Jeff Blankort writes:
Here's an interesting post by an Iranian writer recommended to me by Nader Hashemi. The
writer's critique of the left's position, those supporting Ahamdinejad,
is important. Frankly, I could have predicted almost exactly how the
pundits of the Left, some of whom I admire and whose positions on
Israel and the lobby are in accord with mine, would interpret the
Iranian elections, i.e., the "Western"opposition to Ahamdinejad has
been orchestrated by the US and/or Israel. [Phil Weiss falls into this puddle here.]
On the other hand,
Mohammad of Vancouver seems to be the only Iranian commentator that I have read so
far that defends Ahamdinejad. This reminds me of the years of the
Soviet bloc when its intervention into Hungary and Prague and its
crackdown on Solidarnosc in Poland were justified by much of the Left
since the Soviets were opposed to the US, the result being that the
resistance movements in those countries turned to the West, and then
were blamed by the Left for doing so.
From the post by Ali Alizadeh, Researcher at the Centre for Research in Modern European Philosophy, Middlesex University, which, by the way, presents a strong circumstantial case for a rigged election:
What is more surprising in the midst of this media frenzy is the blindness of the western left to the political dynamism and energy of our movement. The causes of this blindness oscillate between the misgivings about Islam (or the Islamophobia of hyper-secular left) and the confusion made by Ahmadinjead’s fake anti-imperialist rhetoric (his alliance with Chavez perhaps, who after all was the first to congratulate him). It needs to be emphasized that Ahmadinejad’s economic policies are to the right of the IMF…
Musavi emphasized the universal demands of ‘people’ who wanted to be heard and counted as political subjects. This subjectivity, emphasized by Musavi during his campaign and fully incarnated in the rallies of the past few days, is constituted by political intuition, creativity and recollection of the ‘79 revolution (no wonder that people so quickly reached an unexpected maturity, best manifested in the abstention from violence in their silent demonstrations). Musavi’s ‘people’ is also easily, but strongly, distinguished from Ahmadinejad’s anonymous masses dependent on state charity. Musavi’s people, as the collective appearing in the rallies, is made of religious women covered in chador walking hand in hand with westernized young women who are usually prosecuted for their appearance; veterans of war in wheelchairs next to young boys for whom the Iran-Iraq war is only an anecdote; and working class who have sacrificed their daily salary to participate in the rally next to the middle classes. This story is not limited to Tehran. Shiraz (two confirmed dead), Isfahan (one confirmed dead), Tabriz, Oroomiye are also part of this movement and other cities are joining with a predictable delay (as it was the case in 79 revolution).
History will prove who the real participants of this movement are but once again we are faced with a new, non-classical and unfamiliar radical politics. Will the Western left get it right this time?
Related posts:
- Stop the Bomb (But Allow Iranian Nuclear Enrichment)
- Support the Iranian protesters even if they represent a minority
- Following the news from a world away, an Iranian American feels pride and hope
- Iranian ‘intifada’ is celebrated in the US, while Palestinians are still ignored
- There he goes again: Ken Pollack says the Iranian people will trust us over their own leaders
{ 48 comments }
I tend to agree with otto also; it's a conflicting convergence of disgruntled factions within Iran, some of them orchestrated
as much as possible by foreigners from the West and Israel. On the other hand, I disagree with LeaNder22 because
the poor v. (rich/richer) elites, and/or rural v. urban, uneducated v. university-trained, are not merely figments of
idle talkers' imaginations. Further, since when have regular folks not been reduced to chess pawns in all the myriad aggregate ways available these days? Let's count the ways…
"This reminds me of the years of the Soviet bloc when its intervention into Hungary and Prague and its crackdown on Solidarnosc in Poland were justified by much of the Left since the Soviets were opposed to the US, the result being that the resistance movements in those countries turned to the West, and then were blamed by the Left for doing so."
Whatever the merits of his argument about the current situation in Iran, I take issue with Blankfort's characterization of the Left during the Soviet years. I suppose it depends on what you call the Left, but if we consider the Left as the main left political parties: Social Democratic, Socialist or Communist, only the pro-Soviet Communist parties justified the Soviet crackdowns in Eastern Europe. Perhaps, the intellectual movement known as the New Left or the pro-Maoist fringe parties in Europe had more ambiguous attitudes at different times, but that was about it. Even the pro-Soviet Communist parties evolved over time. They either lost membership through the years or they adopted a more independent line from the Soviet Union.
