Does anyone recall Dubya predicting this sort of outcome just prior to the Iraq invasion? This is precisely one of the consequences of Saddam being toppled. Bush will eventually go down in history as a very good president

I wonder what will happen when the shiite finally hits the giant fan in the US and enough people find out that Obama isn't legally, Constitutionally President 'cause he wasn't born in the US to two US citizens?

Canadian Sentinel
**I wonder what will happen when the shiite finally hits the giant fan in the US and enough people find out that Obama isn't legally, Constitutionally President 'cause he wasn't born in the US to two US citizens?**

A rhetorical question!! The Obama campaign has spent $million on lawyers etc to block any attempt to demand a birth certificate....and Police in Hawaii block access to the records.
The MSM maintain their position on BamBam's nationality like they maintain Antarctica is melting etc.

John O'Sullivan is right about the historic importance of what's happening now in Iran. There's ever been such a widespread pro-democracy/pro-freedom revolt in a Muslim country. It's heartening that it's Persians, the most civilized and modern and forward-looking people in the Islamic world, who are standing up, and the fact that the protests are continuing five days later, in the face of violence and ominous threats is a sign that even if the protesters end up being oppressed into silence in the next few days they're not going to be silenced in the long term.

From the NYT blog:

Mazier Bahari, a Canadian citizen who is a reporter for Newsweek, is among the 24 reporters arrested in recent days. He "has not been heard from since."

From the dailymail.co.uk:

"Authorities...arrested the daughter and four other relatives of ex-President Hashemi Rafsanjani."

"Underscoring how the protesters have become emboldened despite the regime's repeated and ominous warnings, witnesses said some shouted 'Death to Khameini!' at Saturday's demonstrations -- another sign of once unthinkable challenges to the virtually limitless authority of the county's most powerful figure."

In the long term, what's happening could be, globally and historically, one of the most important stories in a long time.

my heart is with the people of Iran. they have suffered enough. How can I show my support?

"Mazier Bahari, a Canadian citizen who is a reporter for Newsweek, is among the 24 reporters arrested in recent days. He 'has not been heard from since.'"

He was born in Iran, which will make his plight worse. Under Iranian law, he's an Iranian citizen and his Canadian nationality is of no account.

Past experiences for Iranian-Canadians and Iranian-Americans have not been rosy.

Agreed - one of the most important historic events in our lifetime. And all credit to Bush, who deliberately set up the agenda to stop Islamic fascism by enabling democracy to emerge among the totalitarian tribal Islamic states.

Iran is hedged in by two Islamic states, both democracies. Fragile democracies, yes, because democracy is entirely new in these areaa. Fighting to maintain democracy because the old tribes want to retain power. But democracies and the younger generation want these rights and these powers that are found only in a democracy.

Meanwhile, Obama eats ice cream and considers that all governmental modes are equivalent and that the US democratic mode is 'just one flavour among many choices' and 'it's all personal choice'. We shouldn't interfere and most certainly, not comment, for a political government, to Obama, has nothing to do with any inherent criteria of societal maturity and human rights.

I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about the situation for the Moussavi supporters in Iran. I feel the clamp-down will proceed and resistance will fail.

President Obama's administration will be able to congratulate themselves on having done nothing much of anything one way or the other.

Stasis - the new US foreign engagement policy.

Remember what Bush said - one generation ago, his father was fighting the Japanese - one generation later, GWB was having a great political relationship with the Japanese Prime Minister.

He opined how great it would be if in one generation, relations with Iran and Iraq would be similarly turned.

You're reading way too much into this. This is nothing more than a bunch of screaming Iranians, just like 30 years ago. The outcome will be exactly the same as 30 years ago, a new dictatorship.

These people aren't interested in democracy. They don't have the slightest idea what the word means. They're just angry, and this is their way of expressing it.

Wait until we have a larger Persian population in this country. When they hit the streets to protest immigration policies, will you still be calling them heroes?

"a bunch of screaming Iranians,"

Yeah, with bigger balls than you'll ever have. I think they might appreciate freedom more than you ever will. And if these countries get their acts together, they'll be fewer of them here to protest immigration policies.

Hope and Change.
Seriously, he's going to be no use to them at all (and I do hope I'm wrong.)

hudson- Let's not get into a testical-dimension contest.

Before the next week is over, there'll be hostage taking incidents.

These protests look and sound exactly the same as the ones 30 years ago. Why is it that 30 years ago they were villians, and today they're heroes? It makes no sense, they're the same people. Use your f**king brains.

"How can I show my support?"

From what I hear, you can set your twitter account to Tehran time and tweet a little, as this confuses those trying to track down people getting the news out. It is a small thing, but it is can be done.

You have to be a real sucker for punishment, throwing support to this latest mob.

It will be interesting to see how badly you're dissappointed when this is over.

Seems to be a rule somewhere that says, "Any revolution will result in the new regime multiplying the evils of the old regime tenfold".

dp - your comments are very strange, to put it mildly. That is, you focus on the ethnicity or Iranians as definitive of their behaviour. That doesn't make any sense, for behaviour is not directly linked to ethnicity! Who ever heard of such a thing??

