Protesting the results of the 2009 Iran Presidential Elections
I have been closely watching Iran’s summer of discontent and rage on digital cable TV since last weekend.
The scenes are reminiscent of the cries of Liberte’ as the French laid siege to the Bastille in 1789, the prelude to the fall of the Iron Curtain, and more recently the seeming regularity of despots being overthrown all over the world .
Despots of the Past
There are striking parallels between the current protests going on in Iraq and the Philippines.
Decades ago, Iran had its Shah, and the Philippines had its Marcos. Both have been swept away by popular discontent.
Popular Discontent
Iran and the Philippines have undertaken “people power” revolutions to remove the US-backed dictatorships of Shah Pahlavi and Ferdinand Marcos. These dictatorships were ousted by a broad coalition of political forces. In Iran, two incompatible forces, theocracy and democracy fused, to oust the Shah. In the Philippines, the two incompatible urges, traditional transactional politics and participative democracy fused – from atheist commies to the religious right, to oust Marcos.
Hijacked “Revolutions”
Both “revolutions” were also hijacked by the traditionalists. Iran’s theocracy seized the initiative (can’t help but wonder if the CBCP is salivating at the powers of the Council of Guardians made up exclusively of clerics). Trapos and oligarchs also seized the initiative in the Philippines as the center and the center-left became complacent amidst the euphoria of EDSA.
Despots of the Present
Today, Iran has its Ahmadinejad, the Philippines has its Gloria Arroyo. Both are perceived to be despots and popular discontent is high.
Today, we are seeing the unraveling of theocracy and democracy – and Iranians are demanding that clerics who sit in the Council of Guardians also have to be directly elected. All of it was brought about due to the perceived electoral fraud. Analysts all over the world don’t know which way the wind will blow – whether the current exercise will become an EDSA or become a Tiananmen in Tehran.
Despots of the Future
The Philippines has yet to conduct elections. Public perception is high that GMA is out to change the charter so she can be eligible to another term as President. Whether this is reality or not, “trial balloons” are being sent and are being popped as well.
The Audacity of New Media
What merits greater attention is how new media technologies like Twitter and Facebook are becoming a primary source of information as government clamps down on MSM. Is this a face of things to come? Will repressive administrations cut the lines of communication in order to suppress the truth? This early, it will be wise to start scoping out a backup plan when big bad government becomes big brother.
A New Generation on the Rise
Another noteworthy item is the critical role that demographics plays in the change in the overall Iranian sentiment. As pointed out by Huffpost’s Johann Hari :
| The Mullahs won’t go quietly. They may go down fighting. But the demographics ensure Ahmadinejad’s side will lose in the long-term.
Another 70 percent of Iranians are under the age of thirty, and the vast majority are growing up in the cities, linked via Twitter and Facebook to a world beyond. They have developed huge subcultures of bloggers and rappers expressing their rage at the “morality police” who monitor their behaviour at every turn. While the hardcore Islamist constituency – the old and the rural – shrivels, the reformist constituency is swelling. There’s only so long you can suppress an angry, wired population much younger than you. IPods beat i-slamism in the end. But will they prevail before another Middle Eastern war born of irrational fear begins? |
Like Iran, the Philippines is also showing a similar demographic shift. Although 61% of the population is between 15-64 years old, the mean age of the Philippine population is 22 years old. The demographic is not only young, but highly literate, and highly wired to the net.
Democracy and The Learning Curve
Moving forward, the dynamics that are taking place in Iran today will be worth watching, given the parellelisms of Iran and the Philippines.
As fellow jaded netizen ulo-ng-pare puts it:
|
… iran has mullahs; flipland has padre damasos… both have considerable power over their flocks, mostly the <bleep bleep> ……… corruption rules both countries… more visible in flipland than in iran … ‘coz the more corrupt a trapo, the more flips will idolize him/her… … the difference: iranians implements the islamic thingy… flips use the power of ‘merkan visa to live life in the las vegas strip… … ay sus ginoo |
Freedom lovers will watch how freedom and democracy is protected and fought for in the streets of Teheran. Despots will be watching the crowds and try to come up with pre-emptive measures to contain the crowds.
There are lessons to be learned from Iran. The strategies, tactics, and dynamics between both sides of the Iranian question might provide a preview of things to come in the Philippines 2010 national elections.
