The Green That Turned Yellow Before Autumn

[Natural]

Khatami's presidency was definitely a success for Iran, albeit a temproary one, in many fields, the most significant ones being international relations, deomstic freedoms, sports and economic development. It has also been a success for the "system" in the long term as it ligitimized its existence and shattered people's perceptions that this sytem is all bad. At the end of the day, Khatami's presidency has brought us to this gloomy point in our history, so if you twisted my arm into making a statement of whether as whole it was a success for Iran and Iranians or the Iranian regime, I would have to go with the latter - again overall and as a whole.

On that basis, the Iranian regime is better off having the reformists in power of the presidency in order to "legitimize their existence and shatter people's perceptions that this system is all bad"

On the contrary, the regime uses everything in its power to stop the reformists to have any form of power in the system. Therefore, the reformists CAN'T be all that good for the health of the regime, and they do have some sort of negative effect on the system that the regime wants to get rid of them completely.

So your argument seems a bit flawed there.

Anyways, back to the bigger point here.

I think this is more an argument about semantics than substance, because I feel like you are both on the same page regarding the substance, and are only arguing about the semantics.

Bi Honar and Khodam are both agreeing on the fact that this is a grass-root movement, the struggle of the ordinary people to achieve freedom and liberty. Bi Honar doesn't want to call this a green movement because he believes it could limit its scope and goals. On the other hand, Khodam is saying, the term "green movement" has got nothing to do with Mousavi or Karoubi, and therefore they wont have the power to limit its scope and goals. So when you think about it, you both are saying the exact same thing.

 

[Bi-honar]

What a great thread this turned out to be. ISP staff, see that's what I mean by "valuable members" when I scream my lungs out about keeping the intelligent posters around? Try getting this much value out of a thread consisting of posts by trolls and ideological retards.

This is what I come here for, not stuff like imported nuclear technology or "Hezbe Mehr" announcements.

Before I get back to the rest of the discussion Soroosh jaan, I was actually thinking about this right after I logged off, that even though the views in this thread are so polarized and often complete opposites, no one has called anyone dalghak - that it's not disagreements or us being "Iranian" that lead to that kind of thing. In fact, there has already been a couple of instances in this thread where peopls have been apologetic if their approach seemed personal or harsh, even though it wasn't. Just some additional food for thought.
:4kerim:

 

[lordofmordor]

The water has made holes through the Dam and gradually its flow through the holes are increasing. The maintenance people in numbers are putting their finger through to stop it, but every time they rest their fingers, more water comes flowing. The number of holes keeps on increasing and the maintenance people don's know how long they will be able to keep the water from destroying the dam.

 

[Farzad-USA]

Good job guys, keep up the good work. :Iran1:

 

[Bi-honar]

Strangely, we read the events in completely different ways. I am not suggesting that my view is necessarily right, but simply that I really don't see the events in that way at all.

As I'm sure the amount of ass-kissing is going to increase in the coming days and months, I will definitely post some specific instances that I come across from this point on Derrouz jaan, for further detailed analysis and discussion.

It would have been a totally different story only in the sense that had it followed your advice, it would have been crushed by now, with thousands dead and thousands more in prison, likely a complete military style government with no one daring to breath anywhere, let alone chanting 'death to dictator". We experienced exactly that scenario in 1981.

This paragraph, I diagree with Deerouz jaan for a few different reasons:

1 - A few dozen deaths over a few important days in June achieved something that 10's of thousands of deaths over a 30 year period could not achieve.

2 - Dozens, hundreds or even thousands of deaths are an unavoidable consequences of fighting theocracy. In the whole history of mankind, Theocrats have never given-up power easily and without bloodshed. Iran is no exception to the general rule.

3 - The momentum that this movement had in June was unstoppable, if it wasn't for the repeated calls for peaceful protests and non-violent confrontation from the leaders of the so called Green Movement. There was dissent within the ranks of NE, they were tired, taking casualties and ambivalent about their purpose, just about to crack. Now, we have given them time to regroup and recharge. Sepah has been merged with Basij. The voices of dissent amont the ranks have been silenced and forced into retirement. The command structure has been reviewed from the top down and the necessary changes have been made. A golden opportunity has been lost.

4 - The voices of dissent among the politicians and even within the ranks of the conservative camp was growing day by day. Morally, people could not and would not have stayed quiet if the number of deaths rose to the hundreds - they couldn't even do that with dozens of fatalities. A few dozen deaths shook the very foundation of the system and put its brutality and flaws in the spotlight. The same politicians have no problem standing on the sideline and not saying anything now. They don't have any reason to do so. Things have been tucked under the carpet fro most parts and it's business as usual. The biggest arguments between the two camps these days is about the subsidies and the potential health problems from blocking satallite feeds!

