I don’t know how clean the election results in Iran are, but regardless I am disappointed with Ahmadinejad’s reelection. I see that the other side is not exactly accepting the result and (unlike in this country when that happens) there are some street demonstrations breaking out. I have no way of assessing the truth of the matter, and am left to ponder what it will mean for our foreign relations and the peace process.
The trust level we have with Iran will certainly not improve now, and may well deteriorate dramatically. Our media has never shown Iran’s democracy much respect. In fact, our media normally denies that Iran even has elections. But, this time, it is a good number of Iranians who feel their democracy is a sham. That can only further degrade Iran’s international reputation.
Now, the first thing to watch is what happens internally in Iran. Will these demonstrations peter out, or will they build and be met with steadily increasing force? The Revolutionary Government is well aware of how they came to power in 1979. They will seek to avoid the kinds of mistakes the Shah made when he ordered his police forces to open fire on demonstrators. That led to a cyclical escalation, as every forty days a new, larger protest erupted in honor of the martyrs from the last protest. The Shah attempted to make concessions, but eventually he alienated a critical mass of people and had to flee to Sadat’s Egypt.
I think that these demonstrations will be broken up or tolerated without the use of deadly force. Mass arrests, however, are not unlikely. It is too early to make bold predictions, but I would be surprised if the Iranian government is in any real jeopardy. Assuming that they weather this storm, things will settle down and we’ll have to face the prospect of more of the same from the Iranian government.
A change in presidents was never going to change much in and of itself because the president of Iran is not in control of the armed forces or the nuclear energy program, or foreign policy. But, Mr. Moussavi ran on a platform that was highly critical of Ahmadinejad for his lack of diplomacy. Moussavi argued that Adhmadinejad’s crazy, provocative talk was harmful to Iran’s image and resulted in international isolation and economic hardship. A Moussavi victory would have vindicated that judgment and put pressure on the Supreme Leader and the Council of Guardians to change their approach. Now, at least ostensibly, the opposite has occurred.
Israel probably has mixed feelings about this result. It must be discouraging to see Iranians reelect a man who is so provocatively opposed to their existence. On the other hand, that same provocativeness helps Israel focus the world’s attention of their fears of an eventual nuclear weapons capability in Iran.
However, from Obama’s point of view, the first priority is restarting the peace process between Israel and Palestine, and Iran is an unwelcome distraction from that effort.
On the whole, the reelection of Ahmadinejad, combined with the disputed nature of the result, is an unfortunate complication to an already nettlesome set of problems. I wish we had seen a different result.
I also feel badly for the students, intellectuals, and liberals who put so much hope into this election only to see those hopes crushed once again.
What kind of difference could it make that the Obama admin has dialog with everyone in the region (vis a vis Bolton’s dream of Israeli aggression)?
It helps.
But this makes things harder.
It only really makes things harder if it leads to Iran refusing genuine efforts at respectful dialogue on the part of the US.
On what evidence are there fears of nuke weapons capability?
that’s easy. They are busily building centrifuges to enrich uranium. They are unevenly cooperating with the IAEA. If they build the capability under the pretense of wanting nuclear energy and then, like North Korea, stop allowing inspections, they will have a nuclear weapons capability. The only question then will be if they choose to use that capability.
You know what makes that concept worse? Israel has nukes and is bound by no law. No treaty. Nothing at all. Yet here we are talking about maybes &theoretical events like that. As long as Israel stands outside the law, the idea of attacking Iran is grossly inappropriate.
Call me a heretic, but I think Israel is the rogue nation here.
No doubt, but we cannot allow Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons to undermine the entire international anti-proliferation effort. Ideally, we would be putting pressure on Israel, as well. But, in the meantime, we do not want a nuclear arms race in the Gulf.
The Iranians could easily justify their activities by stating that Israel has willingly flouted international law by obtaining their own nukes. It like downright stupid for the international community and America in particular to be so hung up on the law when Israel ignores the law and demonstrates their unilateral ability to attack.
Not to mention the fact that the greatest and most genuine, and most unrelenting threat to Iran’s security is nuclear Israel, a known habitual aggressor.
Unlike the American theocrats who are aligned with the economic elite, I ranian theorcrats are aligned with a populist, redistributive political strain.
While many in the west see Ahmadnijad for his loony rantings on a variety of foreign policy and historical matters, many Iranians see his (for good or bad) as engaging in massive redistributive programs providing services and handouts (if not jobs) for the poor.
Moussavi is certainly less aligned with the more socially repressive strain in Iranian society, but his core constituency is old money and the educated elites like you would find residing on the North side of Tehran. Rasfanjani (representing the landholding rural elite) and Khatami (representing the merchant class) were certainly “reformers” in some sense of the work, but they were also economic reactionaries.
Given that the population of South Tehran is many times that of North Tehran- it is a mistake to assume that the large groups of well to do college kids demonstrating on behalf of Moussavi come close to outnumbering the unemployed and working poor of the south side who, however wrongly, pin their hopes of betterment (or even a good meal) on Ahmadnijad’s populism.