Freedom is a Universal Longing
Let us join the world in solidarity and add our voices so that the voice of freedom and democracy will ring louder in Iran, the Philippines, and all over the planet.
Popularity: 1% [?]
I read somewhere that the protests were only against President Ahmadinejad and not the the Supreme Leader and Islamic Republic (Iranian government). This means that if the protest actions are successful then only Ahmadinejad goes away and not the Iranian government. Good and bad depending on who your talking to.
The Philippines should adopt this kind of setup because it’s more stable. This is like the French style of parliamentary government which was the basis of the 1973 Philippine Constitution (plus some annoying innovations).
And who’s going to be the Supreme Leader? Mike Velarde? Erano Manalo? Father Robert Reyes?, Eddie Villanueva?, Eli Soriano?, ??????!
Lucio Tan? :lol:
Someone has this comment :
It’s Not The Voting That’s Democracy; It’s The Counting
http://www.flickr.com/photos/son_of_persia/3629561813/in/photostream/
And right now, it is the counting of the valid votes that is the very important Iranian issue. Ahmadinejad may still be the duly-elected Iranian president (but not with the 63% landslide count) given that he may be the preferred candidate by the rural and poor Iranian sectors.
———-
The other issue — that Iran is a managed fake-democracy with dictatorship by Khameini and a council of clerics — is separate.
UP n:
Excellent analysis from Time – http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905101,00.html
to bongV: that Time article mentions a demonstrator who said :“We have no leader,” she said. “Mousavi is a temporary leader, but we need someone to rally around.”
That sounds like Mousavi is a bozo, but he gets my vote ‘cuz he’s best choice from among the bozos much better than that super-bozo Ahmadinejad.
And then again, there are Iranians who sincerely believe in Ahmadinejad.
It sounds like it. Though, we need to know more about the soft-spoken Moussavi before we outrightly dismiss him as a bozo.
The protest is only for the second tier leadership. Watch the news or look at pictures and you will see that some Iranian protesters are carrying the picture of the the Ayatollah.
That’s as of the moment. If the clerics continue to push for Ahmadinejad (and Khamenei) – that entire body can be eaten up by the tides of popular discontent.
The high-emotion surge from popular discontent usually only results in the kicking out of the incumbents. This, of course, can be a good thing. BUT in another blogthread, someone did make the comment that the kicking-out of incumbents is half (or not even half) of building a healthy body politics. Evidence: Iran today, Pinas today, Pakistan, Afghanistan and a slew of African nations.
Depends on:
1. Who is replacing the incumbent.
2. Capacity of replacement to institute overreaching reforms.
3. Ability of electorate to discern and get sustainably engaged in the process.
supremo:
the discontent can snowball and blow the theocracy away.
looking at Iran, you’re just being too hopeful bongV
Liam:
Hopeful? Hell no.
Just like Iran, whoever wins the Philippine presidency will be beholden to the “king makers” – the high priests of the “church of transactional politics”
Same ole sh*t.
ON THE POLITICAL FRONT, the situation in Iran remains, shall we say, fluid. Our clients around the world have incredible insights into what is going on there, and we thought we’d reproduce two such sent to us yesterday. We are obviously not including their names, for they’ve family in Iran and we’d not wish to expose them to problems with the regime. Firstly one friend wrote
Dear Dennis,
I laughed out loud while reading your morning comments of June 16 where you indicate you are “confused” by Khamenei’s call for an investigation into possible election fraud. I was born in Iran, and I am regularly confused by the way things are done over there. While I am no expert on Iranian politics, I do chat with my father (whom I would consider relatively well informed) and he sometimes shares information with me that one does not normally get to hear about in North America. Unfortunately Khamenei’s decision seems to be a bit of a head scratcher for him as well. So you are definitely not alone. And let me say that your coverage of the Iranian election is probably the most informed opinion I’ve read in North America, so I doubt I can add anything to what you already know. But let me try. During one of the election debates, Ahmadinejad accused Hashemi-Rafsanjani for taking bribes. Hashemi-Rafsanjani publicly supports Mousavi, so Ahmadinejad was doing his best to make Mousavi look bad. Hashemi-Rafsanjani is probably the second most powerful figure in the country behind Khamenei as he is responsible for protecting the Islamic Regime. While there is a rivalry between Khamenei and Hashemi-Rafsanjani, they do respect each other. At the very least, they respect each other more than they respect Ahmadinejad, a man who is seen as nothing more than a puppet who sometimes doesn’t do what his puppet master tells him to do. Khamenei’s actions might just be a warning shot to Ahmadinejad. The second possibility is a bit more straightforward. That Khamenei is concerned about that public outrage over the results will create an internal revolution which would look bad on him. This is already getting started from what I understand. He might be waiting for cooler heads to prevail and feels his actions would help this cause. If cooler heads do not prevail, he would have the option of calling for a re-election to at least make himself look legitimate. One thing is certain in that the math doesn’t add up all that well. Ahmadinejad received 24 million votes. Iran has a population of under 70 million people with about 50% of the population below the age of 25. The 50% that is below the age of 25 are either not of voting age or are, by and large, Mousavi supporters. It seems remarkable that Ahmadinejad would have received 24 million votes.
