Since the Iranian regime will and already has accused us of backing the protesters anyway, might we not offer what quiet support we can? Chief of which would be some encouraging words from the President of the United States?

Do you remember what Natan Sharansky told Ronald Reagan about how the dissents in jail had cheered and sung when they heard about the "evil empire" speech?

"Since the Iranian regime will and already has accused us of backing the protesters anyway, might we not offer what quiet support we can? Chief of which would be some encouraging words from the President of the United States?"

Sure, why not.

On one condition...

That we do the same for the Palestinans that are protesting the illegal separation fence, the theft of Palestinian land, the razing of orchards and destruction of farmlands, and the indiscriminate MURDER of women and children by Netanyahu's racist regime of thugs and monsters.

Fair 'nuff?

I am reserving comment about this because I still have suspicions about the first revolution.

Do anyone really think there aren't some outsiders screwing around in this?

Sure there are.

I am reserving comment about this because I still have suspicions about the first revolution.

Do anyone really think there aren't some outsiders screwing around in this?

Sure there are.

sorry about double...trying to get use to the keyboard on this new laptop, it's too senitive for my clumsy style of typing.

Not being a foreign policy expert, nor an Iran expert, and not
even speaking Persian, Farsi, nor any other related language I
come as an onlooker.

However, given a lot of background in the neurology of reading,
I'd say that it's only a matter of time before the current regime
is overthrown and it appears likely that it will be grim.

Why?

If the following statistics are accurate:
(1) 50% of Iran's population has been born since the last
revolution of 1979,
(2) The literacy rate of Iran has escalated by at least 50% since
1979,
(3) The written languages of Iran use alphabets (Arabic, Persian,
are alphabets)
(4) The nation receives over half of its income through the sales
of a single commodity (gas/oil), and
(5) If this mapping of social and information patterns
(http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/
Kelly&Etling_Mapping_Irans_Online_Public_2008.pdf) is even
close to accurate,

then it seems likely that Iran is now basically a social time
bomb. And it's quite possible that the most bookish and
scholarly of the clerics will be the last to come to terms with
that fact.

There are forces here at work that are unprecedented in human
history.

Getting in the way of that seems about as smart as walking into
the middle of the flooding Mississippi River; there are forces in
this world larger and stranger than we are. All we can do is
watch in amazement.

Just a late-night observation from a random reader.

rotl poster "I'd say that it's only a matter of time before the current regime is overthrown and it appears likely that it will be grim."

....same current regime running the usa... it's a ticking financial time bomb and it won't be pretty when it explodes....

altered title here :

"obama is the New bush: There Will Be (More) Blood"

afganistan...
yemen...
iraq....

fill in the blanks..........

Steve, in the spirit of sharing video clips, Here is a must see from the demonstrations that took place 30 years ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrxp2xBAoiI&feature=player_embedded

Please note; back then there were no cell phones and video cameras in everyone's pockets, and the population in 1978 was 28 million compared to today’s figure of approximately 70 million, so maybe readerOfTeaLeaves or someone else can elaborate on what made it a social time bomb back then.

There's no way I believe the US isn't operating in Iran, with or without presidential knowledge.

$12 billion in cash disappeared in Iraq, I wonder how much of it made it into supporting activities in Iran?

Once again, Russian money could be backing the clerics, since they have the most to lose financially from an overthrow.

The military doesn't have much to lose either way, they'll still be the military. The basij would lose power, but do they get enough out of the deal with clerics to make it worth their lives and is there really enough of them to make a difference.

Pahlavan,

Not sure that I really agree with RTL about the unprecedented nature of the events at play in Iran (on the basis at least 3 of the 5 points). Aside from #1 and #5, the three other points could probably be applied to the Soviet Union at the time of its disintegration. Of course there are other factors at play in Iran that differentiate it from the former Soviet Union -- beyond the 5 -- but literacy rates; written language; and the petro-economy are points of common reference.

In the case of the 1979 revolution compared to the present time, the former enjoyed broader support at end of the cycle than the Green movement appears to enjoy presently (e.g. the Shah faced opposition from perhaps 90 percent of the population; the current regime appears to have alienated perhaps 60-70 percent of the population at this stage). Maybe this just means that the situation in the country hasn't yet achieved a critical mass, who knows.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see Khamenei hold on for some time given that the state still has a monopoly on the use of force. If reports about his health are true, he could be around for another year or two -- which might mean that he fades from the scene due to natural causes before a critical mass throws him out of power.