BTW- Rafsanjani has resigned. This is a little dicier than I thought.
Yeah- it will get dicey- both sides have geographic and “military” power bases. AN has the guards in Tehran and other Persian urban areas as well as the mob support of the urbanized rural poor. The “Reformers” have elements of the regular military, the rural interior ministry forces (think state troopers) and tribals and an exurban power base.
Unfortunately for the reformers their population base is the urban middle class who are decidedly useless in a street fight and subject to the depredations of the guards and if necessary urban mobs.
If nobody backs down this could look like a messier version of one of the not so velvet revolutions in the old eastern block- e.g Ukraine.
If you want to look for a tipping point, watch which way Azerbaijan province and Tabriz go- they mostly mind their own affairs, but if they get involved they are a huge and cohesive block within Iran and could swing things one way or the other. Note Moussavi is Azeri
BTW- you going to Anachroanarchists wedding?
I haven’t been invited and don’t know the date for certain. I also don’t know where it is being held.
Aug 1- I’ll be in town around that date, been crazy busy out here in the big cat box, worked 34 days straight so far, might as well be a blogger.
In Lambertville?
I am probably going to be on the Outer Banks on August 1st. I would hate to miss seeing you and Mrs. Cicero, and I’d like to be at the wedding, but I’m not sure if I can make it.
Princeton- I may road trip to Florida afterwords (you did hear I finally learned to drive?)
It’s hard for me to imagine you driving. It’s even harder for me to imagine me as a passenger in your car. Yikes!!
got me a jeep wrangler with the off road fit out- took the boy on a 6000 km off road trip through the deserts and mountains of oman- other than a tendency to drive at 170 kph all the time, im getting the hang of it 🙂
oh, sweet jesus. you’re terrifying me.
Wow – Oman! One of the most spectacular landcapes in the world. I wish I had time for another visit. I LOVED it there.
PS Could not get used to the dialect though, and will NEVER get used to hearing Omani dialect spoken with a heavy Indian accent.
Neew Jersey accented farsi will get you by just fine (ecept in Sallalah, I don’t think that dialect is even Arabic, the other Omanis call it the language of the birds-
And yes, Oman is truly the most beautiful lanscape I have ever seen.
LOL! Well, I was able to converse relatively seamlessly with a few Omanis, and of course they could all understand me just fine, but one taxi driver got so frustrated that he finally resorted to speaking to me in Fusha.
What Farsi I used to know I have forgotten long ago due to disuse, so sadly I don’t speak Farsi with any kind of accent at all. I can sometimes pick up words and phrases and get an idea of what people are talking about, especially if there are a lot of Arabic or Arabic-origin words.
How’s your Farsi? Are you getting any internal news?
One other question. How does this play out among the Mullahs? How much can reformist mullahs say when Khameini has weighed in?
Farsi-e-maen baed nist. mikhahaem ferda ba dust-irani-e-maen daer baraye siasat-e-iran bahs konaem.
I can muddle along in persian, Most of the folks I work with have a pox on all of them attitude and are secularists. I have some well to do Iranian friends who are big time Rasfanjani/ Moussavi backers and your average cab driver is a big AN fan. All of them will probably believe there is an enormous plot afoot.
However, there is a huge Persian population here in Dubai (in fact most of the locals, particularly the elites in every Emirate but Abu Dhabi) are somewhat Persian, a big upheaval there could make things a little tense here, but if it results in an outflow of money it will be good for business, because the business of Dubai is making your money disappear.
Regarding the Mullahs, without getting too technical, they generally lay off one another (though a few here and there have been assassinated and the like).
Short version- Mullahs have authority because after years of study and a devout lifestyle, they are fit to engage in “ijtahid”- basically make up their own minds about religious matters. People who don’t have this educational background are obliged to follow the mullah of their choosing. If one mullah takes a swipe at the authority of another mullah they are undermining the legitimacy of the whole system. SO two mullahs can say contradictory things (if you parse carefully) but will never say each other are wrong.
One thing that might be very interesting- Iraq is the real home of mullah training and learning, Qom rose to prominance only after the Baath in Iraq had basically shut down the Iraqi Shi’ite centers. The Ayatollahs in Iraq will not weigh in directly, but generally have low regard for Khomeini’s whole political leadership of the religious scholars thing and could push oh so gently.
my understanding is that when (Iranian) mullahs have strong, significant differences, they often have the case appealed to Qom, where somehow an edict is created that resolves the matter. But I don’t know quite how that fits in with the role of Khameini as the Supreme Leader. I also don’t know quite how things have changed since Najaf and Kerbala have reopened for business, so to speak.
You state:
“The trust level we have with Iran will certainly not improve now, and may well deteriorate dramatically. Our media has never shown Iran’s democracy much respect. In fact, our media normally denies that Iran even has elections. But, this time, it is a good number of Iranians who feel their democracy is a sham. That can only further degrade Iran’s international reputation.”
