Understanding the New Iranian Revolution

Former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Speaks Out

2009-06-25T10:59:00.000-07:00

Foreign Affairs is a very well respected professional journal on US foreign policy. It is widely read in Washington DC.

Suzanne Maloney has recently written an excellent piece on the situation in Iran, with which I was very impressed. She also gives this list of required reading on Iran.

She also recommends an author named Akbar Ganji. She writes:

Akbar Ganji’s biography itself offers a trenchant commentary on the ebb and flow of ideological orthodoxy in the Islamic Republic. Having served during the regime’s early years in the Revolutionary Guards and the fearsome Intelligence Ministry, Ganji progressively became disenchanted. By the mid-1990s, he had transformed himself into an influential political journalist, assailing Iran’s senior leadership in newspaper columns on the regime’s excesses. Arrested in 2000, he later spent nearly six years in prison, where his fate attracted worldwide attention. Today, Ganji remains passionate about realizing a genuine representative state in Iran, although he effectively lives in exile. These writings present his erudite denunciation of Iran’s current system and his effort to chart a path forward.

Quite an endorsement. He has also written an article recently for Foreign Affairs. It's a very good read, and brief. He writes:

This is nothing less than an electoral coup, and its aim goes far beyond bringing victory to Ahmadinejad; it is a full-fledged takeover of the state...one of Khamenei's central goals is to create a new unified ruling elite with vast political and economic power. Khamenei and his supporters have been snuffing out dissent among intellectuals, political parties, labor unions, clerical seminaries, and civil society groups. They have been enhancing ideological uniformity at the senior level of government by defaming previously high-ranking officials, such as former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. They have also been extending their control over state corporations, large industries, and banks in a bid to create a state-run form of capitalism that would benefit them.

Wow. That's much the same thing that Reza Aslan is saying. Our gut reaction to things like this is to smile and say, "Ah, you're just a conspiracy theorist." But this is being said by a lot of people who have a LOT of credibility, lots of credentials - people who know what they're talking about. We in the West need to open our eyes.

Of course, once we realize the truth, then usually people in the US say, "Yes, let's topple their government just like we did to Iraq!" That's not the right reaction. Toppling Iran, believe it or not, would be VASTLY more difficult than toppling Iraq. It would take much, much longer. It would be a lot of urban warfare. A lot of American troops would die. It took Americans about a month to grow weary of the war in Iraq. Americans have a very weak stomach. This is not the 1940's anymore, when everyone pitched in for the war effort. We live in a different world. Many, many people in the US are squeamish about warfare, and as soon as someone dies they'll be screaming for it all to be over, for it all to end. They will stop caring about what's at stake, choosing instead to just be offended at the shedding of blood. Our country has forgotten that there are some things worth dying for.

We can't go to war with Iran. We don't have the stomach for it. We don't have the troops for it. We're not willing to pay for it. If we go to war with Iran, they'll win. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't understand what's taking place there.

Outside Iran, at an Afghan Truckstop...

2009-06-25T10:22:00.000-07:00

Here's an interesting piece from a journalist in Afghanistan (which borders on Iran to the East) at a truckstop, interviewing Iranian truck drivers. It appears the country is divided.

Rumors of Compromise?

2009-06-25T09:37:00.000-07:00

Tehran Bureau is publishing rumors of a possible compromise in Iran involving a runoff election between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. I say "rumors" because at this point that's all it is.

My response? Not bloody likely.

If it were true, it would signal a major, major shift in Khamenei, the Supreme Leader. So far, Khamenei has bet all his chips on Ahmadinejad. That's why people are chanting "Death to Khamenei" in the streets of Iran. He certified the election results too early, less than 24 hours after the vote (he was supposed to wait three days). In last Friday's sermon he said that Ahmadinejad was closer to his own position, and just yesterday he spoke publicly saying that there would be no compromise. I didn't even bother to post about it, because it wasn't anything new. No, Khamenei has vowed not to budge, and has so far been willing to shed the blood of his own people to keep from budging. Why would he suddenly do an about face? What's changed?

Also, if it were true, who has to be the source of the rumor? Wouldn't it have to be one of Khamenei's top aides? If Khamenei was truly willing to compromise, who would he tell?

We must also ask, who is he negotiating with? Mousavi? Parliament? Who?

Tehran Bureau cites Mehdi Noorbaksh, of Harrisburg University of Science and Technology as their source, who says he got a phone call late last night from someone in Iran. That's it.

Now, I can understand that Noorbaksh wants to protect the source in Iran, whoever they may be. But I'd be willing to bet that whoever the mysterious caller from Iran is, they're speculating; it's their own theory. It may be a very well educated guess, but it'd still be just that, a guess, a prediction. Noorbaksh stressed that it's a possibility, a mere possibility, and then cites reasons for why it may be correct. They sound like reasons supporting a theory. They certainly aren't evidence.

Evidence that a compromise may be in the works would be witness testimony that negotiations are ongoing. No such evidence has been cited. No one has claimed to have been present at such negotiations, nor have they claimed to have heard rumors of such negotiations. No, Noorbaksh only says that there's a possibility of a compromise.

Noorbaksh should have said, "I believe that this is what might happen." Instead, we are told, "There IS a possibility of..." When you use words like "is", you need to provide some evidence.

In my judgment, there's nothing in the report on Tehran Bureau to suggest that this is anything other than someone's speculative theory turned into a rumor.

Reza Aslan on the Daily Show

2009-06-25T09:25:00.000-07:00

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c

Reza Aslan

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Jason Jones in Iran

FBI Interrogation: Saddam Was Afraid of Iran, not US

2009-06-25T09:11:00.000-07:00

Click here.

Apparently, Saddam was lying about having WMD because he was afraid of Iran, and therefore wanted them to be afraid of him. He said that if he had had any WMD, he would have used them against the US.

This has apparently come out in now declassified FBI interrogation reports of Saddam after his capture.

Aslan: Slow Military Coup in Iran

2009-06-25T08:49:00.000-07:00

Reza Aslan analyzes the situation in Iran here. (If your computer wants to print the article, just hit cancel. I used the "print" link because it was a little less annoying to look at. If you want the original article, click here.)

Aslan's basic theory is this: that there's a military/intelligence body called the Pasdaran that has been slowly taking over the country behind the scenes since Ahmadinejad was elected. It sounds fairly plausible, but no concrete evidence is offered to support the theory, so I can't really evaluate it properly.

Who is Larijani?

2009-06-25T08:22:00.000-07:00

He's the Speaker of the Iranian Parliament.

Since the election, Larijani has rarely been noted or quoted in the western press, except for an occasional sentence in the print media. Media attention has been directed primarily toward Rafsanjani as the man to watch in the current turmoil. As Speaker of the Majlis, Larijani immediately and repeatedly condemned the violence against the students at Teheran University on Monday night (June 15). The website of the Iranian Majlis (parliament) for the week of June 13-17 reported that the Larijani said he had visited some of the areas where students had been assaulted and asked what the “meaning” was of attacking students in their dormitories at 2:30 in the morning. He said that laws had to be observed, and that the Minister of the Interior must be held “accountable for such incidents.” Larijani promised that the Majles would “seriously investigate” such issues.

On Thursday, even CNN had taken note: “Speaker Ali Larijani blamed the Interior Ministry for the raid on the dorm and attacks on civilians.” The article added that “Larijani’s comments are seen as an unprecedented rebuke to Ahmadinejad, who has been taking heat from many religious conservatives who’ve knocked the president’s criticism of protesters. And such criticism reflects an unprecedented public airing of a rift among ruling conservatives.”

Arab Perceptions of the Iranian "Green Wave"

2009-06-25T08:11:00.001-07:00

Ok, so you know that Iranians aren't Arabs, right? They're Persians. So how do Arabs feel about what's going on in Iran? What's their perception of it? Well, how about we ask someone who has been travelling in Arab countries, someone who is in a position to tell us? The Tehran Bureau has published the essay for us. Here's a quote:

Most Arab governments dislike the current Iranian regime, so you would think they would be pleased to see it toppled, or tempered by its own people. Yet, if such change were to occur through street demonstrations choreographed via a web of digital communications, whispered messages, and rooftop religious chants in the middle of the night, Arab leaders of autocratic regimes would be unhappy — because they would sense their own vulnerability to similar mass political challenges. The fact is not lost on anyone that the Iranian regime effectively withstood and defied American-Israeli-European-UN pressure, threats and sanctions for years, but found itself much more vulnerable to the spontaneous rebellion of many of its own citizens who felt degraded by the falsification of election results by the government.
(An intriguing side note: Events inside Iran picked up steam at the same time as the Iranian presidential elections coincided with the Obama administration’s change of policy — as Washington backed off the threats and aggressiveness of the Bush years — and offered to engage with Iran on the basis of mutual respect. Would a more detached US policy towards Arab autocrats similarly open space for Arab domestic effervescence and indigenous calls for more liberal, honest politics?)

The Arcane Art of Khamenei Watching

2009-06-25T08:02:00.000-07:00

Tehran Bureau has a brilliant and fascinating piece analyzing the current situation in Iran. Here's my favorite part:

For those steeped in the arcane art of Khamenei-watching, June 19 holds a special significance. On that day, after issuing his much-anticipated ultimatum to the people of Iran, the Supreme Leader showed a side of himself never before seen in public: while finishing his blood-soaked sermon with a vow of martyrdom, instead of looking bold and defiant, he looked weak and pathetic. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the man whose mien has inspired fear and awe in millions of people, actually had a lump in his throat. He fought back tears before tens of millions of bemused and perplexed viewers because in less than three weeks’ time, a system he had helped perfect — rule by a supreme religious leader — was showing signs of unraveling.

Tehran Bureau

2009-06-25T07:49:00.000-07:00

There's a new link on the right ----------------------------->

It's called Tehran Bureau.

There's an interesting story out about it, here.

The Passion of Captain America

2009-06-25T07:33:00.001-07:00

Captain America, John McCain, is at it again. He was interviewed on C-SPAN (a VERY important and highly watched network, ahem) as seen in the video below.

As you watch the short clip, ask yourself this question. What exactly does McCain want Obama to do? Does he want him to declare war on Iran? Perhaps just make a stronger verbal statement? It's unclear. At the end of the clip he says he just wants Obama to stand up for human rights like our founding fathers did. I could hear the Battle Hymn of the Republic playing softly in McCain's head when he said it.

And yet where's McCain's passion? Where's the gusto? I was half expecting him to yawn at some point. I yawned a couple times watching it. He's boring. Why is he boring? Look, I'm not a young, naive child who has to be entertained all the time, but if someone is speaking and you're bored to tears within seconds, it's not because you have a short attention span, it's because the person's heart isn't in it. McCain's heart isn't in it. He has no passion. And why, I ask you?

Because his words are empty and meaningless. Because he's calling on Obama to say what he's already said. Because he knows that his earlier stance was outrageous and harmful to the US, and he knows it, and he's had to back off of it because he looks like a fool.

I don't want to practice age discrimination, so I apologize, but McCain is just old and tired, and I'm tremendously relieved that he wasn't elected President. He's got nothing to contribute to this situation, which is probably why he's being interviewed on C-SPAN. Anyway, here, watch for yourself, and be glad he's not our President. (Not that I love Obama - I didn't vote for him either. At least he's got a little personality though, sheesh!)

Ahmadinejad: Snubbed Politically, Diplomatically in Iran, Around the World

2009-06-25T06:49:00.000-07:00

This is a great article from the BBC. It's one of those articles that helpfully summarizes recent events in Iran, putting lots of information into one easy to read article. I highly recommend it. Here are some points:

Ahmadinejad snubbed by the majority of Iranian Parliament: There are 290 members of Iran's Parliament (think Congress; they are elected). Ahmadinejad invited them all to a party to celebrate his re-election. Only 105 showed up. Apparently there are about 50 reformist MP's (members of Parliament), who we shouldn't be surprised about their absence. But the other 135 who didn't show up, why is that?

Well, these are popularly elected representatives, just like our Congress. If they were Congressmen, I'd say they were ditching the party for political reasons, that they were worried about alienating voters by siding with Ahmadinejad. I'd say they thought that their voter base would have wanted them to stay home. But the strange thing is, for 135 of these guys who didn't show up, their voter base is not reformist. Looks like more evidence that Stratfor is wrong to me. Looks like it's more than just a few educated youths who are against Ahmadinejad now-a-days. At least, that's what the country's MP's think, and they're in a far better position to gauge the political mood of the Iranian public than we are.

US snubs Iran diplomatically: apparently, President Obama, in an attempt to reach out to Iran, had invited Iranian diplomats to our embassies all over the world to celebrate the 4th of July. Now, some have said that this is a horrible thing for him to do. Iranians don't believe in liberty, which is what the 4th of July is supposed to celebrate. Of course, Obama has 2-3 active brain cells, so it's a safe assumption that he understands this. Rather, he was trying to put Iran in a difficult situation diplomatically. What would it have meant for Iranian diplomats to toast the founding of the US by celebrating the 4th of July with us? They'd be making a statement that they appreciate our values. Of course, he knew they wouldn't show up. But that gives the US the upper hand diplomatically down the line. "We've reached out to you...and you've rejected us."

Well, however we want to analyze what Obama had in mind, which is never easy when it comes to diplomacy, enough people cried out against the notion, and the invitation has been rescinded. Now Iran really has egg on their face. That's a very serious diplomatic slap in the face. Here's the US, trying to reach out to Iran, inviting their diplomats over for BBQ's all over the world, and then suddenly, nope, you can't come over after all. That's like severing diplomatic ties all over again. It's a very serious statement. (And one that Obama was reluctant to make.)

