Grand Ayatollah Yousof Sanei -- the most senior cleric in Iran, after Montazeri, and one of the handful of Grand Marjas (source) of Shia Islam in the world, releases another statement supporting demonstrators. The English version of the statement, from his official website:
Iranian Election Protests http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/05/world/middleeast/05iran.html?_r=1&hp "Mr. Moussavi released documents detailing a campaign of fraud ... The documents, published on Mr. Moussavi’s Web site, accused supporters of the president of printing more than 20 million extra ballots before the vote ... Many of the accusations of fraud posted on Mr. Moussavi’s Web site Saturday had been published before, but the report did give some more specific charges. For instance, although the government had announced that two of the losing presidential contenders had received relatively few votes in their hometowns, the documents stated that some ballot boxes in those towns contained no votes for the two men." This is the sort of information I've been awaiting since the election. I hope to read it in English soon.
Another typical reaction of a crazy & obviously scared dictatorship... more: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/07/20097515223923231.html
On this holiday weekend in the US, I would like to send out hope to the people of Iran that they may find their own freedom in the manner that they see fit. http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html
And for anyone who didn't think this was coming..... http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/07/06/iran.khamenei.enemies.unrest/index.html Ya know if the west really had such influence in Iran would there really still be a govt. that is so hostile to the west? I hope the people of Iran see through the propaganda of this Govt. My fear now with Iran is that the corrupt coup leaders will get more desperate and instead of using words to try and divert the fraudulent elections to blame the west, that they will instead provoke some sort of military action in an attempt to unify the country against an outside threat and distract them from the internal thievery of the regime.
I'll be brief as I just don't have as much time to read the news and provide analysis of the important points on BigSoccer. There have been a few ominous signs but I'll wait until something slightly more certain before discussing them. Khamenei seems to have adopted the age old strategy of using harsh tactics full force and then extending a hand of consolation and a softer approach so that they would be welcomed. Not sure if it has a name but "wife-beater strategy" seems to be quite apt. More importantly, it was announced that there would be 2 days of public holiday! Not sure what the official reason has been but the unofficial reason is announcements of widespread strikes around the country! Finally, the big day is nearing; Thursday is the anniversary of the student uprising from about 10 years ago when they were brutally crushed (by the plain clothed officers who showed their full force for the first time and now have been much in the lime light). It will be a big demonstration and they are planning 5 routes in Tehran I believe. Came across this article a few days ago. Bleak and depressing a little but a good analysis by one of the best in the field: http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m55532&hd&size=1&l=e
Does he really believe that the "West" would fear the people's struggle for democracy? As long as they don't vote for islamic fundamentalists, they will have the sympathies of the European & American population at least ... especially when seeing how much money gets scattered by many Arab leaders instead of using it to their people's benefit (the same applies to the Iranian dictatorship - although AN might brag about helping the poor).
The fear could be of the Western or the leaders of the Arab world. Let's break it down and see which bit you have a problem with: 1. Arab governments are stooges of the West - pretty much. 2. These governments are far from democratic or believe in human rights! 3. There people do not like the government but they have done little about it. 4. If the people do rise up against the government, 2 groups will lose out: a) the leaders of those autocratic governments who will no longer be in power. b) the Western powers who have supported them and as a result have had a monopoly over the dealings and resources of that country.
I want to disagree, but I can't. For most Western governments, it's a lot easier to deal with King Abdullah or Hosni Mubarak than it would be to deal with a government that threw either of those guys up against a wall or forced him into exile.
Maybe, but like Bob said, strictly economically speaking, the US would gain very little (lose in most cases) if the governments of these countries were to change from the dictatorships that they are today.
Why so? Unless that government who overthrew these guys is a fundamentalist one which will start squabbling with Israel once again (Egypt) or use the oil weapon to blackmail the US (Saudi Arabia), I don't see what would be the problem. It's "a lot easier" because there are good chances the guys replacing them would be of the Khomeiny-type, in which case can you blame the western governments ? Let's say Saudi Arabia is about oil, but what does Egypt have in order for US to care about a "monopoly over the dealings and resources" in that country ?
"As long as they don't" is doing all the work there. Bush ignored the experts who told him to oppose elections in Gaza. That didn't work out for him.
And that is the problem. 60 years of realism have given us Hosni Mubarak. Bush moved toward a more idealistic policy in some ways (though with the hypocracy of keeping Mubarak and holding hands with the Saudis) and we ended up with Hamas running the Gaza Strip. But we have also seen women elected to parliament in Kuwait and something approaching free elections in places like Lebanon. Personally, I think we need to push people like Mubarak to retire while getting investment banking jobs for their sons. It will not be perfect, it will not be the Berkeley City Council, but it will be better. Why do you hate democracy so much? Yes, it did not work out well, but frankly I blame not the elections, but how the Bush Administration (and Israel) responded to them. When it became clear Hamas had won, Bush should have said, "Congratulations, now act like a civilized government and we will continue to help you toward statehood" instead we immediately tried to weaken the government. Hamas is nasty, but if the Palestinian people lost faith in Fatah, what good would any agreement with a Fatah lead Palestine been worth? Not much. So we would have been back to supporting yet another authoritarian anti-democratic Arab government.
