Protests Are Not Enough To Topple the Islamic Republic

[Agnapostate]

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?

You're just tempting Gunny and his post-moving sentiments.

 

[Devin]

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.

Oh, thank you Angapostate. Just needed a clear sentence or two.
So it was the Bolshevicks that threw all of their fellow countrymen into the gulags?

 

[editec]

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.

That is true.

And, FYI that is a PERFECT EXAMPLE of how perverting the langugage (word meanings in particular) is a political tool of tyrants.

The communists were the menshevics (that means the minority).

So what did they start calling themselves?

The BOLshevics (meaning the majority!!)

Lying bastards.

We are exposed to this language perversion everyday.

If we like the revolutionaries...they are FREEDOM FIGHTERS.

If we don't? They're TERRORISTS.

 

[Agnapostate]

Oh, thank you Angapostate. Just needed a clear sentence or two. So it was the Bolshevicks that threw all of their fellow countrymen into the gulags?

Effectively, though many different political powers and lobbies in Russia at the time had similarly authoritarian inclinations. As put by Peter Arsinov:

From [the seizure of power] on, the Party obstinately reacted against all socialist activity on the part of the masses of workers and peasants. Obviously, this about-face of the revolution and this bureaucratic plan for its further development was a cowardly and impudent step on the part of a party that owed its position only to the working people. This was pure imposture and usurpation. But the logic of the position taken by the Communist Party in the revolution was such that it could not have acted otherwise. Any other political party seeking dictatorship and supremacy over the country from the revolution would have acted the same way. Before October it was the right wing of the democracy which sought to command the revolution -- Mensheviks and Socialist-Revolutionaries. Their difference with the Bolsheviks was that they were not able to organize their power and catch the masses in their nets.

The Bolsheviks' disingenuous abuse of the socialist label and ideology was pure propaganda used to bolster credibility that they could not gain from their deeds. Unfortunately, Western propagandists saw cause to collaborate with them, since the fear of a "Red menace" was valuable for keeping the rabble in line and sustaining capitalism.

 

[code1211]

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.

Oreo, I never understood why we stopped backing the Shaw. He was married to an
American woman and he was westernized. Why would we want to overthrow a guy
like that for the radical mullahs?

Jimmy Carter.

I was about to type in exactly the same thing and read ahead. Glad I did.

 

[editec]

Jimmy Carter didn't overthrow the Shah.

He did, however, allow the Shah to come to the USA to get health care (after the Shah had already been deposed) which so annoyed the Iranian revolutionaries that they took over our embassy.

 

[Devin]

Jimmy Carter didn't overthrow the Shah.

He did, however, allow the Shah to come to the USA to get health care (after the Shah had already been deposed) which so annoying the Iranian revolutionaries that they took over our embassy.

And it was all over oil?
The Brits were pissed that he wanted to take back control of their own oil, so they
backed his removal. Nice. I remember his wife giving interviews on TV.

 

[Agnapostate]

And it was all over oil?
The Brits were pissed that he wanted to take back control of their own oil, so they backed his removal. Nice. I remember his wife giving interviews on TV.

No, that was the removal of prime minister Mossadeq in 1953, after which the Shah was installed. The Shah and the monarchical government were overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

 

[editec]

Jimmy Carter didn't overthrow the Shah.

He did, however, allow the Shah to come to the USA to get health care (after the Shah had already been deposed) which so annoying the Iranian revolutionaries that they took over our embassy.

And it was all over oil?
The Brits were pissed that he wanted to take back control of their own oil, so they
backed his removal. Nice. I remember his wife giving interviews on TV.

Yeah, that's essentially what happened in 1952.

Putting the Shah into place was one of the first successful overthrows of the CIA.

You can read about it in some detail in the book Legacy of Ashes.

 

[midcan5]

Nations change from within, take Russia as the largest example. At some point the zeitgeist changes and leaders and spokespeople rise up and change comes. You would think that after all our screw ups supporting the corrupt and incompetent we would learn that. Obama seems to have learned it.

