Iran Elects Hardline Conservative As President

[BrewersDroop]

Mahmoud Ahmadinezhad profile here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmadinejad). He doesn't appear to be too friendly to the west and western ideas.

Oh well, so much for the idea that invading Iraq would be the catalyst that causes progressive reform, moderation and a thawing of relations with the west. Whoops.

[Kevin J Baird]

It doesn't mean anything. If they elected John Kerry to be President of Iran, he'd still have no power like he does now. The President in Iran is just a puppet for their religious leader. Most people probably didn't even vote because they know it's useless.

K

[jeffd]

Turnout was actually pretty high - the article I read a few minutes ago quoted 63% for the first round of elections; easily on par with US turnout (60.3% of the elgible population voted in 2004).

JD



It doesn't mean anything. If they elected John Kerry to be President of Iran, he'd still have no power like he does now. The President in Iran is just a puppet for their religious leader. Most people probably didn't even vote because they know it's useless.

K

[Tim Partlett]

The Iranian president isn't a useless position, although it could certainly do with more empowerment. The previous presidents have helped to push through a large amount of liberal reform, and Ahmadinezhad looks set to rescind a lot of that. This is the guy who, as mayor of Tehran, insisted all local official grew beards and wore long sleeves. He also banned advertisements carrying David Beckham's image, the first superstar to be used in an ad campaign in Iran since the 1979 revolution. He's very conservative and his election will have an impact on Iranian life and its relations with the rest of the world. I suspect it will probably be for the worse.

[Desslock]

Oh well, so much for the idea that invading Iraq would be the catalyst that causes progressive reform, moderation and a thawing of relations with the west. Whoops.

You don't actually think this was a legitimate election, do you?

[Tim Partlett]

Does that make a difference to his point?

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

It doesn't mean anything.

Given that the new guy is known as a hardliner on Iran acquiring nuclear materials, I'd say that it means a hell of a lot.

[Ignatius P. Reilly]

According to Fox News, President Bush helped tilt the election in favor of the most anti-American candidate with his ill-considered, cocky remarks in the days leading up to the election:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160070,00.html

Is Bush dangerously incompetent, or was it a brilliant Machiavellian manuever to set up the next war in the Middle East? Stay tuned.

[BrewersDroop]

Oh well, so much for the idea that invading Iraq would be the catalyst that causes progressive reform, moderation and a thawing of relations with the west. Whoops.

You don't actually think this was a legitimate election, do you?

See Tim's post.

[Desslock]

Does that make a difference to his point?

Yes -- the number of people that wanted to participate in a democratic process, despite the corruption, was sizeable, forcing the mullahs to abuse the system even more transparently, causing more dissension. It's a positive trend when countries like Egypt, let alone Iran, are feeling democratic pressures.

[Tim Partlett]

It's a failure Desslock: a step backwards. The conservatives in Iran have even more control of the country. The country is looking to become less free, less democratic, less Westernised, less friendly towards America and its allies. It looks set to become more aggressive in its designs to continue nuclear research. If you see Bush's foreign policy as one that is designed to improve all these issues in the Middle East then it is a failure.

Despite having a (unfairly limited) choice between a hardliner and a reformist, the Iranians chose a hardliner. Without any evidence to suggest the election was rigged, which we haven't got, it is reasonable to assume that the cause of Ahmadinejad's victory was his anti-American stance and his vows to redistribute the wealth. That means the Iranians are more interested in bread on their table and snubbing their noses at arrogant American foreign policy than embracing Bush's (alleged) attempts to bring freedom and democracy to the region through botched and ham-fisted invasions.

The reform process in Iran has been struggling ever since the invasion. It is astounding that you can find victory in even this failure.

[Desslock]

It's a failure Desslock: a step backwards. The conservatives in Iran have even more control of the country. The country is looking to become less free, less democratic, less Westernised, less friendly towards America and its allies. It looks set to become more aggressive in its designs to continue nuclear research. If you see Bush's foreign policy as one that is designed to improve all these issues in the Middle East then it is a failure.

That's an interesting argument, but it's only true if you think the previous status quo was more likely to lead to the "end goal" than an increased crack-down in the face of increased democratic sentiment -- which was extremely unlikely give the Mullah strangehold. Several of the Eastern European countries, most notably Romania, took "steps backward" after the fall of the Berlin Wall, but those steps ultimately just antagonized the populations into more aggressively asserting what they came to believe were their rights.

Which is why it's so important to keep the pressure on, to support democratic movements, to ensure that Iraq and Afghanistan succeed, to countinue to encourage (and tie financial support) for Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and African countries to democratic reforms. If not, tyranny will be prolonged (like China, 1989), but given Iran's hostility to the west and support for terrorism and developing nuclear weapons, the consequences will very likley be worse.

[BrewersDroop]

Does that make a difference to his point?

Yes -- the number of people that wanted to participate in a democratic process, despite the corruption, was sizeable, forcing the mullahs to abuse the system even more transparently, causing more dissension. It's a positive trend when countries like Egypt, let alone Iran, are feeling democratic pressures.

Voter turnout (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/06/18/international/20050619iran_vote_graphic.html), at 62%, was significantly lower than it has been in the last two elections and is the 4th lowest turnout of the 9 elections held since 1980. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the people rose up in a sudden surge of democratic zeal.

[Desslock]

Does that make a difference to his point?

Yes -- the number of people that wanted to participate in a democratic process, despite the corruption, was sizeable, forcing the mullahs to abuse the system even more transparently, causing more dissension. It's a positive trend when countries like Egypt, let alone Iran, are feeling democratic pressures.

Voter turnout (http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2005/06/18/international/20050619iran_vote_graphic.html), at 62%, was significantly lower than it has been in the last two elections and is the 4th lowest turnout of the 9 elections held since 1980. I'm not sure where you're getting the idea that the people rose up in a sudden surge of democratic zeal.

I didn't say there was a "sudden surge" -- I said that the number of people willing to participate was still sizeable (very) despite it being more clear than ever that the election was a sham this time, with pre-printed ballets selecting the mullah's choice, etc.

[BrewersDroop]

I didn't say there was a "sudden surge"

No, you said there was "increased democratic sentiment" -- a claim which the numbers do not back up. You are also avoiding the main point -- that the Iranian political landscape is moving away from one in which moderates and progressives had been making headway and towards one in which conservatives who have avowed anti-western sentiments are ascendant.

[Tim Partlett]

The problem, Desslock, is that the Iranians aren't really doing any more than they were before. The reform movement in Iran was strong before Bush came along, and now it is at its weakest point in the last decade. The Iranian goverment has been reacting harshly towards reformists for decades, but they have slowly been moving in the right direction. Now they have performed a complete u-turn, and you call that a success for Bush's plans to bring peace and democracy to the region?

This isn't the fall of the Berlin Wall all over again: wake up from dreamland. Ceaucescu didn't have time to engage in shenanigans with rigging elections and introducing laws to clamp down on revolting citizens, he was out within months of the Berlin Wall coming down when the army turned on him. It's been over two years since the invasion of Iraq. Do you really think that the Revolutionary Guard is about to turn on the new Iranian government?

