PDA

View Full Version : Does Iran have any armed opposition?



Jews4Peace
22 Sep 08,, 16:18
Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?

snapper
22 Sep 08,, 16:57
Kurds for one...

Dreadnought
22 Sep 08,, 17:48
Kurds for one...

Half the civilized world for another.:))

zraver
22 Sep 08,, 18:22
Iran has several armed groups operatign inside its borders, some they claim are US supported. Most are small and the nation does enjoy a high level of national identity so unravelling the country via internl dissent is not really an option. Besides within 20 years the IRGC will start a civil war on its own when it moves to replace the clerics as the supreme authority. Might be as soon as when the current supreme leader dies.

Traxus
23 Sep 08,, 21:51
Iran has several armed groups operatign inside its borders, some they claim are US supported. Most are small and the nation does enjoy a high level of national identity so unravelling the country via internl dissent is not really an option. Besides within 20 years the IRGC will start a civil war on its own when it moves to replace the clerics as the supreme authority. Might be as soon as when the current supreme leader dies.

Pretty much what I was going to say. The US is probably supporting insurgents in Iran, particularly Sunni groups. But Iran has been a single nation with roughly its current boarders for a very, very long time. These insurgents will be at most a thorn in the side of the government; they will never gain widespread support even from their own ethnic groups, and Iran is not going to splinter into several nations, just not going to happen.

zraver, why do you say the IRGC will try to oust the clerics within 20 years?

1980s
12 Oct 08,, 00:14
Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?

Interesting choice of screen name, 'Jews4Peace', yet floating ideas about arming and training potential terrorists, lol. So much for being 'Jews4Peace' huh?

There are several token armed 'resistance' and separatist groups in Iran. None of them are a serious threat to the regime or to the territorial integrity of Iran. And none of them are stupid enough to co-operate with Israel if they want to have even a shred of credibility with ordinary Iranians or the Iranians they claim to represent.

Just look at what happened to the MEK/MKO/PMOI when it sided with Saddam. Lost any last bit of credibility it might have once had with Iranians.

So, sorry. You're out of luck. Iranians wont side with Israel, not even the anti-regime or secessionist terrorist groups.

T_igger_cs_30
12 Oct 08,, 00:16
Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?

You think this has not been tried and done before? and is ongoing now not just by the US.

1980s
12 Oct 08,, 00:27
Besides within 20 years the IRGC will start a civil war on its own when it moves to replace the clerics as the supreme authority. Might be as soon as when the current supreme leader dies.

Its a possibility, but a slim one. You underestimate the fanaticism and commitment of IRGC cadre to Islam and the Islamic Revolution. Afterall, that is what they exist for. It had been claimed and predicted before that the Islamic Republic was built around the personality cult of the Imam Khomeini, and that it would collapse after him. 20 years after Khomeini's death and the I.R has never been in a stronger position.

Once Ayatollah Khamenei dies the Islamic system in Iran might undergo somewhat of a reform. But i think its wishful thinking on your part that the IRGC would attempt to take control of the country.

Iranian society is not like American society. Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation. These are the kinds of people a hardcore military like the IRGC would attract. People who are genuinely ideologically committed. Not people who are 'looking to make a buck or two'.

Mercenary
14 Oct 08,, 09:55
Kurds for one...

arming the kurds would be akin to kicking turkey on its balls..

US/israel isn't stupid enough to do that - they'll pretty much be looking at another hostile nation in the region

snapper
14 Oct 08,, 11:55
arming the kurds would be akin to kicking turkey on its balls..

US/israel isn't stupid enough to do that - they'll pretty much be looking at another hostile nation in the region

I am not suggesting that we should support Kurds in Turkey yet for the last part of Saddams time we basicaly supported a semi-autonimous kurdish state in the north of Iraq. The same could possibly be done in Iran...

Mercenary
14 Oct 08,, 11:59
I am not suggesting that we should support Kurds in Turkey yet for the last part of Saddams time we basicaly supported a semi-autonimous kurdish state in the north of Iraq. The same could possibly be done in Iran...

Supporting kurds anywhere is pretty much going to incite armed rebellions in all kurd territories regardless of country.... the arms given to a section of kurds would find its way to the ones the turkish forces are fighting..

xerxes
15 Oct 08,, 17:22
Iranian society is not like American society. Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation. These are the kinds of people a hardcore military like the IRGC would attract. People who are genuinely ideologically committed. Not people who are 'looking to make a buck or two'.