Implicit in this quoted statement is this: if Iran has elections, it is therefore a democracy. But that is false. Elections do not make democracies; democracies make elections. Saddam had elections, and we can agree that Iraq was no democracy. Iran is a Islamic Republic, with a religious muslim Supreme Leader responsible for the setting out all the general policies of Iran, and he is the commander in chief. He is not elected, and he, together with various boards, de facto run the country in a non democratic fashion.
Iran is no democracy, just as the Hamas run Gaza strip is not a democracy although Hamas was voted into power.
You are right.
Iran’s elections have always suffered from the fact that candidates much be approved by the Supreme Leader. Their elected officials also suffer from the fact that their legislation is subject to veto from an unelected board. And, elected officials do not have control of the military. So, on all these points, Iran comes up short as a democracy.
But, they still have real elections that have until today mostly been seen as fair (although accusations are always made). People get voted out of office all the time (although, so far, not presidents).
My wording there may have been sloppy, but my main point is that our media doesn’t recognize that Iran has democratic institutions and a robust political culture. Their elections are nothing like the elections that went on in Saddam’s Iraq.
Hope springs eternal in the hearts of the West. The rose colored glasses on America constantly projects a Democracy over the totalitarian an image of Communistic China. Likewise, passionate American hope anxiously waited for the election results confirming that the vile Iranian President Ahmadinejad had been voted out of office.
However, in the real world it didn’t happen, neither could it happen. In the real world Iran is a theocracy, and as such the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the actual ruler of Iran and decides the final outcome of all elections. The Presidency of Iran is mainly a ceremonial title with little or no authority. In this theocracy, the Iranian President’s job is to be the Ayatollah’s mouthpiece to the world and in local Iranian political matters. In this election the Ayatollah chose to “stick with the devil he knows”. so Khamenei commanded the Revolutionary Guard to return Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the Presidency. Nuff’ Said…
“The trust level we have with Iran will certainly not improve now, and may well deteriorate dramatically.“
That is a choice and is entirely up to the United States and no one else. If the trust level does not improve or if it deteriorates as a result of this election, the responsibility for that will be squarely on the U.S. and no one else.
The U.S. was in a position to reject the Iraqi choice for Prime Minister, and choose the one that would better serve U.S. interests. The Iranian people are not obligated to elect the President you think would serve your interests better, and you have to deal with the Iranian president they choose, not the one you wish they would choose.
Did they choose him, though.
And I do get tired of this worldview wherein only America can ever be at fault. As though stealing an election and putting a rabble-rousing anti-American idiot back in power is no reason for us to lose some trust?
And I am tired of of liberals and progressives who are still imbued with and think and act based on American exceptionalism.
The only actions anyone or any entity can control is its own. Actions have consequences. As Obama’s America continues to think and behave as an imperial power the consequences for that behaviour are on America and no one else.
How America chooses to behave in the world is entirely up to America and no one else. If America chooses to continue to make an enemy of Iran, a country that has not attacked another country in centuries and has never been a threat to world peace and security, the responsibility is on America. If Americans, including yourself, choose to create a bogeyman by speculating about “Iran’s possible one day in the unknown future nuclear weapons ambitions” (something that is not really in evidence today), the responsibility for the consequences is on America. If America chooses to manufacture a crisis in regard to Iran and use that make-believe crisis as an excuse for negative action (as it did in Iraq, and as it has in so many other cases), then the responsibility for the outcome is on America.
If America voluntarily stops thinking and acting as a country apart, stops insisting that it is the “leader of the world”, gives up its imperial ambitions, starts treating other countries and other peoples with genuine respect, and starts acting as a decent member of the world, then credit for the outcome goes to America.
The IAEA’s most recently declassified report:
Yaaaaawwwwn.
Look first to your own house, and to the house of your “friends”. The US has been and remains a far greater threat to world peace and security than Iran ever has been or ever could be. Ditto Israel. The US has a long, well-documented history of destructive, even genocidal aggression that begins well before statehood. Ditto Israel. The US has enough nukes to destroy the world many times over. Israel has hundreds of nukes. The US is the only entity to have ever used nukes against any country, or any other human beings.
IF it turns out that the Iranians have “possible maybe some day in the unknowable future nuclear weapons ambitions”, you could hardly blame them. They are surrounded by countries with nuclear weapons. For decades they have been under unrelenting and escalating threat from the most brutally aggressive country in the region, a country that also happens to have the most powerful military and the largest nuclear arsenal in the Middle East. They have also been under unrelenting and escalating threat from the most powerful military entity in history, a country that has the ability and is prepared to launch an attack on them within minutes that would turn Iran into a scorched, unpopulated wasteland, and whose current Secretary of State recently spoke of obliterating Iran.
Their government has been systematically demonized, and dishonestly portrayed as crazed, dangerous, nihilistic fanatics. Their President, who indeed does have a very long tongue, has been demonized out of all reality, had his speech misrepresented, taken out of context, and maliciously mistranslated (he never said anything about wiping Israel off the map, and what he did say was not his words, but a repetition of something someone else said decades ago). The many reasonable things he has said, which constitute the bulk of his output, have been kept out of sight of the general public.