Like many, I too have ambivalent, contradictory, feelings about the Iranian election and its aftermath.
But what I do believe is this:
That there were cynical machinations on the part of Mousavi prior to the election to ensure that the results would be viewed as fraudulent, that the narcissistic western media would be quite happy to buy into it, and that whatever western intelligence operatives are at work in Iran would opportunistically exploit it.
However, I also believe that the demonstrations have gone far beyond what either Mousavi or, clearly, the government, can control, and beyond what Mousavi and his group may have wished for.
I truly think it has become a popular uprising–and, no, not against the idea of an Islamic Republic (sorry wingnuts), but against an Islamic Republic that has become stagnant and corrupt.
And this uprising has a life of its own, at least for a little while until whatever power is able to co-opt it.
In that sense–and to trot out that tired old cliche–the Mousavi/opposition dog is no longer wagging the tail. The people in the street have become the dog and are driving events. The genie is out of the bottle–at least for awhile.
Perhaps I'm being too pollyanish, but hopefully something positive will come out of this that will have to be genuinely addressed by the Iranian government and its elites.
boxing people into categories – 'left' or 'right' tends to shut down conversation and receptivity to the changing information becoming available frequently… perhaps many people had their mind made up on 9-11, or the iraq war and etc, but as time goes on things change…. i think it's best to remain open and neutral to it all as opposed to picking a side as one does in a bet… perhaps you're different phil…
Great post, and I have to say, I feel like I've been pretty naive after spending this week on Mondoweiss. I'm an Iranian-American, a proud supporter of a one-state democratic solution in Palestine, a long-time activist for Palestine, a diehard fan of Ghassan Kanafani, Emile Habiby, Edward Said, and new heroes like Max Blumenthal, Suheir Hammad, etc etc. Until this week, and this site, I had never been accused by so many anonymous people of being a "Zionist," and a supporter of a "Western puppet government" in Iran, and the enemy of the true, populistic will of the Iranian people (which is of course embodied by Ahmadinejad). All because of the audacity to come here with the expectation that people who claim to care about the human rights of Palestinians being brutalized by the Israeli army would have some sympathy for Iranians of all social classes and degrees of religiosity being brutalized by thugs, police, vigilantes, and other agents of a proto-fascistic government known as Velayat-e Faqih. I can't tell if these people are a) insane, b) on Khamenei's payroll, or c) so blinded by an America-centered view of the world that anyone who is "anti-imperialist" must then, necessarily, be "good" and populistic and Third Worldist, and that anyone who opposes this "anti-imperialist" person (even if he is anti-imperialist himself), must necessarily be a Western stooge, or a Zionist, or a pawn of the wealthy elite. The attacks by people like "MRW" or "M.M" or "Mohammad of Vancouver" notwithstanding, it was depressing to see Phil Weiss come out with some comments that, while prefaced as being "uninformed," seemed sadly close to the narrow vision described above. So I'm happy to see this post, on the eve of a day that is very likely (I hope not) to go down in Iranian history as bloody Saturday. I'd like to hope that I can come back to this site in the future as a freedom-loving Iranian and see some solidarity from members of the Palestine movement that I and my brethren have been supporting for so many years. به امید همبستگی و مخالفت جمعی علیه استبداد استعمار وجنگ
Heh, nobody wants to admit they're a lefty. Might as well embrace it, you're gonna be smeared as a Red no matter what you do.
