A combination of two is needed for Iran. Neither on its own could survive the current atmosphere.
I'm one of the most direct people you'd find around (no bullshit, get the job done, forget the displeased), but even I admit that right now this movement needs a bipolarity of its own in order to move in a balanced manner. If either one of Karoubi or Mousavi were revolutionary in their approach, things would be a lot better than both of them being revolutionary.
So far, the masses have been providing the revolutionary aspect of the movement to the best of their abilities (relatively, not perfectly). It's time for the revolutionary side of this movement to find a political face. A presence among the elite (cheghadr badbakhtim ke ina shodan elite ma)
I'm not an expert. Who do people think is a revolutionary face inside Iran? Whoever that is (or are) needs to be endorsed by the 3 big figures (khatami, mousavi and karoub) together to join the leadership.
I'm one of the most direct people you'd find around (no bullshit, get the job done, forget the displeased), but even I admit that right now this movement needs a bipolarity of its own in order to move in a balanced manner. If either one of Karoubi or Mousavi were revolutionary in their approach, things would be a lot better than both of them being revolutionary.
So far, the masses have been providing the revolutionary aspect of the movement to the best of their abilities (relatively, not perfectly). It's time for the revolutionary side of this movement to find a political face. A presence among the elite (cheghadr badbakhtim ke ina shodan elite ma)
I'm not an expert. Who do people think is a revolutionary face inside Iran? Whoever that is (or are) needs to be endorsed by the 3 big figures (khatami, mousavi and karoub) together to join the leadership.
Deerouz jan then with this theory there is nobody left in IR who is a reformer. Ok on paper Rafsanjani is still there but the masses simply dont trust him for many reasons (allbeit the reform leaders are ok with him). Further unless there is something we don't know, his real power seems to mount to approximately zero.
And if we have to look for a current (post coup) IR insider, we must ask Khamenei and Janati to propose the next reformist leader!
And as for revolutionary figure I cant think of anyone inside or outside Iran.
And if we have to look for a current (post coup) IR insider, we must ask Khamenei and Janati to propose the next reformist leader!
And as for revolutionary figure I cant think of anyone inside or outside Iran.
I might get a blast from some of you you guys on this.
But I think you have to work with what you have. Iranians, except some among youth, are too conservative and fear so badly for their day-to-day lives. I am not in a position to blame them when I too live thousands of miles away from them in my safe corner and will not in any way. However, the truth is that a revolution is IMPOSSIBLE when you can not hold a series of demonstrations despite all the crackdown, brutality etc. If a revolution like 1979 or Romania succeeds is because many many of those who support are ready to fight with their lives, even if they are not majority. That turns army either in whole or partially and leads to overthrow of a government.
Inside Iran, you can divide people to 3 groups:
- A minority who fight with whatever they have, e.g. likes of Neda and some of high ranking green people.
- A very big majority who dislike IRI to death but are not willing to pay a high price on getting their votes or changing the whole regime. They are waiting for moments like 25th of Khordad when everyone is so out there and they like to be away from the conflict points.
- A minority who support IRI, with their lives of course because they are so tied up to the regime. They have guns and everything.
So with the above, what are the possibilities?
But I think you have to work with what you have. Iranians, except some among youth, are too conservative and fear so badly for their day-to-day lives. I am not in a position to blame them when I too live thousands of miles away from them in my safe corner and will not in any way. However, the truth is that a revolution is IMPOSSIBLE when you can not hold a series of demonstrations despite all the crackdown, brutality etc. If a revolution like 1979 or Romania succeeds is because many many of those who support are ready to fight with their lives, even if they are not majority. That turns army either in whole or partially and leads to overthrow of a government.
Inside Iran, you can divide people to 3 groups:
- A minority who fight with whatever they have, e.g. likes of Neda and some of high ranking green people.
- A very big majority who dislike IRI to death but are not willing to pay a high price on getting their votes or changing the whole regime. They are waiting for moments like 25th of Khordad when everyone is so out there and they like to be away from the conflict points.
- A minority who support IRI, with their lives of course because they are so tied up to the regime. They have guns and everything.
So with the above, what are the possibilities?
Deerouz jan,
Thanks for the very logical analysis but I respectfully disagree with most of it.
I don't quite agree with the distinctions you make between revolution and reform but let's leave that for later. My main issue with the point you raise is that it is, IMO, misplaced.
