his supporters to take to the streets. Due to the perceived national security threat, he would have swallowed his pride and anger, and asked his followers to do the same.It is because of the absence of an external threat that internal differences have been able to drive Iran's political developments to the current standoff. Internally driven political change could neither have been initiated nor come about under the shadow of an American military threat. If America's posture returns to that of the Bush administration, these indigenous forces for change may be quelled by the forces of fear and ultranationalism.

Trita Parsi is president and cofounder of the National Iranian American Council and author of "Treacherous Alliances: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States."

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0622/p09s03-coop.html

 

[...]

Bollocks.

 

[...]

Or: "conjecture". Are you quoting that as fact or opinion?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Which part is "bollocks", and why? Obviously I'm not the geopolitics expert here, but it seems to make perfect sense to me that explicit support from a still-empowered Bush for Mousavi would be the death knell of the reformers' movement. Would that not be the case?

I mean, Mousavi's faction may be in favour of dialogue with America, just as Obama is in favour of dialogue with Iran - but that's a long way from saying Mousavi is "pro-American". Any indication that America (let alone a Bush-led America) were explicitly "pro-Mousavi" would surely look to many Iranians like evidence that Mousavi were "pro-American", and it's hard not to see that as very damaging to his integrity in the eyes of his supporters, no?

 

[...]

The Bush administration in a comparable position (which was 2) would not have called it for Mousavi, in any way. It was a disaster in regards to Iran, it had no policy. It would have reacted just like Obama one week ago, maybe weaker. If you remember, Cheney was occluded, Condi in control, via State. Not that distant to our own Foreign Office mandarins.

What's more realist and diplomatic than saying, 3 days into irruption, Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are no different?

You may think that Obama played it "perfectly"; I don't think he did. I think he was shocked and out-played by it, as many were. Including all those who think this is "spontaneous" and just about the election.

He's catching up, quite frankly; it's disrupting his plans.

I'm also slightly naused by the back-slapping going on here. And this Neda/martyr thing is getting ghoulish and sickly.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

^^I'm generally naused by your rampant auld bastard miserablism but you don't hear me whinging on about it. glad to see it's still impossible to rationally discuss politics w/o some sniffy jerk declaring himself the gatekeeper of being truly informed. I remember it used to be guys wearing Italian pirate radio t-shirts, now it's some dude who says "Where Were U During the Arab Spring?".

 

[droid]

Give Craner a break Padraig, he's been involved in dubious political circle jerks over Iran for years and this is his long awaited money shot.

 

[...]

Oh Good Lord, apologies. Case of extreme dyspepsia last night, I'm afaraid.

 

[crackerjack]

Or: "conjecture". Are you quoting that as fact or opinion?

Of course it's merely opinion. I'm just enjoying winding you up by underlining the extent to which so much of that opinion is coming down on the side of Obama (a subject you were the first here to raise, btw, so don't get too 'naused').

He's catching up, quite frankly; it's disrupting his plans.

No shit sherlock! That's what happens with unexpected revolutions. Events, dear boy.

The Bush administration in a comparable position (which was 2) would not have called it for Mousavi, in any way. It was a disaster in regards to Iran, it had no policy. It would have reacted just like Obama one week ago, maybe weaker. If you remember, Cheney was occluded, Condi in control, via State. Not that distant to our own Foreign Office mandarins.

This rewriting of history - the Bush admin wasn't neo-con enough, too many covert Kissingerians - is fucking disturbing, frankly. No explicit calls for regime change, no funds for opposition, no military threats? It was the collapse of their Iraq policy that ensured realism re Iran, not a lack of ideological mettle.

Including all those who think this is "spontaneous" and just about the election.

I'd be interested in hearing more about this - the spontaneous bit, I mean. (I agree with the other part).


and finally otm Tea and LOL @ Padraig.