This reminds me of the years of the Soviet bloc when its intervention into Hungary and Prague and its crackdown on Solidarnosc in Poland were justified by much of the Left since the Soviets were opposed to the US, the result being that the resistance movements in those countries turned to the West, and then were blamed by the Left for doing so. And that arbitrary passage reminds me of approximately one year ago, when Georgian forces attacked South Ossetia, prompting Russian intervention on behalf of the Ossetians, and much of the masses in the West rallied to the support of the Georgians despite not knowing a thing about South Ossetia or having a grasp of the political backdrop of the Caucasus in general. The conflict was painted in the Western media as a fight between "freedom and democracy" on one side and the evil empire on the other, and the Republic of South Ossetia, together with its people, was completely ignored by the self-proclaimed "free world". Phil, I have no quarrel with these types of posts — especially if you intend to balance the arguments as equally as you can — but please keep them up to the caliber of Ali Gharib's "Green Inferno" editorial, and to a lesser extent, Mohammad's. This one just did not make the grade.
See discussion here.
why is mohammd of vancouver the only iranian jeff knows who supports Ahmadinejad? Cause most of the poor iranian (and theres tens of millions of them) dont surf the net! Wake up jeff…Chaveaz supports Ahmadinejad. Youve been sucked in byb the MSM and the Gucci crowd in Tehran. You are unwittingly backing a colour revolution! Just google Peter Ackerman and Iran and see the sort of company youre keeping. Circumstantial evidence is more than the protestors have behind them! Mohammad has explained that. Please remember the violence was begun by the protestors! Thats colour revolutions work Viva Ahmadinejad…the rejection of neoliberalism in Iran…Mousavis desire
This is very confused because it assumes binary distinctions. Isn't it possible that Ahmadinejad stole the election, that the mass anti-Ahmadinejad movement is dynamic etc, and also that the US and Israel have been and are orchestrating the opposition as much as they possibly can, and may well look to take advantage of a variety of outcomes in a range of chauvinist ways?
Until this week, and this site, I had never been accused by so many anonymous people of being a "Zionist," Don't worry, that happens to everybody that doesn't surrender to the group dynamics. If the top ideologists is around he may even suspect you of being Jewish. For him and some here everything has to be squeezed into a rigid ideological architecture with apparently a very limited amount of knowledge and life experience feeding into it. I supported an Iranian opposition group occasionally, so why should I worry that now that the States supports the moderate forces in Iran and in exile. Isn't everything better than war? I have a huge sympathy for the Iranian people. The mad Shah and his SAVAK forces were bad, but the Mullah's aren't less repressive. I don't trust Ahmadinejad one second after his UN speech, and I am very hesitant about Mohammad who supported it. And no I am not saying that complaints aren't justified, it's his larger narrative. While I don't like the use of "wake up" I am as much on the side of the Iranians that demand more freedom as I was on the side of the people in Prague then. Ideologies can blind you, but my heart still beats on the left anyway. And I don't think the people that are attracted to Ahmadinejad and strong leaders generally can be on the left. They trick themselves.
Georgia and South Ossetia is different. Neither of these is part of the larger WWIII/IV scenario and don't underestimate the power of the war drums. My hope is that their activities now make it a bit harder to try a remake of the run up to the Iran war. The world sees that there is a strong movement that doesn't want a confrontation with the US. The Iranian people that go to the streets now have been living under the threat. The member of the Axis of Evil number one. Detente not further escalation of hot rhetorics is what the world needs.
exactly. If there wasn't a strong desire for a less rigid ideological system with it's undemocratic control apparatus, all the money in the world would not have brought this about. Happy, satisfied people don't don't take to the streets. It feels important to show them solidarity. What I really hate about a simplistic "color revolution" scenario is that Iranians are reduced to chess pawns. But as far as I witness they are quite active both inside Iran and in exile. And all this idle talk about the poor versus the elites. The system changed, the oil revenues flow into other pockets. Don't fool yourself.