5 - In June, there was a clear purpose to the protests. People wanted their votes back. Now, there is no clear purpose, no short term goal, nothing specific to ask for. This momvement went from a potent and direct challenge to the system, to a scattered voices of dissent with no clear objective - compliments of the so called Green Movement.

I just wanted to finish this off by making the extremely exxagerated point that if non-violent means were the way to fight oppression and imprisonment and achieve equality and freedom, sheep would be our equals, living free and fulfilling lives in vast fields of green!

BH jan, What did Mohajerani say that is not in line with what the "people" want? You are also suggesting that the same "people" were deceived by Mousavi and the Green Movement. To me it seems like you are separating the "people" and the "Green Movement". If the people have caught on to this deception then some new leadership should be emerging. Who do you suggest that is? Who do you suggest it should be?

Yes ZA jaan, I actually think that what we saw in the streets today is not the wave of Green we've been seeing in the past few months. People have for most parts seperated themselves and their movement from those of the so called Green politicians. The biggest parts of the decption have been the speed of change which seemed rather immediate at the time and is going into years and decades now. People needed change then and they need it now - they don't want this system for another 20 years or even 5 years. That change is not going to come by tippy toeing around the Supreme Leader. Yes, the people's movements is a little disorganized at the moment. There is a need for new leadership and it will emerge. However, the resistance will turn into smaller and more organized groups that are harder to dismantle. The non-violent approach will be abandoned and people will return to those days in late June some months down the road. They will not be herds of sheeps controlled by a few at the top. They will be organized pockets of resistance with clear objectives and short term goals. This day will come, I am almost certain of that.

That is the point. As Deerouz said if you're after revolution, then this movement as it is moving ahead now won't be it. But I think we will have major reforms in 2-5 years and in 20 years will enjoy a vibrant democracy. I know that 20 years sounds a distant future but hey, we've been at this for a century. What is 20 years?!!

I don't think I'm defining what this should be Khodam jaan, rather making observations of what it is or what it needs to be to achieve what the people want. People do not want change in 5 years and the notion of 20 more years of oppression and deteriorating conditions to achieve democracy is not something that people will buy. Neither the region, nor the international community can handle another 4 years of someone like Ahmadinejad. The IR can not and will not survive another 4 years, not with these economic policies, not with these foreign policies. If Iranians do not instigate this change, foreign elements will. This is the inevitability that we must face.

 

[Bi-honar]

My bad. I should not have said 20-30 years. Who knows how long. Could be 1-2 years or 20 years. As much as it takes until the society is ready. And the people in Iran know it. I think the criteria is what they think of Mousavi and Green movement. Do people in Iran think it is too slow? Once they do, or if Mousavi fails in his leadership people will abondon him no doubt. As they did with Khatami when they realised there is nothing more he could do. Have they abondoned Mousavi and karoubi? I don't see it yet. So far the green supporters have been supporting their leadership in trying to minimize the human cost and to protect lives; and I absolutely agree with them on this point.


Perhaps in the past, but not anymore. there is no question that there will be no future for these reformist politicians in the VF system from this point on. Their opposition may be out of spite or the fact that they have been forced out of power. But even among them a few will start to question their beliefs. and the rest will keep with the green movement out of spite for Khamenei. That's sufficient.

Enjoy your dinner BTW!

Thanks Derrouz jaan, I actually hadn't had Khoreste Bademjoon for a while. Jaaye hamegi khaali.

I think our views are slowly converging. The only difference remaining is that you don't think people have abandoned Mousavi and Karroubi yet, but I think they have - they're just not letting on. Of course, we have to wait and see how the next few weeks pan out, before we can be certain.

The same thing for the 2nd paragraph. I would have agreed with you completely on this 4 weeks ago. But I honestly think this "tarhe maslehate nezam" was a negotiated deal between the reformists and the conservatives. Again, we can tell in the next few weeks. If the discontent decreases, then we know that's true. If it doesn't, then you are correct.

 

[Bi-honar]

On that basis, the Iranian regime is better off having the reformists in power of the presidency in order to "legitimize their existence and shatter people's perceptions that this system is all bad"

On the contrary, the regime uses everything in its power to stop the reformists to have any form of power in the system. Therefore, the reformists CAN'T be all that good for the health of the regime, and they do have some sort of negative effect on the system that the regime wants to get rid of them completely.

So your argument seems a bit flawed there.

Actually Natural jaan, this is a simple case of "shol kon seft kon". In a tug-of-war game, it is a strategic move to loosen your grip, creating the illusion that you are caving in, only to pull harder and in a more concentrated effort later. This strategy has done wonders for the IR in the last 30 years. The reformists are that illusion and great for the health of the system. At the end of the day, they have reformed nothing, nada, zilch, hichi!

I think this is more an argument about semantics than substance, because I feel like you are both on the same page regarding the substance, and are only arguing about the semantics.