The reason the dictatorships of East Europe fell so quickly after the collapse of Communism is that the people in those countries had been working hard to bring about revolution for years. There were real democratic people's movements in those countries. The countries of the Middle East have not got these groups in any great number or strength. The reformists in Iran are probably the strongest and best organised of them all and this can be seen as nothing but a set-back for them.

Who is to thank for this set-back? Ahmadinejad doesn't seem to be in any doubt: "Thank you, Bush!"

[Desslock]

I didn't say there was a "sudden surge"

No, you said there was "increased democratic sentiment" -- a claim which the numbers do not back up.

No, you misread what I wrote - I said that because there was a growth in democratic sentiments there was a crackdown in this election to stifle it, not that there was more voters in this election.

You are also avoiding the main point -- that the Iranian political landscape is moving away from one in which moderates and progressives had been making headway

Actually I specifically addressed that point in my first response to Tim, with my Romanian analogy.

[Desslock]

The problem, Desslock, is that the Iranians aren't really doing any more than they were before. The reform movement in Iran was strong before Bush came along, and now it is at its weakest point in the last decade.

That's completely untrue -- there are more democratic protests (and violence against the Mullahs) than ever before, so it's hardly surprising at all that there's been a crackdown.

It's been over two years since the invasion of Iraq. Do you really think that the Revolutionary Guard is about to turn on the new Iranian government?

No - it's a process that will still take time. The fact that so much of the Iranian population is very young will be a telling factor -- on the one hand, they've grown up indoctrinated and don't know what it was like before the Islamist revolt, but on the other, they are young and want what others naturally have.

Which, again, is why we have to keep the pressure up, rather than undermining our efforts in the region at every opportunity. Even though Bush won't give in to the disastrous attempt to put a timetable on American depatures, if we don't achieve enough within the next couple of years and Bush's policies remain unpopular in the U.S., then they will just wait it out, and we'll be looking at another false start like Tiananmen Square, except with potentially much broader and more dangerous consequences. To sum up the current American political scene - never have so many, fought so hard, for such a disastrous goal.

[Tim Partlett]

The problem, Desslock, is that the Iranians aren't really doing any more than they were before. The reform movement in Iran was strong before Bush came along, and now it is at its weakest point in the last decade.

That's completely untrue -- there are more democratic protests (and violence against the Mullahs) than ever before, so it's hardly surprising at all that there's been a crackdown.

Do you remember the uprising of 1999? Do you think that there has been tens of thousands of people on the streets of Tehran that the liberal media has been covering up? If you follow the human rights reviews of Iran you would have seen that up until 2002 there was increasing friction between the young reformists and the old guard, and then after 2002 it calmed down significantly.

Can you link me to any evidence of demonstrations since the invasion that have been on a greater scale than those before?

The only ones recently that I know of were the demonstrations in the Arab regions after someone mischievously released a letter claiming to be from someone in the Iranian goverment announcing that the Arab population was about to be forcibly moved.

No - it's a process that will still take time. The fact that so much of the Iranian population is very young will be a telling factor -- on the one hand, they've grown up indoctrinated and don't know what it was like before the Islamist revolt, but on the other, they are young and want what others naturally have.

I support your ideal of keeping the pressure on Iran. I also believe the troops have to stay the course. I am just astounded at how you can turn every set back into a victory.

[Desslock]

The problem, Desslock, is that the Iranians aren't really doing any more than they were before. The reform movement in Iran was strong before Bush came along, and now it is at its weakest point in the last decade.

That's completely untrue -- there are more democratic protests (and violence against the Mullahs) than ever before, so it's hardly surprising at all that there's been a crackdown.

Do you remember the uprising of 1999? Do you think that there has been tens of thousands of people on the streets of Tehran that the liberal media has been covering up?

No, as far as I know, they've actually been reporting it, since it's happened regularly since 2002 -- at the end of March hundreds of thousands of people were in the street chanting pro-democracy slogans in a massive demonstration that started after the Iranian/Japan soccer match.

In several areas of Tehran, the streets were brimming with protestors into the farthest discernable distance. In one of the streets off of Fatemi Square, someone shrieked so loudly that the crowd rushed to see what had happened when a young woman who was removing her regulation Islamic overcoat and had begun dancing was fatally beaten by a revolutionary guard with a metal pipe in his hand. She fell to the ground, bleeding; the crowd rushed her to Khomeini hospital where due to severe head injury, she was pronounced dead in the early hours of today. Her friends told our reporter that she was 23 year old Meetra. The news of Meetra's death fuelled the protestor's anger and action against the regime was further intensified. People chanted: "Death to those who kill our freedom-fighters. Death to a puppet parliament; Death to armed despots..." and with this, the revolutionary guards and mercenaries and anti-riot guards continued attacking people with tear gas and various other forms of restraint.
In areas of northern Tehran, people chanted slogans directed at the U.S. administration: "Bush, Bush, support, protection..."

The Iraqi election also inspired revolts in April in several cities, primarily led by Kurds arguing for freedom. In June, 2003 there was a large student revolt, which US congressmen voiced support in favour of, which evolved into something larger when Tehran locals joined in. Read the student letter to the west, urging further support for their movement - it's pretty promising stuff.

No - it's a process that will still take time. The fact that so much of the Iranian population is very young will be a telling factor -- on the one hand, they've grown up indoctrinated and don't know what it was like before the Islamist revolt, but on the other, they are young and want what others naturally have.

I support your ideal of keeping the pressure on Iran. I also believe the troops have to stay the course. I am just astounded at how you can turn every set back into a victory.

Then you misunderstood -- it is by no means a "victory", and I didn't claim it as one. But I don't think it means that invading Iraq "will not be a catalyst that causes progressive reform" in the Middle East, including Iran, which is the point I responded to. We'll have to watch and see the effect on the status quo and, as we both agree, keep the pressure on Iran.

[BrewersDroop]

Having thought about this some more, I wonder if Iran opting for Ahmadinezhad is actually -- and paradoxically -- a manifestation of the long-standing desire in Iran for reform. The reformists in Iran want first and foremost to move away from the rule of clerics. Rafsanjani is part of the entrenched clerical elite. Ahmadinezhad, despite his conservative Islamic beliefs, is not. Given a choice between the two, I can certainly see that a voter who has grown tired of the rule of corrupt clerics might see a better chance for reform by electing Ahmadinezhad.

edit: the Christian Science Monitor has an article (http://csmonitor.com/earlyed/early_world062405.htm) which more or less backs up this viewpoint.

[Tim Partlett]

No, as far as I know, they've actually been reporting it, since it's happened regularly since 2002 -- at the end of March hundreds of thousands of people were in the street chanting pro-democracy slogans in a massive demonstration that started after the Iranian/Japan soccer match.

