« Consultant Power | Main | Irony Watch »

Ganji's Letter

23 Sep 2007 10:51 pm

Iranian dissident Akbar Ganji is circulating an open letter on the occasion of the UN session starting this week regarding the situation facing his country. It comes with key endorsements (Saad Eddin Ibrahim! Kwame Anthony Appiah! Henry Louis Gates, Jr! Michael Lerner! Juan Cole!) and seems very compelling to me. Here's the beginning:

To His Excellency Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations,

The people of Iran are experiencing difficult times both internationally and domestically. Internationally, they face the threat of a military attack from the US and the imposition of extensive sanctions by the UN Security Council. Domestically, a despotic state has – through constant and organized repression – imprisoned them in a life and death situation.

Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past 50 years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America's gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US Administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran. Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media, and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact being largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about "the possibility" of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran. Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran. Preserving Iran's territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East.

The rest is below the fold:

Your Excellency,

Iran 's dangerous international situation and the consequences of Iran's dispute with the West have totally deflected the world's attention and especially the attention of the United Nations from the intolerable conditions that the Iranian regime has created for the Iranian people. The dispute over the enrichment of uranium should not make the world forget that, although the 1979 revolution of Iran was a popular revolution, it did not lead to the formation of a democratic system that protects human rights. The Islamic Republic is a fundamentalist state that does not afford official recognition to the private sphere. It represses civil society and violates human rights. Thousands of political prisoners were executed during the first decade after the revolution without fair trials or due process of the law, and dozens of dissidents and activists were assassinated during the second decade. Independent newspapers are constantly being banned and journalists are sent to prison. All news websites are filtered and books are either refused publication permits or are slashed with the blade of censorship before publication. Women are totally deprived of equality with men and, when they demand equal rights, they are accused of acting against national security, subjected to various types of intimidation and have to endure various penalties, including long prison terms. In the first decade of the 21st century, stoning (the worst form of torture leading to death) is one of the sentences that Iranians face on the basis of existing laws. A number of Iranian teachers, who took part in peaceful civil protests over their pay and conditions, have been dismissed from their jobs and some have even been sent into internal exile in far-flung regions or jailed. Iranian workers are deprived of the right to establish independent unions. Workers who ask to be allowed to form unions in order to struggle for their corporate rights are beaten and imprisoned. Iranian university students have paid the highest costs in recent years in defence of liberty, human rights and democracy. Security organizations prevent young people who are critical of the official state orthodoxy from gaining admission into university, and those who do make it through the rigorous ideological and political vetting process have no right to engage in peaceful protest against government policies. If students' activities displease the governing elites, they are summarily expelled from university and in many instances jailed. The Islamic Republic has also been expelling dissident professors from universities for about a quarter of a century. In the meantime, in the Islamic Republic's prisons, opponents are forced to confess to crimes that they have not committed and to express remorse. These confessions, which have been extracted by force, are then broadcast on the state media in a manner reminiscent of Stalinist show-trials. There are no fair, competitive elections in Iran; instead, elections are stage managed and rigged. And even people who find their way into parliament and into the executive branch of government have no powers or resources to alter the status quo. All the legal and extra-legal powers are in the hands of the Iran's top leader, who rules like a despotic sultan.

Your Excellency,
Are you aware that in Iran political dissidents, human rights activists and pro-democracy campaigners are legally deprived of "the right to life"? On the basis of Article 226 of the Islamic Penal Law and Note 2 of Paragraph E of Section B of Article 295 of the same law any person can unilaterally decide that another human being has forfeited the right to life and kill them in the name of performing one's religious duty to rid society of vice.[1] Over the past few decades, many dissidents and activists have been killed on the basis of this article and the killers have been acquitted in court. In such circumstances, no dissident or activist has a right to life in Iran, because, on the basis of Islamic jurisprudence and the laws of the Islamic Republic, the definition of those who have forfeited the right to life (mahduroldam) is very broad.

Are you aware that, in Iran, writers are lawfully banned from writing? On the basis of Note 2 of Paragraph 8 of Article 9 of the Press Law, writers who are convicted of "propaganda against the ruling system" are deprived for life of "the right to all press activity". In recent years, many writers and journalists have been convicted of propaganda against the ruling system. The court's verdicts make it clear that any criticism of state bodies is deemed to be propaganda against the ruling system.

Your Excellency,
The people of Iran and Iranian advocates for freedom and democracy are experiencing difficult days. They need the moral support of the proponents of freedom throughout the world and effective intervention by the United Nations. We categorically reject a military attack on Iran. At the same time, we ask you and all of the world's intellectuals and proponents of liberty and democracy to condemn the human rights violations of the Iranian state. We expect from Your Excellency, in your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to reprimand the Iranian government – in keeping with your legal duties – for its extensive violation of the articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights covenants and treaties.

Above all, we hope that with Your Excellency's immediate intervention, all of Iran's political prisoners, who are facing more deplorable conditions with every passing day, will soon be released. The people of Iran are asking themselves whether the UN Security Council is only decisive and effective when it comes to the suspension of the enrichment of uranium, and whether the lives of the Iranian people are unimportant as far as the Security Council is concerned. The people of Iran are entitled to freedom, democracy and human rights. We Iranians hope that the United Nations and all the forums that defend democracy and human rights will be unflinching in their support for Iran's quest for freedom and democracy.

Well said.