Iran has been demonized and egregiously misportrayed, the status of women and minorities has been misrepresented. Iran’s religious government is portrayed as having a genocidal hatred of Jews worldwide, ignoring the fact that Iran has a thriving Jewish community whose members feel no existential threat, and do not wish to leave their country, and that Jewish religious and community institutions receive government support (as is the case with Christian and other minority religions).
If Iran does choose to develop the capability to produce nuclear weapons, it will be as a rational response to consistent, increasing, and very real threats to its security. It will be as a deterrence, and they cannot realistically be condemned for it.
And finally, given the number of nuclear weaponized countries in the region, and Israel’s threats to use theirs against Iran, Obama’s claims that if Iran gets nuclear weapons it will trigger a nuclear arms race is ludicrous to the point of being virtually Bushian.
It’s pretty lame to say that there is no reason for concern about Iran’s nuclear ambitions and then, when presented with the IAEA report, to say it doesn’t matter anyway.
No it’s not. One of the reasons there is no cause for concern about Iran’s alleged nuclear ambitions is that it doesn’t matter. A nuclear Iran would be less of a threat than nuclear Israel is, and certainly less of a threat than nuclear America has been. Further, IF Iran chooses to develop nuclear weapons capability or even obtains nuclear weapons, it is clearly as a reaction to very real threats to its security and possibly even its existence, mainly from the US and Israel. That’s how it always works, BooMan, and the US and Israel are not the only countries that have a right to defend themselves against threats, both real and manufactured (in Iran’s case, the threats are very real), by arming themselves with terrible, scary-as-hell weapons.
That Iran has been made into the bogeyman du jour does not make it dangerous.
you have this very one-dimensional way of thinking.
if I go to school where there is a bully who thinks I should not use the water fountain, while he is perfectly fine with letting other people use the waterfountain, and I am fully aware of this, then any decision I make to use the waterfountain is made with the understanding that it may well cause a breach of the peace and result in me getting pummeled as a result.
an objective observer might think the primary cause of this violence is the arbitrary and tyrannical rules that the bully laid down. he’d be wrong. the primary cause was my refusal to accept reality and my choice to take an action I knew would lead to violence.
while it’s true that the bully and his rules are a necessary ingredient in the violence, it was my decision to take actions that led directly to the violence.
when an action can be taken to get the bully to relax the rules or to forego enforcing the rules, then that act of defiance can be merited. but resistance for resistance’s sake brings all the moral peril of the bully’s rules.
now, in the real world, I don’t dispute a degree of arbitrariness in non-proliferation efforts. I don’t dispute that double standards exist, and that they ideally would not exist. but good leaders operate with a healthy respect for power structures.
I highly doubt that Iran would use a nuclear weapon if it built one. I have no doubt that if they built one it would lead to further instability in the region and a possible arms race. it could lead to a preemptive attack on Iran. They can choose to take those risks, but if they think this will make them safer, they are running what I consider to be an irresponsible risk.
And I think the IAEA and non-proliferation more generally should proceed as they are even within a flawed system because it is the safer course than giving up all efforts at non-proliferation.
I will not respond to your ad hominem remark, but will focus on the substance of your argument:
Your analogy does not fit the real-world situation we are discussing. However, I am struck by a few things about it.
Now, here is a more apt analogy:
If an overwhelmingly powerful someone or group of someones threatens to attack my home and rob me and my family of our freedom to live as we wish, and form the alliances and friendships we wish to form, and do what we wish with our property, I have several choices. I can try to acquiesce to whatever his demands are in the hope that he will be satisfied, thus giving up my freedom, I can abandon my home and life and go into hiding with my family, or I can develop the ability to hurt him badly if he attacks me in the hope that it will deter him from attacking. I don’t know what you would choose, but I do know what I would choose.
“Your analogy suggests that the bully must allow the bully“
Should be the bullied must allow the bully.
This is the most basic stuff. The entire philosophy of non-violence is predicated on the moral responsibility of the weaker party not to take actions which, though certainly justifiable on one moral plane, are assured to lead to increased suffering and a continuation of the cycle of violence.
Gandhi said that the bullied must allow themselves to be bullied, but that wasn’t the end of the story, was it?
Very idealistic BooMan.
People conveniently forget that along with non-violent movements such as Ghandi’s, there were also violent elements in the successful Indian independence, US civil rights, and South African anti-Apartheid movements. In fact, I have met Americans who, when I pointed this out, knew so little about this that they assumed I was talking about violence on the part of the British, the segregationists or the South African government. They had been indoctrinated to believe that all those movements had been strictly non-violent.
There is no evidence that non-violence alone is sufficient, particularly when the balance of power is extremely disproportionate, and the dominating power is in no way ready to give up its dominance and what they gain by it. In fact, I doubt that you could name a single successful liberation effort that did not include violent elements. Do you seriously believe that the American independence movement would ever have succeeded in ending colonial rule without violence?
It is also the case that the Indian liberation movement took place as the British empire and the lust for empire was waning anyway, and there was a level of readiness to end it. Same with the civil rights movement. It came along at a time when there was a degree of readiness for it in much of the country and among much of the population.