When considering the situation in Iran, we should be concerned with two issues: a) obtaining freedom and democracy, and b) maintaining them. It may seem that the above order is the right one, but IMO the proper order is reversed; we should first be able to maintain a democracy and then, only then, sacrifice to obtain it. Everything you mentioned and everything I read on this forum is about obtaining democracy and that alone.
In 57 we obtained freedom and partial democracy but couldn't keep it. We brought this on ourselves (not UK or US) and it would be a shame if we repeat the same costly mistake. I'm all for jumping out of our jail window, but this time around I first want to know where I'll land.
If as a nation we become capable of maintaining democracy, i.e. become socially and culturally democratic-minded, obtaining freedom will become much easier. This is why concepts of "civil society" or "democratic infrastructures" are not abstract issues. Or better said, as long as they are abstract issues, we're not there yet. It is like a chess game: a good player does not attack from the get go but first develops his pieces patiently and puts himself in a position to win. I think as a nation we have come a long way (specially those inside Iran) towards being a democratic-minded society. We had a crash course in the past 13 years. Some may argue that we're already there but I'm not so sure. The way to get to the state of "maintaining democracy" can be through reform or whatever you call it. It certainly can't be through revolution.
Note that I'm not arguing against overthrowing the regime, I'm just saying that shouldn't be the main issue.
Thanks for the very logical analysis but I respectfully disagree with most of it.
I don't quite agree with the distinctions you make between revolution and reform but let's leave that for later. My main issue with the point you raise is that it is, IMO, misplaced.
When considering the situation in Iran, we should be concerned with two issues: a) obtaining freedom and democracy, and b) maintaining them. It may seem that the above order is the right one, but IMO the proper order is reversed; we should first be able to maintain a democracy and then, only then, sacrifice to obtain it. Everything you mentioned and everything I read on this forum is about obtaining democracy and that alone.
In 57 we obtained freedom and partial democracy but couldn't keep it. We brought this on ourselves (not UK or US) and it would be a shame if we repeat the same costly mistake. I'm all for jumping out of our jail window, but this time around I first want to know where I'll land.
If as a nation we become capable of maintaining democracy, i.e. become socially and culturally democratic-minded, obtaining freedom will become much easier. This is why concepts of "civil society" or "democratic infrastructures" are not abstract issues. Or better said, as long as they are abstract issues, we're not there yet. It is like a chess game: a good player does not attack from the get go but first develops his pieces patiently and puts himself in a position to win. I think as a nation we have come a long way (specially those inside Iran) towards being a democratic-minded society. We had a crash course in the past 13 years. Some may argue that we're already there but I'm not so sure. The way to get to the state of "maintaining democracy" can be through reform or whatever you call it. It certainly can't be through revolution.
Note that I'm not arguing against overthrowing the regime, I'm just saying that shouldn't be the main issue.
As for the distinction you make between revolution and reform, I agree with what you say about the pace, that revolutions are and must be quick while reform is slow-paced. But you leave out another important difference. Revolutions affect only the political structure while reforms, partly because of their slow pace, also impact the society and culture. In other words, the change brought by revolution is often at the political surface while reform causes more fundamental changes.
Also, reform and revolution are not mutually exclusive. A reform movement can (and often does) use revolutionary tactics. This fact goes back to the inherent difference between the two: that while revolution is more tactical, reform is more strategic.
Finally, one important misconception about the reformist movement is that they only aim to reform IRI, hence the arguments that IRI cannot be reformed. The truth is that the reform movement was and is just as much about reforming IRI as it is about reforming the fabric of the society. So while it appeared stalled at reforming the political system, it went full-throttle changing our society. That is not something you can do by a revolution.
Also, reform and revolution are not mutually exclusive. A reform movement can (and often does) use revolutionary tactics. This fact goes back to the inherent difference between the two: that while revolution is more tactical, reform is more strategic.
Finally, one important misconception about the reformist movement is that they only aim to reform IRI, hence the arguments that IRI cannot be reformed. The truth is that the reform movement was and is just as much about reforming IRI as it is about reforming the fabric of the society. So while it appeared stalled at reforming the political system, it went full-throttle changing our society. That is not something you can do by a revolution.