Could you provide some evidence that the Iranians, now, don't want democracy? Could you provide some proof that they 'don't have the slightest idea what the word means'?

You are, in my view, profoundly unaware of the Iranian people - those who have come to the US, and there is a large Iranian population in the US, have strong roles in science (ever heard of Lotfi Sadeh???) and professional work areas.

You state that they are angry. What about?
So, your comments are extremely ungrounded; please provide some proof.

If the revolt fails it will be Obamas Bay of Pigs. Like JFK he vacillated and hesitated during this critical
period.

ET- Don't be absurd. None of those things can be proven, or disproven.

The one exception being the tie between ethnicity and behaviour. How could you not be aware of this? It takes a full generation, or maybe two, away from your roots, to affect the way you behave.

This is history in the making ... However, I don't think this round of protests will amount to much. Most revolutions don't happen overnight, but this one begins here. Think Tianemen Square, and where is China today ... it's a first step towards quieting all those extreme mullahs and their power. Change is coming to the middle east, and it's gonna happen in our lifetime.

Ahmadinejad is the main and immediate issue. His early departure would be just the first step in untying the knot in the Middle East. We must understand that Iranians want his ouster for reasons different than ours. (I am not especially hopefull.) With him gone, nuclear energy in Iran assumes a different profile.

The optimal official American position is on the sidelines. Our new president has started the rebuilding of United States' moral and political leadership after its demise during the Busheney years. But we have not yet restored that credibility. President Obama is a mature student of statesmanship who understands that his grasp should not exceed the reach of American foreign policy.

But as Americans, we do not and should not remain on the sidelines. We need to demonstrate our active vigil and witness, together with the rest of the world, on a people to people basis. The technology of the "social network" permits and encourages that now, more than ever before.

dp- again, could you provide some evidence that the Iranians don't want democracy or have 'the slightest idea what the word means'.

Could you explain what they are 'angry about'. You are making these claims and therefore, ought to provide some evidence. Otherwise, they remain your personal opinions.

No, I'm not aware of any tie between 'ethnicity and behaviour'. Could you provide some proof?

I'm certainly aware of cultural or social beliefs, but these are, since they are human constructs, amenable to questions, doubt and therefore, open to intellectual analysis, reason, and change.

It can - prior to the electronic age - take two generations for a WHOLE population to accept a new societal system, but the development of the new one, takes only one generation. And less, with the electronic age of informational networking and awareness of other systems.

What is going on in Iran now, is a rebellion by the youth, the under 30's, who have not grown up within the 1979 revolution, against the theocracy of the Iranian regime. The youth want freedom to work, to develop a strong middle class, to think, to speak freely...and the development of democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan, weak as they are, are important causal factors. Again, the electronic network brings in information from other areas - and that includes the million ex-Iranians who live and work in California.

Again, there's no link between 'ethnicity and behaviour'.

And what is this 'ethnic behaviour' that characterizes the Iranians?

Remember what Bush said - one generation ago, his father was fighting the Japanese - one generation later, GWB was having a great political relationship with the Japanese Prime Minister.

Yes Eric, but it took a war to achieve that.

vigilante - could you provide some evidence for your claim that Obama is a 'mature student of statesmanship"?

That's quite a statement, particularly when one recalls his insulting behaviour to the UK Prime Minister and other European leaders, his Cairo speech which was filled with misinformation (a nice term for 'not one example was true')..and the results..which were a rejection by all foreign nations of his agendas.

No US president's 'grasp' can exceed the 'reach of American foreign policy'. That's a tautology. After all, the 'reach of American foreign policy' IS the 'grasp' of the President.

I also disagree that Ahmandinejad is the main issue.

And what the heck does 'witness on a people to people basis' mean? Sounds like Obama Newspeak to me. In other words, meaningless.

ET- Do you really believe that everyone here needs to back up their opinions with proof? Or is it only those you disagree with?

I realize this is pointless, but here goes.

You've stated, on this site, at least 100 times, that Barack Obama is a narcissist. You've gone to great lengths on this issue. Okay, I get it, you like to used big words.

Have you met Mr. Obama?

Have you looked at his medical records?

Do you have access to his clinical files?

Are you a psychiatrist?

Narcissists rarely marry strong, independent women. They are usually exposed long before they reach positions of great power(in western culture).

I believe you are wrong, and you have no proof to indicate otherwise.

I don't like Obama, but that's just my opinion. You're making up crap to try and support your opinion, and that's okay, this isn't a courtroom. Just don't pretend to be the only one who backs up everthing you say.