The move to cut subsidies in the next month; the economic distress caused by the past several months combined with lower oil revenues; and the awesome economic cost of maintaining a police state are factors that might precipitate a crisis sooner rather than later.

The tension will undoubtedly continue to build over the near-term.

My wild-guess is that the main crisis though won't come into play until Khamenei kicks the bucket.

The succession issue is likely to drive a hard wedge between the remaining factions currently in power (the Principalists and the IRGC -- Rafsanjani is a faction of his own, although it's an open question whether he outlives Khamenei).

The protest movement certainly seems to have gained in strength and intensity since the election, and the regime's ham-fisted tactics have largely back-fired. It seems more likely than not that the regime will continue to bumble its way through the crisis exacerbating divisions and complicating the aftermath.

My wild-guess is that the ultimate pivot will happen when the succession issue comes to the fore. If Khamenei's health holds out for another 2 years, then maybe the pivot point happens during his lifetime.

Anyone's guess at this point, but the thrust of the current movement suggests that the current regime cannot maintain itself indefinitely. It's increased use of violence against the population will probably accelerate the crisis between the leadership and the people. The proverbial Djinn is out of the bottle.

I would hope we can avoid any but the most targeted sanctions at this point as I think they'd be counter-productive. Those protesters are brave as hell.

You would think we had messed around enough with Iran. And like Carroll said, who can doubt there are American ops going on?

How about that third front in Yemen?

Israel's hair trigger to bomb?

Endless war. A bunch of amateurs, not good at what they do. That is, if the goal is peace.

A must read........

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2009/12/commenter_says_he_was_aboard_n.html

Heres Raimondo's take......

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2009/12/27/the-lap-bomber-mystery/

If there is any one thing we can take to the bank when considering the last decade, it is that we cannot trust one damned thing our government tells us. If it hits the press, and concerns terrorism, the Middle East, Israel, or where our money is going, odds are its a fuckin' lie.

Its increasingly obvious that Obama is just as big a scumball that George Bush was. In fact, its becoming to appear, quite possibly, he is more so.

I really don't see any way we can debate foreign policy issues accurately or knowledgably from where we sit. Quite simply, we have no idea what the truth is. These slimey bastards have lied to us so much, and for so long, that there is no where from which to start with a foundation of truth. Of course we are meddling in Iran. And if history is any harbinger, a whole slew of people, innocent people, will die as a result of it. It seems to be what we do, what we've become.

Google "In Gaza". Read this sensitive Palestinian woman's blogsite. Read for yourself what these pieces of shit in Washington are subsidizing while fiegning attention to "humanitarian concerns" in Iran. Consider the smooth tongued rhetoric oozing out of the mouth of Barack Obama, which more often than not has been proven to be empty words, lacking conviction or true intention. Have you seen him hold Netanyahu to his word? Have you seen this posturing she devil Hillary Clinton raise protest as Netanyahu tells the United States of Anmerica to go fuck itself?

So now we are going to get all blurry eyed about the Iranian protestors, as the military of both the United States and Israel lay plans to incinerate great amounts of them en masse, and our politicians plot to starve and deprive the entire nation because of a crime that we have no evidence Iran has committed.

Read the links I provided. This government doesn't even CARE if we know we are being lied to anymore. They have fractured our unity with a carefully nurtured political system designed to divide the masses while they enrich themselves at our expense, and reach out with global aspirations, robbing our children of future prosperity, security, and freedom.

Discussing foreign policy has become a joke. We really don't know shit, we don't have any idea what the truth is. The only truth we do know is that what we are told is probably a lie.

The think tanks have become little more than cliques of petty criminals, aspiring to rise to the big time, where the REAL felons go to get rich; the halls of power in Washington DC, the Capital of Corruption. We really don't know shit, we don't have any idea what the truth is. The only truth we do know is that what we are told is probably a lie.

Read this......

http://ingaza.wordpress.com/

So you REALLY think the shit that presides in Washington DC gives a rat's ass about the Iranian people?

The same people that voted en masse, almost to a man, to bury the Goldstone Report?

The same murderous satanic monstrous body of self-enriching excrement that has murdered over a million people in Iraq?

The same cowardly wormlike scum that send your kids off to die while their own kids go to the best schools, enjoy enviable health coverage, and eat steak on our fuckin' dime?

And now we are to believe they have altruistic designs on the Iranian people?

Right.

