Iranian Elections this week

[Lizard_King]

Lizard, as far as I can tell Lugar isn't mentioned at all in that article other than his name in the headline. I like Lugar a lot, and wouldn't be suprised to have him supporting Obama on this, but that is a very poor article (or at least a very badly mismatched headline).

Yeah, that's not the article I thought I was linking to. Originally, I heard it on NPR and that was the first thing that came up, and I assumed it would have the goods. Here's (http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2008/10/15/senator-lugar-r-in-urges-diplomacy-with-iran/) a much better synopsis, with a link to his actual speech. I'll fix the original link as well, because fuck that headline.

[Hugin]

I was talking to an Iranian coworker of mine yesterday. His family is mostly in Tehran, he graduated from university of Tehran, etc. He didn't say anything super startling or new but it was good to get his perspective/confirmation of some things.

If the authorities had just gone for a ~52 percent victory for Ahmadinejad, legit or not, it would have been plausible-ish enough that none of this would have happened.

Hearing that Ahmadinejad won among the Kurds made him literally break out into laughter, when the government first announced it. He said it would be like Pat Buchanan becoming mayor of Cambridge.

He said private expressions of support via whatever online means from Americans were very heartening, but, as we've noted, anything from elected American officials just gives the Iranian government a way to frame things as foreign manipulation.

He says even if nothing further comes of this, the current Supreme Leader and the office of the Supreme Leader have both been significantly weakened, which he sees as good for the US on the medium to long term.

He says Americans should not get too nuts thinking of Mousavi or anyone marked as a reformer as being awesomely pro-American or liberal in the American sense. A lot of the protesters are actually old school Islamis Republic types. But he does feel that there's a general air, even among the local Islamists, that the country need not define itself in terms of oposition to the West any more (Israel is still a problem). He said Obama absolutely had something to do with this. Not that his family and friends back home see Obama as magicically fixing everything, but they see him as a basically fair, good faith broker in whatever diplomatic process might occur. He said the Cairo speech was good because it demonstrated that the US was willing to acknowledge Islamic culture in terms besides evil and terrorism. Said you cannot measure the subtle effectiveness of a President who can quote a little Koran, even if it's recognized as being sheerly out of politeness/diplomatic formality.

He says this has really strengthened Rafsanjani, who he predicts will be the next Supreme Leader, or the next Supreme Leader will be a total Rafsanjani ally/puppet.

As a side note, we were talking about the number of women at the rallies, and he said he agrees with the west's perception of gender inequality in the middle east, but that a lot of Western observers miss how many women in Iran go to university, he said the Grandmother in Persepolis (a real pistol, if you haven't seen the movie), reminds him of all of his aunts.

And he said in the middle east Persian women and Lebanese women are kind of like California Girls or Swedish women, sort of folklorishly known for being pretty/sexy.

[triggercut]

I was saying to a friend today: other countries can boast of their beautiful women, but holy hell, Persian women are *scorchingly* beautiful. I've also been told that rhinoplasty is almost an article of passage for those with any conceivable method to afford it.

[Jag]

Hearing that Ahmadinejad won among the Kurds made him literally break out into laughter, when the government first announced it. He said it would be like Pat Buchanan becoming mayor of Cambridge.

The comparison I read was that it was like claiming that Obama lost the African-American vote to McCain.

[jpinard]

I was saying to a friend today: other countries can boast of their beautiful women, but holy hell, Persian women are *scorchingly* beautiful.

Yes I was thinking the same thing.

[Lum]

Khameini to protestors: bite me (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/iran-elections-ayatollah-ali-khamenei).

This weekend is going to be bloody.

[WarrenM]

Lum

I heard a report about that on the radio this morning. Yeah, this weekend is not going to be a fun one for Iran. Wow.

[Slainte Mhath]

Khameini to protestors: bite me (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/iran-elections-ayatollah-ali-khamenei).

This weekend is going to be bloody.

No doubt. My jaw literally dropped when I saw that report on the news this morning. Holy crap.

I was all set to come here again today and post something about how the best solution for the country as a whole might just be to pull a Zimbabwe, where the election results stand but as a concillatory offering the opposition is worked into high positions within the government. Then the council of clerics or whatever could talk some crap about unity and a stronger Iran (as transparent to the outside world as that might be) and smooth everything over.

But not now, not after the Supreme Leader goes in front of everyone and claims the outrageous election results are valid and everyone should just shut up and take it 'cause Allah says it is so. Who approved that little outburst? By shackling himself to Ahmadinejad he may have just insured that there isn't just a political insurrection in Iran, but a spiritual one as well.

In any event, it's going to be a godawful mess for many days to come.

[zengonzo]

The legal structure in this country does not allow vote-rigging.

Well, shit - that settles that!

What exactly is this wondrous bureaucratic construct?

[Adam B]

Heard that on the radio on my way in this morning. Unreal.

[Lum]

But not now, not after the Supreme Leader goes in front of everyone and claims the outrageous election results are valid and everyone should just shut up and take it 'cause Allah says it is so. Who approved that little outburst?

I think one of the perks of being Supreme Leader is that you don't have to have your little outbursts approved.

[triggercut]

I think this is a grave miscalculation by Khameini. Ahmadinejad's "power" or "influence"--if he ever had any--has been reduced to zero at this point as it applies to the world stage. Even if the IRG and Khameini are able to crush this uprising, it will have to be with guns, tanks, and a lot of imprisoned and dead opposition.

It's as if Khameini learned nothing from Reza Pahlavi. Time will tell, but this seems like a major miscalculation on his part. If nothing else, he may have forced the hands of the clerics at Qom.

[Miramon]

I think the logic goes like this: because it is implausible that every ballot box in every precinct was stuffed, the totals must be good. This is not a broken modus ponens, it's not just illogical, in fact it makes no sense at all, so it is kind of hard to refute.

It's actually a good sign in a snide and ironic way that the Iranians are so bad at lies and propaganda. I mean, the clumsy photoshops, the outrageous election claims, the waffling over their messages to the public -- they just are not very skillful at this stuff. We could maybe send them some neocon "scholars", Fox "journalists", or for that matter some Huffington editors to explain how it's supposed to be done, on the terms that the Iranians have to keep them, we don't want them back.

[Jasper Phillips]

Khameini to protestors: bite me (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/iran-elections-ayatollah-ali-khamenei).

This weekend is going to be bloody.
Scary. It's like he wants them to bring it on, so he'll feel justified letting the blood flow. I guess such an authoritarian ruler just can't back down.

My money is on the fix being put into motion by him in the first place.

[Lizard_King]

Khameini to protestors: bite me (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/iran-elections-ayatollah-ali-khamenei).

This weekend is going to be bloody.


In an uncompromising address at Friday prayers, Khamenei claimed that the high turnout at the elections showed how much the Iranian people supported the regime, and blamed western powers for interfering in Iranian politics, singling out the UK as the "most treacherous".
That's the most outrageous Obama action yet. How dare the British take the most treacherous crown from us. None of this would have happened if we'd elected McCain.

I wonder how far Khameini is willing to go.

[Anti-Bunny]

The destiny-making march will take place at 1600 [1130 gmt] on Saturday [20 June] in the company of Messrs [Mehdi] Karrubi, [Mir-Hoseyn] Musavi and [Mohammad] Khatami from Revolution Square towards Azadi ["Freedom" Square].

We call on all the supporters of reform and change to have an overwhelming presence so that their cries are a protest at cheating and lying and backing for it at the highest levels of the system. May the massive crowd make all officials, who do not attach the slightest value to the people's votes, tremble.

So, basically, Saturday could change Iran forever, depending on Supreme Leader's reaction. Or is that today? Stupid timezones..

[Aeon221]

That's the most outrageous Obama action yet. How dare the British take the most treacherous crown from us. None of this would have happened if we'd elected McCain.

I wonder how far Khameini is willing to go.

Things must be confusing in Iran, what with the Supreme Leader requiring that they all learn to hate a whole new country.

[jpinard]

Sad day for Iran. My bet is everyone will back down. You can't have an uprising if you're all dead.

[Talisker]

Sad day for Iran. My bet is everyone will back down. You can't have an uprising if you're all dead.
On the flip side of the coin, you don't have a country if you kill all the citizenry.

[Houngan]

I think the logic goes like this: because it is implausible that every ballot box in every precinct was stuffed, the totals must be good. This is not a broken modus ponens, it's not just illogical, in fact it makes no sense at all, so it is kind of hard to refute.

It's actually a good sign in a snide and ironic way that the Iranians are so bad at lies and propaganda. I mean, the clumsy photoshops, the outrageous election claims, the waffling over their messages to the public -- they just are not very skillful at this stuff. We could maybe send them some neocon "scholars", Fox "journalists", or for that matter some Huffington editors to explain how it's supposed to be done, on the terms that the Iranians have to keep them, we don't want them back.

Which is a double-bad-manipulation, since they can't blame the irregularities on local bad seeds, it obviously happened at the centralized vote tally. The GOP is great at throwing underlings under the bus, Iran could learn from them.

H.

[Anti-Bunny]

On the flip side of the coin, you don't have a country if you kill all the citizenry.

Well you can't fault the Iranian government for not trying, who are currently killing their citizens at five times the rate of the US (per capita), including gay people for being gay and children for "crimes against chastity", often with stoning.

I'm not sure the clerics are going to be losing much sleep over a bloodbath

[zengonzo]

Things must be confusing in Iran, what with the Supreme Leader requiring that they all learn to hate a whole new country.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230687&title=Jason-Jones:-Behind-the-Veil---Minarets-of-Menace

[Lum]

It is going to end in one of two ways:

- A bloodbath to make Tienanmen look like a paragon of civil discourse
- the collapse of the Khameini regime, his replacement by Rafsanjani and a swift Soviet-collapse-style move to a successor state.

The protestors won't back down. These have been the largest protests in Iran's history - larger than during the 1979 revolution. The genie is out of the bottle.

And it looks like the government won't back down either. And at this point it's even too late to toss Ahmadinejad over the side. Khameini in his address explicitly made himself and his rule as Supreme Leader the issue. The chance for any meaningful compromise is gone.

So either the troops open fire when ordered (most likely tomorrow) or they turn their guns on the government. That's what the choices have been boiled down to.

[Lum]

Wake me up if there's rioting in Isfahan or Qom or they manage to get 100k at least on the streets of Tehran.

Awake yet?

[MikeJ]

So either the troops open fire when ordered (most likely tomorrow) or they turn their guns on the government. That's what the choices have been boiled down to.

Presumably the government would try to have the most reliable (fanatical?) elements do the shooting (like the militia?). So another possibility is that a massacre would cause other elements of the army to turn against the government.

[Malathor]

Awake yet?


I underestimated the kids there, good for them.

Indeed, I was particularly impressed with the photos of demonstrations in Isfahan.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

This might be worth reading, people. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/jun/19/iran-twitter) Not saying that Mr. Kucera has the definitive, authorative view on the situation in Iran, but it seems like a lot of the Western media is really, really unaware of the dynamics of the situation and are just assuming that the Iranian populace is somehow yearning for freedoms that are denied them.

Protip: The majority of the population isn't. A lot of the "freedoms" we take for granted are anathema to Islam. The truly religious don't want these freedoms, even though we feel that they most definitely should. In any case, there's certainly something going on in Iran now, but there's no real way to get an idea of what's going on unless you're on the streets or you're very familiar with the cultural, political and religious climate. The Western media has raised a terribly efficient smokescreen of opinionating and ideological condemnation of "the old regime", apparently without realizing that Mousavi was in fact authorized to run for president by said regime. Of course, it could always be that Khemenei allowed Mousavi to run due to pressure from the rest of the high-level clergy, because they wanted Mousavi to oust Khamenei, but why should they? There are more effective ways to gain power than through a proxy opposition candidate. Perhaps there was a massive groundswell of popular support for Mousavi that forced the clergy to accept him as a legitimate candidate and thus prompted the vote rigging to make sure Ahmedinejad won, but I've never heard of a groundswell like that ... I'm sure The Economist would have picked up on it in the Iran issue they ran two weeks ago. In fact, I'm pretty sure that would've been on the cover.