[Ahmadinejad responded to Obama]: "I hope you will avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express regret in a way that the Iranian people are informed of it." [He said] Obama "made a mistake" with his comments about the crackdown in Iran. "Our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say," he was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying.

Iran expels 2 UK diplomats: and the UK responded by expelling 2 Iranian diplomats from England. This is another very big deal. Expelling diplomats usually happens when it is discovered that that particular diplomat has been spying. Sometimes, James Bond types disguise themselves as low level diplomats. When they get caught, usually they get expelled in this way (except in the cases where they get thrown into deep dark holes in the ground and get the firehose turned on them - but let's not talk about that.) So for Iran to expel 2 British diplomats is basically a proclamation of guilt: these 2 diplomats were spies trying to undermine the Iranian government. So the UK reciprocated. There are rumors that both countries are re-evaluating their diplomatic ties, that they're considering downgrading them. What this means is that they would both still maintain a diplomatic mission in the other country, but they would no longer have an ambassador. That's a very big deal. An ambassador can speak for their government. Ambassadors have authority to negotiate. When a country says that they're going to recall their ambassador, this means that they're not going to negotiate anymore. They'll still communicate, but no longer negotiate. Keep an eye out for this kind of thing in the future.

The BBC article has lots of other various tidbits of information, such as the arrest of 70 university professors after their meeting with Mousavi.

Time Capsule - 30 Years Ago

2009-06-24T16:12:00.000-07:00

Read this article from Time Magazine - from 30 years ago.

Timeline of U.S.-Iran Relations From CFR

2009-06-24T15:30:00.001-07:00

CFR.org - U.S.-Iran Relations Since World War II

Shared via AddThis

The FULL CNN Interview

2009-06-24T15:03:00.000-07:00

This is unedited, quite a bit more explicit....

Follow the Money

2009-06-24T11:40:00.000-07:00

A Russian website, helpfully translated (albeit roughly) by Google, is reporting that a lot of money has been leaving Iran in the last 48 hours.

What does it mean? It means wealthy people in Iran are predicting a revolution; or at least they don't want to bet their fortune on it. When revolutions take place, there's always the possibility that the new government will begin to seize assets, and if you've got big assets, the best way to protect yourself is to get your money out.

I wonder what would be triggering this money exodus 48 hours ago? Well, 48 hours ago in Tehrah it was Monday, the first major business day after Saturday. (I honestly don't know if Iranian banks are open on Sundays, but I think major transactions with international banks would probably have to wait until Monday.) On Friday, the Supreme Leader said that protests would be put down violently. On Saturday, people came out in huge numbers anyway. On Monday, money began to leave Iran.

Just follow the money. Granted, this is a precautionary move, but it's still significant. Note that it's not overly cautious. They waited until now to start moving money. They weren't moving it last week. Now that people are shouting, "Death to Khamenei" in the streets, money is leaving.

Heart-wrenching Video From CNN

2009-06-24T09:44:00.001-07:00

The Huffington Post says: Another Iranian who has been reliable in the past posts on Facebook, "In Baharestan we saw militia with axe choping ppl like meat - blood everywhere - like butcher...Fighting in Vanak Sq, Tajrish sq, Azadi Sq - now"

Saudi Ties To Terrorism?

2009-06-24T07:34:00.000-07:00

This is a blog about Iran, not terrorism, not the Middle East. The point of this blog is to help Westerners understand what's happening. So if you're wondering why I'm posting about an article on the supposed Saudi ties to terrorism, you're asking a good question. The reason why I'm writing about it is because it provides an excellent chance to show how the media is often profoundly flawed in its reporting, and sometimes even irresponsible and sensational.

The article in the NY Times today about Saudi's supposed ties to terrorism is just such a sensational, irresponsible article. It seems more interested in generating hits on their website than in reporting the truth.

Let's begin with the title: "Documents Back Saudi Link to Extremists". It's not a quote, it's a title. This is now the claim of the article, not a claim of someone else that the article is reporting on. The article itself is making a claim. The claim is that the documents the author is privy to support the theory that the Saudi government finances terrorism. This is the claim of the title, which makes it the claim of the NY Times. So before you even read the article, you've already been told what to think about it. You are not being presented with evidence and being asked to judge for yourself. You're being told what you should conclude in the very title.

Then you might find it very strange when the article states:

"The documents provide no smoking gun connecting the royal family to the events of Sept. 11, 2001. And the broader links rely at times on a circumstantial, connect-the-dots approach to tie together Saudi princes, Middle Eastern charities, suspicious transactions and terrorist groups."

I find that strange. It contradicts the title of the article. The title says that the documents do in fact back the claim that the Saudi government finances terrorism. And yet the body of the article says the exact opposite. Yet most Americans will be able to breeze right by this statement, because the article has already told them what conclusion to draw in the title. It's a conclusion many Americans have wanted very badly to draw since 9/11. And here's an article in a very old, very credible newspaper telling them that it's the appropriate conclusion, and that they've got documents to prove it. Meanwhile, after citing a number of outrageous pieces of evidence from said documents, the article slyly inserts that there's no smoking gun here, so as to be able to claim objectivity. But the truth is, people will still read this article and think that there's definitive proof that the Saudi government is financing terror.

Don't believe what you want to believe, believe what is true. This is my plea, from me to you.

Before we look at the evidence, let's put it into context. Let's understand first that lawyers are behind this. These lawyers have talked the families of 9/11 survivors into suing the Saudi government in US courts. Now, I'm no mind reader. I don't know what the motives of the lawyers are for sure. They may be fully convinced that they're doing the right thing.

But here are the facts. The US government does not have any judicial authority over the government of Saudi Arabia or any other sovereign nation. For people to sue another country in US courts is ridiculous and outrageous. The lawsuit is completely illegitimate. The lawyers know this. It's their job to know this. It keeps getting thrown out by courts at every level. It has now been appealed to the Supreme Court. I for one hope they don't even hear it.

So lawyers have talked victims' families into an outrageously illegitimate and illegal lawsuit that is predicated on the US court system having authority over the government of a sovereign nation. This is scandalous. And not only is the lawsuit scandalous, but the fact that they've talked these poor, vulnerable people into pursuing it, taking advantage of their grief - this is nothing short of heartless and barbaric.

Again, I cannot read the mind of the lawyers. Perhaps they think they're doing the right thing. But I would submit to you that if they DO think they're doing the right thing, then they are profoundly misguided on a number of levels. They are deceived and ignorant. Since they've managed to graduate from law school, no small feat, I tend to think that ignorance isn't what drives them. I tend to think greed, something we all know drives many lawyers, is what is driving them. Who are they suing? A very rich country. If they win the lawsuit, they know that it will possibly be a huge, huge payday for them personally. They are exploiting these victims' families for the sake of dishonest gain through the pursuit of an outrageously illegitimate lawsuit of a foreign nation in the US court system.

Given all of this, I find it highly unlikely that anything they come up with is legitimate and reasonable. Given the context, I would tend to assume that everything they say should be taken with a grain of salt. I assume everything they're saying is designed to deceive me into helping to make them rich. Public opinion does often play a role in court proceedings.

Next, you'll notice that there are many references to classified information. Notice how the article seems to play on your fears that the government is trying to hide something. Our government is evil, as everyone knows, and they're trying to hide something from us.

That reminds me of an amusing story. When I was in the Marines, during combat training right after bootcampt, there was a young Marine who was about to go to intelligence school to learn to be an intelligence analyst. The poor guy was very nervous about it. So all the young Marines were sitting around talking to the platoon Sergeant one day, asking him questions about what the fleet was like, what the Marine Corps was like. Well, it came time for this young Marine, who was soon to be on the inside of the government's intelligence apparatus, to ask about what it was like to be in intelligence. He asked the Sergeant, what if there are some things I don't want to know? The Sergeant, as only Marine Sergeants can do, took pity on him and comforted him while also mocking his concerns. He said, look, it's not like when you show up at intel school they're gonna pull you aside and say, hey, you wanna know who shot Kennedy?

The Sergeant's point was a very good one. I doubt very much that the intelligence community is so sinister as everyone seems to assume. The fact is, no one but a very few insiders really know for sure. But the American people think they ought to know everything. They think they're the ones who are in power, that they're the ones who govern, and that therefore they have a right to judge for themselves, they have a right to classified information, they have a right to know whatever the government knows, so that they can decide if they're doing a good job or not.

America is not, however, a pure democracy. It's a democratic republic. We elect leaders to be privy to classified information for us. Classified information is classified for a reason. It's not classified to cover up government evils. It's classified to protect the source of the information. That's always the reason why something is classified.

So the article talks about classified financial documents that are claimed to be relevant to the case. Well, if they're classified, then it's because the US government obtained them illegally, meaning that they obtained this information without the consent of the Saudi government. The Saudi government has not decided to allow the US government access to its bank records. There's nothing sinister about that. I don't want the government to look at my bank records either. Everyone has a right to that privacy even in our own country. How much more a sovereign nation? The Saudi government doesn't have any right to look at our finances, does it? If they did, they'd find proof that we supported the Shah of Iran and other brutal dictators, like Saddam Hussein. Looks like we have financed some pretty awful things in our past. I'm not saying that the Saudis have financed terror and that that's ok or anything, I'm just saying that we aren't pure as the driven snow ourselves. He who is without sin, let him cast the first stone.

Not only is the article playing on fears about classified information, worse, it seems to suggest that the US government is actually covering for the Saudi government. The US government is IN ON IT!!! It's outrageous. The article seems to suggest that not only does the Saudi government finance terrorism, but the US government knows it, has proof of it, and has classified it so that the American people won't know about it!!! Nothing short of nonsense.

Check this out:

"Adding to the intrigue, classified American intelligence documents related to Saudi finances were leaked anonymously to lawyers for the families. The Justice Department had the lawyers’ copies destroyed and now wants to prevent a judge from even looking at the material."

And this:

"The Justice Department said a 1976 law on sovereign immunity protected the Saudis from liability and noted that 'potentially significant foreign relations consequences' would arise if such suits were allowed to proceed."

The suggestion is that the US government thinks our foreign relations with the Saudi government is more important than that justice be done for these families. The suggestion is that the US is protecting the Saudis.

But let's take a look at this "evidence", which isn't a "smoking gun", but yet nevertheless implicates the US government in a conspiracy to cover up the guilt of the Saudi government in the 9/11 attacks. (And by the way, if the Saudis were responsible, they would have made a very nice, very soft, easily conquerable enemy. If they were guilty, we would have had a very nice pretext to go and take them over and get rich in the process. It's not in our best interests to cover such a thing up.)

Out of the "thousands of pages" of "evidence" this is what the NY Times offers:

"Internal Treasury Department documents obtained by the lawyers under the Freedom of Information Act, for instance, said that a prominent Saudi charity, the International Islamic Relief Organization, heavily supported by members of the Saudi royal family, showed 'support for terrorist organizations' at least through 2006."

Like the article says, not exactly a smoking gun. If I give money to Red Cross, and Red Cross gives blankets and water to Taliban soldiers fighting against US troops, am I financing terror? If I send a care package to Iraq to US soldiers, does that mean that I think the entire US Congress made a good decision in going to war there? (After all, the Congress was almost unanimously in favor of going to war in Iraq.) If the Saudi government gives money to a charity that's supposed to provide humanitarian aid to Muslims around the world, that doesn't make the Saudis terrorists, it makes them human. Click the link above. Check out the charity's website. It's all about providing humanitarian aid. They even make their finances publicly available on their website. Does that mean it cannot possibly be a front for terror? No. Anything's possible. But Saudis donating to this organization, which obviously spends a LOT of money on humanitarian aid, does not support the article's claim at all. Yet it is presented as if it does. Where I come from, that's called a lie.

Next, the article states:

"A self-described Qaeda operative in Bosnia said in an interview with lawyers in the lawsuit that another charity largely controlled by members of the royal family, the Saudi High Commission for Aid to Bosnia, provided money and supplies to the terrorist group in the 1990s and hired militant operatives like himself."

This is a joke. I mean, this isn't even remotely responsible journalism. I suppose by "Qaeda" they mean "Al Qaida", the notorious terrorist organization responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Can you imagine? I wish I were a fly on the wall for that interview...

Terrorist: Hi, I'm an Al Qaida operative in Bosnia, and I've flown all the way here to the USA in order to help you lawyers incriminate my organization's biggest sponsor, even though they want to remain anonymous.

Lawyer: As an Al Qaida operative, are you willing to give your life for the cause?

Terrorist: you betcha!

Lawyer: And you're claiming that the Saudis gave a lot of money to the cause?

Terrorist: yup. Say, can I have some more of that filet mignon?

Lawyer: Sure you can. You can have all the filet mignon you want.

It's a joke. It's ridiculous. Preposterous. If he really is a member of a global terrorist organization, why on earth is he allowing himself to be interviewed by lawyers and betraying one of the biggest contributors to the cause for which he would supposedly be willing to give his life? It makes NO sense. The guy is obviously lying. More than likely the lawyers are paying him to say what he's saying, giving him a steak dinner, etc. It's a joke.

Just when you hoped that it wouldn't get any worse because your cheeks hurt from laughing so hard at what's being touted as responsible journalism, the article proceeds to publish this piece of nonsense:

Another witness in Afghanistan said in a sworn statement that in 1998 he had witnessed an emissary for a leading Saudi prince, Turki al-Faisal, hand a check for one billion Saudi riyals (now worth about $267 million) to a top Taliban leader.

Honestly, when I read this all I could think of was this clip from Austin Powers:

A billion riyals? He just handed him the check? But what about all this talk of using charities as front organizations in order to hide the fact that they're sponsoring terrorism? No - this terrorist from Afghanistan, who has never told a lie in his life, has never used drugs, and isn't blood thirsty as Dracula - no, this man was privy to the most secret of meetings, the most delicate of circumstances. He was entrusted with information that could completely destroy US-Saudi relations. He must have been very important in Al Qaida. He must have been Osama Bin Ladin's right hand man! What a joke. A BILLION riyals? And he just handed him the check? Not bloody likely.