I don't think anyone thinks "altruism" and international relations in the same breath, so arguing that point doesn't work

There is a conception of US national interests that demands cheap labor, cheap oil, decent rates of return on investments, a fairly stable economy, high enough unemployment to discourage inflation, little or no unionization, bread and circuses....

There would seem to be some demand for a war machine to help in this project of following US national interests.

Every time anyone argues for the support of US national interests, then, please define those interests. If you want isolationism, then explain the energy and trade problems that result. If you want a strong unionization program, then explain the consumer price and lower profit issues, and so on.

We have made calculations that Iran's opposition would be better for the US than is the current regime. We have made some pretty bad calculations about Iran in the past, who knows if this one is any better. We seem to do as much short term thinking in the IR realm as we do in the financial realm. It works for a while, we have a nice IR bubble, and then the bubble bursts.

But just as anyone here would agree that no corporation is really altruistic in its labors, so we should all know that no one thinks the US government is altruistic. It's not even the job of the US government to be altruistic. But it might be the government's job to do a better job of calculating just what US interests are -- if there even is such a thing (something I have definitely posted on before).

Interesting video coverage from the ground in
Iran. Now why is it the vaunted US media can cover
events inside Iran, but cannot cover them inside
Iraq, Afghanistan, or even Honduras? Anyone dare
doubt that the US corporate media has been reduced
to a propaganda tool?

As for Honduras, people here who were outraged--
simply livid--at election fraud and human rights
abuses in Iran are curiously silent about the
horrors occurring daily in Honduras. So, FYI, here
is what is happening in Honduras:

Election fraud:
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/3660/ele
ctoral-fraud-proved-honduras-more-50-percent-did-
not-vote

http://www.ips-
dc.org/articles/honduran_elections_a_parody_of_dem
ocracy

Human rights abuses:
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/content/view/2278/
1/
(More under password protection at ips news
service)

There is really only one news story here--those in
the foreign policy mob are eagerly watching events
in Iran, like vultures circling a potential kill.
Honduras is not news, because the vultures have
already reasserted their control. Democracy in
Honduras has been killed. Those in US policy
circles could care less.

My general rule for assessing "terrorist attacks:"
If the attack is against a specific target--an
important person, group (police) or building
(Pentagon)--it is probably the work of "terrorists."
If the target is just a bunch of ordinary people,
it's probably a false flag operation, intended to
induce fear, paranoia and militarism among the
general population. It does not advance the
interests of terrorists to make enemies in the
general population.

Don:

$12 billion in cash disappeared in Iraq, I wonder how much of it made it into supporting activities in Iran?

Given the favor in which the Bush administration held Achmed Chalabi at the time that $12 billion disappeared, that cash could well have gone to Iran in support of the Khameini regime. In fact, that would be its most likely destination, if it went to Iran at all.

Pahlavan, No worries; to answer your question, I'd have to do
some research into data (demographic and other stats) between
1930 - 1979 in Iran.

The odds of my actually getting to that chore, then trying to
verify the reliability of the data, are about 5%. I don't say this
to be snotty or ill-mannered; quite the reverse.

You've asked a terrific question.
To give you any kind of reasonable guessimate would take
more time and energy than I appear to have in the next 48
hours. However, depending on how badly this query nags me,
this could move up on my priorities.

Should I have any more data, will reply here at some point later
in this week.

Kind Regards.

Steve,

Of course the outcome of this is unpredictable. However, the "fragile moment" may indeed
last for many months, even years. (The 1979 revolution lasted for more or less a year in
the same fashion.) In that case, this create a very bad environment for dealing with the
nuclear issue - as has in fact been the case since the election. This raises some urgent
questions, regardless of one`s position on the nuclear issue:

1) Will the Iranian position and tactics primarily be determined by domestic factors?

2) Who is in charge, and who will be in charge 1 or 2 years from now (perhaps even 4
months from now)?

3) How will the various options of "the international community" affect the domestic
turmoil?

Any thoughts on this would be appreciated.

The only way Iran can again acheive revolutionary change is with a fragmentation in the military apparatus of the state. This repressive mechanism of the state must be undermined. It happened in 1979 and it can happen again. If the clerical elite become aware that the state no longer has the means to repress the opposition then they can be certain that social mobilization will culminate into a social revolution. There are a few things that need to be addressed in order to determine if the global community will again witness revolutionary change in Iran: 1) Is the military still a cohesive unit? 2) Who is leading the opposition (there has rarely, if ever, been a leaderless revolution)? 3) How does the peasantry view this opposition movement (they support Ahjmedinejad)?