I asked you for a link to support your claims. I expected it to be from a reputable source. What you have given me is an unlinked piece of propaganda from US based Iranian pro-Democracy movement. They have managed to take the hundreds of thousands of people coming out to celebrate the most important victory in the last few years for the football-mad Iranians, and then mix those into the description of the demonstrations, and then you have read that as being there were really hundreds of thousands of demonstrators (not celebrators with demostrators in their midst).

Just incredible. I can understand why you didn't link the piece as its source would have totally discredited it. If there really had been hundreds of thousands of protesters out on the streets you think that the world press would have covered it, but nothing. There's not a sausage on the alleged demonstrations after the Japan-Iran game. Strange that when just a few thousand demonstrated back in June 2003, which you also mention, that was in the world news for days, with endless film footage of students being beaten. That was the last of the major post-Iraq invasion demonstrations, and it was nothing on the demonstrations from 1999.

It seems to me that the pro-democracy movement in Iran has taking a beating. They were making steady, if slow, progress towards reforms. Tehran in 2002 was a place of surprising liberal attitudes, with young people of both sexes drinking and partying without much care for the Revolutionary Guard. It is a young population and 25% of the population were born after the revolution and have little care or interest in it. The Iraqi invasion, however, played right into the hands of the Conservative elite. Rather than having to keep giving concessions to the reform movement, they had a new boogieman to point a finger at as an excuse for cracking down on the Westernisation of Iran.

Iran has since been moving steadily backwards away from reform and this is just one more step. This isn't an act of desperation from a regime about to collapse, this is an act of a regime that knows it can get away with it because the people are scared of America.

[JeffL]

I was in Tehran earlier this year. Long story. But what I saw and heard were a lot of people who wanted to let me know that they hoped that eventually they could find a way to dump the hard core Muslim government and fear that the upcoming election would be rigged to pick an even more hardcore leader as a way to show the west and the people that they should give up on hopes of Iran reforming. But the hope that I heard was strong, and Iraq was spoken of almost universally as an example of a chance for Democracy in the middle east to work. Not that it was working yet - but that it was being given a chance. I asked a group of students who were talking to me in a restaurant how long it would take for a change to occur - sometimes the discussions were almost in code, the talk was so careful - and they said they hoped sooner, but something along the lines of "time is longer in the middle east" which my host told me meant that they had more patience, they viewed things in a longer time perspective that we did in the U.S., where we expect everything to happen in months because "well, Jeff, your whole country is barely more than a couple of hundred years old!"

For whatever it's worth, and maybe I saw only a skewed perspective because of being American, but I only saw and heard growing and significant desire to be rid of an oppressive government and hope. Also several people saying they would vote, but they doubted "anyone will ever actually count the votes." But my two cents is that I'm betting putting a super hardcore in place was the worst thing the mullahs could have done to quiet things down in Iran.

[Tim Partlett]

That growing desire was already there before the invasion, hence the massive demonstrations in 1999 and the significant reforms that had already taken place (reforms that this new presidents looks set to do away with). The claim here is that the invasion of Iraq has been a catalyst for a mass movement in Iran that will create a democratic and free nation. That the movement already existed, and was probably the strongest of any Middle East state, suggest that this is untrue. The fact that the movement has suffered a massive setback in the shape of a hardline conservative president bent on revoking all of the successes the reform movement have gained underlines this.

[Desslock]

No, as far as I know, they've actually been reporting it, since it's happened regularly since 2002 -- at the end of March hundreds of thousands of people were in the street chanting pro-democracy slogans in a massive demonstration that started after the Iranian/Japan soccer match.

I asked you for a link to support your claims.

Huh? Everything I said was true -- google it up if you don't believe me. Google up the student's presentation, google up the congressmen quotes, google up the stories on the hundreds of thousands of marchers. There's plenty of press on this stuff, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

[Desslock]

The claim here is that the invasion of Iraq has been a catalyst for a mass movement in Iran that will create a democratic and free nation. ...The fact that the movement has suffered a massive setback in the shape of a hardline conservative president .

No, the only "claim" is what you're mistakenly citing as a fact -- that the movement has been massively set-back. As I indicated, often in history attempts to crack down on reforms have backfired badly (Romania in 1989, the Russian "coup" to overthrow Gorbachev) -- we have to continue to keep the pressure on and encourage such movements any way possible. Certainly continuing to improve the standard of living in Afghanistan, and securing and reconstructing Iraq, would likely have a significant impact.

[Tim Partlett]

It is ridiculous to claim a set back as a success story. When the old guard tried to overthrow Gorbachev they failed. It was also completely unplanned and spontaneous. The failure of the coup could easily be seen as a success for the democratic movement. If the coup had succeeded, even if years later the revolution had happened anyway, the coup itself could be viewed as nothing but a set back. To have claimed a successful coup by the hardline Soviets as a step forward on the road to a democratic Russia would have been considered insane. I remember when the coup happened and people were really scared that all that progress would have been turned back by the old guard, just as is going to happen in Iran. Only this time the old guard isn't about to be overthrown. It really is a set back.

You sound like Comical Ali. I can imagine him drawing comparisons between the fall of Baghdad and the fall of Moscow to Napoleon. Well the Russians fought back and won that time, so obviously the fall of Baghdad isn't a set back - it was a victory. Your comparisons to the nations of Eastern Europe are just wrong, and expose only your dreaming that the Middle East will fall into line like those nations did after the collapse of Communism. But Iraq is no USSR. The fall of Saddam will never have anywhere near the same impact as the fall of the Soviet Union because his influence was nowhere near as great.

For every example you can show of a set back to a freedom movement eventually becoming a success I can show you one where it remained a failure. For every failed Gorbachev coup there is a Tianamen Square. You can't call a set back a step forward, because sometimes a step back results in a step forward, until that step forward happens. I mean I disagree that the invasion of Iraq influenced the mass demonstrations in the Lebanon, but at least I accept that they are a step forward for freedom and democracy in the region. Imagine if I denied this - imagine how insane and ideologically blinkered I would appear.

You know it's ok to accept that things aren't going to plan. It doesn't mean you won't be right in the long run. Sometimes it does work out in the end: remember Moscow falling to Napoleon.

[Tim Partlett]

Huh? Everything I said was true -- google it up if you don't believe me. Google up the student's presentation, google up the congressmen quotes, google up the stories on the hundreds of thousands of marchers. There's plenty of press on this stuff, so I'm not sure what you're talking about.

I did google it. The first quote, the one you conveniently didn't link to, came straight from a pro-reformist Iranian "news" site. Even they didn't claim that hundreds of thousands of demonstrators had come out to protest against the goverment, only that hundreds of thousands of demonstrators and celebrators were on the streets after Iran beat Japan. Given that after Iran beat Australia in the last big game there were hundreds of thousands out on the street too, it is difficult to ascertain from that just how large the actual protests were. Given that little or nothing of this was covered in the main press one would assume that there was very little in the way of protest.

