Iran abolishes morality police(hindustantimes.com)
hindustantimes.com
Iran abolishes morality police
https://www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/iran-anti-hijab-protests-mahsa-amini-death-iran-abolishes-controversial-morality-police-amid-massive-unrest-report-101670145795129.html
265 comments
NYT reprinted the same thing and I am completely lost as to why https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/04/world/middleeast/iran-mor...
the paper of record doesn't appear to post a central list of retractions and errors
[deleted]
"The morality police [...] were established under president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, [and] began patrols in 2006."
I didn't realize they were formed that recently; I thought it would have been created at the start of the regime.
Yashar Ali (@yashar) on Twitter has been covering these protests extensively. I'm waiting for him to comment on this, but it doesn't appear he's awake yet.
I didn't realize they were formed that recently; I thought it would have been created at the start of the regime.
Yashar Ali (@yashar) on Twitter has been covering these protests extensively. I'm waiting for him to comment on this, but it doesn't appear he's awake yet.
The morality police is here to stay (and it's not only about hijab!). They just renamed the department to "public safety police". It's said that the hijab patrols (gasht-e ershad) is gone. Not officialy yet. They are about to decriminalize having no hijab. No further arrests, but there will be a fine for those who have no hijab (believed to start from around $15. The minimun wage is $1/h here. The median is ~$2/h).
There was no hijab law for the first 5yrs of the regime. The normal police officers were to enforce the hijab law afterwards. It wasn't effective enough so they came up with the idea of having "hijab patrols" by the so-called morality police.
There was no hijab law for the first 5yrs of the regime. The normal police officers were to enforce the hijab law afterwards. It wasn't effective enough so they came up with the idea of having "hijab patrols" by the so-called morality police.
Yeah the explicit morality police were established then and may be dissolved now, but it's not going to change the behaviour of (for example) groups like the Basij, a paramilitary youth group who roam the streets enforcing 'morality' through street violence.
I don't believe this represents any real change.
(edit -- One group or another has been violently enforcing dress codes in Iran since the revolution itself, the disbanding of any particular instance of this seems of little consequence, I have Iranian family and I have heard stories dating back to that time.)
I don't believe this represents any real change.
(edit -- One group or another has been violently enforcing dress codes in Iran since the revolution itself, the disbanding of any particular instance of this seems of little consequence, I have Iranian family and I have heard stories dating back to that time.)
>may be dissolved now
I doubt they will ever be dissolved by public or foreign pressure, especially since they consider the protests illegitimate.
I doubt they will ever be dissolved by public or foreign pressure, especially since they consider the protests illegitimate.
No doubt. In fact the current speaker of the parliament clearly stated this some days ago:
[in Persian:] https://www.entekhab.ir/fa/news/701903/%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%DB...
[in Persian:] https://www.entekhab.ir/fa/news/701903/%D9%82%D8%A7%D9%84%DB...
There were morality police when I visited in 1993. My mom was stopped because she was wearing sheer, not colored, pantyhose and her ankle was visible. I was pulled aside from her (I was a young teenager). She argued with them for a few minutes, supposedly yelled at them, and then we were on our way.
BBC this morning: Iran has had various forms of "morality police" since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but the latest version - known formally as the Gasht-e Ershad - is currently the main agency tasked enforcing Iran's Islamic code of conduct.
BBC this morning: Iran has had various forms of "morality police" since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, but the latest version - known formally as the Gasht-e Ershad - is currently the main agency tasked enforcing Iran's Islamic code of conduct.
If you've been following Iranian social media, they don't want hijab reforms, they want this regime gone. And this is their Berlin wall moment.
American social media doesn't have a good reputation.
No it's not. They are not conceding.
Well, if you've been following Iranian elections you might reach the opposite conclusion... Now, I'm no fan of the Iranian regime, but I doubt you can make trustworthy conclusions about what the public wants from sampling posts on social media. (I wouldn't say that even elections are the end-all of what "the public wants".)
I wouldn't attach any meaning to an election that didn't allow most candidates to run, had the lowest turnout in history, and still ended up with a significant amount of blank/invalid votes, despite that being explicitly forbidden.
That's basically my point actually. Anecdotally sampling a bunch of tweets has a very low level of validity.
It is a variant of the US system, rather than the rich picking the candidates who can run, the priests do.
Sorry, I am teasing but I want to highlight that the problem with pre-selected candidates is a widespread problem undermining democracy in many places. Same applies to Hong Kong were China heavily influenced candidate selection.
Sorry, I am teasing but I want to highlight that the problem with pre-selected candidates is a widespread problem undermining democracy in many places. Same applies to Hong Kong were China heavily influenced candidate selection.
It's frustrating to see every discussion about politics in any country being hijacked by Americans saying "yes but in the US".
Get over yourselves and give us space to talk about other countries too. This conversation is not about you.
Get over yourselves and give us space to talk about other countries too. This conversation is not about you.
That's a ridiculous exaggeration. People vote in the primaries as well. Except for Thiel, rich people were uniformly against Trump being nominated.
It isn't universally that way: Trump showed how to subvert the system. But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted. Then of course the people spoke in the general election that they didn't want her, and disaster ensued.
In most elections, the candidates were ones the rich elites wanted there. But there have been exceptions.
In most elections, the candidates were ones the rich elites wanted there. But there have been exceptions.
> But the 2016 election showed how the powerful elites in the Democratic party subverted the people's will and installed an extremely unpopular candidate they wanted.
Utter nonsense. Clinton beat the next candidate by a double digit vote percentage in the primaries. That's a landslide. Sanders won a bunch of party caucuses, and it's caucuses that ignore the will of the people and only consider the preferences of party insiders. The only reason you believe the will of the people was subverted was that you were hoodwinked by a coordinated social media campaign whose purpose was to destabilize the democracy.
Utter nonsense. Clinton beat the next candidate by a double digit vote percentage in the primaries. That's a landslide. Sanders won a bunch of party caucuses, and it's caucuses that ignore the will of the people and only consider the preferences of party insiders. The only reason you believe the will of the people was subverted was that you were hoodwinked by a coordinated social media campaign whose purpose was to destabilize the democracy.
Another crazy Clinton supporter who screams "the election was stolen!!" You sound just like the Trumpers. If she was so popular, why did she lose in the general election?
Where did I say the election was stolen or that Clinton was popular? I merely said that she beat Sanders by a landslide. You appear to be brainwashed into not only thinking the nomination was stolen from Sanders but also that I said things that I had not.
This sort of muddled thinking is exactly what the disinformation campaign was aiming for. No such campaign happened in 2008, or you might even be crying about how the nomination was stolen from Clinton, who lost the primary vote by a percentage point margin two orders of magnitude less than Sanders.
This sort of muddled thinking is exactly what the disinformation campaign was aiming for. No such campaign happened in 2008, or you might even be crying about how the nomination was stolen from Clinton, who lost the primary vote by a percentage point margin two orders of magnitude less than Sanders.
Your comment is suggesting a view of the Iranian elections that is completely separated from reality. Iran is classified as a totalitarian state[1], with only 11 countries in the world getting a lower rating in 2021. The fact that you've been "following" the elections, and you seem to claim that you can draw any meaningful conclusion about them regarding what people in Iran think of their leadership, is simply ridiculous.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Isn't the entire elections system built to reinforce regime legitimacy? All of the candidates have to be approved by the Guardian Council which is controlled by the Supreme Leader, so it's not like they have any threat to the regime itself. It's a way to appear willing to reform without actually reforming.
Thats a very nice way of saying of they have a decentralised power/political structure. Very much like Chinese. This is some what also similar to what the US itself has.
The reason why any geopolitical player would not want their opponents to have this is because it makes it very hard to take out decentralised structures, its not easy to do a coup, and even if you manage to do a color revolution, you can at best remove the head of government- Which is the president and his cabinet(who are nothing more than managers) which really doesn't change much given the next team will have to live with the same decentralised structure, and they too will have powers no more than being managers.
Iranians and Chinese are a tough nut to crack for this reason. The head of governments, really aren't all that powerful. Protests don't change much.
The reason why any geopolitical player would not want their opponents to have this is because it makes it very hard to take out decentralised structures, its not easy to do a coup, and even if you manage to do a color revolution, you can at best remove the head of government- Which is the president and his cabinet(who are nothing more than managers) which really doesn't change much given the next team will have to live with the same decentralised structure, and they too will have powers no more than being managers.
Iranians and Chinese are a tough nut to crack for this reason. The head of governments, really aren't all that powerful. Protests don't change much.
I think you meant "multi-polar" rather than "decentralized". The power structure in Iran is very centralized.
Fucked up election systems everywhere. If there are basically only two parties by the way the counting works, then the those two parties can do the "approval of candidates" internally.
Main difference being that one system is run by religious group, and the other by the influence of the super-party-donors (aka capitalists).
Either way reform does not happen. Political prisoners (Assange in the west) still rotting in jail. Change is a word reserved manly for election rally banners, once elected they seem to change as little of the status quo as they can get away with.
Main difference being that one system is run by religious group, and the other by the influence of the super-party-donors (aka capitalists).
Either way reform does not happen. Political prisoners (Assange in the west) still rotting in jail. Change is a word reserved manly for election rally banners, once elected they seem to change as little of the status quo as they can get away with.
