Jahanshah Javid

"them", is borne of our historical experience.

The political conversation you refer to are both using the 'foreign' argument, and also part of their historical makeup.

From 'The center of the universe' you just posted:

" ..(Iran) has evolved a subtle, labyrinthine approach to politics that reflects historical insecurities of life under fickleness and sudden death of absolute monarchy and foreign subjugation.  The experience of domination by powerful British and Russian empires predisposes Iranians to feel that they are never masters of their own fate but rather subject to the wiles of foreign manipulation. Events never have simple explanations but rather reflect the existence of unseen political forces at work behind the scenes manipulating reality."

It is us and we can and must do all we can to shape our future and destiny. Even foreign hands that are at play are part of the game we have to master. 

OKtaby

We always need somebody to blame

We are a nation of blamers and whiners. None of us wants to do anything. We only want power - "give us the oil money and we'll show you how a country should be run." For as long as a regime is very repressive we are OK but as soon as a regime starts to open up and ask us to participate more, we immediately want to revolt and destroy everything with the excuse that "ther is no freedom."

The fact freedom, like pretty much anything else, is a relative thing. There is always some freedom. Sure, there can always be more of it. But to say that we have absolutely no freedom in iran right now is simply falsehood. To paint a false picture of Iran shows our insincerety and dishonesty. Why are we obssessed to exaggerate and outright lie? Why not describe things as accurately as we can? Why not put things in context? 

We don't deserve any more freedom than we have until such time that we learn what to do with more freedom. The truth is that most of us don't. With more freedom, we only want to destroy. Oh, we have all kinds of justifications for it but who cares. Rajavi also has justifications when he ordered his clan to start killing anybody who was a member of a certain group, simply based on his membership and nothing else. We are on the same path - with just a little delay.

شیخ سانفرانسیسکو

شیخ سانفرانسیسکو هم این چنین گوفت

لنگ را شل ببندید ...  به یک چشم کور و به یک چشم کاژ

Shah vs. Khamenei

dariushabadi, you say: "When uprisings happened against the Shah, the Shah kept giving in. He removed Hoveyda, removed cabinet members and at the end he even said 'I heard the voice of your revolution.' What happened? The opposition only became emboldened and kept pushing for more, and ultimately he had to flee the country."

The shah is a very good example.

When the shah heard the voice of the people, it was 25 years after a military coup that returned him to power, 25 years of undemocratic show elections, 25 years of silencing all opposition and turning Iran into a one-party state (Rastakhiz), 25 years of censorship, 25 years of relying on the security forces and the military to remain in power.

And what do we have today? An absolute ruler who owes his reign to the security and military forces, a monopoly on politics by the clerical establishment, widespread censorship, and silencing, crushing and humiliating even the loyal opposition... (I'm not going to list all the crimes).

Khamenei signed his own death warrant and that of the Islamic Republic by making that first Friday Prayers speech after Ahmadinejad's "election" by effectively declaring the opposition as enemies of the state and promising to crush them.

And the situation has become much worse since then. He and his circle of friends are acting worse than the shah, who at least felt so much guilt and shame that he chose to step down and avoid more bloodshed. Khamenei and his gang don't even have that much sherafat.

irannostalgia

one minor thing that i have to disagree with you is that politics have become very polarized in the u.s. and the politician and pundits do blame a lot of their misfortunes or misfortunes of america on the media.  you may not be living in the u.s. at the moment but currently we can turn on fox news to get only repbulican viewpoints and msnbc to get only liberal democrat point of view.  many who do not like obama think that he won because of the media and so on. 

but in no way can one compare the situation in the u.s. to what has happened and happening in iran.  we have never had free press in iran and it's a natural reaction by iranian people and the governments to blame their ills on entities that they cannot control.  conspircy theories are limitless in iran.

Some differences 1978 VS Now

Exactly. I'm half spaniard and I usually never hear people in Spain blaming the BBC or CNN for their domestic problems.  Same thing when I lived in the U.S. .. Americans wouldn't blame foreign media. They would blame their own people's judgement.

I think it comes down to the fact that iranians are not good with accountability. Ficticious things like religion and gossip seam to matter more than hard facts.

But anyway, iran has gone so down and with the sort of retarded mollahs and soosk siah we are seeing in these videos coming from inside Iran, I see little options for changing.

Eventually it is true that iranian people should be responsible for their own judgements and the news media they decide to trust.

Regarding 1978 and right now, I think there are differences. My feeling about International media coverage of 1978 events was that they romanticized Khomeini. Therefore it is somewhat correct to blame them at least a little bit. 

That was different from the international coverage of the 2009 events, because this time around the protest are less centered on a public figure -- and I seriously hope that as it gathers steam it detaches itself completely from this M*usavi which I quite dislike --. I feel that this time around the international media is simply relaying and showing the files arriving from inside Tehran. That is very correct.