Kash
Our second friend wrote the following:
Hi Dennis,
I noticed in today’s letter you asked for input and suggestions on why Iran’s Khamenei has done a 180-degree turn around and called for a recount of the election.
You have to keep in mind that in Iran, the “Supreme Leader” does not wield power without any checks and balances. He is actually selected by and supervised by the Assembly of Experts. This is a body of 86 Islamic Scholars that is directly elected by the public. Members are elected to 8 year terms. Of course one can debate the validity, fairness, and openness of this vote all one wants, but the fact of the matter is that the body is led by Akbar Has hemi Rafsanjani, former President of Iran who is a major opponent of Ahmadinejad (in fact Rafsanjani had said before the election that he will be suing Ahmadinejad for slander and defamation after the election over remarks he made accusing both Rafsanjani and his son of corruption). Rafsanjani was made Chairman of the assembly after the last Chairman died in 2007; he got the position after being elected by the assembly, beating an ally of Ahmadinejad by a vote of 41-30. The Assembly of Experts is in fact made up of a majority of Rafsanjani supporters and as a whole is biased against Ahmadinejad; the last vote for the Assembly of Experts was in 2007 and had a 60% voter turnout.
It is thus most likely the Assembly of Experts that is leaning on Ayatollah Khamenei and pressuring him to carry out the recount. As its chairman (elected to Rumor has it that In fact it is the Assembly of Experts that may in the end lay blame for the unrest and mishandling of the entire election on Khamenei and use the opportunity to replace him and by proxy force Ahmadinejad out, “killing two birds with one stone” so to speak.
You can read more about both Rafsanjani and the Assembly of Experts at these two links as they are both quite accurate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assembly_of_Experts http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akbar_Hashemi_Rafsanjani
I hope you found this helpful and I hope it sheds some light on how the political system in Iran really works, it’s not in fact a simple dictatorship and is very complex, though of course it’s not the kind of free democracy we enjoy here.
Regards,
Arash
The point here is that something truly amazing is going on in Iran. Perhaps this is the beginning of the beginning of the end of the regime; perhaps this is simply a blip along the way toward a more totalitarian Islamic regime that strengthens is control over the population. We’ve no idea what shall happen, but it does appear that after more than a decade of talking about the awakening of students and labor in Iran it is finally happening.
From The Gartman Letter – June 17, 2009 edition
to Rosa: thanks! I haven’t gotten yet to that picture of Iran’s politics. I note with interest: …the last vote for the Assembly of Experts was in 2007 and had a 60% voter turnout.
I’ll have to follow the links for further info.
UP:
One reason this topic is followed with much interest here in North America is that if Iranians become more interested in toppling the government, the production of oil will be affected putting positive pressure on the energy prices which has been on an upward climb for the past months.
It is likely possible that if Arroyo will extend , it can be perceived as a dictatorship, putting qualified votes on the wayside. But will it matter to the world compared to IRAN?
Iran is the second largest oil producer in OPEC behind Saudi Arabia. A political shift in Iran do matter internationally. In the Philippines, a political shift cannot influence the rest of the world except when Manny pacquiao is on the ring.
Canada is the oil supplier for US. Of course, instability in the middle East will put pressure on oil. But there are promising signs that the oil industry next door in Iraq will finally be getting back on its feet, after years of languishing. But if talks between the United States and Iran don’t work out, and Ahmadinejad continues his aggressive posturing, his entire region could be disrupted, putting the promised poor to be even more poor. Oil price can drop, lowering the overall country’s revenue. That’s the problem of a populist ( promising here and there) if his WIN was valid at all, was due to strong support from Iran’s rural provinces.