The United States' elections are simply not at the same level as Iran's (if that is what this comment is implying)
Different sure, but different in its resistance to reform? Nah.
There is a huge difference. The US has a stated procedure on how to reform the election process. It’s outlined in the constitution and has been invoked several times in the history of the republic.
The idea that all flawed systems are equally flawed is a really weak argument and one that is used by oppressive forces to further their purposes.
The idea that all flawed systems are equally flawed is a really weak argument and one that is used by oppressive forces to further their purposes.
right, there’s a huge difference between “difficult” in the sense of getting enough support from voters in the country to make a change in the system according to the previously agreed process, and “difficult” in the sense of the government/ system using force to prevent the change
No, you don’t get executed in the US for saying “down with Biden/Trump/whoever.”
This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality.
This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality.
You are right in the US you can say that. But showing how the govt is criminally scheming against the people gets you in jail just as much. Ask Assange.
> This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality.
I wanted to say they are similar in resisting reform. Sorry if that was not clear.
> This “all imperfect systems are equally imperfect” is utterly detached from reality.
I wanted to say they are similar in resisting reform. Sorry if that was not clear.
They're not though. Assange would be tried in a court with codified laws that are written by elected representatives of the people. He'd have a right to legal representation of his choice. He'd be able to call witnesses to defend him. A jury could decide that even if he's entirely guilty of the crime, that actually the law on the books is incorrect and therefore nullify it. If he gets an unfair trial, he can appeal and get another one with a different judge and different jury. If it turns out that the conviction was correct given the laws, and the juries are pretty much fine with the laws as written, he still can make an argument to the very philosophical principles of a democracy in the Supreme Court and be vindicated. All of these are imperfect, yes, but they are imperfect in dramatically different ways than an authoritarian theocratic regime is imperfect.
"There is a concept of law and punishment" is where the similarity ends. To observe that a system resists reform is the same observation as "there is a system." That is what they do. All the systems that have no resistance to reform aren't systems. They don't exist!
"There is a concept of law and punishment" is where the similarity ends. To observe that a system resists reform is the same observation as "there is a system." That is what they do. All the systems that have no resistance to reform aren't systems. They don't exist!
This is the theory. In execution, we see the same sort of railroading here as there. US makes less fuss about expression, but is wholly as devoted to curtailing what could affect fortunes of plutocrats.
Assange is far from an isolated instance, but it takes only one to prove the case. Assange is perhaps not the best choice, since he illustrates UK's failings more than US's, even if US is the one driving. We might take Manning as a local example, with their heavy use of isolation as torture.
But we have very many more than one, though it is hard to keep more than a few in the public mind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
Assange is far from an isolated instance, but it takes only one to prove the case. Assange is perhaps not the best choice, since he illustrates UK's failings more than US's, even if US is the one driving. We might take Manning as a local example, with their heavy use of isolation as torture.
But we have very many more than one, though it is hard to keep more than a few in the public mind.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_whistleblowers
Chelsea Manning was court-martialed. Military personnel, very reasonably, have a different set of rights and duties than a normal citizen. We can have a conversation about certain punishments or mechanisms and whether they're humane, but an even more basic feature of our system than whether X case was correct or Y punishment is just, is the fact that we can and we do have lively, 24/7 conversations about this stuff. And they do actually change! Usually for the better! We've made immense progress on many of these issues over the last 200 years.
An edge case in one system having some vague similarities to the base case in another system indicates that they are dramatically different, not similar.
This distinction all seemed pretty academic to me too until I actually went to one of these theocratic countries - one way more liberal than Iran - and asked a local for their thoughts on [local authority figure]. The reaction was absolutely chilling. They didn't go into a rant about all the horrible abuses of power and how evil this leader is, how another country has it better, etc. They instead clammed up, looked around, and ended the conversation immediately.
No, "convicted leaker of state secrets got treated poorly" does not in any way substantiate "we see the same sort of railroading."
An edge case in one system having some vague similarities to the base case in another system indicates that they are dramatically different, not similar.
This distinction all seemed pretty academic to me too until I actually went to one of these theocratic countries - one way more liberal than Iran - and asked a local for their thoughts on [local authority figure]. The reaction was absolutely chilling. They didn't go into a rant about all the horrible abuses of power and how evil this leader is, how another country has it better, etc. They instead clammed up, looked around, and ended the conversation immediately.
No, "convicted leaker of state secrets got treated poorly" does not in any way substantiate "we see the same sort of railroading."
Tolerating free expression is a measure of how secure they are.
Years of torture by solitary confinement demonstrate something else.
Years of torture by solitary confinement demonstrate something else.
Have you been to Iran? I have, many times. I will tell you a little secret: in that part of the world, Iran is considered Germany (stable, rules-based, strong-govt).
Compared to Canada, the US is like India: huge difference between poor and rich, gated communities everywhere...
Just my take.
Compared to Canada, the US is like India: huge difference between poor and rich, gated communities everywhere...
Just my take.
Yes compared to actual failed states Iran is pretty stable (though may be changing). Compared to some of the wealthiest places on earth (all wealth built under the US security umbrella), the U.S. has some problems.
This isn’t news!
This isn’t news!
The fallacy you’ve restated is called false equivalence.
[deleted]
"political prisoner" about a guy that leaked top secret information unredacted that probably led to the death of those people.
Foreign agent would describe his actions much better.
Ps. In other countries you can go to jail for holding up a blank paper. Where would you want to live?
Foreign agent would describe his actions much better.
Ps. In other countries you can go to jail for holding up a blank paper. Where would you want to live?
No, I think you could tell quite well what people want when they put their lives on the line to make a change.
Im sure there is a part of the population that is vested with the current system but that is generally a smaller part that is working in that system and which is somewhat propped up by manipulted rural masses who may also have had enough of this too.
Im sure there is a part of the population that is vested with the current system but that is generally a smaller part that is working in that system and which is somewhat propped up by manipulted rural masses who may also have had enough of this too.
> what people want when they put their lives on the line to make a change
[removed: a reference to The Troubles] A minority of people can feel very, very strongly about something without the majority of people feeling that way.
> [the] part of the population [that supports the Iranian regime] is generally a smaller part
Happy to believe that, but where’s the data? That some people are clearly very angry at the monstrous and evil regime there doesn’t imply that it’s the majority or even close to.
[removed: a reference to The Troubles] A minority of people can feel very, very strongly about something without the majority of people feeling that way.
> [the] part of the population [that supports the Iranian regime] is generally a smaller part
Happy to believe that, but where’s the data? That some people are clearly very angry at the monstrous and evil regime there doesn’t imply that it’s the majority or even close to.
The Troubles didn't start because of people pushing for a United Ireland. They started as a consequence of the violent crackdown against the civil rights movement. The IRA was a largely spent force up until then. It's very important to keep that in mind when saying anything about the Troubles.
That's an excellent point, and I was conflating the two while making an unrelated point. I've removed my original text, and simplified what I was trying to say. Thanks.
dontbenebby(3)
I believe this is just a way for the Iranian establishment to obtain a respite of momentum, regroup and then come back in full force, incarcerating as many demonstrators as possible. I hope the Iranians double down on making a meaningful change where people guilty of violence against protestors get punished and actually change the government a bit. It’s possible a complete overthrow is nearly impossible without a lot more casualties but this ruling seems like a false victory to me.
As nntaleb postulates, once a dictatorship starts giving concessions, it is on its last legs.
Therefore I do not believe this news.
Therefore I do not believe this news.
Lots of dictatorships make concessions and continue to stick around: take Cuba with its market reforms of the 1990s and 2000s, ditto North Korea.
But I don’t believe this news either, but simply because I haven’t seen any reporting that independently verifies the claim being made.
But I don’t believe this news either, but simply because I haven’t seen any reporting that independently verifies the claim being made.
> Lots of dictatorships make concessions
This is a strategic move by the Islamic Republic and they timed it carefully because there are calls for another round of protests just in a few days. The government hopes to mitigate public unrest by giving them false hope.
I'm Iranian and have witnessed the government killing and imprisoning children (e.g., a 9 year old boy who was in a car with his father, not even protesting). There's a reason the UN is now investigating human right violations by the regime. To this regime, people are just statistics—just a couple years ago, the government massacred more than 1500 people on the streets and didn't blink an eye. In fact, right after that, they continued the JCPOA negotiations with the West.
Many Iranians wish our country didn't have oil and gas so that other countries would leave us alone. The free and abundant resources of money only make the regime corruption worse. At least in a dictatorship that struggles with income, some attention would be paid to construction and manufacturing. But the (non)Iranian regime has just been stealing the nation's wealth for over 4 decades, essentially funneling it to Swiss banks. Maybe that's why the Switzerland refused to sanction the Islamic Republic just like Germany and Britain.
This is a strategic move by the Islamic Republic and they timed it carefully because there are calls for another round of protests just in a few days. The government hopes to mitigate public unrest by giving them false hope.
I'm Iranian and have witnessed the government killing and imprisoning children (e.g., a 9 year old boy who was in a car with his father, not even protesting). There's a reason the UN is now investigating human right violations by the regime. To this regime, people are just statistics—just a couple years ago, the government massacred more than 1500 people on the streets and didn't blink an eye. In fact, right after that, they continued the JCPOA negotiations with the West.