The only serious post-Iraq invasion demonstrations that have occurred were the few thousand that demonstrated in Tehran in June 2003. These were nothing on the scale of those that had happened previously, and there has been nothing since to scare the regime into taking desperate actions, like the hardliners did when they tried to overthrow Gorbachev in the USSR. Any actions taken in this election aren't the evidence of a regime scared of losing its power, they are the actions of a regime that can see that the Bush has given them the perfect excuse to put a stranglehold on power after years of reforms had taken it away from them.

[Desslock]

It is ridiculous to claim a set back as a success story..

Now you're just being redundant - you already erroneously suggested that someone thought this was a success, and I thought I corrected your misconception -- see below. I'm not sure if this signals that you are no longer interested in having a serious conversation on this or not.

It just looks like you can't refute what I'm saying so you persistently keep trying to suggest that I said something else, which you think is easier to dispute. Nobody other than yourself has suggested this is a "success".

I am just astounded at how you can turn every set back into a victory. ..

Then you misunderstood -- it is by no means a "victory", and I didn't claim it as one. But I don't think it means that invading Iraq "will not be a catalyst that causes progressive reform" in the Middle East, including Iran, which is the point I responded to..

[John Reynolds]

Certainly continuing to improve the standard of living in Afghanistan, and securing and reconstructing Iraq, would likely have a significant impact.

Any decent links that show the U.S. is making strong progress in Afghanistan (and I'm not talkinga bout its capitol and surrounding countryside)?

[Tim Partlett]

The problem doesn't lie with me, Desslock. It is in you saying one thing and then saying another. You say that you aren't calling it a success story, and then you say that it is an example of how the government of Iran is so desperate in its bid to fight off a Bush-inspired reform movement that it has had to rig the election so a hardliner gets in. On the one hand you say you don't see it as a victory for Bush's policies, and then on the other you say how there were hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets of Iran only a few months ago (when no such thing happened) to support your claim that Iran is a success story for Bush's policies.

It's like you don't want to say it is a victory for fear of sounding like Comical Ali, but then again you can't bring yourself to admit that it is a set back.

[Desslock]

it is an example of how the government of Iran is so desperate in its bid to fight off a Bush-inspired reform movement that it has had to rig the election so a hardliner gets in. .

No, the reform movement certainly predates Bush, and once again, nobody said otherwise. Is it really so hard for you to stick what was actually said, rather than positions you would rather argue against?

On the one hand you say you don't see it as a victory for Bush's policies, and then on the other you say how there were hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets of Iran only a few months ago... to support your claim that Iran is a success story for Bush's policies..[/quote]

You're just winging it now, or confusing two distinct comments:

1. nobody said the election of a hardliner was a victory;
2. the election does NOT mean that Iraq War does not have a better chance of facilitating change in Iran than the status quo, which was my statement and belief.

It's like you don't want to say it is a victory for fear of sounding like Comical Ali, but then again you can't bring yourself to admit that it is a set back

...and it's like you're being deliberately obtuse, because you realize that you can't actually refute or intelligently disagree with what I've said. Gee, I wonder which one of us is more like comical Ali, lol.

[TomChick]

1. nobody said the election of a hardliner was a victory;

Stefan, you did call it a "positive trend" when you weighed in.

the number of people that wanted to participate in a democratic process, despite the corruption, was sizeable, forcing the mullahs to abuse the system even more transparently, causing more dissension. It's a positive trend

Sounds like serious spinning to me. In fact, you can smell the smoke from all the friction that line generates.

2. the election does NOT mean that Iraq War does not have a better chance of facilitating change in Iran than the status quo, which was my statement and belief.

The election does mean that the reformist movement in Iran is in trouble. Which, according to your neocon agenda, is the exact opposite of what should be happening. You can only deny the abject failure of the invasion of Iraq for so long before reality starts to kick in.

-Tom

[Desslock]

1. nobody said the election of a hardliner was a victory;

Stefan, you did call it a "positive trend" when you weighed in.

Not the result - the fact that people as still participating in substantial numbers, despite widespread suspicion of fraud.

2. the election does NOT mean that Iraq War does not have a better chance of facilitating change in Iran than the status quo, which was my statement and belief.

The election does mean that the reformist movement in Iran is in trouble.

No, for the reasons I've iterated several times in this thread, we do not know what reaction this crack-down will ultimately cause, any more than we did when Gorbachev was overthrown, or when Romania cracked down, or when the Poles cracked down on Solidarity, or when the Absolute monarchs cracked down on the enlightenment, etc., etc. Is it a sign that the reformist movement is in trouble, or a desperate attempt by the Mullahs to reassert power -- the reality is, regardless of the huffing in this thread, only time will tell, so we have to keep the pressure on.

Is it a good thing that there's a crack-down at all? Of course not, but the status quo wasn't working either, and more stress on the situation is not necessarily a bad thing, as numerous historical examples have shown.

[Tim Partlett]

You are right, Desslock, we can't judge an event on what might happen, we can only judge on what we know now. What we know now is that the reform movement in Iran has taken a severe hit. The regime knows this, the reformists know this, pretty much everyone knows this except those who don't want to believe it. The problem is that with your "don't view it based on current facts because it might get better" argument is that we can apply this to everything. Comical Ali could have said, "don't view the fall of Baghdad as the end of the Iraqi regime because the fall of Baghdad may inspire a heroic recovery of the Iraqi people, like when Moscow fell to Napoleon."

It's an infantile argument, though. It is the same as someone saying "don't view the Iraqi election as a success because it might yet collapse!" You don't view an event on maybes, only on what is. The Iraqi government may not be what we all would like for the country, but it is a start, it is something. It is a success, of sorts, and can't be viewed as a failure unless it really does collapse. The victory for hardliners in Iraq is a set back for everyone who wants freedom and democracy for Iran, and not just Bushites hoping for some inspiration to justify their backing of the invasion of Iraq. I was very disappointed to see the result, and I don't believe that there is going to be a sudden Romania like turn around in Iran.

Why not? There's no evidence to support it. The actions of the regime in Iran are not those of an old guard desperately clinging onto power. They already have the upper hand and have now secured it, and are due to turn back all the successes that the reform movement won prior to the invasion of Iraq. In the USSR and Romania the death throes of the hardliners and old guard were clear acts of desperation: the Communist hardliners launched an impromptu coup that failed in days and Ceausescu ordered his army to fire on the masses of revolting citizens, days before the army turned on him and ended his reign. Do the events in Iran sound even remotely like those?

[Desslock]

It's an infantile argument, though. It is the same as someone saying "don't view the Iraqi election as a success because it might yet collapse!"?

Interesting statement, since that was the view of many of the posters here.

You don't view an event on maybes, only on what is.

Similarly, it's silly to take the reaction of one side of a dispute and conclude that's "what is" until you see the response of the other side in the dispute, as you're doing.

The victory for hardliners in Iraq is a set back for everyone who wants freedom and democracy for Iran

Now you're veering into being ridiculous. The real power in Iran was never "up for grabs", since it's always been consolidated in the Mullahs -- that was the case before hand, and it remains the case. Even very basic reforms intiated by the last President were delayed or prevented altogether, and more substantive change was never even on the table.