And Ghandi’s and others’ advocacy and use of non-violent resistance, which often very predictably lead to increased suffering and death of participants and non-participants alike, calls into question your entire premise, including your claim that Ghandi believed the bullied must allow themselves to be bullied. Ghandi believed in resistance of all kinds as long as it was non-violent. So did MLK, and so did the anti-apartheid movement. That is the antithesis of allowing oneself to be bullied, and it is also how a lot of them got killed and maimed, and robbed of their freedom for years, and tortured, so it did lead to suffering that could have been avoided by allowing themselves to be bullied.
And so, by the way, do those Palestinians, Israelis, and internationals who practice non-violent resistance every day against Israel. And every day they are beaten, injured, arrested, abused, tortured, maimed, and killed by Israeli squatters and Israeli military alike. And this non-violent resistance on the part of Palestinians began long before Israel was created. So, their actions do lead to increased suffering and a continuation of violence, even though they themselves are strictly non-violent. And it leads nowhere, and almost no one in the world even knows about Palestinian non-violent resistance because it is so easy for Israel and the media to bury what they do and pretend they do not even exist.
According to Booman’s logic the North American settlers should have shamed the British into granting them independence by non-violent means. All very amusing.
You must have forgotten that we defeated the British on the field of battle. The British only seemed to have the edge in coercion. In fact, they did not have either the strength or the will to prevail.
And remember those things like the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense? They made a moral argument, and carved out the moral high ground. Yet, it still would not have made sense to take up arms against the crown if it would only have led to more oppression, worse living standards, and a lot of needless and counterproductive bloodshed.
Strategies must adapted to realities.
Ah yes you win and all is forgiven.
(Anyway my better half has begun to savagely hit me and pinch me, so I have to leave the sandbox for tonight and go out with her… ).
And defeating the British was a known sure thing from the beginning? There was no chance of losing, which would have undoubtedly led to more oppression, and a lot of needless and counterproductive bloodshed, despite the Declaration of Independence and Common Sense and the moral argument?
How did making a moral argument and carving out the moral high ground guarantee defeat for the British and ensure that there would not be more oppression, worse living standards, and a lot of needless, counterproductive bloodshed?
sometimes, people are wrong about their true position. They usually pay a heavy price.
Sorry, not clear what you are getting at here. Please clarify.
you may think you will prevail in a clash or arms and, yet, be quite mistaken.
OK, I thought that might be what you meant, but wasn’t sure. Thanks for clarifying.
Oh yes, I forgot to mention that Palestinians who practice non-violent resistance are also subject to having their homes and businesses demolished, and passive resistance also leads to further restrictions on freedom of movement and freedom of access that affects and increases the suffering of non-participants as well as participants.
passive non-resistance doesn’t work when your neighbor is actively resisting.
Passive non-resistance is acquiescence. I am going to assume you meant non-violent resistance.
If so, not necessarily true. Non-violent resistance (which is different from passive resistance) worked for Ghandi, MLK, and the non-violent anti-apartheid movement even though there were violent elements resisting the colonial regime, the segregationists, and the SA government at the same time.
It doesn’t work when the power you are resisting is orders of magnitude stronger than you are, is in no way prepared to give up its dominance and the gains that provides, has the financial, political and material support of other powerful entities, is able to suppress the fact that non-violent resistance is taking place, and is willing to take any steps, no matter how brutal, to quell resistance.
I don’t think you can name a single successful liberation attempt that has not included violence.
can you list for me some significant acts of black violence in 1963-1964? You know, something that might have been national news?
Are you trying to deny that there were violent elements in the struggle for civil rights?
OK, let’s say for the sake of discussion that the struggle for civil rights was purely non-violent and Ghandian in every way. How do you explain the success of the Indian independence movement and the anti-apartheid movement given that they contained significant violent elements along with the non-violence.
by explaining that the violence was counterproductive and the non-violence was productive. and, because the non-violence was much more prevalent.
One truck-bomb in 1964, anywhere in the South, and the Civil Rights Act doesn’t pass.
This is the reason that you cannot point to peaceful Palestinian protests and argue that they don’t work. In the above example, MLK’s strategy would not have worked. The use of terrorism may have played some role in raising awareness of the plight of Palestinians, but it can play no part in the achievement of a state.
It is human nature that people will violently resist even when it is futile or worse than futile. All resistance movements are likely to have some violence. The one’s that succeed abandon that approach.
This is self-serving speculation. You don’t really know what the dynamic was between violence and non-violence, and how the combination might have led to success. Some violence might be a necessary component in liberation struggles, at least in some situations. We really don’t know.
And you don’t know what part terrorism might or might not play in the Palestinian struggle, which in any case is taking place in a very different set of circumstances from the other three we are talking about. In fact, the colonization began and progressed significantly during the early part of the occupation while the Palestinians were quiescent, and it was during that period that further colonization plans were developed. Further, major escalations of colonization activity have been known to occur during times of lowest violence, significantly during, and right after the conclusion of the Oslo negotiations when Israel took advantage of the period of hopefulness this brought to the Palestinians.