Certain influential segments of society who participated in the 1979 revolution did not want a theocracy to replace the monarchy. After the 79 revolution a movement was underway to throw out the Ayatollah. However, once the Iran/Iraq war began a "rally around the flag" effect generated popular support for the Ayatollah and cemented the legitimacy of the theocratical government. This aforementioned fact is the reason why the US needs to keep its distance. The US does not need to be the reason for the restoration of legitimacy to Iran's theocratic government.

Paul Norheim--I think the US position on the Iranian
turmoil is pretty clear--never let a disaster go to
waste. It's pretty clear that the US wants to
exploit the turmoil to effect regime change, while
denying any involvement. Then the US wants to make
sure that "its people" take charge. It would be
interesting to know who these people are.

If only we knew who was getting that $400 million
for covert operations, then we would have a pretty
good idea as to who the US wants to be in charge in
1-2 years.

It would be interesting to know if this is Steve's
position.

JohnH,

among the questions I had in mind was:

is something like a "Grand Bargain" between Iran and the US, proposed by Flynt Leverett,
and perhaps supported by Steve (?), an option during the current volatile and pretty
unclear circumstances - which could continue in this fashion perhaps for years?

Link: http://twn.riverlab.com/archives/2007/11/the_case_for_a/

I would assume that the position of those who favor any kind of TALKS (instead of weapons
or threats) would be weakened during a period like the one we see right now.

In that case, the belligerent and threatening voices will be strengthened. But military
actions or sanctions are even more likely to backfire in circumstances like this - etc.
etc...

In other words: the longer this "fragile moment" lasts, the more likely it is that this
animal we call Washington will say yes - not to it`s "inner Nixon", but it`s
unimaginative inner Kotz - or inner Bolton if you like - which is visible right under
it`s skin.

Oops - did I say Kotz?
I meant to say: "Kurz".

Our inner Kurz.
Exterminate the brutes...

Sometimes I get the Australian mixed up with the
character from Heart of Darkness -
Lord knows why...

Freudian slip, Paul?

The current Iranian instability - a delicate way to put a country spiraling into counter-revolution - must show how unrealistic Flint Leverett's "grand bargain" talk was, if Ahmedinejad's sniggering and reviling us and the IAEA for years didn't do the trick.

We can only pray that the protesters manage internal regime change. If there is any common thread among them, it seems to be the wish to run Iran as a country, for the Iranians, and not as an on-going revolution, exporting jihad to a dozen other countries, as the current regime has been doing.

I prefer to blame it on the morphine, Kotz - oops, I meant Nadine. A couple of days from now,
I guess I`m capable of typing with both hands in a state of absolute soberness. At that time,
I`ll have no excuse to mix up Kotz with Kurtz. But I have to admit that I`ll be tempted even
when my arm has healed: As a matter of fact, I can`t remember any political issue that Kotz
have been involved with here where he hasn`t suggested merciless military attacks of some
Napoleonic or Kurtzian kind as the appropriate solution (with the possible exception of how
to deal with Russia).

BTW, if you`re curious about our friend WigWag`s take on the situation in Iran, Nadine, you
may read his current belligerent comments at Stephen Walt`s blog. Needless to say that I
agree more with Walt than with WigWag on this issue.

here`s a link:

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/12/27/on_the_unrest_in_iran_dont_just_do_something_s
it_there#commentspace

You said: "We can only pray that the protesters manage internal regime change." That`s
something we can agree on - and personally I hope it happens fast, with as little foreign
interference as possible.

Paul Norheim--I seriously doubt that anything like a
grand bargain is in the works for Iran. The
political elite in this country is in the thrall of
the "lessons" learned from the US victory over the
Soviet Union--if you are intransigent long enough,
you win.

Over course, with US government debt and current
account balances the way they are, if the Iranian
leadership is intransigent long enough, they might
well win.

I see nothing to suggest that the US will stop short
of demanding a new regime that will gladly kiss the
ring (or maybe the butt) of the US President.

I think it's worth being careful about assuming what "the protesters" "want." Sometimes these things take on a life of their own, sometimes large groups speak with many incoherent and incompatible views, sometimes a massive riot is a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The problem with dealing with "Iran" at this point is that not even the Iranians know what "Iran" is.