To give another historical analogy, it's like the Tzar of Russia taking power away from the inital Duma -- essentially meaningless, from a practical perspective, since it's power was compartively minor, but it fueled anger and resentment which helped contribute to the end of absolutism in Russia.

I don't believe that there is going to be a sudden Romania like turn around in Iran.

Maybe not, or maybe not suddenly, but you're just shooting from the hip here, prematurely reaching a conclusion.

They already have the upper hand and have now secured it.

...and they already had it, and have just maintained it -- all they've done is confirm to reformists that this regime's been lying all along, and any move to moderation was completely illusory.

[Tim Partlett]

Similarly, it's silly to take the reaction of one side of a dispute and conclude that's "what is" until you see the response of the other side in the dispute, as you're doing.

And then if and when that response happens, do we similarly wait until the regime responds to that, and then wait again until the reformers respond to that? Will you never accept a situation as being what it is unless it supports your beliefs? Can you imagine what your response would be if someone had said that we must wait until the Lebanese and Syrians responded to the demonstrations in Beirut before marking it as a success for freedom and democracy in the region?

"The victory for hardliners in Iraq is a set back for everyone who wants freedom and democracy for Iran"


Now you're veering into being ridiculous. The real power in Iran was never "up for grabs", since it's always been consolidated in the Mullahs -- that was the case before hand, and it remains the case. Even very basic reforms intiated by the last President were delayed or prevented altogether, and more substantive change was never even on the table.

Where in my statement did I say that the real power in Iran was up for grabs? The elected president is not the most powerful person in Iran, but he is very influential. If it wasn't for a series of relatively liberal presidents in Iran the reforms of the past decade would never have happened. A new president won't fundamentally change Iran, but it will have an impact on life in the country, and the relations of other nations with it.


To give another historical analogy, it's like the Tzar of Russia taking power away from the inital Duma -- essentially meaningless, from a practical perspective, since it's power was compartively minor, but it fueled anger and resentment which helped contribute to the end of absolutism in Russia.

These analogies are pointless. For every one you can show to support your case, there as many counter examples. We could easily use your argument to say that we shouldn't look at the protests in Beirut in a positive light, because it may just prove another Tiananmen Square. When the Tiananmen Square protests were shut down, we could have argued that we shouldn't see that as a failure, but as a victory because it was surely the last gasp act of desperation of a government about to loose its grip on power.

We have the facts as they are now: a set back for the reform movement in Iran. We have your hopes of what might happen next: the reform movement might respond in a mass uprising against the regime. If you can prise apart the facts from your dreams you might be able to see what is actually happening.

"I don't believe that there is going to be a sudden Romania like turn around in Iran."

Maybe not, or maybe not suddenly, but you're just shooting from the hip here, prematurely reaching a conclusion.

I'm the one basing my opinions on facts. Facts as they are now, not facts as they might happen if everything goes they way I'd like it to. I'm saying that the victory for the regime is a set back for the reform movement. I'm not the one pretending that hundreds of thousands of football supporters are really demonstrating against the regime. Everyone thinks that, even the Iranian reformists. The only people who don't want to accept it are those who want to convince the world that Bush is the second coming and that his ham-fisted policies in the Middle East will bring about peace and democracy.

I mean if it is "prematurely reaching a conclusion" to say that a conservative election result is a set-back for the reformists of Iran after the election has been completed and the results accepted, what isn't "prematurely reaching a conclusion"? From that argument we can never accept anything. Saying that Bush's second term victory is a set back for the Democrats would be "prematurely reaching a conclusion" because the Democrats might use Bush's victory as a catalyst to bounce back even stronger.

Yeah, they might, but how much of a "moonbat" liberal do you think it would take to argue such nonsense?

[Nellie]

BBC's John Simpson Column (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/4626081.stm) on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the general political situation in Iran.

He is the first non-cleric to hold the job since Ayatollah Khomeini died in 1989, yet he is much more fundamentalist than either of the religious figures who have been in office since then.

Abroad, the Americans were the least surprised by the result, since this was how they assumed Iran was anyway: seething with hatred for the US, and determined to dominate the region by threat and undercover terrorism.

The British, French and Germans were the most taken aback, because they had previously argued that the Iranian government was basically pretty moderate and wanted to reach an accommodation with the West.

So now it seems as though the conservatives control not simply Iran's basic religious and political structure through the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, but also the government itself.

The gridlock between conservatives and reformers which has dominated Iranian politics since 1989 has finally been resolved.

Iran's rulers are now at one in their Islamic fundamentalism.

[TriggerHappy]

Maybe not, or maybe not suddenly, but you're just shooting from the hip here, prematurely reaching a conclusion.

In what you quoted he's guessing at the future outcome exactly like you are. You're both prematurely reaching a conclusion, if anything.

[Tim Partlett]

I said I think it is unlikely that any major change in the fortunes of the reformist movement will occur as a result of this election result. That's doesn't make any difference to the facts: that a victory for the regime is a set back for the reformists. If a wall is red today it is still red even if it might get painted white tomorrow.

[Desslock]

Will you never accept a situation as being what it is unless it supports your beliefs? .

pot. kettle. black, and all that - that's the overwhelming sentiment that comes across from reading your posts. You just arbitrarily disregard as "irrelevant" the fact that the Mullahs have always been in control and that hasn't changed, that a plethora of historical examples highlight that when someone attempts to take away even illusory rights it often backfires, that we haven't had the opportunity to see what the reaction will be to these measures within Iran.....The only thing I certainly won't accept the inaccurate description of the situation which you insist on providing. Whatever.

To give another historical analogy, it's like the Tzar of Russia taking power away from the inital Duma -- essentially meaningless, from a practical perspective, since it's power was compartively minor, but it fueled anger and resentment which helped contribute to the end of absolutism in Russia.

These analogies are pointless. For every one you can show to support your case, there as many counter examples.

Which perfectly highlights why it's premature to judge how this situation will unfold, or what effect the removal of illusory rights will have on the populace , and why we have to continue to keep the pressure on Iran by ensuring success in reconstructing its neighbours, and encouraging democratic reform in other Middle East countries.


I'm the one basing my opinions on facts. Facts as they are now, not facts as they might happen if everything goes they way I'd like it to.

This is getting circular -- I'm the one basing my opinions on facts. Facts as they are now, not exaggerating the importance of a crackdown of some largely illusory rights without seeing the resulting effects.

I mean if it is "prematurely reaching a conclusion" to say that a conservative election result is a set-back for the reformists of Iran

That's a mischaracterization, of course, since there was no meaningful "election" -- the tyranny in power just took away any illusion that they weren't directly in control, by staging a propaganda event. No control changed at all - anyone seeking change has just been told more directly that the tyranny will not accept change willingly. That's the bottom line.

[Tim Partlett]

pot. kettle. black, and all that - that's the overwhelming sentiment that comes across from reading your posts. You just arbitrarily disregard as "irrelevant" the fact that the Mullahs have always been in control and that hasn't changed, that a plethora of historical examples highlight that when someone attempts to take away even illusory rights it often backfires, that we haven't had the opportunity to see what the reaction will be to these measures within Iran.....The only thing I certainly won't accept the inaccurate description of the situation which you insist on providing. Whatever.