I do not think, the ideological commitment of the Revolutionary Guards are being questioned here, rather their commitment to a 'new' supreme leader.

In my opinion, the Guards have the belief that only 'they' are fitted to guard the nation, the fruits of revolution and the memory of the Imam, hence they will move to acquire more power with time against the clerics who are fatten with money and wealth. You are right that the Guards have their fanaticism and commitment in regards to Islam and the Islamic Revolution, but only 'they' are worthy enough - in their view - to continue that path that was set 27 years ago. That is my view.

S2
15 Oct 08,, 17:47
They've been anointed as the revolution's "praetorian guard". Certainly, there could be vanity and, perhaps, an elitist and (therefore) entitled sense attached to this status with some. If so, that's a potential source of political perversion.

"Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation."

Perhaps we've just identified one of those vain and elitist types here. 1980s might wish to take a deep breath here and re-assess his perspective. This one is chuck full of holes and renders a decisive slam of it's own accord to his/her credibility.

As to more "base" motivations, don't assume that IRGC status renders one invulnerable. In point of fact, there are economic numbers around here somewhere proffered by Zraver, IIRC, that indicate that the largest "corporate" entity in Iran may just be the IRGC. My suspicion is that the insidious intersection of money and power may have it's usual corrosive influence regardless of the projected image of ideological zeal that may be assumed by the IRGC.

zraver
15 Oct 08,, 18:30
Its a possibility, but a slim one. You underestimate the fanaticism and commitment of IRGC cadre to Islam and the Islamic Revolution. Afterall, that is what they exist for.[quote]

Get off your high horse there sport. Ever heard of the Mamluks? The Janniseries? Both were created to serve the state and God, both rebelled, both were Islamic. If you give a group poltical, military, and economic power it will not long remain content with being 2nd.

[quote]It had been claimed and predicted before that the Islamic Republic was built around the personality cult of the Imam Khomeini, and that it would collapse after him. 20 years after Khomeini's death and the I.R has never been in a stronger position.

I'm not arguing sociology, but what history says.


Iranian society is not like American society. Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation. These are the kinds of people a hardcore military like the IRGC would attract. People who are genuinely ideologically committed. Not people who are 'looking to make a buck or two'.

You don't understand America at all. We don't have religious police, we go to church because we want to, we give alms because we want to, we pray because we want to. Your view of my nation is probalby colored by Hollywood so its understandable. But look for the truth, the firefighters who went up the Twin towers when every one else was coming down, or the Otis Elevator tech from another building who used to work at the WTC who went with them- liberal New Yorkers almost everyone of them who may or may not have believed in God. Or their chaplain one of the first fire fighters to die at the WTC. Or the American medic who rushed on to a bridge over the Tigris in 2003 to pull a woman trapped in the cross fire to safety, of the hundreds of millions of dollars and millions of hours donated to charity each year. Or the fact that no large US unit has broken in combat in almost 60 years. Or the whistle blowers who risk all to expose corruption and lawbreaking. WE don't need guardians of the revolution because every American is by right and ability such a person. Not all will take on this role, but millions do, as we will again in just under 3 weeks. When 60+ million of us will take to the polls electing every one from local school board members to the President.

Ironduke
15 Oct 08,, 22:30
Since so many of our troops are stuck in Iraq, an attack on Iran would not follow the same method as the one on Iraq, in order to spare the use of troops there, we should try arming and training oppositional groups in Iran. Just the only problem is, is there any oppositional military in Iran? How powerful are they? Are they willing to cooperate with the United States and Israel? Do they support democracy? What are the name of those opposition groups?
Iran doesn't have any major armed opposition groups, though it does have two military arms who beyond the Supreme Leader are independent of one another, the Revolutionary Guards and the regular military. The Revolutionary Guards answers only to the Supreme Leader, and often pursues actions and policies that are contradictory to those of the elected portion of the Iranian government, the Maljis and the President.

It is a rather dichotomous setup, but I don't think this division can be realistically exploited by external forces. Any perception of foreign involvement/direction by the Iranians will result in complete failure of any oppositional movement. Again, if the Iranian people believe there is foreign influence upon the actors attempting to exact a change in the political system, they will reject those actors. Thus a political change can only take place in an environment that is free from foreign involvement and must be entirely homegrown.