FYI: the provinces definitely loves Gloria :)
Rosa:
The issue on the 60% voting for Ahmadinejad can be “replicated” in the PI. Pinoys better watch what’s going on because the modus can very well happen in our backyard.
Bong, I have said my piece on what I fear about Phil. often enough I am feeling like a broken record. I am just hoping that the young (and old) registrants who volunteered (AKO ANG SIMULA and similar groups) to monitor and man the voting centers will be there when the time comes. ABS-CBN have shown that there are many amongst the youth who are still idealistic about Philippines and feel they can make a difference. As for us here who do not reside in the Phiol., all we can do is follow the news coming from Phil. via TV and internet and hope that the Filipinos will be more vigilant about what is happening. My comment about the oil price is just to point out that Iranian politics can have a far-reaching effect since they are one of the OPEC producers and oil price increase will increase the hardship of our already impoverished countrymen.
The implications of an honest-to-goodness Iranian democracy sends shudders to the feudal Arab societies in the Middle East. Arabian monarchs are still wont to take the route of the English monarchs, though it could be worse if we look at the fortunes of the French and Russian monarchs.
despite what the gloria-haters are saying about pgma, comparing her to ahmadinejad and other “despots” is still like comparing rice and chick peas. dissent in the philippines is treated as in any other free-world country. its democratic institutions are all functioning, albeit not without complaints, legitimate or otherwise. but most of all, the rule of law, as duly enacted, reign supreme. i doubt if we can say that about ahmedinejab and iran, with all its mullahs and radical fundamentalists.
I cant help but agree. It would be a stretch to compare Philippine situation to Iran’s.
Comparing Iran’s “summer of discontent” with the Philippines may be a bit overdrawn in that the mullahs appear to have a tighter theocratic grip while Filipino Catholic bishops have long been neglecting their flock as indicated in the rise of such personages as Eddie Villanueva and Mike Velarde.
The mullahs, however, may now be misreading the Iranian national temper with the new media tools like Twitter serving as the underground back channel for those denouncing alleged electoral fraud.
Panoorin pa natin.
Ding:
PI has two mullah groups – the Caliban and the high priests of the Church of Transactional Politics
i agree on the democratic space provided to citizens. though, the unresolved death/disapperance of journalists in the Philippines is disturbing.
the catholic mullahs, though, have been quite active in the issue of reproductive health, education. and catholic morality – to the consternation of other religious groups that do not share the catholic dogma.
imho, in terms of institutional behavior, the HoR might as well be the Council of Experts. A body that crushes impeachment complaints by sheer partisan numbers and arguably, not on merit. Within this context, the Speaker of the House is akin to Khameini.
bongv, while our representatives are elected by the people of their districts, i ‘m not sure about iran’s “council of experts”. btw, the rule of numbers is one aspect of democracy. of course, the majority is not always right, but should we rather have a small group of unelected “wise men”- backed by irresistible armed force – govern us and determine our nation’s destiny?
i have been looking for an answer to bencard’s question for a very loooong time.
Bencard:
hell no – however, at the rate we have been re-electing bozos into the HoR, who upon getting elected act with impunity – they might as be “wise men” who keep on getting elected – backed by irresistible armed force – govern us and take the Philippines over the cliff and into the chasm faster than a speeding bullet.
Iran and Philippines?
Iran’s political shift can directly affect the world as IRAn is the second largest producer of oil for OPEC behind Saudi.
Philippines political shift cannot affect the world except when Pacquiao is fighting. :)
But both Gloria and Ahmadinejad can be populist. If HIS win 4 days ago was legitimate it was due to the votes from the provinces. Same thing may happen in the Philippines. A populist in a negative view buy the leaders in the provinces to win majority. The valid votes will be put on the wayside.
Nice summation of the situation in Iran, BongV, and its parallels to recent Pinoy history (with apologies to Marck for hastily responding with “Iran is not the Philippines”).
I must admit I haven’t been following the events there much, but if it’s a battle against the dogmatic tyranny of mullahs, that makes it interesting for me.
B:
It is very much a dogmatic tyranny of the mullahs.