 

[Devin]

And it was all over oil?
The Brits were pissed that he wanted to take back control of their own oil, so they backed his removal. Nice. I remember his wife giving interviews on TV.

No, that was the removal of prime minister Mossadeq in 1953, after which the Shah was installed. The Shah and the monarchical government were overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Jimmy Carter didn't overthrow the Shah.

He did, however, allow the Shah to come to the USA to get health care (after the Shah had already been deposed) which so annoying the Iranian revolutionaries that they took over our embassy.

And it was all over oil?
The Brits were pissed that he wanted to take back control of their own oil, so they
backed his removal. Nice. I remember his wife giving interviews on TV.

Yeah, that's essentially what happened in 1952.

Putting the Shah into place was one of the first successful overthrows of the CIA.

You can read about it in some detail in the book Legacy of Ashes.

OK, ok - got it now. The PM was removed by the Brits, we supported them, we (CIA)
installed the Shaw, then the Iranians threw him out in '79 because he was fine with
the Brits running the Iranian oil ops (British Petrolium BP). The Islamics have hence remained
in power with the ayatollahs and Shira law all that time. There were uprisings in the
the late 1990s but nothing much happened. Fast forward today...the protesters have the
streets in Tehran but not much else.

BTW, got the book but am still plugging away into it. Didn't get there yet.

 

[code1211]

First of all the power in Iran is centralized and under complete control by the assholekouhmini or whatever he calls himself, so I would be curious as to how any one thinks that unarmed citizens is going to overturn a militia with guns, grenades and other weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that is realistic. Second of all - It's not going to happen people -

I don't recall who said it, but this is often cited in connection with Ghandi:

"No government can stand without the consent of the governed".

No amount of guns can withstand a total revolt by the citizenry. Street demonstrations may lead to a National Strike which will stop the flow of oil and the flow of cash. If the armed thugs are not paid, maybe their loyalty weakens.

Still, it's a good long way from National Strike to uprising to rebellion to revolution.

Communication, being what it is today, undermines the parochial thought process. There is nobody on the planet that cannot be touched by the ideas of everyone else. Good news for free thinkers. Bad news for despots.

How strong would Nazi Germany have become if every resident of the Warsaw ghetto had a cell phone and twittered? Knowing the depth of that depravity would have steeled the response of the French and Brits and even Chamberlain would have know that the only message Hitler would understand would be delivered on the tip of the spear. Does anybody wonder if our guy is Chamberlain or Churchill?

We have the technology today and have heard the rantings of the turd these folks have for a president and our president wants to talk things over.

What's wrong with this picture?

In this talk, one of the first things covered might start with, "We hold these truths..." and proceed from there. Folks who run police states don't hold the same "truths" as we do.

Folks who negotiate with folks who run police states need to keep some "truths" in mind. There is a saying in business that goes: "The standards you accept and the standards you demand will quickly become the same thing and there's nothing you can do about it."

Another way to say this is: "When you lay down with dogs, you stand up with fleas".

It's fine to talk to criminals, but if you think you're talking to someone who has ethics and priciples and it turns out you're talking to a true believer like this yahoo in Iran, you're in for a sore lesson in reality. Hopefully, our guy is starting to figure out what anyone else already knows.

 

[Agnapostate]

[T]he Iranians threw him out in '79 because he was fine with the Brits running the Iranian oil ops (British Petrolium BP).

Things were a bit broader than that. The Shah was perceived as excessively secular and was most certainly excessively authoritarian in many, many ways, which the Iranian citizenry opposed and bred their opposition to Western intervention in the region. Hence, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and his theocratic sentiments became politically influential, an event that likely would not have occurred had Mossadeq and parliamentary democracy not been removed.

 

[code1211]

Nations change from within, take Russia as the largest example. At some point the zeitgeist changes and leaders and spokespeople rise up and change comes. You would think that after all our screw ups supporting the corrupt and incompetent we would learn that. Obama seems to have learned it.