Bi Honar and Khodam are both agreeing on the fact that this is a grass-root movement, the struggle of the ordinary people to achieve freedom and liberty. Bi Honar doesn't want to call this a green movement because he believes it could limit its scope and goals. On the other hand, Khodam is saying, the term "green movement" has got nothing to do with Mousavi or Karoubi, and therefore they wont have the power to limit its scope and goals. So when you think about it, you both are saying the exact same thing.

Yeah, I noticed that too and agree completely.

 

[Bi-honar]

By the way, this was the "people's movment" at its peak and before Mousavi made it Green:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttxINV_EF50&feature=player_embedded#"]YouTube- gozaresh khabarnegare italia[/ame]

And after a few months, with all the limitations imposed and encouragement to show up to the streets and be treated like sheep, this is what he turned it into:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhPEIyHPwmM&feature=player_embedded#"]YouTube- Tehran, Riot Police Attacks Women Protesters[/ame]

 

[deerouz]

Actually Natural jaan, this is a simple case of "shol kon seft kon". In a tug-of-war game, it is a strategic move to loosen your grip, creating the illusion that you are caving in, only to pull harder and in a more concentrated effort later. This strategy has done wonders for the IR in the last 30 years. The reformists are that illusion and great for the health of the system. At the end of the day, they have reformed nothing, nada, zilch, hichi!

They have reformed nothing? You mean the situation in Iran is somehow similar to 1980s when an truly ideological government (whose members were ready to die for it) was ruling with a support of a large majority of people who thought Khomeini was the Imam zaman himself and his govenment will bring heaven to the earth? Sorry, I don't see it that way at all. Khomeini's time has long been over. His legacy was challeneged and weakened first by Rafsanjani, and then by Khatami, and the recent events has further contributed to its demise. What's remained is just a sad caricature of those times.

1 - A few dozen deaths over a few important days in June achieved something that 10's of thousands of deaths over a 30 year period could not achieve.

2 - Dozens, hundreds or even thousands of deaths are an unavoidable consequences of fighting theocracy. In the whole history of mankind, Theocrats have never given-up power easily and without bloodshed. Iran is no exception to the general rule.

3 - The momentum that this movement had in June was unstoppable, if it wasn't for the repeated calls for peaceful protests and non-violent confrontation from the leaders of the so called Green Movement. There was dissent within the ranks of NE, they were tired, taking casualties and ambivalent about their purpose, just about to crack. Now, we have given them time to regroup and recharge. Sepah has been merged with Basij. been lost.

I obviously disagree with the above points, and perhaps mostly because I was in Tehran for the first week after the election and in my opinion while the death of Neda and Sohrab provided a window into Iran for the foreign media, they were not the turning point. I didn't even hear about it in Iran until I was back. the turning point was 25 Khordad, when the million-strong march took place from Enghelab to Azadi. That was the jaw dropping event that shook the regime to the core.

IRI had no problem with violence or protestors attacking its bases. While anti-riot guard had grown thin across Tehran, Sepah had not even deployed a single unit in teh first week back then. Lashkar 10 Sepah (based in Tehran) was ready to attack and wash Tehran in blood. They were not worried about violent protests: they were ready to crush them. But the events of 25 Khordad (and the next day silent protest in Kehsavarz boulevard) were jaw dropping. They could not shoot on people who do nothing but walking in silence or showing the V sign. The rank and file would have refused to do so. The fact that Mousavi and Karoubi and others joined the protest also immensely scared them.

You mentioned that in the history of mankind a theocracy has never cede power without violence. I generalize it to ideological governments, and respond that in fact it is the complete opposite: I can't recall any true ideological government that has been brought down by violence. The closest examples to IRI are the communist government in Soviet union and China: No violence against them worked. Both essentially collapsed from within: Soviet union disintegrated and China essentially reversed path. So is the case for Cuba.

Was a golden opportunity lost back then? Would it be even possible to bring down the government through a violent riot? I don't think people would have joined. It is one thing to march peacefully in Azadi street, and quite another to pick a gun and attack a military base. But even if at one point our people make that choice for violence, is it what we really want to see? Another bloody revolution? It may be possible to bring down IRI that way, but should that be the goal? 30 years ago bringing down the Shah government was the goal. We chanted "Ta shah kafan nashavad in vatan vatan nashavad" and didn't think for a moment what we will build in its place. Shah was sent to his grave and this vatan did not become vatan, right?

It is not that I have a moral objection to violent overthrow of IRI, not anymore at this point. My objection is based on the fact that violence breeds radicalism, and in the vaccum created after the overthrow, the group with the most radical slogans will take over. You will not be able to just shut off the tap of violence. And then... well, I don't have to explain it. It will be an exact repeat of what happened after 1979. I thought (and still hope) that after that experience none of us would want to go down that path again.