Iranian are smart and not stupid to risk loose easy their life easy for presidency choice again
They went to this road and not gain out of it. Iranian is always talk and say their opinion directly or indirectly but they are not ague with government to keep their safety and not to jail but still talking
Iranian like Democracy for sure but problems in Iran is so many and solution is limited Long war in Iran and Iraq support of west to Iraqi and not Iran and made Iran isolated country and all mediate to put Muslim in Iran down and etc..
Today problems in Iran because of two stupid group work in Iran one group one) who are very stupid look Muslim but they are very violence and angry who kill and destroy any body talk and other group who is group two in Iran who are talk “ death to x or death to Y” and only wish to freedom like West come back to Iran and today we faced clash of these two group majority of Iran are Muslim but not belong to both above two groups are stupid and one group one came after Islam enter in Iran and look for change Islam with black chador long black dress look or pretend they are More Muslim than others and culture attached to it like Wahabi and one group two are remainder of shah time and all kingdom corruption look for win to drink and these two never able to live together and most group two are left Iran regular Muslim in Iran also frusted of Muslim group one in Iran who only order and never take order and listen to people right change too both are bully in Iran
I feel sorry about Iranian; I care about Iranian interest and happiness more than leader game of
who is become leader Playing with emotion of Iranian youth is easy but this can not stop Israel to think they are allow add spice to it and they are forgotten yet or let USA and England think of bring prostitute with alcohol and supermodel back again in Iran with take body revealing or open or change Islam law and shiet law in Iran so quick and let Shah back nobody interested.
Iranian has culture more strong than Islam laws and majority of Iranian are not really restricted majority Muslim If Khomeini goes to Iraq and change Sad am he has more chance to change Iraqi to become more restricted Muslim majority there than Iran.
Mistake that Ben Laden if he change Saudi kingdom may get more successful to go to Afghanistan who run by Talban who more are drug dealer than restricted Muslim to my eyes or Israel if rather than Muslim country choose any country in Europe to take land they had more change to live in peace than choose land called it Israel.
or Pakistan more than care of India and USA and change their two faced identity focused to Pakistan problems today they had more proudly call themselves Muslim countries not the corrupted country as we see it. I think Iranian majority are not Muslim restricted sine all kingdom and Shah time are mess with Iran and now in 30 days if Ahamdingad force to act or pretend they are restricted shia they are not
That is fact that Ahamdingad are not know Iranian are pretending for safety of their life not for real show their heart . Iranian Muslim is majority in Iran but restricted Muslim in Iran is minority.
Therefore soon people like Mosavi take presidency but not necessary able to help Iranian but talk language they like to hear better, Iran must stop protest in street . This is lead more people to die And Iranian is not stupid to loose their life easy for this political game Again.
If some young does it more mid class and older are not doing it since they know what will end up soon
Mosavi or Ahamdinigad is only game Each as left or right wings can work to fix Iran but they never in Iran has INTENTION and honesty only each come to power and feed people around them
Not good strategy or Some country also tries to get fish over this
This continue street talk will made negotiation of Iran and USA delay since
Obama are worry who to talk if he talk with AHamdinaged other group may not like him
I think there is not too much difference between
Ahamdinegad and Mosavai and more than talking they must focus in action
I do not know too much about Mosavi , what I was wonder he did not talk as much after election before election, what I mean he must explain more reporter news before election to explain all differences he could bring verses Ahamdinigad
I believe they may have some vote cheating going on but still majority voted for Ahamdinigad since big city like Tehran do not like Ahmadinigad but 11 million in city of Tehran are not run government and power
This action to me is more nuisance and disturbing and not clear all points since it caused all news reporter are disappear while all those afford did BEFORE ELECTION
there was more chance to see who has more votes EVEN joking Bani Sadar got more majority of vote for presidency of Iran is left Iran by Majadeeen of escape of Iran of wish similar codetta against Iran government
What I mean even if Moshavi for sake of argument was chosen by majority still he could not do changes as he wish since all power are control by higher end group in Iran not by presidency direction even Mosavi was chosen he could or can not change law of Islam or made it like Pakistan who has made alcohol and super model in Pakistan as all know Pakistan are most corrupted Muslim country in middle east areas.
situation in Iran was seen in early revolution all people talk and later they identify them and they executed so many without any trail in Iran as opposition and right wings Why? because In Iran still is order of gun and power nobody give honest method of say opinion without wish to not kill other side of opposition in power
As long as country of Iran are not calm down nothing can get achieved, walk in street is not working or benefit or bring better for Iran, get power and execute it may do Iran lack of idea and execution of fixing and honestly take care inside country and using excuse of Israel and Lebanon to made their group who vote them to busy of think out of Iran not inside Iran
====
solution is short term and long term solution
1) Iran must stop walk in street it will cause more blood sheet in street and it bring emotion not help and control or not able to change government easy
it may lead even like Serilanka all strike outside to their leader may loose his life
therefore If Mosavi is good enough then his security is more important
people must stop going to street and find and allow him to made right wing in Iran and made him senator and seat to able to talk his opinion in calm way , if some are wish of turn Shia to European countries of non Muslim they can not ,Iran freedom is restricted since they are not trust people who pay so much weapon to Iraq to kill Iran now they come back to help Iran inside country
I have so many ideas can help Iran to help Iranian, they need mediation to resolve their issue
I have some solution for Iran but I need to concentrate more of defense of Mosavi why he was not in politic for 20 years and where he comes from? suddenly is questioning me! their difference is more than what may simply think If real number was caused ahmadingad to be elected can made those people in street to stop valiance since this is against law in each country to protest and disturb in city most likely Tehran will go to curfew for a week and then all will back to normal case again. Senator will talk on TV this time and let both are hear weakness of Iran government is scared of hear or differences and not know how to handle bad boys without violence since they are isolated and not know how to deal with multicultural Iran problems is different accent and different ideas to deal number of population and allow those population to explode of anger is not benefit them so far

I recommanded do not allow any forign journalist enter in Iran since situation is not stable
this clash of two Iranina group and nothing to do with forign group and their personal talk are not going to resolve easy

dp - you are diverting from the issue by bringing up a different topic, Obama's narcissism.