میرحسین موسوی گفته است: "مردم باید کمک کنند که این فیلمها، این عکس ها، این کلیپ ها، این فیلمهایی که توسط دوربین های موبایل گرفته می شود، این سایتها و پوسترها گسترش پیدا کند. اینها بهترین وسیله ماست. اینها مثل یک ارتش عمل می کند. وقتی که نیروی نظامی در برابر ما قرار می دهند، در واقع این سپاه ماست که می تواند پیام جنبش را به همه مردم برساند."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/06/100611_u01-pp-musavi-karubi.shtml
and a short video from bbc:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/06/100609_l50_green_press_anniv_elec_vid.shtml
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/06/100611_u01-pp-musavi-karubi.shtml
and a short video from bbc:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2010/06/100609_l50_green_press_anniv_elec_vid.shtml
Khodam jan,
I did not say I prefer revolutions to reforms. Actually the opposite. But an observation can be made that the current crop of reformist politicians are neither suitable to lead reform, nor revolution. They cannot reform the system because they are not insiders anymore. Their current role is limited to the role the national front played during the Shah, or Bazargan after IRI. So if you advocate reform, you must either identify a group or a process inside the regime, or find a way to get the current reformists back into the system.
I did not say I prefer revolutions to reforms. Actually the opposite. But an observation can be made that the current crop of reformist politicians are neither suitable to lead reform, nor revolution. They cannot reform the system because they are not insiders anymore. Their current role is limited to the role the national front played during the Shah, or Bazargan after IRI. So if you advocate reform, you must either identify a group or a process inside the regime, or find a way to get the current reformists back into the system.
What Iranian people want. The path forward is determined by the Iranian people and not by the old politicians.
People who are still advocating reform, are doing it so because of fear of losing control of the free Iran.
Some are the traditional religious Iranian who are afraid of back slashes that Islam will receive if things change.
Some still have ties within the system and hope to salvage something after investing 30+ years of their life for this system.
Some still foster hate for all the opposition groups and rather see a more moderate IR in power than free Iran under control of those other groups and ....
The fear , for various reasons, is blinding them to see that a path to freedom is not going through reform simply because the tools for reform are not available with the frame work of this regime any loner.
When khatami pulled out of the election, it was clear sign that reform is dead otherwise, he would have stayed in the race.
Karubi and Moussavi are also well aware of this. They know that if they open the flood gates, the water will take them away sooner rather than later and Iranian population will not be happy with politician who praise Khomeyni and dream about going back to the glorious days of early revolution and teachings of Imam.
This why they seem confused and they seem to be running out of answers.
This is why they wasted all those opportunities of expanding the movement to the unhappy worker class of society.
In my opinion, you need to look at the third option. something that is not quite revolution but not as slow and predictable as reform. I don't know when we will see such an approach but I know time is running out on Moussavi and Karoubi.
They enjoyed an unconditional support from all opposition for the past year but failed to show anything positive or ability to adapt with changes and ...
I believe that because of their lackluster efforts, movement will put them to the side and will move on passed them even without having a clear leadership and that void in leadership can create some significant problems for the movement.
People who are still advocating reform, are doing it so because of fear of losing control of the free Iran.
Some are the traditional religious Iranian who are afraid of back slashes that Islam will receive if things change.
Some still have ties within the system and hope to salvage something after investing 30+ years of their life for this system.
Some still foster hate for all the opposition groups and rather see a more moderate IR in power than free Iran under control of those other groups and ....
The fear , for various reasons, is blinding them to see that a path to freedom is not going through reform simply because the tools for reform are not available with the frame work of this regime any loner.
When khatami pulled out of the election, it was clear sign that reform is dead otherwise, he would have stayed in the race.
Karubi and Moussavi are also well aware of this. They know that if they open the flood gates, the water will take them away sooner rather than later and Iranian population will not be happy with politician who praise Khomeyni and dream about going back to the glorious days of early revolution and teachings of Imam.
This why they seem confused and they seem to be running out of answers.
This is why they wasted all those opportunities of expanding the movement to the unhappy worker class of society.
In my opinion, you need to look at the third option. something that is not quite revolution but not as slow and predictable as reform. I don't know when we will see such an approach but I know time is running out on Moussavi and Karoubi.
They enjoyed an unconditional support from all opposition for the past year but failed to show anything positive or ability to adapt with changes and ...
I believe that because of their lackluster efforts, movement will put them to the side and will move on passed them even without having a clear leadership and that void in leadership can create some significant problems for the movement.
