|
|
|
Actually the reformers have some leverage because of coalitions with more mainstream figures like Rafsanjani. These are people who can twist the Ayatollah's arm. In spite of what a lot of suckups are saying, there's a good chance the election could be nullified.
|
|
|
|
is the interesting thing to come out of this recent chaos. For starters, I don't think he was even an Ayatollah when he was made SL or maybe wasn't when first discreetly putting himself in the frame. A bit pushed for time so can't check on that one. As you point out below, it's a broad coalition consisting of not just radical reformers but also middle-of the -road reformers AND even a fair amount of conservatives, to boot. So that tends to imply dissatisfaction with both Ahmadinejad AND the SL. There were reports that Mousavi was told beforehand that he'd won but was advised by the SL not to appear too triumphal. Then it was all reversed and the SL went into the tank completely for Ahmadinejad citing hardly credible results. For instance an overwhelming majority for Ahmadinejad even in real Mousavi strongholds. So, basically, they botched up the lies. Some suggest it suddenly dawned on him ( and Ahmadinejad) the consequences of liberalisation especially if it involved the young, the middle class ( and indeed others) in more & more contact - including travel to Europe, the States etc- with the wider world and how that would impact on the underlying iron grip of the SL. That's all well and good but it's slightly puzzling because it's not as if Mousavi himself is a great liberalising reformer when push comes to shove. Still, they got the heebie jeebies, I guess, when the voters turned out en masse and really took things seriously. I mean people are even chanting " death to the dictator" quite openly really. Though, at this stage, that refers to Ahmadinejad alone but it is, nonetheless, a passing swipe at the SL, too, in some respects. So, if the turmoil really does reach to the level of matters concerning the credibility and respect ( or lack of) for the SL then this is big stuff indeed. Though maybe it will blow over. On the other hand can they ( SL, Ahmadinejad etc) really put the genie back in the bottle now that it seems it’s well and truly out? So, Obama could very well be in luck once the dust has settled. Or not if there’s a huge, overwhelming crackdown and closing of the shop. A crackdown will probably make some sort of Israeli repsonse more likely, though, I would think. Interesting times indeed. Anyway …gotta rush.
Modified by Dermot at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 05:12:57
|
|
|
|
An incredibly cautious fellow, Friedman is suggesting that American perceptions of Iranian politics are governed by wishful thinking and by the rhetoric of anglophile Iranians, rather than those who speak mainly Farsi. He notes the difficulty of conducting a poll in a country with such poor phone service, although the same could be said of those resting their analysis on May polls suggesting that Ahmad-ninjahad was way ahead. The cautionary note based on language familiarity has some merit, but the polling insights swing both ways. For instance, he says:Some still charge that Ahmadinejad cheated. That is certainly a possibility, but it is difficult to see how he could have stolen the election by such a large margin. Doing so would have required the involvement of an incredible number of people, and would have risked creating numbers that quite plainly did not jibe with sentiment in each precinct. Widespread fraud would mean that Ahmadinejad manufactured numbers in Tehran without any regard for the vote. But he has many powerful enemies who would quickly have spotted this and would have called him on it. Mousavi still insists he was robbed, and we must remain open to the possibility that he was, although it is hard to see the mechanics of this. Well, if George says so. But I don't understand how you'd know what does or doesn't jibe at the precinct level if you can't conduct reliable polls. Secondly, the insights about constraints on widespread voter fraud may be true, but enemies of Ahmadjabberwoki would get just as much mileage out of accusations of concentrated voter fraud, if the election had appeared closer that the official version suggests. That implies an incentive tell a big lie rather than be caught in a small one, and in my opinion Friedman has sort of forgotten about the "big lie" concept. And uncovering truth, for certain, would require access to the voting boxes by a genuinely independent auditor. How are we going to get that in Iran? It isn't clear to me that Friedman's take is based on anything empirical, just on a conviction that the country is more "traditionally pious" than Westerners believe. But I'm not sure that this election was really between liberalizing Anglophiles vs statist revolutionaries. There's actually an antistatist pious traditionalism that no one seems to be taking into account, and numerically they're the majority in Iran. It isn't at all clear to me that these traditionalists would vote for the Islamist slate. I don't know how they'd vote in a hotly contested election, and neither does Friedman. But what's probably more salient is what they'd do if there were significant uncertainty and unrest concerning the outcome of the election, and my guess is that they'd be inclined to use it as a lever to pry the al Faqih (non-quietists) from power. They don't like the Supreme Leader and his crowd, and have undergone significant persecution at the hands of the Supreme Council over the last few years. My guess is that they'd rather sit back and wait for the emergence of the Mahdi to establish the fate of Islam than leave that up to the wiles of a few clerics whose political power they refuse to recognize, let alone a rank non-cleric claiming religious insight in the name of the state and the Hidden Imam. But it's not something I can prove, it just suggests that there are things Friedman isn't taking into account. Confusing classical liberalism with non-piety and modernity could lead to some major misjudgments. The crux of the matter is that the state, not religion or piety, has become the "locus of dissensus" in the words of J.P. Nettl. This concept is both "traditional" and "post-postmodern." It's a huge blind spot that seems to even impact people like Friedman.