The Iranian revolution has no authentic leadership. Hungary and Prague had leadership. When the soviet system fell Poland and Russia had leadership, Walesa and Gorbachev. They were quickly replaced and merciless looting began. The leadership in Iran is Rafsanjani. He is already in the pocket. He has already had one round of looting. He is already trained. The Iranian movt is authentic, that doesnt mean that it isnt financed by NED, etc
My South Ossetia example was in response to Mr. Blankort's choice to "remind" all of us of his nebulously-defined "Left's" backing of the Soviet side in its effort to hold the People's Republic of Poland, et cetera together when Soros et. al. intervened for Solidarity on behalf of the U.S. I elected to use my own example of the same behavior, though I omitted the grade-school political spectrum labels. In all honesty, I felt Blankort's choice to cite those examples made the case for other side more than they did his own, as it seems many Westerners of all ideological persuasions are being swept up in support of Mousavi's movement for nothing other than the misinterpretation that it opposes the institution of the Islamic Republic. I could not agree more, LeaNder, that "detente, not further escalation of hot rhetoric, is what the world needs." Can you deny, though, that hot rhetoric is exactly what seems to be spewing out all sides of the American and British press and television outlets? I would be remiss if I excluded the combatant rhetoric that peppered some of Leader Khamenei's speech yesterday; however, he is a head of state, and privy to information that we can only speculate on, and I feel that those particular parts of the speech were a reaction to not only the stoking of flames being perpetrated by our "reputable, free" Western media, but also to the underhanded activities I have little doubt are being perpetrated by elements of our (American) foreign intelligence services and State Department. That said, I do personally wish he had left those particular choice words to be spoken by his President.
I'm on the left – and I definitely do not support the corrupt opposition in Iran. And if you really care about the long-term viability of your country than you won't either…. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vi...
Well, I'm sorry if you thought I attacked you. I've written here in the last couple of days that I know shit about Iranian politics, I dont speak Farsi, the Supreme leader runs the country no matter what, and I had a lot of trouble with the tweets that I checked out. Then. I watched the Mousavi campaign videos that NAIC put up with welcomed subtitles, and as I wrote Friday afternoon on the thread that precedes this “I'm sold.” You expect a lot to have people who dont know the language, can't read the original docs, distrust initial television accounts, and generally are circumspect, to come rolling over to a point-of-view within five or six days. This protest started out as an election-fraud issue and has morphed into something else. Within A Week. Within seven days. With violence that wasn't there last Saturday, and a changing landscape that we have to have explained to us. You, on the other hand, got pissed off from the gitgo because we didn't know what you've known all your life. So when you come here swinging a bat we're going to put up shields.
It was going to part of the larger WWIII/IV scenario, LeaNder22. Saskashvili thought the US was going to come to his aid because it wanted Georgia as a base for an attack in Iran. That's what the Israelis who'd been there for seven years and left a few weeks before his invasion told him. Visions of sugarplums….
Happy, satisfied people don't don't take to the streets. So true.
And BTW, wakeup, I like hearing/reading opposing points-of-view when I know zip.
James Petras disagrees with Blankort and Ali Alizadeh. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=vi... What is astonishing about the West’s universal condemnation of the electoral outcome as fraudulent is that not a single shred of evidence in either written or observational form has been presented either before or a week after the vote count. During the entire electoral campaign, no credible (or even dubious) charge of voter tampering was raised. As long as the Western media believed their own propaganda of an immanent victory for their candidate, the electoral process was described as highly competitive, with heated public debates and unprecedented levels of public activity and unhindered by public proselytizing. The belief in a free and open election was so strong that the Western leaders and mass media believed that their favored candidate would win…The only group, which consistently favored Mousavi, was the university students and graduates, business owners and the upper middle class.
I'm still waiting for the Western Left to stop subverting the West! The regime in Iran is probably brutal, but I see no reason for the U.S. to meddle. Is there any reason to believe that the opposition in Iran would be any better than the current government? Why support change in Iran when we support the status quo in Israel? Does it make sense to support instability in every nation in the region except Israel.
Good catch, MRW. I thought the same thing, making me wonder why LeaNder22 flatly denied subject scenario. Especially since LeaNder22 rightfully argues against hot simplistic rhetoric in favor of Detente. I don't know how it was handled in Germany, but in the USA the MSM coverage of Georgia was very cursory in background detail and slanted towards Saskashvili's POV. Most Americans to this day are ignorant of the US and Israel's involvement in Georgia and at most dismiss the event as an example of Putin's Russia as reemergence of t he old Russian bear out of its beastly cave.
How quickly we forget. The West calls Iran brutal and the U.S. waterboards or as Porter Goss would say, a "professional interrogation technique".
Actually, I heard a few instances of fraud before, during and after the election, and I wasn't following it closely.