Last edited:
Great point. As you pointed out, if you want bipolarity, you need suitable leaders to lead each wing (reform and revolution). The reform leader must work from inside system, and the revolutionary leader from outside. Khatami, Mousavi and Karoubi are no longer isnside the power circle.
The key point is that sometimes the reform leader is one that you could never imagined before or never actually want to see in that position. Andropov, a KGB head, was the original reformer within the soviet system, followed by Yeltsin, a communist party leader. Most freedom fighters among Russians hated Yeltsin for his background but he was the one who finished off Soviet Union.
In Iran it is difficult to say. Rafsanjani played that role in early 90s but he is pretty much finished. It must be someone from within the power circle. Even AN himself or someone close to him.
The key point is that sometimes the reform leader is one that you could never imagined before or never actually want to see in that position. Andropov, a KGB head, was the original reformer within the soviet system, followed by Yeltsin, a communist party leader. Most freedom fighters among Russians hated Yeltsin for his background but he was the one who finished off Soviet Union.
In Iran it is difficult to say. Rafsanjani played that role in early 90s but he is pretty much finished. It must be someone from within the power circle. Even AN himself or someone close to him.
Khodam jAn,
Point taken Sir!
But you are overlooking one decisive fact.
Entire nation does not have to comprehend the value of Democracy, not even %60 of them. It is direct social responsibility of intellectuals, think tank and community leaders to do so. General population tend to follow those groups whom I don't believe today's Iran has any shortage.
Look at the U.S when founding fathers of that nation were planting the shoots of democracy while 95% of the nation were illiterate.
OTOH Iranians proceeded toward democracy 113 years ago, this nation has not done anything but socially and politically evolve while 130 of today's nations in global arena did not even exist. We are the same nation only with more gray hair. IMHO if we get there sufficient junta is already present in order to maintain it.
Point taken Sir!
But you are overlooking one decisive fact.
Entire nation does not have to comprehend the value of Democracy, not even %60 of them. It is direct social responsibility of intellectuals, think tank and community leaders to do so. General population tend to follow those groups whom I don't believe today's Iran has any shortage.
Look at the U.S when founding fathers of that nation were planting the shoots of democracy while 95% of the nation were illiterate.
OTOH Iranians proceeded toward democracy 113 years ago, this nation has not done anything but socially and politically evolve while 130 of today's nations in global arena did not even exist. We are the same nation only with more gray hair. IMHO if we get there sufficient junta is already present in order to maintain it.
Thank you. It's good to see visions coming closer and closer even if only within this site.
Something we need to concede as a nation is, no one will risk anything unless they have a stake in the outcome. Labeling people as "opportunist" or "agenda follower" is far too common among the opposition. Even the pure hearts screaming their lungs out on the streets are not doing this just for the sake of being good citizens. Everybody has their own agenda and sees an opportunity in risking their current comfort zone(however small the zone might be)
Stirring shit up between Larijani and AN in this situation may have a much bigger pay off than seeking justice in elections. Let Larijani, Rafsanjani, Khamenei and all those motherfuckers carry on with their personal agenda, but demand something in return. Whatever is gained from these political games can later be used against the evil side. Afterall, wasn't that people's motive in voting for Khatami, Mousavi and Karoubi in the first place? Did anyone really believe Mousavi to be a people's hero against the mighty Islamic Republic? NO! It was all about giving power to the less evil side in hopes of weakening the more powerful evil.
This is not the ordinary masses' job anymore. Politically this movement has no presence. Rafsanjani, Khatami, Mousavi and Karoubi combined should seek to buy the sympathy of elements within the system that have gotten the shitty end of the stick at the moment. There are many displeased yet influential elements inside the regime who would give a BJ to anyone just to get something for themselves. Those are the people the leaders of this movement should target.