To be hyprocritical in this instance I would have to have once made a statement to the effect that "such and such isn't such and such because we have to wait and see if such and such happens first." For example when the demonstration in Beirut happened I disagreed that they happened as a result of the invasion of Iraq. I didn't, however, state that the demonstrations weren't a step forward for freedom and democracy in the region, saying that we had to wait and see what the Syrians would do, or what the Lebanese government might do. I didn't say "well the campaign might just peter out into nothing so claiming it is a step forward for freedom and democracy is prematurely reaching for a conclusion."

I would never say that because it is ridiculous. You have to work with the facts as they are now, because anything could happen. A good example happened this year in the countries of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. These two former Central Soviet States are very similar, and both have unpopular totalitarian regimes. They both had mass demonstrations this year that the government tried to crack down on. In Kyrgystan it resulted in the country's leader stepping down, in Uzbekistan it led to nothing at all. Both demonstrations were evidence of discontent with their government, and the bravery (or desperation) of the people showed they were willing to fight for reform, but only one succeeded.

If one had argued at the time of the Uzbeki demonstrations, "this is a great step forward for democracy because the Uzbeki government is about to fall just like in Kyrgystan", it would have been you that was prematurely reaching for a conclusion. This is what you are doing now: you aren't dealing with the facts, you are dealing with fantasy. You are not accepting the obvious: that the regime has smacked down the reformists, and instead want to believe in the promise of Bush's policies and hope that this crackdown will lead to a rebellion in Iran. Well just like in China, Uzbekistan, Zimbabwe, and many other countries throughout history they might not get anything at all.

Even if you can present a strong case to support your faith that the Iranian government is about to be toppled, you have to accept that the current election result is a set back for the reformation movement. Even the reformists in Iran say that.

Which perfectly highlights why it's premature to judge how this situation will unfold, or what effect the removal of illusory rights will have on the populace , and why we have to continue to keep the pressure on Iran by ensuring success in reconstructing its neighbours, and encouraging democratic reform in other Middle East countries.

Did you read anything of what I said? Answer me this: would it have been reasonable for Democrats to say after the loss to Bush that it wasn't a set-back because it might prove to be the catalyst that makes the Democratic party stronger than ever?

[Bren]

What the US really needs to do is support some tinpot dictator so they can go to war-by-proxy with Iran. What could possibly go wrong with a plan like that?

[Desslock]

Did you read anything of what I said? Answer me this: would it have been reasonable for Democrats to say after the loss to Bush that it wasn't a set-back because it might prove to be the catalyst that makes the Democratic party stronger than ever?

That highlights where you're going wrong in your analysis -- the situation isn't even remotely analagous, because there was no "real" election in Iran, with no "real" power being up for grabs, and with no possibility of there being any result other than what occurred. As I said, the tyranny in power just took away any illusion that they weren't directly in control, by staging a propaganda event. No control changed at all - anyone seeking change has just been told more directly that the tyranny will not accept change willingly

[Bren]

The more this discussion goes on (religious puppet masters, no genuine change in power, etc) the more I see that Iran really is becoming a Western-style democracy. Bravo!

[Tim Partlett]

That highlights where you're going wrong in your analysis -- the situation isn't even remotely analagous, because there was no "real" election in Iran, with no "real" power being up for grabs, and with no possibility of there being any result other than what occurred.

Except that I've repeatedly stated that the presidential result will not fundamentally change the politics of Iran, and that the president is not the one who holds the real power in the country. How exactly is my analysis wrong on that one? Oh it isn't. You've just taken my question, compared the two democracies, shown that they are different, and called my "analysis" wrong based on that.

I asked you a question. The analogy wasn't based on the two democracies being equal in their quality, but on the attitude of the people who lost to the results. Let's try again, but this time with an election in a country with an even more tyranical leadership: Belarus. A few months back Belarus hosted "elections" where the incumbent president Alexander Lukashenko was voted back into power. Now answer me this:

Do you think that the turnout of 90% in the presidential referendum for Belarus is a "positive trend" that shows democracy is on the up and up in the arena of former Soviet States? Do you think that the obvious fact that the elections were rigged can be viewed in anything but a negative light in terms of the reform movement in Belarus?

[Sebmolo]

The only thing I certainly won't accept the inaccurate description of the situation which you insist on providing. Whatever.

All these words are English, and yet I do not understand this sentence.

[Desslock]

Except that I've repeatedly stated that the presidential result will not fundamentally change the politics of Iran, and that the president is not the one who holds the real power in the country. How exactly is my analysis wrong on that one?

If you agree that the election doesn't fundamentally change anything, then why/how in blazes have you devoted a half dozen posts exclaiming what a "set back" the result is?

You keep asking questions about people who "lost" --- nobody "lost" in this election, because the elections were always a sham, and now they're even more openly exposed as a sham. Nothing substantive changes as a result of this election -- the Mullahs are, and always have been, in power. Does that mean the election result is necessarily a good thing? No. But is it obviously a bad thing as you seem insistent upon asserting? No. A propaganda event now lacks even the rudimentary credibility it once had.

[Tim Partlett]

Of course people are going to lose out. Just because I don't think that the election result will fundamentally change things in Iran doesn't mean that I don't think it will change anything in Iran. It will make life harder for the reformists, which is why it is a loss for them. They will almost certainly suffer a loss of freedom, freedoms which they have fought hard to gain, and that is bad for anyone who lives in Iran.

Now there are two routes for democracy in Iran: continuous political reform and violent political upheaval. You clearly don't think that the continous political reform route is having any success, and I was never all that optimistic about it either, but then again neither do I expect there to be a dramatic coup that removes the current regime. Whatever you believe to be the most likely route to democracy, there are two clear things:

a. Increasingly vocal demonstrations against the regime, and concessions to the reformists show that the democracy movement is strong.

b. Decreasingly vocal demonstrations against the regime, and the regime feeling confident enough to remove concessions given to the reformists show that the democracy movement is failing.

What is the situation in Iran right now?

If we ignore your bizarre tales of propaganda that claimed football supporters were demonstrators, we see a sharp decline in protests and a high degree of confidence from the regime to curtail the freedoms the reformists had previously fought for and gained, i.e. the situation is b.

If the democracy movement in Iran is failing, that has to be seen as a negative thing, right?

[Desslock]

You clearly don't think that the continous political reform route is having any success, and I was never all that optimistic about it either

Exactly. But even though the political reform route wasn't having meaningful success, that doesn't mean it can't in the future be successful -- as in several of the examples I already gave, those regimes were ultimately overthrown because of a backlash to an attempt to return to the past - and the violence was relatively minor.