Many Iranians wish our country didn't have oil and gas so that other countries would leave us alone. The free and abundant resources of money only make the regime corruption worse. At least in a dictatorship that struggles with income, some attention would be paid to construction and manufacturing. But the (non)Iranian regime has just been stealing the nation's wealth for over 4 decades, essentially funneling it to Swiss banks. Maybe that's why the Switzerland refused to sanction the Islamic Republic just like Germany and Britain.
BBC are reporting it: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-63850656
Al Jazeera too: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/4/iran-prosecutor-gen...
RTE: https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2022/1204/1339880-iran-moralit...
and plenty more besides.
I have no idea if it's a sincere declaration (like, maybe they'll still enforce these laws but using regular police instead of the morality police, for example) but "Iran claim to be suspending the morality police" is a statement that appears to be true.
Al Jazeera too: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/4/iran-prosecutor-gen...
RTE: https://www.rte.ie/news/world/2022/1204/1339880-iran-moralit...
and plenty more besides.
I have no idea if it's a sincere declaration (like, maybe they'll still enforce these laws but using regular police instead of the morality police, for example) but "Iran claim to be suspending the morality police" is a statement that appears to be true.
*Now*, I believe it (well, I believe the announcement has been made) - and I'm cautiously optimistic that the regieme will follow-through on their promise, somehow.
Ah sorry I hadn't realised that there was a narroow moment where it wasn't widely covered yet :) I upvoted, if that's any consolation
The line I’ve heard (Stephen Kotkin) “dictatorships just have to be good at one thing: defeating all political alternatives.” Shuffling around the police isn’t allowing for a political alternative to the regime.
It's a different kind of concession, though. Elites like market reforms because they are positioned to get rich off them, so they can lead to a reinforcement of existing power structures.
[deleted]
Cuba actually has a democratic process, believe it or not.
Many dictatorships actually do. The question is more like "is it a process that only exists on paper?". If an election ends with a 98% approval of the supreme leader (or whatever the designation), then it's probably rigged and just for show...
So do China, North Korea or Russia. Sometimes there are even multiple parties.
Is there a chance that the people in power (at any level of government) get voted out?
Is there a chance that the people in power (at any level of government) get voted out?
Elections is the most visible part of a democracy but I think separation of powers is even more important. And of course is the first thing a dictator will eliminate, even more than elections. Actually is the first thing wannabe dictators inside democracies attack
China being one of the ones with multiple parties which often surprises people. But there are eight legal ones besides the CCP.
In reality of course this means nothing, given they are all required to be part of the "United Front" led by the CCP.
In reality of course this means nothing, given they are all required to be part of the "United Front" led by the CCP.
Ha, your comment got me thinking: is there a chance Democrats and Republicans will ever be voted out?
The party system in the US does feel rigged to entrench the two remaining parties in the US. My hope is dropping first past the pole and adding ranked choice will help break up the duopoly.
Still, there are glimmers of hope now and again. Like Ross Pero running as independent or the Bull Moose party.
Still, there are glimmers of hope now and again. Like Ross Pero running as independent or the Bull Moose party.
The GOP really suffered in recent Alaskan elections after they adopted Ranked Choice voting. So expect them to very loudly and strongly oppose it being adopted anywhere, with a lot of bad-faith arguments implying it's a form of electoral corruption/manipulation and holding it up as an example of Democrat trickery.
Ranked-choice voting (STV, IIRC?) was rejected by referendum in the UK because (words to the effect of) “it’s too complicated for the average voter to understand”, according to the Keep FPTP camp.
It’s a dumb argument for sure, but now (i.e. post-Brexit referendum) I can’t help but think it’s a valid dumb argument…
It’s a dumb argument for sure, but now (i.e. post-Brexit referendum) I can’t help but think it’s a valid dumb argument…
I don't think British people are inherently dumber than the people here in Germany.
Here you get two votes (one for the candidate of your district and one for the party. The second vote determines the number of seats while the first one makes sure a local guy gets one if them).
This is much more difficult than just listing candidates in the order you like them and "make sure you include anyone you can somewhat stomach".
Yet I've not heard if anyone being "confused (in the sende that they don't know what to choose) by the German system.
Some people might not fully grasp the system but that's ok (after all most will be intellectually able to understand it).
Here you get two votes (one for the candidate of your district and one for the party. The second vote determines the number of seats while the first one makes sure a local guy gets one if them).
This is much more difficult than just listing candidates in the order you like them and "make sure you include anyone you can somewhat stomach".
Yet I've not heard if anyone being "confused (in the sende that they don't know what to choose) by the German system.
Some people might not fully grasp the system but that's ok (after all most will be intellectually able to understand it).
Mixed-member proportionate representation requires a constitutional overhaul though, which is why it's a very, very hard-sell without a prerequisite revolution, war, and/or guillotining of the malign parts of the aristocracy...
> Like Ross Pero running as independent or the Bull Moose party.
The thing is those things either don't work (as in those examples) or they do and just replace one of the major parties in whay becomes a new, generally stable 2-party alignment.
To get out of that, you need to weaken the electoral system elements reinforcing duopoly, the most direct way being to adopt some form of proportional representation (e.g., STV), at least for most (e.g., all state and the federal House of Reps) legislative elections.
Even the commonly offered proposal of ranked ballots methods in single-member districts doesn’t really address the problem (PR, whether by STV or other mechanisms, also destroys the ability to significantly distort by gerrymandering.)
The thing is those things either don't work (as in those examples) or they do and just replace one of the major parties in whay becomes a new, generally stable 2-party alignment.
To get out of that, you need to weaken the electoral system elements reinforcing duopoly, the most direct way being to adopt some form of proportional representation (e.g., STV), at least for most (e.g., all state and the federal House of Reps) legislative elections.
Even the commonly offered proposal of ranked ballots methods in single-member districts doesn’t really address the problem (PR, whether by STV or other mechanisms, also destroys the ability to significantly distort by gerrymandering.)
You can’t compare the outcome of the first past the post system of the U.K. and USA and the dictatorships of China and Russia that ensure the dictator will never peacefully transfer power to a rival.
I don't want to defend the Chinese government, but the transitions of power in China have been peaceful since Deng Xiaoping.
> the dictator will never peacefully transfer power to a rival.
Was Xi Jingping an open rival to Hu Jintao? Given Xi Jingping has purged his rivals from the levers of power, do you see any possibility that he'll peacefully stand down in 5 years to someone who is ideologically opposed to his government?
Was Xi Jingping an open rival to Hu Jintao? Given Xi Jingping has purged his rivals from the levers of power, do you see any possibility that he'll peacefully stand down in 5 years to someone who is ideologically opposed to his government?
Stepping down peacefully in 5 years seems pretty unlikely. Stepping down peacefully in about 10 years, in favor of a younger leader who's amassed political power either within or outside of his camp seems entirely possible. Some previous examples of a rival taking power peacefully in China or the USSR are with Brezhnev displacing Khruschev and Deng Xiaoping displacing Hua Guofeng.
I don't think Xi Jingping was really an open rival to Hu Jintao, but the nature of these sort of authoritarian governments is the rivalry is not really made open until the point at which the power transition happens, even if it obvious to those behind the scenes. A rival usually careful cultivates political support while openly declaring support for the leader until he has enough support to gain power. Certainly the way Xi Jingping has behaved toward the Hu Jintao/Jiang Zemin faction and the policies he has pushed indicate he is rivals with them.
But really, the main point of my comment was rejecting the assertion that it is impossible for peaceful transitions of power to occur in countries like China. As long as a country has a norm that removal from leadership does not lead to physical harm, peaceful transitions of power are possible. I'm not trying to create a false equivalency between these governments and liberal democracies.
I don't think Xi Jingping was really an open rival to Hu Jintao, but the nature of these sort of authoritarian governments is the rivalry is not really made open until the point at which the power transition happens, even if it obvious to those behind the scenes. A rival usually careful cultivates political support while openly declaring support for the leader until he has enough support to gain power. Certainly the way Xi Jingping has behaved toward the Hu Jintao/Jiang Zemin faction and the policies he has pushed indicate he is rivals with them.
But really, the main point of my comment was rejecting the assertion that it is impossible for peaceful transitions of power to occur in countries like China. As long as a country has a norm that removal from leadership does not lead to physical harm, peaceful transitions of power are possible. I'm not trying to create a false equivalency between these governments and liberal democracies.
Not hard to have a peaceful transition was all other parties are banned.
The Whigs did so it’s possible! ;)
This shows exactly how party change comes in a 2-party system (enforced by Duverger's Law due to first-past-the-post voting). One of the two main parties implodes for some reason, so the other party gets all the power. But that can't be sustained because there's different factions within that party, so the big party breaks in half, and you're right back to a 2-party system.
thats 250 years ago damn it!
So does Russia, believe it or not.
Hard to say something complex like a dictatorship gets overturned by just one variable. I much more favor the view laid out in "Revolutions: A Very Short Introduction" by Jack A. Goldstone.
> There are five elements that create an unstable social equilibrium: economic or fiscal strain, alienation and opposition among the elites, widespread popular anger at injustice, a persuasive shared narrative of resistance, and favorable international relations.
With those in mind, Iran doesn't seem that close to a revolution, yet.
> There are five elements that create an unstable social equilibrium: economic or fiscal strain, alienation and opposition among the elites, widespread popular anger at injustice, a persuasive shared narrative of resistance, and favorable international relations.
With those in mind, Iran doesn't seem that close to a revolution, yet.
