Iranian Politics

[Higgins]

Reza Khatami suggests their president is doing a bad job.

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/simon_tisdall/2007/10/state_of_disorder.html

[William Haskins]

yeah, if we just wait it out, everything will be fine.

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/img4183e6b6b7dbc.jpg

Tehran, Oct. 30 - Zhila Izadyar, the 13-year-old schoolgirl from the Iranian town of Marivan (north-western Iran) who is sentenced to be stoned to death is reported to be in poor health after she was lashed 55 times in prison.

Azad Zamani of the Society for the Protection of Children’s Rights has said that Zhila’s health has been rapidly deteriorating.

Zamani has managed to visit Zhila although under close supervision of the Iranian regime’s agents. Zamani stated that Zhila said, “I am scared; I want to go home; I want to be able to go back to school like other kids”.

Zhila was convicted of having an incestuous relationship with her 15-year-old brother and giving birth to an illegitimate child.

Zhila is reported to have been in a very bad state while she has had to spend time in solitary confinement under close guard. Zamani had reported that Zhila now has a very bad eating pattern and she constantly vomits.

Another source, who wished not to be named, said that Zhila has been beaten by guards while she in jail and has not been allowed to see her newborn child.

Reports have also come out that Zhila’s brother Bakhtiar has also been flogged in prison. Zhila faces death by stoning while Bakhtiar faces 150 lashes as well as prison time, according to the clerical judge who issued their verdict.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=634

[Higgins]

yeah, if we just wait it out, everything will be fine.

http://www.iranfocus.com/uploads/img4183e6b6b7dbc.jpg

Tehran, Oct. 30 - Zhila Izadyar, the 13-year-old schoolgirl from the Iranian town of Marivan (north-western Iran) who is sentenced to be stoned to death is reported to be in poor health after she was lashed 55 times in prison.

Azad Zamani of the Society for the Protection of Children’s Rights has said that Zhila’s health has been rapidly deteriorating.

Zamani has managed to visit Zhila although under close supervision of the Iranian regime’s agents. Zamani stated that Zhila said, “I am scared; I want to go home; I want to be able to go back to school like other kids”.

Zhila was convicted of having an incestuous relationship with her 15-year-old brother and giving birth to an illegitimate child.

Zhila is reported to have been in a very bad state while she has had to spend time in solitary confinement under close guard. Zamani had reported that Zhila now has a very bad eating pattern and she constantly vomits.

Another source, who wished not to be named, said that Zhila has been beaten by guards while she in jail and has not been allowed to see her newborn child.

Reports have also come out that Zhila’s brother Bakhtiar has also been flogged in prison. Zhila faces death by stoning while Bakhtiar faces 150 lashes as well as prison time, according to the clerical judge who issued their verdict.

http://www.iranfocus.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=634

And by suggesting that not waiting might be a good idea you're suggesting that a few thousand tons of bombs would be helpful or what? What are you actually trying to say under the heading of floggings and stonings? Are you suggesting anything in particular at all?

[William Haskins]

i am saying that the pollyanna view (that if we just sit back and wait, moderates will rise up and the horrible human rights abuses and international threat of iran will dissipate) is naive and flies in the face of history.

does that mean bomb them? at this point, i say no. but i think the west should monitor closely any aggressive behavior and movement toward nuclear weapons and we should be proactive in bringing to bear political solutions.

[Higgins]

i am saying that the pollyanna view (that if we just sit back and wait, moderates will rise up and the horrible human rights abuses and international threat of iran will dissipate) is naive and flies in the face of history.

does that mean bomb them? at this point, i say no. but i think the west should monitor closely any aggressive behavior and movement toward nuclear weapons and we should be proactive in bringing to bear political solutions.

If you aren't for bombing some time soon then your view is more or less the same as the pollyanna view. Moreover if you think that there is some point in being proactive in bringing to bear political solutions, this implies you can imagine some kind of moderation in some aspects of Iranian policy.
But, since they haven't actually done anything immoderate internationally, what you really want is for them to stop being so mean to their own people. Or, you want what most Iranians seem to want which is for the religious authorities to be more reasonable and less religious.

[William Haskins]

But, since they haven't actually done anything immoderate internationally...

please tell me you didn't type this with a straight face.

[rugcat]

please tell me you didn't type this with a straight face.I think he means in comparison to say, the U.S.

[Higgins]

please tell me you didn't type this with a straight face.


What have they done?