Obama hedged his bets on this one because, of course, no one knows who or what will prevail, and who or what might emerge after "regime change." The US just has to deal with whatever is there, even if we don't exactly know what that means.

Paul, it's nice to see your typing skills are coming back!

The only way to determine what the protestors want is to look at what the opposition leadership is espousing. The opposition leadership is not strong enough to move the country into a social revolution and ultimately transform the country, if that's what they ARE intent on achieving. They opposition seems to be a social movement composed of Iranian citizens intent on not having a government imposing its will upon the citizens of Iran. They seem to want stronger democratic institutions, but the opposition message is unclear at the moment. Also, as I stated before, any type of revolutionary change can only come about with the undermining of the states repressive capacity.

Thanks Questions.

You have a point. There is always the risk of some sinister forces manipulating the
popular uprise - like during the overthrow and execution of Ceausescu in Romania 20
years ago. I`m sure the regime has been studying the various scenarios from recent
years - from the peaceful transitions in the former communist countries and in South
Africa, via Tien An Men Square, to the regime change in Iraq through foreign invasion
(not to speak of their own overthrow of the Shah 30 years ago).

Timothy Garton Ash argues somewhere that the circumstances that led to the peaceful
transitions in the former East Bloc countries were historically unique. Time will
tell - but we`re not talking about a "bloodless revolution" so far.

"Over course, with US government debt and current account balances the way they are, if
the Iranian leadership is intransigent long enough, they might well win." (JohnH)

Do you count out the possibility that the Iranian opposition may gain sufficient strength
on their own?

An addition to my last post: The popular opposition in 1978-79 managed to overthrow the
Shah DESPITE US support for the latter.

Agreed with your comment: "...political elite in this country is in the thrall".

Actually the thinking of that elite is even more unrealistic - that elite still believes that it could get something for nothing; i.e. free political/military/economic concessions from foreign states. That that situation no longer obtains is something that they have not yet grasped.

Even if they, by some miracle, wakeup to that, US is no longer in position to offer Iran positive inducements, please correct me if I am wrong. [Absence of negative inducement does not a positive inducement make.]

US needs Iran's help to extricate herself from the slow-burning but lethal (to US) War Against Islam. Iran is the only Muslim state that can offer us the political and diplomatic coverage to that end. Else, watch as more and more (Sunni) Muslims join the ranks of those who believe that US is out to destroy Islam and thus must be stopped at any price and by any means.

I think I would shy away from "sinister forces" and note that the overthrow of the Shah was pretty popular and the institution of a more strict version of Islam was pretty popular, but then it wasn't. It had to get repressive in bits and pieces. People don't always know what they're fighting for, and even what they're fighting against. There's so much room for incoherence in goals while your adrenaline is flowing just from the fight itself. It feels good to challenge, even when you're not sure what you're challenging or what you'd do if you actually won.

"What people want" is varied. Any comments we've read from Iranians on the street are just individual comments. It's anyone's guess what the leaders want, what they could get, how much they would be able to harness what they've unleashed, how much legitimacy the outgoing regime (if indeed it's going out) might still have, how much preference there is for pushing to the point of compromise rather than overthrow.

In short, no one knows what there will be when the dust settles, or even what we should wish or hope for when the dust settles. Somehow under this profound uncertainty, something like nuclear policy has to be contended with.

Tom,
Certainly some could have gone to Chalabi's friends, but there seem to be signs that the US started operations along the Iranian border almost immediately, and resources have been exploding inside Iran since.

I'd guess the money got spread around to lots of pet projects and causes, from contractors to real use to pay-offs. But a few $ million could fund several small initiatives.

Juan Cole brought up a good question. How are they going to close the deal? Masouvi is operating within the regular clerical hierarchy, that wouldn't be much of a revolution. There is no other clear leader that would really change things. Maybe just a loud musical chairs.

Why does it seem like I can never get the captcha to work on Chrome?

You said: "We can only pray that the protesters manage internal regime change." That`s
something we can agree on - and personally I hope it happens fast, with as little foreign
interference as possible.
...
The popular opposition in 1978-79 managed to overthrow the Shah DESPITE US support for the latter.(Paul Norheim)

That is something, but I believe that one ought to recognize that all "grand bargain" promoters were giving very very bad advice - if for no other reason that the regime did not have enough internal legitimacy to make a bargain, besides their ideological opposition to doing so.

