Posted on 01/18/2006 3:55:50 AM PST by nuconvert
World Can't Ignore Cries Calling for Change in Iran
January 18, 2006
San Antonio Express-News
Jonathan Gurwitz
The world has come to know only one voice from Iran — that of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In his denial of the Holocaust, his threat to wipe Israel off the map and his relentless pursuit of nuclear technology, Ahmadinejad has become to polite international relations what Howard Stern is to broadcast radio. There are other voices from Iran, however, who don't figure so prominently in the news as the Islamic Republic's firebrand leader.
There is the voice of dissident journalist Akbar Ganji. Ganji, like Ahmadinejad, is a former member of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Unlike Ahmadinejad, he recognizes that the 1979 revolution that deposed the Shah has metastasized into a corrupt, malignant cancer on the Iranian nation.
In 2000, Ganji published a series of articles in which he implicated Iran's religious leaders in the murder of political opponents. He is now serving a six-year sentence in Tehran's dreaded Evin prison, where Ahmadinejad reportedly acted as a cruel interrogator and ruthless executioner.
Last summer, Ganji issued a letter to the world from his prison cell, rendered in English by Iranian expatriate writer and poet Roya Hakakian:
"My voice will not be silenced, for it is the voice of peaceful life, of tolerating the other, loving humanity, sacrificing for others, seeking truth and freedom, demanding democracy, welcoming different lifestyles, separating the private sphere and the public sphere, religion and state, promoting equality of all humans, rationality, federalism within a democratic Iran, and above all, a profound distaste for violence."
Could any words stand in starker contrast to those of Iran's president?
You can get some sense of the vitality of Iranian politics and the dislike of Ahmadinejad and the mullahs by reading the commentary of Iranian expatriates such as Hakakian. But you get a better sense by reading the blogs of ordinary Iranians who — still in Iran — write their critiques pseudonymously for fear of disappearing into the bowels of Evin.
About the deteriorating situation within Iran, the bloggers employ creative metaphors to evade the scrutiny of the secret police. One blogger posted a recent entry in which he used the jargon of personal computers to discuss the political situation:
"A new version of WINDOWS must be installed. The whole hard drive needs to be formatted. We have to install an anti virus too. It's a must you know. Remember! You can't trust the 'foreign' anti virus companies as they might have 'spy wares' in them."
Another turns the sensitive discussion of nuclear weapons, democratic reform and the often-unhelpful influence of foreign powers into a brilliant allegory about public restrooms:
"Suppose I were to say to you: we need cleaner restrooms. Our tools are inadequate to the task. The brooms aren't that great and the mop and bucket combination is rare. Additionally, we need to develop the human resources necessary, and also enhance our organizational capabilities, and import some of the needed material from abroad in order to get the job done."
The United States and the international community cannot afford for Iran's medieval clerics to get their hands on the modern technology that would enable them to realize their theological ambitions. Long before anyone had heard of Osama bin Laden, al-Qaida or the Sunni extremist version of global jihad, the ayatollahs in Iran had promulgated the Shiite extremist variant.
In North Korea today or Iraq under Saddam Hussein, there was no chance for internal change. That's not the case in Iran, where an educated and sophisticated populace endures an incompetent and abusive regime sustained by windfall oil profits. Iranian dissidents, who revealed their country's illicit nuclear research program in 2002, understand that nuclear weapons will further strengthen the mullah's grip on power.
In contemplating sanctions — or worse — for Iran, the United States and the international community must hear the voices of the ayatollahs' opponents and endeavor not to drive the Iranian public into the arms of a despotic government it detests.
Demoncrats will, that's for sure.
I keep reading about the supposedly growing anti-government faction in Iran, but I wonder how much of it is a product of the imagination or wishful thinking of the few members of said faction.
The current Iranian president was elected by a majority of the people, even though there was a more moderate choice, and, from what I have read, some of the supposedly dissatisfied young Iranians are actually dissatisfied because the government is not even more restrictive and more Islamist.
It's definitely complicated, and of course is particularly difficult because it's hard to know reliably what is actually going on there.
"The current Iranian president was elected by a majority of the people"
No, he wasn't. It was a small minority who even voted. And to say it was an election is a joke. He was selected by the regime and there was no chance for anyone else to win.
"some of the supposedly dissatisfied young Iranians are actually dissatisfied because the government is not even more restrictive and more Islamist."
Are you sure you are reading about Iran? The overwhelmingly vast majority of people in Iran are secular, and don't want religion in gov't at all. Even some of the Grand Ayatollahs speak against it.
Thank God we have a President that will still do what needs to be done despite the howling hordes.