The article goes on to talk about more suspicious charitable giving on the part of the Saudi government, but honestly, I doubt anyone's still reading this post. I think I've said enough to prove that this article from the NY Times is nothing short of ridiculous.

Oh, and one more thing. There's a number of pages in the 9/11 report that reportedly speaks to Saudi finances, and the Bush administration (pure evil, as all readers of the NY Times know) chose to keep it classified, even though the Saudis themselves said they wanted it made public. Well, again, it's classified because of the source. The Saudis didn't give the US permission to obtain this information. Pretend the US has a James Bond type guy working in a Saudi bank who managed to get this information. If this information is released, then it'll be easier for the Saudis to find the US agent and...execute him...or at least send him back to the US, his career ruined, never able to work undercover again. If the Saudis themselves want it public they've got nothing to hide. It's no smoking gun.

The fact is, Saudi Arabia is probably our greatest ally in the Arab world. They EXILED Osama Bin Ladin. They kicked him out of the country. Osama Bin Ladin HATES the Saudis and is constantly plotting to remove them from power. He thinks it's deplorable that there's a secular government in control of the country that contains Mecca, the Islamic holy city. Al Qaida and Saudi Arabia are not friends. They're sworn enemies. Saudi Arabia will tell you this. Osama Bin Ladin will tell you this.

Iran Crisis: Just Beginning

2009-06-23T19:16:00.000-07:00

Some (e.g., Stratfor) are saying that the crisis in Iran is petering out. The protests are dwindling, they say. This is all overblown anyway, because Mousavi is really no fan to the US. He would be almost the same as negotiating with Ahmadinejad, and since he's a "reformer" it might actually be even more difficult.

Is this correct? Not bloody likely. Gary Sick, member of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan (that's 3 US Presidents, and also spans the time when the 1979 Iranian Revolution took place) says that this has just begun.

Now it's tempting to want to root for the protesters, to cheer them on. And therefore it's tempting to wish very hard that the protests have not come to an end. So at first glance, when the protests are smaller on one day than they were before, it looks level headed and wise to admit that our dreams of a free and democratic Iran will never come to fruition. Skepticism is often mistaken for wisdom, because skepticism is often the wise course.

Yet skepticism for skepticism's sake is not wisdom anymore than predictions of revolution in Iran driven by intense desire to see it happen is.

In that vein, just what is the National Security Council? Well, it's a body, appointed directly by the President, that advises him on matters of national security. Simple, right? It's supposed to be somewhat non-political, because appointees don't have to be approved by Congress. The President can appoint whoever he wants, according to his own wisdom, instead of according to who he can get Congress to approve.

So the fact that Gary Sick managed to serve on this President appointed body advising the President under 3 Presidents of differing political parties is...well...impressive to put it mildly. Mr. Sick did not get that position by letting dreams carry him away on a cloud of analytical bliss, prognosticating the future he longed to see. In other words, Gary Sick is not telling us that what we want to happen WILL happen. He's trying to be realistic.

So what does he say will happen? He has no idea. That's how you know you can trust him. He said, "If anyone tells you that they know how this will turn out, treat their words with the same regard you would have for any fortune teller peering into a crystal ball." He has no ulterior motive when he says that.

Now some might have ulterior motives in their predictions. For example, let's say that I really, really want to believe that the government of Iran will collapse. I may read my desire into all the evidence, and this will result in my thinking that all the evidence points to my desired outcome. Conversely, I might become obsessed with the fact that no one in Iran is really pro-West or pro-US, and that might also taint my view of the evidence, and thus I might predict that the protests really don't mean much and in fact are petering out.

Gary Sick, however, says that he has no idea what's going to happen. He has no desired outcome. He doesn't have a horse in this race. He just wants us to understand the situation. And he really only wants us to understand one thing. It ain't over till the fat lady signs, and she's not even warming up yet.

His evidence? History, the best evidence. The fact that Iran just had a revolution relatively recently in 1979 is actually enormously helpful in analyzing the current situation. What happened in 1979? Well, the protests ebbed and flowed. Sometimes things got quiet for a while, but then they'd come back to life. The protests began in Jan 1978, and the Shah was not overthrown until Jan 1979. So if this revolution, if indeed it becomes a revolution, happens just like the revolution of 30 years ago, which is actually a fairly safe assumption, it will take a year. Even if it ultimately isn't a revolution, we can still expect the protests to continue for that long before things come to a head.

Gary says we should be thinking marathon, not sprint. So get comfortable, put your feet up, pop some popcorn, and watch history unfold on TV before your eyes. The clash of the titans in Iran is just beginning.

More on Iranian Perception of the USA

2009-06-23T09:35:00.000-07:00

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Iranian Clerics Upping the Ante

2009-06-23T09:20:00.000-07:00

This just in from the Huffington Post:

10:34 AM ET -- Clerical association releases aggressive statement. The NIAC has the full statement [scroll to 10:24] by the Organization of Combatant Clergy released today. A reader notes, "The reference to 'moghuls' is very very harsh. The Mongols invaded Persia/Iran and basically killed every single person in plenty of cities at that time -- basically eradicating whole populations. Comparing the current regime to the Mongols - very strong statement - more than someone in the west would think."

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.

We Killed Your Son - Now You Owe Us $3,000

2009-06-23T09:03:00.001-07:00

It's not a joke.

Iranian security forces killed a 19 year old boy. When his father went to the morgue to collect his body, he was ordered to pay $3,000 as a bullet fee, yes, a bullet fee, which is exactly what it sounds like. He couldn't pay, of course, because he lives in Iran, so they made an exception, but wouldn't let him bury his son in Tehran.

Read the story here, from the Wall Street Journal.

Bill Oreilly and Tony Blair Getting the Point

2009-06-23T08:52:00.000-07:00

In last night's talking points - a brief segment at the beginning of his show - Bill Oreilly of Fox News criticized Obama's critics who think he should take a harder stance in favor of the protesters, citing Henry Kissenger. Hooray! Perhaps now radical neo-con Republicans will be alienated and seen for the political opportunists that they are.

Meanwhile, Tony Blair said: "[This is an] extraordinary and exciting moment... It's difficult because you want to stand up for people you sympathize with, but President Obama is right, you've got to be careful because your intervention could be used against the people protesting. ... [We can help] by focusing on it, by letting people know that the world is watching and is, in many senses, in solidarity with the people there." (H/T Huffington Post)

Be quiet now Captain America.

Understanding Shia Islam: Why Violence Won't End Protests

2009-06-23T07:25:00.001-07:00

This is fascinating: "The Shia, as we collectively know them, began life as a political protest over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad after his death."

If you can understand what that means, then you can understand why the government crackdown in Iran is not going to end the protests in Iran like it did in China in 1989 at Tiananman Square.

So what does it mean? Well, basically, Islam was founded by a guy named Muhammed. Everyone knows that, right? Well, he wasn't just a prophet, but he was kind of a king too of all Muslims. They called this the Caliph. When he died, there was a question of who should succeed him. This accounts for the difference between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims.

The Shia thought that only the descendants of Muhammed ought to succeed him as Caliph. The Sunni disagreed. That's an over simplification and a bit anachronistic though. At that time, there weren't Sunni and Shia, there were just Muslims, some of whom had very strong opinions about who should be Caliph.

Well, the Shia didn't get their way, and a usurper (in their opinion) became Caliph. During the turbulent 50 years or so following the death of Muhammed in 632, there was an important descendant of Muhammed who was killed, and the Shia have been exalting martyrs ever since.

How does this fit in to what's going on in Iran? Well, Ahmadinejad has now found himself in the unfortunate position of being seen as an illegitimate usurper in a religious context where that is paradigmatic for everything that defines the Shia as a division of Islam. The reason why they are Shia is because they are standing against someone who usurped the rightful Caliph over a millennium and a half ago. This political/religious protest runs very, very deep in the blood of the Shia.

Furthermore, Shia glorifies martyrdom, because the rightful heir to the Caliphate was martyred. They pray to him as Roman Catholics pray to Mary. In fact, Khamenei in his sermon last Friday prayed to him. To invoke the martyr is to glorify martyrdom. Shia regularly practice self flagellation. Read this quote:

Those adults who engage in self-flagellation with knives, chains or blades, do so with a consciousness of the ceremonial nature of the act, keenly watched by onlookers, children and adults alike, who, though they have seen it all before, continue to be mesmerised by the sheer spectacle of it – the display. This excitement is, for most, mixed with an actual sense of profound identification with the suffering of Imam Hussain, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic history tells us that Hussain, a venerated saint in Shism, stood up to the tyrant of the day, Yazid, 14 centuries ago in order to save Islam and humanity from despotism and oppression, and to make the ultimate point about justice. During the 10-day siege, Hussain's camp suffered unimaginable trials and tribulations, which, to many Muslims, not just Shias, has no equal.

As you can see, martyrdom is more than just important in Shia Islam. They idealize martyrdom and even flagellate themselves as a matter of religious devotion. Furthermore, for Shia Muslims, there is no line separating church and state. Politics is religion is politics. Ahmadinejad is a heretic because he is a usurper to the rightfully elected President. Khamenei is a heretic as well because he is the one who allowed the election to be rigged and endorsed the usurper, making him a usurper himself. Thus the crowds have been chanting "Death to Khamenei".

The government can crack down all it wants, it can shed blood in the streets of Tehran all it wants, but the Shia Muslims of Iran will keep coming back for more, crying out, "Allah-o Akbar!" (God is great) the whole time.

The other day I was watching a video of the protesters, and it occurred to me that they looked like worshipers. It seemed just by watching them that what they were doing was a matter of religious devotion. Turns out that's very, very true.

When they cry out "Ya Hussein!" this is what they are referring to; all of it. Hussein is the name of the martyr, the grandson of Muhammed.

A History of US - Iran Relations

2009-06-22T15:11:00.001-07:00

Irony in Iran: A new article today from the Guardian gives us a proper perspective on how Iranians view the US:

Iranians began their painful and bloody march toward democracy with the constitutional revolution of 1906. Only after the second world war did they finally manage to consolidate a freely elected government. Mossadeq was prime minister, and became hugely popular for taking up the great cause of the day, nationalisation of Iran's oil industry. That outraged the British, who had "bought" the exclusive right to exploit Iranian oil from a corrupt Shah, and the Americans, who feared that allowing nationalization in Iran would encourage leftists around the world.

In the summer of 1953 the CIA sent the intrepid agent Kermit Roosevelt – grandson of President Theodore Roosevelt, who believed Americans should "walk softly and carry a big stick" – to Tehran with orders to overthrow Mossadeq. He accomplished it in just three weeks. It was a vivid example of how easy it is for a rich and powerful country to throw a poor and weak one into chaos.

With this covert operation, the world's proudest democracy put an end to democratic rule in Iran. Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi returned to the Peacock Throne and ruled with increasing repression for a quarter-century. His repression produced the explosion of 1979 that brought reactionary mullahs to power. Theirs is the regime that rules Iran today.

Carrying a picture of Mossadeq today means two things: "We want democracy" and "No foreign intervention". These demands fit together in the minds of most Iranians. Desperate as they are for the political freedom their parents and grandparents enjoyed in the early 1950s, they have no illusion that foreigners can bring it to them. In fact, foreign intervention has brought them nothing but misery.

The US sowed the seeds of repression in Iran by deposing Mossadeq in 1953, and then helped bathe Iran in blood by giving Saddam Hussein generous military aid during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s. Militants in Washington who now want the US to intervene on behalf of Iranian protesters either are unaware of this history or delude themselves into thinking that Iranians have forgotten it. Some of them, in fact, are the same people who were demanding just last year that the US bomb Iran – an act which would have killed many of the brave young protesters they now hold up as heroes.

America's moral authority in Iran is all but non-existent. To the idea that the US should jump into the Tehran fray and help bring democracy to Iran, many Iranians would roll their eyes and say: "We had a democracy here until you came in and crushed it!"

France to Ban the Burka?

2009-06-22T13:39:00.000-07:00

France is talking about the Islamic burka. What's a burka? You know, that all-concealing dress that Islamic women wear, pictured here.

French President, Nicolas Sarkozy, in a very rare and very provocative address to Parliament said of the burka, "It will not be welcome on French soil...We cannot accept, in our country, women imprisoned behind a mesh, cut off from society, deprived of all identity. That is not the French republic's idea of women's dignity."

Another article notes that "Sarkozy’s speech today marked the first time a French president has addressed lawmakers since 1875 after a law preventing such direct communication was overturned last year."

Look, I'm very sympathetic to France feeling threatened by the burka. They have 5 million Muslims in France, and that's starting to make the French, who are already a bit skiddish (in America we call it a Napoleon complex), very nervous. I'm sympathetic to their feeling overwhelmed by what they view as an oppressive world view. I understand.

But the timing of this couldn't possibly be worse. Talk about giving fodder to the Iranian regime! And not just the Iranian regime, but all kinds of Islamic radicals will be able to paint this as the first step in a new Franco Crusade against Islam. This is just a moronic move. Assuming Sarkozy wants to have a propaganda war on Islam in his country, this is a strategic blunder. This will only galvanize Muslims and further alienate them from the rest of France. What a moronic thing to do!

But far, far more importantly, what about freedom of religion? Are there some women that wear burkas who feel oppressed by them because their father or their husband makes them wear it? Possibly. But this is a matter of religious piety for them. This is their religion. This is what they believe. Don't they have a right to believe it?