I think Khamenei was right on the money when he blamed Western media of meddling in Iran's affairs, even though he may not have known precisely what's going on: People like Sullivan have treated Twitter as a legitimate source, and dubious facts from Twitter has circulated heavily in the blogosphere as well as more reliable news sources. Reading The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, The Nation and The Atlantic yields extremely different perspectives on what's going on, several reporters obviously interpreting the same sources in different fashions depending on their own ideological bias or simply reading errors (one source reported rallied supporters of Khamenei as chanting "Death to the UK" while another source reported "Death to the US", in very different contexts). I don't believe anything being told me about this situation right now, and I don't think anyone should. There's obviously something going on, but there's no way any of us can amass the facts necessary to construct an informed opinion about it.

Since we don't need to sell newspapers, we should bear that in mind. We have no idea what's going on, and there's not much chance we're going to be able to get any better idea before the dust has settled and someone credible starts sorting through the various reports to assemble a coherent picture. Don't assume that our media is reporting anything even approaching the facts on the ground.

[Kareem]

Presumably the government would try to have the most reliable (fanatical?) elements do the shooting (like the militia?). So another possibility is that a massacre would cause other elements of the army to turn against the government.

There are two problems with that. A large percentage of the Basij militia don't actually particularly like the government themselves, and are only really doing part of the militia in order to make some cash. The other issue, which would make the Basiji following Khameini's orders a bit moot, is the reaction of the Revolutionary Guard, who have been moderately sympathetic to the protesters, protected them from the Basiji at times, and haven't drawn the ire of the crowds who have actually been calling out to them to defend them.

[Lum]

BBC's call: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8109972.stm)


But if a collision on the streets is averted, the scenario shaping up could be this:

• President Ahmadinejad survives, with the support of the leader, and chastened by the impressive outburst of public anger towards him

• Hashemi Rafsanjani survives as a counterbalance, again with the support of the leader despite their acknowledged difference of views on some issues

• The leader himself survives, having re-established balance within the system and reasserted his own position as its arbiter and protector

If that is how the situation is resolved, it may avert a situation of wholesale bloodshed, upheaval and disruption.

But it would also leave millions of Iranians angry and bitterly disillusioned, having had their hopes for change raised and dashed once more.

[MikeJ]

There are two problems with that. A large percentage of the Basij militia don't actually particularly like the government themselves, and are only really doing part of the militia in order to make some cash. The other issue, which would make the Basiji following Khameini's orders a bit moot, is the reaction of the Revolutionary Guard, who have been moderately sympathetic to the protesters, protected them from the Basiji at times, and haven't drawn the ire of the crowds who have actually been calling out to them to defend them.

I'm sure some of the militia and guards are sympathetic, but we don't really know how many. Clearly there's *some* security forces that are willing to crack heads, bust down doors or even shoot protesters. If the regime's plan is really to violently smash the protesters, wouldn't they give that job to their most fanatical (whoever they are)? If there are security forces who wouldn't use violence on the protesters, would they be willing to use violence on the ones that are?

[MikeJ]

Don't assume that our media is reporting anything even approaching the facts on the ground.

I agree that we probably don't know as much as we think we do, but the regime isn't exactly making it easy to gather the facts on the ground.

[Kareem]

but it seems like a lot of the Western media is really, really unaware of the dynamics of the situation and are just assuming that the Iranian populace is somehow yearning for freedoms that are denied them.

There is little need for the Western media to misinterpret anything since hundreds of thousands of protesters in the largest ever such demonstrations since the Islamic revolution handily prove that yearning for political freedom, without the need for logical gymnastics. This is the biggest indictment yet of the regime by its own people.


The majority of the population isn't. A lot of the "freedoms" we take for granted are anathema to Islam.

That's bullshit and you need to qualify that statement if you want it to be taken seriously.


The truly religious don't want these freedoms, even though we feel that they most definitely should.

What do you mean by "the truly religious"? Are you just using that as a synonym for the Taliban, Hamas, the Welayet-e-Faqih hardliners and other extremist groups? Because I profoundly disagree with labeling these as "truly religious" Muslims.


The Western media has raised a terribly efficient smokescreen of opinionating and ideological condemnation of "the old regime", apparently without realizing that Mousavi was in fact authorized to run for president by said regime.

Actually, no one is saying Mousavi is the ultimate solution to longstanding differences between Iran and the West. The protesters are way ahead of the figures at the helm of the reformist opposition at this point, and while substantial reorientation of the relationship between Iran and the West would take many years to actually come into effect, such a reorientation is now a popular demand. Additionally, the whole ordeal has dealt a deadly blow to the credibility of a regime obsessed with its legitimacy among the people. Khamenei all but endorsed Ahmadinejad before the election, and today reaffirmed that he wanted him because he was closer to him in ideology than Mousavi, and any Mousavi victory would have been a direct challenge to the authority of Khamenei, which is what the movement has blossomed into.


Of course, it could always be that Khemenei allowed Mousavi to run due to pressure from the rest of the high-level clergy, because they wanted Mousavi to oust Khamenei, but why should they? There are more effective ways to gain power than through a proxy opposition candidate. Perhaps there was a massive groundswell of popular support for Mousavi that forced the clergy to accept him as a legitimate candidate and thus prompted the vote rigging to make sure Ahmedinejad won, but I've never heard of a groundswell like that ... I'm sure The Economist would have picked up on it in the Iran issue they ran two weeks ago. In fact, I'm pretty sure that would've been on the cover.

There is no real ground for denying Mousavi, a former prime minister, the option of running for president, and would have provoked popular anger for no real reason from the regime's viewpoint, especially after Khatami decided not to run, since they didn't think Mousavi would ever defeat the incumbent. I think the regime simply miscalculated, imagining an easy Ahmadinejad victory, which sent them into a state of disarray after it became apparent Mousavi would win on election night, which prompted the ridiculous results that were released.


I think Khamenei was right on the money when he blamed Western media of meddling in Iran's affairs, even though he may not have known precisely what's going on: People like Sullivan have treated Twitter as a legitimate source, and dubious facts from Twitter has circulated heavily in the blogosphere as well as more reliable news sources. Reading The Guardian, The Independent, The Times, The Nation and The Atlantic yields extremely different perspectives on what's going on, several reporters obviously interpreting the same sources in different fashions depending on their own ideological bias or simply reading errors (one source reported rallied supporters of Khamenei as chanting "Death to the UK" while another source reported "Death to the US", in very different contexts).

Yes I'm sure Khamenei has Andrew Sullivan on his RSS feed list.

I think you're the first person I actually read defending Khamenei's claims that the mass media are meddling. Also, did you just deride different news sources for not having a unified interpretation of events? That's a bit weird on its surface, not to mention that you're restricted by a regime that just banned all foreign media from reporting in the streets. Also, Andrew Sullivan and CNN running Twitter feeds != mainstream media reporting. As an intelligent reader of news you shouldn't actually accept every Twitter feed as untarnished truth. You need to exercise caution in interpreting the news because this is an extraordinary event where mainstream media is banned from direct coverage, and they need to piece together the story from different sources. That said, most of the actual reports coming out from the Associated Press, Reuters, BBC Persia, the NY Times, Channel 4, ABC News, etc. with actual reporters on the ground have generally been very reliable, and much less error prone than all the Tweets, which is why the self-congratulatory masturbation of blogs chiding the mainstream media, as if CNN in the US embodied today's credible mainstream media, rather irritating.

Anyway, I didn't mean to sound belligerent, so apologies for any harshness of tone. I'm just getting a bit jittery at what will actually happen at tomorrow's rally.

[Eric T Cheng]

And he said in the middle east Persian women and Lebanese women are kind of like California Girls or Swedish women, sort of folklorishly known for being pretty/sexy.

From the Lebanese and Persian women I've seen -- in person and in the media -- I have to agree with that statement.

[Jag]

This is awesome:


As Iran's protesters have been finding out this week, among the most dangerous men prowling the streets of Tehran are armed intelligence agents and pro-government vigilantes wearing everyday clothes.

When clashes erupt between riot police and protesters, these provocateurs materialize from nowhere to take part in the fight – brandishing pistols, knives, and clubs – before disappearing again.

But during the six days of protests that have rocked Tehran and a number of other cities over the contested election victory of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, these violent actions have been caught on film and are being put online in a name-and-shame attempt to stop them.

"We are now identifying them, one by one, [and] this really scares them," says an Iranian source in Tehran familiar with the website http://lebasshakhsi.blogspot.com, which has posted photographs of individual agents and posts any information the public shares about them.

Exposing these shadowy thugs on an international scale is an amazing tactic. Truly the revolution is being televised.

[TheWombat]

Sometimes it seems like the current rulers in Iran are like the Bourbons, who learned nothing and forgot nothing according to Tallyrand. Wasn't it just thirty years go that they were the new kids in power, trying to consolidate a groundswell of popular anger that had swept out a tyrannical government? Maybe being an Ayatollah isn't as fun as being a Shah.

[Lum]

This is awesome:



Exposing these shadowy thugs on an international scale is an amazing tactic. Truly the revolution is being televised.

English translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Flebasshakhsi.blogspot.com%2F&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=), courtesy of Google's awesomely fast tracking Farsi translation.

[Jag]

English translation (http://translate.google.com/translate?prev=hp&hl=en&js=n&u=http%3A%2F%2Flebasshakhsi.blogspot.com%2F&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=), courtesy of Google's awesomely fast tracking Farsi translation.

I forgot to post the link to the article at the Christian Science Monitor (http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0618/p06s16-wome.html).


Yet another photograph shows a classic chagoo-kesh, the Persian word for street thug that literally means "knife-puller." But this is not a young punk. The image shows a middle-aged man with a gray moustache and wearing untucked short-sleeve white shirt, holding a long kitchen knife in his hand.



Details were not long in coming about the knife-puller: name, mobile phone number, home address, position in the Revolutionary Guards.



"We have his cellphone and home address," says the source. "He has left town!"

[Lum]

This is how revolutions start (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/06/the_four_iran_s/)


By the way, two nights ago I went out to see a few things ... as the general crowds spread into their homes militia style Mousavi supporters were out on the streets 'Basiji hunting'.

Their resolve is no less than these thugs -- they after hunting them down. They use their phones, their childhood friends, their intimate knowledge of their districts and neighbours to plan their attacks -- they're organised and they're supported by their community so they have little fear. They create the havoc they're after, ambush the thugs, use their Cocktail Molotovs, disperse and re-assemble elsewhere and then start again - and the door of every house is open to them as safe harbour -- they're community-connected.

The Basiji's are not.

These are not the students in the dorms, they're the street young -- they know the ways better than most thugs - and these young, a surprising number of them girls, are becoming more agile in their ways as each night passes on.

[Lizard_King]

Since we don't need to sell newspapers, we should bear that in mind. We have no idea what's going on, and there's not much chance we're going to be able to get any better idea before the dust has settled and someone credible starts sorting through the various reports to assemble a coherent picture. Don't assume that our media is reporting anything even approaching the facts on the ground.

Not taking twitter as the gospel is very different from giving Khameini the benefit of the doubt to the extent you are doing, in the face of obvious popular resistance against him. Are you seriously going to take the oldest line of tyrants everywhere (media meddling!) and run with it? It may or may not be true, but it doesn't in any way justify what Khameini is doing with that idea and what you are carrying on by lending it credence.

[Rimbo]

This is how revolutions start (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/06/the_four_iran_s/)

Wow!!

[Erlend Grefsrud]

Anyway, I didn't mean to sound belligerent, so apologies for any harshness of tone. I'm just getting a bit jittery at what will actually happen at tomorrow's rally.
That's entirely fine. I realize that I don't really know the situation half as well as you appear to, and the main point I was trying to raise is that there's no real basis for drawing conclusions about the situations just yet.

As for the rest of your points, I agree with your sentiments and I realize I should not have been so general when mentioning religion. I could probably build a case defending my opinion (without defending their formulation in my previous post), but I think that would severely derail this thread.

I don't defend Khamenei's accusations of the West, and I never said I did. Instead, I say that my impression of the media coverage is that an awful lot of it seems to demonize Ahmedinejad and if not holding up Mousavi as a saviour, then at least suggesting that he is a more "proper" candidate without much in way of qualifications. That might be because I haven't been as thorough in my sourcing as I think I have, but there's not much to be found about Mousavi in the media and at least not in the current coverage of the elections. I can see why the impression in Iran is that the most efficient information dissemination machinery is in full swing, spinning a narrative about the most proper outcome of the election, influencing affairs in Iran and contributing to disrupting their own media discourse. I don't know anything about the media in Iran, but I assume there must be voices that don't parrot the party line.

