Protests Are Not Enough To Topple the Islamic Republic

[Devin]

The idea that the popular opposition to Ahmadinejad constitutes opposition to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution itself is absurd. Iranians may not desire excessively theocratic or authoritarian policies, but neither do they desire the institution of Western secularism in Iran, which is an Islamic republic and will remain such for the conceivable future. American neoconservatives and interventionists who dislike this reality have only their own ideology to blame. The destruction of parliamentary democracy in Iran was the legacy of the Eisenhower administration's imperialism, and is one of the many reasons for a general dislike of America as a whole today in that region, though it's certainly not the case that the entire citizenry here harbor the same anti-democratic sentiments as the more imperialistic among us.

OK Agnapostate, you're going back farther than my lifetime here in your post and I did not study Iranian history, so...what happened during Eisenhower's administration in Iran? What did he do that Iranians did not like?

 

[rcajun90]

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

It could happen I suppose, Rcajun. After all, the Iranians threw out a secular
more Westernized government when the Shaw was disposed. They went by way of
Shira and the backward mullahs. Why? --- Fast forward to now.....the percentage of
youths in Iran far outnumber the 'adults' (old folk) who have been around awhile.
They want change. They want their Twitter and their iPhones and all-access Internet.
They want to hang with the opposite sex and drink coffee and date. And look at each
other face to face. Right now that does not happen very often or in the open. Anything
the kids do is in secret and they have their own 'back door ways' of getting around
the strict mullahs. But this is now 2009 and they don't want to live in the 7th Century
any longer. I can't blame them or the other protesters. They want more social freedoms
and as a world citizen, they should get it.

Of course I'd be shot for saying that in Iran today.

Oh, I totally agree Devin. The young Iranians aren't going to put up with an oppressive government very much longer, and this may be their time to take over. Armed? They don't have to be. They just have to shut down the working government by constantly protesting in the streets.

I don't think the revolution has enough people yet. We have only seen Tehran except for a few other reports. Most of the protesters seem to be middle class and up for Iran. You could also be looking at a Civil War. I'm just glad to hear them screaming something other than "Death to America".

 

[Devin]

RCajun - has there been much protesting in any other areas outside of Tehran?
Anyone know?

 

[Agnapostate]

OK Agnapostate, you're going back farther than my lifetime here in your post and I did not study Iranian history, so...what happened during Eisenhower's administration in Iran? What did he do that Iranians did not like?

It's not a matter of lifetime observation or experience with what occurred; the first major presidential event in my own lifetime was George H.W. Bush blowing chunks all over the Japanese prime minister. But I was referring to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, wherein the CIA backed the removal of the democratic prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq and his parliamentary government, and the subsequent empowerment of the monarchical dictator Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who proceeded to rule Iran with an iron fist and terrorize the citizenry with his brutal SAVAK police. This lasted until the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and of course left Iranians with a somewhat negative attitude toward the prospect of American intervention in their country.

 

[Annie]

RCajun - has there been much protesting in any other areas outside of Tehran?
Anyone know?

I've tried searching, but not having any luck. Hours ago when watching TV, I heard on either CNN or FOX that indeed the protests were beyond Tehran, my guess we'll hear more in the morning.

 

[JW Frogen]

Actually, the UK really pressed that one, after Mossadeq made an unconstitutional power play to eliminate the monarchy and flirted with oil nationalisation and the Soviet Union.

The Cold War was a real war, you had to really think about how you were going to play it.

Still, the Mullahs who overthrew the Shah or the Mullahs now in control of Iran did not, do not, revere the memory of Mossadeq (indeed they purged his political kind in 1979) and are hardly comitted to his form of democracy, so the argument of never ending historical greivance is rather moot to those brave Iranians risking their lives for freedom.

 

[rcajun90]

RCajun - has there been much protesting in any other areas outside of Tehran?
Anyone know?

I heard on CNN and saw a short video clip of some city outside of Tehran where women were being beaten. Other than that I haven't heard anything. Perhaps someone with better knowledge of Iran could tell us?

