Despite the promised crackdown by government forces, thousands of brave Iranians have continued their daily descent into the streets. They are being met by violent enforcers wielding batons, tear gas and live ammunition. There are few journalists able to report ‘professionally’ on the situation, but the protesters have flooded the internet with pictures and videos that tell part of the story.
By far the saddest thing I have seen was the death of Neda Afgha-Soltan (this is not for the squeamish). The clip made its rounds on the internet, and Neda has become the most recent face of the current civil disorder in Iran. Her family had planned a memorial for the 27-year old but security forces descended on the hundreds who gathered in defiance of an alleged ban on collective prayers for the deceased. She is one of many who have fallen in the recent round of protest.
Someone recently told me that Neda’s story is an example of a person so dedicated to the cause of women’s rights that she was willing to die for it. The lack of substantive on-the-ground reporting makes it easier for people to paint their own picture of what’s happening. The truth is that there are so many dimensions to the story that it’s nearly impossible to string them into one coherent narrative. Mousavi supporters(?) are the core group of demonstrators, but it makes sense that anyone with an axe to grind must be taking advantage of the situation to voice their frustration with the regime, whether home or abroad. No surprise that the son of the last Shah has put his two cents in. Everyone wants a piece of Iran.
A couple days ago, a suicide bomber blew himself up in the shrine of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Aside from giving the media another chance to exhibit bias, the incident was a sign of how bad things really are. The government blames the Mujahedeen e-Khalq (a ‘secular’ group the US allows to operate out of Baghdad’s Green Zone, even though it considers it a terrorist organization).
That same group has been behind some of the biggest protests outside of Iran, inducing a recent one in Paris. Indeed, the Mujahedeen and other opposition groups like it have a wider window of opportunity now than they have had in decades. But the current climate also provides an opportunity for the regime to clean up house. Members of the opposition have been jailed, and their fate looks bleak. Things don’t look particularly good for the hundreds (or thousands) of protesters who’ve been imprisoned – a special court is being set up to try them.
As the protests get smaller, the situation in Iran will either settle back into the unenviable status quo of the past three decades, or it will stay heated until something changes. The authorities have admitted to certain irregularities, but that may not be enough to satisfy the angry mob. Meanwhile, the situation in Iran continues to deteriorate. Regardless of how many people show up to protest, there are long lasting reverberations making their way through the halls of power.
In my humble opinion, these are some of the most interesting events in recent memory. Stay tuned, especially after the violence subsides.
Related posts:
- Tough Talk in Iran
- Sizing Up the Iranian Elections
- If You Are Part of the 1.5 Million Strong…
- D*ck Cheney f*cking with QuiQui’s plans to backpack Iran next summer
- Protests for Gazan Human Rights Continue
No doubt the imprisoned protesters will either die in prison or be killed. The violence against the protesters may subside in the streets but not inside the prison. The current gov't of Iran has vowed "to teach them a lesson." In middle eastern context, I shudder to think about what they will do to them. In essence, this regime is doing no different than what the former Shah of Iran did to his people who protested against him.
Posted by Anon | June 23, 2009, 2:22 pmIf the people want to "Fck" themselves over, then let them.
They want freedom, let them have it.
I think that Freedom should be a universal principle, but sometimes people, after being so restricted and after living under such dictatorships and then suddenly gaining more and eventually their complete and utter freedom, go off the deep end. I see that in the Middle East. The people there are so oppressed and so "un-free" that actually giving them all the freedom in the world will make them go off the deep end to their own destruction.
Freedom is just too much to handle for some people . . . it's like Vegas
Posted by Jenny Harper | June 23, 2009, 2:28 pmI'm for "giving" "them" the freedom. As if it is "ours" to give.
Iraqis need the same freedom from oppression, especially from occupation:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h8Semxoh40
Just my opinion!
Posted by Go Iran & Go Iraq | June 23, 2009, 2:39 pmIn Iran, the people are demanding freedom.
In Iraq, the Americans took down Saddam, brought an occupation and look all all that's happened. Can we say that Iraq is stable? No!
In the former, you have a theocratic state.
In the latter, you had a secular Arab "Tito" who was holding things together with an Iron Fist.
I agree with you man, who doesn't want to be free? But I think that the people of Iran are going to get more than what they bargained for and this time, America will not be blamed unless you link the Green Revolution and the protests and the desire for "Change" to Obama and the ideologies he's brought the world, which he hasn't really invented, but had made more globally charged.