 

[Bache Tehroon]

Deerouz and Khodamjan (inam esm bood shoma vardashti khodamjan?!!),

I find myself agreeing with everything you said yet I feel like there's a difference of opinion in between

Is there a particular reason the resistance has to either be peaceful or violent? Can it be both, or is there a balance? Is radicalism an absolute or relative? Is saying "Marg bar dictator" less radical than "Marg bar Shah"? if so, then it's definitely a relative term and if not, then this movement is already a radical one.

There are unanswered questions regarding Mousavi and Khatami that have remained unanswered for way too long causing certain feelings such as frustration, disconnect, hopelessness and uncertainty.

Bi-Honar has drawn conclusions that you and I may not agree with, and the cause of this disagreement is only one thing: uncertainty about the role of figures like Mousavi and Khatami. Khatami's presidency can be perceived as successful or a failure, but what can be said about Khatami's stance with regards to Khamenei? Is that also a subjective matter or we as Iranians are entitled to know what the hell this man's position is with regards to Khamenei's CURRENT legitimacy as the supreme leader? Why is he not openly critisizing Khamenei with words like "Aghaye Khamenei shoma dar eshtebahid" or "Aghaye Khamenei man ba shoma mokhalefam"? Is that also to avoid bloodshed? What bloodshed?! Is it fear? If so, is it fair to say Khatami has too much fear to be successful as "Rahbare Eslahat"? Or is it his continiously declared loyalty to Nezam? If so, is it fair to say GOORE BABAYE KHATAMI cuz people obviously don't want this Nezam?

I think the whole nation (well the majority) are stuck in a loop of ADAB va Ehteram and self-censorship which stems from our wonderful culture of respecting people unless they do something absolutely unacceptable. This culture has its beauties and certainly its uglinesses. The beauties are visible in our day-to-day interactions. The ugliness shows its face right here, right now. Why is saying "Khomieni yek GHATEL bood" such a bad thing eventhough the majority know he was one?

I personally value morals and politeness a lot, but I don't believe a political figure like Khatami or Mousavi should get away with cowardly acts just because they have morals and are polite.

For once, I'd like to see people acknowledge that Mousvi's statement, and I quote "Adabe mard beh az dolate oost" is actually a very misleading message and at the end of the day BARAYE FATI TONBOON NEMISHEH. This statement made total sense when he said it in response to AN's dirty accusations, but only and only at that moment. The truth is, no one should give a crap about ADABE MARD. People need charisma and bravery from him. Karoubi has left Mousavi and Khatami in his dust when it comes to bravery, so we can't say they have done as much as they could. They haven't and they should called on their lack of action.

I think one of the very first goals of this movement should be to question its leadership on their stance towards Khamenei while naming the names. No more vague bullshit.

Mokhlesim

 

[feyenoord]

Actually Natural jaan, this is a simple case of "shol kon seft kon". In a tug-of-war game, it is a strategic move to loosen your grip, creating the illusion that you are caving in, only to pull harder and in a more concentrated effort later. This strategy has done wonders for the IR in the last 30 years. The reformists are that illusion and great for the health of the system. At the end of the day, they have reformed nothing, nada, zilch, hichi!



Yeah, I noticed that too and agree completely.

The reformist did the greatest favour to Iran, that is that they let room for civil society to develop. In my opinion, a strong civil society is what Iran has been lacking in the last century. Also, this was done in a time where urban/rural proposition of the Iranian society changed significantly, which has resulted in education and change in values for most Iranians.

A civil society is the biggest pre-requisite to democracy. Khatami's opening room for civil society to develop was really the biggest favour anyone can do the process of democratization of a country. And so, it were the organizations within this civil society that have been responsible for the selection of Mousavi and Karoubi as candidates and the demonstrations after the rigged election.

We have 8000 NGOs and many other civil society forces in Iran today. That has been all the result of Khatami's reform movement and the biggest achievement of it.

 

[Bi-honar]

They have reformed nothing? You mean the situation in Iran is somehow similar to 1980s when an truly ideological government (whose members were ready to die for it) was ruling with a support of a large majority of people who thought Khomeini was the Imam zaman himself and his govenment will bring heaven to the earth? Sorry, I don't see it that way at all. Khomeini's time has long been over. His legacy was challeneged and weakened first by Rafsanjani, and then by Khatami, and the recent events has further contributed to its demise. What's remained is just a sad caricature of those times.

Well, we dfinitely disagree on this Deerouz jaan. Twenty years on, I don't think Khomeini's time or legacy is over at all. You can't even watch a football game without spending at least a couple of minutes of looking at his picture. And although "time" itslef may have slowly challenged his legacy, the only real challenge to it came in June and you saw how quickly, they turned it into a challenge of Ahmadinejad and everything else, but not Khomeini and have been doing so ever since. In fact, the outpuring of support for "beyte emaam" was the most vocal opposition I have seen to the coup forces. Khomeini and his legacy are the foundations of the Green Movement (not the people's movement).