The people in Iran have realized that despite "reformist" elections in 1997 and 2001, nothing changed -- all substantive reforms were blocked by the Mullahs. Half of the people who voted in 1997 didn't even bother in the latest run-off election (a big drop from the first round too) because they increasingly view the elections as meaningless, so it's ironic that you trumpet their importance and erroneously extrapolate in an attempt to impose some relevance that the Iranian people themselves don't seem to give them.

The fact that so many are willing to still participate in the vote, and transform an occassion where people are on the streets without fear of crackdown into a political rally, shows that the democratic movement is far from dead. Is it a bad thing that the Mullahs smoked the 1999 student protests, and have refused to hold meaningful elections? Of course - those actions make it more difficult for a democratic Iran to emerge, but they certainly have nothing to do (and predate) any action of the Bush administration.

[Tim Partlett]

I haven't "trumpeted" the importance of these elections. I have stated repeatedly that they won't affect the status quo in the country, but they will make life harder for the reformists. You were the one trying to spin the 62% turnout at the election (about the same as all previously elections) as a "postive trend" showing Bush's policies to be effective in the region. You were the one claiming "hundreds of thousands" of protesters on the streets of Iran a few months ago, when the numbers were so small the protests weren't even reported in the press.

The democratic movement in Iran is not dead, but it has not been helped by Bush, nor did Bush have anything to do with its creation. It was stronger before Bush, and it would be stronger without Bush.

[Uncle Larry]

Speaking of their new hardline president (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/06/30/iran.hostages.ap/index.html)...


Now I guess we'll have a left-right debate about wether or not this is a big deal, or even legit.

[Nellie]

From the above BBC article:

As soon as I saw a picture of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran's new president, I knew there was something faintly familiar about him.

Then, when I read a profile of him in the English-language Tehran Times, I realised where I must have seen him: in the former American embassy in Tehran.

Ahmadinejad was a founder of the group of young activists who swarmed over the embassy wall and held the diplomats and embassy workers hostage for 444 days.

[Mike O'Malley]

I'm impressed. Recognizing a guy from an almost twenty-year-old event documented by press photos? I'd love that kind of recall.

[John Reynolds]

I'm impressed. Recognizing a guy from an almost twenty-year-old event documented by press photos? I'd love that kind of recall.

You think it's a stretch recalling the face of someone you might've seen every day for 444 days?

[antlers]

I think it's a sad comment about the state of our intelligence on Iran that noone knew about the hostages link until now.

[SpoofyChop]

I'm impressed. Recognizing a guy from an almost twenty-year-old event documented by press photos? I'd love that kind of recall.

I nominate this post for "Most Incredulous Post of the Year."

Dude. They were held hostage in Iran.


hos·tage
A person held by one party in a conflict as security that specified terms will be met by the opposing party

I·ran
The country that is the all-time worst place to be held hostage. (Or at least since the Israelites were held there in 500BC.)

:shock:

[Mike O'Malley]

OK, OK, next time I'll read the article.

I don't know that Iran is the worst place in the world to be held hostage, especially before the mullahs established control. Nor am I swayed by John's "might have seen every day for 444 days", but that's a Cliff Claven Jeopardy argument, so I'll just take my beating and admit I didn't read the thing.

Part of me wants to claim that Gitmo is the worst place in the world to be held hostage, but I'll just stop while I'm behind.

[Desslock]

I haven't "trumpeted" the importance of these elections. I have stated repeatedly that they won't affect the status quo in the country.

Well, you've actually said the exact opposite -- that it's a setback from the status quo), but that's what I've consistently said, so I guess we now agree.

they will make life harder for the reformists

...er...nevermind. Those statements aren't even consistent with each other, but whatever.

The democratic movement in Iran is not dead, ..[.and] Bush [did not] have anything to do with its creation.

Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with its creation and nobody said otherwise, but nice try attributing a position that nobody has, or would, posit, to someone else to try to bolster your own views.

[Tim Partlett]

Saying that the status quo won't change doesn't mean that there will be no changes at all, only that there will be no radical changes, i.e. the system will remain the same. This is what I've said over and over again, so even if you don't understand what I mean by status quo you could work it out from the context that I have used it in. That you can't or won't understand it in that way suggests that you either cannot see in anything but black and white terms (things change or things don't change) or you are deliberately looking to find ways of portraying my argument in stupid ways because you haven't the wherewithal to engage in intelligent argument.

Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with its creation and nobody said otherwise, but nice try attributing a position that nobody has, or would, posit, to someone else to try to bolster your own views.

I don't need to attribute "a position that nobody has, or would, posit, to someone else to try to bolster [my] own views". And I didn't.

[Desslock]

Bush certainly didn't have anything to do with its creation and nobody said otherwise, but nice try attributing a position that nobody has, or would, posit, to someone else to try to bolster your own views.

I don't need to attribute "a position that nobody has, or would, posit, to someone else to try to bolster [my] own views". And I didn't.

Of course you did - even though no one suggested Bush had something to do with the creation of the democratic movement in Iran (since of course it predated his presidency) you introduced that statement solely to rebut it, implying that someone else raised it. That's like me just unilaterally stating that "it's very clear that Bush wasn't responsible for the 1980 Iran hostage crisis" in response to one of your posts.

there will be no radical changes, i.e. the system will remain the same. This is what I've said over and over again

No -- you said, in various quotes:

the movement has suffered a massive setback ...It's a failure...The country is looking to become less free, less democratic, less Westernised, less friendly towards America and its allies....The victory for hardliners in Iraq is a set back for everyone

And now you're trying to pretend that what you said, "over and over again" is actually that there will be no radical changes changes and the system will remain the same - when of cours you said and implied the exact opposite, as readily evidenced above. Stating a change is a "massive setback", a "failure", and that it made a country "less democratic and less free" is actually saying "over and over" again that there hasn't been a radical change. You've twisted yourself into an absurd position.

While I said:

That's a mischaracterization, of course, since there was no meaningful "election" -- the tyranny in power just took away any illusion that they weren't directly in control, by staging a propaganda event. No control changed at all - anyone seeking change has just been told more directly that the tyranny will not accept change willingly. That's the bottom line

Which you now apparently agree with, so whatever.

[Tim Partlett]

Let's look at my apparent contradictions.

I said that the status quo would not be changed, and that the system would remain fundamentally the same. I also said:

"the [reformist] movement has suffered a massive setback ..."

So you think that it is impossible for the reformist movement to suffer a massive setback without there being any radical change in the Iranian regime?

"It's a failure"

You don't think the reformist movement can suffer a failure without any changes to the status quo?

"The country is looking to become less free, less democratic, less Westernised, less friendly towards America and its allies...."

You don't think it is possible that the country is moving away from freedom and democracy without there actually being any radical changes now?

"The victory for hardliners in Iraq is a set back for everyone"

You don't think that it can be a set back without there being any major changes to the regime?

Figure it out, Desslock. The regime is the same; the system is the same; the president is different. The status quo won't change, the system will remain the same, but the freedoms of the reformist movement look like they will be rolled back. This is the failure, this is the set back, this is what is making Iran look like it will head down a road of greater tyranny and greater anti-Westernism.

