Iran News and Discussions

tarun · Post by **tarun** » 16 Jun 2009 14:35

I don't think it would be wise to put all eggs in one basket. What if there is a regime change to a pro-US one ? A lot depends on what our eyes and ears in Iran think. Can they make a call that there is widespread support for Ahmadinejad in rural areas and the current un-rest is going to run its course inconclusively. Even so I do not agree that it is a great idea to display a great deal of overt support to the embattled president. Just like the protesters on the streets he needs to fight his own battles.
That said, despite the hardliner that Ahmadinejad is made out to be, listening to his interviews on the US TeeVee channels in late 2007, where he was relegated to late night spots, was quite a revelation. He actually struck quite a conciliatory note towards US. So warming up of ties between US-Iran cannot be ruled out even with the current regime in power, given the US need for safer access to Afghanistan. The onus lies with the US to revoke sanctions and normalize relations as a quid pro quo. The Iranians share a few traits like 'H & D' magnified a few more times than their friends across the border making it a bit difficult for Americans to deal with them.

ShyamSP · Post by **ShyamSP** » 16 Jun 2009 14:40

Stan_Savljevic wrote:Can folks cut this sniping of Shri MMS in every thread, whenever a possibility exists? The time for it has come and gone. Cmon, the people knew that he was not going to stand in the elections, he was the pre-election nominee for the PM post, and from many surveys, people like him for his "incorruptibility." That is more than what can be said for most of the other elected netas of this nation. Enough, what more do you want? The more folks bring in their biases beyond the realms of normalcy, the more kiddish the argument looks. Find a different reason to tar him, stop scoring own goals.

I guess you're referring to my post. Note the previous poster intention of elected leader of Iran seeking legitimacy for his presidency from selected leader of India. I was retorting to his farcical post. Each country has its own way of electing/selecting leader (Didn't Mushraff was elected with 95%), accept the verdict and move on. India doesn't have to follow whims of US with respect to Iran. Unfortunately India lost its independent thinking looking at its past actions on Iran.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 16 Jun 2009 14:43

I am unable to recall a senior BRF member who was well informed about Iran. I wish he gives his take

tarun · Post by **tarun** » 16 Jun 2009 15:22

John Snow wrote:I am unable to recall a senior BRF member who was well informed about Iran. I wish he gives his take

Also what do the Iranian students in India think ?
-Tarun

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Jun 2009 15:35

ShyamSP wrote:Note the previous poster intention of elected leader of Iran seeking legitimacy for his presidency from selected leader of India. I was retorting to his farcical post.

There is nothing farcical in that post, except your inability to understand the context.

MMS may be 'selected' leader in India's internal political context, but in the international context, he was the PM of India before the election, his party projected him as the future PM before going into the elections, his party won, he was endorsed as the PM in a free and fair election. He has all the democratic mandate and legitimacy, he needs.

Any further details to that about super-PM etc. are simply nonsense. For everybody else, he is the man responsible for India! Period.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 16 Jun 2009 16:18

Tarun wrote
Aren't all revolutions urban led even in Asia, for instance the previous Islamic revolution began in Tehran.
The recipe seems to be :-
1. The only broadcast media allowed to exist is government owned, the air is rife with rumors based on conjectures because anti-government broadcast media and point to point ( cellphones, SMS, Internet) communication links have been disabled.
2. Even the people who would normally have stayed back home now come out because their cellphone is not working and the TeeVee box is lying to them.
3. The palace guards are deployed and draw the first blood and then they are overwhelmed.
4. The real army is called out who refuses to fire upon what they consider their own people and revolution succeeds, the counter example to that is Napolean's famous 'whiff of grapeshot'. But that was a revolution that had already run its course for too long.