Again, I asked you specific questions about your comments that Iranians don't know anything about democracy, don't want it, are a 'mob', etc. You made these comments, including linking ethnicity to behaviour. I asked for some evidence, otherwise, your views are empty and personal.

As for Obama's narcissism, again, don't try to slither out of accountability by a diversionary issue.

BUT - you are quite incorrect that a narcissist will not marry a 'strong independent woman' - and who says that Michelle is independent? She's embedded in the black-racist anti-American movement; that's hardly independence of thought. Furthermore, a narcissist requires only adulation and a feeling of control. In Obama's case, I suspect that Michelle plays the role of providing him with a sheltered narrative of socialism and anti-capitalism, where he can feel in control.

And it is absolutely untrue that a narcissist is 'exposed' long before they reach positions of great power. A key factor of narcissism is the ability to charm, to manipulate, to misinform, their way to great power.

I'm hardly alone in defining Obama as a narcissist. I'm sure you've read Dr. S. Vaknin's assessment, a clinical psychologist, and Dr. Krauthammer's, a psychiatrist, assessment. You can google the key terms and you'll find extensive commentary on Obama as a pathological narcissist.

Oh, and there's no need to search medical records or clinical data for this; it's not a physical disease. It's a psychological aberration.

Again, provide some evidence that the Iranians have no knowledge of or interest in democracy; that they are just a 'mob'..and so on. OK?

how come nobody is thanking GWBush and the Americans for changing the dynamic in that part of the world....?

if those poor sods in Iran hadn't seen liberty and material prosperity blooming next door but just the same old same old brutal dicatorship do you really think they'd be hungry enough for freedom and self expression to hit the bricks ....?

GWB...a great leader.....the U.S.A...a truly great people....

To quote JFK:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty. This much we pledge--and more.

I guess the big "0" doesn't know how to read a history book.

I would encourage all those out there who are really worked up and excited by the demonstrations in Iran to read Barbara Tuchman's "Guns of August". She makes an excellent case for laying the cause of the 'War to end all wars' at the feet of the mobs who sprang up in the streets of Berlin, London, etc. WWI was a particularly brutal and senseless war from beginning to end. And many consider the end to have occurred only with the A - bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Be careful what you wish for, folks. Fear the mob.....any mob. And they are a favorite tool of your Adolfs and Vladimirs.

"Indeed, anyone believing Mousavi would be the one to unclench the Iranian fist for a hand-in-hand partnership of peace with the United States is guilty of wishful thinking. It was Mousavi, after all, who was at the center of the Iran hostage crisis and remains complicit in an operation he commended as "the beginning of the second stage of our revolution." And it was Mousavi who was the protégé of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini (chief architect of the Iranian Revolution and founder of theocratic Iran), a former member of Hezbollah's leadership council, sworn enemy of Israel, and a prime minister under whose watch thousands of political prisoners were massacred in 1988. And finally, it was Mousavi who initiated Iran's nuclear program in the 1980s and likely would be intent on carrying through Iran's nuclear ambitions, the foremost issue central to any improvement in relations with the West."

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=5013

Read the whole article at FP magazine. It isn't about tyranny versus democracy, it's one Iranian faction against another, and frankly, Mousavi is just as bad as Ahmadinejad.

Correct, DMorris.

well to be sure but when and if the uprising were to succed and Mousavi xly were to take over and doesn't deliver the goods then the people rise up against him....wouldn't that be the natural comcomitant now the people have the bit in their teeth ?

you don't posit sitting on your hands waiting for the 12th political Imam.....or do you ?

Meanwhile, Chairman 0 continues to feed ice cream to his dog.

dmorris - I hope this isn't about Mousavi. I don't think it can be, because I'm sure everything you say is true, and people don't rise up and riot because they like the status quo.

no, dmorris, I disagree. I don't think it's about one person vs another, both of whom are essentially ideologically and practically identical. People don't riot like that for a mirror image. I agree that the two are very similar, but Mousavi was promising changes. And, I don't think it's about who is leader-of-a-static regime. I think it's about change in the political and economic structure.

It's the youth of Iran who are protesting, and they are exposed, via the electronic network, to democracy. They openly say that they want equality of women, that women want equality rather than being second class citizens; they want a middle class, i.e., a progressive economic future; they want more openness, they want greater participation in the world.

cottus - sorry, I disagree. You are saying that IF a people object to X, then, because they did so as an angry collective, then they are wrong. That doesn't make any sense.

The Boston Tea Party was wrong because they objected to 'taxation without representation'?

When Canadians objected to the Coalition, as a collective, were they wrong?