And I don't see how we're any less ideological than we were in the 80's. There are still morons that are willing to die for the system. Unlike the 80's, our president is seeing halo's around his head when he speaks at the UN! He's fully supported by Emam Zaman. I think if you compare that to the Bani Sadr years, you can easily conclude that we're no less ideaological than we were then. We still have the same constitution, its is still being igonred in much the same way, press fredoom is still lacking in many cases even more, and the list goes on...

I obviously disagree with the above points, and perhaps mostly because I was in Tehran for the first week after the election and in my opinion while the death of Neda and Sohrab provided a window into Iran for the foreign media, they were not the turning point. I didn't even hear about it in Iran until I was back. the turning point was 25 Khordad, when the million-strong march took place from Enghelab to Azadi. That was the jaw dropping event that shook the regime to the core.

IRI had no problem with violence or protestors attacking its bases. While anti-riot guard had grown thin across Tehran, Sepah had not even deployed a single unit in teh first week back then. Lashkar 10 Sepah (based in Tehran) was ready to attack and wash Tehran in blood. They were not worried about violent protests: they were ready to crush them. But the events of 25 Khordad (and the next day silent protest in Kehsavarz boulevard) were jaw dropping. They could not shoot on people who do nothing but walking in silence or showing the V sign. The rank and file would have refused to do so. The fact that Mousavi and Karoubi and others joined the protest also immensely scared them.

Deerouz jaan, I wasn't suggesting that the deaths themselves were the only thing that was going to bring the regime down. All of these events were related. The regime's initial reaction on other protests is what turned into 25 Khordad. That's the momentum I'm talking about and I think you're more in agreement with my point that disagreement.

You mentioned that in the history of mankind a theocracy has never cede power without violence. I generalize it to ideological governments, and respond that in fact it is the complete opposite: I can't recall any true ideological government that has been brought down by violence. The closest examples to IRI are the communist government in Soviet union and China: No violence against them worked. Both essentially collapsed from within: Soviet union disintegrated and China essentially reversed path. So is the case for Cuba.

Well, the ideological governments in Cuba or China have not been brought down and I would almost make a similar case about Russia. They have simply been transformed. Freedoms in China and Cuba are in most cases as limited as they were before and some would argue that Russia is run on the same Mafia structure as Iran.

The only transformation made was due to economic factors (i.e. communism being more an economic ideology) and external pressure from the Western bloc. China's transformation actually started right after Tiananmen Square, a bloody event. Cuba has not had such an event and we saw no transformation there and the same goes for N. Korea. There were bloody revolutions in Eastern Europe, namely in Hungary and Czekoslavakia before communism was finally removed there - it may have been decades after, but as you indicated yourself about the time lag, we can't simply separate these events and make the claim that communism fell without any bloodshed.

And I see a huge different between an economic ideology and a theology. If you review European history, you will see that the fall of the church in each Western European country was a bloody one. They never simply folded and succummbed to the will of the people.

Was a golden opportunity lost back then? Would it be even possible to bring down the government through a violent riot? I don't think people would have joined. It is one thing to march peacefully in Azadi street, and quite another to pick a gun and attack a military base. But even if at one point our people make that choice for violence, is it what we really want to see? Another bloody revolution? It may be possible to bring down IRI that way, but should that be the goal? 30 years ago bringing down the Shah government was the goal. We chanted "Ta shah kafan nashavad in vatan vatan nashavad" and didn't think for a moment what we will build in its place. Shah was sent to his grave and this vatan did not become vatan, right?

But people did join. You yourself said how magnificent and grand 25 Khordad was. I'm not necessarily suggesting that people should have picked up guns (where would they even get them) and storm the army bases. The man to man street battles were wroking incredibly (as per my video above). I was shocked and disturbed at the time to readthe repeated press releases from the Green Movement and Green proxies organizing these demonstrations for people not to fight back! They urged the people to go into their homes and instead scream God is Great on the roof-tops. This is what I'm talking about. If the 25 Khordad meomentum had been kept, if the type of struggle that you see in the video above continued, the fracture of NE and even Sepah forces was imminent. Everything that has been accomplished to this point has been because of those determined and brave confrontations. If we started out right at the beginning, the was we did yesterday, you would not even see the divisions that you talk about within the regime. That's my point.

It is not that I have a moral objection to violent overthrow of IRI, not anymore at this point. My objection is based on the fact that violence breeds radicalism, and in the vaccum created after the overthrow, the group with the most radical slogans will take over. You will not be able to just shut off the tap of violence. And then... well, I don't have to explain it. It will be an exact repeat of what happened after 1979. I thought (and still hope) that after that experience none of us would want to go down that path again.

And Deerouz jaan, it's not that I'm promoting the violent overthrow of the government. All I'm saying is that we have to face the inevitability that the overthrow of this government will be a violent one. Whether that violence comes from the inside or outside or both, this regime, this level of ideology and theocracy will not simply fold away, not now and not in 5 years. 20 years, that's a whole different story and time itself has a way of doing things that may seem impossible.