If we go back to Napoleon's period, then there would be many counterexamples - for example all the urban uprisings in Europe in the 1830's and the widespread ones of 1848 - all of which failed or actually led to being defeated and creating cinditions for more despotic or dictatorial regimes. The Chinese communist uprising is another counterexample. The crucial factor in urban uprisings is whether the army joins in or stays neutral or not. Consider the Afghan "revolutions", the Iraqi -earlier Marxist revolution and then the Baathist rev, same for the Iranian ones. Signficantly, in Afghan, Iran, Iraq, no revolution/palace coup/ urban putsch succeeded without backing and involvement from the clergy and rural theologian networks.

kvraghav · Post by **kvraghav** » 16 Jun 2009 16:30

I think we can move on from the selected/elected debate to the other important point made in that post.About india loosing its independent stand on Iran and rather acting on the wishes of America in the past few years.

Sanku · Post by **Sanku** » 16 Jun 2009 16:37

kvraghav wrote:I think we can move on from the selected/elected debate to the other important point made in that post.About india loosing its independent stand on Iran and rather acting on the wishes of America in the past few years.

Absolutely correct; the larger issue is whether India can have an independent stand on Iran or not, based on the latest about Kamal Nath being removed from the cabinet to ensure that US interests are met at WTO, I find it hilarious that we are discussing whether India can have an independent stand on Iran. The short answer is no we cant.

I have given up all hopes of GoI doing something proactive in Indian interests, the only thing I am hoping for is that
1) In following HMV for India, GoI manages to do something right by fluke
2) HMV and others goof up big time, clearly very few nations have a giant at its helm, most nations are today being run by "strange" leaders

Avarachan · Post by **Avarachan** » 16 Jun 2009 18:53

An American perspective on the events in Iran. From Michael Ledeen (who used to be a columnist for the American magazine, "National Review"):

http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/

There are reports of members of the Revolutionary Guards defecting to the dissidents. There is this report from an Iranian website (the only place i’ve seen it) according to which 16 senior Revolutionary Guards officials have been arrested:

“These commanders have been in contact with members of the Iranian army to
join the people’s movement. Three of the commanders are veterans of Iran-Iraq war. They have been moved to an undisclosed location in East Tehran.”

If true, it’s very important, but, as I have often noted, the regime has distrusted them for some time. The young Islamic revolutionaries of the late 1970s are now middle aged, and do not wish to slaughter their neighbors. That is why the mullahs have imported killers from abroad: the five thousand or so Hezbollahis who, according to Der Spiegel, have been brought in from Lebanon and Syria. Dissidents on Twitter report clashes with security forces who do not speak Farsi, and there are even some rumors suggesting that Chavez has sent some of his toughs from Venezuela. Who knows?

The other great threat to the regime comes from the upper reaches of the clergy. Do not be surprised to see some senior ayatollahs denounce the regime; many have done so in the past (Ayatollah Montazeri has been under house arrest for years, and Ayatollah Boroujerdi has been subjected to horrible torture for criticizing the lack of freedom in Iran). We are still quite early in this process.

But the key element is the people. They are only just beginning to understand the reality of their situation. Virtually none of them imagined that they would be in a revolutionary confrontation with the regime just two days after the electoral circus, and few of them can realize, so soon, that they can actually change the world. I think the Mousavis now understand it (they know that they are either going to win or be destroyed). It remains to be seen if they can instruct and inspire the movement.

Much will depend on their ability to communicate. The regime has been waging a cyberwar against the dissidents, shutting down websites, cell phones, Facebook, and the like. As most people have learned, the basic communiations tool is Twitter, which somehow continues to function. Bigtime Kudos to Twitter, by the way, for postponing its planned maintenance so that the Iranians can continue to Tweet. Would that Google were so solicitous of freedom.

We don’t know who’s going to win. The Iranian people know that they’re on their own; they aren’t going to get any help from us, or the United Nations, or the Europeans. But paradoxically, this lack of support may strengthen their will. There is no cavalry on the horizon. If they are going to prevail, they and their unlikely leaders will have to gut it out by themselves. God be with them.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 16 Jun 2009 19:47

tarun wrote:I don't think it would be wise to put all eggs in one basket. What if there is a regime change to a pro-US one ? A lot depends on what our eyes and ears in Iran think. Can they make a call that there is widespread support for Ahmadinejad in rural areas and the current un-rest is going to run its course inconclusively. Even so I do not agree that it is a great idea to display a great deal of overt support to the embattled president. Just like the protesters on the streets he needs to fight his own battles.