[RumpleTumbler]

Could we just kill the clerics forever and ever and ever?

You know....kill the existing set and all sets that replace them until the end of time? It's only 5 years it wouldn't be that many folks.

[Higgins]

Could we just kill the clerics forever and ever and ever?

You know....kill the existing set and all sets that replace them until the end of time? It's only 5 years it wouldn't be that many folks.

Maybe you should consult some Mayan clerical types since you seem to be worried about the end of the 13th baktun. Admittedly since it started in 1618, it has been a scary baktun, but maybe the next baktun will be better.

http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/katun.html

[RumpleTumbler]

Maybe you should consult some Mayan clerical types since you seem to be worried about the end of the 13th baktun. Admittedly since it started in 1618, it has been a scary baktun, but maybe the next baktun will be better.

http://members.shaw.ca/mjfinley/katun.html

I'm not worried about it. It should be an exciting time.

Really though....if you just put a bullet in the head of every cleric in Iran and like the moment they accepted the position "pow" their head explodes. After a few years I imagine it wouldn't be such a popular post to hold onto. Fun for the snipers as well.

ETA....that web site makes me feel like I'm going to have a seizure. Do you have whatever information you wanted me to read presented in a way I can read it?

[Higgins]

I'm not worried about it. It should be an exciting time.

Really though....if you just put a bullet in the head of every cleric in Iran and like the moment they accepted the position "pow" their head explodes. After a few years I imagine it wouldn't be such a popular post to hold onto. Fun for the snipers as well.

ETA....that web site makes me feel like I'm going to have a seizure. Do you have whatever information you wanted me to read presented in a way I can read it?

Yeah, its a hard-to-read website. I thought you might like a glimpse of the katun prophecies.

On shooting clerics: to paraphrase Hamlet: if you shot everybody who deserves to be shot, then who would escape being shot?

[RumpleTumbler]

Yeah, its a hard-to-read website. I thought you might like a glimpse of the katun prophecies.

I've seen several programs on it....History Channel type stuff. Interesting stuff. They are now saying this "lost writing of Nostradamus" says 2012 as well. Some computer search tool that spiders the web is predicting some cataclysmic event in 2012. I wonder if all the year 2000 folks just need a shot in the bank account. Anyway.....didn't mean to derail......carry on.

[William Haskins]

What have they done?

have they not provided material support for hezbollah, hamas, palestine islamic jihad, and ahmad jibril's PFLP-GC?

come on, man. we discuss the comparative virtues of intervention vs. letting the mullahs rot on the vine, but isn't some basis in reality required?

[Higgins]

have they not provided material support for hezbollah, hamas, palestine islamic jihad, and ahmad jibril's PFLP-GC?

come on, man. we discuss the comparative virtues of intervention vs. letting the mullahs rot on the vine, but isn't some basis in reality required?

Well...Hezbollah (a Shia militia) definitely and for Shia militias in Iraq. I don't see why they would support non-Shia, non-militia type groups. This is less of an intervention than say Turkey our NATO ally who is blasting our Kurdish allies in northern Iraq and unlike say the US provision of nuclear weapons to NATO allies like Belgium and Turkey, doesn't violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Also, the US has recently entirely occupied a country (Iraq) right next door to Iran which is a lot more extreme than anything Iran has done.

The basis in reality is that Iran is a major regional power whose regional position has been very much improved by having the USA blow away the Taliban on one side of Iran and the Baathist regime on the other, leaving Iran with no serious regional worries at all. Plus the US and Iran are both supporting the majority Shia regime in Iraq...which solves another big problem for Iran, ie a serious sectarian war in Iraq.
So the US has made things a lot easier regionally for Iran and in fact in geopolitical terms the US and Iran are natural allies. As long as we don't bomb Iran sometime in the next few months, it seems likely that Iran will work to keep the US happily installed in Iraq since having the US keep the Sunnis under control there is a perfect thing from the Iranian point of view.

As for mullahs...as soon as the USA figures out that Iran is a valuable ally, I'm sure the news will be flooded with stories of virtuous and kindly mullahs.

[clintl]

i am saying that the pollyanna view (that if we just sit back and wait, moderates will rise up and the horrible human rights abuses and international threat of iran will dissipate) is naive and flies in the face of history.



Why? There are more countries that have found their way from dictatorship to democracy by that path (internal pro-democracy forces emerging and gaining control) than have found their way to democracy by having a foreign power attack them. And Iran has both a significant pro-democracy faction (especially among its younger citizens) and some existent democratic processes.