 

[Bi-honar]

...

Great post Soroosh jaan and I think you extracted some very important points from my argument. Reading the discussions here, I see that we're referring to the chants of "death to the dictator" and actions of somone like Vahidnia as signs that the people's movement is well and strong and that Khamenei's weaker. Then by the same logic, should we not request these types of actions from the leadership of such a movement? Should the leadership of a movement not step up to the plate at the very least as much as its members are? And this is exactly why I'm sepearting the people's movement from the Green politicians now.

 

[Bi-honar]

The reformist did the greatest favour to Iran, that is that they let room for civil society to develop. In my opinion, a strong civil society is what Iran has been lacking in the last century. Also, this was done in a time where urban/rural proposition of the Iranian society changed significantly, which has resulted in education and change in values for most Iranians.

A civil society is the biggest pre-requisite to democracy. Khatami's opening room for civil society to develop was really the biggest favour anyone can do the process of democratization of a country. And so, it were the organizations within this civil society that have been responsible for the selection of Mousavi and Karoubi as candidates and the demonstrations after the rigged election.

We have 8000 NGOs and many other civil society forces in Iran today. That has been all the result of Khatami's reform movement and the biggest achievement of it.

I don't disagree with anything you said here Feyenoord jaan. The only point I would make is that the development of that civil society would have to continue in the same shape and form for us to be able to call Khatami "successful". We just don't know if that will be the case and if Khamenei is successful in removing the humanities from the universities and installing Islamic values he will take us back to the early days of the Islamic Republic and completely wipe out this building of a civil society that you talk about. In essence, Khatami has only been successful if we do not allow this to happen. But that's not looking good at the moment.

 

[masoudA]

Some Reminders - birdseye view

IRI lost on this 13 Aban day, on the 1st of Aban - when Police said "Permits" are required for people to go to demonstrate in the same place IRI has been begging them to go for 28 years !!!! Please don't under-estimate the gravity of this IRI position.

Then IRI loses again by physicaly attacking demonstrators who were just walking towards the very place the Government was hosting a rally !!!

Seeing our youth beaten up and arrested is terrible - but please don't lose focus on the opponent that must go down.

 

[deerouz]

Dear BH,
I will try to respond point by point:

1. Khomeini's legacy was not about his pictures on the walls! he created a hardcore Islamic revolutionary regime to challenge the world order in its whole. How much of that remains today? AN's slogans aside, all of that has faded. Which part of it is in the Green movement objectives? Wearing a name does not mean subscribing to the same ideas. Khomeini's ideas died with him. After him, the regime has simply turned into a simple totalitarian system with no objective but its own survival. The ideological flavour has been pushed from the core to a mere skin.

2. People joined the peaceful protests. There is no guarantee that they would have joined in such massive numbers in a violent overthrow. Regime's bloody crackdown on 30 Khordad was partly successful in bringing down the numbers in the street from hundreds of thousands to a few thousands. I also disagree that people came to street on 25 Khoirdad to mourn Neda and Sohrab, for the simple fact that they were alive on 25 Khordad! No Green leader ever told people to get off the street. It was the brutality of the regime that made it impossible to have another demonstration like 25 Khordad.

You argue that if people had kept the man on man street battles with Bassij they had won. I seriously doubt that, and have no doubt if real street fights had started, Sepah would intervene with all its forces to crush it. Furthermore, I think it is unacceptable for us to sit here and ask people in Tehran to shed their blood. They will do so if they decide it is the right time. and if they make that decision, the green leaders will not be able to stop them. Human life is not something you and I can play with this easily.

3. Regarding theological government: While Church had a lot of influence, the medieval European governments were not theocratic at all (aside from papal states that was never overthrown) The French revolution turned against Church because it was supporting the borbones, not the other way around. You are looking at wrong example.IRI is like other Ideological government like Soviet union, China etc, theocratic or not.

Now if you are arguing that the Ideology of Maoism has not been brought down in China, I have really no way to convince you then! Sure the current government is not democratic, but does it have any resemblance to Mao's time? You say the change has been mainly economic; well, communism and maoism WERE primarily about economy. It is like taking Islam out of IRI and arguing that IRI is still alive! The fact is that Maoism and communism have been overthrown in Russia and China, with a reform from the top in both cases. In case of Cuba, the only thing that maintains a shadow of the former revolutionary regime is Castro himself, and as soon as he dies things will completely change (though not necessarily toward democracy).

At the end, the manner by which this government will be overthrown will depend on the government itself. The more it pushes the reforms back the higher chances become for violence. The idiots are proud that they stopped a velvet revolution; now they may have set themselves up for an iron revolution.

 

[deerouz]

Is there a particular reason the resistance has to either be peaceful or violent? Can it be both, or is there a balance? Is radicalism an absolute or relative? Is saying "Marg bar dictator" less radical than "Marg bar Shah"? if so, then it's definitely a relative term and if not, then this movement is already a radical one.