The problem here is not so much interjecting the policies of the USA into the day to day operating process of other countries. It is setting the example and knowing when to make a move or a comment, big or small.

Bush, I thought, was right to recognize that the PLO was not negotiating in good faith and he cut them off.

Bush, I thought, was wrong to invade Iraq.

Bush, I thought, was right to proclaim time and again that those who seek freedom are our brothers. Those who seek to dominate and subjegate are not.

Obama, I think, needs to find a position on the notion of freedom that is not a movable point of relativism. Bush's stone age understanding of this (Freedom-good, terrorism-bad) left something to be desired. Obama's teleprompter eloquence leaves me with the impression that he has no actual beliefs when it comes to the basic understandings of liberty and freedom.

His stumbling supplications to the Supreme Leader were an embarrassment. If our leader has a fixed point understanding of what he believes freedom means, he has hidden it pretty well. The time is now to present that definition.

The world awaits his statement. Like it or not, as the "Leader of the free world", he has this responsibility. Freedom ain't free. You can't always stick to the things that will make your listener smile. Those that will listen most closely to his words deserve a little non-smile time.

 

[Devin]

Nations change from within, take Russia as the largest example. At some point the zeitgeist changes and leaders and spokespeople rise up and change comes. You would think that after all our screw ups supporting the corrupt and incompetent we would learn that. Obama seems to have learned it.

The problem here is not so much interjecting the policies of the USA into the day to day operating process of other countries. It is setting the example and knowing when to make a move or a comment, big or small.

Bush, I thought, was right to recognize that the PLO was not negotiating in good faith and he cut them off.

Bush, I thought, was wrong to invade Iraq.

Bush, I thought, was right to proclaim time and again that those who seek freedom are our brothers. Those who seek to dominate and subjegate are not.

Obama, I think, needs to find a position on the notion of freedom that is not a movable point of relativism. Bush's stone age understanding of this (Freedom-good, terrorism-bad) left something to be desired. Obama's teleprompter eloquence leaves me with the impression that he has no actual beliefs when it comes to the basic understandings of liberty and freedom.

His stumbling supplications to the Supreme Leader were an embarrassment. If our leader has a fixed point understanding of what he believes freedom means, he has hidden it pretty well. The time is now to present that definition.

The world awaits his statement. Like it or not, as the "Leader of the free world", he has this responsibility. Freedom ain't free. You can't always stick to the things that will make your listener smile. Those that will listen most closely to his words deserve a little non-smile time.

That's a great post, Code.
However, one must 'know theyself' in order to lead with conviction and move forward
with confidence. One has to know where one wants to go, and have A Plan to get there.
I don't know if Obama has a Plan or not. I don't know if the protesters have a Plan or not.
Without a general framework of what needs to be done and an Action Plan, one just
stumbles around. It's the Stumble Inn.

 

[DavidS]

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.)

The problem with this analysis is your line of thinking. The Iranian military will follow everything their Supreme Leader tells them to do, correct? No. Inocrrect. Muslim on Muslim violence is strictly prohibited in the Qu'uran and many members of the military will refuse to follow orders.

The violence many of us have seen in the past years in Iraq and Afghanistan, Gaza and the West Bank is due to thugs, animals, sub-humans who distort Islam and use it for their own political gain. This is why the protests you see in Iran are peaceful.

I think Bill Clinton spoke eloquently when he said that the Iranian government is denying the modern world. Most Arab nations are doing that or trying to do that - trying to believe it's still the middle ages where electricity doesn't exist and human rights don't exist and people can treat each other any way they wish to. The world is no longer run by leaders, the world is run by the people and the people elect other people to represent their will to make laws and provide protection - but that is all a government does these days. This is no longer a dictator's or king's world - this is the people's world and if the people want you gone: you go. The leaders of Iran refuse to see this and they are tightening their grip on the people. We saw this during the American Revolution, we saw this in the French Revolution - when a dictator tightens its grip over a people who want freedom, the dictator loses 10 out of 10 times.