Share This

Comments (50)

Hi
At first I thought OH MY another crazy that the CIA and friends are paying but with reading what he had to say and who supported it (Cole, Lerner) I felt better and what is said is true but will not happen under the rulers of the US at this time to bad. I wonder if Iran and the US can make it another 18 months.
jo6pac

"We expect from Your Excellency, in your capacity as the Secretary-General of the United Nations, to reprimand the Iranian government"

Like Mathew Yglesias the only country the UN will ever reprimand in the middle east is Israel.

http://tinyurl.com/2oh5z

Evidently Dave is having another of his Out-Of-Head Experiences, since Yglesias has just spent several lengthy paragraphs reprimanding Iran. (Whether the UN will do so is, of course, open to far more doubt.)

Wow, it puts all my thoughts into a nice letter.

"Evidently Dave is having another of his Out-Of-Head Experiences, since Yglesias has just spent several lengthy paragraphs reprimanding Iran."

Quoting someone else's letter is not the same thing as coming up with your own criticisms on a weekly (if not more) basis as Matt does with Israel.

The only time Matt normally mentions Iran is when he is criticising "neo-cons" or Martin Peretz.

This Ganji sounds like a tool.

1) The UN isn't going to anything about Iran's internal repression.

2) It's not America's fault that his country is ruled by repressive theocrats.

3) Israel and the Palestinians could exchange puppies and unicorns tomorrow and it would have zero effect on the Iranian government's internal repression.

4) What effect bombing Iran will have on any impotent or non-existent Iranian democracy movement is immaterial as far as America is concerned. Our decisions on whether or not to bomb targets in Iran should be made for national security reasons.

5) If we do bomb Iran, and this Ganji starts whining about how that set back some internal pro-democracy movement, he can piss up a rope. It's been almost thirty years and his fellow democracy advocates haven't done squat; responsibility for their country's internal politics rests with them.

2) It's not America's fault that his country is ruled by repressive theocrats.

Ahem.

Perhaps if our country hadn't imposed the brutal dictatorship of the Shah on Iran, which created the conditions for theocratic revolution, we'd still have the current regime. Maybe not. Either way, we are very much involved in and responsible for the current conditions in Iran.

More to the point, the US has continuously undercut the democratic forces within Iran by constantly saber rattling against the current regime. It is a very banal truth that when people feel threatened they cling to their current government, however odious they might be. And whatever your particular feelings towards the pro-democracy movement in Iran, Fred, it is the stated policy of the United States foreign policy apparatus to support that movement. So when they tell us how to help them, if we want to succeed in pursuing the stated policy goals of this country, we should probably listen to them, especially given the significant monetary resources we're devoting towards that end.

And, finally, there is, of course, no coherent US national security reasons for bombing Iran.

"... the only country the UN will ever reprimand in the middle east is Israel"

Why is that, Dave?

Fred, seriously, you are completely unaware of the U.S.'s meddling in Iranian affairs? Mossadeq? The Shah? Of course it's our fault, at least partially.

Hey Fred, asshole, how about you google the words "Democracy movement in Iran" before you make your idiotic claims? Here, I'll do it for you, you illiterate dick:
Phrase: "democracy movement" +iran
Hits: 162,000
For comparison:
Phrase: "democracy movement" +pakistan
Hits: 101,000
Phrase: "democracy movement" +turkey
Hits: 73,500
Phrase: "democracy movement" +egypt
Hits: 70,900
Phrase: "democracy movement" +china
Hits: 283,000
Phrase: "democracy movement" +mexico
Hits: 81,300

Whose democracy movement is latent now, bitch?

"4) What effect bombing Iran will have on any impotent or non-existent Iranian democracy movement is immaterial as far as America is concerned. Our decisions on whether or not to bomb targets in Iran should be made for national security reasons."

Except these are not unrelated. If bombing moves the Iranian people, who prefer the US to the mullahs, into the mullahs' camp, the mullahs will then have greater ease of action in being belligerent towards us.

"5) If we do bomb Iran, and this Ganji starts whining about how that set back some internal pro-democracy movement, he can piss up a rope. It's been almost thirty years and his fellow democracy advocates haven't done squat; responsibility for their country's internal politics rests with them."

This is ugly Americanism personified. The largest democracy in the world only became independent and democratic after centuries of being oppressed by the British, during which attempts at independence were crushed. Democratization is among the hardest things a country can attempt to undertake. In the end, you don't really care about Iranians as people. Your racism once again rears its ugly head.

Freddie and Walt,

The Islamic Revolution seemed pretty popular among Iranians in 1979. They chose that form of government, not us.

Persian,

Congratulations on your Google hits. I sincerely wish you luck in achieving democracy in your country. Perhaps if you spent less energy on anti-American posturing you'd have more energy to create another pro-democracy website or whatever it is that democracy advocates in Iran do.

"Freddie and Walt,

The Islamic Revolution seemed pretty popular among Iranians in 1979. They chose that form of government, not us."

You obviously know very little about the timeline of the Iranian Revolution. You also ignore that we are the ones that overthrew Iranian democracy.

Fred,
"Anti-American" posturing? Excuse me? I (and most Iranians) love the US. I only think it's sad that so many of its citizens are morons, as personified by you.
Oh, and unlike you pussies who dissent via blogs, Iranian pro-democracy activists are out in the streets and risking getting shot, raped, and imprisoned. Your argument that Iranians deserve destruction and mass death simply because 28 years ago they supported a revolution is little better than OBL's claim that Americans deserve death because they reelected Bush.
God bless America and God bless the people of Iran.