My rule of thumb is, if you are a democrat and you have two choices, always go with the dictator. Simply because the democrat would automatically lean towards you once he is in power. So even if you put your eggs in the dictator's basket, the democrat will be putting his in your basket. In the future, I'll be using some other words than eggs and basket. It is the dictator, who looks for legitimacy abroad, because at home he does not get much. It is he who needs other's support. The democrat does not.
The dictator is also willing to go more than half way to meet the wishes of his supporters.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Jun 2009 19:54

Moussavi was in power in a regime that was waaayy more oppressive than Ahmadinejad's in the 80's.

CRamS · Post by **CRamS** » 16 Jun 2009 20:18

Guys:

Whatever may be the case, and we don't have a dog in the Iran fight; but just look at the performance of the US media; sooooo in synch with their govt's national interests. The drumbeat from day 1 against Ahmadinejad (sp?), the pro-opposition propaganda, repeating every tit-bit from some on-line rags alleging fraud; makes US news agencies no different from Xin Hua news agencies; except that they do it wilfully and out of their own volition. Thats why US has this so called 'free press' with no bones; its just the 5th arm of the govt. Wish India gutter media was like that.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 16 Jun 2009 21:30

Surya wrote:So???
Thats how news breaks nowadays
Don;t have to wait for NYT till tomorrow morning.

Yeah, I know. I did not crawl out from a cave. The point that CRamS brings out is that how the media/blogsphere is working overtime on this issue. I strongly suspect "foreign hand" the more this drags out.

This is what Obama said in Cairo:

Rather than remain trapped in the past, I've made it clear to Iran's leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question now is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

Joe Biden during the election campaign said Obama will be tested on Foreign Policy issues in the six months of office. Now I suspect maybe we all did not get it at that time. Maybe they were saying Obama will "do" something in the first six months - as an initiator of some action.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 16 Jun 2009 22:46

India puts priority on investment in Chabahar: envoy

Sanjay Singh stated in a meeting with Managing Director of Chabahar Free Trade Zone Organization Mohammad-Taher Baqerizadeh that India is ready to invest in Chabahar Port infrastructural plans such as the establishment of Chabahar-Fahraj-Bam railroad and the development of Chabahar Port.

Baqerizadeh said in the meeting that the Chabahar FTZ’s facilities and port installations can streamline the transit of goods from India to Central Asian and European countries

atma · Post by **atma** » 17 Jun 2009 00:44

time.com

Who's Fighting Who in Iran's Struggle? A perspective by US based Iran Expert

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/ ... 89,00.html

atma · Post by **atma** » 17 Jun 2009 00:48

Why the US Wants to Delegitimize the Iranian Elections.

http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/2009/ ... erts.shtml

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Jun 2009 01:25

Not sure how Obama or anyone had the time or knowledge to "engineer this"

Especially given the unease at how to respond AND knowing that getting involved is a sure fire way of discrediting the genuine movement.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Jun 2009 01:30

Surya wrote:Not sure how Obama or anyone had the time or knowledge to "engineer this"

Especially given the unease at how to respond AND knowing that getting involved is a sure fire way of discrediting the genuine movement.

Thats where the FORWARD ENGINERING process comes in (strategic/Visionary) Statesmanship of the leadership council of a country.

IndraD · Post by **IndraD** » 17 Jun 2009 01:45

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Riva ... 664523.cms

Rivals stage mass rallies as Iran set for vote recount

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 17 Jun 2009 01:55

Report: State Dept. urged Twitter to reschedule maintenance

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Jun 2009 02:02

If they had FORWARD thinking they would not putz around like they are doing now.

Plus with all the other problems - this had no chance.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Jun 2009 02:07

Surya wrote:Not sure how Obama or anyone had the time or knowledge to "engineer this"

Especially given the unease at how to respond AND knowing that getting involved is a sure fire way of discrediting the genuine movement.