Two of the conditions (economic or fiscal strain + popular anger at injustice) seem to be met in Iran, plus the third one (narrative of resistance) is somewhat met, as Shi'a cultures tend to regard martyrdom highly and current governmental repression created a lot of martyrs.
I don't believe that all five conditions have to be met in order to see a revolution. In plenty of places like Portugal in 1974 or South Korea in the 1980s, situation was much less dire than in Iran today.
I don't believe that all five conditions have to be met in order to see a revolution. In plenty of places like Portugal in 1974 or South Korea in the 1980s, situation was much less dire than in Iran today.
Portugal was in Europe, South Korea had the support of USA.
Iran economic conditions are created mostly by the west imposing sanctions.
Popular anger is a minority yet, we see it a lot because it benefits the western propaganda, I'm quite sure it's not as widespread in Iran, not because of censorship alone, but because the majority still believe that the real enemy is the western corruption.
We've seen it in Afghanistan, a war created by the US without a real motivation that Obama transformed into a liberation of the afghan people which in the end turned into bringing some woman from Kabul with their kids to the west to live like western women, leaving behind their traditions and husbands while the majority of the people lived in small rural villages and hoped for the Talibans to return and bring back their way of life. And it finally happened, for two reasons
- it costed too much, despite the people always saying that freedom has no price, it obviously has one and it's not very high
- American soldiers were dying for the cause and there was nothing of economic value on the table to die for
We should stop meddling with other people's revolutions, if Iran will revolt it should be because Iranian people have done it.
Iran economic conditions are created mostly by the west imposing sanctions.
Popular anger is a minority yet, we see it a lot because it benefits the western propaganda, I'm quite sure it's not as widespread in Iran, not because of censorship alone, but because the majority still believe that the real enemy is the western corruption.
We've seen it in Afghanistan, a war created by the US without a real motivation that Obama transformed into a liberation of the afghan people which in the end turned into bringing some woman from Kabul with their kids to the west to live like western women, leaving behind their traditions and husbands while the majority of the people lived in small rural villages and hoped for the Talibans to return and bring back their way of life. And it finally happened, for two reasons
- it costed too much, despite the people always saying that freedom has no price, it obviously has one and it's not very high
- American soldiers were dying for the cause and there was nothing of economic value on the table to die for
We should stop meddling with other people's revolutions, if Iran will revolt it should be because Iranian people have done it.
Well, Saudi Arabia is morphing from a religious to a secular dictatorship right in front of our eyes. They (or, more precisely, MbS) are making a lot of concessions that do not matter to them anymore, like women being allowed to drive.
Putin made some concessions after protests in 2012. It bought him time to introduce harsh laws with extreme punishments for protests, strengthen riot police and state security. Then he proceeded to crush / jail / force to emigrate everyone who protested.
in the case of Iran, it doesn't matter. They will stay in power, possibly for a long time, nobody wanna handle a revolution in the area right now. Not even their enemies.
This is also a reform that doesn't change the laws, it's just facade, as many had predicted.
This is also a reform that doesn't change the laws, it's just facade, as many had predicted.
> once... concessions, ...last legs
Have you followed in the past few days the "debate" about stay-at-home orders in the Middle Empire? "Last legs" there?
Have you followed in the past few days the "debate" about stay-at-home orders in the Middle Empire? "Last legs" there?
Honest question; What motivation should a government like Iran's have to listen, if any concession it does give is seen in the West as a great opportunity to show that it is weak, on its last legs etc. to try and overthrow it?
I am not naive enough to think this is the case here, but say theoretically at some point someone with power in such a government has a human moment and actually wants to give some concessions, say because they have a daughter and can empathize or whatever.
Shouldn't we in the collective West be making it so that it is a no-brainer for this person to give this concession, without having to think about how Western governments are going to capitalize on the move to show 'weakness of the regime' etc.?
I do not believe overthrowing governments works, if simply because there will always be a feeling then among some parts of the population that it is a puppet, subservient government to whomever helped it win and that they deserve a 'native' government. This fuels a cycle of overthrow and counter-overthrow and does not actually help the people up their standard of living. Sanctions are in the same vein, only making the people suffer.
As such, I believe the only reasonable course of action is to make such governments give concessions over time and encourage them to do so via positive reinforcement. They need to arrive at democracy just like the West had time to do.
I am not naive enough to think this is the case here, but say theoretically at some point someone with power in such a government has a human moment and actually wants to give some concessions, say because they have a daughter and can empathize or whatever.
Shouldn't we in the collective West be making it so that it is a no-brainer for this person to give this concession, without having to think about how Western governments are going to capitalize on the move to show 'weakness of the regime' etc.?
I do not believe overthrowing governments works, if simply because there will always be a feeling then among some parts of the population that it is a puppet, subservient government to whomever helped it win and that they deserve a 'native' government. This fuels a cycle of overthrow and counter-overthrow and does not actually help the people up their standard of living. Sanctions are in the same vein, only making the people suffer.
As such, I believe the only reasonable course of action is to make such governments give concessions over time and encourage them to do so via positive reinforcement. They need to arrive at democracy just like the West had time to do.
The 'West' might support the protesters, sure, but the effort is still negligible to the will of Iranians. What I read in your comment is that the ppl of Iran have no agency, all is just conflict between the 'West' and whatever. I just find this stance incredibly patronising. One hears the same thing on Ukraine (from Chomsky, for example).
> What I read in your comment is that the ppl of Iran have no agency
My stance is the exact opposite, it's that they do have agency but that the constant articles in the West celebrating a chance for some sort of regime change actually gives the Iranian government the ammunition it needs to make them appear sponsored/non-organic.
It makes it worse that the West does in fact have a history of regime change in Iran, (that had, as its ultimate consequence, helped to install the current gov. there).
If we appeared a lot more indifferent towards changing the regime as such, while supporting the rights of women on moral grounds everywhere, incl our allies such as the Gulf states, we'd have a lot more credibility and removing agency from the protesters by the Iranian authorities would become a lot harder than it is now.
My stance is the exact opposite, it's that they do have agency but that the constant articles in the West celebrating a chance for some sort of regime change actually gives the Iranian government the ammunition it needs to make them appear sponsored/non-organic.
It makes it worse that the West does in fact have a history of regime change in Iran, (that had, as its ultimate consequence, helped to install the current gov. there).
If we appeared a lot more indifferent towards changing the regime as such, while supporting the rights of women on moral grounds everywhere, incl our allies such as the Gulf states, we'd have a lot more credibility and removing agency from the protesters by the Iranian authorities would become a lot harder than it is now.
> My stance is the exact opposite, it's that they do have agency but that the constant articles in the West celebrating a chance for some sort of regime change actually gives the Iranian government the ammunition it needs to make them appear sponsored/non-organic.
It barely matters. Diplomats do try spin things that way, but the government's problem is that they can't stop the protests inside despite having already killed hundreds of protesters, foreign media is pretty far down their list of concerns. In Tehran women are walking around without headscarves in blatant defiance of morality rules and the government is growing desperate.
Recent talk of maybe relaxing morality rules are a desperate attempt to placate the protests, not put on a show for the West.
It barely matters. Diplomats do try spin things that way, but the government's problem is that they can't stop the protests inside despite having already killed hundreds of protesters, foreign media is pretty far down their list of concerns. In Tehran women are walking around without headscarves in blatant defiance of morality rules and the government is growing desperate.
Recent talk of maybe relaxing morality rules are a desperate attempt to placate the protests, not put on a show for the West.
Ok, I see and accept your point.
But still after your clarification, I see nothing wrong with west cheering the revolution. a) It is our side b) It is impossible to enforce 'not cheering', one slip is enough to be used against you, see Musk and Russian propaganda.
And regarding the Gulf states, I also do not like this. But one has to pick his battles and better (for us) getting our oil from them than from Russia.
But still after your clarification, I see nothing wrong with west cheering the revolution. a) It is our side b) It is impossible to enforce 'not cheering', one slip is enough to be used against you, see Musk and Russian propaganda.
And regarding the Gulf states, I also do not like this. But one has to pick his battles and better (for us) getting our oil from them than from Russia.
> But one has to pick his battles and better (for us) getting our oil from them than from Russia.
Hmm...could you clarify? The human rights situation in the Gulf is much, much worse in the Gulf. Would this be because they're easier to get in line?
Hmm...could you clarify? The human rights situation in the Gulf is much, much worse in the Gulf. Would this be because they're easier to get in line?
I meant that we need to buy our oil somewhere, for now. And unlike Russia they are far away and not an imminent danger. So better be friends with them, even though we don't like it.
> unlike Russia they are far away and not an imminent danger. So better be friends with them, even though we don't like it.
The reason we're no longer on OK terms with Russia is because of Ukraine, yet we're actively helping the likes of KSA and the UAE to do much the same in places like Yemen.
I don't know how we can claim to want to not buy oil/gas from Russia based on moral grounds, yet continue our trade with the Gulf and yet still claim some sort of moral high ground.
The reason we're no longer on OK terms with Russia is because of Ukraine, yet we're actively helping the likes of KSA and the UAE to do much the same in places like Yemen.
I don't know how we can claim to want to not buy oil/gas from Russia based on moral grounds, yet continue our trade with the Gulf and yet still claim some sort of moral high ground.