I stress this point because we have wasted an entire year setting deadlines for Iran and then letting them pass with no consequences. Can we please cut our losses on this policy of engagement with Iran? It has been tried for 30 years (yes, even by GW Bush) to no avail. Now there is less reason than ever to waste any more time on it.

Second point: we did not support the Shah in 1979. We had supported the Shah previous to Carter, but Jimmy Carter thought Khomenei was a holy man, so he sided with the Khomenei and greased the skids under the Shah. Such was the foreign policy judgment of Jimmy Carter, for which we are still paying.

http://www.amazon.com/Treacherous-Alliance-Secret-Dealings-Israel/dp/0300143117/ref=sr_1_21?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1262050595&sr=1-21

Read this, it will answer all your questions on Iran and US relations and who, what and why
Only book about Iran without an agenda...a history of US -Iran Israel- ME dealings.

Believe nothing about what you hear...study the past events and actors and who benefits to understand the new attack problem Iran fashion fad.

Speaking of Chalabi and the billions of missing money from Iraq...I would bet the only reason Chalabi hasn't been knocked off by the US or the Israelis is he has a tell all with names locked away in some bank vault only to be opened in the event of his death.

No one, ...no one could move billions of dollars without the help of a cooperating government.

About the only thing one can conclude from the history of revolutions is that it is very hard to predict where they will end up once the linchpins start to snap. One week, your own pals are "the opposition", and then the next week there is some new "opposition" merrily chopping the heads off the previous week's opposition, or sending them off to some internment camp. There are probably about 27 different "oppositions" in Iran, and it would be anybody's guess which one would end up on top following the bouleversement.

Revolutions also have a nasty habit of spilling their chaos beyond the national borders, and dragging others into the passionate tumult.

We should all hope that the Iranian regime manages to work out the right combination of concessions and firmness, reform and continuity, to keep the lid on the Persian pot.

"Revolutions also have a nasty habit of spilling their chaos beyond the national borders, and dragging others into the passionate tumult."

That has certainly been true of the current Iranian regime.

Yemen
Lebanon
Gaza
Iraq
Afghanistan

All these places have Iranian-backed radical Islamist terrorist insurgencies. In Lebanon, Hizbullah has Iranian officers as well as Iranian rockets. Sheikh Nasrallah has openly pledged his allegiance to Ian, as has Bashir Assad in Syria.

With the current regime being revolutionary and destabilizing, there is less to be feared from a counter-revolution. It would be difficult for them to as bad; and from their intentions and behavior so far, they may well be better.

Carroll, beware of the wishful thinking of believing that every regime must be pragmatic at bottom. It may be true most of the time, but some regimes really believe their own ideology and will follow it even to their own cost. Before and during WWII, this kind of thinking misled most observers of the Third Reich into thinking that despite Hitler's racial rhetoric, Germany would just use the Jews and Slavs for forced labor, which they needed very badly, and not engage in mass killings. As Barry Rubin explains:

"The key here is the Western obsession with pragmatism, the dismissal of ideology, and the wishful thinking that believes conflict can be negotiated away or at least whittled down to the tolerable level by patience and concession. These were also the fundamental ideas that motivated both most European Jews and the expectations of most Western leaders and observers regarding the treatment of the Jews during the war (and in many cases, German intentions before the war as well). This mode of thinking is still very much with us."

"Thus, it is disbelieved that radical Islamists, and in many cases militant Arab nationalists or various others, really mean what they say. Instead, it is expected that they will act according to narrow and individual personal interests. They would rather be rich than right, or revolutionary. Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, architect of Iran’s Islamist revolution, derided this concept as thinking the revolution was made for the sake of lowering the price of watermelons."
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2009/12/how-auschwitz-sign-claiming-that-work.html

There is an Iranian-backed terrorist "insurgency" in Afghanistan?! And here I thought the Taliban were mostly Salafist Sunnis.

In Yemen, the Saudis seem by far to be the bigger trouble-makers, and have actually intervened militarily in the country. The Iranian involvement is obscure and speculative, based partly it seems on generic Saudi paranoia about all Shia groups.

As for Lebanon and Gaza, it is true the Iranians are heavily involved. That's tit-for-tat. If I had a nuclear-armed enemy threatening me routinely, I might also want to continue to rely on local proxies to harass and distract them. Israel has been dicking around in Kurdistan, Georgia and who knows where else. So that's the usual stuff.