You are right; there isn't any reason. I would rather see the people inside Iran make that decision. As long as they feel they are not ready to sacrifice precious human life for such a goal, we should support it. If they think it is time to become violent, it is their choice again.

I think the whole nation (well the majority) are stuck in a loop of ADAB va Ehteram and self-censorship which stems from our wonderful culture of respecting people unless they do something absolutely unacceptable.

It is not much a matter of self-censorship as it is a matter of not having any other option. You don't get into a shouting match with bare hands with a guy twice your size who is carrying a knife too. You try to calm him down to avoid getting hurt by him, and get support from onlookers as well. them take their bassiji thug out of the streets and I will show you how much "adab" is left.

 

[Bi-honar]

1. Khomeini's legacy was not about his pictures on the walls! he created a hardcore Islamic revolutionary regime to challenge the world order in its whole. How much of that remains today? AN's slogans aside, all of that has faded. Which part of it is in the Green movement objectives? Wearing a name does not mean subscribing to the same ideas. Khomeini's ideas died with him. After him, the regime has simply turned into a simple totalitarian system with no objective but its own survival. The ideological flavour has been pushed from the core to a mere skin.

I respectfully disagree Deerooz jaan. IMHO, Khomeini's ideas are stronger than ever and while the ideological influence of the regime was limited to Iran's borders in his time, it is being pushed all the way to the borders of the Medditerranean, through Iraq and Syria all the way to the Pelestinian territories and Lebonon to the West, Afghanistan to the East and now partially Turkey and Yemen.

2. People joined the peaceful protests. There is no guarantee that they would have joined in such massive numbers in a violent overthrow. Regime's bloody crackdown on 30 Khordad was partly successful in bringing down the numbers in the street from hundreds of thousands to a few thousands. I also disagree that people came to street on 25 Khoirdad to mourn Neda and Sohrab, for the simple fact that they were alive on 25 Khordad! No Green leader ever told people to get off the street. It was the brutality of the regime that made it impossible to have another demonstration like 25 Khordad.

I don't know why you keep sepearting the two - I hope it wasn't through anything I implied. There was no purely peaceful protests. Everything included an elemnet of violence right from the beginning. It was Mousavi who on June 14th (the day after the results were announced and violent protests had already broken out) said "I urge you Iranian nation to continue your nationwide protest in a peaceful and legal way ".

You argue that if people had kept the man on man street battles with Bassij they had won. I seriously doubt that, and have no doubt if real street fights had started, Sepah would intervene with all its forces to crush it. Furthermore, I think it is unacceptable for us to sit here and ask people in Tehran to shed their blood. They will do so if they decide it is the right time. and if they make that decision, the green leaders will not be able to stop them. Human life is not something you and I can play with this easily.

But real street fights had started. I have posted you a video and there are 100's more. I'm not basing these opinions on some articles I read after. I was on the net non-stop at the beginning looking at the Twitter feeds and news coming out of Iran. It was difficult not to develop a feel for what was going on (the big picture).

3. Regarding theological government: While Church had a lot of influence, the medieval European governments were not theocratic at all (aside from papal states that was never overthrown) The French revolution turned against Church because it was supporting the borbones, not the other way around. You are looking at wrong example.IRI is like other Ideological government like Soviet union, China etc, theocratic or not.

I did not mentiona anything about Theocratic governments, rather fighting theology and theocrats. You took that and started talking about ideological "governments" and now going into theocratic "governments". I did not mention the word "government" at all. I'm simply referring to the struggle for democracy and individual freedoms versus theocracy. You can even see this in Thomas Jefferson's writings.

Now if you are arguing that the Ideology of Maoism has not been brought down in China, I have really no way to convince you then! Sure the current government is not democratic, but does it have any resemblance to Mao's time? You say the change has been mainly economic; well, communism and maoism WERE primarily about economy. It is like taking Islam out of IRI and arguing that IRI is still alive! The fact is that Maoism and communism have been overthrown in Russia and China, with a reform from the top in both cases. In case of Cuba, the only thing that maintains a shadow of the former revolutionary regime is Castro himself, and as soon as he dies things will completely change (though not necessarily toward democracy).

Again, I'm not talking about Maoism or any other ideological government. I thought our discussions here was about the will of the Iranian people to have freedom and democracy. That's what I'm talking about and that does not exist in China, Cuba, North Korea and to some extents in Russia. What difference does it make if it's branded under Maoism or an Islamic Republic as is the case in Iran. Words and phrases alone do not define the system.

At the end, the manner by which this government will be overthrown will depend on the government itself. The more it pushes the reforms back the higher chances become for violence. The idiots are proud that they stopped a velvet revolution; now they may have set themselves up for an iron revolution.

