Whither Iran?

[3acres]

I guess we've all been watching events in Iran unfold since their election, and this morning on the radio I heard that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has declared the election to have been fair and honest. I've had the impression from US media (mostly news reports on World View on PBS, but including the major networks as well), that Mousavi was the guy most likely to bring greater freedom to the Iranian people. But this morning, I read this article (http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03.html) in the Asia Times Online, and it includes this gem:

Mousavi is the affable front man for the mullahs, who fear that another four years of Ahmadinejad would hurt their vested interests. Ahmadinejad has already begun marginalizing the clergy from the sinecures of power and the honey pots of the Iranian economy, especially the oil industry.

I admit, my opinion was that Ahmadinejad was a wacky, crazy-religious guy who was not at all interested in the welfare of his people or his nation. This article makes me think that I don't really have a clue as to which Iranian leaders are 'good guys' or 'bad guys', since it appears to present the notion that Ahmadinejad is working for the greater secularization of Iran.

Anyway, I'm just wondering what other people think. Did I misinterpret the article? Does the author know what he's talking about? Which candidate really would be better for Iran and the world? Is there a way out of this immediate situation, and is there a way out of the theocratic dictatorship they appear to have, that doesn't involve hundreds of thousands of deaths? If someone with greater understanding of this would like to work me over with a cluebat, I wouldn't mind too much.

[WednesdayAddams]

Mousavi is among those who helped depose the Shah, so he has a large amount of political clout with the citizenry. He has called for the same "days of mourning" he called for after the riots in 1979 which led to the Shah's downfall. I don't remember that time very well at all, but I do remember it was just as tense, with the same lock downs on the media. The difference this time is that the Ayatollah is backing Ahmadinejad (did I spell that right?), so he may well keep the spot.

One of the reasons it is so difficult to affect change in Iran is that one cannot even become a candidate without the church's approval. Their government is decidedly NOT secular.

[WednesdayAddams]

Update: I had not checked the news sources til just now, but from what is being reported in Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009620132648106415.html), the security forces are outnumbering the protesters, people are being shot in the streets (http://shooresh1917.blogspot.com/2009/06/minute-by-minute-with-revolution.html) and the AP is reporting that Revolution Square has been completely barricaded. Tehran University has been surrounded by police. Things are getting very frightening very quickly.

[3acres]

It certainly doesn't look encouraging, does it. Earlier in the week the demonstrators appeared to have the police outnumbered by thousands to one, but yesterday there was scarcely anyone out after the Supreme Leader pretty much issued an ultimatum. Even so, they'd apparently killed at least 6 or 7 people, even when the masses were out. I can't imagine what 30 years under this regime has been like, and it doesn't look like the theocracy will ever let go. All we can do is watch and hope the outcome isn't too horrible.

[Uthrecht]

Well, while I imagine that it can get pretty bad for those that dissent from the party line, I'm not sure that life has been pretty horrible otherwise for folks there, for the last 30 years. As Iranians proved 30 years ago, if enough of them don't like it, they can make it change. We'll see if they're proving it now. Of course, from what I hear this current set of demonstrations has the backing of at least one member of the council that names the Supreme Leader, so exactly how grassroots it is remains to be seen.

Iran and China are similar in that they have governments that want a fair amount of control over their people, and have entered into an interesting dance as a result. They need to give the appearance of control, and a certain amount of prosperity, in order to have the populace go along with them.

It's my understanding that the population of Iran is fairly deeply religious, particularly outside the cities. If there is anything approaching a revolution (i.e., the removal of Ahmadinejad and/or Khamenei), I think you won't see any wholesale change in the government at large.

[Lounsbury]

I guess we've all been watching events in Iran unfold since their election, ...


I admit, my opinion was that Ahmadinejad was a wacky, crazy-religious guy who was not at all interested in the welfare of his people or his nation. This article makes me think that I don't really have a clue as to which Iranian leaders are 'good guys' or 'bad guys', since it appears to present the notion that Ahmadinejad is working for the greater secularization of Iran. ...

No you don't have a clue, but then it is challenging to have one with respect to Iran.

Ahmadinejad most certainly is very interested in the Welface of his nation, he is a very genuine and sincere populist. From his point of view his is in fact doing good.

Of course he is an economic and political disaster, and has badly damaged the Iranian economy.

But the Western vision of him is really driven by a conflict of Iranian and Western interest - as well as of course his rather undiplomatic manner. That does not make him uninterested in the good of the nation (as he understands it).

It would seem doubtful from Moussavi's background that he is in any real sense "liberal" (although likely more liberal economically, or at least less populist).

Last item, it would be a mistake to conclude that the large urban areas of necessity reflect a wider national mood. While Iran is heavily urbanized, as in many places, the larger urban centers like Tehran may be relatively more "oppositional" than even medium sized cities.

[WednesdayAddams]

But the Western vision of him is really driven by a conflict of Iranian and Western interest - as well as of course his rather undiplomatic manner. That does not make him uninterested in the good of the nation (as he understands it).

It would seem doubtful from Moussavi's background that he is in any real sense "liberal" (although likely more liberal economically, or at least less populist)

This is what I think is overlooked by most of the people in my country, most especially those calling for the President to make a clear, loud statement in favor of Mousavi. None of them know what Mousavi actually stands for, only that he is not Ahmedinejad. They forget that no one attains even candidacy in Iran without the support of the clerics. We are NOT looking at a huge change under Mousavi. So while I think it's important to support the revolution as it applies to the will of the people...it's stupid in the extreme to close our eyes and support a candidate simply on the grounds that he isn't the other guy.