You know, in writing this I realize that I should really read up more on Iran before I say anything more. Consider your mission accomplished.

[Sarkus]

My guess is that like in 1979, a variety of groups are lining up behind Mousavi for their own reasons. So even if he ultimately comes to power in some form, I don't think it is at all clear that Iran will take a sharp turn away from it's current course. There are certainly people who would like it to, but there are also clerics and relatively conservative people who are upset about the results who simply prefer a minor adjustment.

In that regard I think Erlend's statements are correct. Mousavi is almost being presented as a pro-western with liberal democratic aspirations in the western media. He's not.

[Anti-Bunny]

From Iranian Government's PressTV:
Ahmadinejad to 'improve world' (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98517.htm?sectionid=351020101)

Oh goodie!

[Jasper Phillips]

This is how revolutions start (http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/06/the_four_iran_s/)
*whistle* That's coming on fast, and it begins to look like a revolution is already under way. If they're willing to go that far, I can't see them backing down from Khamenei's challenge.

[Kareem]

In that regard I think Erlend's statements are correct. Mousavi is almost being presented as a pro-western with liberal democratic aspirations in the western media.

I would really love to see some evidence of this, because I'm not seeing it. What I am seeing in the western media on the ground is simply an attempt to cover the events. If anything, they're intensely aware of the possibility of being seen as meddlers. The demonization of Ahmadinejad, and the glorification of the protesters (both of which are deserved since you should get lambasted for defrauding the electorate and harassing them with paramilitary forces, and movements against tyranny should be applauded and receive moral support from conscientious individuals, at least IMO) are prevalent in the Western media, but I have yet to see any credible people claim that Mousavi's ascendancy to power would bring a seismic shift in foreign policy and result in Iran becoming America's BFF.

[bago]

The house almost unanimously passed a resolution of support. Of course the lone nay vote was Ron Paul, and he happens to be right here. The vote was mentioned as part of the foreign meddling justification for a crackdown. Why does it take a notoriously cranky old Texan to remind people that our history of meddling is... shall we say... less than stellar. Feel free to make Firefly comparisons here.

[Lizard_King]

The line I've seen on Mousavi is nothing particularly Western or liberal beyond simply being adopted as the anti-government vote by popular movements that have been brewing long before his appearance on the scene. So at his most significant, it is his election and not his leadership, values, or platform that has served as a catalyst for this confrontation, and that mostly because of the fecklessness of the existing power structure.

Just about the closest thing to shitty media conduct has been the "Iran's Michelle Obama" line about Ms. Mousavi, which is annoying on many different levels. But underneath the dumbass headline (at least as presented by CNN) was a real story, as they showed footage of Ahmadenijad trying to attack her credentials as a professor with some trumped up charge in the midst of a political debate. He actually unrolls a copy of some document in mid debate and waves it around while making his accusations, like he's some kind of Iranian Roy Cohn.

[Erlend Grefsrud]

[...]I have yet to see any credible people claim that Mousavi's ascendancy to power would bring a seismic shift in foreign policy and result in Iran becoming America's BFF.
And that's not what I'm claiming either. Western media doesn't have to spin a complete image of Mousavi as a saint, because the picture that has emerged over the past week is of a harried statesman embodying what few virtues the Islamic revolution held. He used to be a prime minister, but fell out of favour with the clergy and now he's the reformist candidate. Like I said earlier, mine is not the broadest perspective on these events, but I'm very interested in the media's role in this.

Mixed with the rumours of his arrest and his being misled about the election results, the media picture of Mousavi is not of just another approved Presidential candidate that may or may not have been beaten by Ahmedinejad even if the election results were cooked: He is presented as a man capable of mobilizing the youth and the intellectual elite. He is, in other words, being endorsed by the Western media as a preferred alternative to Ahmedinejad, regardless of the actual outcome of the election.

[Incendiary Lemon]

Robert Baer on Mousavi at Time (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1905477,00.html)


Indeed, Mousavi, Prime Minister from 1981 to 1989, almost certainly had a hand in the planning of the Iranian-backed truck-bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in April 1983 and the Marine barracks in October of that same year. Mousavi, as my Lebanese contact reminded me, dealt directly with Imad Mughniyah, the man largely held responsible for both attacks. (Mughniyah was assassinated in Damascus last year.) The Lebanese said Mughniyah had told him over and over that he, Mughniyah, got along well with Mousavi and trusted him completely.

Baer has argued for rapprochement with Iran and his point isn't that we can't deal with Mousavi but that we should remember his past.

[Anaxagoras]

I would really love to see some evidence of this, because I'm not seeing it.

Same here. All the news sources that I listen to/watch/read either have completely dry coverage that describes Mousavi as the "reformer" or "opposition" candidate with no pro-western tendencies hinted at, or they have in depth discussion in which they're very careful to state that Mousavi isn't necessarily pro-Western, that he did some unpleasant (to our sensibilities) things when he was PM, etc.

BTW... several media outlets were slow to jump on this story, but other than that mistake, I've actually been very impressed with the media coverage of this. It seems pretty good so far. Careful, measured, and clearly calling out areas where they just don't know. I'll see in a couple months if their coverage was actually good as more in-depth investigation occurs.

[RyanMichael]

And he said in the middle east Persian women and Lebanese women are kind of like California Girls or Swedish women, sort of folklorishly known for being pretty/sexy.

This is fact, not folk lore. Persian women are gorgeous.

[croman]

Pretty important Saturday coming up here.

This is the Saturday Iranians stood down in the face of a Theocracy.
Or the Saturday they stood up and were beaten into submission.
Or the Saturday they won.

Sorry to sound cheesy, but in light of the Ayatollah's comments Friday those are basically the options. I'm nervous as hell to read the blogs tomorrow to find out the results.

[triggercut]

I'ts about 7:30 AM there right now. The demonstrations have tended to start up in the afternoons. By noon tomorrow we'll have an inkling of what's happening, and details by 2-3 pm.

[Jag]

This is fact, not folk lore. Persian women are gorgeous.

People keep saying this, but where's the proof!

Edit: Oh. Yeah. Saturday. You say you want a revolution. Well you know, we all want to change the world.

[Rimbo]

This is fact, not folk lore. Persian women are gorgeous.

http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/2022/392543cc5.jpg

This is the ugliest woman in Tehran, giving her "Aishwarya who?" look.

[Hugin]

People keep saying this, but where's the proof!

Edit: Oh. Yeah. Saturday. You say you want a revolution. Well you know, we all want to change the world.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/19/744656/-Tehran-Street-PhotosOn-the-Brink

Setting aside actors and models and whatnot, here are some demonstrators. Now, I think it's fairly clear the photographer is trying to get good looking shots, but still, there's a lot of prettiness there, even behind all the masks and things.

[Cubit]

ok, its 8am in Iran right now. i really hope i don't wake up to a massacre in the morning. godspeed everyone. our thoughts are with you.

[triggercut]

The planned protest is scheduled to start at 7:30 am EDT.

[Eric P]

The house almost unanimously passed a resolution of support. Of course the lone nay vote was Ron Paul,

to my understanding ron paul is really isolationist, and this vote is not uncommon for him.

[croman]

To be honest, I pretty much hate Ron Paul, but his dissent actually was pretty well reasoned.
In the end this all doesn't mean much, but I actually admire RP's words ( !?!?!!!, yeah, I'm surprised too)

[triggercut]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKUZuv6_bus

If you haven't seen this yet, you really oughta.

Some background: in the 1979 last-ditch crackdown on revolutionaries by the crumbling regime of the Shah, the opposition took to their rooftops at night, shouting "Allaho Akbar!" which means "God Is Great". Since Sunday night in Iran, people have been doing this in greater and greater numbers each evening. Friday nights the calls seemed to be coming from every rooftop in the city. Just heartrending. "I wonder if God is shaken."

[Lum]

This is fact, not folk lore. Persian women are gorgeous.

http://www.lumthemad.net/images/persian.jpg

[Mr_PeaCH]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKUZuv6_bus

If you haven't seen this yet, you really oughta.



That was amazing and inspiring.

[croman]

That was amazing and inspiring.
Agreed ++

There are moments when I don't expect Iranians to go very far into a revolution.... then I see Vids like this.

Allah bless them.

[Saiban]

I think that after the events of the past week, and that which is still to come, it will be very difficult for anyone to make a case in the West for demonizing Iran the way we have in the past. For a while, at least.

[Tankero]

All I want to know is how we can help them.

[triggercut]

All I want to know is how we can help them.

That's the hardest part if you're an American or Brit. We really can't help them with anything but moral support right now.

[Rimbo]

All I want to know is how we can help them.

Be careful what you wish for. The new leader may not exactly be pro-West, pro-liberal values, etc.

That's the thing to keep in mind about wanting to "help."

[Tankero]

I'm more moved by the trials of the people than by the politics of their leaders.

[Rimbo]

I'm more moved by the trials of the people than by the politics of their leaders.

Amen. Still, we have our own homes and families to be concerned with, too.

[Tankero]

If this is about Iran's nuclear ambitions, then its a matter of the Devil we know against the Devil we've heard from before, so America would be better off with an Iran too distracted with inner turmoil to project itself outwards. In which case, hope for mayhem in the Iranian streets in other to safeguard your "home and family".

But this is bigger than Mouzavi(again, sp). A democracy, a true democracy, is much less likely to wage wars of aggression against other nations on ideological grounds alone (at which point, you should ask yourself what the U.S. under Bush Jr. was). Your "home and family" will be safer if the Iranian people lead their country, instead of being under an authoritarian heel that is pursuing some form of manifest destiny.

[Anaxagoras]

I'm more moved by the trials of the people than by the politics of their leaders.

But the politics of their leaders are not necessarily that far from the politics of the people.

I honestly wish them the best, and I hope they succeed in overthrowing/reforming the current regime. And Allah knows that they have an ancient, proud, and wonderful civilization. But don't get too caught up in their current political struggles; it's their struggle, fought for their interests.


But this is bigger than Mouzavi(again, sp). A democracy, a true democracy, is much less likely to wage wars of aggression against other nations on ideological grounds alone (at which point, you should ask yourself what the U.S. under Bush Jr. was). Your "home and family" will be safer if the Iranian people lead their country, instead of being under an authoritarian heel that is pursuing some form of manifest destiny.
This is commonly asserted, but it's not true. The war fever going into World War I was just as great in the democratic nations as it was in the autocratic ones. And you mention the U.S. under Bush Jr., but you seem to miss that it provides strong evidence against your thesis. The U.S. was a democratic nation under Dubya. And yet, this country was bloodthirsty & self-righteous as hell.

[croman]

For those dying to see something, here's Obama's response [ with my bolding indicating my agreement]:


MITH: People in this country say you haven't said enough, that you haven't been forceful enough in your support for those people on the street -- to which you say?


THE PRESIDENT: To which I say, the last thing that I want to do is to have the United States be a foil for those forces inside Iran who would love nothing better than to make this an argument about the United States. That's what they do. That's what we're already seeing. We shouldn't be playing into that. There should be no distractions from the fact that the Iranian people are seeking to let their voices be heard.

What we can do is bear witness and say to the world that the incredible demonstrations that we've seen is a testimony to I think what Dr. King called the "arc of the moral universal." It's long but it bends towards justice.

[Kareem]

God this is incredibly sad, and an indication of what today's demonstration will ultimately mean, from a translation by NIAC here (http://niacblog.wordpress.com/) (scroll down to the 3:09 pm entry):


“I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…”

[Kareem]

It has started.

Batons, tear gas, water cannons, general plainclothes police brutality reported so far.

Report from state television of an explosion near Khomeini Shrine that has killed 1 person.

[Lum]

From an anonymous BBC reporter:


I'm in the centre of Tehran close to Enghelab Square where the demonstration was supposed to have been held. But there's a huge security presence here, thousands of men from every possible service: police, revolutionary guard, military police, the riot police in full riot gear, and the much-feared Basij - religious paramilitaries who see themselves as the shock troops of the Islamic revolution.