That's what I mean, who cares about moral ground when one's own security is on the plate. See how quickly Finland and Sweden dropped their support of Kurds when it was obstructing (via Turkey) their NATO ascension. Even the Kurds have to understand this.
I also only give to charity when I'm not broke. Not everyone is Mother Theresa all the time and that should be OK. It's not 0 or 1.
I also only give to charity when I'm not broke. Not everyone is Mother Theresa all the time and that should be OK. It's not 0 or 1.
>What motivation should a government like Iran's have to listen, if any concession it does give is seen in the West as a great opportunity to show that it is weak, on its last legs etc. to try and overthrow it?
The motivation may be unrelated to how it is seen in the West. We might just be overestimating our own role and importance in Iranian affairs.
Also, certain regimes will always portray its domestic opponents as puppets of foreign interests, regardless of what anyone says or does.
The motivation may be unrelated to how it is seen in the West. We might just be overestimating our own role and importance in Iranian affairs.
Also, certain regimes will always portray its domestic opponents as puppets of foreign interests, regardless of what anyone says or does.
Why the fixation on the West? This is an entirely Iranian revolution, lead by their own people, with their own, very plain goals.
Because I presume the commenter talking about how this shows them being on their last legs is Western, but mainly because I've seen countless articles about how all this is basically a great opportunity for regime change.
If you believe that there's no opportunistic involvement of the various Western governments here, (to the determent of the actual Iranians protesting btw), I have a bridge to sell you.
I am a citizen of the West and as such I am somewhat indirectly responsible for its actions, so I feel its important to call it out, since its my money also financing its actions.
If you believe that there's no opportunistic involvement of the various Western governments here, (to the determent of the actual Iranians protesting btw), I have a bridge to sell you.
I am a citizen of the West and as such I am somewhat indirectly responsible for its actions, so I feel its important to call it out, since its my money also financing its actions.
Western governments may not want a regime collapse in Iran. Westerners by and large do want a regime collapse and side with the people who are demonstrating for an end to the Islamic Republic regime. Spy agencies, defense ministries, and foreign affairs advisors my not want a regime change though.
One thing to consider is that the grand theft of state monies by the IRGC largely goes to Western banks.
One thing to consider is that the grand theft of state monies by the IRGC largely goes to Western banks.
> If you believe that there's no opportunistic involvement of the various Western governments here,
Can you point to any? Knowing the expat Persian community where I live in Germany, the movement against the regime is very much coming from Iranians. It's Iranians on the streets in Tehran without headscarves, Iranians being shot and killed, Iranians marching and organizing demonstrations.
Can you point to any? Knowing the expat Persian community where I live in Germany, the movement against the regime is very much coming from Iranians. It's Iranians on the streets in Tehran without headscarves, Iranians being shot and killed, Iranians marching and organizing demonstrations.
> . It's Iranians on the streets in Tehran without headscarves, Iranians being shot and killed, Iranians marching and organizing demonstrations.
I don't know why people always assume only one thing can ever be true in a given situation. I never suggested it's not an organic movement or that it's not Iranians protesting. That does not mean the West doesn't take advantage of all it can for its own regime change goals. You get articles by U.S. officials saying they want to overthrow Iran fairly openly, say John Bolton, you get U.S. officials speaking at events organized by anti current Iranian regime organizations that themselves are of questionable morals, this is not hard. The main thing is amplification. There are protests in China that are genuine, but overall relatively small, yet they get amplified in the West to seem much bigger.
Why do you think that is? The neocons have certainly desired regime change.
I am going to repeat myself but I am not a fan of the current Iranian government by any means, yet I do not believe overthrowing governments works, if simply because there will always be a feeling then among some parts of the population that it is a puppet, subservient government to whomever helped it win and that they deserve a 'native' government. This fuels a cycle of overthrow and counter-overthrow and does not actually help the people up their standard of living.
We should either support the rights of women globally, including among our Gulf allies and act out of moral principle, rather than some geopolitical chess play - or if we're unwilling to challenge KSA, Egypt, UAE etc. then just shut up about the issue.
I don't know why people always assume only one thing can ever be true in a given situation. I never suggested it's not an organic movement or that it's not Iranians protesting. That does not mean the West doesn't take advantage of all it can for its own regime change goals. You get articles by U.S. officials saying they want to overthrow Iran fairly openly, say John Bolton, you get U.S. officials speaking at events organized by anti current Iranian regime organizations that themselves are of questionable morals, this is not hard. The main thing is amplification. There are protests in China that are genuine, but overall relatively small, yet they get amplified in the West to seem much bigger.
Why do you think that is? The neocons have certainly desired regime change.
I am going to repeat myself but I am not a fan of the current Iranian government by any means, yet I do not believe overthrowing governments works, if simply because there will always be a feeling then among some parts of the population that it is a puppet, subservient government to whomever helped it win and that they deserve a 'native' government. This fuels a cycle of overthrow and counter-overthrow and does not actually help the people up their standard of living.
We should either support the rights of women globally, including among our Gulf allies and act out of moral principle, rather than some geopolitical chess play - or if we're unwilling to challenge KSA, Egypt, UAE etc. then just shut up about the issue.
Iranian government and it's clerical regime use populist anti western ideas to largely justify their existence.
Like most Arab elite, the Persian elite are preoccupied with the Anglosphere
Like most Arab elite, the Persian elite are preoccupied with the Anglosphere
I think that's a fair point, but I'd also say that the neocons have been fixated on Iran for a long time. So it's a self-feeding cycle.
Because liberalism is largely a Western concept, at least in origin. And the conservative elites of Iran are popularly of the opinion that the riots and dissent are more a result of "Western" ideals polluting their core society than legitimate dissatisfaction among the people against the government.
> Because liberalism is largely a Western concept, at least in origin.
Hum... I suggest you take a deeper look at this.
Modern liberalism is an obvious progression of the ancient variety, and it's really ironic that we are talking about Iran.
Hum... I suggest you take a deeper look at this.
Modern liberalism is an obvious progression of the ancient variety, and it's really ironic that we are talking about Iran.
Please educate me how it is an "obvious progression of the ancient variety". I can't claim to know all about the ideology's lineage but I am sure liberalism was definitely an alien concept that had to be gradually seeped into all Asian and Middle-Eastern societies through globalism. It is still at odds with almost every native social structure in the East.
That’s bullsh*t.
The hardliners will never agree to shutdown this or make any meaningful change in their attitudes
That's significant. The ayatollahs came to power thanks to big popular support (audio cassettes of khomeini). Now a popular uprising is specifically against religious restrictions. In the meantime empirically the army has all the power of the sword.
That's a step towards sidelining the ayatollahs. I guess we will see if it will evolve toward a military dictatorship (as I predict), a democracy, or the existing religious regime will manage to keep the power.
That's a step towards sidelining the ayatollahs. I guess we will see if it will evolve toward a military dictatorship (as I predict), a democracy, or the existing religious regime will manage to keep the power.
You do realize I assume that in the whole of middle east, Israel and Iran are the only reasonably functional countries where people get to elect their government to some extent and the people leading the government actually change based on the vote? Maybe that's why the governments hate each other :-)
Perhaps Lebanon as well but the country has been non-functional for a long time. Every other country including every western ally is a de-facto dictatorship of some form or the other.
Perhaps Lebanon as well but the country has been non-functional for a long time. Every other country including every western ally is a de-facto dictatorship of some form or the other.
There are no real elections in Iran, since every significant challenger to whomever the Supreme Leader decides to support will be disqualified (e.g. Raisi's election).
You should consider doing research. Even Wikipedia gives a good start. As everywhere, maintaining power is a balancing act and has flowed between factions
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Principlists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Reformists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_pragmatists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Principlists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_Reformists
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_pragmatists
You should look at Iranian 'elections' since 2009 (stolen) or the last one (every possible serious opponent to Raisi being disqualified). Even NIAC had to concede this:
https://www.niacouncil.org/news/disqualifications-clear-path...
https://www.niacouncil.org/news/disqualifications-clear-path...
[deleted]
These are factions, do you know what a faction is?
You mean like the center-right in Israel that will always win against the Arab left?
An Arab party and two leftist parties were in the last coalition, though the Arab party was Islamist and the leftists parties were not Arab parties.
AFAIK from 2019 to 2022 there were five elections, all of them where won by the center right (the center or the right)
The right is (was) led by Netanyahu, the center by Ganz, a retired military general, former ministry of defense. Not exactly two champions of progressivism.
I don't recall a victory of the left or the Arab parties in Israel, maybe it's because, like in Iran, the situation in the area forces them to act in a certain way, to not disappear.
I don't condone what's happening in Iran, but I think I understand why there isn't a democracy of the same kind we like to pride ourselves in the west.
I think OP meant to say that Iran is to be considered more democratic than its neighbouring countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Emirates (and so on). Some of them (we all know who they are) are close friends of the west or some western countries, one in particular (we all know which one is it), and I honestly believe they are more dangerous than Iran.
The right is (was) led by Netanyahu, the center by Ganz, a retired military general, former ministry of defense. Not exactly two champions of progressivism.
I don't recall a victory of the left or the Arab parties in Israel, maybe it's because, like in Iran, the situation in the area forces them to act in a certain way, to not disappear.
I don't condone what's happening in Iran, but I think I understand why there isn't a democracy of the same kind we like to pride ourselves in the west.