The Iranian people are very conscious of the US-backed 1953 coup against Mossadeq and American (and even Israeli support) of the Shah and his repressive, brutal policies. It is a very emotional issue for them just as the 1979-81 hostage crisis is for Americans.

Groups in Iran such as the pragmatists (e.g. Rasfanjani) and reformists (e.g. Khatami) completely denounce any efforts by outside parties to effect a change in Iranian policy. Just a few days ago there was a meeting between Khatami and former/current EU/UN leaders, and Khatami instantly and bitterly denounced suggestions that such a meeting constituted an endorsement for him to run again for President against Ahmadinejad in 2009.

Most people in Iran do support democracy, and Iran already has a few democratic institutions, though combined with autocratic institutions that can overrule the parliament and President. The vast majority of Iranians would prefer that the Supreme Leader be elected. So there is no need to find oppositional groups to support democracy because the support is already there. Though the press in Iran is not entirely free, there is however a marked amount of freedom and a wide range of opinion, including dissident, that is tolerated.

Personally, I believe that best policy with regards to Iran is to not to make statements or undertake actions that serve to strengthen the hands of the hardliners. Remember, Iran was for all practical purposes a US ally, fully supporting the US-led NATO intervention in Afghanistan. There were face-to-face meetings between high level US and Iranian officials that are now a subject of debate with regards to "preconditions" between McCain and Obama. The thawing of relations that began to trickle in the late Clinton Administration serendipitously turned to a flood in the first year of the Bush Administration, during the aftermath of 9/11. All evidence points to Iran under the reformist President Khatami seeking to re-establish diplomatic relations with the US with the blessing of the Supreme Leader, and perhaps a re-alignment even more favorable than that. In 2001, circumstances existed that could have effected a nearly 180 degree turnaround in US-Iranian relations, the possibility of which was then destroyed by the "Axis of Evil" statement in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address. This missed opportunity is very regrettable, for at that point in time I believe the stars aligned and there existed a window for a "Nixon to China" moment. It also served to make the 2005 triumph of the hardliners under Ahmadinejad inevitable.

Since then, there have been a number of complications that have re-driven the wedge between the US and Iran, such as the Iranian nuclear program as well as material and other support to Shi'ite militias in Iraq. It might be a number of years before the circumstances again exist for a US-Iranian reconciliation.

xerxes
17 Oct 08,, 00:02
Good post, Ironduke!


Iran doesn't have any major armed opposition groups, though it does have two military arms who beyond the Supreme Leader are independent of one another, the Revolutionary Guards and the regular military. The Revolutionary Guards answers only to the Supreme Leader, and often pursues actions and policies that are contradictory to those of the elected portion of the Iranian government, the Maljis and the President.

Technically, all armed forces - regular or otherwise - go to the office of supreme leader. Though, the president of the republic presides over the national security council. But, I am not sure how much weight and relevence, the latter office technically has.

I would say however, (based on what I understand), the president and the Guards hold the same agenda (whatever that is), and when I say president, I do not mean the office of the president of republic, but rather the man who currently is the the president. If I had to guess, I would put him as the spokesman of group of conservative hardliners who have a different political alignment than that of supreme leader.


The Iranian people are very conscious of the US-backed 1953 coup against Mossadeq and American (and even Israeli support) of the Shah and his repressive, brutal policies. It is a very emotional issue for them just as the 1979-81 hostage crisis is for Americans.

Strongly agreed, and I do admit that we as Iranians must acknowledge the wrong-doings of the 1979-81 hostage crisis in its own right, rather than linking it to '53 coup.


Most people in Iran do support democracy, and Iran already has many genuinely democratic institutions, though combined with autocratic institutions that can overrule the parliament and President. The vast majority of Iranians would prefer that the Supreme Leader be elected. So there is no need to find oppositional groups to support democracy because the support is already there. Though the press in Iran is not entirely free, there is however a marked amount of freedom and a wide range of opinion, including dissident, that is tolerated.

We do have certain democratically institutions under the current government and I would add that (IIRC) that we had a parliament and a constitutional monarch as early as early 1900s under the Qajar. Though, my history is a bit foggy in that time in regards to Iran.