It's impossible for any groups of people to get through these to Enghelab Square and hold their demonstration.

If this continues and the opposition can't find some way around fierce security then the protests against the results of the presidential election will have been defeated.

[Anti-Bunny]

If this continues and the opposition can't find some way around fierce security then the protests against the results of the presidential election will have been defeated.

And if they manage to do it, they'll have pulled it off without a Tienanmen square-style crackdown, which will play very well with Europe.

[triggercut]

...other than firing shots into the crowd, beating and dragging stragglers away, and that kind of thing.

[Anti-Bunny]

...other than firing shots into the crowd, beating and dragging stragglers away, and that kind of thing.
That is hardly Tienanmen square level violence. And I'm sure the Iranian government is fully cognizant of China's history in that department, and is trying to avoid escalating to that level.

[Aeon221]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230687&title=Jason-Jones:-Behind-the-Veil---Minarets-of-Menace

Wow, they learned fast. Pre-emptively! I guess it's good that Mr. Jones didn't ask anyone about the UK, as they'd have whipped out their angry demon faces and spewed evil super hate all over!

[Lum]

According to Iranian twitters, the protests are turning into running street battles with police, helicopters are spraying tear gas and other nonlethal skin irritants into crowds of people, and Moussavi gave a speech stating he was ready to die.

[Hugin]

And I'm sure the Iranian government is fully cognizant of China's history in that department, and is trying to avoid escalating to that level.

You're ascribing an awful lot of self-awareness and finesse to a government which starting election night has behaved pretty ham fistedly.

[jpinard]

Wow, they learned fast. Pre-emptively! I guess it's good that Mr. Jones didn't ask anyone about the UK, as they'd have whipped out their angry demon faces and spewed evil super hate all over!

It's truly amazing, as time unfolds what an utter asshole and imbecile Bush was. Remember when he said "History will vindicate me?" Yes, history is showing what a damn fool he was in everything... domestic policy, foreign policy, education, economics...

[Hugin]

Fuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdRwOlmIxI&eurl

[Hechicera]

Managed to get a page refresh in on this from a tinyurl in twitter to a .ir website. So I saved it. Supposedly it is a statement by Mousavi today.

http://tinyurl.com/ntahoj

Posted it on my Facebook and tagged an Arab translator that works for a translation service in my friends list, maybe she knows someone. Link is to a copy of the text on my throw-away blog.

Google Farsi beta has it talking about the "Islamic Republic of yogurt", I think I want a live translation ...

[CheesyPoof]

Fuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdRwOlmIxI&eurl

Video removed, what was it?

[Hugin]

Video removed, what was it?


A young woman getting shot in the upper chest, then bleeding out in the street.

[Ben Sones]

It was profoundly disturbing footage of an Iranian woman dying from what appeared to be a gunshot wound in the chest. I won't give you the details, because frankly, I wish that I hadn't clicked on the link in the first place.

[wisefool]

Video removed, what was it?

Working for me now. It is a 30ish year old woman lying on the pavement with blood on her head. A few ppl surround and arte trying to help her. There is a female scream in the background

[Hugin]

http://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=89928823259&ref=nf

Alternate link, if you have the ability to view Facebook pages.

It is disturbing and monstrous, seeing a government just murder one of its citizens like this. My prayers go out to this woman's family.

[Hugin]

Official statement from the White House:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Statement-from-the-President-on-Iran/

"The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

[triggercut]

What becomes important now is how the events of today influence events going forward. Is demonstrating over? Are the protests beaten? Or do they keep coming back, smarter and stronger and bigger each day?

[Hugin]

What becomes important now is how the events of today influence events going forward. Is demonstrating over? Are the protests beaten? Or do they keep coming back, smarter and stronger and bigger each day?


I can't imagine this goes away. Before, it was an emotional but still kind of intellectual exercise, about political principles, philosophies of government, fairness, representation, etc.

Now people have been murdered. The chants change, the underlying motivations change. That clip I linked to earlier of that poor woman and the anguished people around her...that's not politics, that's blood, in a society that takes martyrdom seriously.

[quatoria]

If the earlier reports about impromptu gangs forming to hunt down basij in their own backyard is genuine, then there's no way this stops today.

[Oghier]

Video removed, what was it?

The video is back, and it's quite disturbing. From the looks of it, it begins just seconds after the woman was shot, and she bleeds out on the street.

[RyanMichael]

I almost saw that video earlier today, but clicked away before it got moving. Sorry, I've got too fragile a psyche to be able to confront that kind of horror, even from the safety of a youtube video.

But I never watched those beheading videos or got into Face of Death, so yeah.

[Jeremy Johnsen]

According the the liveblog that Sullivan is doing, there are 30-40 dead and over 200 injured in Tehran.

[WarrenM]

Wow. Amazing how the world can totally put your own problems in perspective in a heart beat. Iran, just amazing.

[MikeJ]

This Roger Cohen article (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/21/opinion/21tehran.html?_r=1) at the Times provides a really good 'man on the street' view.

[triggercut]

BTW, not sure what kind of news awards web "journalists" can win, but Nico Pitney at the Huffpo deserves every award they have for such stuff. As far as I can tell he's going "dark" about 4-5 hours per day, and the rest of the time he's kept a steady stream of info going since last Sunday (for awhile until Wednesday, I don't think he slept at all.)

[Jasper Phillips]

Fuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MrdRwOlmIxI&eurl
That's one of the more chilling things I've ever seen.

This isn't the movies you know, it's ok to provide spoilers and not send people in cold.

[Hugin]

That's one of the more chilling things I've ever seen.

This isn't the movies you know, it's ok to provide spoilers and not send people in cold.

Sorry, I wasn't trying to surprise anyone, at the time I posted I just didn't have another, more descriptive reaction.

[Saiban]

Robert Fisk sheds some light (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-battle-for-the-islamic-republic-1711554.html) on how the election might have developed and lead to this:


In the aftermath of the Ahmadinejad "success" at the polls, his supporters were handing out leaflets condemning the secular revolutions of Eastern Europe, and their content says much about the anxieties of Iran's clerical leadership. One of them was entitled: "The system of trying to topple an Islamic Republic in a 'velvet revolution'." It then described how it believes Poland, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine and other nations won their freedom.






"'Velvet' or 'colourful' revolutions... are methods of exchanging power for social unrest. Colourful and 'velvet' revolutions occurred in post-communist societies of central and Eastern Europe and central Asia. Colourful revolutions have always been initiated during an election and its methods are as follows:
"1. Complete despair in the attitude of people when they are certain to lose an election...
"2. Choosing one particular colour which is selected solely for the Western media to identify (for their readers or viewers)." Mousavi used green as his campaign colour and his supporters still wear this colour on wristbands, scarves and bandannas.
"3) Announcing that there has been advance cheating before an election and repeating it non-stop afterwards... allowing exaggeration by the Western media, especially in the US.
"4) Writing letters to officials in the government, claiming vote-rigging in the election. It's interesting to note that in all such 'colourful' projects – for example, in Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan – the Western-backed movements have warned of fraud before elections by writing to the incumbent governments. In Islamic Iran, these letters had already been written to the Supreme Leader."



Another leaflet maintained that a study – which Khamenei's advisers have obviously undertaken, however inaccurately – demonstrated that vote-rigging will be alleged on the very day of the election and that victory will be claimed by the opposition hours before the counting is finished and before their own defeat is announced. The results, says the document, will therefore already have a "background" of fraud. "In the final stages... supporters gather in front of the regime's official offices, holding colourful banners and protesting against vote-rigging." This part of the demonstration, the leaflet says, "is run by the foreign media who are the opposition movement's supporters so that they make good pictures and mislead the international community".

[Houngan]

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/6/19/744656/-Tehran-Street-PhotosOn-the-Brink

Setting aside actors and models and whatnot, here are some demonstrators. Now, I think it's fairly clear the photographer is trying to get good looking shots, but still, there's a lot of prettiness there, even behind all the masks and things.

I wonder if all the headscarves and burkha-wearing have selected these women for beautiful eyes?

H.

[triggercut]

I wonder if all the headscarves and burkha-wearing have selected these women for beautiful eyes?

H.

That is a mildly amusing and certainly inoffensive observation Houngan! I have no trouble understanding the sentence either!

[arctangent]

"I wonder if all the headscarves and burkha-wearing have acted in a manner consistent with evolution, and over a number of generations women with beautiful eyes have been preferentially selected as mates?"

[triggercut]

"I wonder if all the headscarves and burkha-wearing have acted in a manner consistent with evolution, and over a number of generations women with beautiful eyes have been preferentially selected as mates?"

Ah, now I understand. I was originally unused to seeing "selects" used in that verb form, but it certainly fits and makes the observation pithy and amusing.

[Houngan]

Oh ffs, you slack-jawed cockmonkeys. Easy joke, only see eyes, have beautiful eyes, let's move on.

H.

[triggercut]

Oh ffs, you slack-jawed cockmonkeys. Easy joke, only see eyes, have beautiful eyes, let's move on.

H.

Thank you for your reply! We have forwarded your response to our automated resolution center, and you should be hearing from us shortly! In the meantime, thank you for sharing an amusing observation that was certainly taken by this bureau in the inocuous manner in which it was offered.

[wildpokerman]

So I wonder if the election decision by the Ayatollah and the crackdown were timed to the weekend, just like if you have a bombshell of the FOIA request to release you do it on Friday afternoon.

Are they hoping they can clean the streets out by Monday?

[Brandon Clements]

Oh ffs, you slack-jawed cockmonkeys. Easy joke, only see eyes, have beautiful eyes, let's move on.

H.
Those women have bigger balls than you hillbilly. Crawl back out of your cave when you have something intelligent to converse.

[Houngan]

Wow, I have no idea what you are talking about. A post mentions that the women seem to be particularly lovely, and I suppose that their eyes (which are what you can generally see in the linked photographs) might be selected for genetically, since there is a cultural stipulation that the eyes are displayed until marriage. Granted I did this a bit whimsically, since I know that selection is quite a bit more complicated than that.

I swear I'm not being intentionally obtuse, I honestly have no idea what you are railing against here. I thought their eyes are remarkably more expressive and attractive that average, and wondered why. In all seriousness, what the hell did you think I was saying?

H.

[Aeon221]

Sensitive much, emo boy? I was just legitimately curious about what you were expressing. Nothing like seeing the repressed guilt of the small minded manifest itself in inocuous situations.

The heck? He's making an obvious, and jocular, comment about natural selection. The primary sexual element remaining to a woman entirely covered in clothing -- as many Persian women were for much of the last, oh, I dunno, thousand years or so -- are her eyes. Over time, therefore, women with attractive eyes should have an increased chance of mating, and especially of mating with the "fittest" males.

If you take a moment to peruse any of the classics of Persian literature, or the Arabic literature that it is often closely related to (for reasons that, quite frankly, don't need to come up here) you'll indeed notice that a woman's eyes are frequently a subject of interest.

In other words, he's making a science-y compliment of those women's eyes --as should be pretty obvious to anyone who isn't an incredibly dimwitted ogre faced moron.

[cesare]

The heck? He's making an obvious, and jocular, comment about natural selection. The primary sexual element remaining to a woman entirely covered in clothing -- as many Persian women were for much of the last, oh, I dunno, thousand years or so -- are her eyes. Over time, therefore, women with attractive eyes should have an increased chance of mating, and especially of mating with the "fittest" males.

If you take a moment to peruse any of the classics of Persian literature, or the Arabic literature that it is often closely related to (for reasons that, quite frankly, don't need to come up here) you'll indeed notice that a woman's eyes are frequently a subject of interest.

In other words, he's making a science-y compliment of those women's eyes --as should be pretty obvious to anyone who isn't an incredibly dimwitted ogre faced moron.

"Science-y" is a good way to put it, considering that the processes involved in natural selection and evolution take place over time periods that are orders of magnitude longer than the past thousand years. People don't evolve "pretty eyes" because of religious decrees that came about in the past millenia.

[RSofaer]

"Science-y" is a good way to put it, considering that the processes involved in natural selection and evolution take place over time periods that are orders of magnitude longer than the past thousand years. People don't evolve "pretty eyes" because of religious decrees that came about in the past millenia.

It's not about evolving pretty eyes, it's about leaving those without them to die sad and friendless in ditches.