 

[editec]

And it was all over oil?
The Brits were pissed that he wanted to take back control of their own oil, so they backed his removal. Nice. I remember his wife giving interviews on TV.

No, that was the removal of prime minister Mossadeq in 1953, after which the Shah was installed. The Shah and the monarchical government were overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

And it was all over oil?
The Brits were pissed that he wanted to take back control of their own oil, so they
backed his removal. Nice. I remember his wife giving interviews on TV.

Yeah, that's essentially what happened in 1952.

Putting the Shah into place was one of the first successful overthrows of the CIA.

You can read about it in some detail in the book Legacy of Ashes.

OK, ok - got it now. The PM was removed by the Brits, we supported them, we (CIA)
installed the Shaw, then the Iranians threw him out in '79 because he was fine with
the Brits running the Iranian oil ops (British Petrolium BP). The Islamics have hence remained
in power with the ayatollahs and Shira law all that time. There were uprisings in the
the late 1990s but nothing much happened. Fast forward today...the protesters have the
streets in Tehran but not much else.

BTW, got the book but am still plugging away into it. Didn't get there yet.

Interesting read isn't it?

What a damned shame that the CIA hasn't been that intelligence gathering organization it was originally intended to be.

It might have saved this nation a lot of blood and gold if it had been able to warn out POTUSs of impending changes in world events.

Apparently their analysis wing is very good at helping us understand what's happening in other nations, but nobody pays much attention to it.

When editec is king expect that I will see to it that this nation develops an intelligence gathering organization which can muster human intelligence as well as the technical intelligence gathering systems, which I am informed, is rather good already.

We NEED a CIA, we just need one which is good at infiltrating agents into other nations such that we have a good handle on the evolving political and social scene.

The fact, for example, that we never really got anyone into the Kremlin during the entire cold war is rather alarming, isn't it?

 

[Devin]

No, that was the removal of prime minister Mossadeq in 1953, after which the Shah was installed. The Shah and the monarchical government were overthrown by the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Yeah, that's essentially what happened in 1952.

Putting the Shah into place was one of the first successful overthrows of the CIA.

You can read about it in some detail in the book Legacy of Ashes.

OK, ok - got it now. The PM was removed by the Brits, we supported them, we (CIA)
installed the Shaw, then the Iranians threw him out in '79 because he was fine with
the Brits running the Iranian oil ops (British Petrolium BP). The Islamics have hence remained
in power with the ayatollahs and Shira law all that time. There were uprisings in the
the late 1990s but nothing much happened. Fast forward today...the protesters have the
streets in Tehran but not much else.

BTW, got the book but am still plugging away into it. Didn't get there yet.

Interesting read isn't it?

What a damned shame that the CIA hasn't been that intelligence gathering organization it was originally intended to be.

It might have saved this nation a lot of blood and gold if it had been able to warn out POTUSs of impending changes in world events.

Apparently their analysis wing is very good at helping us understand what's happening in other nations, but nobody pays much attention to it.

When editec is king expect that I will see to it that this nation develops an intelligence gathering organization which can muster human intelligence as well as the technical intelligence gathering systems, which I am informed, is rather good already.

We NEED a CIA, we just need one which is good at infiltrating agents into other nations such that we have a good handle on the evolving political and social scene.

The fact, for example, that we never really got anyone into the Kremlin during the entire cold war is rather alarming, isn't it?

Read your PMs.

 

[garyd]

Yep the Basjis are a problem, the question however remains what do the cops and the regular army fall in all this? They are a charismatic general away from a straight milititary coup right now.

 

[garyd]

Actually Carter forced the Shah to abdicate before he could come to this country for medical care, He could also easily have convinced the French to keep Khomaini in France. The French weren't big on letting a man they considered a religious Fanatic back into the steaming cauldron that the Middle East has always been but Carter insisted.