I don't agree with you that the new president doesn't change anything, but I agree with you that the system remains fundamentally the same. Is this so difficult for you to understand?

Of course you did - even though no one suggested Bush had something to do with the creation of the democratic movement in Iran (since of course it predated his presidency) you introduced that statement solely to rebut it, implying that someone else raised it. That's like me just unilaterally stating that "it's very clear that Bush wasn't responsible for the 1980 Iran hostage crisis" in response to one of your posts.

The statement was used to emphasise Bush's total non-contribution to the Iranian reform movement. At worst the statement was unnecessary, but it was not a straw man argument. I didn't attribute it to you. I didn't use it to knock down a statement that you didn't make. You are grasping onto this, like you are grasping onto the "contradictions" because you are bereft of anything constructive to say any more. You haven't anything left to say on the actual subject, and so have forced me to contribute nothing but refutations of your ignorant charges.

Is this the best you can do?

[Desslock]

Is this the best you can do?

It's apparently good enough, since we're now essentially saying the same thing - that it's a result that we both agree doesn't change the status quo and that the system is fundamentally the same as it has always been

So we're left with debating whether that "result" is therefore a failure/setback/road to further tyranny, as you assert, or as I assert it's premature to tell what the effect will be of a tyranny telling the populace that it will not accept change willingly. Which tells me this discussion has run its course.

[Tim Partlett]

Two possible outcomes:

1. The president will roll back freedoms and make life worse for Iranians, he will be more intransigent over nuclear negotiations and be more antagonistic towards Western nations in general. This is my view.

2. Iranians will be so upset by the policies adopted in scenario (1) that they will rise up and overthrow the government. This is your opinion.

We all know that (1) will happen, at least until (2) happens. That (1) will happen is accepted fact. One can only hope that (2) will happen. We don't have to wait and see if (1) will happen, as it is guaranteed to happen unless the hardliner suddenly has a change of heart and decides that he doesn't want to carry on the same policies that he was reknowned for as mayor of Tehran. As I said before: my views are rooted in fact, and yours only in hope.

[Desslock]

This is my view....This is your opinion..

Incorrect - let me parse it for you, using solely your own words except where otherwise indicated (a courtesy I'd similarly appreciate).

Your view:

1. "The status quo won't change, the system will remain the same", [which somehow means] "The president will roll back freedoms and make life worse for Iranians, he will be more intransigent over nuclear negotiations and be more antagonistic towards Western nations in general."

my view:

2. The status quo won't change, the system will remain the same, Iran will remain the tyranny it has been since the Islamic revolution, exactly as hostile to the West as always, exactly as uncooperative as ever over nuclear "negotiations" (which have never, ever, been meaningful "negotiations" at all) --- in other words, no meaningful change at all - the status quo remains, so the only thing that it "changes", is that the tyranny clearly dispelled any illusion that it wasn't directly in control by staging a propaganda event -- which you've bought hook, line and sinker as something more meaningful, just as they intended, even though at the same time you're forced to painfully concede that I'm correct in asserting that the status quo is the same.

Whatever, man.

[Tim Partlett]

even though at the same time you're forced to painfully concede that I'm correct in asserting that the status quo is the same.

You've not forced me to concede anything, as my position has never changed. You've simply failed to understand it, willfully I suspect.

The system whereby the main power lies in the hands of an unelected theocratic elite will remain the same. The elected president will make life harder for for reformists, will roll back hard won freedoms, and will be more intransigent when dealing with the West. How is it so hard for you to be able to see how those two statements are not in the slightest bit contradictory?

You've had it explained to you carefully enough now, so it can only be because you actually want to be an ass.

[Desslock]

even though at the same time you're forced to painfully concede that I'm correct in asserting that the status quo is the same.

You've not forced me to concede anything, as my position has never changed. You've simply failed to understand it, willfully I suspect.

Hardly - I understood and dissected it pretty easily, because it overstates the relevance of a propaganda event. What's impossible to understand is how you fail to comprehend that's what I'm criticizing, no matter how many different ways reiterate it. Willfully, I concur.

[Tim Partlett]

If you understood it you wouldn't have claimed there was any contradiction. Because you have insisted that there is, you have therefore failed in your comprehension. All I can see you doing now is boasting about your abilities to debate, while clearly failing in the very basics. If you actually spent more time reading the other party's arguments, rather than looking for ways to pronounce yourself superior and correct, you might make yourself appear as sharp witted and erudite as you wished everyone believed.

Now, to try and get back to the discussion.

I think John Simpson, Britain's most experienced and esteemed foreign correspondent, sums up my position very well:

"So now it seems as though the conservatives control not simply Iran's basic religious and political structure through the supreme religious leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, but also the government itself.

The gridlock between conservatives and reformers which has dominated Iranian politics since 1989 has finally been resolved."

The political system is the same, but the political situation is different.

Your argument seems to be:

1. The political system in Iran will remain the same, and this is not a good system. We both agree on this.

2. That nothing will change because of the new president. Even though the Rafsanjani based his campaign on being more open with the West, and Ahmadinejad has been historically anti-West, you think that the attitude of Iran towards the West will remain "exactly the same". Incredulous.

3. That the election was nothing but propaganda. It was a poorly conducted election, I can agree on that. However, the evidence so far suggests that the election was bad in the Russian sense, i.e. state controlled TV and media pushed the regime's prefered candidate, Ahmadinejad. It doesn't appear that the regime simply gave Ahmadinejad the victory. Therefore claiming the election to be nothing but propaganda seems to be an extreme position borne of black and white thinking.

4. Even if Iran does get worse the people will probably rise up and overthrow the regime, thus allowing Bush to claim victory. Based on 25 years of political stability in Iran this would seem highly unlikely.

I noticed when you were claiming that Iran would stay exactly the same after this election you were careful to ignore my comments about the worsening situation for the reformists, and only deny there would be any change in external attitudes. This is key to understanding the flaws in your position.

You are basically trying your utmost to spin this in a positive light, because you believe the war in Iraq was correct as you feel it will bring peace and democracy to the region. You want to believe that Iran will eventually overthrow the regime, because this will help to justify the war in Iraq. This is why you initially argued (4) that the policies of Ahmadinejad would probably cause a reaction in the reformist movement that would lead to an overthrow of the regime.

However, you also to argued that the election was (3) mere propaganda. To support this position you had to argue (2) that the policies of Iran towards the West would remain exactly the same. Here is where you carefully refrained from mentioning the change in policies of Ahmadinejad towards the reform movement. Because to mention anything about those would have immediately shown that the argument (3) that it was mere propaganda was basically flawed.

To argue (2) the election was propaganda and (3) that nothing in Iran would change is not a problem, but you were hamstrung by your initial bravado in announcing that (4) the uprising was imminent due to the inevitably draconian policies of Ahmadinejad. This is what has screwed you all along, and probably the reason why you have tried to turn this discussion from the events to nothing but an attacks on my ability to reason and present a coherent argument. The best way to cover your tracks is to make out the fault lies with the other person, eh?