Also at the lower level, the power of masses needs to be channeled into more measurable cycles. The movement needs to keep up 2 faces. One present on streets in broad view of the regime and one underground hidden from the eyes of Sepah. The underground faction usually would turn into a radical group of terrorists or assassin in the past, but they don't have to. They can simply forget about blowing up places and be more creative. Heck the least thing they can do is to gather 30-40 people around and create a few extremely large air-balloons with Khamenei's caricature on them and let them out over Tehran. That would be a scene! Sepah would have to use its armed choppers or anti-air missiles to bring them down
Something we need to concede as a nation is, no one will risk anything unless they have a stake in the outcome. Labeling people as "opportunist" or "agenda follower" is far too common among the opposition. Even the pure hearts screaming their lungs out on the streets are not doing this just for the sake of being good citizens. Everybody has their own agenda and sees an opportunity in risking their current comfort zone(however small the zone might be)
Stirring shit up between Larijani and AN in this situation may have a much bigger pay off than seeking justice in elections. Let Larijani, Rafsanjani, Khamenei and all those motherfuckers carry on with their personal agenda, but demand something in return. Whatever is gained from these political games can later be used against the evil side. Afterall, wasn't that people's motive in voting for Khatami, Mousavi and Karoubi in the first place? Did anyone really believe Mousavi to be a people's hero against the mighty Islamic Republic? NO! It was all about giving power to the less evil side in hopes of weakening the more powerful evil.
This is not the ordinary masses' job anymore. Politically this movement has no presence. Rafsanjani, Khatami, Mousavi and Karoubi combined should seek to buy the sympathy of elements within the system that have gotten the shitty end of the stick at the moment. There are many displeased yet influential elements inside the regime who would give a BJ to anyone just to get something for themselves. Those are the people the leaders of this movement should target.
Also at the lower level, the power of masses needs to be channeled into more measurable cycles. The movement needs to keep up 2 faces. One present on streets in broad view of the regime and one underground hidden from the eyes of Sepah. The underground faction usually would turn into a radical group of terrorists or assassin in the past, but they don't have to. They can simply forget about blowing up places and be more creative. Heck the least thing they can do is to gather 30-40 people around and create a few extremely large air-balloons with Khamenei's caricature on them and let them out over Tehran. That would be a scene! Sepah would have to use its armed choppers or anti-air missiles to bring them down
Shahin Jaan,
I almost agree with your post, except here:
Unconditional support is what Khomeini got in 1979 where Shah's army could hardly manage to control even a small alley for 6 months or so.
Things like 25 Khordad were not unconditional support for Mousavi and camp. Because people were not convinced that what Mousavi can bring is what they ideally want. They came in numbers because they did not know the risks.
Those who came in 30 Khordad and Ashura were the ones who were determined and wanted to give it all. But because they were not as many as those in 25 of Khordad they dented regime but could not go on forever. The sheer nubmer of security forces and militia could match them anytime afterwards.
Beleive me, Mousavi and Karoubi are not as dumb as you might think, if they know people will be giving an unconditional support, they will declare a protest today in the middle of the night and not tomorrow. They know what is going on inside Iran and they know they do not have the numbers when unconditional support comes. That is why they are awaiting an opportunity like 25 Khordad to create that atmosphere where they can draw masses and with that defeat regime's heavy security forces presence.
I almost agree with your post, except here:
Unconditional support is what Khomeini got in 1979 where Shah's army could hardly manage to control even a small alley for 6 months or so.
Things like 25 Khordad were not unconditional support for Mousavi and camp. Because people were not convinced that what Mousavi can bring is what they ideally want. They came in numbers because they did not know the risks.
Those who came in 30 Khordad and Ashura were the ones who were determined and wanted to give it all. But because they were not as many as those in 25 of Khordad they dented regime but could not go on forever. The sheer nubmer of security forces and militia could match them anytime afterwards.
Beleive me, Mousavi and Karoubi are not as dumb as you might think, if they know people will be giving an unconditional support, they will declare a protest today in the middle of the night and not tomorrow. They know what is going on inside Iran and they know they do not have the numbers when unconditional support comes. That is why they are awaiting an opportunity like 25 Khordad to create that atmosphere where they can draw masses and with that defeat regime's heavy security forces presence.
I disagree.
I do believe all the oppositions did give the unconditional support to these guys. They stood behind them, listened to everything they said and more .
People across the world marched in green shirts and wrist bands and hold their pictures up high.
Our people are smart, they knew that the only way out of this mess is by supporting these guys because there is no one else remotely close to these two figures to lead the charge.
People gave way more than anyone could have imagined. They made sacrifices that made the world sit back and be amazed.
Now, Is the number of regime opposition more than regime supporters ?
Maybe Moussavi and Karubi think that the movement supporters are minority in comparison to the regime supporters !!
Or maybe they are afraid of what will happen if regime changes tomorrow. They may lack the confidence in their power and the support of people which is a sign of their weakness.