And now France is talking about outlawing it. What's next, will France outlaw the Koran? Even if it can be demonstrated that a religion is evil, you STILL can't outlaw it. You can only prosecute criminal behavior. You cannot outlaw a religion. Where does it end? If you outlaw one religion, what's to stop the outlaw of all religions?

The current debate in France is DANGEROUS and wrong-headed. Let Muslims wear their burkas.

Ahmadinejad Speaks! (Warning: PG 13-rated Language)

2009-06-22T12:48:00.000-07:00

Iranian Poet: Dear Mr. Khamenei...

2009-06-22T12:19:00.000-07:00

You've simply GOT to read this. The "slave" he's talking about that Khameini bought is President Ahmadinejad, as the context makes clear. I can't help quoting it at length:

...when three million people suppress their hatred towards injustice and oppression in their hearts all the way from Enghelab [revolution] to Azadi [freedom] [square], and only express their stolen victory with a gesture of two fingers.

You were not to spill blood, which you did, you were to keep the boundaries, which you did not, and you were to preserve respect, which you violated, you trampled the right of a whole nation with utmost inequity and total injustice. You trampled over the right of millions of people so the city’s famous liar could call a great and dignified nation "dust and twigs", he who was an obedient slave that you bought at the price of selling all the elders of the tribe. I am not talking about your rationality, your justice, your dignity, your wisdom, your intelligence, your ability to distinguish what is best, let’s forget about these, I just want to ask: why couldn’t you calculate the price correctly?

It is said that everything has a price, and that whatever you get, you have to pay its price. Didn’t you consider the value of what you were attaining before paying so much for it? How much did you pay for this servant of yours who is worth nothing in the tricky market of lies and deception? At the price of breaking the head, cutting the tongue and injuring the body of your own nation? At the price of those of a dignified nation and free people that only wanted the rights that you had promised them being killed? At the price of curses, bitter words and ill-wishes of millions of people who walk in silence in fright of the heavy-booted militia, rootless bearded armed thugs, and riot police, who say nothing so you may have a chance to think of what you’ve done?

You bought this slave at the price of millions whose rights you have violated cruelly shouting "Allah-u Akbar" in the heart of darkness? You have let this unmannered incapable person attack people like a wild creature, loosening the dogs and shaking the foundations of your own establishment, and put the head of your Expediency Council under house arrest? You should have at least had some respect for Hashemi because he was your neighbor for twenty years or so and a friend for more than forty, do you really need no friends anymore? I’ve heard that you’ve said that those who take to the streets are responsible for their own lives, why is that? Are the streets of this countty the personal property of your late father? Don’t people have the right to defend their rights in the streets of our cities?

Mr. Khamenei!

...There are many graveyards in the world were men of politics who have spoken word similar to yours lie. They had forgot one thing, that death will also conquer the powerful. Hitler, Slatin, Pol Pot, Lenin, the Shah and Ayatollah Khomeini all died, and so will you eventually. When a great man dies there are two reactions in the masses, some of them mourn the loss of the great man, and some send him an eternal curse. Dear sir! Take your words back before death has taken over you and you have been left with that eternal curse. Let yourself remain the ordinary Khamenei, the one that is known to people as a powerless figure, full of grudges and without a powerful stance, a weak leader that could probably be tolerated. But if you are tempted to act like someone who is greater than you, and issue commands for killings, we will not believe you, that is not your job brother. Our people are also such cowards, they will not be intimidated. The people are standing and if you plant wind, you shall plow a storm.

Iran's Electronic Spy Network

2009-06-22T12:07:00.001-07:00

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting article for you computer geeks out there. How does the regime keep a tight control on the internet in Iran?

"The Iranian regime has developed, with the assistance of European telecommunications companies, one of the world's most sophisticated mechanisms for controlling and censoring the Internet, allowing it to examine the content of individual online communications on a massive scale."

Of course, in the US, there is No Such Agency. Ahem.

Political Earthquake in Iran

2009-06-22T11:46:00.000-07:00

There's an excellent piece in the NY Times by Roger Cohen today. I don't know how the NY Times can have a journalist in Iran who's managing to get articles written and published, but they do, and I'm glad. He's about the only one who's been able to get regular quality reporting out for publication. Here are some quotes:

"In fact I believe the loss of trust by millions of Iranians who’d been prepared to tolerate a system they disliked, provided they had a small margin of freedom, constitutes the core political earthquake in Iran. Moderates who once worked the angles are now muttering about making Molotov cocktails and screaming their lungs out after dusk."

"On Sunday, I saw Mehdi Hashemi Rafsanjani, the son of the establishment’s embittered éminence grise, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. He told me his father, who despises President Mahmoud Adhmadinejad, is fighting a furious rearguard action to have the election annulled by the Guardian Council, the 12-member oversight body that will pronounce this week on the election’s legality."

"Former Revolutionary Guard leader, Mohsen Rezai...who officially won 680,000 votes, says more than 900,000 voters have written to him with their ID numbers saying they cast their ballot for him."

"Khamenei said, 'The dispute is not between the revolution and the counterrevolution,' and that all four electoral candidates 'belong to the system.' He was right, if his words had been spoken the day after the vote. Ten days on, however, the brutal use of force and his own polarizing speech have drawn many more Iranians toward an absolutist stance." (emphasis added)

"Whatever happens now, all is changed utterly in Iran. Opacity, a force of the Islamic Republic, has yielded to a riveting transparency in which one side confronts another." (emphasis added)

Iranian Web Resources - Better Than the News

2009-06-22T11:30:00.000-07:00

There's a new website up called Tehran Broadcast. Here's how they describe themselves: "This website aims to bridge the gap between English and Persian news makers, media, bloggers, twitters, etc. In particular, we try to bring first-hand news from Iran and present them in English. The entries of this website are written by people from Iran and translated by some 300 translators."

My favorite website so far on the current Iran crisis is the live blogging at the Huffington Post, but I've also enjoyed the live blogging at the NIAC (National Iranian American Council).

All three of these websites are doing something similar. They're collecting news and information from many, many sources and compiling them all in one place. You might call it "all-source fusion" if you were so inclined. These websites are getting information from Iran itself. They're getting videos, emails, tweets, text messages, phone calls, etc. That means they're in a very good position to understand the situation on the ground. They have news much faster than the major news networks, and their analysis is far superior as well.

In other words, don't waste your time watching Fox News or CNN. Click these links, watch a couple amateur videos, read a few emails from the protesters themselves, and understand what's going on. The Berlin Wall is falling in Iran, and for the most part the major networks are bumbling the coverage of it. The internet is where it's at for now.

Deferring to the Opposition Leaders

2009-06-22T11:18:00.000-07:00

Interview on Fox News with Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. He knows what he's talking about. More importantly, he understands whose opinion counts the most: the opposition leaders themselves.

Many wise people have said that knowing what you don't know is the beginning of wisdom. Isn't it time that we all admit that we just really don't understand the Arab world all that well, particularly Iran? And if that's true, shouldn't we let the opposition leaders set the pace on how the US responds to this?

Begin transcript quote:

WALLACE: Mr. Sadjadpour, several questions. First of all...what about this argument that if the president speaks out, it somehow empowers and gives more ammunition to the Iranian regime to say that these protesters are just puppets of the United States?

SADJADPOUR: Chris, that is a big concern I have as well, and that's why I think the president's rhetoric so far has been well calibrated.

And the historical analogy which concerns me, Chris, is Iraq in 1991 when George Bush senior encouraged Iraqis to rise up. Saddam slaughtered them, and then the rest of the world didn't criticize Saddam for the slaughter but they criticized George Bush for encouraging Iraqis to speak out.

So I think this regime is looking for the United States to step into this trap so they have the license to slaughter the Iranian people and accuse them, you know, of being American (inaudible). [Comment: the inaudible word is probably "agents" or something similar.]

WALLACE: But they're already saying this. In fact, you had President Ahmadinejad today say to the U.S. and Britain, "Stop interfering." So whether we do it or not, they're going to accuse us of doing it.

SADJADPOUR: Chris, I really defer to the leaders of these opposition movements themselves in Iran, the opposition leaders in Iran, and I have not heard from any of them who say that the United States should become directly involved.

They've all said that the United States should continue to denounce human rights abuses, and our plight should continue to be broadcast throughout the world, but none of them have asked the United States to play a more active, defiant role in domestic internal Iranian policy.

EU Diplomatic Machinations

2009-06-22T10:55:00.001-07:00

EU vs. Iran: the diplomatic battle. Sounds like a failed videogame title, but actually, this is very significant. What's happened? The EU Presidency (currently the Czech Republic) has asked member states to "summon Iran envoys". That means they're trying to present Iran a unified diplomatic, confrontational front. This is not just a summons to have tea together, this is a summons to call them to account, to give an answer for the events in Iran.

Imagine all 26 countries in the EU recalling their ambassadors from Iran and expelling Iran's diplomats from their own countries...what has happened is the first step in that process. I'm not saying that such a process will ever reach that point, but this is a step in that direction. This is very serious for diplomacy. When a country recalls their ambassador from another country, it kind of means that the recalling country no longer recognizes the legitimacy of that country.

Of course, the US hasn't had an ambassador in Iran since 1979. So for everyone who's saying that the US stance on the current Iran crisis is inadequate, and that we should follow the European lead, well, perhaps we might rethink that.

UPDATE: From NIAC: "BBC Persian is reporting [Farsi] that Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs is considering the expulsion of some European ambassadors in response to their positions on recent events. Hasan Ghashghavi, the speaker of Iran’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs said on Monday that the behavior and statements by these countries and appropriate actions are being examined and evaluated. Ghashghavi has accused the European countries and the United States of supporting the 'agitators' instead of inviting the people of Iran to participate in democratic processes and emphasizing the rule of law."

Google Going Green (Say That 5 Times Fast)

2009-06-22T10:49:00.000-07:00

Google has Gone Green. They've spent what must have been an enormous amount of money to provide updated satellite imagery of Iran for Google Maps and Google Earth, both of which are free. So download Google Earth and check out the new shots. And when a reporter mentions some location, type it in and see it for yourself.

Another fine free Google product is their web browser, Google Chrome.

Who is Neda???

2009-06-22T10:40:00.001-07:00

"Leave Iran to the Iranians"

2009-06-22T09:39:00.000-07:00

"Iranian hardliners just can't wait for President Barack Obama to raise high the protesters' green banner so they can turn it red, white, and blue and unleash a bloodbath against 'American agents.' And American hardliners and foreign-policy gurus just keep pushing Obama toward precisely that rhetorical abyss..."

"For many years now, virtually every Iranian who talks to an American says we should stay out of their affairs, that when we try to help them, we hurt them. Do you hear Iranians twittering their thanks to Charles Krauthammer, Paul Wolfowitz, Joe Lieberman, and John McCain? Does that silence mean anything to those Americans urging them on to spill their blood for freedom and democracy? Oh, of course, our moralists and seers of 'a historical turning point' are not so crude as to blatantly call the protesters to freedom's barricades or for Obama to urge a bloodbath for democracy. But they walk right up to that line."

"Charles Krauthammer doesn't hesitate to proclaim his real goal: 'regime change' as the only way to solve future nuclear threats. 'Our fundamental values demand that America stand with demonstrators opposing a regime that is the antithesis of all we believe.' He then asks, 'Where is our president? Afraid of meddling.' And how does this brilliant pen of the right propose to meddle effectively? Like his neoconservative brethren, he offers nothing besides moral condemnation."

Captain America "fails to mention moral calls in the 1950s by John Foster Dulles and the C.I.A. for uprisings in Hungary and its neighbors. The result? Soviet armies crushed the revolutionaries, and we did nothing, as President Eisenhower had made clear was his position beforehand. And [Captain America] doesn't mention H.W. Bush's urging the Shiites of southern Iraq to rebel against Saddam in the wake of the first Gulf War. This resulted in a Shiite rebellion and in Saddam's killing tens of thousands of those poor souls, while Washington did absolutely nothing. And what about Tiananmen? Would going to the moral mattresses have prevented the awful crackdown by the Chinese communist government? Not a chance. And look where we are today-with China as America's biggest holder of U.S. securities. [Captain America] and his fellow neocons are well aware of these histories and historical complexities. So, their disregard of any fair-minded exposition of the issue suggests a hidden motive - [Captain America's] goal of confrontation and regime change." (References to "Captain America" added.)

These quotes are from a new piece from the Council on Foreign Relations. Let me just add that this blatant naming of names and very direct criticism is unusual for CFR. This is a very moderate, centrist organization. For them to so directly and vehemently criticize the neo-conservative position is quite significant. I should also add that CFR is the producer of the excellent academic journal, "Foreign Affairs," which is read very widely in Washington.

The 5 Minute Interview: Gary Sick, Member of Nat'l Sec Council Under 3 Presidents

2009-06-22T09:31:00.000-07:00

Take a measly 5 minutes and listen to this NPR interview with Gary Sick, who was a member of the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan. With credentials like that, what he says should be taken seriously to say the least.

And what does he say about how Obama has handled the situation? That Obama has done exactly what he should be doing. And what does he say about the meaning of the protests? Is it a revolution? You betcha.

ONLY 50 Cities Had More Votes Than Voters

2009-06-21T15:32:00.000-07:00

The Guardian Council, which has been tasked with investigating claims about vote rigging in Iran's recent Presidential Election, have released a statement. They want us to know that the charges of vote rigging in 170 cities is outrageously overblown. It was only 50 cities.

The following is from the Huffington Post.

6:09 PM ET -- Guardian Council admits: more votes than voters. Another fairly shocking report given that it comes from Iran's state-funded PressTV:

Iran's Guardian Council has admitted that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of those eligible to cast ballot in those areas.

The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.