I think OP meant to say that Iran is to be considered more democratic than its neighbouring countries: Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Emirates (and so on). Some of them (we all know who they are) are close friends of the west or some western countries, one in particular (we all know which one is it), and I honestly believe they are more dangerous than Iran.
You are oversimplifying Israeli politics. Concepts like "left" and "right" do not apply fully there as there are at least three fundamental splits that are somewhat independent: appeasement with the Palestinians vs hawkish politics, economic right/left, religion vs secularism. And what wins is a coalition, not a single party, so the bag is even more mixed, not to mention that parties have internal currents too
From 2019 we had 5 elections:
- 2 elections with no winner and no coalition forming
- 1 election that brought constitutional changes and a government of center-right (towards Palestinians), center-left (economically) mixed religious-secular
- 1 election that was also center-right (Palestinians) but included an Arab party too, mixed bag (economically) more secular than religious
- the last election that appears to be full right (Palestinians), mixed right/left (economically), substantially pro-religion
I can agree that the policy towards the Palestinians is somewhat fixed on the center-right but there are very clear reasons for that. Neither ignoring the Palestinian problem, as attempted in the '70s and '80s nor appeasing them, as was done in the '90s and '00s, proved to be less than disastrous solutions.
But economically you will find a lot of leftist ideas even in "rightist" parties, out in the open or somewhat overt (allowances for the religious) and the secular/religious split is becoming a strong force of polarization too
From 2019 we had 5 elections:
- 2 elections with no winner and no coalition forming
- 1 election that brought constitutional changes and a government of center-right (towards Palestinians), center-left (economically) mixed religious-secular
- 1 election that was also center-right (Palestinians) but included an Arab party too, mixed bag (economically) more secular than religious
- the last election that appears to be full right (Palestinians), mixed right/left (economically), substantially pro-religion
I can agree that the policy towards the Palestinians is somewhat fixed on the center-right but there are very clear reasons for that. Neither ignoring the Palestinian problem, as attempted in the '70s and '80s nor appeasing them, as was done in the '90s and '00s, proved to be less than disastrous solutions.
But economically you will find a lot of leftist ideas even in "rightist" parties, out in the open or somewhat overt (allowances for the religious) and the secular/religious split is becoming a strong force of polarization too
> And what wins is a coalition, not a single party, so the bag is even more mixed, not to mention that parties have internal currents too
Yes and that's what my original answer meant.
We can say the same thing about Iran, but we don't because it's easier to make the enemy look 2D, 100% evil, no complexity, only sins, mistakes and violence. We also say stpid shit like: democracy will fix everything, knowing very well it won't it would simply allow us to negotiate a way into their "market".
Rethotical propagandistic tactic don't work anymore in 2022 and I believe we should be honest to ourselves if we wanna talk about complex socio political topics.
Us 100% good vs Them 100% bad is not the way, IMO.
Yes and that's what my original answer meant.
We can say the same thing about Iran, but we don't because it's easier to make the enemy look 2D, 100% evil, no complexity, only sins, mistakes and violence. We also say stpid shit like: democracy will fix everything, knowing very well it won't it would simply allow us to negotiate a way into their "market".
Rethotical propagandistic tactic don't work anymore in 2022 and I believe we should be honest to ourselves if we wanna talk about complex socio political topics.
Us 100% good vs Them 100% bad is not the way, IMO.
Referring to the most recent coalition, as listed here,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_government_of_Isr...
The Islamist party I mentioned was United Arab List and the leftist ones I mentioned were Labor and Meretz.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-sixth_government_of_Isr...
The Islamist party I mentioned was United Arab List and the leftist ones I mentioned were Labor and Meretz.
> The Islamist party I mentioned was United Arab List and the leftist ones I mentioned were Labor and Meretz.
True, but that was what in Germany call "Große Koalition" the only thing the coalition had in common was that the did not like Netanyahu
It only lasted one year.
Ra'am (United Arab List) took only 3% of the votes, Labour 6% and they were among other center-right and full right wing parties.
True, but that was what in Germany call "Große Koalition" the only thing the coalition had in common was that the did not like Netanyahu
It only lasted one year.
Ra'am (United Arab List) took only 3% of the votes, Labour 6% and they were among other center-right and full right wing parties.
Israel is corrupt and Iran is a dictatorship. If another party decides who can have power in the elected body - that party has power. That's what has happened to Hong Kong, and it's what happens in Iran.
>Israel is corrupt
How so?
How so?
You don't end up with Netanyahu term after term without corruption. He's a symptom and a cause of something bad happening in their government.
Elections where even Khomeini's grandson was barred from candidacy are a sham.
We had fake elections in Communist Czechoslovakia as well. Guess what, the United National Front Candidate List always won with tremendous majority.
We had fake elections in Communist Czechoslovakia as well. Guess what, the United National Front Candidate List always won with tremendous majority.
"In the meantime empirically the army has all the power of the sword."
Isn't it the Revolutionary Guard who wields the real power of the sword? From what I have heard, the regular army is kept somewhat underinvested precisely because the young recruits cannot be trusted, while the RG consists of utterly dedicated individuals supporting the regime at any cost.
Isn't it the Revolutionary Guard who wields the real power of the sword? From what I have heard, the regular army is kept somewhat underinvested precisely because the young recruits cannot be trusted, while the RG consists of utterly dedicated individuals supporting the regime at any cost.
There is true to that split, but the real army can not be fully de-powered. They still have a lot of the heavy weapons and large numbers.
The Revolutionary Guard outside the professional core isn't that dangerous.
I believe this split between Revolutionary Guard and the Army is what will one-day allow Iran to turn democratic.
The Revolutionary Guard outside the professional core isn't that dangerous.
I believe this split between Revolutionary Guard and the Army is what will one-day allow Iran to turn democratic.
stuaxo(1)
The moral police was introduced under Ahmadinedshad‘s rein, so not long ago. It is not a fundament of the current regime.
Note that the hijab law remains. I guess it will just be enforced by regular police, the same way it was enforced before 2005.
And so the propaganda begins. They will be hosting sporting events within a decade.
Does anyone trust this blood-soaked regime as far as any meaningful change goes?
If the protests subside, there will be Totally Not The Old Morality Police 2.0 established in no time.
If the protests subside, there will be Totally Not The Old Morality Police 2.0 established in no time.
I agree, but I still see it as a win: it shows that the government feels like some concessions are needed, even if those are mere signaling (and a morality police 2.0 will replace the current one).
[deleted]
You could at least trust how any government of a country with foreign investors would react to internal instability. An overthrow of the current government, which seems to be what you're advocating for, does not necessarily result in better outcomes for all.
"does not necessarily result in better outcomes for all"
You are right as far as the "there is always a worse alternative out there" observation goes. (Though I must note that this idea is rather trivial.)
But the alternative of tolerating the current regime on and on is pretty ghastly. If Iranians are ready to be shot dead in order to protest, the situation must be grim indeed.
I am not surprised the least that Russia and Iran now cooperate militarily. Birds of a feather flock together, and so do criminal regimes that waste lives of their own people.
You are right as far as the "there is always a worse alternative out there" observation goes. (Though I must note that this idea is rather trivial.)
But the alternative of tolerating the current regime on and on is pretty ghastly. If Iranians are ready to be shot dead in order to protest, the situation must be grim indeed.
I am not surprised the least that Russia and Iran now cooperate militarily. Birds of a feather flock together, and so do criminal regimes that waste lives of their own people.
> Birds of a feather flock
This really does not make much sense when you think about the relationship between most Western Countries and SA, other Gulf States, Turkey, Azerbaijan etc..
Both Iran and Russia are politically and economically isolated this is more than enough to explain their closer cooperation.
This really does not make much sense when you think about the relationship between most Western Countries and SA, other Gulf States, Turkey, Azerbaijan etc..
Both Iran and Russia are politically and economically isolated this is more than enough to explain their closer cooperation.
Recommend to take this with grains of salt... AlJazera reports indications buy no formal announcement.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/4/iran-prosecutor-gen...
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/4/iran-prosecutor-gen...
Because they have no jurisdiction do enforce that, according to article. So, it’s only change on paper, in reality same BS.
A good, but small step forward.
Generally speaking for this to have any meaning and takes any effect, being the morality police must become punishable by law. Aka, harassing people for their clothing should become an offence that a judge should rule about.
I read about the government structure and all the parallel forces exist in Iran and I doubt officially abolishing the morality police is going to abolish systematic harassment of people in the street by Basij or other organised/semi organised forces.
Generally speaking for this to have any meaning and takes any effect, being the morality police must become punishable by law. Aka, harassing people for their clothing should become an offence that a judge should rule about.
I read about the government structure and all the parallel forces exist in Iran and I doubt officially abolishing the morality police is going to abolish systematic harassment of people in the street by Basij or other organised/semi organised forces.
It's just a lie. Don't fall for the propaganda of the regime
I live in Iran and this is total BS. They did NOT abolish it.
Al Jazeera coverage: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/12/4/iran-prosecutor-gen...
Well it’s not gone (really), it’ll probably change name and still operate to terrorise people and youngsters who want to live a free life. At most another propaganda scheme by the -frightened- Islamic Republic to calm the people who take their lives in their hands everyday and go to streets to protest the very being of the regime.
It’s vital for people around the world to stop spreading these propaganda and understand that this is not what the people want. People are taking it to the street to take down a corrupt regime that has threatened its people and taken away their freedom and will away from them.
