Endgame in Iran?

[Bigfella]

As was the case during the election, there is a danger of translating what we want into what we think might happen. The real question is just how effective the sort of violence the Iranian state can deploy will be. As some people observed after the election - something is broken in Iran that repression & fear cannot fully mend. The question is how much longer it can be held together.

This piece isn't especially insightful, but the line at the end seems to capture the position Iran's leaders have placed themselves in. Lets hope it does end now. The longer this drags on the bloodier it will get.

Steve Clemons

Publisher of "The Washington Note"

Khamenei is the New Shah: There Will Be (More) Blood

Ayatollah Khamenei's legitimacy as Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran is at a very fragile moment and being challenged by Iranian citizens throughout the nation, according to reports streaming in, despite media controls and a Western press blackout.

To see a very disturbing video in which men who were going to be hanged appeared to be saved by citizens in the streets, watch this clip.

Reform presidential candidate Mir Hossen Mousavi's nephew was killed today in clashes with police. There is no easy way now for the opposition to back down and wait for a more appropriate time to move their advocates and followers into the street.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has become the new Shah -- hated by so many within the country that it seems implausible that Iranian elites will ever be able to operate without much distrust and fear of each other.

The United States needs to be very cautious -- and not do anything on the ground in Iran that would allow the incumbent government to to evade "the death to the dictator" chants directed at it by distracting the country with evidence of credible external interventions.

This phase in Iran's next revolution could subside again before an even larger explosion by embedded protesters. It's just too hard to tell at this moment.

But as Iran expert Barbara Slavin just wrote to me, things don't look good for Khamenei and his government. She wrote to me via Facebook: "[Khamenei] is stuck. If he begins to compromise, he's lost -- and if he doesn't, he's lost."

Steve Clemons: Khamenei is the New Shah: There Will Be (More) Blood

[Chunder]

10 people reported killed in unrest on Sunday.
Foreign Media coverage has been banned.

Opposition leader's nephew was murdered.

[Merlin]

[AFP]

[Countezero]

It certainly doesn't look good in Iran, at the moment, and I can't help but think a strike at this time would only make things worse and give the govt. even more of a reason to crack down and tighten the screws. Does anybody know the latest on Israel's claim that it will hit before the end of the year? That's just a few days away.

[Merlin]

It looks like Iran's Khamenei/Ahmadinejad government has passed the point of no return. This occurs when more crack downs just lead to more anti-government violent protests in a number of cities. This is getting close to a general uprising.

[captain]

Iranian Press TV released the following story on Saturday last.

Looks a bit like the Mullahs are desperate to focus attention on a perceived external threat and hope the populace will do the same.
The last sentence is the punch line.

Does anyone know if this is legit and if so, do the Israelis have these meetings regularly?

Israel summons envoys from all over the world
Sat, 26 Dec 2009 01:59:39 GMT

Israel's ambassadors and consuls generals from all over the world have been summoned to attend a conference to be held over global challenges facing Israel.

The meeting to be attended in Jerusalem Al-Quds on December 27-31 is hosted by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, headed by Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, the ministry reported on its website.

"The idea is to facilitate direct dialogue with the country's leaders, mutual updates on major diplomatic issues, and a discussion of action plans to deal with the challenges awaiting Israel in the international arena in the coming year, including the Iranian threat," it said.

This is while Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called a report by the UN Human Rights Council's Gaza commission a real threat to Israel.

The UN Special Rappoteur for the occupied Palestinian Territories has also urged western powers to push Israel to end its blockade of the Gaza Strip immediately. Richard Falk also called for economic sanctions against Israel.

This is the first time a conference for all of Israel's heads of missions has been held.

Benyamin Netanyahu will also attend the conference along with Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Minister of Intelligence and Atomic Energy Dan Meridor, and other senior officials.

Source; Israel summons envoys from all over the world

Cheers.

[Countezero]

Looks a bit like the Mullahs are desperate to focus attention on a perceived external threat and hope the populace will do the same.

It is worth considering that a strike could very well strengthen the regime, and as a result, set back Iranian democracy years.

[Dreadnought]

Just imagine if Sharon we still alive. Iran would have never made it thus far with its threats and rhetoric.;)

[Dreadnought]

It is worth considering that a strike could very well strengthen the regime, and as a result, set back Iranian democracy years.

To deny that regime a tool to threaten not only Israel but others as well would be well worth the trip, so long as its accurate then who cares. Let the Iranian people blame those truelly responsible, the vile regime that created this problem and continues to hold their heads under their boots.;)

[Countezero]

I said it's worth considering. I didn't say it was worth allowing that to postpone a strike, though I am not sure a strike would even be effective. I also think one needs to assess why Iran wants a bomb and what it would do with it before it decides to pursue the strike option, neither of which seem to garner much comment in the Media.