"Statistics provided by Mohsen Rezaei in which he claims more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

The spokesman, however, said that although the vote tally affected by such an irregularity is over 3 million, "it has yet to be determined whether the amount is decisive in the election results," reported Khabaronline.

New Government for Iran Reportedly Under Consideration

2009-06-21T12:37:00.000-07:00

The Assembly of Experts in Iran is reportedly considering...a new form of government.

Maybe it's true. But the article also says that the speech given on Friday was given by Khomenei, who is the former [late] Supreme Leader. That's more than just a simple typo, that's an irresponsible blunder. So take the story in which such an irresponsible blunder occurs with a serious grain of salt.

Also note that even if it's true, it only means that (most likely) Rafsanjani has brought the matter up officially in his capacity as a member of the Assembly of Experts. It doesn't necessarily mean that the Assembly is going to do what's being suggested.

However, if it is true, it's unprecedented boldness, and means that Iran is probably past the point of no return on all of this. It's going to come to a head one way or the other.

Rhetoric Increasing - But What Does it Mean?

2009-06-21T12:25:00.000-07:00

The Rhetoric is increasing in Iran among the opposition. (For background on some of this, see here.)

From Reuters:

"Preventing people from expressing their demands through civil ways will have dangerous consequences," [Former Reformist President] Khatami, a Mousavi ally, said in a statement, the semi-official Mehr news agency reported.

His comment, implying criticism of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei who has backed a ban on protests and defended the outcome of the election, found an echo with Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the most senior dissident cleric.

"Resisting people's demand is religiously prohibited," said Montazeri, an architect of Iran's 1979 Islamic revolution who fell out with the present leadership and has been under house arrest for some years.

In a statement on his website, Montazeri called for three days of national mourning for those killed.

But what's it mean? The Huffington Post has provided this helpful analysis:

A reader who has been very helpful over the last week sends in this note about today's statement by dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Montazeri (slightly edited for clarity):

Just had call with Iranians who read the whole Montazzeri statement (I have not myself - note - my farsi is not good enough to get all the nuances of the thing). But the main point I think you should be aware of is that he's asking people this coming Wed-Fri to mourn the people who have died. The people I talk to suggest it's his covert way of asking people to strike.

As point of reference - in the '79 Revolution, it was the strikes that did it. This is super important - because roughly right now you have some of the population that are hitting the streets, while others are Ahmadinejad people -- and it's the silent 30-40% they are after. Each day this silent majority is slowly stepping towards the reformists.

One important point with strikes -- they cannot shoot people who are striking. That will leave them in a bind -- and more people dare to strike than hit the streets. Again, this is in reference with what happened in '79 - strikes are the most potent weapon.

Also - what is happening now with regards to spreading information to the people. They are going back to 79 strategies. basically they are printing papers having people distribute them all over the country. twitter/net etc is not effective right now - they are going back to old-fashioned style.

Rage Against the Machine - Iran Style

2009-06-21T12:17:00.001-07:00

Are People REALLY Dying in Iran?

2009-06-20T16:35:00.001-07:00

What the Iranian Government Wishes Obama Would Say

2009-06-20T16:29:00.000-07:00

12:43 pm: Iranian state media reportedly lying about what Obama is saying:

This morning a friend of NIAC who gets Iranian Satellite TV here said that state-run media showed President Obama speaking about Iran this morning. However, instead of translating what he actually said, the translator reportedly quoted Obama as saying he “supports the protesters against the government and they should keep protesting."

Assuming this report is correct, it shows the Iranian government is eager to portray Obama as a partisan supporting the demonstrators.

Did Bush's "Axis of Evil" Rhetoric Help Iranians?

2009-06-20T16:18:00.000-07:00

This from NIAC:

While people chant through the night in Tehran, there is a debate going on in Washington that leads the NY Times to Gauge Whether Obama Is Creating Openings in Iran:

During the Bush years, Iran’s regime was able to coalesce support by uniting the country against a common enemy: President Bush, who called Iran a pillar of the “axis of evil” in a speech that alienated many of the very reformers whom the United States was trying to woo. For much of his administration, even as he strengthened Iran by toppling Iran’s nemesis Saddam Hussein, Mr. Bush struck a confrontational public line against the Iranian regime.

The result, according to many experts here and in Iran, was that Iranians, including reformers, swallowed their criticism of the hard-line regime and united against the common enemy. Iranians with reformist sympathies even began advising Americans to stop openly supporting them, lest that open them to attack as pawns of America.

Mousavi to Iran: Don't Let Liars Steal the Flag of Your Fathers

2009-06-20T16:08:00.000-07:00

Somehow, a letter from Mousavi to the Iranian people, very roughly translated, made it onto the NIAC website. I'm pasting it here in its entirety. Please take the time to read and understand.

An Open Letter to the General Public

God commands you to give back the people what they give you by trust and if you judge between them, Judge honestly.Honest & intelligent people of Iran:

A reference point of history is getting shaped these days and nights. People ask themselves what they should do or where they should go. I believe that it is my duty to tell you about my beliefs tell you and hear from you and learn. May we all remember our historic duty and do not run away from tasks that destination of our children and future demands us to do.Thirty years ago, a revolution won in our country, a revolution named Islamic. It was a revolution for freedom, for humanity, for honesty and dignity. During these years specially when Imam was alive, we spent too many human resources, finances and hard working to establish this holy structure and we gained too much; a spiritual life which we had never before and people taste a new way of life which regardless of all hardships tasted sweet to them. What people gained was Munificence, freedom and signs of holly life and I’m sure those who have seen those days, never satisfied with less.

What happened to us these days? Why we do not feel that spiritual happiness anymore? Are we losing something that keeps us away from that spiritual space? I came to say it is not too late and we are not that far from that brilliant environment. I came to show that we still can have a spiritual life while we live in today’s world. I came to tell about Imam’s beliefs about radicalism. I came to say how dangerous running from law to dictatorship is. I came to remind that having respect to human rights does not weaken our regime but strengthens its foundations. I came to say that people seek dignity and truth in their leaders and many of our problems has roots in lie. I came to say that we do not deserve poverty, corruption and mis-judgment. I came to invite people to join Islamic revolution in its honorable original form and to re-shape it to what it must be.

I was not professional in bringing this message, but message was too original and too honest itself that our young generation which was far from revolution days and felt faraway from this heritage, got it, accept it and made scenes just like early days of revolution and holly defense. This young generation chose Green as their symbol and I confess that I only follow them in this way. A generation accused of nihilism chose “Allah o Akbar” and “ya Hussein” as their mottos. They return back to Khomeini’s name to show this holly tree’s fruits are the same any time it blossoms. Nobody but Temperament teaches them these mottos and how unjust is the beliefs of those Homunculuses who says that these are made by foreign enemies and call it “velvet revolution”

As you know, we all faced with betrayal and lies in this way. What I predicted as results of by-passing the law has came to us sooner than I expected in a more obvious shape than I thought.

People ovate the elections because of all the efforts we made to give them hope for the future regardless of all the mis- management they saw and all the misery they felt. We tried to answer to those demands that if remained unsatisfied, may lead the whole regime to unstability. If this trust of people to us and their trust to their vote can not be defended or they can not defend their rights or protest to what they don’t like in a civilized , non-violent way , they will choose dangerous ways and all the outcomes will be the responsibility of those who do not tolerate civilized behaviors.

If the huge quantity of betrayal and fraud is used as evidence to its impossibility, the republic part of our regime will be corrupted forever and actually the idea of mis-match between Islamic and republic government will be proved. This destination will satisfy only two groups: one, those who stand from the very beginning in front of Imam and told him that Islamic regime is righteous dictatorship and people must be dragged to paradise. And another group is those who believe that Islam can not be mixed with liberty and republic rule. The great art of Imam was to defy both these groups and neutralizing their wrong beliefs. I came to immobilize these once more .

Now, the leaders of country take the responsibility by approving the results of election and put a limit on all future investigations. And banned any act of cancellation for the election and even changing the final outcome. Even when they see in more than 170 poll boxes number of ballots exceeded the number of eligible residents.
They asked us to bring our protest to guardian council. But we can see that this council has proven its non-neutral position before, during and after election. We know that the very first condition for a good judgment is having a neutral judge.

I insist that cancellation of the election and having another election is a non-negotiable right and must be followed by a neutral, trustable national committee. This right must not be declared as out of question as the people’s protest right must not be banned because of violence and bloody events risk. In addition National Security Council must give us reasonable answers about plain clothes forces in these days’ attacks toward people, public assets and making violence instead of threaten us and putting the blame on our shoulders.

As I see the events, they are not only made to constrain a government to nation but also this will be a beginning for a new political life in the country. As a friend who saw the beauties of green wave of yours, I never let my actions harm you or endangered anybody’s life. Regardless of my weak powers, I insist on frustrated election cancellation and giving the people what they deserve. I believe that contuing your protests and by help of your intelligence and creativity can bring back your absolute rights and will give you new civilized forms to follow what you are seeking.

You can be sure that I will always be there for you. What I want to suggest to the young people is: do not let the liars and cheaters to steal your flag of fathers. Do not let the strangers to come and capture your fathers’ blood gained heritage: Islamic revolution. By help of God and hope to the future and by using all your abilities, continue your way according to the initial law and non-violent techniques.

Basij is not against us on this way. Basiji is our brother. We are not against Sepah on this way; Sepah is our revolution’s guardian. Army is not against our way. Army is our borders patrol. We are not fighting with our holly regime and its lawful organs. Our enemies are lies and misleadings that we want to correct. A correction which leads us to the roots of our Islamic revolution.

I suggest the leaders to let the peaceful gatherings according to 27th article of initial law. This will bring peace and calmness to people’s protests. I suggest them to even encourage such rallies and let our media to leave this one-side behavior and cover the whole voices. I suggest them not to let this voices turn into shouts. To encourage arguments and talks on TV programs. Let the ideas to be heard and reviewed. Let the media to show the news as they are. I suggest making a free space for people to show their beliefs and ask their rights.
This is obvious that if they do accept my suggestions, there will be no need for Militia and police to be on streets and we do not see these awful scenes that hurt anybody who has feelings toward our country and our revolution.

Gripping Article From Tehran

2009-06-20T13:48:00.001-07:00

Here's a very moving and gripping article from a journalist in Tehran, the capital city of Iran. Here's an excerpt:

"Just off Revolution Street, I walked into a pall of tear gas. I’d lit a cigarette minutes before — not a habit but a need — and a young man collapsed into me shouting: “Blow smoke in my face.” Smoke dispels the effects of the gas to some degree.

"I did what I could and he said “We are with you” in English and with my colleague we tumbled into a dead end — Tehran is full of them — running from the searing gas and police. I gasped and fell through a door into an apartment building where somebody had lit a small fire in a dish to relieve the stinging.

"There were about 20 of us gathered there, eyes running, hearts racing. A 19-year-old student was nursing his left leg, struck by a militiaman with an electric-shock-delivering baton. “No way we are turning back,” said a friend of his as he massaged that wounded leg."

I for one, hope they do not turn back.

Police Pouring Acid on Protesters?

2009-06-20T13:29:00.000-07:00

From NIAC: "According to Moussavi’s Facebook page, the police are pouring acid on the demonstrators."

Remember, "police" can be defined a number of ways. Does this include the Basij or is it just regular uniform police officers? So who exactly is it that's pouring acid on protesters? And how do you define "acid"? Could it be more like a mace spray, a pepper spray? Remember, sometimes things are getting translated from Farsi into English; how to translate things can almost always be debated.

This could mean that uniform police have big vats of acid and are laughing as people's arms are melted away.

This could mean the Basij are armed with pepper spray.

Either way, there are some very unhappy protesters in Iran today.

UPDATE: there are reports that there's some kind of additive in the firehoses that makes the skin burn. My guess is pepper spray.

Reza Aslan & Eli Lake Discuss Iran

2009-06-20T11:04:00.000-07:00

Reza Aslan is the author of "How to Win a Cosmic War: God, Globalization, and the End of the War on Terror". He is a very highly respected analyst on Iran. Eli Lake is a columnist and blogger.

Just to highlight a couple points. Reza said that Khamenei's position is in jeapordy. The word puppet was used more than once to describe Ahmadinejad, and Obama's silence is the right move.Reza is brilliant. At the end of the video, he hints that he may be advising President Obama, which is a very good thing if true. I've been very impressed with Reza Aslan. I just might buy his book.

Suicide Bomber at Shrine - Government's Pretext?

2009-06-20T10:30:00.000-07:00

A number of sites are reporting that there was a suicide bomber at the shrine of the founder of the Islamic Republic, the former Supreme Leader Khomeini.

The strangest thing about this incident is that the first place it was reported was Iranian state run Press TV. Almost all other news coming out of Iran these days is coming out first on Twitter. In fact, many on Twitter are saying that the report appeared in state run media...before the actual incident took place.

In truth, we'll probably never know for sure just what the timing of the blast and the report are, so don't hold your breath. Nevertheless, the question is, who did this, and why?

First of all, who? There's probably a lot of options here. It could have been a protester, who was feeling very pro-West that morning, and very anti-government, and decided to attack a symbol of that government. Perhaps the statement is that he wants to see an end to the Islamic Republic, even if it means his own life. Perhaps he thought he would martyr himself in the cause of a revolution. To us in the West, while this sounds crazy, it nevertheless makes some sense. After all, Muslims commit suicide frequently in the Middle East in order to get their point across.

But how do the Iranians themselves analyze this incident? Many of them are saying that it was an act of the government. They think the government talked someone into this, probably telling him that he was saving the Islamic Republic by doing so. The reason? Pretext. You see, the government can blame this attack on the opposition, and then they can basically say to the people, "See, they're unpatriotic! They want to overthrow the Republic! They hate Khomeini!" It would be like trying to blow up Mt. Rushmore or the Washington Monument. Anyone who did such an act would obviously not be pro-American, right?