 

[Devin]

OK Agnapostate, you're going back farther than my lifetime here in your post and I did not study Iranian history, so...what happened during Eisenhower's administration in Iran? What did he do that Iranians did not like?

It's not a matter of lifetime observation or experience with what occurred; the first major presidential event in my own lifetime was George H.W. Bush blowing chunks all over the Japanese prime minister. But I was referring to the 1953 Iranian coup d'état, wherein the CIA backed the removal of the democratic prime minister Mohammad Mossadeq and his parliamentary government, and the subsequent empowerment of the monarchical dictator Mohammad Rezā Shāh Pahlavi, who proceeded to rule Iran with an iron fist and terrorize the citizenry with his brutal SAVAK police. This lasted until the 1979 Islamic Revolution, and of course left Iranians with a somewhat negative attitude toward the prospect of American intervention in their country.

Thanks Agnapostate - I did not realize before your post that the Shaw was overthrown because of Britain's control of their oil. Sheesh. It's still Oil Warz, isn't it? So basically then,
no country who ever wants to nationalize their oil business will ever be able to elect
someone with those ideas.

 

[Xenophon]

As long as the hard-liners are in charge of the military--police & security forces in Iran--these protestors do not have a snow-balls chance in hell of overthrowing this regime. (They're unarmed--all they have is rocks.)

So did the Soviet Union, the east Germans, the Romanians..

See the point?

You don't get harder lined then Czar Nicholas II of Russia, yet revolution swept his ass away and he was executed.

The LOYALTY of the security forces can waver and change the entire thing.

 

[Xenophon]

I don't know Xenophon, that's would it would seem like but I've listened to a bunch of
people from Iran who say that the current mullah regime is too powerful to "overthrow"
by protests alone. They control the Revolutionary Guards. Also the 4 people who ran
in the election were hand-picked by the mullahs. ..Plus Mousavi was a former radical
himself, supporter of Hezbollah.

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

This is different than 1979. We stopped backing the Shaw of Iran--while Iranians were chanting in the streets--death to America. The radical Mullahs moved in--which are very unlike the Shaw. They aren't going to just give up their power without 3/4 of the country being destroyed. Their way is to oppress--& they know how to keep the republican guard in check along with the military & security forces.

The Shaw was a cake-walk for them to get out of power.

A lot of people misunderstand what US backing is and means.

The Shah didn't rule at our sufference, we didn't place him in power(despite what the revisionts claim, the Shah over threw his father in 1941, 'operation ajax' was not his path to power), he ruled just so long as his internal security force was willing to obey him.

They saw the way the wind was blowing and he was done.

The same can happen now, no regime is infalible.

 

[editec]

A general STRIKE might do it.

I suspect that most of the people protesting are also the skilled and educated classes that make Iran's economy go.

If they stop working then what?

 

[Xenophon]

That is already going on, the response is brutality.

Have you seen any of youtube vids posted on the net?

 

[JBeukema]

A general STRIKE might do it.

I suspect that most of the people protesting are also the skilled and educated classes that make Iran's economy go.

If they stop working then what?

round-ups and executions?

 

[Devin]

A general STRIKE might do it.

I suspect that most of the people protesting are also the skilled and educated classes that make Iran's economy go.

If they stop working then what?

round-ups and executions?

Well the mullahs control the Rev Guards, so that's all possible. Xenophon says the czar was
overthrown even though he had all the power and backing... But the revolutionaries who
overthrew the czar and murdered his family were HUGE in number, right?

 

[JW Frogen]

But the revolutionaries who
overthrew the czar and murdered his family were HUGE in number, right?

No, actually wrong. The Revolutionaries who overthrew the Czar established a represtentative government that was overthrown by a very small minority called Bolsheviks who overthrew that government and murdered the Czar and his family, as well as tens of millions of their fellow Russians, even many of their fellow Bolsheviks.

 

[Agnapostate]

Actually, the UK really pressed that one, after Mossadeq made an unconstitutional power play to eliminate the monarchy and flirted with oil nationalisation and the Soviet Union.

The Cold War was a real war, you had to really think about how you were going to play it.