I agree, but Iran and Israel's ambitions for me are two separate issues. I cannot give up my basic opinions simply since they overlap with neoconservative rhetoric at times.Besides I don't believe for them it is about more democracy for the people in the Middle East, for them it is purely about power.
I set google alerts to a couple of Iranian friends I met over here. To name one. sorry only German: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolhassan_Banisadr I met him after his return to Iran in the early seventies in a "Berlin student village" (Studentendorf, Dahlem.) Bahman isn't a fan of Mousavi . Bahman mainly wrote about Iran. When I met him he feared the Iranian SAVAK. He returned to Iran during the revolution, but had to leave three years later. Bahman wrote about dissent really high up in the clerical order not just Rafsanjani, but Grand Ayatollah Yousof Sanei too. Ahmadinejad has quite a few enemies in these circles. And I don't like the slinging of corruption mud backwards and forwards, Ahmadinjad club has it's finger in the pot too. Do you remember Bani Sadr? He is not that much older than Bahman. He surely isn't a fan of Mousavi either. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolhassan_Banisadr ZDF Bani Sadr interview in German Translation: anchorman/Claus Kleber: You once helped to start a revolution, does what you hear and see now from Tehran have the look-and-feel of a new revolution? Bani-Sadr: Now, you can say I have worked towards the current situation, that the current situation becomes a reality. There is a movement within the Iranian people, it could be the beginning of a new revolution maybe not near-term but long-term, there will be a big change in Iran, a change from a dictatorial regime to democracy. This is a process that is currently beginning. Bani-Sadr is basically hesitant, no wonder, if Mousavi can fill the role that would be needed, I think he put more hope in a broader Iranian movement towards a more democratic state. I am hesitant about revolutions, I prefer a slower movement towards change. But strictly this seems more complex than just Western interference. I won't deny it exists. But it can't be reduced to it either. Look I wasn't a fan of the mad Shah's regime but Ahmadinejad's ambitions seem just as crazy.
Frankly I don't think the question has even been well defined yet, which is part of the problem. If 'the Western left' "sides with" the "Iranian resistance," how would they demonstrate that siding? Among which tools of international solidarity would be applied? Also, who are "the Iranian resistance"? General concerns for the rights and initiatives of individual Iranians against a repressive state? Endorsement of the particular political candidate Mousavi? Acceptance of a complicated argument about election theft for which evidence is scant and familiarity with the topics involved are often absent? Endorsing the political agenda of candidate Mousavi or some number of his supporters? If you actually take a moment to try and define the question, and not make up some crappy generalization in the same way that 'the Western left' was supposed to show its solidarity with Iraqis repressed by the brutal tyrant Saddam Hussein by backing the invasion and large scale destruction of their nation, then the answers might be more forthcoming. Work more on the who and the how before leaping to the end stage of making giant ideological conclusions.
The Left will not advocate a return of the Pahlavi regime. The Left was correct to support the overthrow of the Shah and denounce the imperialism of the US. The limited democracy of Iran may be theocratic, and antithetical to Western ideals of freedom, but Westerners have no authority, moral or otherwise, to make comment about what is going on in Iran. They should be paying reparations to Iran, and that should be the Left's position. Supporters of the Shah, oil companies and clandestine military/terrorist operations in Iran want to use the bourgeois demonstrations against the theocratic regime in Iran to put the Left in a bind to support neo-con aggression. Before addressing the Western supporters of Iran's opposition questioning of the Left's reticence to join them, their position on the US disputed presidential election of 2000 should first be discussed, as well as their position on the 2006 disputed presidential election in Mexico. Most of the Western pundits who support Iran's opposition are reactionary neo-cons, who could care less abut the civil liberties of Americans, Mexicans and Iranians.
With all due respect, Brian,and frankly, what is due can only be found with a microscope, anyone describing the protesters being clubbed by Ahamadinejad's thugs as "the Gucci crowd," doesn't have the faintest idea what he or she is talking about. That Chavez supports him is understandable from a geopolitical view but has no bearing on the reality in Iran with which I suspect he is totally, and again, understandably, ignorant. In truth, the current regime has long been cracking down on the country's genuine anit-imperialists and putting them in prison. It will only get worse now.