My filtered lens considers the HoR Reps as the mullahs of the church of transactional politics. :)
In my opinion, Iran is better off with the Shah than the Ayatollah.
Among the things about Iran — they definitely do not have this Pinas Constitution item — Section 6. The separation of Church and State shall be inviolable.
Only those candidates pre-approved by the Assembly of Experts can run to become a member of the Assembly of Experts. [Similarly, all of the candidates for Iran President had to be pre-approved by this Assembly of 60-plus-year old clerics. ]
And then, Iran has the “morality police” and the civilian thugs sanctioned by the mullahs.
UP:
the unity the Philippine Church of Transactional Politics and the Philippine State is inviolable.
only those candidates with money can run for elective positions.
and there’s the CBCP “morality police” and the thugs serving the the high priests of the Church of Transactional Politics – the Trapos.
But that is not totally true, this thing about “… only those with money can run”. Evidence: Mong Palatino.
Mong is a flash in the pan. A sparrow does not a summer make.
what do you think of the political culture in iran?
do your comments for RP apply to iran too?
Iran’s political culture is in a flux, there is a clash of political cultures within Iran veering towards a stand off- participative vs subjects.
In contrast, in the Philippines, given the prevailing transactional politics of the moment, there are still more subjects and parochials – thus a stand off between participative vs subjects is still a long way off.
Depends on which comment you are referring to.
bongv, i’m intrigued by this term “transactional politics”. i know it’s being used in the philippines to connote some kind of sinister political activity. but isn’t compromise an inherent part, if not the very essence of democracy? it all start with the social contract between the state (the government) and the governed (the people). the constitution is the product of that one big transaction, i.e., the constitutional convention, that is attended to by the making of propositions, negotiations, debates and discussions, compromises, adoption and people’s ratification. even the making of laws and the manner of implementing them usually involve compromises and transactions.
even civil litigants, and parties in some criminal cases, can settle their differences through compormises, private arbitrations and extra-judicial settlement negotiations. transactions or compromises within the bounds of legality are the foundation of a civilized society. it is the antithesis of brute force as an instrument of governance.
Bencard:
Agree with the essence of democracy. All of the two paragraphs.
Alas Horatio, the Philippines has added a component to the negotiations that has nothing to do with compromise and everything to do with a “commodity transaction” .
“Transactional politics” as practiced in the Philippines is “I give you money, or you give me money, deliver the goods, that’s the transaction”.
bongv, it’s sad, assuming it to be true. but it’s not a unique philippine practice. think chicago and blagoyevich, and now, obama’s friend mayor of L.A., leading to the controversial firing of the u.s. inspector general who questioned the apparent anomaly.
bencard:
that’s the thing, at the very least, the system was able to take blago out.
in the philippines, representatives just “laugh it away”, pakapalan ng mukha – just like Ahmadinejad.
well, we were able to take erap out and convict him, right? gma will soon be “taken out” by virtue of her term’s expiration, as with most, if not all, her predecessors with the exception of marcos (and erap) who had to be ousted by “people power”.
as to our representatives, they too will end their term but who are responsible for bringing them back? of course the people (with a capital P) of their respective district. as to the senators? oh, well …
“taken out” is used within a context of “removal from a position due to an offense” and not due to term expiration.
imho, Erap was “taken out” due to his lack of sophistication in hiding ill-gotten wealth. morever, erap and gma are just the tip of the iceberg, how about the reps who took the money? who have cuts from the pork barrel? The HoR is virtually full of mini-Blagos – and they keep getting re-elected.
correction: it is NOT the mayor of l.a. it’s the mayor of sacramento.
Bencard,
If I may and with Bongv’s indulgence, “transactional politics” would relate to business-as-usual,traditional quid-pro-quo versus “transformational” which is change that matters la Obama. :)
To summarize:
Transformational: Change
Transactional: Ex-Change
And you are right, both qualities are needed in effective leadership patterns.
Phil:
I agree – those two components go side by side – as pointed out in a previous blog on Transactional Politics and Philippine Elections 2010.