The Iran-Iraq War is indeed a clear case of Iranian aggressiveness. And that war happened right after the last Iranian revolution. If we get another revolution, who knows what craziness my explode forth into the region. On the other hand, the Iranian involvement in Iraq since the US invasion has been remarkably disciplined and restrained, given the utter chaos into which Iraq was thrown by the invasion, and the regional turmoil that has ensued.

Voila, we have a liberal ATHEIST leftist EDUCATED American, in the person of Dan Kervick, who ostensibly supports Ahmadinejad and hopes that the obscurantist regime of the mullahs will “work out the right combination of concessions and firmness (killing its protesting young people in their struggle for freedom), reform and continuity to keep the lid” on the young EDUCATED masses, whom Kervick inferentially and derisively calls the “Persian pot,” who are presently engaged in a deadly “bouleversement” against the THEOCRACY, all in the name of the ‘fearful’ unknowns revolutions generate. In this assessment of his he reveals his inner deep conservatism and vulgar cynicism of human nature that the latter’s actions would not lead to a better situation for mankind in the future but only to a worst one. Since he clearly infers from his post that the present evil that is embodied in the theocracy, i.e., killing its own people and boding a second holocaust for Jews, could only be replaced by a greater evil by this revolt of the young aspiring educated classes of Iran for freedom.

One can see Kervick, this comical political ‘pantaloonist’, peregrinating in his colourful patched pantaloon on the internet with the slogan “down with all revolutions.”

"There is an Iranian-backed terrorist "insurgency" in Afghanistan?! And here I thought the Taliban were mostly Salafist Sunnis." (Dan Kervick)

They are (just like Hamas, for that matter). Doesn't prevent Iran from arming them. Doesn't prevent Iran from hosting Bin Laden's family and friends since 2001. Ever heard the saying, "my enemies' enemy is my friend"?

"As for Lebanon and Gaza, it is true the Iranians are heavily involved. That's tit-for-tat. If I had a nuclear-armed enemy threatening me routinely, I might also want to continue to rely on local proxies to harass and distract them. Israel has been dicking around in Kurdistan, Georgia and who knows where else. So that's the usual stuff."

What a load of shit. Israel had good relations with Iran under the Shah and nothing to do with Iran after 1979 until Iran created Hizbullah in Lebanon in the 1980s to attack Israel. Every single day since 1979, Iran had been calling for, and working towards, the destruction of "the Great Satan and the Little Satan" - America and Israel. Don't give me this crap of how they are just "reacting" to Israel - a country with less than 10% as much population and 1% as much land. It's a radical Islamist regime, and has been from the start.

Kotz, I notice that when you talk about my posts, you frequently use the third person and address your comments out to unnamed others instead of using the second person and addressing me directly like a man. Since you didn't direct your comment to me, I won't respond.

" ... a country with less than 10% as much population and 1% as much land."

But also a demonstrably expansionist disposition, a rogue orientation toward international rules and treaties, a frequently fanatical religion-based ideological cast, and a much more powerful military than Iran, including some hundreds of nuclear weapons.

Nadine....

"Carroll, beware of the wishful thinking of believing that every regime must be pragmatic at bottom. It may be true most of the time, but some regimes really believe their own ideology and will follow it even to their own cost. Before and during WWII, this kind of thinking misled most observers of the Third Reich into thinking that despite Hitler's racial rhetoric, Germany would just use the Jews and Slavs for forced labor, which they needed very badly, and not engage in mass killings. As Barry Rubin explains:......"

Oh, I am aware of that. Israel is a good example of ideology on steriods. Just as the Third Reich was.
But Iran's desire to be some kind of power in their own region doesn't strike me as insane.....after all that's what Israel's desire is and the US desire to control and dictate the power balance in the ME.....leaving out the internal politics..the whole US Isr Iran thing is top dog jockeying for influence in the region, not an ideology.

If Iran was attempting to roll over and seize other countries and populations like Germany did and like Israel is doing I would have a different opinion.

Carroll...good to see you...haven't been online in ages due to visdion issues, but wehen last I was, I hadn't seen you in a long while...decided to take a peek today...hopefully, when I get new glasses, I can get back to my favoriyr site...I couldn't help wonderting who was meddling in this mess...a coitiuation of ourt toppling Mossedegh(sp?)

Happy New Year, everyone!

Happy New Year, Kathleen -

and get those glasses soon!