So the Iranians themselves think the government did it in order to have a pretext. A pretext for what? Blood.

Update: there may not have even been a bombing. From the Huffington Post: "From a reader: 'I'm watching state TV here in Dubai and they just did a report on the bombing at the mausoleum. There was NO DAMAGE. All they showed was a broken window saying the 'terrorists' luckily blew themselves up outside the building before doing any damage inside. The 'bombing' was clearly a fraud as there was NO DAMAGE done to the mausoleum other than a broken window they showed at the entrance of the building. It clearly looked like there was NO BOMBING, no explosion fragments or blood shown just one shattered window.'"

Shooting at Protesters

2009-06-20T10:29:00.001-07:00

There's a video of protesters being shot at here.

"Death to Khameni!" Chants the Crowds in Iran

2009-06-20T09:55:00.000-07:00

From the Huffington Post:

9:01 AM ET -- "Rocks and fire." Another reliable Iranian has sent 3 messages in the last 7 minutes:

-- "HARD conflict between the people and the Special Guard. people: down with khamenee"

-- "Heavy clashes on azadi street, chants of death to khameni! The street is full of rocks and fire."

-- "Voice of shooting in Azadi street in Tehran"

Captain America Strikes Again!

2009-06-19T19:55:00.000-07:00

Rich Lowry, you're an idiot. Captain America strikes again.

Once upon a time I was a committed Republican. Now I realize that they, just like the majority of all politicians, are not committed to truth and justice, but to grabbing whatever political power and influence they can, even if that means exploiting ignorant Americans at the expense of the lives of Iranian protesters.

Look, it's people actually in Iran and taking part in the protests that are begging the world to stay out of it. The regime in Iran are masters of propaganda, and they can twist anything Obama says. Khamenei demonstrated earlier today in his very rare public appearance for a Friday sermon that he's even capable of making stuff up altogether. So, the less Obama says, the better.

Everyone in Iran is distrustful of foreign influence. They have long memories. Remember Alexander the Great? They're still mad about that over there. You remember, the young Greek lad that defeated the entire Persian army and overthrew the greatest empire on earth at the time? What does that have to do with us? Foreign influence.

Khamenei is already trying to portray the protesters as being puppets of the Wicked Witch of the West (that's US). Obama doesn't want to help him make his case in any way. The Iranian people are very fragile when it comes to their Supreme Leader.

I know - we Americans can't understand that. We hate authority. As soon as someone makes some claim to truth we think it's a power grab and immediately lash out against them as a tyrrannical oppressor, and how DARE you?! Yes, we hate authority in any and all forms. "We don't need no education...teachers leave us kids alone!"

But in Iran, it's different. Authority is respected. Authority means something. The people are very religious. They believe things that we can't even comprehend. It's a delicate situation, Captain America. Read Peggy Noonan. Listen to Henry Kissenger. Listen to the protesters themselves. You can't just go in there like an 18 year old punk, snot nosed kid fresh out of boot camp ready for blood.

Calm down and let the adults handle things. Go play in your sandbox and pretend the world is your chessboard, neo-con.

Ready for Tomorrow

2009-06-19T19:14:00.001-07:00

Cracks in Khamenei's Power are Showing

2009-06-19T19:03:00.000-07:00

Iranians, along with the rest of the world, are beginning to question Khamenei's legitimacy as a ruler, says Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic & International Studies think tank in Washington, D.C. The leadership in Iran is "more divided than ever".

Al Jazeera also sees threats to Khamenei's power.

It's not just one crazy guy's opinion anymore. Real analysts with real clout are starting to say the same thing. Not that I've had anything to do with it. My stat counter is at like 25. :)

He Speaks for Iran

2009-06-19T18:22:00.001-07:00

He speaks for Iran, here.

Mousavi's offices have been ransacked. All those close to him have been arrested. He says there will be either freedom or there will be revolution. He says the military cannot stop them.

The Green Revolution is becoming a reality.

Basij Hunting?

2009-06-19T16:02:00.000-07:00

What the heck is this Basij force we keep hearing about? The BBC wants you to understand.

Basically, they're the cruel, heartless, brainwashed, suicidal/homicidal maniacs who dress in all black uniforms or no uniforms at all who have been committing random acts of violence against the protesters and against people's property in Iran during the recent protests.

I think just about every country in the world has forces like this. I'm trying to think about what the US equivalent would be. They're kind of like a cross between the US Army's super-secret, unacknowledged Delta Force on the one hand, and maybe a swat team on the other. Anyway, they're secret because they do bad things....like breaking into student dorms and beating students to death at random.

...and the Iranian public has begun hunting them down.

The Triumph of Common Sense

2009-06-19T15:58:00.001-07:00

Henry Kissenger thinks Obama is handling the crisis just swimmingly.

Khamenei's Speech: Invoking the West

2009-06-19T14:54:00.000-07:00

Khamenei's speech made numerous references to the West: the US, the EU, the UK and Israel. Using this translation and the "find" function in my web browser, I'm going to try to find all the references to the US. Why? Because I want to demonstrate that Obama's policy of basic silence on this matter is the correct stance to take.

First he says, "The Zionist, American and British radio are all trying to say that there was a competition between those who support and those who didn't support the state - everyone supported the state." By "everyone" Khamenei means all the candidates. He is complaining that the Western media is saying that the dispute between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi is a dispute between those who want to preserve the state and those who want to overturn it. He's saying that that's simply untrue. Notice what he's trying to do here. He's trying to force people in the opposition to acknowledge, even if only in their hearts, that they don't want to overturn the state. He's saying, "You don't want to be like the Americans or the Zionist dogs do you? You don't want to overturn the state." It seems like such a small thing he's asking the Iranians to acknowledge, but this is actually a very important psychological move. He's trying to get people to draw lines in their own mind and say to themselves, "Well, I may protest, but I'm sure not gonna cross that line!" He's trying to keep protests from turning into a revolution. So Khamenei agrees with me that revolution is in fact in the air, and he's trying to stop it, invoking powerful images of the evil Wicked Witch of the West to do so.

Next, he says, "First, before the elections, their [US and EU] media orientation and their statements made was they wanted to cast out the hearts of the people a feeling that the election was useless to cut the turn out..." His point here is that prior to the election, Western media was trying to convince people in Iran not to bother voting, because the election was largely meaningless. He goes on to praise the huge 85% turnout on election day, praising Iran for proving the Wicked Witch of the West wrong. Then he goes on to say that when the evil West saw the results (the protests), that they saw an opportunity, and their masks came off and they revealed their true nature.

He said, "a number of heads of states and other leaders of EU and America made statements that clarified the true nature of those leaders. It was said on behalf of the US president that he was waiting for a day that people came out to streets." What he's saying here is not entirely clear to me. President Obama said no such thing, nor nothing that implied it. Yet notice how he says that someone said it on behalf of the President. See how careful Obama must be in what he says? So even though publicly Obama has said that there isn't much difference for the US between the candidates, Khamenei is trying to impute statements to him. He's trying to associate him with the opposition movement. He is a seasoned veteran deceiver and his rhetoric seems pretty powerful to me. It's easy for people who don't know better to believe this stuff. But it's even easier if there's actual sound bites and video footage of President Obama saying things in favor of one side or the other. He goes on to blame European and American "agents" on the "riots" vandalism and starting fires, etc. But a picture is worth a thousand words:

Then Khamenei gets bizarre. He said, "An American Zionist capitalist some time ago claimed that he had spent ten million dollars and created velvet revolution in Georgia. They are comparing the Islamic Republic with GEORGIA!?" Now, that's very odd, because the Velvet Revolution is the name for the "Gentle Revolution" that happened in the old Czechoslovakia in 1989. Understanding exactly what he means is probably impossible. He is, after all, a madman. But his point isn't so hard to understand. He's trying to say that the US has already admitted to being involved in a revolution involving Muslims, and he's saying that WE are saying that we'll be more than happy to do the same thing here. Our capitalist greed by which we amass wealth to ourselves will be put to use in service of buying a revolution in Iran. He's just trying to build suspicion in the hearts of the gullible. Now, at first gloss, we might say, ah, what a loon, and blow him off. It's much harder for Iranians to just blow him off, even if they think he's out to lunch. He's like the Pope in Iran. He's the Supreme Leader of the whole country. It's hard to just ignore him. And yet I think many will, because he does not cite evidence for it. He only says that someone, somewhere, once upon a time, made some claim....they are paranoid rantings of a madman, and anyone with common sense can see that.

He goes on to say that Americans have no moral high ground because we are oppressing the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and...then there was that Waco, Tx incident: "What is the worst thing to me in all this are comments made in the name of human rights and freedom and liberty made by American officials they said that we are worried about Iranian nations WHAT? Are you serious? Do you KNOW what human rights are?! Who did that in Afghanistan? The wars and bloodshed Who is crushing Iraq under its soldier's boots? in Palestine? Who supported the Zionists? even inside America During the time of the democrats Time of Clinton 80 people were burned alive in Waco? Now you are talking about human rights?" I leave it to the reader to sort this out.

Well, my whole point is just to say that in Iran, it's kind of cool to invoke the West, especially the US. However, there is one very unusual thing about Khamenei's speech. There's one place where we would have thought he would mention the US, but he didn't.

He said, "I will tell you, diplomats of other countries in the past few days have taken away their masks and showing their true image. The most evil of them all is the British Government." Now I'm sure that when he said that, the Brits were positively choking on their crumpets and reaching for their tea to wash it down. But notice that for once it wasn't the US who was named as the most evil. I think that's significant, given the fact that Iran is literally surrounded by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not proud of the US that we're somehow thought of not quite so badly by an evil dictator. Far from it. Nonetheless, it shows that the US is a little bit less of a "political football" as Obama called it. This is good. It means Obama is successfully avoiding fueling Khamenei's rhetoric. It's a little bit harder for him to paint the opposition as another "velvet revolution in Georgia". Stop that giggling.

Khamenei's Speech: Why don't you believe me?

2009-06-19T14:40:00.000-07:00

If you want to read about the most significant point of the speech, and to know what speech I'm talking about, see here.

The second thing in the speech I'd like to talk about is Khamenei's discussion of the election results. It would be funny if it weren't so tragic and wicked.

"If the difference was 100,000 or 500,000 or 1 million, well, one may say fraud could have happened. But how can one rig 11 million votes?" Khamenei asked.

OH! So THAT'S why he rigged the results in such a ridiculous fashion! 11 million made up votes can't be wrong!

But it's obvious it was rigged.

Khamenei's Speech: Prelude to a Bloodbath

2009-06-19T12:43:00.000-07:00

Today is Friday, sort of the Islamic Sabbath (not really, but for Westerners it's a helpful analogy). Today, Supreme Leader Khamenei gave a sermon at Tehran University, where ironically, just a few days ago a number of students were beaten at random and some were killed.

Here are my sources on this historically important speech: The NY Times, Amnesty International, Aljazeera, the Huffington Post here and here, and here's an English translation of the speech. However, most important of all is this brilliant piece from the Council on Foreign Relations (never mind the date - it's been updated to reflect the speech).

All of these sources are worth reading, but you should definitely read the piece from the CFR. In fact, I'd rather you read that piece than this blog post. It's absolutely brilliant and spot on. (It's pretty much everything I've been saying.) But I'm still going to post about the speech anyway.

The most significant thing about the speech is that it contained a warning to the opposition that they should get ready for a bloodbath. Everything I've read about the speech agrees on that point.

Some think this will bring the protests to an end. That's simply untrue. Events of the last couple of days shows us that violence only strengthens the opposition. Not only that, but the CFR piece reminds us of what happened 30 years ago when the Shah of Iran cracked down on the opposition violently: protests "mushroomed".

Listen, I don't like violence anymore than you do. Violence is evil and bad. It should be avoided. But revolutions are always founded on the blood of martyrs. What revolution has ever happened in the history of the world that hasn't had much blood shed to accompany it? Our own Revolutionary War cost many lives, as did our Civil War, which was arguably revolutionary.

But listen: let's not have an American knee-jerk reaction to the violence in Iran. Rather, let us sit in quiet awe of the bravery of the Iranian people who valiantly strap on their green ribbons and walk out their front door to face they know not what in the streets where they live. Let us watch with tears in our eyes, and let us pray that it will all be over soon, and that the Supreme Leader will fall, and his office with him. The Iranian people think that that's worth dying for. I agree with them. Once upon a time, Americans thought there were some things worth dying for. So let us sit back and watch respectfully and honorably as a courageous people reinvent themselves at tremendous cost.

There will be much more violence to come. Let us not lose heart at this critical time. The Iranian people will need our support and encouragement, not our cries to bring it all to an end. Such cries will only make them lose heart when they need it most.

And how are the protesters reacting? The Huffington Report says, "In reaction to Khamenei's address hours later, cries of 'Death to the dictator! and 'Allahu akbar!' ('God is great!') resounded from rooftops throughout Tehran after dark - similar to other nights this week following rallies supporting reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi."

What do they mean "dictator"? Who are they referring to: Ahmadinejad or Khamenei? I rather think it's Khamenei, since, after all, they have not been saying that all week, but this is clearly in reaction to Khamenei's speech. That the people have been crying "God is great!" from the rooftops is pregnant with meaning. This was what they did 30 years ago in rebellion against the Shah. This is an Islamic creed, a profession of faith. At the same time, it is a crying out to God for justice. No matter what your religious conviction, the video below is moving when seen in this light.

Revolution is brewing in Iran.

The Wall Street Journal Gets It

2009-06-19T12:00:00.001-07:00

Peggy Noonan has put out a brilliant piece for the Wall Street Journal today, and I applaud it. Thanks Peggy, for getting it right and for getting the word out - and in a conservative newspaper no less! Hooray!