[Joe270]

as soon as the USA figures out that Iran is a valuable ally

????? This statement is just so counter to any recent history that it boggles the mind.

Granted, many young Iranians look to the west, even the US and like what they see, but the country, the government of Iran is dedicated to the destruction of the west, the US in particular.

The naiveté of this statement absolutely stuns me.

[joetrain]

while i wouldn't go as far as to say the iranian govt is dedicated to the destruction of the west, it does seem that any alliance would hinge more on changes in their diplomacy than ours.

but in general, our policies are mutually exclusive. islamic iran is necessarily bound by its ideology to pursue a global islamic empire. in response, for the past half-century the us policy in the middle east has been to keep the region's nations seperate.

that being said, any winds of democratic reformation in iran is good news. the best and cheapest way to go about establishing the kind of democracy that would separate the iranian govt from religious imperialism would be by way of internal, modernizing factions.

[blacbird]

does that mean bomb them? at this point, i say no. but i think the west should monitor closely any aggressive behavior and movement toward nuclear weapons and we should be proactive in bringing to bear political solutions.

Ummm . . . isn't that pretty much what Democrats are saying? As opposed to the vaguely phrased threats issued by the Dick Cheneys of this Administration? Have you been attacked by the liberal virus, William?

caw

[WildHeart]

I'm not worried about it. It should be an exciting time.

Really though....if you just put a bullet in the head of every cleric in Iran and like the moment they accepted the position "pow" their head explodes. After a few years I imagine it wouldn't be such a popular post to hold onto. Fun for the snipers as well.

ETA....that web site makes me feel like I'm going to have a seizure. Do you have whatever information you wanted me to read presented in a way I can read it?

Well, sure.
God what a disgusting thing to say.

But here's the rub -- the more radical of them think if they could just put a bullet in the head of every Christian Cleric in the west, the world would be a happier and more peaceful place, too.

[Joe270]

the more radical of them think if they could just put a bullet in the head of every Christian Cleric in the west, the world would be a happier and more peaceful place, too.

Sure, and it would be, too, if both extremists groups got the same treatment.

Now all we gotta do is figure out how to line up all the lawyers for the same treatment. Then we're talkin' a better world, by darn.

[WildHeart]

Ha! Civilized sort of a guy, are you?

[Joe270]

Civilized sort of a guy, are you?

Nope. You're just new on the block. Welcome to the fray, have some fun and don't take anyone too seriously.

Except for Haggis, take him very, very seriously if you like your shoes.

[Magdalen]

Sometimes, when a posted reply makes not a sense of bit, it's best to click on to some other thread and see what is going on over there, before you decide to respond to the non-sensical bit over here. Or not. Only some of us aspire to the UN.

[Joe270]

Mag, we stopped making sense a long time ago.

[SC Harrison]

i am saying that the pollyanna view (that if we just sit back and wait, moderates will rise up and the horrible human rights abuses and international threat of iran will dissipate) is naive and flies in the face of history.



It depends on what history you study, no? If you analyze the changes that have impacted totalitarian regimes in the last 30-40 years, economics has played a much greater role than all other factors combined. Of course, exerting economic pressure on a nation is not "sitting back", by any stretch of the term. But those who believe true power can only be evidenced when shit gets blown up would have us think so.

The appearance of Ahmadenijad on the scene might seem like a "hardening" of Iranian beliefs, but it is actually a sign of the evolution of the Iranian citizenry towards a more democratic state. While he may not be what the average American would consider an "ideal" proponent of democracy, Khatami presided over (what I believe was) an effort by the ruling clerics to adapt their society into something that could not only survive but prosper. The fall of the Soviet Union was a wake-up call, and they knew that the Iranian people (as intellectual as they are) would demand progress.

But things went a little too fast for them, and the potential for a total upheaval led them to make a "correction", in the form of Ahmadenijad. Promising both order and economic revitalization, he appeared to be the perfect solution. But he's only followed through on one of those promises, and now his behavior is endangering the Republic. He will go, and he will be replaced by a moderate. And the slow change will continue.

Unless something catastrophic happens.

[Higgins]

????? This statement is just so counter to any recent history that it boggles the mind.

Granted, many young Iranians look to the west, even the US and like what they see, but the country, the government of Iran is dedicated to the destruction of the west, the US in particular.