[Anaxagoras]

"Science-y" is a good way to put it, considering that the processes involved in natural selection and evolution take place over time periods that are orders of magnitude longer than the past thousand years. People don't evolve "pretty eyes" because of religious decrees that came about in the past millenia.

Yes. Thank you for that information.


"Why did the chicken cross the road?"
"To get to the other side!"
You know, recent studies have shown that chickens don't actually have recognizable motivations as you or I might understand them, and they would never cross roads just to get to the other side. They might cross if they saw food over there, or perhaps if there was a rooster, but they don't do things just because. QED, motherfucker.

[wildpokerman]

It's not about evolving pretty eyes, it's about leaving those without them to die sad and friendless in ditches.

No Islamic society has plural marriage practiced by men but not by women. Thus someone who does not reproduce is most likely a lower class male.

So if you're looking for natural selection to remove traits in a small period of time you should be looking at men, not women.

So if women select for men with pretty eyes then you may have something.

Also considering that most very conservative Islamic socities practice arranged marriages and since extramarital sex is punishable by beatings and death, I would suspect that natural selection isn't what's determining what's floating around in the gene pool.

[Rimbo]

Up next: P&R discusses how Northern Europeans evolved blonde hair due to the fall of Rome and the lessening of Italian influence.

A thousand years doesn't strike me as a very long time for a racial trait like this to somehow become selected and dominant among a particular group of Eurasian humans. Especially since I see similarities between "Persian eyes" and e.g. Indian eyes. (cf. Aishwarya Rai.)

[Jasper Phillips]

So I wonder if the election decision by the Ayatollah and the crackdown were timed to the weekend, just like if you have a bombshell of the FOIA request to release you do it on Friday afternoon.

Are they hoping they can clean the streets out by Monday?
I suspect it has rather more to do with the connection between Friday and Islam.

[Hugin]

You guys are taking that original eye comment way more seriously than I suspect was intended. But true genetic evolution aside, I assume there is somewhat of an emphasis on the eyes in terms of maquillage. Along with things like eyebrow plucking. All around the world, humans work whatever they can work.

[triggercut]

You guys are taking that original eye comment way more seriously than I suspect was intended. But true genetic evolution aside, I assume there is somewhat of an emphasis on the eyes in terms of maquillage. Along with things like eyebrow plucking. All around the world, humans work whatever they can work.

I wasn't passing freaking judgment. I was just trying to figure out what the verb and noun in the sentence was. Keee-rist.

[triggercut]

The heck? He's making an obvious, and jocular, comment about natural selection. The primary sexual element remaining to a woman entirely covered in clothing -- as many Persian women were for much of the last, oh, I dunno, thousand years or so -- are her eyes. Over time, therefore, women with attractive eyes should have an increased chance of mating, and especially of mating with the "fittest" males.

If you take a moment to peruse any of the classics of Persian literature, or the Arabic literature that it is often closely related to (for reasons that, quite frankly, don't need to come up here) you'll indeed notice that a woman's eyes are frequently a subject of interest.

In other words, he's making a science-y compliment of those women's eyes --as should be pretty obvious to anyone who isn't an incredibly dimwitted ogre faced moron.

And it is obvious. I read this sentence: "I wonder if all the headscarves and burkha-wearing have selected these women for beautiful eyes?"

And thought: "I'm curious about what that sentence means. 'If all the people wearing the headscarves etc.?'

"No, not it."

And thought: "burkha-wearing people etc" No, still not it.

Then Arctangent, who is clearly ten times smarter than many of you posted his parsing, and I thought "Oh, ok. Now that makes sense. Cool."

At which point the parade of fuckwittery started.

The sentence is fine as written, I'm just not used to seeing that usage of "selects", even though it's fine. Had the sentence been: "I wonder if all the headscarves and burkha-wearing have naturally selected these women for beautiful eyes?" I would have understood instantly, had a chuckle, and moved on.

What a sad, unhappy life some of you must lead.

[Hugin]

I wasn't passing freaking judgment. I was just trying to figure out what the verb and noun in the sentence was.


I wasn't talking about you, I meant the subsequent apparently serious discussion of the timescale of evolution and whatnot.



Keee-rist.


Uh...Jumpin' Jehosaphat! Shazam!


Now, I didn't think the original statement was all that confusing or needed supergenius to parse despite being a bit grammatically awkward, but at the end of the day, it comes down to: Lots of very pretty eyes.

Hopefully no more folks get killed.

Khatami (relatively moderate former President) just issued a statement in support of the protesters.

[triggercut]

Massive demonstration today, details still coming out. Apparently more dead, not sure if that happened in the night or in the demonstration (which looked peaceful on the video CNN has).

[Aszurom]

I haven't been following the news too closely except for the first days of this. I do have a thought though...

If I were a dictator and people where having peaceful and fearless demonstrations against me, I might hire some troublemakers to get in amongst the peaceful demonstrators and maybe toss a bomb or burn a car or two. Then the police come in and deal "justified" beatings and such. You can shoot some people because hey, they burnt something down or blew something up.

End effect, hopefully, is that demonstrations stop and/or lose sympathy from outsiders because they turned violent and had to be put down. Peaceful and persistent demonstrations could be effective, so that has to be changed.

[triggercut]

I haven't been following the news too closely except for the first days of this. I do have a thought though...

If I were a dictator and people where having peaceful and fearless demonstrations against me, I might hire some troublemakers to get in amongst the peaceful demonstrators and maybe toss a bomb or burn a car or two. Then the police come in and deal "justified" beatings and such. You can shoot some people because hey, they burnt something down or blew something up.

End effect, hopefully, is that demonstrations stop and/or lose sympathy from outsiders because they turned violent and had to be put down. Peaceful and persistent demonstrations could be effective, so that has to be changed.

They (meaning the establishment) tried that yesterday, announcing that a bomb had gone off at the revered Khomeini shrine.

Problem: the area was completely cordoned off by police, and had been for hours and hours

Problem: the "explosion" was so small that the "damage" shown on TV was basically scorced paint.

No one in the opposition movement or those observing bought it.

[Aeon221]

"Science-y" is a good way to put it, considering that the processes involved in natural selection and evolution take place over time periods that are orders of magnitude longer than the past thousand years. People don't evolve "pretty eyes" because of religious decrees that came about in the past millenia.

That's certainly debatable, but I'm not interested enough to do so. Anyway, I agree, hence the "science-y" as opposed to "THIS IS SCIENCE".

[Cobra]

Very graphic video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfrfEtW2aT4) of a women who was shot in the chest (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906049,00.html?xid=rss-topstories) during the confrontation with police in Tehran.

[Anti-Bunny]

Very graphic video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfrfEtW2aT4) of a women who was shot in the chest (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906049,00.html?xid=rss-topstories) during the confrontation with police in Tehran.

This was posted last page, but thanks for actually having the decency to post a graphic warning.

[Anti-Bunny]

There is a pretty great flickr gallery here (http://www.flickr.com/photos/fhashemi/sets/72157619758530748/show/).

[Lum]

Protesters impacting into, and routing a police line. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml)

[AaronSofaer]

Iranian security forces arrested five close relatives of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Saturday night, including his daughter Faezeh Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iran’s state-run Press TV Web site reports.

And the government continues the escalation in the halls of power, as it were.

[Rasputin]

Netanyahu was on Meet the Press and issued a statement of support for the courageous Iranians fighting for their freedom.

Is there no decision that this guy makes where he doesn't choose the "asshole" path?

[Woolen Horde]

Netanyahu was on Meet the Press and issued a statement of support for the courageous Iranians fighting for their freedom.

Is there no decision that this guy makes where he doesn't choose the "asshole" path?

But he can't bomb the ayatollahs if they're deposed!

[Hechicera]

Purported to be video of attacks by protesters on government buildings. Dispersed by helicopters which twitter feeds have been reporting as a weak CS/Tear Gas solution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Id2cyvGd3HM

Link to latest Mousavi 6th statement (in Farsi, no English yet, have two good English translations of his 5th now). You can use the google beta though, seems to work better today.

http://kalemeh.ir/vdcc.4qoa2bqmmla82.txt

And recent information is that Rafsanjani's daughter may have been released.

[Saiban]

Protesters impacting into, and routing a police line. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml)


Wow. I kept watching it, thinking it was going to be just a regular stand-off between the police and protesters, albeit with a bit more violence (What were they throwing? Pieces of concrete? Masonry?). When the crowd suddenly surged forward and police took off, though, it was amazing. You can almost feel the rage of that crowd.

By the way, those aren't regular police, are they? I noticed they were wearing camo. Are they Pasdaran? Basij?

[Jeremy Johnsen]

I was wondering the same thing, they don't look like the police groups that I've seen in other videos.

Whoever they are, it's pretty amazing to see the crowd surge over them.

[Anti-Bunny]

By the way, those aren't regular police, are they? I noticed they were wearing camo. Are they Pasdaran? Basij?

Cops wearing camo is actually not that uncommon, outside the US. But I agree, this probably isn't the police.

[Lunch of Kong]

Working for me now. It is a 30ish year old woman lying on the pavement with blood on her head. A few ppl surround and arte trying to help her. There is a female scream in the background

Her name was Neda. As far as I can tell, she was a teenager, and that female scream you think you hear is actually her father screaming in agony.

USA Today blog:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/06/in-.html

[Aeon221]

Her name was Neda. As far as I can tell, she was a teenager, and that female scream you think you hear is actually her father screaming in agony.

USA Today blog:
http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2009/06/in-.html

Her name isn't Neda, it's just what people have been calling her. See your link, and the one Cobra posted above.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1906049,00.html?xid=rss-topstories


The woman rapidly became a symbol of Iran's escalating crisis, from a political confrontation to far more ominous physical clashes. Some sites refer to her as "Neda," Farsi for the voice or the call.


Neda, which may or may not be her real name, means "the call" or "the voice" in Farsi.

[Cobra]

Let's face the facts here for a sec:

*The Basij is still in control in Iran despite what we see.
*The fact that the Revolutionary guards haven't even lifted a finger shows that the government isn't even concerned.
*All these people might be able to cause a chaos in Tehran but when it comes to a revolution, none of them is prepared.
*No country is crazy enough to meddle with them. Let alone support the protesters.

This is likely to die down in a month and the IRI will, sadly, go one as before.

[Rasputin]

Wow. I kept watching it, thinking it was going to be just a regular stand-off between the police and protesters, albeit with a bit more violence (What were they throwing? Pieces of concrete? Masonry?). When the crowd suddenly surged forward and police took off, though, it was amazing. You can almost feel the rage of that crowd.

By the way, those aren't regular police, are they? I noticed they were wearing camo. Are they Pasdaran? Basij?

Watching that made one thing absolutely clear: Iran is wholly unprepared for the zombie apocalypse.

[Aszurom]

So, I'm trying to understand the context of this "Neda" girl who got shot. This doesn't look to be in a crowd, but on a fairly quiet side street somewhere. Some random sniper, or what?

[Anti-Bunny]

Dear, idiot right-wing blogs (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/06/20/contrast-iranian-protestors-shot-as-obama-goes-for-ice-cream/): I, too, am going to go have ice cream RIGHT NOW. I hope this makes you flip your keyboard so hard it injures you.

[Hechicera]

Context that has been given (realize most of this is unverified, but with several major outlets now running with the "facts from the wild" it will likely be the narrative that goes down in history):

The shooter was a member of the Basij (wiki them for detail), who are considered to now be an oppressive volunteer militia. Protesters have gathered at Basij buildings as part of the response to the crackdown. Reports of Basij sniping and firing at crowds from the rooftops of their buildings have been rampant. There are other videos of Basij shooting protesters from thier buildings and from the streets. One has a male victim, other just show crowds fleeing. Basij have been doing a lot of the general beatings. So the narrative fits a general pattern emerging regardless of this video.

The victim was in the crowd of protesters with her father. Whether she was actively protesting, passively present, or just observing is not known. She was shot dead by a sniper shot to the heart from the top of the Basij building that group was protesting near and filming.

Her name is probably not Neda. She is being called Neda by others or alternately was called Neda as a nickname by her family. Some report her name was Rascha or Raza. Some report her as a teen, other reports have her as old as 27.