Wrong again. Mossadeq was an ardent anti-interventionist and was opposed to the prospect of excessive Soviet influence in the country to the same extent that he was opposed to the prospect of excessive Western influence in the country; it thus seems likely that any sort of temporary alliance he sought with one would be to confront what he regarded as the excessive power of the other at the time. As to nationalization, you'll of course understand that I don't think it horribly unreasonable that a country's major resources and industries should be under the greater control of its citizenry rather than foreign profiteers.

Still, the Mullahs who overthrew the Shah or the Mullahs now in control of Iran did not, do not, revere the memory of Mossadeq (indeed they purged his political kind in 1979) and are hardly comitted to his form of democracy, so the argument of never ending historical greivance is rather moot to those brave Iranians risking their lives for freedom.

I'm afraid that's also incorrect. The coup is depicted in Iran as a primary example of previous Western meddling in Iranian affairs, and as not only an offense against the relatively secular Mossadeq, but also the highly influential Ayatollah Kashani (despite the latter's conflict with Mossadeq shortly before the coup occurred). It's simply regarded as an offense against every element of legitimate political and religious authority in Iran by meddlesome Western powers.

So basically then, no country who ever wants to nationalize their oil business will ever be able to elect someone with those ideas.

They potentially can, but not without ardent opposition from foreign profiteers and depiction of the pro-nationalist politicians as authoritarian dictators, whether or not that depiction is an accurate one. For example, Fidel Castro and his government were generally not especially authoritarian immediately following the Cuban Revolution in regard to the citizenry as a whole, but he was hated by the American ruling class for his expropriation efforts after he declared an intent to end the foreign control over national resources and industries that had robbed the Cuban people and been tolerated by the dictator Fulgencio Batista. This was a reason for his increasing affinity with the USSR and Marxism-Leninism and increasing distrust of the U.S., the ruling administration of which promptly initiated a campaign to assassinate him and oversaw numerous destructive attacks and bombings in Cuba, as well as the Bay of Pigs invasion. As another example, Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez is also depicted as an authoritarian tyrant despite his numerous democratic elections and survival of an attempted recall (all while no provision for the recall of American presidents exists), enshrinement of a new and more progressive constitution shortly after his first election, and establishment of numerous labor cooperatives and increased democratic management of economic affairs. This is all as a result of his nationalization efforts.

 

[Devin]

But the revolutionaries who
overthrew the czar and murdered his family were HUGE in number, right?

No, actually wrong. The Revolutionaries who overthrew the Czar established a represtentative government that was overthrown by a very small minority called Bolsheviks who overthrew that government and murdered the Czar and his family, as well as tens of millions of their fellow Russians, even many of their fellow Bolsheviks.

Wait...there was a group (1) who overthrew the Czar, then group (2) came in, the
Bolshevicks, and overthrew group (1)? Group (2) also murdered the overthrown czar,
their fellow Russians and their fellow Bolsheviks? Is this right or convoluted?
Why did the Bolsheviks murder the other groups?

 

[strollingbones]

along with a large population of under 30 ...they have a serious drug problem too

 

[Agnapostate]

Wait...there was a group (1) who overthrew the Czar, then group (2) came in, the Bolshevicks, and overthrew group (1)? Group (2) also murdered the overthrown czar, their fellow Russians and their fellow Bolsheviks? Is this right or convoluted? Why did the Bolsheviks murder the other groups?

The czar wasn't overthrown; he abdicated after the February Revolution of 1917 because of the rising "revolutionary" sentiments. He and his family were protected from the Bolsheviks by the provisional Kerensky government, but after the Bolsheviks' seizure of power, they imprisoned them for some time and then eventually executed them.

 

[editec]

A general STRIKE might do it.

I suspect that most of the people protesting are also the skilled and educated classes that make Iran's economy go.

If they stop working then what?

round-ups and executions?

Possibly.

Lord knows that no tyrant has ever has any difficulty finding people willing to kill their fellow citizens on command, do they?

We are lead to believe that Iran is culturally divided between the better edcuated urbanites and the rural population which is not well educated and more fundamentalist.

Sounds rather unpleasantly familiar, that cultural divide, doesn't it?