Some people think this is the end of Iranian regime. A girl in a comment called it the "Sick man of Asia" (i.e. the title given to the Ottoman Empire towards the end of the 19th and early parts of the 20th century). It may or may not be. If the Iranians can pull this off and bring down the system and change things, and keep it going successfully, this would be the biggest thing in the Middle East.
But the most likely thing that I see happening is infighting, civil war and destruction giving the rest of the dictatorial and oppressive and "un-free" regimes in the area the PERFECT excuse to say to their people (and thus to keep them in such a state): "You see!? This is what you get when you get Democracy! You get instability, you get war, you get destruction, you lose your job, your family goes hungry and for what? For your vote?" and the people will say: "Well, I'd rather have a little less freedom, but still have my job and the means to provide for my family, a home, my life, my country, etc.'
It's a point I've been debating and arguing for a few years now, especially since 2003 and all that ensured in Iraq.
Again, if the Iranians can pull this off it would be the greatest news in Modern Middle East History
Posted by Mark Walker | June 23, 2009, 3:52 pmSorry, the girl called Iran the "Sick man of Asia" after the "Sick man of Europe" title which was given to the Ottoman Empire.
I just wanted to clarify that
Posted by Mark Walker | June 23, 2009, 3:55 pmI don't think it's about giving people freedom, it's about people fighting for it.
We shouldn't force democracy on people, but we should encourage it and help people when they are demanding democracy.
What definitely shouldn't happen is us supporting regimes that have put down protests for democracy (I'm directing this especially towards Egypt and Jordan, both of whom are ripe for democracy)
Posted by Shafiq | June 23, 2009, 4:26 pmI just love the Orientalist comments here.
"Cant give em freedom, they can't handle it!!"
I'm perfectly sure that the Iranians and anyone else can handle a vague concept like "freedom."
Anyway, Iran's geopolitical situation is horrendous. If Iran were to pursue a policy of independence then there would be huge sanctions and other limitations placed on the Iranian regime by the international community, this is even if the Iranian regime were some super progressive, democratic, cuddly bear regime that handed out milk and cookies to everyone everyday (including foreigners).
The simple fact is that the United States does not have an issue with Iran because the people of Iran "are not free" but because Iran happens to be an oil rich country that happens to have great control over a shipping lane that provides the world with 40% of its oil. If Ali Khamenie was our bitch in the region and was doing this to his people, I highly doubt that there would be as big a media frenzy over whats going on in Iran at the moment.
Imagine if this same situation happened in Egypt right now. Do you think the American press would be as sympathetic? Do you think Twitter would cancel maintenance? Highly unlikely. The media would downplay the event, while American advisers would be pouring into Egypt advising Mubarak on the best ways of "getting rid of the protesters."
Posted by Super Sayyin | June 23, 2009, 4:37 pm“”Imagine if this same situation happened in Egypt right now. Do you think the American press would be as sympathetic?”"
Yes and no. Secular-leaning dictatorships tend not to be as bad as theocratic ones. I’m guessing the American people would be about 80-90% as sympathetic, in the case of Egypt.
The American people would be every bit as sympathetic if something like this went down in Saudi Arabia, an oil state and often our ‘friend’.
Reducing things to oil politics means you’ll get geopolitics 90% wrong. The cheapest way for us to get oil out of Iraq was to buy it from Saddam. The costs of the Iraq war? They could pay for a metric fuckton of oil.
Posted by Joe | June 23, 2009, 11:29 am"Yes and no. Secular-leaning dictatorships tend not to be as bad as theocratic ones. I'm guessing the American people would be about 80-90% as sympathetic, in the case of Egypt."
You tell that to the Egyptians or the Syrians. I've got a feeling they don't see things the same way.
The ironic thing is, Egyptians have protested against the elections (can you even call them that?) many times, with the US press making no mention of it whatsoever
Posted by Shafiq | June 23, 2009, 6:55 pmIts not about buying oil Joe, its about controlling who gets the oil, its about preventing other emerging powers from obtaining Persian Gulf oil. Yes buying oil from Saddam would be cheaper, but then that would mean that China would be able to buy oil as well, meaning that WE do not control Persian Gulf oil and can't use it as a economic and political weapon.
Furthermore, Saddam would have also grown powerful as a result, and would see American dealing with him amicably as a reward for his stubbornness in pursuing an independent policy in the Persian Gulf. Something that American foreign policy in the ME is strongly against.