All that a country has to do is give support to the local organizations or factions. A signal indicating help will go long way; or a sympathetic nod implying if you are ready to wag the dog, then we will give you press coverage will be encouraging to some sections. It is still onlee my suspicion.

They have/had the capabilities; it is the question of which capabilities to use. Different administrations use different ones.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 17 Jun 2009 02:15

sometimes better to tranish than throw out outright.
Lest history rpeats itself (1953 all over, for which an apology was issued recently).
Caliberation calculation and moderation is another non trivial aspect of statesmenship.

Better to cage a hardliner mullah supported than oust him and face adversarial fall out.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Jun 2009 02:20

Swamy

its one thing to support by making sure bandwidth is available and another thing to have a war room monitoring , funding and guiding the next steps like they did for Orange rev etc.

The danger of getting caught is too high and resulting setback.

The best chance of reducing the power of the mullahs is letting the internal dynamics play out and making sure that it gets a chance to play out instead of being squashed by brute force.

John

Agree - that tarnishing and weakening maybe be one play.

but either way I do not care for these nut jobs

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Jun 2009 02:28

Surya: It is too early to call in my opinion. Don't take my conspiracy theories very seriously. This might all fizzle out in the next few days. There is marked difference between how DailyKos and HuffingtonPost are covering this issue.

Obama is supposed to have said "something has happened in Iran". He is not saying this on the basis of what he sees on TV.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 17 Jun 2009 02:30

So at last we see the real reason behind getting B. Hussein Obama elected US president - the calculation by the power elite of USA was to use Obama to try and divide the Muslim world into as many fractures as possible. Construct "moderate" versus "extremist", "modernizing" versus "retrogressive", etc. Iran is the first gamble after the "coming out" debutante speech of extending a warm handshake to "Islam". But the Iranian attempt was too quick. Is Obama in a hurry? Or is the US power elite in too much of a hurry? The danger is the possibility of a wave of reaction that the US simply cannot fathom, and will escape from as quickly as possible leaving the hapless neighbours and caught-in-betweens who cannot jump on to the evacuation flight.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Jun 2009 04:57

Well I go to Huffpo to see Megan Fox pics

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 06:43

Who Cares? Iran says warplanes capable of reaching Israel

http://www.defensetech.org/archives/Iranian%20F4.jpg

It's cookie cutter Iranian bluster, of course. Though some Iranian fighters do have the legs for such an operation, they'd have to drop most of their armament and load up on fuel to make the trip.

And that's assuming that Iranian warplanes had a straight shot into Israel. The minute the Mullahs sortie a strike package large enough to field against the razor sharp Israeli Air Force, the even sharper USAF and US Navy would make short work of it. That type of chest-thumping from Iran is the stuff that makes fighter jocks like Ward and Pinch drool.

"Target rich environment?" Yeah, you betcha.

--John Noonan

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 17 Jun 2009 16:54

IRGC issues threats against protesters, Ayatollah Montazeri declares electoral results a fraud

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 17 Jun 2009 17:06

Look guys, western media is making out that Mousavi is some great guy. The guy is just an opportunist. He is AS bad as Ahmadenjad, maybe worse. Some people are saying Ahmadenjad is using the palestinian issue to sidetrack the iranian people from the real issues in the country such as poverty. People are also pissed off that the Iranian govt is spending more on Lebanon/palestine etc than at home where there is still poverty and underdevelopment.

Many iranians see Ahmadinejad as innefficient and sometimes plain embarrassing. The west is making out Moussavi as some great reformer etc and a saintly figure loved by all, truth is he is just another idiot or even an opportunist. The people want more democracy and freedom.

---------
India is playing neutral, but met up with Rafsanjani who is supposed to be the reformist, but is I think the head of the clerics. He is supposedly pro-business, doesn't want war with the US.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 17 Jun 2009 18:21

shyam

Obama himself said - not much of a difference between the two in terms of policy.

but internal issues might be a diff take.

All politicians are opportunists - who isn't??