The Iranian demonstrations were peaceful. When the police and administration began to SHOOT them, use batons, water hoses, tear gas - then, who was behaving as a 'mob'? The people or the administration?

dp:

Here in Richmond Hill, where we have a growing Persian community, protestors were out in force last week at the major intersection in town. However, they were peaceful and well mannered. Unlike the Tamils, they did not try to block traffic. They stayed on the sidewalks (not blocking them either, but allowing pedestrians to go about their business), waving signs that protested the Iranian election and said "Honk if you want democracy!". I thought it was quite moving.

I've met many of these Persians. Unlike some other immigrant groups, most of these people are highly educated, and they value education for their kids. I don't think their values are as different from ours as you believe.

Neda the young Iranian women protestor shot in the video already has a wikipedia page. The face of the revolution or civil war?

DMorris

Why it must be only about democracy vs tyranny or only about one iranian faction against the other iranian faction. Could it be BOTH ?

I accept this is historuically important, but do not see it as hystorically significant. It appears that the insurection lacks goals, objectives or purpose.

Everyone is P'oed by the electoral lie, but Mousavari is not screaming for overthrow of the Islamic Republic (IR); merely for the overthrow of the current rulers of the IR.

My take:

Unless a serious political leadership takes direction of this popular discontent and demands a secular state, the repression will be successful.

"I agree that the two are very similar, but Mousavi was promising changes."

Was that JUST "change", ET, or "hope and change"? Like another famous politician who promised that and so far, hasn't delivered.;-)

I hope I'm wrong, but believe Iran is still more controlled,in fact, by the Ayatollahs, and democracy under them is likely to be in name only.

Whichever candidate finally wins, the religious leaders agenda trumps everything else. Is any Ayatollah under 80 years old?

Yesterday's men for yesterday's religion.

dp

What makes you think that Iranians aren't attracted to genuine democracy? They had a functioning democratic government prior to 1953 when the western powers engineered a coup and reinstalled the monarchy, in response to Mosedegh's plans to nationalize the oil industry. That's not a conspiracy theory or leftist propaganda. It's recent history, and I remember it well.

When they overthrew the Shaw, young Iranians weren't looking for a brutal theocracy. The mullahs stole the revolution. Todays rebels will probably lose, and a lot of them will die on the streets or in prison but, they have lit the fuse to a movement that will eventually blow the mullahs to hell.

Persians are extremely sophisticated people dp. That's why, in Canada, they adapt much better than most immigrants.

Bam Bam is doing the right thing by keeping his head down. There's nothing that the U.S. can do to physically help the demonstraters, and an excess of American bluster would simply give comfort to Iranian reactionaries who claim that the unrest is the work of agents from the Great Satan.

cottus at June 21, 2009 7:33 PM

What mobs? WWI was brought on by treaties and train time-tables (AJP Taylor).

Mousavi maybe a cur but he can serve as an outlet or catalyst for the Iranian masses who are really fed up with corruption and stealing elections. If Ahmadinajacket falls the system will be truly rattled. Fissures may appear that the more positive segments of the population can seize and exploit. I don't think it can go back to the wretched status quo. Mousavi maybe a useful idiot versus Ahmadinajacket the useless idiot.

OK Let's get down to basics.

It is time that Persia threw off its Arab Islamic shackles.

Agent Smith at June 21, 2009 9:32 PM

I'd like to believe you, that things can't go back. Unfortunately, my knowledge of history instructs me of the power of a good repression, efficiently executed.

Simply put, kill, exile, repress or otherwise neutralize, your enemies, or anyone remotely related to them, and they will go away. Eventually, the populace will tire of insurection and thank you for having restored peace.

Note: This is my extension of Machiavelli into the Age Of Communication (the 21st century)

dmorris - I don't think these protests are so much Mousavi vs Ahmadinejad. Both of them, as you say, are old guard. The protests represent something deeper - which is just starting to be expressed.

The protests were by the under 30 crowd. Note that many signs were in English. These people are not isolationists but focused on the global world. They want to participate in that world. And in their own nation - and not within a repressive authoritarian system.

And notice that the signs were asking for MY VOTE to count. This focus on 'my vote' is an individualist empowerment. Not a group submission.

The regime will not fall immediately. In fact, if it did, the replacement would be fragile. But it will fall, because the 'cost' of repressing this massive young population is too expensive, too costly in economic and productive terms.

And, with the electronic network, authoritarian regimes have less power than they used to; they can brutalize and murder, but the entire network knows about it in five seconds.

So, this demand for change, and its a change that creates an empowered middle class, won't die down. It will remain and become networked to Iranians and others elsewhere...and will re-emerge in, let's say, six months, to effect a larger regime change.

I disagree with Obama should remain on the sidelines. He ought to stand on the side of democracy. After all, that is the basic founding idea of the USA - democracy and the rights and powers of the people. If he can't articulate that, loud and clear...and instead, spends all his foreign affairs time apologizing for "Being American'...then, he has no business being the President.

Therefore, he ought to, instead of supporting tyranny as he is now doing, say that he, as an American (heh) supports democracy. Everywhere, and supports the struggle of people to attain democracy. That's all he needs to say: I support democracy and I support the struggle of people everywhere to attain democracy.

He doesn't have to, and shouldn't, refer to elections or vote counts or Mousavi or Ahmadinejad. Just say that he supports any and all struggles for democracy. But, he doesn't support democracy; he's an authoritarian all by himself.