[forgeforsaken]

This is video from before the shooting with her and her father present.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWHT37pQmmE&feature=player_embedded

[Anaxagoras]

Netanyahu was on Meet the Press and issued a statement of support for the courageous Iranians fighting for their freedom.

Is there no decision that this guy makes where he doesn't choose the "asshole" path?

I don't understand. Siding with the protesters is anything but an asshole path. Are you making a joke about Netanyahu being overly villified in the Western media?

[Lum]

He's making the point that having the leader of "the Zionist entity" making a strong public show of support for the protesters may not have been the most helpful thing that he could have done.

[Rasputin]

He's making the point that having the leader of "the Zionist entity" making a strong public show of support for the protesters may not have been the most helpful thing that he could have done.

Bingo.

[zengonzo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml

[Rasputin]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ag_street_clashes.shtml

Really, does no one check upthread for such things anymore?

Amusingly, this one's the inverse of the previous occurrence in this thread vis a vis description of video with link.

[Hechicera]

Confirmation that the rumor I reported earlier about Rafsanjani's daughter's release was correct.

BBC Persia (http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090621_ir88_election_faeze_hashemi.shtml)

Google Beta Translate (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fpersian%2Firan%2F20 09%2F06%2F090621_ir88_election_faeze_hashemi.shtml&sl=fa&tl=en&history_state0=) of that

[zengonzo]

Really, does no one check upthread for such things anymore?

Amusingly, this one's the inverse of the previous occurrence in this thread vis a vis description of video with link.

I'd missed it. It happens.

[Cobra]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8112812.stm

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have threatened to crack down on any new street protests against the results of the country's presidential election.

Now we can start to worry. The Revolutionary Guards isn't something you defeat with just protesting.

[triggercut]

General strikes may have been called to start on Wednesday. You defeat brutal crackdowns on demonstrations by just staying home.

[salwon]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad: (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101)


Iran's Guardian Council has suggested that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of people eligible to cast ballot in those areas.

The council's Spokesman Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, who was speaking on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Sunday, made the remarks in response to complaints filed by Mohsen Rezaei -- a defeated candidate in the June 12 Presidential election.

"Statistics provided by the candidates, who claim more than 100% of those eligible have cast their ballot in 80-170 cities are not accurate -- the incident has happened in only 50 cities," Kadkhodaei said.

Oh that's okay then, as long as more than 100% voted in only 50 or so cities.

[Aszurom]

It's really too bad we didn't get out and raise hell protesting in 2000 here in the USA. Or in 2004.

[AaronSofaer]

Really? Because you think the situations are at all similar?

Protip, they're not.

[Cubit]

It's really too bad we didn't get out and raise hell protesting in 2000 here in the USA. Or in 2004.

Didn't you hear? Americans are lazy slugs sedated by their own prosperity and wealth.

[triggercut]

This would be funny if it weren't so sad: (http://www.presstv.ir/detail/98711.htm?sectionid=351020101)



Oh that's okay then, as long as more than 100% voted in only 50 or so cities.

...and the discrepancy only caused 3 million fraudulent votes to be cast....

[Aeon221]

Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute.

That's a plausible explanation. Atlanta has huge swings in population during the day as people commute in and out. If all us commuters voted downtown, the turnout would probably have been extremely high in the city, and much lower in the surrounding areas.

Mr. Kadkhodaei just has to show lower turnout around the high turnout areas for this to go from plausible theory to provable hypothesis, and away from fraud.

[Hechicera]

If you want to "geek out" on voting analysis, this guy's coverage of Iran's numbers is good.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/iran

He started with the last election here and was decent, imho.

[Eric P]

Didn't you hear? Americans are lazy slugs sedated by their own prosperity and wealth.


until our teams win.

[ReptileHouse]

If you want to "geek out" on voting analysis, this guy's coverage of Iran's numbers is good.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/search/label/iran

He started with the last election here and was decent, imho.

Nate's analysis is very, very good. He's a smart guy.

[Hugin]

Nate's analysis is very, very good. He's a smart guy.

I'd love to let him loose on something like sports stats and see if he can glean anything useful from those numbers.

[Matthew Gallant]

I'd love to let him loose on something like sports stats and see if he can glean anything useful from those numbers.
Is this a joke, or do you not know Nate's bio?

[Hugin]

Is this a joke, or do you not know Nate's bio?

It would be joke sir.

[RyanMichael]

I'd love to let him loose on something like sports stats and see if he can glean anything useful from those numbers.

I LOL'd.

[Cubit]

Upon learning of his son's death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a "bullet fee"—a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said.

fuck em'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124571865270639351.html

[Jason McCullough]

If all us commuters voted downtown, the turnout would probably have been extremely high in the city, and much lower in the surrounding areas.

Atlanta lets you vote in whatever district you want? Seattle sure doesn't.

[salwon]

Yeah I'm pretty sure nowhere does.

[Hugin]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-neda-agha-soltan-pictures,0,5241125.photogallery?index=1

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-neda23-2009jun23,0,6240992.story

Article about the woman who was murdered a few days ago, and a small photo gallery of pics from when she was alive. Nothing graphic. It's a damned shame.

[Ben Sones]

...and the discrepancy only caused 3 million fraudulent votes to be cast....

And that's just the tip of the iceberg. The cities in which the votes cast didn't surpass the number of registered voters could also have fraudulent votes in their totals. In fact, given the massive scale of the vote rigging that we can see, I'd say that it's very likely that they do.

[Anaxagoras]

Upon learning of his son's death, the elder Mr. Alipour was told the family had to pay an equivalent of $3,000 as a "bullet fee"—a fee for the bullet used by security forces—before taking the body back, relatives said.


fuck em'

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124571865270639351.html

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

[Jag]

You have GOT to be fucking kidding me.

I think China charges the family for executions. Not sure what they do about protesters gunned down in the street.

[RyanMichael]

The horrific part is the cost. It'd be one thing if they put the cost of the bullet at $50, $100, or hell, $500, but $3000? They're being dicks just for the sake of dickdom.

[Houngan]

I believe I would have to even the balance sheet the obvious way. This whole Iranian uprising is a pretty good argument for the 2nd amendment, particularly when you have government-friendly militias raiding and killing without repercussion.

H.

[Lum]

I'd say Iran needs the 1st amendment more than the 2nd at the moment.

[Anti-Bunny]

You're both wrong, they need a 21st amendment.

[Wallapuctus]

They would benefit from them all, I reckon.

[Houngan]

I'd say Iran needs the 1st amendment more than the 2nd at the moment.

They kinda do:


Article 24 [Freedom of the Press]
Publications and the press have freedom of expression except when it is detrimental to the fundamental principles of Islam or the rights of the public. The details of this exception will be specified by law.


Since this is a secular problem with the election, then the word of the constitution says that there should be total freedom of the press. If there were, say, a Christian running for office then the constitution would allow suppression.

So I'll stick by my troll, the 2nd would be awfully handy to get back the 1st (24th) for the Iranian people.

H.

[triggercut]

Latest strategy for Wednesday?

Shopping strike.

Apparently word is out that people are to leave their homes on Wednesday, not to dress provocatively (no green), and simply go to the Tehran Bazaar to "shop". If stopped or questioned they are not protesting or demonstrating, they are going shopping. In the bazaar in central Tehran.

Hopefully with millions of friends.

[Matthew Gallant]

They kinda do:
You mean they kinda do have a portion of a part of it. If there was a real 1st amendment, they wouldn't have had a "supreme theocrat" in the first place and they would have a decent shot at being a real government, for the people instead of for a non-existent omnipotence that for some reason wants you to eat meat a certain way and do fatwas for him because he's too busy.

[Not One Of Us]

http://www.youtube.com/citizentube

Youtube channel that's currently showcasing some of the Iranian police abuse.

[Cubit]

Tensions seem to be growing between the Iranian and British governments. Iran expelled a couple British diplomats today.


Iran's Foreign Ministry said it expelled the two Britons for "unconventional behavior," state television reported, and Britain announced it was sending two Iranian diplomats home in retaliation.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jGSJEAPs_r2T2wxsL5G3t4z-jajQD990J3QO1

[Aeon221]

Atlanta lets you vote in whatever district you want? Seattle sure doesn't.

No, they don't. But Iran does. I was just using an example that everyone would understand.

[jpinard]

I am so sad for the good people of Iran.

[Cobra]

I think China charges the family for executions. Not sure what they do about protesters gunned down in the street.

My grandma also had too pay for my uncle corpse under Saddam. There are some letters of it on the internet. Let's see if I can find it.

[Anti-Bunny]

Iranian government is now using snipers (http://raymankojast.blogspot.com/2009/06/iranian-snipers-is-taking-out.html) for crowd control....

[BigWeather]

I think the Iranian government may very well come to regret their brutal suppression.

One of the few things holding back strikes against their nuclear plants by Israel was the United States restraining them out of fear of aborting any revolutionary movement in the country should an attack occur.

I don't think the US will strike and it's unlikely Obama would stop trying to restrain Israel. I think the recent tension between the US and Israel plus the realization on the part of Israel that the regime isn't going anywhere (should they indeed crush the revolution) will lead Israel to strike, knowing full well that while the world will protest that it won't be nearly as damning as it would've been a month ago.

[Sarkus]

I think given the recent tension between the US and Israel plus the realization on the part of Israel that the regime isn't going anywhere (should they indeed crush the revolution) will lead Israel to strike, knowing full well that while the world will protest that it won't be nearly as damning as it would've been a month ago.

The problem is that Israel can't actually launch airstrikes against Iran without the US getting blamed for at least turning a blind eye. Any Israeli strike will have to violate at least a few countries airspace, and the US is in the difficult position of effectively being responsible for guaranteeing Iraq's airspace and having a major military presence in the gulf. Meaning, we'd be looking the other way and would be blamed, and rightly so, for letting Israel act. And I don't think Obama wants to do that, especially since he seems to want to change the relationship between the US and the muslim world.

[Jason McCullough]

No, they don't. But Iran does. I was just using an example that everyone would understand.

No way, really? Wow.

[Incendiary Lemon]

An effective air campaign would involve a week of sorties, bomb damage assessments, and follow up strikes. Israel lacks the logistical means to carry that out. The range is prohibitive and they lack the in air refueling capabilites to allow for any loiter time. Further, the overflight issues are sticky. Do they go through Syria, Iraq?

Unlike Osiris a single bombing raid would have a negligible effect on a hardened and decentralized nuclear development program.

The current situation in Iran makes it even less likely though. Iran not simply the land of the mad mullah anymore and that makes any attack more costly. You can't lionize the Iranians in the street one day, as Bibi did, and then blow them up the next.

[Saiban]

I think the Iranian government may very well come to regret their brutal suppression.

One of the few things holding back strikes against their nuclear plants by Israel was the United States restraining them out of fear of aborting any revolutionary movement in the country should an attack occur.

I don't think the US will strike and it's unlikely Obama would stop trying to restrain Israel. I think the recent tension between the US and Israel plus the realization on the part of Israel that the regime isn't going anywhere (should they indeed crush the revolution) will lead Israel to strike, knowing full well that while the world will protest that it won't be nearly as damning as it would've been a month ago.

Yeah, because after seeing these people turning out in the hundreds of thousands (millions?) to protest their government, and risking their own lives to do so, public opinion in the West would TOTALLY be in favor of bombing them where it wasn't before!

EDIT: God dammit, beat by a Lemon.

[BigWeather]

While Obama may be extending a hand to the Muslim world I'm not sure that if Israel said "hey, we're coming through Iraqi airspace" that he'd have the stones to shoot them down. Israel could very well call his bluff on that. Agreed it is logistically difficult and they probably won't do it -- but I think it is more likely if this revolution is defeated than it was before.

Also, Israel wouldn't bomb Tehran or civilian targets. They'd bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. While public opinion wouldn't favor a strike at all I think that a successful strike targeting only the facilities would meet a more muted response than before -- if the existing regime consolidates power and proves it is brutal (against its own people, no less) then there'll be a lot of relief behind the condemnation should Israel set back their nuclear capability. If the strike was cast as a strike on the regime and not the people it may work from a PR standpoint.

(For the record, I'm not saying I support a strike. I just think it is more likely should the regime "win".)

[Saiban]

If the strike was cast as a strike on the regime and not the people it may work from a PR standpoint.