Non-violent resistance movements are very easy to squash, and for Israel even easier to conceal from view. So Palestinians and their non-violent allies do not get the benefit of having the world see their efforts, although alternative media, You Tube and the blogosphere are changing that somewhat. And in the case of the Palestinians there is also a very widespread, strong, ruthless, and determined – and often extremely vicious – propaganda machine that makes it very difficult to get information widely heard. And of course, there is AIPAC and related groups.
By the way, last week a non-profit I am involved in hosted representatives of the Jerusalem Peacemakers. One is a Muslim from the Mount of Olives, the other is a Christian Palestinian who is a citizen of Israel. Next to me sat Rabbi Lynn Gottlieb, who has devoted her life to working for Palestinian rights, and who also recently visited the Jewish community in Iran, but that is another story. The Christian, Father Jiryis, spoke of his amazing efforts to bring Jewish and Palestinian students together inside Israel. Lynn asked him his opinion of non-violent resistance, and he is totally against it as he is against anything negative. Lynn and I talked a little about it and we agree that love and peace alone are not going to move Israel to do what is right any time in the foreseeable future.
So, there are all kinds of views and opinions about the right way to conduct a liberation struggle. My view is that in many if not most cases no one approach will work, and some combination is necessary.
You may disagree with Gandhi’s philosophy, but you should at least know it.
Do you agree with his advice to the British and the Jews to voluntarily self-destruct? Had they followed his advice would that have led to less suffering?
And Ghandi did not follow his own advice, did he? He did not allow himself to be bullied, he resisted.
This makes him look quite the hypocrite.
The British had the means to not only resist but (with the help of allies) to prevail. They had no need of passive resistance. Gandhi’s philosophy works for the weaker party, it does not have an absolute moral claim, as he assumed. It is how the weak can defeat the strong. It makes no claim on the strong against their equals.
And, no, I can’t think of a single act of black violence that rose to the level of national consciousness during the crucial years 1963-65. Actually 1965 saw some, but only after the crucial Voting Rights Act had passed. Moreover, it would be absurd to suggest that any black violence would have weakened the segregationists’ hands or made them more likely to compromise. And, once MLK died and riots began in earnest, blacks were dealt a horrible blow that we are all still paying for. Violence does not work for the weak against the strong.
It follows from your argument that as Jews were weak they should have not fought back at all, but willingly self-destructed in the face of the Nazi effort to destroy them. So, they should have HELPED the Nazis to achieve their genocidal goal? Oh wait – they kind of did, didn’t they? There wasn’t a whole lot of Jewish resistance, either non-violent, or violent, and 6 million or so went like lambs to be murdered. How very Ghandian of them.
I don’t think you want to use the Holocaust as your counterexample. Part of the insidious nature of the Holocaust was how successful Hitler was in deceiving people about his true intentions. Jews did not know until very late that their choice was between death and death. Had they known, they may well have adopted strategies of resistance. Lacking any movement or anyway to bring sympathy upon themselves, they were caught in a trap before they knew the necessity of action.
The Nazis were also an unusually evil entity who found themselves in almost unchallengeable position where outside influence was irrelevant and internal resistance was futile.
I can’t think of many modern parallels. Maybe the Native Americans.
“Gandhi’s philosophy works for the weaker party“
Yeah, Ghandi’s philosophy really worked great for the European Jews.
first of all, his strategy was not attempted. His remarks in 1946 were ill-considered because the Jews had no ability to use the elements of non-violence that Gandhi used.
As I said, this is not a good counterexample.
It’s a perfectly crappy example on all kinds of levels. Ghandi thought the Jews should have committed mass suicide. Resistance of ANY kind, violent, non-violent, active, or passive is preferable to that.
PS This reminds me of that very ugly and sexist advice to rape victims that they should not resist, but lie back and enjoy it.
In any case, I hope you realize that he did indeed advise the bullied to take their bullying.
But he didn’t do it himself. He resisted. And his followers resisted. Actively.
And by resisting they brought on suffering and violence and death that would not have happened had they simply acquiesced as he advised others to do.
he resisted by not-resisting.
Oh, come on, BooMan. That is nonsense. He and his followers actively resisted. They practiced civil disobedience, which is a form of active resistance. Blocking streets is active resistance. Refusing to move when ordered by police is resistance, going limp when arrested is resistance. Boycotts are resistance. Creating one’s own economic reality in defiance of a colonial regime’s economic dominance is resistance. None of it is non-resistance and most of it requires deliberate, specific action, not passivity.
actually, the weaker party only has the responsibility for recognizing their weakness and responding accordingly, which usually means without instigating a fight they can’t win that will only get a bunch of innocent people killed.
the stronger party has their own obligations, but we were discussing Iran.
So, under your rules what are Iran’s options?
Iran should meet its obligations under the nuclear non-proliferation act, and use their compliance as a moral argument for Israel to take similar steps. They should stop arming and training and financing people who menace Israel and provide both a psychological and a moral argument for Israel to continue on its current path. They should take the lead on calling for a peaceful resolution of the Israeli occupation and work diligently to erase all sense of moral equivalence, thus isolating Israel and making them alone seem as implacable enemies of peace.