Abolishing the Morality Police is not going to change their ideology.
It’s vital for people around the world to stop spreading these propaganda and understand that this is not what the people want. People are taking it to the street to take down a corrupt regime that has threatened its people and taken away their freedom and will away from them.
Abolishing the Morality Police is not going to change their ideology.
"Iran abolishes morality police"
.. and now, can we?
I'm a bit tired off all the bull crap that is no longer allowed to be said, as if self-policing oneself and being unable to honestly state one's opinion, is the way to become more authentic. As if repressing oneself and suppressing others could ever lead to a better society.
.. and now, can we?
I'm a bit tired off all the bull crap that is no longer allowed to be said, as if self-policing oneself and being unable to honestly state one's opinion, is the way to become more authentic. As if repressing oneself and suppressing others could ever lead to a better society.
Of course repressing oneself can lead to a better society.
If pedophiles, people with violent urges etc are able to suppress their urges for example, don't you think that's a good thing?
Should everyone just be acting out their id's desires unchecked?
If pedophiles, people with violent urges etc are able to suppress their urges for example, don't you think that's a good thing?
Should everyone just be acting out their id's desires unchecked?
Very clearly the poster is talking about restraints caused by vocal sub-cultural shifts, not about pre-frontal abilities.
Given that the OP compared their situation to the morality police in Iran, where dissenters tend to be hung from cranes I'm not so sure what restraints they think they're living under.
Few things are more cringeworthy than people in free Western countries pretending they're living in the Soviet Union. I say my honest opinion all the time. When people say this stuff, can we get a concrete example for something you "just can't say" ? I bet you five bucks I can guess the nature of that statement.
Few things are more cringeworthy than people in free Western countries pretending they're living in the Soviet Union. I say my honest opinion all the time. When people say this stuff, can we get a concrete example for something you "just can't say" ? I bet you five bucks I can guess the nature of that statement.
I personally do not have notable examples in my environment because of its specifics, but I have read a few interventions from Niall Ferguson (material from probably around 2018) about angry mobs impeding conferences of a "disliked" people (including his wife).
Anyway, to the theoretical point: if you have a wave of some phenomenon (e.g. "mobbing" - not in the present typical use, but in the present context) that expresses in different ways owing to the specifics of the hosting environment, the change in its expression is relatively accidental. If you had drunkenness in the lab and in the pub, what is more cringeworthy one could say that is to find it in the lab.
Anyway, to the theoretical point: if you have a wave of some phenomenon (e.g. "mobbing" - not in the present typical use, but in the present context) that expresses in different ways owing to the specifics of the hosting environment, the change in its expression is relatively accidental. If you had drunkenness in the lab and in the pub, what is more cringeworthy one could say that is to find it in the lab.
The two are interrelated.
Human sacrifice used to be a common cultural practice in many parts of the world.
In Europe, old men used to marry prebuscent teenagers.
We suppressed those things through vocal cultural shifts.
Human sacrifice used to be a common cultural practice in many parts of the world.
In Europe, old men used to marry prebuscent teenagers.
We suppressed those things through vocal cultural shifts.
Again: the OP is not condemning vocal cultural shifts that demand restraint of unreasonable behaviour.
The OP is complaining about censorship.
The OP is complaining about censorship.
You say tomato, I say tomato.
Too little, too late.
Only believable if enshrined in law like the abolishing of any other egregious construct.
"controversial"
Just a warning not to click this link on a mobile phone. Every spammy popup and dark pattern possible.
It's so easy to judge other cultures through the lens of our own. All nations enforce some form of dress code in public spaces, who's the arbiter of what's morally acceptable?
If other countries think their behavior is so repugnant, they should open their doors to unlimited refugees. If their atrocities are so great, build support and fight a war.
If other countries think their behavior is so repugnant, they should open their doors to unlimited refugees. If their atrocities are so great, build support and fight a war.
The thing is: hijab was not part of the Iranian culture anyway. It was enforced on women by a religious minority who took power.
Thanks for this, I saw this on a domain I didn't recognize much earlier.
In general is the Hindustan times pretty trustworthy? I mostly know about SE Asia, China and North Korean news sources outside the typical English language EU stuff, but sometimes I see things like this and am not sure if I should trust them and wait a bit and my usual source for anything adjacent to the Middle East or India (Al Jazeera) often lags on things I'd expect them to report much quicker if they actually support democracy and free expression and not just whataboutism.
In general is the Hindustan times pretty trustworthy? I mostly know about SE Asia, China and North Korean news sources outside the typical English language EU stuff, but sometimes I see things like this and am not sure if I should trust them and wait a bit and my usual source for anything adjacent to the Middle East or India (Al Jazeera) often lags on things I'd expect them to report much quicker if they actually support democracy and free expression and not just whataboutism.
This thread provides some context: https://twitter.com/borzou/status/1599344163769978880
"Iran abolishes morality police" is a bad way to describe what really happened it seems:
>So amazing how many news outlets are going with the "Iran abolishes morality police" line based on a convoluted quote from one official. In reality morality police have been inactive since protests started, but there is no substantive news on their future.
>Update: Iran state television is reporting that the morality police has definitely NOT been removed.
"Iran abolishes morality police" is a bad way to describe what really happened it seems:
>So amazing how many news outlets are going with the "Iran abolishes morality police" line based on a convoluted quote from one official. In reality morality police have been inactive since protests started, but there is no substantive news on their future.
>Update: Iran state television is reporting that the morality police has definitely NOT been removed.
I'm not on Twitter, probably because I blocked Elon.
I haven't posted on the bird site since 2019, but have the app on my iPad so I could read w/o the web popups. I probably open it 1x to 10x a month.
I posted an #elongate comment on Mastodon. Next time I opened the bird app (a couple days later) I'd been flagged for "suspicious activity" and cannot proceed without providing a phone number they pinky swear not to misuse.
I'm confident this is completely random and not correlated at all.
// I was already blue check.
I posted an #elongate comment on Mastodon. Next time I opened the bird app (a couple days later) I'd been flagged for "suspicious activity" and cannot proceed without providing a phone number they pinky swear not to misuse.
I'm confident this is completely random and not correlated at all.
// I was already blue check.
[deleted]
Thread reader version: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1599344163769978880.html
Thanks, I hate how Internet Archive requires Javascript, I browse on this nym in Tor to avoid malware and avoid crossing the streams^H^H^H^H^H^H^H circuits.
It won't bring back those they killed, and they're not abolishing islamic rule either. Bullshit gesture, IMO.
It may only be gone in name too, with the people in the grind folded into other security groups or even ending up in "private" security concerns that the regime contracts and doesn't officially monitor closely.
I expect women and others the morality police targeted & abused won't be much safer, if at all, as a result of this change.
I expect women and others the morality police targeted & abused won't be much safer, if at all, as a result of this change.
It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator so they could avoid paying oil fees. The 1979 Iranian revolution was the pendulum swinging back hard the other way.
I’m in no way supporting Iran’s religious extremism or current government, but they are monsters that we created.
The coup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat?...
Edit: it has been pointed out that the pendulum metaphor isn’t quite right, and that makes sense to me, but I’ll leave it since people have responded to it.
I’m in no way supporting Iran’s religious extremism or current government, but they are monsters that we created.
The coup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d'%C3%A9tat?...
Edit: it has been pointed out that the pendulum metaphor isn’t quite right, and that makes sense to me, but I’ll leave it since people have responded to it.
> but they are monsters that we created.
I think we should be careful using wording like that. The Iranians have agency and can do things on their own. Just because the west meddled in things doesn't give us the right to claim the results as ours, be they good or bad.
I think we should be careful using wording like that. The Iranians have agency and can do things on their own. Just because the west meddled in things doesn't give us the right to claim the results as ours, be they good or bad.
Well, we took their agency away and removed a government that at least wasn't outright killing women for wearing pants. This is also a great way to produce extremists, which then moved into the power vacuum created by throwing their governing system into chaos.
We've done it a number of times in South America as well. I'd say there's enough data points to believe that we punted them into the downwards spiral that they're struggling in now.
We've done it a number of times in South America as well. I'd say there's enough data points to believe that we punted them into the downwards spiral that they're struggling in now.
Is it fair to characterize the 1979 revolution as extremist without qualification? We find it extreme by our own standards, but by most accounts Khomeini was very popular in Iran.
Popular and extremist are, surprisingly, not mutually exclusive. I remember the Revolution pretty well and have talked to exiles of various stripes over the decades (including pre revolutionary exiles in France).
The royalist regime installed by the CIA in ‘53 replaced a popularly elected social democratic government. I won’t say the shah was ever popular, but there was not massive opposition at first. In part due to repression, and in part due to increased liberalization (e.g. rights for women), industrialization, and increased wealth (which I believe would have happened with the prior regime as well).
But those other factors don’t increase linearly or automatically and soon repression was the only way the Shah’s regime stayed in power.
To many people the Revolution seemed at first like a breath of fresh air. After all it overthrew the hated regime. This is the classic difficulty for all movements (from free software to regicide): different paths intersect and then diverge. Khomeini was indeed quite popular (though far from universally) but his followers were the largest (practically only iirc) organized opposition and so, like the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks (despite the name, the Bolsheviks were in the minority), they pushed the guys at the top of the hill off, and maintained their own balance up there.