[Dreadnought]

Given their track record of funding war through proxies and militants such as Hamas and Hezbolla, Yemen, The Iraq insurgency, Lebannon govenment elections and so fourth, I cant see them acting anywhere near responsible enough to obtain such a weapon. Level them.

[Countezero]

Well, leveling them, might be what they want in a way.

And I'm not convinced an air-strike would work, but then I am not Military Aviation expert. Some reports say they can get everything, some not.

Look, I'm not for a nuclear Iran, but there seems to be some serious calculation missing in the entire debate. I don't, for example, subscribe to the notion that they would use a bomb if they acquired it, nor do I think they hand it off to anyone. My worry is proliferation in the region and Iran's ability to act even more foolishly once it has the safety of a deterrent.

All of which is why I suggested in a recent forum that Western leaders ought to be prepared to go to Tehran for a summit. Initially, I was nearly laughed out of the room. I quickly countered by saying the US talked to the Soviets all the time, why not Iran? If this really is the crisis everyone makes it out to be, then shouldn't all the stops come off? Shouldn't Obama go there and try to reason with these people? And even if it failed, tell me a press conference in Tehran, in which Obama said that he came for peace and found no takers, would not give the West huge leverage over the Iranians and the moral support needed for anything that came later? The room ceased laughing then.

[Parihaka]

Well, leveling them, might be what they want in a way.

And I'm not convinced an air-strike would work, but then I am not Military Aviation expert. Some reports say they can get everything, some not.

Look, I'm not for a nuclear Iran, but there seems to be some serious calculation missing in the entire debate. I don't, for example, subscribe to the notion that they would use a bomb if they acquired it, nor do I think they hand it off to anyone. My worry is proliferation in the region and Iran's ability to act even more foolishly once it has the safety of a deterrent.

All of which is why I suggested in a recent forum that Western leaders ought to be prepared to go to Tehran for a summit. Initially, I was nearly laughed out of the room. I quickly countered by saying the US talked to the Soviets all the time, why not Iran? If this really is the crisis everyone makes it out to be, then shouldn't all the stops come off? Shouldn't Obama go there and try to reason with these people? And even if it failed, tell me a press conference in Tehran, in which Obama said that he came for peace and found no takers, would not give the West huge leverage over the Iranians and the moral support needed for anything that came later? The room ceased laughing then.

So apart from giving the Iranian regime enormous political capital and running the obvious risk of having them keeping the President, what exactly would your summit achieve?

[Countezero]

So apart from giving the Iranian regime enormous political capital and running the obvious risk of having them keeping the President, what exactly would your summit achieve?

Potentially, nothing.

But that's the risk with all summits. I think what Iran wants, more than a bomb, is international legitimacy. It wants back onto the world stage. I also think Iran is one of two nations that the US has totally irrational policies towards (Cuba being the other one). Right now, nobody is really offering the Iranians anything. Everyone is just wagging their fingers at them.

I also think a scenario in which Iran kidnaps the US president and holds him is fantasy. Iran does not want a war and that is surely would what happen if they did that or allowed that to happen.

But to shift the issue back to the speculative, I ask again: If this is really one of THE issues for the international community, then shouldn't every level of diplomacy really be tried? Everyone went to Copenhagen. Isn't this far more important?

[Parihaka]

Potentially, nothing.

But that's the risk with all summits. I think what Iran wants, more than a bomb, is international legitimacy. It wants back onto the world stage. I also think Iran is one of two nations that the US has totally irrational policies towards (Cuba being the other one). Right now, nobody is really offering the Iranians anything. Everyone is just wagging their fingers at them.

Where have you been? The Iranians have been offered an enormous variation of packages and assistance in developing and maintaining a civilian nuclear structure.
It has refused every single attempt, and made no concessions of any kind. It has deliberately lied on a number of occasions about every aspect of it's illegal development programme. It continues to grow and augment that illegal programme all the while offering rhetoric which calls for the total destruction of another nation state.

Iran already has international recognition, I'm not aware of any country that does not recognise it, and Iran maintains diplomatic ties with every nation except Israel which it refuses to recognise, and the United States, which it has had no diplomatic ties with since Iran invaded the US embassy in Tehran.
Iran can trade freely on the world market including purchasing weapons.

So what, apart from validating every illegal act that Iran has so far committed, would your summit achieve again? Apart from nothing, which you've already said.