Personally, I believe that best policy with regards to Iran is to not to make statements or undertake actions that serve to strengthen the hands of the hardliners. Remember, Iran was for all practical purposes a US ally, fully supporting the US-led NATO intervention in Afghanistan. There were face-to-face meetings between high level US and Iranian officials that are now a subject of debate with regards to "preconditions" between McCain and Obama. The thawing of relations that began to trickle in the late Clinton Administration serendipitously turned to a flood in the first year of the Bush Administration, during the aftermath of 9/11. All evidence points to Iran under the reformist President Khatami seeking to re-establish diplomatic relations with the US with the blessing of the Supreme Leader, and perhaps a re-alignment even more favorable than that. In 2001, circumstances existed that could have effected a nearly 180 degree turnaround in US-Iranian relations, the possibility of which was then destroyed by the "Axis of Evil" statement in Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address. This missed opportunity is very regrettable, for at that point in time I believe the stars aligned and there existed a window for a "Nixon to China" moment. It also served to make the 2005 triumph of the hardliners under Ahmadinejad inevitable.

Since then, there have been a number of complications that have re-driven the wedge between the US and Iran, such as the Iranian nuclear program as well as material and other support to Shi'ite militias in Iraq. It might be a number of years before the circumstances again exist for a US-Iranian reconciliation.

Agreed. I do strongly believe that one bad deed, one bad comment between two hostile nations can undo a legion of good deeds that was built in good faith in a very short time. That is human nature.

Most people, like to stand up to what they perceive to be the bully, for right or wrong reasons. In times of great conflict, people will support their leader no matter how radical he might be, because they perceive that the cause is just. History tells us that it may not matter at all when facing a strong power, but that still is human nature and thereby applies.

Look at Georgia, however crazy is their president, did we expect to see anything less than full support from Georgian people toward their president when he faced the bully? Eventhough clearly, it was Georgia who initiated the attack and it was Georgia who was at fault.

1980s
17 Oct 08,, 02:48
I do not think, the ideological commitment of the Revolutionary Guards are being questioned here, rather their commitment to a 'new' supreme leader.

In my opinion, the Guards have the belief that only 'they' are fitted to guard the nation, the fruits of revolution and the memory of the Imam, hence they will move to acquire more power with time against the clerics who are fatten with money and wealth. You are right that the Guards have their fanaticism and commitment in regards to Islam and the Islamic Revolution, but only 'they' are worthy enough - in their view - to continue that path that was set 27 years ago. That is my view.

The apparent personality cult of Ayatollah Khamenei is being over-played and over-exaggerated here by people who frankly do not have first-hand information on what life and society is like in Iran, much less about the workings and organisation of the IRGC (which the average Iranian is unlikely to know about either, including myself obviously). It is also being incorrectly assumed that aside from Khamenei there are no other members of the religious establishment who have any clout or involvement with the IRGC. Why make this assumption? The Islamic Republic has many different organs/chambers of government and a complex system of checks and balances. Unlike what some people may want to believe, Iran is not a dictatorship, and not all akhoonds are ignorant, corrupt or uneducated buffoons. The clerical establishment is very well in tune with what is happening throughout the country since they are the ones who oversee everything. And i will repeat that the IRGC is loyal to the system, and to the ideology of the revolution. Not to an individual 'leader'. The clerics are the core of the system Khomeini brought in.

People were wrong about the personality-cult of Khomeini being the backbone of the Islamic Republic, and i am sure that these same people are also now wrong about the alleged personality-cult of Khamenei being the only peg that keeps the IRGC loyal to the system. Btw, Khamenei does not even have a fraction of the following that Khomeini had. What makes anyone think that the IRGC is loyal to him personally? And that once he is gone they'll have no loyalty to his successor? (Assuming there will be one).


In point of fact, there are economic numbers around here somewhere proffered by Zraver, IIRC, that indicate that the largest "corporate" entity in Iran may just be the IRGC. My suspicion is that the insidious intersection of money and power may have it's usual corrosive influence regardless of the projected image of ideological zeal that may be assumed by the IRGC.

They're powerful, there's not doubt about it. They control businesses, newspapers and so on. But you're again missing the point that it is not the IRGC who are operating these independently. They are doing it with the support and collusion of the clerical establishment. Much to the chagrin of the Majles no doubt.