I am by no means a liberal or a Democrat. I grew up loyal to the Republicans, but am now a registered Libertarian. That doesn't mean I don't usually side with the Republicans though. Nonetheless, I've been entirely vehement at the ignorant and wreckless politics of certain Republicans lately, especailly Captain America, John McCain, which I've written about here. And yes, by calling him Captain America, I do mean to make him look ridiculous and cartoonish, so that you won't take him seriously.

The best thing for the President to do is stay out of it. I even wrote him a letter telling him as much, and I told him that he needs to get prominent Republicans to speak out about it in conservative forums, because frankly, conservatives won't listen to Obama.

Why is that? Well, because conservatives have already made up their minds about Obama. He's a liberal and probably a coward, they say. He couldn't possibly be right. Thus it's very, very easy for someone like McCain to come along in a smug desire for revenge for losing last year's election and say that Obama is screwing up foreign policy, just like conservatives always knew he would. It reminds me of when Rush Limbaugh said that he wants Obama to fail.

It's ironic how conservatives accuse liberals of being anti-American, because Rush's comments are what's truly anti-American. And I LIKE listening to Rush Limbaugh! McCain's actions here are also anti-American. I know he's got access to BETTER information than I do, since he's a Senator. Although, I doubt he spends as much time looking into it and thinking about it as I do. I didn't vote for Obama. I don't think liberal policies work. But I'm happy to be proven wrong. I want the country to succeed. I want Obama to succeed. I don't want him to ruin our country, and in fact, I'm convinced that ruining our country is a lot harder than it looks.

Obama is not just being a coward. I agree with him, and I was a Marine. Choose any Marine at random and call them a coward. You'll find out if you're right. If I were President, I would do just what Obama is doing. He's doing the right thing.

I might have a small disagreement with Noonan's article though. She thinks it was a mistake for Obama to say that Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are basically the same thing from our perspective. First, let's admit that yes, Obama's statement is incorrect. Noonan assumes that Obama doesn't know that. Perhaps that's a fair assumption, but I think it's incorrect. I think Obama knows that what he said did not reflect the truth of the matter. He knows, because he can employ common sense, that millions of Iranians think the difference between the two candidates is worth dying for. Only a fool could overlook that.

If it is true that the two candidates look the same from our perspective, we need to change our perspective. Anyone in our government will tell you that we know very, very precious little about Iran. I was very pleasantly surprised to see this ad for the opposition. I had no idea just how radical the opposition was. Perhaps a change in perspective is a good idea.

Nonetheless, let's assume for a moment that Obama knew that the comment did not reflect reality. Is there still some reason why he might have said it? Sure! Lots of them! For one, he might have been pushing Mousavi to parse his movement in a way Westerners can understand. For another, he might have been trying to be absolutely crystal clear to everyone in Iran that he was NOT taking sides, because in fact, he doesn't see a difference between the two. Perhaps that made the people in Iran kind of resent Obama's ignorance a little bit, but I doubt anyone in Iran was shocked or really cared all that much. They know we're ignorant about them. And in fact, Mousavi's statement describing how irritated he was about that only gives the fact more publicity that the US President isn't taking sides. (And I'm not the only one who thinks it was a good move.)

That's a very good thing, because if Ahmadinejad can paint the opposition movement as an American puppet movement, then the movement will lose a lot of momentum. Almost everyone in Iran is distrustful of foreign influence in their country, particularly Western influence, and that distrust goes all the way back to the Persians and the Greeks. People outside the US have slightly longer memories than we do. They still talk about injustices done centuries ago. When I was in Kosovo, I remember people talking about land disputes in terms of what happened 700 years before. In the Middle East, some still talk about the Crusades as if those injustices still need to be answered for. This is unthinkable for Americans who have only a 200 year history. White people still can't understand how blacks can still be upset about slavery in the US, when it was abolished 150 years ago. What does that have to do with me? we wonder. Well, some people have longer memories, and they have VERY long memories in the Middle East that stretches back for centuries, even millennia.

So the point is, the Iranians are distrustful of foreign influence, but particularly the US. So if Obama picks a side and supports it openly and publicly, that side will immediately lose at least some Iranian support. So it is actually in the best interests of the opposition movement that he remain silent.

But perhaps you ask why he doesn't then publicly side with the Iranian government, to REALLY ensure their doom. Of course he can't do that, because the American people wouldn't understand that he's lying. So the only thing he can do is take no side. And for this, the Republicans and others call him a coward and say that he's not standing up for the protesters. But the fact is, there's nothing he can do to help the protesters. All he can do is try to refrain from hindering their efforts.

What would McCain have done if he was President? Would he have stormed into Iran, in an attempt to oust the government? Doesn't he understand that if Obama did that, the new government would have NO legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian people? How is that different from the current government? If we're TRULY Americans, if we TRULY believe in government by the people and for the people, then we'll let the Iranian PEOPLE form their OWN government, without our help, without our interference, without our meddling.

Bravo, President Obama, bravo. You're doing the right thing. Please keep resisting the temptation to be Captain America.

Time Magazine's 4 Possible Scenarios

2009-06-19T10:58:00.000-07:00

Tony Karon wrote a piece for Time that came out on the internet yesterday. You can read it here. The piece offers 4 scenarios. 1) Revolution 2.0, 2) a Tehran Tiananmen, 3) Khamenei's "Divine" Retreat and 4) a "Zimbabwe" option. His conclusion? Not much. He says, "all four options may remain in play while the various camps test one another's strength in the coming days." I disagree. (Why else would I post about it?)

1) First, Karon's assessment of “Revolution 2.0”, is almost completely wrong. But before I talk about how wrong it is, I want to talk about how wrong it is. Does anyone else find it just a little bit crass, just a little bit smug, just a little bit cute to refer to a revolution as a software upgrade? I do. People in Iran are being terrorized, beaten and in many cases killed. And yet those people continue to wake up in the morning, determined to face all those fears yet again in another day of protests. To refer to what's happening as a software upgrade is to minimize what's going on. Furthermore, I suspect that the reason for this cute little label is that Karon doesn't take the protesters all that seriously, and he doesn't want his readers to take the idea of a revolution seriously. He's making light of the idea. If I were an Iranian, I'd be very insulted. This is the kind of smugness on the part of the West that makes the world hate us. This is the kind of arrogance that turns them off. It's almost as if we look down on them as lesser life forms. That needs to end.

But enough ranting about that. Let me attack his actual analysis. He says, "Despite the Twitter-enabled street scenes and revived slogans of Ayatullah Ruhollah Khomeini's 1979 revolution, a repeat of that successful insurrection remains highly improbable." (Need I mention that his referring to the revolution as "Twitter-enabled" is once again making cute something that's very serious?) At any rate, he doesn't think that another revolution is likely. His first reason is that the leaders of the movement have a lot to lose if the government is brought down, since they're part of the establishment. That's funny. The leaders of the movement aren't in control of the government, and yet they are clearly in control of the people. What exactly is it that they're going to lose? Right now they don't have the reigns of government. If the government is overthrown, who is going to be the new leaders of the new government if not the leaders of the protest movement? They have everything to gain and nothing to lose. Karon's assessment is just strange to me.

Next he says that a popular movement can only succeed if the police/military establishment switches loyalty, and he doesn't see that happening here. Apparently he and I have been getting very different information. I've been reading about paramilitary and police forces covering their faces and operating mainly at night; about their identities being broadcast on Twitter and about some being forced to leave town for fear of reprisal at the Huffington Post. Karon apparently thinks only a very small fraction of the military might of Iran has been utilized, and that they've been nice so far...or something like that. I've also been reading reports of senior members of the Revolutionary Guard Corps and others being arrested, ostensibly for having sympathies with the opposition. Iranian soliders are not cold, unfeeling monsters. Many of them probably voted for Mousavi too. It's just a matter of time. Armed men have already been firing on crowds, and have begun to show signs of feeling ashamed of themselves. The military/police force is beginning to show signs of having a conscience.

Karon also seems to be operating under the delusion that since there are many millions of Ahmadinejad supporters, it would be unlikely that the opposition will be able to destroy the government. Yet I've been reading reports that people in Iran who voted for Ahmadinejad are finding sympathy for the protesters, and are disappointing in the government's handling of the situation. Besides, even if there would be some who would stand opposed to the dismantling of the government at the hands of reformers, why aren't they showing up in huge droves for the government rallies like they are for the opposition? If Karon were correct, then the government rallies would not require people to be bused in from who knows where, but people would be flocking to stand up for the government. The fact is, that hasn't happened. The only people who are standing up for the government at this point is the government. Again, I find Karon's assessment just strange. One of us must not be well informed. That's the only conclusion I can come up with for such a huge difference of opinion.

Not only do I find an overthrow of the government possible, but I find it likely. The opposition movement is playing its cards in exactly the same way as they did in the 70’s. And actually, it’s many of the same people leading the new revolution. This day of mourning strategy in particular is what I mean. That will only continue to prolong the protests, and they will grow exponentially. Martyrdom is incredibly important to Shia Muslims.

This was the same strategy they used in the 70’s to overthrow the Shah. He was overthrown when the protests reached a million people. The protests have already doubled that number by some counts. And I also read an Iranian man’s assessment of the situation, that he was certain that the crowds would not stop until the Supreme Leader himself was ousted. If that happens, it will signal, if not the end of the Islamic Republic, at least a fatal blow to it. Anyway, you’ll notice that the initial big protest march was a march from “Revolution square” to “Freedom square”. Obviously symbolic. It’s a new revolution that they seem to be trying to bring about. And the people running the show were involved in the last revolution, so they know what they’re doing. I've posted an ad here, depicting the opposition platform, saying that they want freedom of speech, rights for religious minorities, etc. These are RADICAL for

Iran

, and would require a revolution to be brought to fruition. It would require a new, secular state. The things asked for on that ad are incompatible with strict Islamic law. Make no mistake: the opposition's goal is nothing less than a new revolution, a Green Revolution. And I think they just might get it. I certainly hope they do.

2) The second scenario, a Tehran Tiananmen, isn’t really possible. The crowds are WAY too big for there to be any permanently effective crackdown. The secret police have opened fire into crowds already, and it has only made the protests stronger. Furthermore, as mentioned above, there are signs that the will of the military/police is cracking. They don’t want to just keep killing people unnecessarily. Tiananmen square was a much smaller protest. It’s relatively easy for a few tanks to trample a couple hundred students (if you'll pardon my cavalier approach), but what do you do when there’s 2 million people flooding the streets of the city? Do you kill them all? No one has the heart to do such a thing. I doubt anyone but the North Koreans would be capable of such monstrous deeds, but I've been wrong before. In some ways, the gov’t of

Iran

has already been trying to take the Tiananmen approach, but it’s only backfired. And Khamenei's recent speech indicates that more is coming. But so far, violence has only strengthened the protesters. Any further violence, far from crushing the movement, will only make it stronger.

3) As for a Khameini retreat, I’m pretty sure he can’t do that. If he does that, his position will be so weakened that he might as well give up that position altogether. No, he cannot admit that he’s done anything wrong, any more than the Pope can. He’ll lose everything if he does. Admitting election fraud would lead to revolution even more inevitably than is already the case. Not to mention that some of the top clerics have been saying that election fraud is haraam, which means sort of anathema or a mortal sin. I'm not sure, but I'd guess that probably means the death penalty if you’re found guilty. So I guess it’s possible that admitting election fraud by having a new election might mean Khamenei’s life - at least a trial of great significance. So he can either try to maintain his power or lose everything and possibly be executed in a revolution. If I were him, I’d be desperately trying to cling to power, and wouldn’t admit election fraud no matter what. I think it’s quite possible that it’s that serious.

4) Finally, the

Zimbabwe

option can’t happen here. That has to do with the cycle of mourning. Iranians, because of their regard for martyrs, don’t just mourn for a few days and then call it quits. No, they mourn for a while, and then they mourn again at 30 days and again at 40 days (again, see here). That’s why it’s such a big deal that Mousavi declared a day of mourning (as confirmed by Reza Aslan's recent appearance on MSNBC). By doing that, he guaranteed that the protests would be prolonged for at least another 40 days. Rather than the protests petering out – besides, there’s 40% unemployment in the country – they’ll only continue to gain momentum and support. Mousavi would be the greatest kind of fool to settle for a cabinet position at this point, when it’s so obvious that the reign of Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, is doomed, and with him, likely the Islamic Republic.

If these four scenarios are truly the only reasonable possible ends to this situation, then my vote goes to the new revolution, and I think anyone who is well informed about the situation and understands it would say the same. And more importantly, I think President Obama also sees it that way, which is why he can be content to stay out of it. He knows that he’s going to see the unraveling of the Iranian state on his watch, and he knows that if he just sits back and watches it happen, it’ll happen all by itself. He may be a lot of things, but he’s not a neo-conservative who sees the world as his own personal chessboard. He doesn’t feel the need to be Captain

America

, forcing democracy and American values (such as greed and narcissism) on other countries.

What Should Captain America Do About Iran? Nothing.

2009-06-18T16:49:00.000-07:00

Nothing.

John McCain completely disagrees. Here is an example of a politician saying something stupid for the sake of political gain. He should know better. He's certainly in a position to be better informed than that.

Obama's position is right on the money. Stay out of it. Let's not "meddle" in Iranian affairs. His reasoning is absolutely sound. As soon as the US stands up against Ahmadinejad, then he can just turn around and call Mousavi a US puppet, and it's conceivable that some Iranians will believe it, and the movement will fizzle. Perhaps that's overstating things a bit, but we shouldn't miss the point. Let's not give the regime any way to claim that the opposition is the result of foreign powers meddling in Iranian politics. Everyone in Iran is distrustful of foreign influence. They have been for a very long time.