|
|
|
|
The crux of the matter is that the state, not religion or piety, has become the "locus of dissensus" in the words of J.P. Nettl. Really, come to think of it ...beneath all the kerfuffle of the recent crisis, that's pretty much the impression I'm left with. Though it's untestable, at this stage at any rate.
Modified by Dermot at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 12:45:02
|
|
|
|
Someone I'd forgotten about -- Ayatollah Montazeri. Click John's Jihad Watch link at the top of the forum. At the moment it's the third story down on JW.
|
|
|
|
The world isn't so closed now with the internet, texting, and tv. The world is watching this with great interest and it's unlike anything in the past because great numbers of Iranians are talking to the outside world via the internet.
Instead of Iran sending bombs to other countries, which has been everybody's fear, Iran has exploded from within.
Also, here's an interesting article from the New York Times Social Networks Spread Iranian Defiance Online.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 10:32:47
|
|
|
|
George Friedman calls this sort of analysis "iPod liberalism" implying that it equates the use of modern technology with liberal politics. He's probably right to suggest that it's a little naive. But I think the crux of the issue has to do with the relationship between people and the state, and there are a lot of traditionalists who don't trust the state and who oppose power centralization, whether they're using iPods or not.
|
|
|
|
What I don't get about all this, is that if all the candidates were just sock puppets of the Supreme Leader & his circle, as plausably claimed by some analysts, then how did they screw up so badly.
|
|
|
|
Just been listening to a Washington based Iranian lady who made the point that, yes, the four eventually chosen candidates did in fact get selected by the SL & downwards ----and she made the point that Mousavi is no great shakes as some great liberalising force --- but the people themselves ...the voters .....were/are the big surprise. In that sense she went on to suggest that Mousavi could ( if it works out for him) end up " lucky" by default and find himself having to be the voice of something altogether different to what even he would have expected. Whether he would , if he ended up as president .....and that might not happen obviously...., willingly " take up the cause" is another matter altogether. None of that really surprises me. A suddenly created zeitgeist has left everyone, perhaps, scratching their heads. As a result the authorities are at loss how to adequately respond. One minute clamping down on the international media within the country, the next lifting things a little, then clamping down again. Now all foreign correspondents are confined to their hotel rooms. Arrests and round-ups taking place. The comparatively lukewarm " government" demo today was putting the blame on the BBC, haha. And Ahmadinejad in Moscow blamed the collapse of the American economy and its hegemony etc. Flailing. One earlier report on the radio today was claiming that the entire establishment is in chaos and that there's a real tug of war going on behind the scenes. Also, the report claimed that they are so worried, the Iranian establishment is shit scared that it's actually a " re-run of 1979" and like 1979 there are mutterings of a massive general strike, to boot. Still, there could be a harsh, complete crackdown and as time goes on Ahmadinejad etc would just mop up loads of people, throw away the keys and leave the people frustrated but powerless and mute. Actually, though, anyone’s guess is as good as anyone's else’s. Anything could happen I suppose so I think I’ll quit trying to suss it out for a little while and just sit back and observe. 
Modified by Dermot at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 13:54:59
|
|
|
|
Anything could happen I suppose so I think I’ll quit trying to suss it out for a little while and just sit back and observe.