If you give a group poltical, military, and economic power it will not long remain content with being 2nd.

They have no independent political power. Their power is derived from the establishment, of which they are apart of. The IRGC cannot be separated from the mullahs or replace them. For the IRGC generals to "take control" of Iran it is not the mullahs they will have to replace, but the actual Islamic Republic. The clerical establishment is central to this system, and like i said before they operate in several different chambers of government which all have checks on eachother (including the post of Supreme Leader). The mullahs cannot be replaced and the system still remain. An IRGC attempt at a take-over would be a revolution. Its simply not going to happen.


Since then, there have been a number of complications that have re-driven the wedge between the US and Iran, such as the Iranian nuclear program as well as material and other support to Shi'ite militias in Iraq. It might be a number of years before the circumstances again exist for a US-Iranian reconciliation.

The Iranian government has made it clear before that restoration of diplomatic ties between Iran and the US rests solely with the US government. The US severed ties with Iran, only they can re-establish them. So the obstacle here is with the American government, not the Iranian government or with Ayatalloah Khamenei. It is too often misreported that Iran is blocking or stalling on resumption of diplomatic ties with the US. The fact is, its the other way around.

What the American media i believe deliberately tries to spin on Iran is the Islamic Republic's refusal to recognize Israel and then to falsely relate this to the non-existence of US-Iran relations. But this is simply, incorrect. The two are unrelated, at least, from the Iranian perspective. I dont know how the US government relates the two. Altho im sure that certain lobby groups active in the US tie them together.

xerxes
17 Oct 08,, 02:59
1980,

When we say 'takeover by IRGC', we (I at least) do not really mean an open "takeover" or the open abolition of the supreme leader position or an open coup d'etat by the Guards, but a gradual shift of power toward in the hands of the Guards who may not see eye to eye with the cleric-turned-businessmen. That is my perspective.

Ironduke
17 Oct 08,, 09:24
Good post, Ironduke!
Thank you.

Technically, all armed forces - regular or otherwise - go to the office of supreme leader. Though, the president of the republic presides over the national security council. But, I am not sure how much weight and relevence, the latter office technically has.

I would say however, (based on what I understand), the president and the Guards hold the same agenda (whatever that is), and when I say president, I do not mean the office of the president of republic, but rather the man who currently is the the president. If I had to guess, I would put him as the spokesman of group of conservative hardliners who have a different political alignment than that of supreme leader.
You're right, Ahmadinejad is a former Guardsman. They probably paid no mind to Khatami whatsoever.

We do have certain democratically institutions under the current government and I would add that (IIRC) that we had a parliament and a constitutional monarch as early as early 1900s under the Qajar. Though, my history is a bit foggy in that time in regards to Iran.
I think the Iranian parliament may have been heavily oligarchic back then as the British Parliament once was.

Castellano
17 Oct 08,, 17:56
Interesting choice of screen name, 'Jews4Peace', yet floating ideas about arming and training potential terrorists, lol.

Not necessarily ‘terrorists’. The Iranian Regime poses a fundamental challenge for the dignity of Human Beings. The implications of said challenge go well beyond the question of law abiding or even State allegiance. If I were an Iranian living in Iran, the Iranian State would be my de-facto enemy and I would work to undermine it.

When the Nazis began rounding-up homosexuals, leftists and other ‘anti-social’ ‘elements’ to send them to concentration camps for ‘re-education’, a group of SAs came to detain a member of the Social-Democratic party at his home. He was waiting for them in front of his door with an axe, and took down four of them before being taken down himself . He was no terrorist. On the contrary, he was asserting his fundamental freedom.

A few thousand of men like that social-democrat might have taken down the beast before it created the catastrophe it created. So returning to Iran, some C-4 is problably what the Holocaust cartoon contest venue deserved. I think I would have been a good idea to wait until there were no people inside and turn it into rubble. Not because the despicability of that event, but because Iran is not a free market of ideas, and critics of the regime are silenced. It would have been a nice way of expressing dissent.


There are several token armed 'resistance' and separatist groups in Iran. None of them are a serious threat to the regime or to the territorial integrity of Iran. And none of them are stupid enough to co-operate with Israel if they want to have even a shred of credibility with ordinary Iranians or the Iranians they claim to represent.