Having said that, given the penchant for making a mockery and perverting the democratic process, Philippine society has also made a mockery of transactional politics and transformational politics – it has reduced entire proposition to “How much is in it for me”?
philmanila, good points. but it seems to me that “transformational”, i.e., change, does not necessarily involve two parties (obligor and obligee; promisor or promisee). it is usually an imposition by a powerholder upon a subordinate or subject. also, it does not always result in a change for good, as when a democracy is changed or transformed to a totalitarian system, e.g. cuba.
in contrast, a transaction always involve two parties who are presumed to know what is good for both of them. if they agree on an evil or criminal thing, they both know that, if caught, they are supposed to be held accountable and punished.
Ben:
Cuba was remotely democratic. The Somoza dictatorship was no different from Kim Jung Il – sans the ideological undertones.
at one point, you said filipinos don’t have the “political culture” for democracy
i was wondering if the same held for iran.
Gabby:
Iran has a similar mix – DE = rural majority with culture of subjects
BC = some participative culture
A = parochial
Since DE (PI) /rural (IR) outnumber ABC (PI)/urban (IR) then filipinos and iranians in general have yet to become participative.
The challenge after a successful shouting down of a sitting head of state is to get over the euphoria of that success, which should be seen more as a one-time phenomenon.
They should learn from Da Pinoy experience where some half-wits still dizzy from the 1986 “revolution” continued to wax poetic about it and even suggested that it be an “institutionalised” approach to exercising the “people’s mandate”.
It’s like an addiction to painkillers. Use of painkillers start out with a legitimate goal — to kill pain. But then some idiots lose the plot and continue using it to cure other — mostly imagined — afflictions (such as a lack of ability to face real-life challenges that lie outside of the drug-induced stupor that they’ve become comfy with) that are no longer related to the original affliction.
Hey Bencard wake up, you are in Alice dreamland.
Ooops..nasa San Fransisco ka nga pala so you have all the luxury of deluding yourself about the majesty and the rule of law sa Pinas.
He’s on the East Coast po.
Who are the prime leaders of this call for
electionsrevolution? Analyze and observe, oh people.Who are the prime leaders of this call for
electionsrevolution? Mar Roxas? Lacson? Among Ed? Satur? Gringo? deVenecia elder or younger? Tabako-Ramos? Danding Cojuangco? A rich Tsinoy? An outsider? An atheist? A born-again evangelist? An Iglesia? A Mormon? An adventurer? How many of them are part of the elite class who useelections as a social heroina revolution or surge-the-gates as cover for a purposefully vague agenda that they have not shared with the people? So, who becomes cannon-fodder and who benefits fromelectionsrevolution?its funny how many people see Mousavi as a reformist.. people should read his history.. unless its another case of enlightenment or irony..
its good that there are more and more people in Iran who come out and show concern about what happens with their presidential elections, even if it will not change anything with regards to their domestic and external policy(sorry for breaking the bubble of the hopefuls), unless people consider changing Iran’s poster boy as something significant..
what is his history? got some links?
Bong is it just me, or are you sounding jaded?
Can’t begrudge you, of course, given how our political leaders consistently make mess of things.
Ding:
It’s not just the leaders.
Our political leaders represent our collective choice – pretty much like Ahmadinejad’s vaunted rural support overwhelming the younger demographics that desires change, more freedoms, and more democratic space within an Islamic framework.
Inasmuch as “our political leaders consistently make mess of things”, our electorate consistently selects leaders that consistently make mess of things. Same ole sh*t
Connect the dots and do the math.
No need to. Wika nga – halatang obvious.
The phrase is tired… but unless the positive change begins with us, we’re stuck.
Might I add though, that leaders who refuse to be made accountable for their mis-governance will have to be made to account sooner or later.
Eureka! Exactly! Bingo.
Leaders who refuse to be made accountable for their mis-governance will have to be made to account sooner or later BUT it will not happen until the positive change begins with us. “Us” in this context means not two or three – but millions of registered voters.
One of the more interesting discussions.
I especially enjoyed the concept of the Philippine House (1109 backers, at least) as Mullahs to their chosen one.
Three additional parallels, Iran and Philippines: (1) The US was cozy to both the Shah and to Marcos, neither of whom followed democratic ideals. (2) The Western mind – common sense based – cannot grasp either Middle Eastern or Philippine thought processes, thought processes that seem to prize emotion and posturing over in-line deductions.
(3) There are hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the United States. One misjudgment the US made by going into Iraq was that Iraqis in Iraq would think the same as Iraqi’s in the US. That is like expecting Filipinos in the Philippines to think as BongV does. Whoops . . .