They should recognize that the Palestinians have the upper hand when the argument is about land, and the Israelis have the upper hand when the issue is the power of coercion.
They should give up, utterly, thinking that funding rocket attacks and suicide bombers is doing anything to compel Israel to give up anything. They should realize that the key to a Palestinian state is convincing American domestic opinion about the righteousness of the cause and convincing Israelis that the fighting will truly stop if they make a deal.
Therefore, Iran should stop questioning the very existence of Israel, as that makes Israelis mistrustful and unwilling to make concessions.
In short, they should stop contributing to violence and learn from the masters Gandhi, Mandela, MLK, and John Lewis.
The idea that the more powerful forces are solely responsible for the deteriorating situation in the Middle East is false. And Iran’s strategies give them street cred but accomplish nothing positive.
Truly Pathetic. The Ugly American gives lessons on non-violence and wonders why he is perceived as ugly.
I am sure some Brit thought as much about the Raj. Isn’t it cute how they passively resist?
I don’t think it is accurate to characterize BooMan as an Ugly American. I have big problems with his sitting on his high horse in his safe, comfy home in the most powerful (and aggressive) entity in history preaching to people who are under threats and pressures he cannot even imagine about how they must behave. It is especially annoying that his country is among those making the most severe threats. But Ugly American is not fair, and not reasonable in his case.
Hurria, have you heard anything about this?
M of A – A ‘Coup’ in Iran? We Don’t Know.
I mean if this is true, A. might have aquired quite some standing with the Iranian people. The people might appreciate someone who they feel takes care of them.
For some reason I can not access the entire WP article and the relevant parts – strange.
Thanks. I will look into that.
“And I do get tired of this worldview wherein only America can ever be at fault.“
Where did I say America is at fault for everything? America is not at fault for the any more than it was really Obama’s speech and that won the Lebanese election.
And how interesting that you prefer to assume the election was stolen, and not the result of the genuine choice of the majority. And also interesting, but not at all surprising, that the only quality that seems important to you is his attitude toward America. I doubt that is high on the list of most Iranians when they assess a candidate. I am guessing they are less interested in electing someone who best serves U.S. interests than in someone who they believe best serves their own immediate interests.
Everything is not about America, BooMan. Live with it.
you are the one who is saying everything is about America.
if there is any deterioration of trust between the two countries it will be entirely America’s fault. That’s what you said. As though there could be no reasonable cause for distrust.
Let me remind you that a large part of this campaign revolved around a critique of Iranian foreign policy, with the ‘reform’ candidate arguing for better relations with the West. The election was not only about America, but it America and the West generally were a significant subject.
Let me also remind you that I am not merely assuming that the election was stolen. Have you read anything today to suggest it was not? I’ve been looking for as many sources as I can find in English, and I am seeing unanimous skepticism about the result.
Iranians are obviously split, but the election result is not seen as legitimate by the three candidates that lost.
No, what I said was far more specific than you are claiming. I said that if the US trust toward Iran deteriorates as a result of this election, it is the choice of the US. How the US reacts to this election, and what actions it takes is entirely up to the US. They can use it as an excuse to further demonize, isolate, and threaten Iran, or they can move forward with an effort to work with the Iranian government in a positive, respectful way. They can choose to act like an imperial power, or they can choose to act like the government of a fellow country in the world. If the US acts in a peaceful, positive, and respectful manner, and Iran rebuffs its efforts, that is on Iran.
As you have acknowledged the President of Iran does not make foreign policy. Most Americans have no idea about this fact. Most Iranians know it very well. Therefore, it seems unlikely that foreign policy would be their first consideration in choosing whom to vote for.
As for whether the election was stolen or not, I will wait to hear from people whose knowledge and understanding of Iran and its politics I respect before I form an opinion. In the meantime, I am not going to get all hot and bothered. What happens inside Iran is the business of Iranians, not the United States.
First, let us see if the losers of this election treat the Iranian government in a positive and respectful way.
Oh, come on, BooMan, that is not only illogical it is downright childish.
why? they’ve cut off all telephone communication with Teheran. This thing is far from settled.
OK, maybe I misunderstood your meaning. On its face that remark looked silly and childish, but maybe I understood it differently than you meant it.
Look, I have heard the Ayatullah’s are asking for the election to be nullified. It would make me very happy to see a serious challenge, even if the elections were not manipulated/stolen/whatever. What seems to be going on in reaction to the election is very healthy. Let’s see how it plays out.
This puts me in mind a bit of what happened in Pakistan some months ago when the government was forced by a successful popular resistance action to reinstate the head of the Supreme Court. I remember seeing alarmed reactions even among progressives in the US, with cries of “oh no! Pakistan is having a melt-down, it is destabilizing, the world is doomed!”, including, I think, here on this blog. In fact, this was a wonderful event, a great sign of the will and courage of Pakistani people to resist government tyranny, and their ability to succeed, and one of the most hopeful things we have seen.
So, let’s see – and be prepared to accept – what happens. It’s their country, after all.