[Sgt. Max Fightmaster]

Thanks lounsbury. I always appreciate your contribution to ME discussions.

The media has done a good job framing this as old crazy v. new hotness, but has not really covered the actual distinctions between the two in any depth. Ahmedinejad understandably does not have a big fanbase in the west (the only real exposure being him acting like a dick on the international stage), but it is important to appreciate that there is a day-to-day function (other than 1. Antagonise the west and 2. Hate the Jews).

Any comments to the effect that Obama should "make a clear, loud statement in favor of Mousavi" (and the various other threats and denunciations they demand he make) is sabre-rattling to appeal to an ill-educated and ignorant voter base. Chest-thumping and jingoism is not a sensible foreign policy. Obama has pretty much said all he can and should, and even that is likely going to be mis-used.

[Ratel]

Anyone here keeping tabs on the Neda shooting?

[WednesdayAddams]

The last I had heard was that she was not in any way associated with the protest, turned a corner in order to get away from the crowd and was shot and killed by police. Has different information been released?

[Ratel]

The last I had heard was that she was not in any way associated with the protest, turned a corner in order to get away from the crowd and was shot and killed by police. Has different information been released?

Not yet. I'm extremely curious as to what actually happened. Blame has immediately been put on the militia, but it's too early to tell if this is merely a knee jerk reaction. Lots of unanswered questions at this point. One single shot to the heart? Was it an accidental discharge, or a selected target? A random killing? Has the shooter been positively identified?

[Ratel]

Neda (http://photos.mg.co.za/view_photo.php?gid=382&pid=5393)

[WednesdayAddams]

Witnesses are saying she was definitely targeted. Here's (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8113552.stm) the BBC's interview with her fiance.

She was near the area, a few streets away, from where the main protests were taking place, near the Amir-Abad area. She was with her music teacher, sitting in a car and stuck in traffic.

She was feeling very tired and very hot. She got out of the car for just for a few minutes. And that's when it all happened.

That's when she was shot dead. Eyewitnesses and video footage of the shooting clearly show that probably Basij paramilitaries in civilian clothing deliberately targeted her. Eyewitnesses said they clearly targeted her and she was shot in the chest.

She passed away within a few minutes. People tried to take her to the nearest hospital, the Shariati hospital. But it was too late.

The NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/23/world/middleeast/23neda.html?_r=1) has a short quote from her music teacher.

[Ratel]

The thought occurred to me last night that maybe this shooting had nothing to do with the elections, and everything to do with the burka (or lack thereof). I know, I'm grasping at straws here, but nothing about this shooting makes any sense to me....yet.

[Tamerlane]

The thought occurred to me last night that maybe this shooting had nothing to do with the elections, and everything to do with the burka (or lack thereof). I know, I'm grasping at straws here, but nothing about this shooting makes any sense to me....yet.

The wearing of chadors ( burqas are Arabic, see also: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/woman_in_burqa_condemns_woman_in ;) ) does not seem to be ubiquitous in urban Iran, nor is it mandated by law. She had her hair and body covered as is standard, which should have been sufficient for zealous Basijis. Her appearance really doesn't seem to stand out from other modern young Iranians, at least from my perspective.

[Lounsbury]

The thought occurred to me last night that maybe this shooting had nothing to do with the elections, and everything to do with the burka (or lack thereof). I know, I'm grasping at straws here, but nothing about this shooting makes any sense to me....yet.

Burqas are not particularly standard in urban Iran, it is more of a Afghan & Pakistan thing than anything.

Contra the overheated claims, the woman being shot may very well have been accidental (relative to another target).

There is no way of knowing. In any case, targeted specifically or not, is a moot point now.

[Uthrecht]

Wow, get a load of the big balls on Iran's ambassador to Mexico (at the bottom of the article (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/29/iran.neda.ahmadinejad/index.html)):

Iran's ambassador to Mexico -- one of few Iranian officials who has spoken to CNN since the disputed June 12 presidential election -- suggested that U.S. intelligence services could be responsible for her death.

"This death of Neda is very suspicious," Ambassador Mohammad Hassan Ghadiri said. "My question is, how is it that this Miss Neda is shot from behind, got shot in front of several cameras, and is shot in an area where no significant demonstration was behind held?


"Well, if the CIA wants to kill some people and attribute that to the government elements, then choosing women is an appropriate choice, because the death of a woman draws more sympathy," Ghadiri said.

Everybody can go home now. It was the CIA.

[WednesdayAddams]

Of course they want to blame us. Which makes me feel that the President's hands off stance was the right thing to do. Had we involved ourselves to the extent that some wanted, it's possible that the majority of the citizenry in Iran would believe the U.S. had been behind that shooting. By staying hands off, the Iranian administration has no (or very little) room to attempt to pin their political strife on us.

[Fish]

This is old news, but I was just thinking about how McCain says Obama isn't supporting Iran (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/23/mccain-hits-obama-on-iran_n_219407.html) strenuously enough.

Isn't McCain the same guy who was singing "bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran?" How do these people live with themselves?

[WednesdayAddams]

He is, but he's making the distinction that he was claiming the president wasn't supporting the people of Iran who want a more democratic government. I'm still a little perplexed; it's like he's buying into the idea that anyone is better than Ahmedinejad. Moussavi, like Ahmedinejad supports a nuclear program for Iran. The greatest difference is that Moussavi supports a more secular government.