Me too. I notice the BBC has got John Simpson in there, so major ructions must be expected; they only ever trot him out now for world shattering events. I read Simpson's autobiography a couple of years ago & was fascinated to learn that on his very first job as a journalist in London he walked up to Harold Wilson on the platform of Euston station & asked him a question. Wilson punched him in the stomach in front of the press pack & sent him sprawling to the ground.
It was never reported & Simpson was told...'you don't doorstep the Prime Minister, son'.
Hardly credible, now that times have changed so much. 
|
|
|
|
She cracks me up does our Mel, haha.
I particularly like the fact that the more sordid and sickening elements of the Guardianista's " We are all Hamas now or we are all anyone or anything providing it's thoroughly anti the very place we are safely ensconced in and exercising more freedom in than any Islamic hell-hole regime would dare tolerate " brigades think she's a hysterical, demented nutcase.
Ya gotta laugh.
On Miliband fawning to Obama it's pretty much 100% over here. I've noticed on question shows, quiz shows ...you name it ----radio or TV --- some jerk only has to bring Obama into the argument ( they all do it, Labour, Tories or Lib Dems) and things are supposedly finalised. Always accompanied with a vibe of deep respect and reverence and usually followed by 100% audience approval. For fucks sake, haha.
Back to Mel’s take though:
“ Now Iran may be on the point of finally getting rid of its regime, Obama is struck dumb. As the world struggles to find its way out of tyranny and into freedom there will be no assistance from the White House, whose present incumbent is simply on the wrong side of history. “
Yep, I really can’t argue with that. I’m probably trying too hard to give him the benefit of the doubt, add a disclaimer here and another one there and all of that sort of stuff when, in reality, it’s freaking obvious what a prize tit the guy is.
Also, yeah, I remember thinking when Mousavi’s wife took on Ahmadinejad what a sudden and electrifying effect it seemed to have on the electorate. I wondered how it squared with her less radical husband, how brave she was etc, etc ….and then? ….then I suddenly sidelined her and the effect she seemed to have. Stupid of me. And so right on of Mel to put her centre stage where she belongs.
|
|
|
|
I didn't think Harold was the violent type. I kinda had a soft spot for Wilson as , in the those days, the working class kid made good was a bit of a rarity. Swotting away and getting his 1st class honours Oxford degree and what not. Still, he was brought up in more " doff the cap" deferential times and I do remember his taking umbrage once over some particularly sharp and incisive questioning by a reporter as if it wasn't quite the done thing to submit a PM to such treatment. I went to the public gallery at parliament to hear him speak once. I was pretty stoned at the time mind ya. Also, I felt sorry for him when he went gaga ...Alzheimer’s or whatever it was ....and also liked the fact that they went regularly to St Mary's island ( the Scilly isles) for their hols. Little things like that. He was a bit manipulative and didn't shy away from the art of compromise and the selling of the ideal for more down-to-earth objectives ( in other words politics haha) , mind you, but you'd have to be to keep the Labour Party in some semblance of cohesive order....in those days, in particular. Remember his sidekick, the drunkard George Brown ? Pissed out of his brains pretty much 24/7. Haha.
Modified by Dermot at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 19:54:27
|
|
|
|
I agree that the analysis is "iPod liberalism" to an extent, but one can't discount the feeling of empowerment that young Iranians must be feeling right now knowing they are being heard. They aren't just being made aware that the world is listening and watching them, they're the ones in great numbers doing the talking, writing, posting of photos, etc. It is something new.
Yet, if it's only a slight move towards westernization, then it's still good.
Modified by Cynthia at Tue, Jun 16, 2009, 14:15:30
|
|
|
|
I agree that the analysis is "iPod liberalism" to an extent, but one can't discount the feeling of empowerment that young Iranians must be feeling right now knowing they are being heard. They aren't just being made aware that the world is listening and watching them, they're the ones in great numbers doing the talking, writing, posting of photos, etc. It is something new. I actually didn't know enough about "twitter" to understand what was going on, but if what I've heard recently is true then it's a serious threat to all authoritarian regimes (including the Chinese). As I understand it twitter can't be blocked the way most of the internet can, because it's set up to employ proxy servers that prevent government censors from knowing where the messages are originating. This could be the "end around" that spells the end of state censorship. I also noticed that conventional news outlets have been completely sidelined by the "twitter journalists." They've been warned to stay in their offices or leave the country, so the only news that's getting out is via twitter, and the people doing that know the score.
|
|
|