"But also a demonstrably expansionist disposition, a rogue orientation toward international rules and treaties, a frequently fanatical religion-based ideological cast, and a much more powerful military than Iran, including some hundreds of nuclear weapons." (Dan Kervick)

Dan, this describes Iran very well, a self-proclaimed revolutionary Islamist regime, that started its existence by kidnapping the Russian and American embassies and has launched revolutionary attacks and militias in a dozen other countries.

It does not describe Israel AT ALL. Israel's wars are defensive. It wishes to exist and not be slaughtered, and is surrounded by enemies who wish to destroy it, primarily for religious reasons. In your fun-house view of the world Israeli self-defense is an offense greater than the hundreds of thousands dead at the hands of Iran-funded Islamist revolutionaries.

A defensive war on the part of a Western power (for so you call Israel) is for you a worse offense than anything Iran has ever done or could ever do because you DEFINE America and Israel as the only ACTORS in the world and Iran and other Muslims as innocent REACTORS. They are poor innocent victims of Western oppression. No matter what they do and say.

Iran can give rockets to terrorists like Hamas and Hizbullah, they can massacre protesters in the streets of Tehran and you will not notice the dead - or find some way to insist that it's really America's fault, or Israel's. If really pushed to it, you may mouth some little milquetoast protest against the bloodshed like Obama was just forced to do. But Islamists aren't your real enemy. Only Israelis and Republicans.

The Left is objectively pro-Islamist and pro-fascist, and you are a great example of the Left. You are a disgrace to the Western civilization whose benefits you take for granted.

"...whose benefits you take for granted."

For 18 years I taught philosophy, Nadine, during which time my chief vocation in life was to pass on the choicest fruits of western civilization to occasionally interested students. So I hardly take western civilization for granted. I'll stack up my constructive and preservationist orientation any day against the troglodytes whose chief office of devotion to western civilization has consisted in blowing up the parts of it they don't like, and then roaming abroad to find more enemies elsewhere whenever they in danger of running out of people to kill and things to destroy. I spent years passing on the heritage of the west through the works of Plato and Aristotle, Aquinas and Ockham, Descartes and Leibniz, Hume and Russell while others were working and plotting to threaten westerners by dragging them into their mischievous Oriental adventures.

I'm surprised you are such a devotee of the west, Nadine, since one of the chief historical occupations of western countries has been the frequent persecution, and occasional slaughter, of Jews. But if you're so in love with western civilization, why don't you join it fully and devote more attention to it, and stop investing so much of your energies in the ways and affairs of Middle Eastern countries and religions?

I don't have the patience to deal again with your paranoid persecution neuroses. Every time Israel steals another dunam of land, it looks to you like a necessary defensive action to expand the buffer zone between the hapless Jews of the Middle East and their regional enemies. I suspect that no matter how large the protective ring of expansion grows, you will always appeal to the same passive-aggressive rationale of perpetual defense by perpetual conquest. But arguing about this with you is fruitless.

I'm an American, Nadine. A by-product of this is that I am not much afraid of Iran. My country possesses a vast arsenal of nuclear weapons which we haven't used recently, but could always resort to in a real pinch if any would-be Middle Eastern adversary grew truly threatening. So all this hair-pulling over the fact that Iran *might* develop the capacity to *maybe* crank out enough highly-enriched uranium over a few years time to build *one* nuclear weapon leaves me bemused and nonplussed.

And I regret that the psychological afflictions of Israeli hysterics have infected and permeated my own country. From Tel Aviv to Tashkent, the Middle East seems to me to be a land dominated by ancient fanaticisms, superstitions and enthusiams. My fondest wish is that some bright western scientist invents a new form of energy extraction that allows us to extricate ourselves permanently from the Middle Eastern expanse, so we can leave all those rabbis, imams and sheikhs to the their holy books, legends and prophets.

If Israelis feel so persecuted living on the edge of the Mediterranean, why don't they move to the United States? There are only a few million of them, and I would be delighted to have them. Then when American Jews continued pouring so much of their zeal and political activism into the latest "Is it good for the Jews?" causes, at least they would be doing something that directly benefits my own country - and even western civilization - rather than dragging us into those places in the East where we don't belong.

"The Left is objectively pro-Islamist and pro-fascist, and you are a great example of the Left. You are a disgrace to the Western civilization whose benefits you take for granted"

Gads, what a jackass Nadine is. Does anyone take this ignorant buffoon seriously?

Nadine is an Israeli agent, or haven't you people figured that out yet?

Laptops are made so that one can take it anywhere & work in any posture or position.