And anyway, just what does McCain think we can acheive by our meddling? Is the collapse of the Iranian government not happening fast enough to satisfy him?

Let's say that it's somehow possible to convince the Iranian government to "play nice" and stop killing protesters. What then? I hate to sound like a cold, bloodthirsty, inhuman monster, but the fact is, the doom of the Iranian state is spelled out in the blood of these protesters, who history will undoubtedly honor as martyrs. This is what happens in revolutions. There's violence; people die. I don't like it anymore than anyone else, but it's a necessary evil.

The fact is, Obama has denounced the violence. Iran is already under a number of sanctions from the UN. What more can be done?

"People are being killed and beaten in the streets of Tehran and all over Iran, and we should stand up for them," he told FOX News. "The way we stood up for the Polish workers in Gdansk, the way we stood up for the people of then Czechoslovakia in the Prague Spring and we have stood up for freedom in every part of the world. We're not doing that."

Precisely how should we stand up for these people, and how will that do them any good? If we take their side, so to speak, that will undermine their legitimacy in Iran. Why is this such a hard concept to understand? Not everyone looks at the US as some kind of world savior. Captain America is just a comic book.

When asked to respond to Obama's argument that perceived U.S. meddling could cast protestors as puppets of the United States, McCain said, "You know, I heard that argument during the Cold War that if we advocated for the oppressed under the then Soviet Union, that would somehow help the oppressors. It doesn't. It doesn't."

What a brilliant and well thought out response! "It doesn't." Brilliant! Why didn't I think of that? Why didn't anyone on the President's staff think of that? The fact is, McCain doesn't HAVE a coherent response to such a well reasoned argument, because he knows he's wrong. He is irresponsibly standing against the President, exploiting the ignorant American public, and all for the sake of political gain. John McCain is no Captain America.

Want to See Pictures From Iran?

2009-06-18T16:46:00.001-07:00

Then click here. But I warn you, it's not for the timid.

Who Are the Real Combatants in Iran?

2009-06-18T16:44:00.000-07:00

Aljazeera has a credible theory.

Police Attack Students at Tehran University

2009-06-18T16:37:00.000-07:00

From the Wall Street Journal:

"Iran's Interior Ministry ordered a probe into an attack late Sunday night on Tehran University students in a dormitory reported to have left several students dead and many more injured or arrested. Students say it was carried out by Islamic militia and police. Iran's English-language Press TV said the ministry urged Tehran's governor's office to identify those involved. Iran's influential speaker of parliament, Ali Larijani, condemned the attack.

"Students' Web sites reported mass resignations by Tehran University professors outraged over the incident. One medical student said he and his roommate blocked their door with furniture and hid in the closet when they heard the militia's motorcycles approaching. He heard the militia breaking down doors, and then screams of anguish as students were dragged from their beds and beaten violently.

"When he came out after the militia had left, friends and classmates lay unconscious in dorm rooms and hallways, many with chest wounds from being stabbed or bloody faces from blows to their heads, he said."

What Does the Opposition in Iran Want?

2009-06-18T16:36:00.001-07:00

Iran Violence

2009-06-18T16:01:00.000-07:00

Revolutions are never easy or painless. The Green Revolution in Iran is no exception.

Here's an article giving you a quick overview of what the situation is like in Iran. No nightmares from this one. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0618/p06s16-wome.html

This article, however, is not for the timid. It relays a story of how secret Iranian police or paramilitary forces snuck into the student dorms at Tehran university and...well...began to beat and kill students at random.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/claims-of-student-massacre-spread-1706011.html

Here's a video of police brutality against protesters:

Here's an eyewitness account that came to a website via fax machine of all things:

http://www.facebook.com/ext/share.php?sid=106155427168&h=h0csL&u=1e6r5&ref=mf

Here's a telephone interview with a woman in Iran, who speaks of the violence there. It includes English subtitles.

http://tehranbureau.com/exclusive-report/

Iranian Clerics Speaking Out Against Fraudulent Election

2009-06-18T15:44:00.000-07:00

Let's not rely on Western analysts to tell us how we should perceive the recent elections in Iran. Let's hear from some Iranians themselves. Grand Ayatullah Husayn 'Ali Montazeri (think of him as at least a Cardinal) speaking of the election said, "Unfortunately, however, the worst use was made of this "golden" opportunity. Following the announcement of [election] results, which cannot be accepted by anyone of sound mind - and, based on reliable evidence, substantial alterations have been made in the votes of the people..."

Now, to get a sense of the significance of this, try to imagine what it would mean for a Cardinal to accuse the Pope of fraud in a popular election of the Roman Emperor during the Middle Ages. But wait, you say, the Grand Ayatullah didn't mention the Supreme Leader! He didn't have to. If the election was rigged, because of various factors, the Supreme Leader would have to have been the one behind it. Even though the Supreme Leader wasn't named, the accusation of fraud was directed at him. But even more than that, this Grand Ayatullah is a well informed Iranian Muslim. He thinks anyone "of sound mind" can see that the election was stolen. Read the rest of his public letter here:

http://occident.blogspot.com/2009/06/confirmed-montazeri-questions-election.html

He's not alone. That same webpage goes on to say, "The Association of Combatant Clerics, which consists of moderate and leftist clerics and includes such important figures as former president Mohammad Khatami, Ayatollah Mohammad Mousavi Khoiniha, and Grand Ayatollah Abdolkarim Mousavi Ardabili, issued a strongly-worded statement, calling the results of the election invalid." Khatami was the reformist President before Ahmadinejad. By the way, he's under house arrest now.

Furthermore, "Grand Ayatollah Yousef Saanei, a progressive cleric and a confidante of [the late] Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic [and previous Supreme Leader], has declared that Mr. Ahmadinejad is not the legitimate president and cooperation with him, as well as working for him, are haraam (against Islam and a great sin). He has also declared that any changes in the votes by unlawful means are also haraam." That's not just serious. It's a matter of life and death. More serious language would not be possible. To put it in Christian terms, he's threatening excommunication for whoever is responsible, which in

Iran

probably also means execution. Again, this is directed subtly at the Supreme Leader, who, if the election was rigged, must have been the one behind it.

Furthermore, the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday that during the protests, "A young cleric from the Shiite holy city of Qom [think Rome] addressed the crowd. 'I have come to bring you a message from Qom,' he said. 'Without a doubt, all clerical scholars are against the current situation. The only person acceptable to them is Mr. Mousavi, they have rejected Mr. Ahmadinejad's request to meet them in the past two days.'"

If that's not enough, there's still more. An emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts has been called. Who are they? Well, think College of Cardinals that elects the Pope. This Assembly of Experts chooses the new Supreme Leader - and they have the power to remove the current one. Of course, they can only do that if it can be proved that he has acted un-Islamic-ly. Perhaps that's why one cleric was arguing that tampering with the election was "haraam" (think "anathema"). Perhaps he's beginning to argue that the Supreme Leader should be ousted. This was reported by CNN; see here:

http://www.mideastmonitoring.com/2009/06/reza-aslan-on-cnn-emergency-meeting-of.html
CNN-Iran has since had their plug pulled.

Parallels Between Iran and the Medieval Church?

2009-06-18T15:20:00.000-07:00

There are some very interesting parallels between what's happening in Iran and what happened in the Medieval Church in the centuries leading up to the Reformation. There is an analogy that can be drawn between the Supreme Leader and the Pope on the one hand, and the President and the Emperor of the Roman Empire on the other. I think it's a fair analogy. The Pope, at least at points, had authority over the Emperor (and constantly lusted for more). The Emperor eventually became, in large part, a figurehead. You can read the papal bull "Unam Sanctum" of 1302 in which the Pope claimed absolute authority over every human being on earth here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pgc.asp?page=source/b8-unam.html
The last sentence of Unam Sanctum reads: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff [Pope]." Crazy huh?

In my previous post, I presented evidence that this election had been stolen. Some have suggested, and many in Iran protested, that the election in 2005, in which Ahmadinejad was (supposedly) elected for the first time was also a sham. Who, if not the Supreme Leader, could be behind such a massive fraud?

What if Ahmadinejad is, for lack of a better word, a bit of a puppet of the Supreme Leader, his front man whom the Supreme Leader ensured would get elected in two stolen elections? Then the Supreme Leader would be making a similar power grab as the Pope once did, just not as blatantly. At the very least, we have to admit that if these two elections were stolen, and it is clear that the current election has been, Ahmadinejad is indebtted to Khameini, the Supreme Leader.

More than likely, what happened in 2005 was that Khameini learned that it was bad to have a President he could not really control, namely Khatami, who was a reformist President for two terms prior to Ahmadinejad. I don't think it's far fetched at all to think that Khameini, the Supreme Leader, would have wanted to ensure that someone friendly to his own ideas was elected. Perhaps the words "puppet" or "front man" are too strong, but it sure looks that way to me.

At any rate, the papal claims to supreme authority of the Middle Ages were the seeds of the fall of the papacy and ultimately of the Reformation. While the Pope enjoyed quite a lot of power in those days, it quickly became obvious to everyone that it was evil. Dante, writing his famous work, "The Divine Comedy" about 10 years after Unam Sanctum, depicted Pope Boniface VIII, the author of the bull, in hell. The corruption of the church was widely known, and people began to speak of the need for moral reform everywhere. People began to say that Councils, not Popes, should hold the authority.

At one point, the College of Cardinals elected a Pope, Urban VI, who wanted to reform the corruption of the cardinals, namely their lavish lifestyle. Well, obviously the cardinals didn't like that too much, so they simply moved to

France

and elected another Pope. Now there were two Popes, and they each excommunicated the followers of the other Pope. Every Christian in the world was excommunicated by someone at that point.

Suddenly the Pope's claims of absolute authority and infallibility looked ridiculous. Suddenly you're forced to the conclusion that he can err. It wasn't long before the little monk from Wittenburg, Martin Luther, began to speak, and the Reformation was born. While I have oversimplified the story greatly, I don't think I've distorted it.

The parallels with what's going on in

Iran

are unmistakeable. Ahmadinejad sees the clerics as corrupt and living lavish lifestyles. He wants to see moral reform, or at least that's what he's preaching. He thinks the religious elite are fat while the common man is poor and needy, and he wants to do something about it. At least, that's what he says.

Anyway, like Rome in the Middle Ages, people are calling for reform on both sides. Ahmadinejad wants to do away with the corruption of the Ayatullahs, while Mousavi wants to make the state more pragmatic. But both sides are talking about reform.

Meanwhile, Mousavi has the backing of the reformers, but is himself a representative of the old guard. One article paints a picture of a battle behind the scenes that seems to be pulling the strings. You can read it here: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009616184556951795.html
It's from Al Jazeera, an Arab run news organization that is anything but pro-West. If anything, they're anti-West. So their analysis isn't biased in the same ways as ours is (but it's still biased). Anyway, I think they're on to something here. If they're right, then what's happened is just like what happened in the Middle Ages. Ahmadinejad is trying to do away with the corruption at the top, and the people at the top don't like it. And just as the College of Cardinals went to Avignon,

France

and elected a rival Pope, so now the Assembly of Experts has been called for an emergency meeting, and public statements by Ayatullahs have hinted that the Supreme Leader might be removed. The only reason for such a meeting must be to discuss this very thing. If you've read the article from Al Jazeera, then you'll be interested to note that it was Rafsanjani who called the emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts.

And so, just as the Roman Pontiff eventually lost his strangle hold on the world, so too perhaps the Supreme Leader will lose his strangle hold on

Iran

. Perhaps we will see a Reformation in Islam analogous to the Reformation in Christianity. Perhaps the Muslim world will begin to change. Perhaps something very important is beginning in

Iran

that will spread to the rest of the Middle East.

But hear this, O Westerners! Notice that this is happening quite apart from any US or Western interference. The downfall of the Islamic Republic in Iran seems certain, inevitable. The worst possible thing we could do now is to stick our grubby, greasy, neo-conservative paws all over it. Ahmadinejad and Khameini want nothing more than to say that the evil West is behind these events in order to de-legitimize them. We must not give them that opportunity. The Iranian state is doomed! We need to step back and let it fall on its own.

Does my heart break for those who are suffering, bleeding and dying? Absolutely. But how can the West stop it? Seriously, how can the West do anything about it? Anything President Obama or members of Congress say about the current situation in Iran can be twisted to discredit the Green Revolution. They should just remain silent and hope that the government falls sooner rather than later.

Evidence that the Election in Iran was Rigged

2009-06-18T15:14:00.000-07:00

Here's a simple to understand article with some basic points that make it obvious that the recent election in Iran was stolen: http://www.juancole.com/2009/06/stealing-iranian-election.html

Here's a slightly more technical argument:

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/iran-does-have-some-fishy-numbers.html

And here is a very compelling read:

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/mebane_moderately_strong_suppo.php

How is Iran's government structured?

2009-06-18T14:51:00.000-07:00

Did you know that the President of Iran is not the top executive in the country? He isn't. The one who holds all the power in Iran is the Supreme Leader. Anything the President says or does can be vetoed by this Supreme Leader. Here's a simple graphic depicting the basic structure of the Iranian government.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124523854750623001.html#project%3DIranGov09%26articleTabs%3Dinteractive

If you want to read more about the Iranian political structure, particularly what powers the Iranian president has, click here:

http://www.cfr.org/publication/19593/presidential_power_in_iran.html

But what does the average American need to understand? Only that the President of Iran cannot ever become a dictator by himself, because the Supreme Leader always has the authority to trump him. The significance of this fact is that perhaps we should view the protesters in Iran as speaking out, not just against Ahmadinejad, but also against the Supreme Leader.