Reality Man,

I find it hard to believe that our famously incompetent CIA single-handedly caused the downfall of Iran's Mossadeq. In any case, that was over half a century ago. No foreign power caused the Iranians to have the current regime. That's a purely homegrown political system, and they have only themselves to blame if they don't like it.

The truth is that it's easier to whine about America than take on the hard and dangerous task of opposing an autocratic regime. I understand that. Whining about America scores you cool points in the Muslim world; whining about the Iranian government (or the Syrian government, if you're Lebanese) can get you killed.

"Democratization is among the hardest things a country can attempt to undertake. In the end, you don't really care about Iranians as people."

Reality Man:

If an Iraq War supporter substituted "Iraqi" for "Iranian" in your sentence above, you would get apoplectic. So at least be consistent and don't try to play that "racism" card here. It makes you sound like Bush or Rice.

Fred, Dave, etc. are so excruciatingly stupid that they really makes you appreciate vicious hacks like Al.

"Your argument that Iranians deserve destruction and mass death simply because 28 years ago..."

Don't put words in my mouth, Persian. I never said Iranians "deserve destruction and mass death". Iranians do bear responsibility for their current form of government, because it came about as the result of a popular revolution, but that doesn't mean they "deserve" to be repressed. It does mean, however, that they have no right to blame us for their current form of government.

I am aware that many Iranians are pro-American. I'm sure most of you are swell people. But you need to look inward. You may hate Bush, but he will be the last Wilsonian idealist/interventionist we will have for a long time. The next American President won't lift a finger to try to spread democracy anywhere, after the bad taste of Iraq. You and Ganji will get your wish: no money for Iranian democracy advocates. In reality, leaving you alone is the best thing we can do, because we can't really help you.

"I find it hard to believe that our famously incompetent CIA single-handedly caused the downfall of Iran's Mossadeq. In any case, that was over half a century ago. No foreign power caused the Iranians to have the current regime. That's a purely homegrown political system, and they have only themselves to blame if they don't like it.

The truth is that it's easier to whine about America than take on the hard and dangerous task of opposing an autocratic regime. I understand that. Whining about America scores you cool points in the Muslim world; whining about the Iranian government (or the Syrian government, if you're Lebanese) can get you killed."

It may be fashionable to complain that the CIA can't do anything, but this is rather tired. The CIA was able to kill Patrice Lumbaba, after all. Anyway, we worked with Britain's MI6 to overthrow Mossadegh in Operation Ajax. The truth of the matter is that when we have backed off of Iran a bit, like in the late 1990's, the Iranian people have more freedom of action because the mullahs are less motivated by fear. When you install a puppet regime in a country and that regime creates the domestic conditions for a revolution, the subsequent regime is not a purely home-grown phenomenon. You might also want to consider the fact that the most pro-American populace in the Middle East is Iran's.

"If an Iraq War supporter substituted "Iraqi" for "Iranian" in your sentence above, you would get apoplectic. So at least be consistent and don't try to play that "racism" card here. It makes you sound like Bush or Rice."

This is rather silly. Forcing the Iraqis to be democratic on our terms is a road that can only end in failure. This is what we are doing with having our troops in Iraq. You are demanding that Iranians have a democratic revolution on your terms. The goal of the democratic activists in Iran tend to be reform instead of revolution. After Operation: Ajax and the Iranian Revolution, Iranians have seen coups and revolutions tear their country apart.

"Don't put words in my mouth, Persian. I never said Iranians "deserve destruction and mass death". Iranians do bear responsibility for their current form of government, because it came about as the result of a popular revolution, but that doesn't mean they "deserve" to be repressed. It does mean, however, that they have no right to blame us for their current form of government."

The bulk of the student revolutionaries - the backbone of the revolution - tended to be secular leftists. However, Khomeini had the best organizational structure and thus was able to purge the leftists.

"I am aware that many Iranians are pro-American. I'm sure most of you are swell people. But you need to look inward. You may hate Bush, but he will be the last Wilsonian idealist/interventionist we will have for a long time. The next American President won't lift a finger to try to spread democracy anywhere, after the bad taste of Iraq. You and Ganji will get your wish: no money for Iranian democracy advocates. In reality, leaving you alone is the best thing we can do, because we can't really help you."

You can't tell Iranians to look inward at the same time you keep on threatening to bomb them. If you want domestic forces to create democracy in Iran, you need to give them the breathing space to do that on their own. If the democracy activists have to fear that we'll drop a bomb on their family, they'll lean towards the government to protect them.

Concur with Fred that this Ganji sounds like a tool.

A long letter about how bad it would be if America blows the crap out of them for his "fellow democrats", how much of Iran's problems are the fault of the US, but not a peep about 6 things Ganji and friends could help stop or write letters to the UN about:

"1. We are concerned the US will bomb us. We need help in stopping the nuclear weapons program from the international community. No money is going into civilian nuke power. They are enriching with no work done on a fuel assembly fabrication plant with the 350-500 million in specialized tools and welders needed, no reactor designs or advanced metallurgy work. Iran has seen work on it's 1st two reactors stopped because the Mullahs won't pay the Russians. There is no civilian energy nuke program.

2. Please tell our Mullah leaders to stop supplying Hezbollah and undermining Lebanon and Syria. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization, and we peaceful Iranians want no association with it.

3. Please stop undermining the Iraqi government and training Shiite militias to kill Americans with the sophisticated weapons and IED triggers you are giving them. I hear it makes Americans want to kill back.