The naiveté of this statement absolutely stuns me.

while i wouldn't go as far as to say the iranian govt is dedicated to the destruction of the west, it does seem that any alliance would hinge more on changes in their diplomacy than ours.

but in general, our policies are mutually exclusive. islamic iran is necessarily bound by its ideology to pursue a global islamic empire. in response, for the past half-century the us policy in the middle east has been to keep the region's nations seperate.

that being said, any winds of democratic reformation in iran is good news. the best and cheapest way to go about establishing the kind of democracy that would separate the iranian govt from religious imperialism would be by way of internal, modernizing factions.

The realities of the situation have little to do with Iranian dreams of an Islamic Empire (and in fact it would be the Sunnis who have such dreams, not the Shia in Iran)...Iran is as besieged by Sunnis as we are. The Shia of Iraq are our main allies there and they are closely allied to Iran as well. Iran was a deadly enemy of the Baathist regime in Iraq and so were we.
In the long term, Iran needs us (the USA) to stay involved in a positive way in the region to counter-balance Russia and the Saudis. We were Iran's ally when the Shah ran the place and we will eventually ally with Iran again. In fact I would be surprised if some kind of local understandings were not coming into place already as far as the role of the Iranians in rebuilding Iraq, supporting the Shia and stabilizing Kurdistan.

[Joe270]

We were Iran's ally when the Shah ran the place and we will eventually ally with Iran again.

In the past, Iran was very 'westernized', for lack of a better term, and the people were pro-west and progressive. A large part of the population still seems to want democracy and a secular government.

But until the theocracy is replaced and the fundamentalists are brought into this century, no alliance will take place.

[robeiae]

What century is it, again?

[blacbird]

In the past, Iran was very 'westernized', for lack of a better term, and the people were pro-west and progressive. A large part of the population still seems to want democracy and a secular government.

But until the theocracy is replaced and the fundamentalists are brought into this century, no alliance will take place.

All correct. But remember, the Iranian Revolution, led by the medieval Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, took place and succeeded only because the west (specifically the United States of America) had imposed upon Iran a corrupt despotic ruler-for-life (Reza Shah Pahlavi) who was kept in power for a quarter-century by Western support, and was despised by almost everybody in Iran, for good reason.

Kind of like what happened in Cuba in 1959. Kind of like what happened in Russia in 1917. Kind of like what's probably happening in Pakistan right now. Revolutions do not happen out of a vacuum.

caw

[dmytryp]

All correct. But remember, the Iranian Revolution, led by the medieval Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, took place and succeeded only because the west (specifically the United States of America) had imposed upon Iran a corrupt despotic ruler-for-life (Reza Shah Pahlavi) who was kept in power for a quarter-century by Western support, and was despised by almost everybody in Iran, for good reason.

Kind of like what happened in Cuba in 1959. Kind of like what happened in Russia in 1917. Kind of like what's probably happening in Pakistan right now. Revolutions do not happen out of a vacuum.

caw

It would be a bit shortsighted to root 1917 revolution in Russia only to the current Tzar. The revolutionary movements were very strong much earlier. This was also a different world -- where much of what the communist said was actually true. The Revolution was as much a wake up call for the West and brought many changes towards improvement of workers and citizens rights (well, at least in Europe).

[Higgins]

In the past, Iran was very 'westernized', for lack of a better term, and the people were pro-west and progressive. A large part of the population still seems to want democracy and a secular government.

But until the theocracy is replaced and the fundamentalists are brought into this century, no alliance will take place.


Why is a fundamentalist theocracy more of a problem than say a commie regime (as in China)? I'm sure we can work with the Iranians if we decide we need to work with the Iranians. We may not get all we want, but it will be better than having no understandings with them. Once we get over the obsession with bombing them, things should work out a lot better.

[Joe270]

Nope, not getting dragged into the theocracy debate. That one already ran way past its course.

[TheGaffer]

but the country, the government of Iran is dedicated to the destruction of the west, the US in particular.

Dedicated?

C'mon.

Sure, they yell a lot. Lots of rhetoric about hating us and wishing us death (and the UK too).

But if they're dedicated, what exactly have they done in the last 30+ years to really strike the death blow against the U.S.? They do fund Hezbollah and Hamas, but remember, those organizations have their own fight - and it's with Israel. That's not "the West," as it's commonly known (that's the US, UK, Western Europe and a handful of others, really).

They took a few hostages a ways back. Ok. They don't seem to like Israel much.But otherwise, what? Are they biding their time?