As for Netanyahu of Israel, he should shut up and say nothing. These riots are not about 'the bomb' or about Israel or even about the Middle East. They are about a population that has moved beyond the constraints of a repressive authoritarian regime, and wants democratic power. Any voice from the West or other nation, should refer only to this struggle for democracy. Nothing else.

We are now witnessing the repression phase of this conflict. It will either succed or fail; I cannot be the judge of that but note that the opposition to the mullocracy is not organized, physically ior ideaologically.

ET at June 21, 2009 9:59 PM

ET, I agree with you, but who is proposing the overthrow of the current system??

As of right now, we don't know how this will go. It is purest optimism to think that Iran will evolve into a democracy as we know it and that Mousavi will be the key to it. However, some have speculated (and stated in this thread) that Mousavi is no better than anyone else. Indeed, even if he had won (which he might have) there's no telling if his reforms would pass. What we do know is that the current genration of Iranians are fed up and are demanding a change. This could eventually translate into a more politcally and socially pliable Iran.
One can hope.

RW- no-one is currently proposing the overthrow of the current system.
What is happening now is only the articulation of the serious problems of the current system. The people will realize that to deal with this, requires not just a 'new leader' but a new system.

That comes next. First, the people, who are the under 30s, must strengthen themselves and their contacts with the external world. That is why I'm saying that people on the electronic network must be in constant contact with them. And world leaders should talk about democracy. Just support democracy; that's all.

That network of contacts and the notion that democracy is at the root of these contacts, will move the Iranian people to want a change in the system. Not a change of leadership.

Kinyobe - Iran will become a democracy but I doubt if Mousavi will be its leader. In a way, it's better that he DIDN'T 'win' because if he had, he'd have governed in a somewhat similar way and the reform would be submerged and unclear.

Now that he has been marginalized by the leadership, it is clear that the authoritarian regime wants to retain power. And the people want power. This has become clear..to the people above all. It has moved outside of ideas and the coffee shops and into open expression. And the regime's refusal to give up power has been openly expressed as well.

So, in a way, this clarity of both sides, has been the beneficial result of Mousavi 'losing'. Now, comes the next stages... I really don't think that the regime can control the under 30 crowd that well.

ET, how will this change evolve?
How will the tyrants be deposed and who will take over?
It's one thing to get rid of dictators, it's quite another to have a vacuum.
I'm sure you've heard but a young woman was shot (one among many). This will get very bloody before the end is in sight.

Osumashi Kinyobe - I think that's the central point, the "vacuum". Forget Mousavi. This will surely depend on whether some sort of leadership emerges; and, I would guess, if it comes down to it, on how loyal the security forces are to the regime. America has elected a President who will be useless to these young Iranians, but then again, this isn't the "Prague Spring"; there are plenty of evil Middle Eastern governments but no Bloc to crush this from without.
Or it might come to nothing. If only this had happened, say, a year and a half ago.

the reporters don't get it.

the protesters don't get it.

sda followers don't get it and all the sympathetic but unlearned masses don't get it.

the election was going to leave amajamajimjam in power regardless of the ballot count.

now do you get it?

the mullahs and jihadists and tehran police and bin laden and the whole despicable gang were in on the secret. the 'election' was a device to shut up and shut out any inching towards the dangerous reform.

it may backfire. remember, the bolsheviks tried and failed in 1905 and then tried and 'succeeded' in 1917.

the american revolutionary war went way past 1776; it could have gone either way.

time to put your computer in standby mode or whatever the Apple folks call it and read some history books.

then you too can be in on the secret *beforehand*

Thanks a bunch, Black Mamba.
That clarifies some things.

"the election was going to leave amajamajimjam in power regardless of the ballot count."
REALLY?!? D'you think that might be why those Iranians are acting up? I mean... I'd just never thought of it like that... Thanks global view!

I think that the crackdown will be brutal - but just like Tiananmen, the toothpaste is out of the tube, and it ain't going back.

My understanding is that Iranians were a pretty secular bunch for the most part - and pre-2000 had some not so bad feelings for the US

This is truly encouraging news, but I hate to say that many Iranians will be injured, likely tortured, and killed over the next little while

Obama will fence sit, and lose an opportunity to really show greatness

Re: "people find out that Obama isn't legally, Constitutionally President 'cause he wasn't born in the US to two US citizens?"

The meaning of Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution is born in the USA, which Obama was. It does not require two US parents. "Natural Born Citizen" is the US equivalent of Natural Born Subject in British common law and the citizenship laws of the colonies and States before and during the Revolution, which means born in the territory, simply born in the territory.

And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

“Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

“What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

The Guardian has a phone video of the young lady shot in Iran bleeding out before our eyes...

Very disturbing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/22/neda-iran-protest

What amazes meis these Iranians are doing this knowing they won't get any help from anyone.
Obama is a weak reed.
I pray they can get rid of this Nut & his Masters.
JMO

Osumashi Kinyobe - having visited your excellent website several times, and read your comments here, I'm aware that you are more qualified than I am to speculate about this stuff. I'm really just free-associating. But thanks for being gracious.

global view - bin laden? Get cereal. Al despises Shites almost as much as Jews.