(For the record, I'm not saying I support a strike. I just think it is more likely should the regime "win".)

In the aftermath of the Iraq debacle, even Americans realize (well, more than they did) that it's impossible to carry out a 'strike on the regime and not the people'.

[Houngan]

An effective air campaign would involve a week of sorties, bomb damage assessments, and follow up strikes. Israel lacks the logistical means to carry that out. The range is prohibitive and they lack the in air refueling capabilites to allow for any loiter time. Further, the overflight issues are sticky. Do they go through Syria, Iraq?

Unlike Osiris a single bombing raid would have a negligible effect on a hardened and decentralized nuclear development program.

The current situation in Iran makes it even less likely though. Iran not simply the land of the mad mullah anymore and that makes any attack more costly. You can't lionize the Iranians in the street one day, as Bibi did, and then blow them up the next.


And let's not forget, "effective" means that there is a goal, which I can't discern for Israel striking Iran unless they are going to pull an Iraq and try to replace the government after a complete and utter takeover of the entire country. Which would fail incredibly.

H.

[Saiban]

And let's not forget, "effective" means that there is a goal, which I can't discern for Israel striking Iran unless they are going to pull an Iraq and try to replace the government after a complete and utter takeover of the entire country. Which would fail incredibly.

H.

I would speculate that the intent of the Israeli right was to convince the US and Europe of the evil-ness of the Iranian regime, and thus motivate us to act against Iran. And I don't mean an Osiris-style strike, but rather lengthy sanctions and bombardment, much as we did to Iraq after 1991. That's the only kind of action with the scale and length to halt Iran's nuclear program and keep it halted for more than a year or two.

Edit: Also, sanctions and an extended bombardment campaign would be much more damaging on the population as a whole than 'just' a limited precision strike, which ties into my previous post about Westerners/Americans being perhaps more aware of civilian casualties than they had been.

[Hugin]

I think the last thing anyone sensible wants to do right now is give Iran a real external enemy to focus on.

[Saiban]

I think the last thing anyone sensible wants to do right now is give Iran a real external enemy to focus on.

Mostly true, with the exception of Israel, or least the exception of their ruling party.

[Jasper Phillips]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/24/neda-soltan-iran-family-forced-out

The Iranian authorities have ordered the family of Neda Agha Soltan out of their Tehran home after shocking images of her death were circulated around the world.

The government is also accusing protesters of killing Soltan, describing her as a martyr of the Basij militia. Javan, a pro-government newspaper, has gone so far as to blame the recently expelled BBC correspondent, Jon Leyne, of hiring "thugs" to shoot her so he could make a documentary film.

[Hugin]

Mostly true, with the exception of Israel, or least the exception of their ruling party.


I said "sensible". I don't think Israeli hardliners are sensible.

[Saiban]

I said "sensible". I don't think Israeli hardliners are sensible.

Yeah, they really aren't.

[Houngan]

I would speculate that the intent of the Israeli right was to convince the US and Europe of the evil-ness of the Iranian regime, and thus motivate us to act against Iran. And I don't mean an Osiris-style strike, but rather lengthy sanctions and bombardment, much as we did to Iraq after 1991. That's the only kind of action with the scale and length to halt Iran's nuclear program and keep it halted for more than a year or two.

Edit: Also, sanctions and an extended bombardment campaign would be much more damaging on the population as a whole than 'just' a limited precision strike, which ties into my previous post about Westerners/Americans being perhaps more aware of civilian casualties than they had been.

Or we could just help them build their reactors and inspect everything under the NPT, as they want. I just don't buy the nuclear threat yet.

H.

[Saiban]

Or we could just help them build their reactors and inspect everything under the NPT, as they want. I just don't buy the nuclear threat yet.

H.

Well, yeah, that's just the thing -- there's still a few more diplomatic moves to try, and some that should've been done already, probably, but were ignored. The Israelis are still in the mindset that: A) The Iranians are completely untrustworthy and also extremely clever, and would evade inspections/sanctions/regulations, and B) the US can be convinced to skip diplomacy and go straight for the only option which will work due to their assumption in A. Their right-wing types don't believe in diplomatic solutions with 'terrorist' states, much like Bush; I don't think they've fully realized, or they are just now realizing, that Obama is a different type of mindset entirely.

What's more, as someone pointed out, everything the regime has done recently has indicated a very strong sense of self-preservation, which contradicts the idea that the Iranians are totally controlled by a bunch of crazy mullahs who are all part of some sort of apocalyptic cult. Their activities are not those of a group of fanatical terrorists simply trying to kill as many Jews/Westerners as possible, but rather a group of very pragmatic and very cold-hearted old men trying to stay in power as long as possible. The latter type we've dealt with before, even when they had nuclear weapons -- in the USSR, and in China. Rational nuclear armed states are tougher to deal with and more nukes is arguably always bad, but it's hardly the doomsday scenario that neo-cons/Republicans and the Israeli right suggest.

[Incendiary Lemon]

And let's not forget, "effective" means that there is a goal


I would speculate that the intent of the Israeli right was to convince the US and Europe of the evil-ness of the Iranian regime, and thus motivate us to act against Iran.

Seconded, this is about influencing American policy in the region. If there was going to be an Israeli attack it would have simply happened. Instead we've seen the very public dry run that the IAF conducted in the Mediterranean to prove they can fly the distances involved in a strike. The press is full of leaks regarding the dangers of the Iranian nuclear program and we have the belicose rhetoric from Tel-Aviv about taking measures. Its posture, and its an attempt to set the table for any debate over Iran.

[Lizard_King]

So anyway, one of the things I've been wondering is why someone like Khameini, who has shown himself to be quite adept at hanging on to power, would choose this hill to die on. There just seem to be so many other alternatives to the route he chose of making himself the direct focus of every reformist/counterestablishment sentiment in the country.

The thing is, most of those options involved compromising Ahmadenijad's authority in some way, and that may not have been the the path of least resistance after all (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/world/middleeast/25tehran.html?em). Sort of a nice companion piece to the argument that the presidency may not be mostly symbolic. Apologies if this has already come up and been addressed in the preceding 15 pages somewhere, I lost track of the thread early on.

[zengonzo]

Like, maybe Ahmadinejad has some pictures stashed?

[Lizard_King]

Like, maybe Ahmadinejad has some pictures stashed?

Yes, and that he has that same human resources knack that has carried so many other lackluster men to the top of oppressive regimes.

[zengonzo]

Yeah, I commented before reading your article.

The bureaucracy is the blood. Maybe there ought to be more counters in a democracy that prevent chief executives from stacking the deck like this .. I don't know how you reconcile that with executive status - but, damn, it's frightening to see what that can do to a system.

[Uncle Larry]

http://www.scaryideas.com/watermark.php?src=11104.jpg

[zengonzo]

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5629/48681985520005308512055.jpg

[Houngan]

So I might point out that the government's effort to quash the demonstrations and media seem to have worked. The majors have switched to covering a cheating governor and a dead actress, and the lack of footage is starving most news programs. The demonstrations have lost steam and it seems that Ahmadinejad has his hands on the rudder.

What just happened?

H.

[WarrenM]

Yeah, this seemed to fizzle out quickly unless we're just not hearing about what's going on anymore.

[Mordrak]

Reza Aslan has been doing the rounds because of the election and he says this is far from over. He mentioned the 79 Revolution actually started in 78. The trickle of news is due to a heavy media crackdown and gathering crackdown (breaking up groups of 3 people). However, that may be wishful thinking.



Yeah, this seemed to fizzle out quickly unless we're just not hearing about what's going on anymore.


Well, last night Maddow had audio of a woman describing pretty horrendous beatings. I think it's a combination of people taking their safety into account and the media crackdown. They are confiscating phones or any electronic devices that are seen on the street as well as arresting people with them.

Though, deciding "it's over" just because we're not hearing anything seems more than a little self-centered.

[MikeJ]

Yeah, this seemed to fizzle out quickly unless we're just not hearing about what's going on anymore.

A bit of the first, an awful lot of the second, I think.

[Athryn]

So I might point out that the government's effort to quash the demonstrations and media seem to have worked. The majors have switched to covering a cheating governor and a dead actress, and the lack of footage is starving most news programs. The demonstrations have lost steam and it seems that Ahmadinejad has his hands on the rudder.

What just happened?

H.

Sex Scandal + White Woman in Peril(death) > a bunch of brown people in a country we don't like that much anyway.

(not saying that's my feelings, just that's the way the US media tends to be.)

[ReptileHouse]

http://img518.imageshack.us/img518/5629/48681985520005308512055.jpg

please-lord-let-this-be-real. That is just way, way too incredibly awesome if it's real. That woman is my new heroine.

[Saiban]

So anyway, one of the things I've been wondering is why someone like Khameini, who has shown himself to be quite adept at hanging on to power, would choose this hill to die on. There just seem to be so many other alternatives to the route he chose of making himself the direct focus of every reformist/counterestablishment sentiment in the country.

The thing is, most of those options involved compromising Ahmadenijad's authority in some way, and that may not have been the the path of least resistance after all (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/25/world/middleeast/25tehran.html?em). Sort of a nice companion piece to the argument that the presidency may not be mostly symbolic. Apologies if this has already come up and been addressed in the preceding 15 pages somewhere, I lost track of the thread early on.

Perhaps he just doesn't see these protests as a threat to his rule? Maybe after 20 years of being on top, he has a hard time imagining any force within Iran can bring him down, particularly when he has Ahmadenijad and his loyalists supporting him? The Iranian regime has been extraordinarily brutal in the past, and faced much more obvious and greater threats to its existence from external forces (Iraq, the US). Internal threats have simply been destroyed, and never really seemed like that much of a real danger to the regime's authority.

EDIT: To be more concise, Khamanei might think that simply cracking down hard on the protests, and executing/imprisoning people as needed, is still the 'path of least resistance' regardless of how hard removing Ahmadenijad would be.

[Saiban]

So I might point out that the government's effort to quash the demonstrations and media seem to have worked. The majors have switched to covering a cheating governor and a dead actress, and the lack of footage is starving most news programs. The demonstrations have lost steam and it seems that Ahmadinejad has his hands on the rudder.

What just happened?

H.

I'd say that the posters who noted the heavy crackdown and the typical idiocy of the MSM have it right. The demonstrations haven't 'lost steam', we're just hearing less about it.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/iran-uprising-live-bloggi_n_220598.html
(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/25/iran-uprising-live-bloggi_n_220598.html)
There's a video there from yesterday of what looks a lot like a rather violent riot in Tehran. 10 minutes of footage shot from the balcony of a building looking down at an intersection. Also a video from a few days ago of Basij firing at protesters.

Over the past few days, the videos and other things I've seen have definitely shifted away from 'protests' to what look more like riots. People fighting with cops/Basij/Pasdaran, setting fires, breaking things, and generally being very angry in ways they weren't earlier. Maybe less people involved, too, but it's really hard to say, since the videos are a lot more fluid - crowds rushing from one spot to another as they chase after or flee from police and that sort of thing.

[Houngan]

We need to get the CIA to drop a bunch of satphones in Tehran, with video capabilities. That's the kind of government skullduggery I like! Or we can just drown some more people, whichever works.

H.

[Saiban]

We need to get the CIA to drop a bunch of satphones in Tehran, with video capabilities. That's the kind of government skullduggery I like! Or we can just drown some more people, whichever works.

H.

I think they'll stick with the drowning. It'll pay off big, any day now! We just haven't drowned enough people, yet!


Although, on a more serious note, the State Department did apparently intervene to keep Twitter from shutting down for maintanence when Mousavi's followers were trying to use it to organize a big protest.

[Mordrak]

Although, on a more serious note, the State Department did apparently intervene to keep Twitter from shutting down for maintanence when Mousavi's followers were trying to use it to organize a big protest.

Actually, I can see the Twitter consulting commercials now.

"Are you trying to communicate directly to your customers and create a personal connection? Are you trying to keep in touch with the day to day events of your loved ones? Are you trying to bypass an authoritarian crackdown on media and communication in an effort to overthrow your tyranical regime?

Choose Twitter and call Twitterverse Consulting today!"