There are also hundreds of thousands of Iranians in the US. The US will undoubtedly agitate for all it is worth to foment overthrow, but the power there is ruthless. Oops, I guess ruthless is number (4).
I don’t think the highest US interest is actually oil. The US is happy to buy oil from any willing seller. Even testy Venezuela. There is a strong interest in preserving good friend Israel from destruction. There is a strong interest in putting the crimps on those who fund and arm terrorists, which Iran does actively.
I also think that Iraq was not about oil. It was about weapons of mass destruction (big oops), in a post 9/11 frenzy. And it was about re-making the Middle East, strategically, in a more democratic mode. Alas, the end result was to remove one of Iran’s more formidable foes, Sadaam Hussein, from the balance bar, permitting Iran to extend its influence in the region.
But many Arab states don’t like Iran, either . . . and so the drama plays out . . .
ahahahahaha, as it does in the Philippines (5).
Joe
Add a groundhog day component – and we wind up fraternizing with Sisyphus.
LOL.
The premise — US administration to foment an overthrow in Iran — is not true. They discuss it in think-tank; for war-gaming; for contingency analysis, but not as a targetted scheduled objective. Foment-overthrow is not true now; has not been true even with Dubya Bush because the Iranians have consistently been sending out the signal that Iran democracy is a domestic problem for them (the ‘domestic Iranians’) to solve.
Iraq, in contrast, sent out three signals — that Saddam’s government was developing WMD (stupid signal and Bush believed the buffoonish bravado by Saddam); Saddam was a threat to Kuwait and Saudi Arabia; and that Saddam had gassed so many and tortured so many that surely, large chunks of the Iraqi population wanted USA to overthrow Saddam. [ Cheney believed what he said --- "...will be welcomed as liberators". ]
It is possible (but highly unlikely) that Pinas will welcome USA-troops or Chinese troops so these foreign-flagged soldiers can overthrow GMA. But no chance in hell that Iranians will welcome US troops marching onto Iranian territory.
GabbyD:
Came across an article – http://saconservative.com/2009/06/17/what-would-a-president-mousavi-mean-in-iran/
The concluding statements are poignant:
UP n grad
The last point makes sense. As for the first, one never really knows where agents of foment are working. And if it is not the administration (probably not as reckless under Obama), what about private Iranian citizens?
I know Ahmedinejad with a bomb is destabilizing. My guess is if the US were not there, Israel would be acting by now.
Joe
The Iran Protest showed that the thirst for Freedom and Rights of
people are universal. Despots and Dictators may muffle the voices
of discontent. However, it will always spring out, again and again.
It is like the Truth. You can suppress the Truth, bully the Truth
with your “pekeng peryodistas or Blogistas”. Grind the Truth to the
ground with your sanitized Press Releases.
But, the Truth will finally come out. Because it is the Eternal
Truth. Remember when the Church forced the Truth to people. To
believe the world is flat? Anybody believing the world was round,
was thrown on the burning stakes. It did not stop, the Truth that
the world is round to be accepted, up to now.
Am with you on this. Right on dude!
“taken out” can also mean “voted out” as when an incumbent seeking re-election is defeated. in the case of presidents who are limited to only one term, the taking out is by operation of law as mandated by the constitution.
in regimes like cuba or north korea, among others, “taking out” from power can only be through force. resignation has the effect of removal but it is a unilateral act of the incumbent. of course, death has the same effect but it is a fortuitous event unless as a result of force.
bongv, that was meant to be a response to yours at 1:18 a.m. below. i don’t know what happened to the sequence. it must be confusing to the readers.
bencard:
thanks for the additional definitions. no contest to the definitions of “taken out” and the context under which the definition is given.
though, i was using the word within the previously stated context
The core lesson of these events is that the Iranian regime is fragile at the core. Like all autocratic regimes, it has become rigid, paranoid, insular, insecure, impulsive, clumsy and illegitimate. The people running the regime know it, which is why the Revolutionary Guard is seeking to consolidate power into a small, rigid, insulated circle.
Recently, many people thought it was clever to say that elections on their own don’t make democracies. But election campaigns stoke the mind and fraudulent elections outrage the soul. The Iranian elections have stirred a whirlwind that will lead, someday, to the regime’s collapse.
Showdown in Tehran :
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/20/world/middleeast/20iran.html?th&emc=th