4. I worry that the Pasadran Guard will attack the Americans as they did with the Brits and tried to do with Aussies before they learned Aussies are tough. If they attack Americans, bombs will fall. Lots of them.

5. I agree we in pro-democracy really screwed up electing the clerics in 1979. Please come in and supervise our elections before the Americans destroy all our Navy and Air Force - and missiles, and nuke weapons centers, and scientist quarters they can hit."

6. If Iran is tied to the Syrian-NORK facility that was attacked and word comes out it was nuclear weapons work and was Iranian funded, I think there will be lots of dead Iranians soon. Please, Excellency! Get to the bottom of this NORK-Syria-Iran issue before the Americans do, and fix it.


That his letter doesn't address the actual problems that will lead to Iran getting bombed signifies he is a tool. That people who have been ineffectual for 30 years in throwing out or tempering the Mullah's activities will be mad at us is pretty meaningless. I suspect their madness at us will be similarly inefectual if we must end the Iran threat.

I don't think anyone wants to do it while Bush is still President (because he isn't trusted to lead competently) and there is a slowly closing window for Euro-Diplomacy and all their fine lawyers advocacy organizations to "rescue" matters. But that window can slam shut if the GI soldier killings by Iran get intolerable, we find that the Syrian op was an Iranian-NORK effort.

Reality Man,

"Forcing the Iraqis to be democratic on our terms is a road that can only end in failure."

That's nonsense. The Iraqis wrote their own constitution. That's why they have an unwieldy parliamentary/party list system. That's not an American system and those are their terms, not ours. No one forced the Iraqi people to turn out in huge numbers to vote to ratify this constitution; in fact, they risked death to do so, in UN-monitored elections. And no one forced them to elect the parties they did in subsequent UN-monitored elections. If the Iraqis fail to come to a political consensus democratically, they will have failed under a constitution their representatives wrote and they ratified, and with parties they elected.

"You are demanding that Iranians have a democratic revolution on your terms."

Where did I demand this? The Iranians can do whatever they want, it's not my country. Same with the Iraqis. Now that they have a democratically-elected government, if that government asks us to pack up and leave, I'd have no problem with us respecting their sovereignty and doing so.

Based on a subjective impression, it looks like the GOP has opened up its paid-blogging coffers again over the past week or so.

I find it hard to believe that our famously incompetent CIA single-handedly caused the downfall of Iran's Mossadeq. - Fred

And I find it hard to believe you could be such a titanic moron; but, sadly, both things are true. The CIA didn't "cause his downfall"; it overthrew him in a black op, and had him killed. The CIA acknowledges this, and the historical record is clear.

It's not America's fault that his country is ruled by repressive theocrats.

I know conservatives have extreme difficult handling non-binary concepts, but try to assimilate this: it is IN PART America's fault that Iran is ruled by theocrats, because the US and Britain engineered the coup that overthrew the democratically elected Mossadegh; installed the Shah in power; and then backed that increasingly unpopular Shah with F-14s and instructions on how to torture his opponents, even as his regime tottered on its own brutality. There were many other contributing factors to the rise of theocracy in Iran, but the US's self-destructive foreign-policy stupidity played a role, just as it has in Afghanistan, Iraq and Saudi Arabia. American conservatives have lately begun saying, ludicrously, that Iran has been at war with the US from 1979 on; Iranian conservatives feel with at least as much justice that the US has been at war with Iran since 1954.

Similarly, it is in part Iran's fault that the US is ruled by repressive theocrats. If the Revolutionary Guards had not held US embassy personnel hostage throughout the 1980 elections, Reagan would probably have lost, and the history of conservatism in America would look very different indeed. There were many other contributing factors in the rise of militaristic, irrational Bushite authoritarian conservatism in the US, but Iran's aggressive oversteps have played a small role.

Fred, I'll stop putting words in your mouth if you stop putting them in mine, I have nothing against Bush, although I agree more with Ganji here. If the US doesn't want to help Iranian democrats, that's fine, as long as it doesn't try to hurt them either. Currently, the US policy of giving out money to "pro-democracy activists" is to give them to ethnic separatists, which is basically what people like Ghaddafi and Castro have been doing here in the US for years. Needless to say, that does not score points on the Iranian street. If the US left Iran alone, sooner or later things will change. You may be interested to know that Iran had its first revolution, and a constitutional government with Parliament and all, since 1905, light years before any of its neighbours. We were democrats then and we can be democrats now. Americans also helped in that fight, and one, an American missionary, is considered a martyr.
Oh, and while you're at it, check out:
http://reason.com/news/show/122023.html

It's pointless to address Fred, Dave, SLC, and the rest of the right wing nuts. All they have is their hatred of anybody who isn't "American" or "Jewish" - and most of those who ARE American and/or Jewish but who don't support their wing nuttery.

That said, it is true that the UN will do nothing about the internal affairs of Iran, just as it does nothing about the Palestinian situation other than pass resolutions which the US vetoes and Israel ignores (at least count, what was it, sixty-something UN resolutions that Israel has ignored - including the call to stop the war last year.)

It is significant, however, for the Zionist fanatics who deny it, that even Iranian dissidents can see that solving the Israel-Palestinian issue is important to reduce the motivations for anti-US feeling in the ME. The Zionist fanatics claim that even if the Palestinians got their state, the rest of the ME would still try to destroy Israel simply because they are subhuman, evil "anti-Semites" who should be nuked back into the Stone Age.