Andrew DeCristofaro · Post by **Andrew DeCristofaro** » 17 Jun 2009 18:25

Surya wrote:shyam

Obama himself said - not much of a difference between the two in terms of policy.

but internal issues might be a diff take.

All politicians are opportunists - who isn't??

whether iran will attack israel or not

but main thing is that israel is "most heavily armed country in whole middle east region"
meaning israel has all kind of weapons

and everyone knows that israel has nukes but no one in west questions this but they are frightened of iran which is still far in developing nukes

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 17 Jun 2009 18:54

India should deal with whoever holds the power in Iran, and we should build strong strategic relations with them. It makes the task for India infinitely easier, if we don't have to feel that we have to deal with an international pariah and loud-mouth, when we deal with the Iranian leader. As such Moussavi would be preferred, but in the end we still have to deal with them as friends.

SwamyG · Post by **SwamyG** » 17 Jun 2009 21:10

India should deal with whoever holds the power in Iran, and we should build strong strategic relations with them.

Yes. And...all relations have to be multi-pronged at multi-levels. And some of the relations can/should exist in mutually exclusive manner. Irrespective of who rules, we should be able to attract and influence the common man in Iran. Bollywood, training, education, scientific collaboration, agriculture, trade, infrastructure ithyadi can be used to win the hearts and minds of people. As long as the rulers are convinced we are sincere and want to have beneficial relationship and are not inciting people they are not going to be overtly perturbed. Every year having a "Persian Mela" or "Indian Mela" in the countries will not hurt.

bala · Post by **bala** » 18 Jun 2009 02:12

It is quite touching to see Republicans in the US call for denouncement and support for the Iranian people, freedom of election and choice. Bush Jr won 2000 by questionable voting in Florida and had the Supreme Court in his corner. When TSP overthrew the legit elected govt of TSP and installed Strongman General Mushy Pervez there was no protest about upholding election/freedom. The Republicans embraced Pervez and shipped him billions of dollars in aid. He periodically held elections and with 400% guarantee elected himself time and again. Oh how consistent, screw freedom of election, the people of TSP when it suits the Republicans especially John McCain.

John Snow · Post by **John Snow** » 18 Jun 2009 02:17

well said bala sirji

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 18 Jun 2009 02:38

Surya wrote:shyam

Obama himself said - not much of a difference between the two in terms of policy.

but internal issues might be a diff take.

All politicians are opportunists - who isn't??

Surya, I just don't like the way the western media outlets are portraying Mousavi, he was part of the religious right and was seen as a hot headed islamist before and was involved in removing jews, leftists and bahai's from universities.

Surya · Post by **Surya** » 18 Jun 2009 02:57

shyam

no point getting worked up

None of the media outlets care a rats a$$ about anything - they need to feed something to the 24 hrs cycle and this is now their only piece.
95 percent of those anchors are morons with only criteria being telegenic.

Its only Zakaria - for all his faults who actually assembles people who have a clue about Iran.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Jun 2009 03:15

Looks like Moussavi is a "moderate" Ayotollah!

I guess the game plan in a lose-lose situation is support the underdog even if its a pit bull and hope for a split and make it win-lose scenario.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 18 Jun 2009 03:18

shyamd wrote:I just don't like the way the western media outlets are portraying Mousavi, he was part of the religious right and was seen as a hot headed islamist before and was involved in removing jews, leftists and bahai's from universities.

For the Western Media, it doesn't matter what Mr Mousavi's true credentials are. At the moment, he is one, who is the leader of the young, is supported by the 'reformists' etc, and his supporters more than make up for the lack of liberalism in Mousavi himself, as far as media image is concerned. He is the one, who has challenged a much hated figure in America and Israel.
In the end, for the West, which has always been a bit short on options for Iran, Mr Mousavi represents a powerful lever, an opportunity to shake and may be even bring the system in Iran down.
If it helps their cause, the West would be willing to call Mr Mousavi, the Messiah! Reality be damned. Nobody wants to hear right now, what is wrong with Mousavi.