[Jasper Phillips]

please-lord-let-this-be-real. That is just way, way too incredibly awesome if it's real. That woman is my new heroine.
That's a pretty crude photoshop job. Her forearm bends sharply about 30 degrees! The length is also wrong, and so is the shadow in the middle of the hand. I'm not even sure the entire woman isn't photoshopped in there.

[Saiban]

That's a pretty crude photoshop job. Her forearm bends sharply about 30 degrees! The length is also wrong, and so is the shadow in the middle of the hand. I'm not even sure the entire woman isn't photoshopped in there.

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/5/5d/Shopped.jpg

But yeah. It's probably a shoppe.

[Rimbo]

The other explanation is that the revolution is still just a minority. A large minority, but a minority. That although there may have been cheating, it doesn't mean Ahmenijad didn't win anyway.

But even though it looks as if the response was squashed now, "Neda" and the video of her death have become the rallying cry. She's become a martyr. And I wouldn't be surprised if her death becomes a catalyst that eventually leads to a legitimate revolution.

[Mordrak]

That's basically the strategy that the 79 revolution used. The Shah would crackdown with violence, then there'd be a mourning ceremony for the dead which would essentially be another protest that leads to a violent crackdown, which then would lead to more dead and an even bigger mourning ceremony. That is the cycle that supposedly did it then. The problem this time is both sides come from the same revolutionary background and understand the strategy.

The way Aslan characterized it is Iran is at a crossroads between North Korea and China.

[Talisker]

The way Aslan characterized it is Iran is at a crossroads between North Korea and China.
Aslan on the Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231561&title=reza-aslan). Worth watching if you haven't seen any of his other appearances.

[cesare]

Though, deciding "it's over" just because we're not hearing anything seems more than a little self-centered.

The whole Western coverage and interest in this has been pretty self-centered so I guess that's par for the course.

[GloriousMess]

Well, last night Maddow had audio of a woman describing pretty horrendous beatings.
The audio can be found here: http://www.videosift.com/video/Massacre-in-Iran-Protesters-Beaten-Thrown-Off-Bridge

The video is perfectly safe for work as there's no imagery beyond a reporter at a laptop in a studio and some maps of Tehran.

The audio of the phone call with the witness however, is a different matter. It all seems so distant when you read about it in the news articles in the papers, but when you hear a woman begging for help and describing government-endorsed mass-murder, suddenly you think that perhaps it's about time we stepped in.

[Mordrak]

The audio of the phone call with the witness however, is a different matter. It all seems so distant when you read about it in the news articles in the papers, but when you hear a woman begging for help and describing government-endorsed mass-murder, suddenly you think that perhaps it's about time we stepped in.

While I agree reading about it and hearing it/seeing it is very different, shit worse than this has been going on in Africa for ages and we don't do anything.

[Rimbo]

While I agree reading about it and hearing it/seeing it is very different, shit worse than this has been going on in Africa for ages and we don't do anything.

That's because it's nearly impossible to do anything without ending up with mud on your face. cf. our attempt to police Somalia.

There's very little we can do for Iran as well, except to help keep Twitter going and help expatriates stay in touch with their families.

[Mordrak]

That's because it's nearly impossible to do anything without ending up with mud on your face. cf. our attempt to police Somalia.

There's very little we can do for Iran as well, except to help keep Twitter going and help expatriates stay in touch with their families.

Uhh, that wasn't an attempt to "police" Somalia. Our occupation of Iraq is an attempt to "police" an area.

But I agree with the basic point that we can't be everywhere. However, my point is nothing makes Iran special other than our fetish with the middle east. Terrible shit goes on everyday in the world and we don't care. We only care when it hits our 24/hr news cycle and then only until a pop star dies. That has nothing to do with limited military or political resources.

[Jasper Phillips]

The audio of the phone call with the witness however, is a different matter. It all seems so distant when you read about it in the news articles in the papers, but when you hear a woman begging for help and describing government-endorsed mass-murder, suddenly you think that perhaps it's about time we stepped in.
"Step in"? That's a nice euphemism for invade.

Hey, the US has some troops right next door in Iraq, we should use those! What could possibly go wrong?

[Rimbo]

Uhh, that wasn't an attempt to "police" Somalia. Our occupation of Iraq is an attempt to "police" an area.

No, our occupation of Iraq was an invasion.

[Mordrak]

No, our occupation of Iraq was an invasion.



Yes we invaded, once the invasion was over it became an occupation, especially since the government couldn't provide security. Iraq then became a police action. That's basically the counter insurgency and anti-terrosim strategy that they eventually adopted and the reason behind the surge and it's the strategy we are now going to try and reemploy in Afghanistan.

A one off mission to aid the UN in its attempt restore order in Somalia is not our attempt to police an area.

[Saiban]

Yes we invaded, once the invasion was over it became an occupation, especially since the government couldn't provide security. Iraq then became a police action. That's basically the counter insurgency and anti-terrosim strategy that they eventually adopted and the reason behind the surge and it's the strategy we are now going to try and reemploy in Afghanistan.

A one off mission to aid the UN in its attempt restore order in Somalia is not our attempt to police an area.

I think a better way of describing it would be as such: Our mission in Iraq was far bigger in scale than our mission in Somalia, which was merely to feed hungry people during a famine. The crap about going after certain warlords was added on later and only lasted a few months, and it wasn't really an attempt at 'regime change' so much as punishing people who got in our way.

[Hugin]

Uhh, that wasn't an attempt to "police" Somalia. Our occupation of Iraq is an attempt to "police" an area.

But I agree with the basic point that we can't be everywhere. However, my point is nothing makes Iran special other than our fetish with the middle east. Terrible shit goes on everyday in the world and we don't care. We only care when it hits our 24/hr news cycle and then only until a pop star dies. That has nothing to do with limited military or political resources.

I don't think the strategic interest the US has in the Middle East is irrational/fetishistic.

[Jason McCullough]

Yes we invaded, once the invasion was over it became an occupation, especially since the government couldn't provide security. Iraq then became a police action.

Note this also applies to the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, so I'm not where you're going with this.

The "we were just trying to help the poor starving people in Somalia" thing is a line of bullshit, by the way (http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm).

Background:

American interest in the Horn of Africa region dates back to the Cold War when both the Soviet Union and the United States competed to gain allies and influence throughout the world. In the early 1960s the United States established a presence, including communications listening posts, in the northern part of Ethiopia and backed the traditional regime of Emperor Haile Selassie. The Soviets, on the other hand, replaced the weakened Italian influence in neighboring Somalia and supported the authoritarian regime of Somali strongman Mohammed Siad Barre, who took power in 1969. (Map 1)

After Siad Barre precipitated a disastrous war against Ethiopia over the status of the Ogaden region in 1977, the situation in Somalia grew worse. Western aid dried up, and Barre was forced to grow ever more repressive to maintain his grip on power. He began a policy of systematic kidnapping and murder against rival clan leaders that increased in ferocity over time. Finally, antigovernment riots led to overreaction on the part of Siad Barre's bodyguards, who killed 65 civilians and seriously injured over 300 in 1990. His legitimacy in shambles, the army and the people turned against him in a prolonged series of riots, political maneuvers, and violence. Siad Barre was forced to flee the country in January 1991 with some of his closest supporters. Almost immediately, a resurgence of clan violence led to the virtual destruction of any central government and to economic chaos.

Foreground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War):

Critics of US involvement pointed out that "just before pro-U.S. President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991, nearly two-thirds of the country's territory had been granted as oil concessions to Conoco, Amoco, Chevron and Phillips. Conoco even lent its Mogadishu corporate compound to the U.S. embassy a few days before the Marines landed, with the first Bush administration's special envoy using it as his temporary headquarters."[5][6][7] The cynical assertion was that, rather than a purely humanitarian gesture, the US was stepping in to gain control of oil concessions. Somalia has no proven reserves of oil, but there are considered to be possible reserves off Puntland. Even today, oil exploration remains a controversy. The Transitional Federal Government has warned investors to not make deals until stability is once again brought to the country.[8]

[Lizard_King]

Offhand, I can't think of any successful genuinely humanitarian military missions conducted on any scale by a first-rate military. I'd usually leave it at that, but a brief Atlantic piece recently connected the dots nicely (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/ideas-mercenaries). The interventions that are actually driven by that priority generally get outsourced to 3rd tier militaries who proceed to accomplish little other than provide what may be the worst mercenary bang for the buck available (hence Gibney's problematic point about maybe just upping the quality of the mercs).

[Jasper Phillips]

Cuban military aid in Angola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_War_of_Independence) and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War) perhaps?

Take for example, this speech (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/122.html) by Nelson Mandela.

But even if you count those (and I do), I'd say they're the exceptions that prove your point.

[Mordrak]

Note this also applies to the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan, so I'm not where you're going with this.

The "we were just trying to help the poor starving people in Somalia" thing is a line of bullshit, by the way (http://www.history.army.mil/brochures/Somalia/Somalia.htm).

Background:


Foreground (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somali_Civil_War):

I'm not going anywhere other than to establish that Somalia was only policing an area in the loosest sense and while our involvement may have been critical (and a critical failure eventually) it didn't constitute a real policing strategy in that environment. Policing an area means just that, a prolonged engagement in a community, with the force necessary to provide security so that the government can work with the community and rebuild. You know, the whole, take, hold, build strategy (or whatever buzzwords they eventually used).

Policing an area is very different than a few missions to fight and capture warlords and you can't infer that police actions are doomed because of Somalia. That'd be like saying our police are ineffective while at the same time only supplying them with nerf guns and nerf bats.

[Lizard_King]

Cuban military aid in Angola (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angolan_War_of_Independence) and South Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_African_Border_War) perhaps?

Take for example, this speech (http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/122.html) by Nelson Mandela.

But even if you count those (and I do), I'd say they're the exceptions that prove your point.

I would not count that as primarily humanitarian or altruistic, even if that was its central outcome according to Nelson Mandela. Cubans and communists generally have a complicated relationship with Africa. Also, relative to my original statement, I would not consider them a first rate military either.

They are potentially interesting examples of foreign intervention working successfully, but I don't know enough about the situation to do the cost benefit analysis myself.

[Anti-Bunny]

Back to Iran for a moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkNWV3BnpRI

Footage of the police firing into the crowd at 55 seconds in.

[Lum]

I would not count that as primarily humanitarian or altruistic, even if that was its central outcome according to Nelson Mandela.

I was somewhat gobsmacked at the thought of cold war-era Cuban mercenaries being altruistic humanitarians, but wasn't going to say anything.

"Altruistic" == "result we liked", I suppose.

[Saiban]

Offhand, I can't think of any successful genuinely humanitarian military missions conducted on any scale by a first-rate military. I'd usually leave it at that, but a brief Atlantic piece recently connected the dots nicely (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200907/ideas-mercenaries). The interventions that are actually driven by that priority generally get outsourced to 3rd tier militaries who proceed to accomplish little other than provide what may be the worst mercenary bang for the buck available (hence Gibney's problematic point about maybe just upping the quality of the mercs).

What about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_ear thquake#Americas

[Lizard_King]

What about the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanitarian_response_to_the_2004_Indian_Ocean_ear thquake#Americas

I don't consider that a military intervention, in that troops were sent to fight or actively peacekeep. There's no question that in the short run militaries have been successfully employed in natural disaster relief operations.

[Saiban]

I don't consider that a military intervention, in that troops were sent to fight or actively peacekeep. There's no question that in the short run militaries have been successfully employed in natural disaster relief operations.

And I wouldn't consider a military intervention "humanitarian." If you're going to define it as something that necessarily involves killing people, I think that makes it ineligible for the "humanitarian" adjective. What exactly would a humanitarian military intervention look like?

[Disconnected]

What exactly would a humanitarian military intervention look like?Deployment in the wrong direction?

- I don't actually agree with you. You might occasionally need a military to protect critical civilian infrastructure because nothing less will do, and failures to do that sort of thing does occasionally create humanitarian disasters.

[Saiban]

Deployment in the wrong direction?

- I don't actually agree with you. You might occasionally need a military to protect critical civilian infrastructure because nothing less will do, and failures to do that sort of thing does occasionally create humanitarian disasters.

Right, and I can see how someone might think of that as humanitarian, but in order to protect that infrastructure you're going to have to kill the people trying to damage it. And if you're doing that, then you're not on a humanitarian mission -- you're taking sides in a conflict that was probably none of your business.