That passage may remind you of the South Ossetia fiasco but if you look at the facts and not just base your opinion on what the Western media says (and then take the opposite view), you would realize that the Russians defending the South Ossetians, which I supported, was not in any way comparable to the invasion of Hungary and Czechoslovakia by Soviet troops in the 60s. Frankly, I have had my fill of those who complain of police brutality and stolen elections when it is done and supported by the US but look the other way or justify it when it is done by a country that the US considers to be its enemy. I have had enough of people who keep double standards when it comes to human rights.
What is happening in Iran has been very confusing but a few things seem clear to me. One is that Ahmediinijad likely won the vote and second the demonstrators in Tehran are a minority. But today that is irrelevant. What is important is that this election has reignited the secular forces to acitively oppose a reactionary religious regime that has been oppressing enlightened people for the last three decades. Today it is a movement for personal freedom that should be supported by anyone who considers themselves progressive. Remember, the civil rights movement in this country was a tiny minority in 1960 and they would have achieved nothing with just elections. I was hesitant to see what was happening there for the simple reason that the prowar forces in this country will try to exploit this event for their own ends. Also we have seen how these mass movements in former Soviet Republics were used by the west for their own ends.
I think the demonstrations have taken on a life of their own independent of Mousavi and his allegations of electoral fraud. Whether his charges were true or not–and I for one think he may well have planned those charges well before the results came in–Mousavi and the elites, pro and con, are no longer in control of this game. Mousavi has created something that is no longer beholden to or controlled by him. To trot out that well-worn cliche: the demonstrators are no longer the tail being wagged by Mousavi, they are now the dog. The question to me is who or what will eventually co-opt this movement and turn it into its own benefit. No doubt every faction with any stake in the game–the US, hardliners, softliners, revolutionaries, reformists, Israel–will attempt to do just that. EDIT: I should add that this question could be posed in response to every single genuine popular uprising throughout history.
"Most of the Western pundits who support Iran's opposition are reactionary neo-cons" – may-be. It just so happens, that not few of Western pundits who support Iran's regime are also reactionary neo-cons: Daniel Pipes, The Heritage Foundation … Sources: http://www.counterpunch.org/giordano06192009.html http://www.counterpunch.org/giordano06192009.html I would not recommend to take sides along the question "Which Western politician/journalist/big mouth/would be expert on Middle East politics takes which side?" and then I will take his side/just the opposite of his side. But if it should be a must to talk more about opinions published in Western media than about events in Iran, and more about the feelings of Western leftists/rightists than about the (different!) opinions voiced in Iran, then I prefer this done in the way how Al Giordano does it. Anyway, one point he makes obviously cannot be denied: “No matter which faction emerges on top as a result of the current tumult, it will not be able to rule as before.” http://www.counterpunch.org/giordano06192009.html
Thanks for your comment, Wake Up, I have been a committed activist in the Palestinian cause since 1970 and many others that I know are also not fooled by the statements of Ahmadinejad nor indifferent to the brutality of his regime against those protesting the election results. What I have learned over the years, and again today, reading some of the responses to my posting, is that some on "the left" with whom I am usually in agreement, are as selective about supporting human rights as whoever happens to be occupying the White House. Their double standards just happen to be different.
BTW Phil is quite wrong about what occurred on the left in this country in 1956 in response to the Hungarian revolution. The only voices on the left supporting the Soviets then were from the CPUSA and within a year membership in that party dropped from about 120,000 to less than 50,000 and by 1968 its active membership was below 5,000. It was not the red scare years that destroyed that party.
Thank you for setting the record straight.
these mass movements in former Soviet Republics were used by the west for their own ends – that is true. But the people in the former Soviet Republics (and in Eastern Europe countries) had no experience with the west. Iranian people on the other hand have more experience with Western forces than they care to have. They aren’t naïve as many in the Soviet Republics have been.
A question to think about, when there has been an election held in a country that was won by the so-called Left but contested on the streets by the so-called right to have been rigged, what has the Left usually done? More reports on the Iranian and Lebanese elections: Learning to Live With the Devil We Know http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03... **** The Lebanese Elections By Karim Makdisi http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03... *** Iranian Elections: The "Stolen Elections" Hoax http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03... **** Henry Kissinger on BBC talking about the need for an emergence of a new regime in Iran out of the present presidential elections crisis. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03... **** Beijing cautions US over Iran http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF20Ak03...