Here is a very funny little cartoon. Sorry only facebook video again! http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=117336341496&ref=nf And Tribune, it isn't just about oil. There are so many different money making schemes around! The Iraq example was contracts. Another could be access to the waterways (Israel/Egypt conflict over Suez). Diplomatic ties. Military contracts. Political/economic pressure over Egypt would also impact any bargaining position over Gaza. These are just some simple examples. A democratic Egypt may not favour the US and the West. Moreover, it isn't just about resources either. One example is what you gave on which direction the government may go. This is also the "J Curve" problem that things are stable with a dictatorship but for the country to become a free and independent democracy, it would all get a lot worse before it gets better. Dictatorships are stable by definition and hence easier to deal with. And they don't necessarily want what is best for their people, so definitely easier to deal with (think of the example of a company where the directors are in it for their own benefit instead of the shareholders; they want the company to stay afloat and there to be no massive uprising against them by the shareholders, but you can get better deals with them since they just want to line their own pockets instead of getting the best deal for the shareholders).
If we'd had realism we'd have pressured the Israelis more to settle the outstanding issues in the area and Hamas would probably never have been elected. That's now beginning to happen so maybe we'd be better waiting to see what happens before making any definitive statements one way or the other as to whether 'realism' is a good or a bad idea.
You sound as if those countries got and still get robbed of their oil resources by the "West". How would i.e. the economic situation of those countries be without the money they get from the US & Europeans (i.e. for selling their oil/gas, for tourism etc.)? It's not the "West's" fault that many people in these countries don't benefit from those billions... Well, that would be their own choice ... if they think they don't need any cooperation & economic ties with the "West". How I mentioned before: As long as they don't favour fundamentalists and terrorists like Bin Laden & Co., they should be free to decide what's the best for them. Obama & the EU undoubtedly prefer a democratic Middle East, since the respect of human rights belongs to their highest principles! PS: Concerning the "resources issue" (oil, gas), I'm sure that the "West" won't be that dependent on 'big business deals' with the gulf states in the future.
If you don't think they got robbed in the past, read up on adventurism in the Middle East and latin America. Iran's animosity towards US and UK stems from the 53 coup because of oil and the (I think) over 90% profits that UK was getting from Iranian oil. Today even if it is no longer a matter of robbing those countries, if let's say Sheikdom A is only dealing with the US, that is far better (economically for the US) than a democratic country A who may decide to deal in part with the US and in part with China!! It's basic logic. Nothing to do with whether those countries are getting robbed by the West or not. Human rights and democracy are ideals for those sitting on the side lines. Economic realities are pragmatic issues for those who govern. But we are getting side tracked. The worrying signs that I had mentioned earlier seems to be getting a lot more air time recently. It is the matter of Israel and a potential attack which may have been given a green light by the US. An Israeli attack would be good for the hawks on both sides, so Israel may guarantee a militaristic future for itself as well as preventing a civil rights movement in Iran (and perhaps in the Arab world too). Win win for the far right on both sides. Yay!! Ali Ansari (Uni of St Andrews in the UK) made mention of this a couple of weeks ago. Then he said he hoped that Israel wouldn't be foolish enough, but it appears the hawks who are in power in Israel want to guarantee their own survivial regardless of all else. Politics really is a dirty business. But all is not lost yet. Let's hope these talks die down soon enough as they have done so in the past.
Obama was surfing the web, saw your post, and has responded http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/07/07/obama.israel.iran/
Doesn't Biden have a funeral to go to or something? Every time he opens his mouth, he sticks his foot in it. It must drive Obama nuts. Even before those signs showed up last week, I thought the window was six months, at most. I don't even think it's a hawk thing on the Israeli side. The majority of Israeli's consider nuclear arms in the hands of the current regime in Iran an existential threat. They're going to do something about it, it's just a question of what and when. I don't know if there are any truth to the rumors about SA giving them flyover permission, but even if that's PsyOps, it indicates something in the works. I hope I'm wrong, but it's looking more and more likely. As far as an Israeli attack damaging the civil rights movement in Iran, I don't know how much more damage it can do then has been done in the last couple of weeks. The regime snuffed it out quite effectively. Any chance of it gaining steam in the near future is slim - too many of the mid-level leaders were killed and imprisoned in this go round. It will take years to replace them.
Yeah I'd seen that too. Let's hope so! Believe me, look at Iran's history over the past 100 years and you will understand that the civil rights movement has not been snuffed out. It is far far from over. I mentioned it earlier, but for all those who think it's over, wait until Thursday. The fact that the government had to announce a 2 day holiday because of pollution which happened to coincide with planned strikes should say something. But if you see the lack people on the streets means it's all over, wait until Thursday. The events of Thursday should hopefully prove (not that I or those talking about it are soothsayers, but simply that we may understand the situation a little better) that this is far from over! Wait and see...