So ordinary iranians strongly oppose Israel. I wonder what the grievance could be, what has Israel done to the iranian people to deserve such staunch opposition. One would think that there is a religious motivation, that Islam as understood by its followers simply would not tolerate the political independence of the Jewish people in land they consider islamic. I actually think the problem might run deeper than that.

Anyway, while I don’t doubt the basic premise of your assertion, just for the record, I happen to know an Iranian who openly supports Israel, and organizes rallies in London against the Iranian regime that are attended by quite a few Iranians in exile, which proves he does have credibility among some Iranians.

Castellano
17 Oct 08,, 18:54
Iranian society is not like American society. Iranians do not think like Americans do either. People in Iran actually believe in God, religion and patriotism - without needing the incentive of money, power and personal accumulation. These are the kinds of people a hardcore military like the IRGC would attract. People who are genuinely ideologically committed. Not people who are 'looking to make a buck or two'.

Really?

Iranian society has undergone the most dramatic transformation of its entire history in the last 100 years, and it has nothing to do with the Islamic 'Revolution'. Nothing, not even the forced adoption of Islam centuries ago, comes close. The vector for said transformation has been the adoption of what one might call modernity or 'western' way, which is of course adopted at all levels even if there is a explicit discourse in denial.

So you might be confusing the realities of Iranian society with how Iranian society is fooling itself.

And actually, perhaps due to what I regard as an unfortunate and reprehensible intervention to impose the Shah, is the particular American flavor of modernity that has been emulated in Iran if I'm not wrong.

I bet the favorite movie of Iranian kids in the 1980s was Star Wars. Which implies they do like movies in general as well.

And speaking of the IRGC, I imagine its members use PCs, which run Operating Systems and do browse the internet.
Now, since officials such Javad Shamqadri, art advisor to Ahmadinejad, has advanced the idea that the film "300" was an insult to Persian culture and in line with the American "psychological war" against Iran, and there are plenty of wild theories coming from Iran about zionist conspiracies in other movie scripts, I wonder if these people consider that the tentacles of the zionist conspiracy go all the way to their Intel processors and their NT based kernel.

Are they ignorant? Or they know it and their parasitism is entirely hypocritical?

zraver
17 Oct 08,, 19:11
Not necessarily ‘terrorists’. The Iranian Regime poses a fundamental challenge for the dignity of Human Beings. The implications of said challenge go well beyond the question of law abiding or even State allegiance. If I were an Iranian living in Iran, the Iranian State would be my de-facto enemy and I would work to undermine it.

What fundamental challenge does it pose? The US resisted change for the better part of 200 years and now is likely to get its first minority president, Holland kept millions in bondage until WW2 broke them now they are ultra liberal. What makes Iran so different that it requires a revolution vs reform?

Is Iran's government based on the rule of law? Yes it is and laws can be changed by the political process. We must remember Iran is still on its 2nd leader as an Islamic republic, the revolution is still a living memory event. Iran's biggest threat is the guards, they are the most likely force to undermine the goals of the revolution and the rule of law inside Iran.

At least the clerics have checks and balances set up. The Guards who have the most money and the most guns are not. Increasing/starting armed opposition inside Iran only empowers the guards. We need to find away to strengthen the clerics without directly interfering in the process. The Clerics are conservative when it comes to armed confrontation, but have many moderate and liberal sub factions when it comes to reform.

Castellano
17 Oct 08,, 20:03
What fundamental challenge does it pose?

Reading "The Satanic Verses". It's only one example, but I think is telling enough to comprehensibly describe an entire system.


The US resisted change for the better part of 200 years and now is likely to get its first minority president,

Excuse me, exactly why would it be a change that Obama actually wins the election? There is an underlying racist assumption in that thought. I'm aware that until very recently, perhaps just now, a black didn't have a chance of actually wining, but the fact that a half black has a very good chance to win, means that American society has already changed. And it ain't likely that is ever coming back. Obama The Candidate is but a manifestation.

The real sign of normality would be to dismiss these considerations and concentrate in the actual policies. I fear that much the support Obama draws is just an expression of 'wanting to have good conscience' so to speak. I find him likable but his discourse is rhetorical, I for one don't know his actual international policies. Do you?

Does he?




Holland kept millions in bondage until WW2 broke them now they are ultra liberal.

WW2 wasn't in vain


What makes Iran so different that it requires a revolution vs reform?