At this point of this movement, I will NOT accuse green supporters of NOT giving it all they had.
I think each and everyone of the green supporters in Iran and outside, has gave it all they had.
Tell me if this was NOT an unconditional, all out support of the movement, then what else people should have done ?
I do believe all the oppositions did give the unconditional support to these guys. They stood behind them, listened to everything they said and more .
People across the world marched in green shirts and wrist bands and hold their pictures up high.
Our people are smart, they knew that the only way out of this mess is by supporting these guys because there is no one else remotely close to these two figures to lead the charge.
People gave way more than anyone could have imagined. They made sacrifices that made the world sit back and be amazed.
Now, Is the number of regime opposition more than regime supporters ?
Maybe Moussavi and Karubi think that the movement supporters are minority in comparison to the regime supporters !!
Or maybe they are afraid of what will happen if regime changes tomorrow. They may lack the confidence in their power and the support of people which is a sign of their weakness.
At this point of this movement, I will NOT accuse green supporters of NOT giving it all they had.
I think each and everyone of the green supporters in Iran and outside, has gave it all they had.
Tell me if this was NOT an unconditional, all out support of the movement, then what else people should have done ?
My friend,
You are talking about outside the country. Do you think they are as important as those inside in this matter?
I do not think even we, outside the country, gave it all.
Just one example, how many people took leave, bought a ticket and went to protest when AN came to NY? See it is not all full unconditional.
If those inside did give full unconditional support, we would have not seen security forces outnumbering protestors, not at least in big events. But we do see it and we do see it more often.
No doubt that many gave all they could. But not all the majority of those who are against the regime inside the country. The main reason, I believe, was that they were not convinced the two would bring them what they want or not.
Yes - of course the number of opposition inside Iran are far greater than regime supporters. But to topple a regime with guns and everything, even a majority can not win if they are not ready to go full fledged and unconditional. I doubt the majority of Iranians inside were all ready to pay high prices. At least they did limit on what they want to expense on Mousavi and Karoubi. Again a great minority of people did pay the ultimate price but I am talking about majority of people and not just youth.
No they do not. But thye know those who are willing to give it a full go are not as many as they could topple the military machine of the regime. Remember, to topple such a machine you need either numbers or arms. With numbers you can influence armed forces and obtain arms. But without numbers you end up with a group of people who, despite their hate for the government, are afraid to form a simple demonstration.
That could play a part too.
However, again, if people were ready to change the regime at any cost, they would have thrown their full support for Mousavi in an unprecednted way, like that in Moscow when they did for Gorbachev.
I am not accusing. I am saying they were wise enough to be cautious. In fact, they did more than I could. I am sitting here thousands of miles away. They did far more.
Something like 1979, Moscow, Romania etc.
Making 25th of Khordad everyday despite clashes and sacrifices, strikes etc. even if Mousavi and co. says on the surface people should not do so.
Read about 1979 and see how it was. I have heard weird stories from relatives, like Bazaar buying chicken with high price and selling low in the mosques, distributing money among Petrolium workers etc. Some were ready to go bankrupt but support the revolution. True, at the end we all fell to dictatorship again. But realities of the time could not be argued and the way everyone fell for the devil worshiping communists and mullahs then.
The fact that 26th of Khordad we saw nothing of that magnitude again after regime put more pressure on people shows people were not ready to rise against more pressure.
I understand that. People have lives. They have had a very bad experience not so long ago and thing had gotten worse. They have no confidence in Mousavi and co. So they are cautious and wise and not giving it all.
I am just stating the fact that this is the realities on the grounds. Now the rule of the game is to wait and see.
But not sure what would be the next step which could bring something positive.
Remember those things are not
You are talking about outside the country. Do you think they are as important as those inside in this matter?
I do not think even we, outside the country, gave it all.
Just one example, how many people took leave, bought a ticket and went to protest when AN came to NY? See it is not all full unconditional.
If those inside did give full unconditional support, we would have not seen security forces outnumbering protestors, not at least in big events. But we do see it and we do see it more often.
No doubt that many gave all they could. But not all the majority of those who are against the regime inside the country. The main reason, I believe, was that they were not convinced the two would bring them what they want or not.