Who was the left supporting in Lebanon, March 14th or March 8th?
Are the Iranian Election Protests Another US Orchestrated ‘Color Revolution’? by Paul Craig Roberts for Information Clearing House http://vineyardsaker.blogspot.com/2009/06/are-ira...
This report was actually written and published the day before the elections in Iran: State Department Backs 'Reformists' in Wild Iranian Election Thursday, June 11, 2009 10:16 AM By: Kenneth R. Timmerman http://www.newsmax.com/timmerman/Iran_election_Re... So what exactly does this tell us?
The Neocons are hard at work trying to get the U.S. to overthrow the Iranian government: Sunday Morning in Iran, A Letter from Mousavi’s Office http://pajamasmedia.com/michaelledeen/2009/06/20/...
Jeff is a good friend and we agree on much. I will not enter into the fine points of what he knows or thinks, since there is a possibility that one can NOT see the demonstrations as natural and can see them as colour revolutions with heavy external intervention, and at the same time NOT back Ahmadinejad. please see the following: http://www.the-diplomat.com/article.aspx?aeid=580... excerpted below.
The US Department of State’s 2005 allocation of $75 million for “democracy promotion” was seen by the Iranians as a “dirty tricks” fund, with some of that money funding democracy-promotion workshops in neighbouring countries where anti-regime Iranian activists are coached in how to peacefully overthrow their government. However, the reality of overthrowing the Iranian regime is far more complicated, with many analysts believing that Iran will be a tough nut to crack. “Georgia and the Ukraine had many of the preconditions, including a wildly unpopular president who was still held in high esteem by the West,” says Christine Quirk, an Istanbul-based democracy transition consultant. “The opposition in both countries used stolen elections as a pretext to bring good old-fashioned political organising together with people’s outrage at the blatant abuse of political power. What both also have in common is assistance from the Serbian youth group Otpor, which is also advising Iranian activists,” she says. “Other than help from Serbian youth, I’m not convinced Iran has much in common at all with Georgia and Ukraine.”
"Will the Western Left side with the Iranian resistance?" Jeez, I hope not. If anything is the kiss of death for a movement, and the guarantee of an unimpeded trip down the drain to the ash-heap of history, it an embrace from the "Western Left". And given all its success in moving the West leftward, will it even have time?
My first comment on Mondoweiss! A bit about me: I'm an Iranian living in Canada and have been trying to read as many diverse reports and analyses as I can. Hence my arrival at this site. I agree with you, Outsider, that we should focus on what's actually happening in Iran and try to inform ourselves about the complex political, historical, cultural, and economic contexts that have led to the events of the past week. But: I absolutely don't trust American pundits who are shamelessly and narcissistically jumping on the Moussavi bandwagon to promote themselves. Have you checked out Andrew Sullivan's blog lately? All of a sudden he's discovered his revolutionary spirit and is presenting himself as if he at all matters to the circulation of information flowing from Iran. And this morning he compared the events to the American Revolution! Wtf, Beltway Bloviators, it ain't about you. As for Al Giordano? He's a creepy Obamabot hack who has no clue what he's talking about when it comes to Iran. He's busy building strawmen on the Left (without any actual references to those whom he would heroically take down) in order to slap them aside and offer himself as the voice of reason. He's no authority where Iran is concerned. Ugh, I can't stand his "work" or his (totally unwarranted) arrogance. p.s. to Jeff Blankfort: Believe it or not, there are actual Iranians who voted for and who support Ahmadinejad. I'm not one of them, but it's patently and hilariously absurd to assume that they don't exist just because you haven't come across any yourself.
"Musavi’s ‘people’ is also easily, but strongly, distinguished from Ahmadinejad’s anonymous masses dependent on state charity<b/>." Good job that civilized people just don't give a f**k about those dependent on state charity isn't it? We can't have the elites having to worry about them or even considering them as people too can we?
Comments on this entry are closed.