//www.irannostalgia.com

DaruishABAdi/xerexe/no fear:

Don't forget the opposition that has emerged this year, it's not the first time that there's been a reform movement that has challenged the more entrenched hard line elements in the government. Mohammed Khatami was a reformer who was elected president in 1997 and reelected president in 2001. For eight years, Iran had a president at least who was trying to bring about political reform and he's part of this movement now.

So, this has been a theme, a nexus of tension within Iran's government for 30 years. And it may simply be "that at this point, these two strains of political thought are irreconcilable, or Iranian's are having much greater difficulty now reconciling the two.

if we try to gauge it simply by counting numbers, the numbers of, yesterday, of pro-government demonstrators and the numbers of protesters in the streets on Sunday and previously, I don't think that that necessarily gives us a really good gauge or what's going on in Iran.

But you have to figure that the pro-government demonstrators, the government helped them get there. They provided buses. They gave them - many government workers the day off. They gave students the day off.

And most importantly, the police allowed them to demonstrate, whereas on Sunday, the riot police and the street militia were out in force and they used violence to try to stop the demonstrations - the protest demonstrations, and they occurred nevertheless.

So I think that we probably need other tools to gauge what's really going on in Iran. And it seems to me there is - this is a political conflict. There is deep dissatisfaction with the government of Iran. There was deep disbelief last June when it was announced that Muhammad Ahmadinejad had overwhelmingly won reelection. There was cognitive dissonance in the streets. People didn't believe that. They believed that the primary challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, won. And I think that in the face of government violence, the amount of violence that the government has mounted against the protests, I think we can get some idea of how deeply felt the protests are.

And we can at least say it is highly unlikely that they - that the government can stop them. The government thought that it could stop them, and it hasn't. And now they will continue, or there may be people on both sides that look for some kind of a political solution. But it is a political conflict and a political problem

//www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122107996

from another thread

by vildemose on Thu Jan 07, 2010 05:56 PM PST

As bad as things have been for Iranian protesters, the government could make it much bloodier. But then it risks straining the loyalty of the police/ basij and eroding IRI legitimacy even further. I hardly see the second option of clemency as very likely as the hardliners would be afraid it would be taken as a sign of their weakness. (Of course the reality is that they engage in such extensive repression reveals their weakness). My heart bleeds for the dilemma that the poor IRI ruling class finds itself in.

Most likely IRI will continue to control and limit communications, kill 'only' a few protesters at a time, and use state propaganda to keep the loyalists on their side. And IRI's hope is that the West will do something dumb to unite the country.

daruishabadi/xerexes/nofear/

daruishabadi/xerexes/nofear/: You leader is doomed. Na rah pas dareh, na Rahe pish...

My heart bleeds for him...Must be tought days for the Sheikhanshahi.

JJ -- you forget history

You claim that most other countries would compromise with the opposition and give a little, remove some cabinet members, etc.

However, those in power are well-versed in history, particularly the history of the Shah.

When uprisings happened against the Shah, the Shah kept giving in. He removed Hoveyda, removed cabinet members and at the end he even said "I heard the voice of your revolution."

What happened? The opposition only became emboldened and kept pushing for more, and ultimately he had to flee the country.

The ruling party in Iran understands this, and they are not giving in, so that they don't end up with the same fate as the Shah.

As they say, "you don't negotiate with terrorists." Just because people are rioting and creating chaos "for political gain" (which is the definition of a terrorist) doesn't mean you give in a little so that they quiet down. The opposite actually, it only emboldens the terrorists to do greater acts to get more political demands.

Sorry that I have to draw the analogy, but that is what a terrorist is, one who creates "fear" in order to "gain politically". The protesters are trying to draw fear with riots, protests and hijacking of national holidays in order to get their "political demands".

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

Khamenei way... out

Anonymous Observer, I agree: Just like all other dictators before him, Khamenei has drswn a line in the sand and said "my way of the highway"... this will be his undoing. It's only a matter of time.

It's a wonderful feeling knowing that nothing is permanent. Not even Mamlekate Emam Zaman. It's so much fun watching this monument to cruelty and non-sense crumble.

JJ

"Normally, when there's a political crisis in a country, the president compromises with the opposition. The prime minister changes a few members of his cabinet. New elections would be called.

But the establishment in Iran not only fails to acknowledge any wrongdoing, it declares itself the embodiment of "hagh" and everyone else as "mohareb" or foreign agents."

Correct.  But to quote Karim Sajjadpour, to Khamenei and his bunch, this is a zero sum game.  He's an old fashioned, textbook definition of a dictator.  he thinks that if he compromises on this issue, he will have to compromise on other issues, which will, in turn, result in him losing his grip on absolute power.  So, just like all other dictators before him, he drew a land in the sand and said "my way of the highway".  And just like all other dictators who have challenged a young, progressive and largely educated nation, this will be his undoing.  It's only a matter of time.   

