Skip to main content

View Diary: IRAN: Time for a Bit of Analysis (290 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  An unstable Iran is the last thing (0+ / 0-)

    the world needs right now.  Outsiders need to stay out of Iran's business, no matter what happened with the voting. That includes well-meaning westerners who sympathize with the democratic aspirations of the green movement.

    Light is seen through a small hole.

    by houyhnhnm on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:12:08 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Why? (5+ / 0-)

      What exactly do you think an unstable Iran is going to do that is so horrific for the world?  A stable Iran under Ahmadinejad is like a US under 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran' McCain - full of saber rattling and threats to nearby countries.

      I was just thinking this morning, that in a globalized world, the old phrase 'the only thing evil needs, is for good men to do nothing' needs updated to reflect doing nothing when your neighbor is trying to fight evil.

      Saying 'we should stay out of their business' is very similar to those English who said the same about Hitler before he attacked England, or the US before Pearl Harbor.

      You can't just ignore evil because it's not in your own front yard.

      Bah. Typoed during acct creation. It's Ezekiel 23:20

      by Ezekial 23 20 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 12:23:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But there is a difference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        England did not have a long, recent history of interfering in German politics. In the past half-century, the US has

        1. Orchestrated the overthrow the democratically-elected government of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq in 1953 because he nationalised the oil industry. Silly man actually argued that Iran should receive some of the profits from the sale of its oil. We (a private oil company) disagreed so we (the CIA) staged a coup d'etat (Operation Ajax).
        1. We installed the pro-American Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlevi on the throne, where he remained until overthrown in 1979 by the same folks (and their children) who are the Green Party today.
        1. The Shah abolished the multi-party system of government, ruling an autocratic one-party state under the Rastakhiz (Resurrection) Party. All Iranians were pressured to join it. Here is the Shah’s justification:

        We must straighten out Iranians’ ranks. To do so, we divide them into two categories: those who believe in Monarchy and those who don’t.... A person who does not enter the new political party will have only two choices. He is either an individual who belongs to an illegal organization, or is related to the outlawed Tudeh Party, or in other words a traitor.

        In other words, you're either with us or against us.

        1. During the 1979 Revolution (all that embassy hostages stuff) Regan illegally sold arms to Iranian revolutionaries on the condition that they not release the hostages until after Carter was defeated. They were released on Regan's inauguration day, Jan. 20, 1981.
        1. Fast forward through 9 democratic (by Iranian standards) elections to 2005, when Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the hardline mayor of Tehran, was elected. A populist, he won with 68% of the vote in a runoff against Iranian ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani after original field of seven candidates was narrowed in the first round of voting.
        1. Given that Iran had already been declared part of the "Axis of Evil" and shrub (and the idiot John Bolton, among other neocon saber-rattlers) was threatening Iran overtly or covertly on a regular basis since 2001, there is no chance he could have been anything but stridently opposed to us and still have gotten elected. (Rafsanjani was the pro-business centrist who was president 1989-1997.)

        While I am sure the protesters would take any help they can get, and I certainly hope they get some, anything that looks like interference from us is going to mitigate against them.

        Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ---Plato

        by carolita on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 01:29:32 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Thank you (0+ / 0-)

          your arguments are clear and cogent and detailed, unlike the blithe assertion to which I responded.

          But they also merely address and highlight the difficulties association with the US brings to the protesters, not in what way 'stability' of Iran, no matter under whom is the most desirable outcome at this point in time.

          The stability of the English colonies under the rule of Charles II in the 1700's was certainly not something the colonists felt was the best possible outcome, and likewise this appears to be possibly a moment for country-redefining change in Iran to move it into step with the worldview of the half the country that is under 25 and chafing at religious rule, and those over 25 who see things more like their younger counterparts.

          Bah. Typoed during acct creation. It's Ezekiel 23:20

          by Ezekial 23 20 on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 01:49:36 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I assure you I was neither happy nor cheerful (0+ / 0-)

            when I made that comment. I'm extremely worried.

            And I'm not about to take criticism from someone who resorts to reductio ad Hitlerum arguments.

            Light is seen through a small hole.

            by houyhnhnm on Mon Jun 15, 2009 at 02:14:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site