Former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Speaks Out

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.

.

Rumors of Compromise?

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.

.

Aslan: Slow Military Coup in Iran

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.

.

Arab Perceptions of the Iranian "Green Wave"

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

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.

Read more here.

The Passion of Captain America

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

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

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

The FULL CNN Interview

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

Follow the Money

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.

.

Iran Crisis: Just Beginning

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

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

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

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

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

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.

.

Iranian Poet: Dear Mr. Khamenei...

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.

.

Political Earthquake in Iran

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

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.

EU Diplomatic Machinations

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."

"Leave Iran to the Iranians"

"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.

.