The lawyers’ revolt was great, but the alarm about Pakistan here has been related to events in the Swat Valley and other signs of the central government’s weakness.
OK, I wasn’t sure where all I had seen it.
interesting dkos diary w video clips
does look like the choice of the electorate is problematic
I wish I could read Farsi because I can’t evaluate those sources.
If true, things are really getting very dicey.
interesting, in light of what Cicero writes above, that according to clifflyon’s translation of peykeiran.com a committee of respected Ayatollahs has requested the election be invalidated to restore the people’s trust in the Islamic Republic
Um, a slight substitution would be equally true: “As though stealing an election and putting a rabble-rousing American idiot back in power is no reason for us to lose some trust?” Unfortunately recent events have made it difficult for Americans to criticize anybody else for almost anything without looking preposterous.
I have no liking, trust, or respect for the theocrat dictators in Iran or a lot of other places, but our own behavior as Americans neutralizes our credibility even when the foreign leaders and regimes we’re bemoaning really do suck. It’s called loss of moral authority. In a democracy, even a borderline one, the wrong and bad choices of a majority cripple those who tried to fight those choices along with the ones who let them triumph. Our national history bites all of us in the ass and there’s nothing much we can do about it. (I suppose this is why I’ve never been entirely comfortable calling myself a “progressive”.
well, that’s the point, isn’t it?
We all readily admit that (s)electing an anti-Islamic idiot president made people distrust us, and legitimately so. Why wouldn’t the same be true in reverse in Teheran?
It may be true, but calling the kettle black is a pointless exercise. I think your comments about other countries being untrustworthy raises hackles not so much because they are untrue as that they evoke insufficient attention to the profound humility this country still needs to adopt.
Right on, Dave.
How can you compare the two? Electing an anti-Islamic idiot as President of the greatest imperial power the world has ever known led to the destruction and/or destabilization of entire countries and societies, the deaths of well over a million human beings, unimaginable suffering of tens of millions, the creation of millions of refugees, the strengthening of some of the most extreme elements on all sides, and the horrific effects of all this will continue for generations.
(S)electing a long-tongued, anti-American idiot in Tehran will result mainly in continuing annoyance for the West, not to mention an excuse – should they choose it – to continue the demonization and threats against Iran.
you are so cavalier.
what could possibly go wrong with Iran now?
I simply cannot imagine any negative consequences of this dubious election, and if there are any negative consequences they will be solely the fault of America.
Oh grow up, BooMan. Now you really ARE being childish and silly.
The (s)election by Americans of that anti-Islamic idiot had catastrophic consequences for tens – no, hundreds – of millions of mainly brown people on the other side of the earth. It created a tragedy of epic proportions, and one that will continue for generations. The consequences for Americans has been miniscule, and very short-term by contrast. The consequences of the (s)selection that has taken place in Iran will fall mainly on Iranians, and will certainly not have anything like the effect on the world that Bush’s (s)election had and continues to have.
“if there are any negative consequences they will be solely the fault of America.“
That doesn’t even deserve a response.
PS And don’t forget the “ripple effect”, for example, the economic effect on the countries who have received millions of refugees, mainly Jordan and Syria. Housing costs have skyrocketed, as has the cost of food and other goods, all as a direct result of the influx of millions of Iraqi refugees.
“our own behavior as Americans neutralizes our credibility even when the foreign leaders and regimes we’re bemoaning really do suck.“
Exactly. And by the way, the leaders of Iran, including Ahmadinajad, do not sucd as badly as the propaganda and downright lies would lead people to believe.
Well, it’s no lie that Iran is a theocratic dictatorship. By my lights, that sucks. And I certainly don’t have anywhere near your knowledge of the region, but I do know that it sucks not just by Euro-American Enlightenment standards, but by historic Arabic/Persian/Muslim cultural standards.
Yes, it sucks. A religious and/or ethnically specific government sucks to one degree or another even – or in a way especially – when it is supposedly a “democracy” (even the “only democracy in the region”), especially when there is a very diverse population as there is in Iran, and in the aforementioned “only democracy”. I certainly would not choose to live in and prefer not to even visit a theocracy (which is one reason I will not visit Sa`udi Arabia, even out of curiosity).
My point was that Iran’s government doesn’t suck as badly or in as many ways as people in the US are led to believe, and on the whole it doesn’t suck worse than the very secular, US client government of the Shah did, or than any of the US client governments in the Middle East do. It just sucks in different ways and for different groups of people. In fact, it probably doesn’t suck overall as much as the government of Egypt does, or all that much worse than the government of Jordan, and my sense is that it sucks less than the government of Sa`udi Arabia, and less than the government of Pakistan too. And it sucks a lot more than the government of Syria, which is actually fairly progressive and open for a Middle-Eastern dictatorship, despite all the nonsense to the contrary.
So, suckiness is relative, and it is unfortunate that Americans are generally willing to accept without question the unnuanced and untruthful information they are fed about friend and foe alike.
Amen.
Very Rumsfeldian, Hurria. I agree. Now Obama has to keep doing what he’s doing and ignore the Israeli outlaws & neocon stooges.