Maybe you should put your computer on standby. But it's nice to pontificate.

"the election was going to leave amajamajimjam in power regardless of the ballot count."
REALLY?!? D'you think that might be why those Iranians are acting up? I mean... I'd just never thought of it like that... Thanks global view!
Posted by: Black Mamba at June 21, 2009 11:41 PM "

yes mamba, really. the 'election' results were determined 2 years ago when hints of necessitating one to appease the masses popped up.

its the *predetermination* aspect of long long ago I raise, and likewise the world's response to the protests. it was all in the fix long ago. spontaneity anywhere in the mix shows the ridiculous expectations of the Iranian and non Iranian protestors and sympathizers in and outside Iran.

now do you get it?

here it is put another way: the protests cause a reaction of surprise a.k.a. whodathunkit: 100s of thousands in the streets of Tehran. they were however the result of a predetermined outcome. Im sure there are interpretations in a courtroom to this kind of thing on a smaller scale, and is related to the 'law of unintended consequences; the circumstance triggering those consequences were entirely predictable years ago.

resolving crises like this requires one to be far more skilled at knowing what is coming. like me.

but who's listening eh?

ET; I agree with much of what you have to say. It was not that long ago that people expressed doubt that Iraqis could or would embrace democracy. I would have thought that all of the purple fingers we saw would have convinced the doubters otherwise, but apparently not.

global view
Your arguments amount to pronouncing on the obvious in a convoluted pretentious manner compounded with ridiculous errors and tenuous historical analogies – time to put down the pipe. But it must flatter your ego to have the *inside track*

resolving crises like this requires one to be far more skilled at knowing what is coming. like me.
Posted by: global view at June 22, 2009 12:34 AM

It's a good thing you don't list humility as a requirement.

Iran has been principle provider of support for the insurgents in Iraq for years. This is no secret to anyone, least of all the potus. Hundreds if not thousands of American and coalition soldiers have been killed by this effort and thousands more wounded. The unrest in Iraq currently is an opportunity to put the Iranian theocracy out of the insurgency export business.

That Obama has essentially sat on his hands through this and that the vast majority of the MSM has downplayed the opportunity and what it might mean (CTV yesterday was headlining that "stability" was returning to Tehran implying that this was a good thing) means that going forward Obama to some extent now his the blood of those troops killed and maimed in Iraq and elsewhere by Iranian supported actions as do his MSM enablers.

Agent Smith is correct. AQ really has no time for Shiites, AQ is a Arab and Sunni dominated movement. There isnt a lot of love for Persians and Shiites....just saying.

As for it being predetermined, it probably was and this is why people are objecting. Nobody, least of all under 30's, like haiving their dreams dashed. Whether they can sicceed or not is another question, whether Mousavi is a temporary leader or not is another question. Mousavi, if he wishes to ride the Tiger will have to fuflfill on some major, but not all reforms.

Some of the demonstartors, if they actually succeed, will inevitably be disappointed. The real question is how much will the Mullahs be removed from formal power? They wont lose influence for a long time, they are part of the society.

But if Iran moves to a less theocratic power structure we might actually see someone we can speak with rationally, soemthing that has been missing since 1979. And BTW, if they do move to that it will be despite, not because of anything GWB or Obama have done.

One thing springs to my mind here. The Powers That Be in Iran don't have the bogey man Saddam Hussein to conjure with any more. Saddam's a dead guy, dragged out of a spider hole by the Americans.

Couple days ago we had a post reminding us that the Iran/Iraq war killed a lot of guys, and feelings ran pretty deep out in the sticks among the Iranian veterans.

Well, George Bush put paid to Saddam, and all those Iranian Vets got to see it on TV. I bet there was some street dancing and candy handed out when Saddam went for the high jump. Odd that we didn't see much of that on TV, eh?

So now, could be, I'm just sayin', all those old guys my age are getting tired of watching their neighbor's kid get hung from a hydro pole because they're gay. And maybe they're tire of having their daughters hassled by some old harpy from the hijab squad because their scarf isn't on straight, or their socks are the wrong colour.

People won't put up with that crap unless they know there's something worse going to happen if they don't. Saddam was worse than the mullahs, no question. The Shah was probably worse than the mullahs, I don't know but lets say just for the sake of argument.

The Shah is gone. Saddam is gone. There's no reason to take crap from the mullahs any more. Holding a crooked election is just not on, so people are rising up.

Good on them. I hope I never see it here.

Iran's revolutionary fires will be fueled as well by their collapse in oil revenue, based on dwindling exports. They are plagued by the same failings as the national Mexican oil producer Pemex with inadequate investment in production and exploration. As a consequence, their production is flat to declining.

Add to that their penchant for supplying cheap fuel domestically (gasoline in Iran prices about at about 25 cents per litre) and they have rapidly rising internal consumption.

This trend is projected to eliminate exports within 5 years. There is nothing like an economic collapse to stoke a revolutionary fervor.

Ironically, they would be well served to have nuclear generation of electricity, to enhance exports of oil, but I do not trust the Mullahs to refrain from a weapons program.