Agree absolutely, 100%. In fact this is the point I've been trying to make, that this thing is now going to shift into another gear.

 

[khodam]

Deerouz and Khodamjan (inam esm bood shoma vardashti khodamjan?!!),

Baba esmo roo adam mizaran, "khodam" entekhab nakardam keh!

I find myself agreeing with everything you said yet I feel like there's a difference of opinion in between

Is there a particular reason the resistance has to either be peaceful or violent? Can it be both, or is there a balance? Is radicalism an absolute or relative? Is saying "Marg bar dictator" less radical than "Marg bar Shah"? if so, then it's definitely a relative term and if not, then this movement is already a radical one.

That is a very good question. I think the main question between the lines in what you write is this question that has, by now, become cliche: "Do we want a revolution or an evolution?"

Each one of us needs to answer this question for himself/herself. My reading of the situation is that majority of people going into the streets want an evolution. Can my reading be wrong? Absolutely. Can it change depending on what happens in future? You bet.

The other question is, do we have to chose between the two? Can't we have a combination of the two? In my opinion, the two can't be persued at the same time but I can see why one may argue otherwise.

Feyenoord has a post right after yours where he explains what he thinks was/is missing in our path towards democracy. I completely agree with what he says so I won't repeat his words which happen to be my reasons for why we need an evolutionary approach. If the regime is overthrown tomorrow while our people haven't yet matured politically, we will lose in the long term. If IRI stays for another 20 years but during this time our people mature politically and we create democratic institutions (not just a democratic constitution) we have won in the long run. Political maturation and institutionalizing civil entities ad concepts is a process that takes time but it is also a process that cannot fail. We have already taken very significant steps in that direction in the last 12 years, it would be a pity if leave that half-way.

There are unanswered questions regarding Mousavi and Khatami that have remained unanswered for way too long causing certain feelings such as frustration, disconnect, hopelessness and uncertainty.

Bi-Honar has drawn conclusions that you and I may not agree with, and the cause of this disagreement is only one thing: uncertainty about the role of figures like Mousavi and Khatami. Khatami's presidency can be perceived as successful or a failure, but what can be said about Khatami's stance with regards to Khamenei? Is that also a subjective matter or we as Iranians are entitled to know what the hell this man's position is with regards to Khamenei's CURRENT legitimacy as the supreme leader? Why is he not openly critisizing Khamenei with words like "Aghaye Khamenei shoma dar eshtebahid" or "Aghaye Khamenei man ba shoma mokhalefam"? Is that also to avoid bloodshed? What bloodshed?! Is it fear? If so, is it fair to say Khatami has too much fear to be successful as "Rahbare Eslahat"? Or is it his continiously declared loyalty to Nezam? If so, is it fair to say GOORE BABAYE KHATAMI cuz people obviously don't want this Nezam?

I think the whole nation (well the majority) are stuck in a loop of ADAB va Ehteram and self-censorship which stems from our wonderful culture of respecting people unless they do something absolutely unacceptable. This culture has its beauties and certainly its uglinesses. The beauties are visible in our day-to-day interactions. The ugliness shows its face right here, right now. Why is saying "Khomieni yek GHATEL bood" such a bad thing eventhough the majority know he was one?

I personally value morals and politeness a lot, but I don't believe a political figure like Khatami or Mousavi should get away with cowardly acts just because they have morals and are polite.

I expressed my opinion about the issue of leadership in previous posts. I don't see Mousavi or Khatami as leaders of people. They may be figureheads but not true leaders. Again, I don't see why we keep looking for leaders? Why do we need them? The main point is that we have tried, many times mind you, to make change from top to bottom (i.e. leader-driven revolution). Every time it fired back and we ended up in the same hole or a deeper one. Why not once try a bottom-up approach where we strengthen the civil society and wait for leaders (plural) to emerge.

Specifically, on Khatami's so-called cowardly acts, I don't agree at all. If anything, events of the last few years have proven that he had the right vision in avoiding confrontation as he did. If you want we can discuss that separately. On Mousavi, I have no opinion because he hasn't done enough for me to develop one. I don't disagree with any of steps he has taken though. He has avoided head-to-head confrontation in some instances which I think is wise. What would he achieve if he came and called Khomeini a Ghatel?

 

[deerouz]

Bi-Honar jan, we will have to agree to disagree on some of the points in our discussion. One thing I recall is that when I was in Iran in June I was far more cautious than when I came back after election. "Khodam" was also in Iran at the time and his posts were criticized by some as being too cautious, to the extent that he was called names. Same thing with other members in Iran (Mr. Thick, beyster etc) It should say a lot. Those with hands-on street experience seem to advise caution and step-by-step approach. I submit the same situation exist in the larger scale; that it is the Iranian community outside Iran that is frustrated at the pace of the movement, not the people inside Iran. I am not saying that the people inside are always right, but it is their blood we are talking about and we have to leave the decision to them.