Frankly, at this point, I wouldn't be surprised if part of that weren't true. After repeated demonstrations how Zionists cannot be trusted not to wage aggressive war against their neighbors - most recently last week - I'd say the ME neighbors of Israel have every reason to distrust any suggestion that merely giving the Palestinians a state will prevent the Zionist fanatics from continuing to destabilize the ME for their own ends.

After all, the Zionists will figure, even if the Palestinians get their state - for now - eventually we can take over the ME with the help of the US and THEN deal with the Palestinians the way we really want to - namely cleanse them from Israel proper completely - along with all the other Arabs within Israel's borders. This is the sort of thinking you see reflected in much of the Zionist literature over the last fifty years and in the statements of the right wing nuts in Israel's government.

Dave is a hoot. The only country never to be reprimanded - by the US - in the ME is Israel. Israel can do no wrong, according to the US government. Even deliberately attacking a US ship, murdering US sailors, machine gunning their life rafts, and the like is considered "fine" by the US government. A similar act undertaken by the Iranians would have us bombing Tehran in an hour.

Israel can run spy rings in the US, steal US government secrets from its unregistered agents in AIPAC, and everything is just fine for the US government. The Congress goes to beg the Israel Lobby for money while Israel spies on the US for its own economic and geopolitical motives.

Ah, then there's Chris Ford. Whenever the Idiot Beacon is lit, he will soon appear. Whereas Fred is your garden variety cretin, dull as a rock and charming as sleet, Chris Ford is the blogword's anti-Semitic Cliff Clavin, filled to the brim with wrong facts he's desperate to tell you about.

Who knew America had so many morons, in so many varieties and hues?

That's nonsense. The Iraqis wrote their own constitution. - Fred

Why, every one of those people in that meaningless conference which we Americans created in order to draw up an irrelevant document which had no importance to the actual holders of power in the Iraqi political scene...was Iraqi!

The Iraqi constitution is a worthless scrap of paper, which leads to elections that install a bunch of people in a building in the Green Zone where they exercise no actual power. Its purpose is to create a legal authority dependent on US forces for its safety and for funneling money and weapons to Shiite militias (through the fiction of an "Iraqi Army"), and which for these reasons authorizes US forces to remain in Iraq, giving the US the necessary fiction that its forces have been "invited" in -- even though over 70% of Iraqis want them to leave the country.

Chris Ford: guess what? People in the Middle East do not have the same list of Special Best Cool People and Bad Mean Evil People as you do. You don't like Hezbollah; but, hey -- they do! And what the fuck business is it of yours? You don't get to bomb Iran because Iranians may have rooted for Hezbollah against Israel, or because they refuse to acknowledge that the Cowboys rule and the 'Skins suck, or whatever your personal peeves are.

The rest of your list amounts to an extended cry of "but they started it". Get this through your head: the US has been up to its neck in every kind of military shenanigans in and around Iran for the last 50 years; Iran is a "strategic and military partner" of the Shiite-dominated Maliki government, and has every bit as much right to be carrying out military activities in Iraq as the US does; and if the US attacks Iran, it will be an unprovoked assault on a country that has undertaken no acts of war against us, and will provoke a flaming shitstorm throughout the Muslim world that will put every US government installation, business, and citizen at risk of loss of life and limb, not to mention dooming the US's presence in Iraq to end, sooner or later, in an ignominious Saigon-style evacuation. You and your kind have all the strategic wisdom of Admiral Tojo in December 1941, contemplating his "one quick strike" to scare the US out of the war.

I second brooksfoe, except that Iranians did not root for Hezbollah. I would know, I was visiting Iran at the time. In Iran, calling someone "Hezbollahi", which roughly translates to Jesusfreak, is one of the fastest ways to getting your lights punched out.

Persian - If the US left Iran alone, sooner or later things will change.

Time is running out. Iran is doing things that all but demand that it cannot be "simply left alone".

1. Involvement in international terror.
2. Building nuclear weapons.
3. Building long range missiles.
4. Undermining Iraq, establishing Shiite death squads, helping kill US soldiers.
5. Daily chants of "Death to America!" for the last 29 years, added to items 1-4 above.
6. Having nearly 30 years to work to end the theocracy and failing, the "forces of democracy" within Iran appear ineffectual and unlikely to change anything in the next 30 years without help. With "help" unfortunately coming to be more likely mean "help" - in changing power balances. If Iran choses to remain a pariah state if the US bombs half the cleric's forces into oblivion..that will be the will of the people of Iran just as sure as it was their will that cheered the Ayatollah into office.

You may be interested to know that Iran had its first revolution, and a constitutional government with Parliament and all, since 1905, light years before any of its neighbours. We were democrats then and we can be democrats now. Americans also helped in that fight

Yeah, and that's the pity. Persians and Azeris are light years ahead of the Arabs. And without terrorism export, missiles being stockpiled and range of new missiles expanding Irans threat outwards, nuke bombs being developed, threats of oblivion to ME nations, it's contributing to regional instability, and aggressive actions against the US - maybe we could afford to wait, and wait, and wait.
But unless Iran makes a fundamental decision to change course soon, I see tragedy, 1st from mass precision bombing, then the US arming proxies in Iran to finish toppling the dangerous Mullahs..Perhaps with nationalists that hate the US for bombing them, but the clerics have to go back to their mosques and return Iran to civilian control, if we go to war.