According to our MSM (CNN is on this Iran crisis almost exclusively), It's the Iranian youth who are fed up with the old system. 65% of University graduates in Iran are female but they have no rights to have any jobs of power: Judges, Government etc...Husbands must also give permission for them to be in the work force. Women cannot mingle with men in many areas. They are segregated in mosques and even on buses where they have to sit in the back.

Unemployment is very high even though the country is very oil rich.

This movement wants more freedom and prosperity with the women pushing the hardest. It is increasingly being described as a sort of women libs of the 60's/Sufragettes of the early 20th century with the black discrimination movement of the 60's US south all meshed together.

At this point they are not moving to overthrow the Mullahs who really have all the powers. The Presidents are just their puppets although they were hoping to send the Mullahs a message for change by removing the Mullah faithful/Conservative Admaninajad.

It is now too late to turn it around. Violence and suffering might be minimized in the short term if the protesters stop now but one by one their most participating/vocal activists will be rounded up and 'dissapear' in order to scare and discourage future uprizings. If they stop now, the Mullahs will also take away their communication tools. Twitter will dissapear for sure.

If they carry on, much blood will spill in the short term but the Autocracy will eventually crack. The mission is to 'demoralize' the army and pro Mullah guards. The people need to turn the guns towards the Mullahs by their own power structure. Let's pray and hope they are succesful.

I don't know. Is anyone willing to actually send them guns? It has been pretty obvious for a while now that Iran has been fighting a proxy war against the west in Iraq/Afghanistan/Sudan. Maybe it is time our side got a proxy? Unless this is being considered, or implemented (and I doubt the Great Apologizer of the United States has the inclination) by someone, somewhere, isn't it pointless to pretend that we support freedom and liberty for all?

Going out in the streets and protesting isn't going to accomplish a damn thing (any more than it did in Lebanon) for the opposite reason that Gandhi's actions did work.

If you are dealing with the British in the post-war years, you are dealing with reasonable people.

In Tehran, you are not.

The likelihood of success is positively correlated with the propensity to violence of the ruling thugs. The more easily they fall back on violence, and the more violent their reaction, the less likely singing camp songs is going to get you your way.

The difference between Tehran circa 1979 and Tehran circa 2009 is that there is no armed insurrection hiding behind the moral authority of the peaceful protesters in 2009. Protest alone doesn't work.

The only lesson here is that we don't assume that every person in a muslim country is on board with the head hackers. Clearly, the silent majority are not representative by those in power. Also clear it that it doesn't matter. The same could be said of Germany. Twice.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8112173.stm

"The Iranian election supervising body, the Guardian Council, has acknowledged irregularities in more than 50 constituencies in the disputed presidential election.

It said that the number of votes collected in 50 cities had surpassed the number of voters registered, but added that it did not affect the overall result of the election won by President Ahmadinejad."

Looks like time for a 'free and fair' election, rather than a vote stuffing exercise. In any other democratic country vote stuffing in 50 constituencies would trigger a new election.

I would be asking the same thing if I were Iranian:

"Where is my vote?"

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

There's a great article in todays WSJ.com by Fouad Ajami, entitled "Obama's Persian Tutorial." Brief excerpts:

"That ambivalence at the heart of the Obama diplomacy about freedom has not served American policy well in this crisis. We had tried to "cheat" -- an opening to the regime with an obligatory wink to those who took to the streets appalled by their rulers' cynicism and utter disregard for their people's intelligence and common sense....Mr. Obama's statement that 'the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as had been advertised' put on cruel display the administration's incoherence."

(....)

"...I was in Saudi Arabia when Mr. Obama traveled to Riyadh and Cairo. The earth did not move, life went on as usual. There were countless people puzzled by the presumption of the entire exercise, an outsider walking into sacred matters of their faith. In Saudi Arabia, and in the Arabic commentaries of other lands, there was unease that so complicated an ideological and cultural terrain could be approached with such ease and haste..." (emph mine)

Speaking of ease and haste, those blithe commenters who spout, with a Father Christmas mien en route to giving a "what me worry" verdict on the unrest, variants of "Mousavi's just as bad as Ahmadinejad," are grossly oversimplifying what's going on in Iran, perhaps in order to tout the wisdom of their own shrug. Note that outside of a couple of small rallies, he protesters aren't waving Mousavi banners (unlike the Ahmadinejad counter-rally-ers, who wave identical, mass-produced placards) and they are not chanting slogans for Mousavi. We're seeing broader cultural unrest, tension between theocratic rulers and their supporters on one hand and younger, forward-thinking, modern and educated Persians on the other. We should stand behind the latter, and not consign their cause to the scrap-heap just because some politician or other is situating himself -- nominally on the side of the protesters, almost incidental to their final concerns -- in the unrest.

Plus, of course, one need not deign to provide justification for not giving a rat -- it's a pretty much self-contained, self-sponsoring attitude.

"The likelihood of success is positively correlated with the propensity to violence of the ruling thugs."

Ooops... negatively correlated. As in inverse.

It's Monday. That is my excuse.

Thanks, Black Mamba.
Jason: even if the protests do nothing now, they could, further on down the line, re-emerge as a stronger political force. Wishful thinking, maybe.