I've read several accounts by Western tourists and Iranian returnees who've visited Iran, and they all talk about how dissatisfied everyone is with the whacko mullahs and their hizbollah enforcers.
All well and good, but if that really is the case, then like you I wonder why they elected this nutjob president. Something doesn't add up.
- ThreeTracks
"And by that, the majority who elected him."
He was no more elected than Castro or Kim Jung Il.
Please see post #4
I did read, in more than one source, that he was elected by a comfortable majority; he apparently has a lot of appeal to the poor, of which Iran has many because of their dysfunctional mullah economy.
Some of the ayatollahs have come out against the relentless theocracy that is Iran, but if you read other articles, you will see that many of them are just fine with it and many of the supposedly rebellious young are rebelling because they want more "Islamic purity" rather than less.
As I said, it's very hard to determine exactly what is going on there. You could probably read five articles and get five completely different impressions.
"I did read, in more than one source, that he was elected by a comfortable majority;"
He was no more elected than Castro is elected. But yes, the people who did bote for him were mostly poor.
"many of the supposedly rebellious young are rebelling because they want more "Islamic purity" rather than less."
You will have to refer me to your source. I read A LOT about Iran and I can't think of a single Iranian/middle east expert who would agree with your assessment.
It's very confusing. I'm sure there's a wide variety of opinions within Iran itself, although the thing that I'm not sure of is whether there is enough opposition (or at any rate, enough pro-Western opposition) to present a serious threat to Iran as it is.
I have read several sunny assessments stating, essentially, "oh, just wait, internal dissent will bring down Iran and we won't have to do anything," but frankly, I don't see that happening. Then again, like everybody else, I'm basing my own assessments solely on what I read here and there, so who knows, really?
I'd have to look for the specific cites, but there was a protest at a university about a year ago (or before the most recent election) which was first considered to be a hopeful sign of student rebellion - and then it emerged that many of the students were actually more "Islamist" oriented and were just protesting against what they considered to be the corruption and laxity of the leaders in place at that time, not against the entire restrictive system.
I realize there are practical reasons for this: members of the Revolutionary Guard (or whatever they call themselves) get special preference in schools and careers, etc., and it's always better for one's health to be on the side of an authoritarian regime than opposed to it. However, I think expecting some vast surge of anti-mullah feeling to sweep Iran is just wishful thinking.
"I've read several accounts by Western tourists and Iranian returnees who've visited Iran, and they all talk about how dissatisfied everyone is with the whacko mullahs and their hizbollah enforcers."
True
"if that really is the case, then like you I wonder why they elected this nutjob president"
They didn't. Please understand that this President is a puppet for the country's Supreme Leader, Khamenei. Khamenei and his followers on the Council decide who will be allowed to run for president. And Khamenei decides who will be allowed to win.
"there was a protest at a university about a year ago (or before the most recent election) which was first considered to be a hopeful sign of student rebellion - and then it emerged that many of the students were actually more "Islamist" oriented..."
They were Basij, the militia. They are the young people that the regime puts out front in all their anti-U.S. rallies.
"I think expecting some vast surge of anti-mullah feeling to sweep Iran is just wishful thinking."
It isn't wishful thinking at all. It already exists. Read Krauthammer, Pipes, Taheri, Ledeen, Timmerman, Miniter,Phares, the list goes on and on. It's an accepted fact.
Guys, the way the UN sees it, it's shame, not sanctions.
How do we force Iran to change? Sanctions won't work...they've probably stockpiled needed goods and can hold out long enough to finish building that bomb. This am, Fox said Russia or China (one or the other), wouldn't go along with presenting this to the Security Council at the UN, so that's out. If Iran's successful, then we've essentially lost the battle for western civilization. They'll use oil and nukes to blackmail the world into Islamifascim, and as a first step they'll demand Israel's obliteration.
"they've probably stockpiled needed goods and can hold out long enough to finish building that bomb."
They don't give a crap about the people and will let them suffer and starve. In fact, they will hope and send the message that the people should blame their sufferring on the U.S. and other countries imposing sanctions.
Michael Ledeen was on FOX yesterday. He was very good. He said the Iranian people are our greatest asset and we should be taking advantage of that. And he talked about how people in other countries that have overthrown their gov't have had help from the outside thru financing and other support. He said that we've done this before and "We know how to do this" and we should be doing it in Iran.
Sanctions have a good chance of working. Iran's threat to blackmail the world with its oil and throw the global economy in a tailspin is a bluff. We dont buy oil from them so for which countries are they going to turn off the spigots? Russia and China? I don't think so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.