"Secular-leaning dictatorships tend not to be as bad as theocratic ones. I'm guessing the American people would be about 80-90% as sympathetic, in the case of Egypt."
Yea, tell that to Egyptians who live under a regime that makes the Islamic Republic look like cuddly puppies. Furthermore, if this type of revolution were to happen in Saudi Arabia a theocracy that makes Irans theocracy look like a liberal democracy, it would be downplayed considerably by the media because the House of Saud is our bitch in the region and sucks on American hegemony harder than anyone else.
Posted by Super Sayyin | June 23, 2009, 8:21 pmPretty good post, Kalash. I don't think this is going to just go away at this point. The protesters may be forced off the street but I think the Islamic Republic has now lost whatever legitimacy it had, on every level. They may be able to stay in power for a while, but their days are numbered IMO.
Posted by programmer craig | June 23, 2009, 6:58 pmThe murder of the woman (I think her name's Neda) changed the course of the protests and you can see from the pictures that everything's changed. Gone are the pictures of Khamenei, Khomeini and Moussavi together and instead you have people burning posters of the Supreme Leader.
They're no longer protesting against the fraudulent elections, they're protesting against the regime itself.
Posted by Shafiq | June 23, 2009, 7:13 pmShafiq,
Your last line is critical to note, and that is what the world needs to know!
Posted by Anon | June 23, 2009, 10:33 pmI find this link ridiculous, (Israel giving Iran a voice):
http://www.euronews.net/2009/06/24/israel-based-r…
Euro News officially needs to like stop sucking Israeli balls and focus on real reporting.
In addition, check this NYTimes article, just the fact that the Israeli dude started his first paragraph quoting Bernard Lewis, should be enough for anyone who knows the slightest idea of the Middle East to quit reading this BS:
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/23…
I don't even have enough time (and I'm practically jobless) to pin what's wrong with this article!
Posted by MAK | June 24, 2009, 9:17 pm…just the fact that the Israeli dude started his first paragraph quoting Bernard Lewis, should be enough for anyone who knows the slightest idea of the Middle East to quit reading this BS
But inexplicably, you didn't! And not only that, you posted a link so that the rest of us could read it too! What is the meaning of that!?
I don't even have enough time (and I'm practically jobless) to pin what's wrong with this article!
Under those circumstances, it is hard to imagine why you are practically jobless.
Posted by programmer craig | June 24, 2009, 9:40 pmI love you Programmer Craig! I like how non of your responses have anything to do with the content of the articles or the links. But like your mama, I'm gonna start ignoring you and your comments.
Love, MAK
Posted by MAK | June 25, 2009, 6:31 amI like how non of your responses have anything to do with the content of the articles or the links.
And so you thought this post was about Israel? That's why you were ranting about Israel? Israel was not even mentioned in this post. Dude, at least I do what I do deliberately. If you want to get back to work you should see what you can do about that ADD you've got goin on there!
Posted by programmer craig | June 25, 2009, 11:33 amSyria and Egypt are poor examples. Egypt, because Americans are unlikely to find the nature of the opposition something they can empathize with, and Syria because most Americans (including me) don't know a damn thing about Syrian society. It's pretty opaque. Authoritarian regimes are not all equally bad, and resistance movements are not all equally good. It's impossible to predict what public opinion would be in a hypothetical, but for whatever reasons US public opinion seems to be with the opposition in Iran. And that's even after people have been told at great length that the leaders of the opposition are not necessarily any better for the US than the current leadership. But why does it even matter? It's not like the US is going to send troops in to restore order or something. It just seems to be the way people feel about things.
Posted by programmer craig | June 24, 2009, 9:53 pmI think it helps a lot if you know people all over the world are behind you. Democracy should be available for everyone, regardless of who they vote for.
Posted by Shafiq | June 25, 2009, 10:50 amThe note he linked was about how ISRAEL is talking about the situation in IRAN. It was relevant to the discussion, something you should try to do when you troll on here.
Posted by Super Sayyin | June 25, 2009, 9:26 pmSorry, but it's still irrelevant because this post wasn't about how other nation's talk about Iran, it was just about Iran. This person just seized upon the opportunity to go on an irrelevant rant about Israel. Business as usual for fans of this blog, but an individual like that has no business accusing other people of being "off topic".
Posted by programmer craig | June 25, 2009, 11:16 pm