Hey Chris,
Thanks for your positive comments regarding the Iranian People. I can see why you fear the Iranian govt, but my question is, why should the people of Iran pay? In other words, why can't the US say "Okay, mullahs, you have 24 hours to get out of Iran, after which point we will start bombing your personal homes. You are also banned from leaving Iran, and all of your Swiss Bank accounts, Dubai holdings, and overseas property will be confiscated for belonging to terrorists." I think that would have a much better effect, without spooking the Iranian people.

Oh whoops, in my previous comment, I meant to say that the mullahs would be given 24 hours to give up power, not leave the country (because the next statement bans them from leaving the country).

Persian,

You do understand that the U.S. government doesn't have the power to confiscate Iranian assets in Switzerland and Dubai, no? And I assume you are also aware that the mullahs wouldn't heed an ultimatum to leave their country, anymore than Saddam and his sons did.

Your comment does allude to an important point: foreign governments facilitate the mullahs' hold on power, and if all the foreign governments stopped doing business with Iran, it might be possible to rein in the Iranian regime by peaceful means. But the lamentable reality is that the same countries that will condemn an attack on Iran will refuse any sanctions severe enough to get the Iranian government's attention, and thus increase the chances that such an attack will be necessary.

Hey Fred,
So you're telling me that the US hasn't confiscated OBL's stuff yet? Or that it can't temporarily block the assets of a terrorist group?
For your info, right after the hostage situation, the Carter Admin froze $30 billion of Iranian gov't money in American banks. It can be done again.
As for them leaving the country, actually, I think they would. Saddam was an irrational psycho. The mullahs are not irrational. They have no illusions. They can always pack up and go to Dubai where they will live comfortably thanks to our money-worshipping global economy.
Finally, I don't believe in sanctions, because they almost always hurt those they are supposed to help. Look at Iraq, did sanctions achieve anything aside from killing 0.5 million Iraqis? Not really, and I don't think many Iraqis are exactly grateful for the experience. I think an ultimatum would be more successful.

Persian, I'm interested to hear that there are so many Iranians who think of "Hezbollahi" as an insult. Makes sense. But I wonder how universal that sentiment is among lower-class or non-city people.

In any case, I think you're off your rocker to think that it would be helpful for the US to threaten to bomb "the mullahs" if they don't "give up power". Who are "the mullahs"? What, you just bomb every mosque? And give up power...to who? This is exactly the kind of thinking that characterized the US's invasion of Iraq, and resulted in chaos, madness, death and extremism.

Countries are ruled by structures. These structures must have constituencies -- real constituencies, built out of something more durable than "he seems like a guy I'd vote for". If we take the model of various power shifts in formerly Communist or dictatorial countries, we see that the infrastructure for the democratic transition in Poland was built by the independent labor union Solidarity. In Hungary, a free-market wing within the Communist Party served as a formal structure which took on a nationalist mantle when breaking away from Communism began to look like a reality; that ex-Communist infrastructure fragmented and became the new political reality. In Russia, too, the infrastructure was built of fractures in the Communist Party. In the Iranian Revolution of 1979, the structure that had the organizational strength to assert power in the aftermath of the Shah's collapse was the religious one. In South Korea and Taiwan, business, labor and students were key.

What is the analogous structure in today's Iran? What are the plausible coalitions of civil society groups, businessmen, students, labor? These are the things to concentrate on. Bombing is not going to accomplish anything except hardening the theocracy.

Persian,

You seem like an intelligent person, so I hate to have to point out the obvious to you, but here goes: Carter was able to freeze Iranian assets in American banks because he was the president of the United States of America; an American president does not have the power to freeze Iranian assets in Swiss banks.

Hey brooksfoe,
You make a good point, and you're right, structure is something that is currently somewhat lacking. The labor unions have been trampeled, the businessmen are strong but concentrated in the big cities, and the religious leaders, needless to say, aren't exactly the ones leading. But, the students are strong and if there will be change, they're the ones to watch. Last week, the Iranian gov shut down facebook, not because it feared iranian students posting their relationship status, but because they were using it to coordinate rallies.
By bomb the mullahs, I meant bomb their homes, not indiscriminately bomb the country.
As for the hezbollah sentiment, you have to ask yourself, why would lower-class Iranians support them? Shia brotherhood? In a country where only 18% of the population prays daily? I think not. Iranians have always had a grudge against arabs, and an arab militia that takes away hundreds of millions of Iranian money is not going to make friends. Iranians suspect that the entire war last summer was financed by Iran. Also, there are rumors in Iran that the riot police that beat up the students and protestors in demonstrations speak Arabic... i.e. they are hezbollah and Iraqi militants "training" on Iranian civilians. Makes you sick to your stomach.

Hey Fred,
Okay, forget the banking thing, just say that Interpol will arrest them the moment their foot leaves Iranian soil. You happy with that?

To those who know as much about the middle east as a yak herder in Nepal !

The two greatest Palestininian intellectuals Edward Sa id and Sari Nusseibeh said that the Palistinians had been betrayed by the Arab states ,Hamas and the PLO . Sa id wrote that only among the Israelies and Jews can you find true friends of the Palestinians .

Almost half the population of Iran is non Persian and they detest the current government. The current president , Ahmadinejad ,was beaten by moderates in the last two elelctions .

In 641-642 the Arabs conquered Persia burning and destroying their advanced culture ,

From SHAHNAMEH BY FERDOWSK (The Persian Shakespere who saved Farsi from being Arabized)

From the classic book on Persian History written by Ferdowsi, in verse , on the rape of Persia by the Arabs .


" Damn this world, damn this time, damn this fate,
That uncivilized Arabs have come to make me Muslim."