Yes - of course the number of opposition inside Iran are far greater than regime supporters. But to topple a regime with guns and everything, even a majority can not win if they are not ready to go full fledged and unconditional. I doubt the majority of Iranians inside were all ready to pay high prices. At least they did limit on what they want to expense on Mousavi and Karoubi. Again a great minority of people did pay the ultimate price but I am talking about majority of people and not just youth.
No they do not. But thye know those who are willing to give it a full go are not as many as they could topple the military machine of the regime. Remember, to topple such a machine you need either numbers or arms. With numbers you can influence armed forces and obtain arms. But without numbers you end up with a group of people who, despite their hate for the government, are afraid to form a simple demonstration.
That could play a part too.
However, again, if people were ready to change the regime at any cost, they would have thrown their full support for Mousavi in an unprecednted way, like that in Moscow when they did for Gorbachev.
I am not accusing. I am saying they were wise enough to be cautious. In fact, they did more than I could. I am sitting here thousands of miles away. They did far more.
Something like 1979, Moscow, Romania etc.
Making 25th of Khordad everyday despite clashes and sacrifices, strikes etc. even if Mousavi and co. says on the surface people should not do so.
Read about 1979 and see how it was. I have heard weird stories from relatives, like Bazaar buying chicken with high price and selling low in the mosques, distributing money among Petrolium workers etc. Some were ready to go bankrupt but support the revolution. True, at the end we all fell to dictatorship again. But realities of the time could not be argued and the way everyone fell for the devil worshiping communists and mullahs then.
The fact that 26th of Khordad we saw nothing of that magnitude again after regime put more pressure on people shows people were not ready to rise against more pressure.
I understand that. People have lives. They have had a very bad experience not so long ago and thing had gotten worse. They have no confidence in Mousavi and co. So they are cautious and wise and not giving it all.
I am just stating the fact that this is the realities on the grounds. Now the rule of the game is to wait and see.
But not sure what would be the next step which could bring something positive.
Remember those things are not
No, I was talking about Both Inside and outside. I actually believe the people in inside Iran are doing the most they can at this moment.
The security forces are outnumbering people, out powering people because of lack of leadership, lack or organization from our leadership.
Look around the internet and see what people say. In all those events, people on their own went out and wanted to join a demonstration but said, there was no way to do because of how the security forces were organized.
So they decided to keep quite and come back home. Green leadership has been out played, out smart and our planned by I.R. regime.
The regime showed how flexible their forces are, they learnt from their mistake and they adapted well. This is strategic game.
On the other hand, Green leaders failed to adapt and this is what you see now.
Place the blame where it belongs too.
All movements start from the young and intellectual segment of the society. then It is the job of the leadership to come up with plans to include the rest of the society and get them excited about what is happening and ...
Hundreds of thousands of young people came to the street in Ashura knowing the danger that is there. They knew about the rape, torture and killing and ... They came out and gave it all.
It was the job of leadership to keep the enthusiasm high after that event and they failed to do so.
Romania is one in thousand and the lack of leadership led to all the disaster and challenges that they faced after.
Moscow enjoyed a strong leadership and planing which is more valuable than you think.
You can not just ask people to go to street and stand in front the bullet. You have to give them plans, you have to get them excited about the result. you have to show them growth and ... and all that falls on the shoulder of leadership.
The security forces are outnumbering people, out powering people because of lack of leadership, lack or organization from our leadership.
Look around the internet and see what people say. In all those events, people on their own went out and wanted to join a demonstration but said, there was no way to do because of how the security forces were organized.
So they decided to keep quite and come back home. Green leadership has been out played, out smart and our planned by I.R. regime.
The regime showed how flexible their forces are, they learnt from their mistake and they adapted well. This is strategic game.
On the other hand, Green leaders failed to adapt and this is what you see now.
Place the blame where it belongs too.
All movements start from the young and intellectual segment of the society. then It is the job of the leadership to come up with plans to include the rest of the society and get them excited about what is happening and ...
Hundreds of thousands of young people came to the street in Ashura knowing the danger that is there. They knew about the rape, torture and killing and ... They came out and gave it all.
It was the job of leadership to keep the enthusiasm high after that event and they failed to do so.
Romania is one in thousand and the lack of leadership led to all the disaster and challenges that they faced after.
Moscow enjoyed a strong leadership and planing which is more valuable than you think.
You can not just ask people to go to street and stand in front the bullet. You have to give them plans, you have to get them excited about the result. you have to show them growth and ... and all that falls on the shoulder of leadership.