Right!

Yes JJ, I think you are right. This movement is a popular one and yes, "These are the most beautiful and courageous displays of civil disobedience our country has ever seen"

But......"Foreigners, including governments, intelligence services, corporations, media.ARE at work to influence what goes on in Iran and other countries in different ways"

And this is a big But.

It is like canalizing a river to a very exact point which is already chosen by the Big Boys! And this is why our nation should be very careful, not to fell in the same trap twice! I hope this time people won't say "no matter what happens next, as long as we will get rid of this regime".......a mistake that we did some thirty years ago.

Who is the leader of the rebellious movement today? Do you really buy the idea of that "jonbesh khod joush" ?

Khod joush it is, yes I agree, but there is something which organize and conduct them....and for now I can't see whose hand is that. Maybe later ?!!

LOL,  it remind me of that great book "Angels and Demons" from Dan Brown

good points JJ

Although recently I have had serious doubts about your objectivity, I found this article of yours very objective. good points ...

Cheh behtar!

Anonymous Observer, that's one of the really interesting aspects of this whole crisis, that the regime is essentially self-destructing.

Normally, when there's a political crisis in a country, the president compromises with the opposition. The prime minister changes a few members of his cabinet. New elections would be called.

But the establishment in Iran not only fails to acknowledge any wrongdoing, it declares itself the embodiment of "hagh" and everyone else as "mohareb" or foreign agents.

So of course when you crush all reasonable opposition and do not seek peaceful solutions (as the regime's own moderate elements have tried), people take matters into their own hands. Cheh behtar!

JJ

you say:

 "Instead of compromising, the regime is treating even its own supporters like enemies and calling them "fetnehgar". Mousavi and Karroubi are not against the Islamic Republic. But by arresting their followers, by killing demonstrators, by raping and murdering detainees, by getting forced confessions from the moderate politicians and dragging them into ridiculous show trials, closing more newspapers, it has radicalized the opposition."

While we mourn the deaths, tortures rapes and other barberic acts of the IRI, the silver lining that we can see in this whole tragedy is that by doing what you have enumerated here, and by radicalizing the opposition, the regime has dug, and is digging, its own grave.  It's the inevitable fate of all dictatorships.     

people

daie jon napoleon complex

when will be get over it 

People are not dumb

Researchr, you say "This is a natural progression of events - the truth comes out and there is no need for rioting or violence or demonstrations."

Violence and demonstrations are taking place and continuing because the regime has not shown any flexibility in responding to the demands of the opposition and the people.

Instead of compromising, the regime is treating even its own supporters like enemies and calling them "fetnehgar". Mousavi and Karroubi are not against the Islamic Republic. But by arresting their followers, by killing demonstrators, by raping and murdering detainees, by getting forced confessions from the moderate politicians and dragging them into ridiculous show trials, closing more newspapers, it has radicalized the opposition.

What's happening in the streets these days is not Mousavi and Karroubi's fault anymore. The people are taking matters into their own hands because NO ONE in the IRI power structure is representing their hopes and aspirations anymore.

People are not dumb. You and I and every Iranian citizen understands injustice. We all know that our freedom have been taken away. It's time to get it back.

I am afraid you got your facts wrong

"A nation of 75 million people has experienced so much injustice for so long that it has decided enough is enough."

This is not true. People did not start this "movement" in the way you put it. It was in fact the regime that started this movement! It is true. It all started with the regime bringing in presidency candidates and allowing them to openly discuss issues - any issue, including questioning the very "revolution" of 79 in Iran. But people, not being used to freedom, decided to abuse the opportunity and start a riot! 

In the long run, what happened is that people who did the 1979 "revolution" one by one realized that they had made a mistake - that Shah was not the real cause of their plight - that the problem was more complex than just one person being reponsible for everything. The less educated in iran is simply lagging behind in this realization but they are slowly realizing it. That is why people like Mousavi and others are now practically reversing course. This isa natural progression of events - the truth comes out and there is no need for rioting or violence or demonstrations. People, even the most devout Basiji sooner or later have no choice but to realize that they aye not alone in the world and that they do not have total freedom to do as they please. Khomeini himself "drank the hemlok" some time ago. Back then he realized that the whole "revolution" was a big mistake and that his ideals were just that - ideals. Real improvement takes hard work and takes some time. It is not as easy as just taking over the oil money and spending it "the right way." The Texaco, Exxon, and the rest of the crowd have been doing this for many many years and they will not allow anybody to just come and spend the money the right way. It needs gradual improvements and a mass education - not demonstrations and rioting.

Well said JJ!

What a fantastic point. There isn't anything else that needs to be said about the topic.  Just stick to concrete observations rather than digging dirt through foreign eyes..