I'm not actually advocating revolution or not necessarily, just making the mental exercise of imagining myself there. I know I would be prone to clash. I confess I don't have the knowledge to judge whether reform from within is possible.


Is Iran's government based on the rule of law?

Yes, the rule of law that has perpetrated more than 4000 judicial executions of homosexuals since the 'Revolution' took power.


Yes it is and laws can be changed by the political process.

I hope you are right. The question is then how many people are they going to kill until they see the light.

zraver
17 Oct 08,, 20:27
Reading "The Satanic Verses". It's only one example, but I think is telling enough to comprehensibly describe an entire system.

Its a book, its not even academic but opinion.


Excuse me, exactly why would it be a change that Obama actually wins the election? There is an underlying racist assumption in that thought. I'm aware that until very recently, perhaps just now, a black didn't have a chance of actually wining, but the fact that a half black has a very good chance to win, means that American society has already changed. And it ain't likely that is ever coming back. Obama The Candidate is but a manifestation.

The real sign of normality would be to dismiss these considerations and concentrate in the actual policies. I fear that much the support Obama draws is just an expression of 'wanting to have good conscience' so to speak. I find him likable but his discourse is rhetorical, I for one don't know his actual international policies. Do you?

It took the US centuries to get a minority to the position where they might win the White House, and yes there still are issues that need to be dealt, but less than there were last year. We are improving and thats the point. Outside of the Guards Iran is improving. Khatami was a genuine moderate reformer. The conservatives blocked him but he was elected. Even A-jad was elected on a reform platform.


WW2 wasn't in vain

Never said it was, it was an illustration that Holland is not in a position to tell Iran how it should live. The Iranian constitution was chosen by plebiscite.


I'm not actually advocating revolution or not necessarily, just making the mental exercise of imagining myself there. I know I would be prone to clash. I confess I don't have the knowledge to judge whether reform from within is possible.

We've already seen that it is possible. The clerics who went from leading a religious movement to governing a nation have gone very conservative as far as confrontation goes. It's the guards and the power they wield that is the problem.


Yes, the rule of law that has perpetrated more than 4000 judicial executions of homosexuals since the 'Revolution' took power.

And made Iranian women the best educated in the middle east and granted universal suffrage.Iran has a long way to go to get to western standards, but I am not sure that is the right path for Iran. Their law and legal tradition is based on Sharia. When was the last witch burned in Holland? Iran's transition from religious law to secular law will have to occur on thier timetable. It took Europe a mess of civil wars to do it. Hopefully Iran can avoid that, although i don't think they can.


I hope you are right. The question is then how many people are they going to kill until they see the light.

Who knows, but probably fewer than the Catholic Church killed.

Castellano
17 Oct 08,, 21:07
Its a book, its not even academic but opinion

That's right, just a book. And potential readers in Iran risk being hanged.



it was an illustration that Holland is not in a position to tell Iran how it should live

At all times I try to transcend a merely national view in my outlook. As you also said, much of Europe was destroyed among other things to establish certain points.


Iran's transition from religious law to secular law will have to occur on thier timetable.

South American independence leader Simón Bolivar once said about the newly created countries what sounds like a wise advice: let us do our middle ages at our own pace.

Iran taking care of its own destiny is one thing. The problem is that Iran meddles outside its borders, often aggressively.



Who knows, but probably fewer than the Catholic Church killed.

And the Inquisition didn't have nukes either.

zraver
18 Oct 08,, 00:36
That's right, just a book. And potential readers in Iran risk being hanged.

Hardly a new phenom



Iran taking care of its own destiny is one thing. The problem is that Iran meddles outside its borders, often aggressively.

You mean like the US,UK,Russia, China err the rest of the world does?


And the Inquisition didn't have nukes either.

tell that to the Cathars.

1980s
21 Oct 08,, 23:10
So ordinary iranians strongly oppose Israel.

They oppose foreign meddling and interference in the country.


Anyway, while I don’t doubt the basic premise of your assertion, just for the record, I happen to know an Iranian who openly supports Israel, and organizes rallies in London against the Iranian regime that are attended by quite a few Iranians in exile, which proves he does have credibility among some Iranians.

Im talking about the people in the country. Outside of Iran there are numerous anti-IR organisations and activists and have been since the "victory of the Islamic Revolution" as the regime calls it.