The real tragedy of Iran is the Arab disease. The spread of idiocies and evilness from the washers in camel urine to the world!!

How much wisdom, beauty and peace has the world lost because of the spread of the Arab Islamic disease!"

A message to Ahmadinejad from Iran's greatest cultural hero .

Hey Harry,
Wow, spoken like a Persian (are you one by any chance?). Ferdowsi was certainly a hero, he realized that the thousands of years of Iranian history were all at the mercy of a bunch of Arabs and Turcs (not Turkish Turks, the Central Asian kind) who wouldn't know culture if it slapped them in the face. So he did the slapping, and gave us back our national pride. The arabs still hate us for not giving in to them, for not becoming like them. Why else do you think Iranians became Shia? They didn't want to be like the rest, they didn't want to be the bitches of the Ottomans or Arabs, they wanted their Persian glory back, and if Shiaism provided them with a third way, so be it.
But now Iran is no longer unanimous with culture and sophistication, caviar or quality rugs, poetry or ancient traditions.
But there's still hope, because that's the one thing that history teaches us: wait long enough, and things will change.

Persian, while I can understand your dislike of the mullahs, don't ask for the US to do ANYTHING to "help" your country or its dissidents.

The US government is NOT interested in "helping" anybody. All they want is the Iranian oil - preferably while keeping the Iranian public from ever seeing a dime of income or value from it.

Trust me, there is no practical distinction between the US government of war criminals and your mullahs. The only reason the Christian freaks in this country haven't imposed a mullah-like theocracy here is because this country has a lot of guns in private hands, plus a lot of ornery people who don't like Christians, plus a lot of other religions who wouldn't like Christians taking over, plus - and this is the most important factor - this country has a mythology of "freedom" that has to be adhered to, even while the reality of it is being undermined at every level.

Nonetheless, anything the US government does against Iran will be directed at harming the Iranian population more than it does the mullahs. Look at the Iraqi sanctions the US supported for years. Did nothing to Saddam, but killed half a million or more Iraqis.

As for waiting long enough, this is why I suspect that Iran will win the upcoming war. The Iranians can play the "long war" routine much better than the US can. They will wage guerrilla war against our troops more effectively than even the Iraqis for the next ten years or more. They will bleed the US dry militarily, economically, and geopolitically. In the end, Iran will win and the US will lose. Just like Vietnam. Just like Iraq.

Only worse for the US.

As for Hizballah, they are Lebanese Shia nationalists. They really aren't under the control of Iran, just financed and helped by Iran. They will fight Israel when the US bombs Iran because they understand that Israel is partly behind such a war. And they understand that until Israel is taken down, or put under the control of the international community, that Lebanon will never be safe from Israeli aggression.

So cut them some slack. They are the only people standing up to Israel in the ME. The rest of the Arab states are corrupt cowards who prefer to cut deals with the US and Israel to screw their populations and the Palestinians, while failing to realize that sooner or later both the US and Israel will turn on them, overthrow and destabilize them and seize their oil.

The fact of the matter is that while you may dislike the mullahs, every country gets the government they deserve. If you can't overthrow the mullahs, it's because more people support them than not. It's the same here in the US - thirty percent or more of the nitwits support Bush, the rest support a bunch of Democrats who are barely distinguishable from the Republicans.

It's a con game that one group is better than the other.

As we anarchists say, "No matter who you vote for, the government gets in power."

Hey Richard,
On my most cynical days, I would agree with you. But I don't think people generally get the government they deserve. They do get it if there's some freedom, like here in the US. If somebody told me "Americans are too good for Bush, we deserve better" I would laugh in their face because for every one American who's out there protesting, there are 100 watching American Idol. But it's different in third world countries. In Iran, you can't protest, unless you have a) huge balls, or b) nothing to lose. People in Iran, at least 60%, really really dislike the government, not just Ahmadinejad, the whole thing. But they can't do anything about it because a) they don't wanna get shot or have their wife and children raped, and b) they already had one revolution thirty years ago and look what it got them. At this stage, most people are hoping for a slow glasnost-type transition to a better government, or an American intervention. They are not gonna go to the streets anytime soon, because they know chances are that the next leaders will be WORSE.
But I disagree that Iran will win. "Iran" will not win, only lose. The government might win, like the proverbial lion who wiped out his enemies only to find out that his kingdom consisted of he alone. But the people won't win. And I agree, sanctions are always meant to hurt the victims, not the victimizers. If Saddam had been killed by a CIA assasin that first day and a general encouraged to take over - let's just say we wouldn't have 800 thousand dead Iraqis and 4000 dead Americans now.
But things will change - because they must.

People like Fred and Chris Ford are useful because examining their comments eventually demonstrates that threats, military action, and ultimately war are not really means to ends for them, but rather the ends in themselves. And that is a useful thing to know (that there are people in our polity who crave violence for its own sake, and when they talk about other national security interests, those are merely rationalizations designed to drum up popular support for the violence that they crave).

Look, I think a lot of what Chris Ford and Fred are saying misses a key point: you keep saying the Iranian's current situation isn't the fault of Americans and that the democratic reformers need to get off their asses, or something similar (and the courage it takes to make such a statement on a blog is unquestionable, of course.)

But we can set those concerns aside, because they're immaterial. As I pointed out above, it is the stated policy of the American foreign policy apparatus to support the Iranian democratic reformers. We have a program intended to disperse millions of dollars to those people towards that end (except they won't take it.) Being as that is the case, does or doesn't it make sense to actually listen to what they have to say, particularly when it comes to helping them?

Persian,

U.S. presidents don't control Interpol either.

Freddie,

It would make sense to listen more to Iranian democracy advocates if our highest priority were supporting them, but it isn't. Our higher priorities are to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, and to stop them from fomenting violence in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere.

It's been almost thirty years and his fellow democracy advocates haven't done squat; responsibility for their country's internal politics rests with them.

Wow, talk about blaming the victim.

If the Iraqis fail to come to a political consensus democratically, they will have failed under a constitution their representatives wrote and they ratified, and with parties they elected.

This is false of course, since the Sunni provinces voted against the constitution by overwhelming margins, in the 90% range. Yet they are still considered to be part of a unified Iraq under that same constitution.

One can argue that preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is indeed a higher priority -- although you'll note that the Pentagon itself seems very pessimistic about our ability to do this militarily. But bombing the bejeezus out of Iran -- and thus alienating its people wholesale -- in order to "stop them from fomenting violence in Iraq, Lebanon, and elsewhere" is the equivalent of using hand grenades to kill the cockroaches in your apartment. (For that matter, if this administration DOES decide to stage a bombing assault against Iran's nuclear facilities, I suspect they'll futz it up irreparably by insisting on mixing this with massive bombings of other places in Iran in order to "destabilize the government" and "encourage a popular uprising". Seymour Hersh has already said that they're seriously considering this, and it's just idiotic enough to appeal to them.)

As for Yglesias suppsosedly "criticizing Israel more than he does Iran": please, Fred. We all know already that Iran is a loathsome religious dictatorship, which means that there's not that much more for him to say about it. Criticizing it at this point is about as informative as harping on the fact that Down's children are stupid. Israel, on the other hand -- while vastly more democratic, as we also all already know -- is currently the subject of a lot of uncritical admiration of its supposed strategic acumen among American politicians and opinion-makers, which gives Yglesias something that's actually important to say on that subject.

myinventube@www.inventube.com

Persian, when I say Iran will win, I mean it in the sense that if the guerrilla does not lose, he wins.

The US cannot defeat Iran except by nuking it into the Stone Age - which itself would horrify the world and make the US a pariah state. Excepting that approach, the US military, already losing in Iraq, can only lose big time in Iran.

Sure, the Iranian people will be killed by the scores and hundreds of thousands - just like the Iraqis have been. The Iranian economy and infrastructure will be destroyed.

But Iran will still win because ten or fifteen years from now, the US will be gone from Iraq and Iran - and Iran and its people - under whatever form of government - will remain. And they will be the enemies of the US, even if the mullahs are replaced - because of what the US did during the war. Just as the Iraqi people will never support the US in the future - not in this generation, anyway.

"If Saddam had been killed by a CIA assasin that first day and a general encouraged to take over - let's just say we wouldn't have 800 thousand dead Iraqis and 4000 dead Americans now."

Well, while that would have been the smart thing to do, it would also never have happened. Because the goal was always to attack Iraq and seize the oil.

And that's the goal in Iran. Keep that in mind. Bush and company don't give a damn about the Iranian people. They want "regime change" - not to overthrow the mullahs - but to put their own puppets in power who will give them the oil on their terms.

It's that simple. So any Iranian supporting the US pressure on Iran is just aiding and abetting a state which is just as determined to oppress the Iranian people as the mullahs are - just in a different way.

People DO get the government they deserve. If you don't have the nerve and the organizing ability to overthrow your own government, you simply get a government that doesn't meet your needs. This is as true in Iran as it is in the US. The problem in the US is not that we don't have guns, or that the US military has tanks and fighter planes and nukes, or that we have a huge law enforcement establishment. We simply have a population that is blind to what is done in its name and more, doesn't care - until they're directly screwed by it. And even then, they don't have the nerve or the knowledge to resist effectively.

This is true in most of history. It's only when a country is ground down to the basics that it revolts and brings down its state.

Iran has enough economic improvements and enough technical "freedom" that the bulk of the population, engaged in their own lives, just aren't ready to take up arms and fight to the death for freedom. And even if the US bombs Iran into the Stone Age, most people are going to blame the US, not the mullahs - because the mullahs are NOT to blame. Because the mullahs didn't develop nuclear weapons, or support terrorism, or any of the other excuses the US will use to start the war.

A few Iranians may buy into those lies. But most will understand the reality - the US is attacking Iran because it wants to dominate the ME because of oil.

It's that simple. And everybody with a brain knows it.

So very few people in Iran are going to use a US attack to overthrow the mullahs. That would be stupid - certainly not without a practical opposition party that could both replace the existing political infrastructure AND also find a way to keep the US from doing what it intends to do - seize the oil and screw the Iranian nation.

So any US attack will consolidate the clerics power, and harden the Iranian people against the US - just like Iraq.

And Iran will win that one - just like Iraq will win that one. Both countries will pay an awful price for that win. But the US will lose. The US will not get the oil, and it will be bled dry militarily, economically and geopolitically.

And that is a loss the US - and the US public who has allowed this state to exist and to do this sort of thing - will deserve.

Hmmm that's a lot to ponder over. You left out war for the heck of it, though, and I think that also motivates much of the discussion.
Personally, I don't see why anyone would want to use nukes. I mean, aside from the sheer repulsiveness of the act, manufacturing nukes is pretty cheap for a country, while tanks, aircraft carriers, new missiles, B52 bombers... those are where the money is.


Comments closed October 07, 2007.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.