Compare that to the French Revolution where there was no faction large enough to do this: they pushed out the Ancien Régime but then muddled around aimlessly and violently until someone was able to secure the high ground.
So Khomeini was “popular” in the sense that lots of people were favorable to his movement in the moment, but not “popular” in that the movement had a widespread base of support. Like the prior regime, after a short honeymoon they could not rule without repression.
Unfortunately there is no external opposition that could come in and restore democracy. So a complete overthrow of the current regime is quite unlikely.
The royalist regime installed by the CIA in ‘53 replaced a popularly elected social democratic government. I won’t say the shah was ever popular, but there was not massive opposition at first. In part due to repression, and in part due to increased liberalization (e.g. rights for women), industrialization, and increased wealth (which I believe would have happened with the prior regime as well).
But those other factors don’t increase linearly or automatically and soon repression was the only way the Shah’s regime stayed in power.
To many people the Revolution seemed at first like a breath of fresh air. After all it overthrew the hated regime. This is the classic difficulty for all movements (from free software to regicide): different paths intersect and then diverge. Khomeini was indeed quite popular (though far from universally) but his followers were the largest (practically only iirc) organized opposition and so, like the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks (despite the name, the Bolsheviks were in the minority), they pushed the guys at the top of the hill off, and maintained their own balance up there.
Compare that to the French Revolution where there was no faction large enough to do this: they pushed out the Ancien Régime but then muddled around aimlessly and violently until someone was able to secure the high ground.
So Khomeini was “popular” in the sense that lots of people were favorable to his movement in the moment, but not “popular” in that the movement had a widespread base of support. Like the prior regime, after a short honeymoon they could not rule without repression.
Unfortunately there is no external opposition that could come in and restore democracy. So a complete overthrow of the current regime is quite unlikely.
I'm not so much talking about the revolution as I am the extremist groups that have developed and come into power since the revolution. It wasn't a one and done deal. Western intervention got the ball rolling for the development of radicals who were then able to work their way into positions of power.
Extreme and popular are two separate things. Many extreme regimes were popular historically.
I see your answer as very naive.
Of course Iranians have agency as individuals; but it's very clear at this point in history that most of the 20th century has been dominated by US strategic decisions, and that "the US and UK supported a coup" is factually true.
I am Italian, I believe Italians have agency, too, and yet some of our past governments were inches away from being "guided" in a different direction by the CIA or other US agencies [0].
[0]: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/all-feasible-means
Of course Iranians have agency as individuals; but it's very clear at this point in history that most of the 20th century has been dominated by US strategic decisions, and that "the US and UK supported a coup" is factually true.
I am Italian, I believe Italians have agency, too, and yet some of our past governments were inches away from being "guided" in a different direction by the CIA or other US agencies [0].
[0]: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/all-feasible-means
While I mostly agree with you let's not forget there was a competing imperial power whose strategic decisions were not mere reactions to US strategic decisions and that have had quite an impact too.
italy is guilty too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_East_Africa
As a third world national whose country was immersed in a 35 year old civil war purposefully created by the CIA.. I find it incredibly difficult to restrain myself.
I would really suggest you to research a little bit more about your own history. It’s really hurtful to read this.
I think you are completely misinterpreting what I wrote. I know exactly what we have done and it is horrific. I object to wording which in my view is quite paternalistic, as if other nations are things that our meddling can change without regard to other internal and external forces and the will of people who can act in ways we cannot and never will be able to control.
> As a third world national whose country
Which country?
Which country?
Guatemala,?
I read this on Wikipedia.
Immoral.
From the mid- to late 19th century, Guatemala suffered chronic instability and civil strife. Beginning in the early 20th century, it was ruled by a series of dictators backed by the United Fruit Company and the United States government. In 1944, the authoritarian leader Jorge Ubico was overthrown by a pro-democratic military coup, initiating a decade-long revolution that led to sweeping social and economic reforms. A U.S.-backed military coup in 1954 ended the revolution and installed a dictatorship.[10]
From 1960 to 1996, Guatemala endured a bloody civil war fought between the US-backed government and leftist rebels, including genocidal massacres of the Maya population perpetrated by the military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala
From the mid- to late 19th century, Guatemala suffered chronic instability and civil strife. Beginning in the early 20th century, it was ruled by a series of dictators backed by the United Fruit Company and the United States government. In 1944, the authoritarian leader Jorge Ubico was overthrown by a pro-democratic military coup, initiating a decade-long revolution that led to sweeping social and economic reforms. A U.S.-backed military coup in 1954 ended the revolution and installed a dictatorship.[10]
From 1960 to 1996, Guatemala endured a bloody civil war fought between the US-backed government and leftist rebels, including genocidal massacres of the Maya population perpetrated by the military.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala
“Iranians have agency” is a crappy argument to excuse American meddling and overthrow of democratic societies. That gives the US a blank check to do whatever they please and later blame the victim for the outcome.
A revolution is not about agency. You make a mockery of the whole idea. Agency implies what the majority wants. That is what they had with democracy which the US ruined. They took away Iranian agency. The revolution later happening is not a good example of agency. A revolution rarely express the popular will. Instead it gives power to those people most capable of using violence.
Democratically inclined and freedom loving humanitarians will frequently lose in a civil war as they lack the violent behavior to win.
A revolution is not about agency. You make a mockery of the whole idea. Agency implies what the majority wants. That is what they had with democracy which the US ruined. They took away Iranian agency. The revolution later happening is not a good example of agency. A revolution rarely express the popular will. Instead it gives power to those people most capable of using violence.
Democratically inclined and freedom loving humanitarians will frequently lose in a civil war as they lack the violent behavior to win.
It’s not about the right for us to claim something but about owning up to the effect our actions have had on others and taking responsibility for it.
sure it does
It's way far more complicated than simply a coup. Though it defenitly was a terrible thing to happen.
Iran has never had an effective justice system (religous reasons / kings' economic monopolies). Without one, nothing like a democracy is possible. It was democratic just on the paper.
Iran has never had an effective justice system (religous reasons / kings' economic monopolies). Without one, nothing like a democracy is possible. It was democratic just on the paper.
Democratic forms of Government don’t just materialize out of thin air. They start off pretty messy with a mix of democratic and un democratic elements. Institutional capacity is then built and strengthened over time.
Iran was certainly on a more democratic path then.
Iran was certainly on a more democratic path then.
I doubt that. I mean, I see a very little difference. We even had a harsh anti-hijab dress code then. And we still have elections. Perhaps the oil industry made the real difference.
As Daron Acemolgu stated beautifully, in a country with an absolute economic power (a family, a corporation, a foreign country, etc) which controls the Army at the same time, there is no hope for a real change. Even a gradual one. It all starts from the moment when a king or a government starts to 'need' their people and give them some real power in return.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson/publications/economic-...
As Daron Acemolgu stated beautifully, in a country with an absolute economic power (a family, a corporation, a foreign country, etc) which controls the Army at the same time, there is no hope for a real change. Even a gradual one. It all starts from the moment when a king or a government starts to 'need' their people and give them some real power in return.
https://scholar.harvard.edu/jrobinson/publications/economic-...
It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah
The most well known of the Ayatollahs is Ali Al Sistani who doesn’t even live in Iran and has no direct affiliation with the Iranian government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayatollah
The most well known of the Ayatollahs is Ali Al Sistani who doesn’t even live in Iran and has no direct affiliation with the Iranian government.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_al-Sistani
I was surprised to hear this, since Khomeini was so commonly referred to as "Ayatollah" in the media. Wikipedia[0] still says his title was "Grand Ayatollah," but what appears to be his official memorial web site[1] calls him "Imam Khomeini."
(Unrelated, but interesting to consider he was only in power for about 10 years, and has been dead for more than 30.)
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
[1]: http://en.imam-khomeini.ir/en/n3733/Imam/Who_is_Imam_khomein...
(Unrelated, but interesting to consider he was only in power for about 10 years, and has been dead for more than 30.)
[0]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhollah_Khomeini
[1]: http://en.imam-khomeini.ir/en/n3733/Imam/Who_is_Imam_khomein...
> It is also worth noting the Iranian supreme leaders (there have only been two) are not Ayatollahs. I see these terms falsely conjoined many times in the comments here. Comparatively the Ayatollahs, or specifically the Grand Ayatollahs, are quite moderate compared to the fundamentalists In political power.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ali_Khamenei
Yeah..."Mr Death To America" Himself is a moderate... I see why you used a throwaway.
Yeah..."Mr Death To America" Himself is a moderate... I see why you used a throwaway.
I’d told that “Death to X!” is a cultural hyperbole better read as “Down with X!” - sounds terrible to westerners read literally, but isn’t actually that strong.
Except when you advocate for political violence people are apt to take your words seriously. And this is literally Iran we're talking about here: #1 in state-sponsored terrorism.
Intelligence has confirmed that Khamenei has been aware of terrorist plots before they were carried out, such as the Mykonos restaurant assassination.
So yes, keep telling us all what a moderate he is.
Intelligence has confirmed that Khamenei has been aware of terrorist plots before they were carried out, such as the Mykonos restaurant assassination.
So yes, keep telling us all what a moderate he is.
AFAICT many student participants in the revolution thought they were fighting to install a relatively liberal democratic system, but when the regime actually fell it was hardline religious groups who were organised enough to fill the power vacuum quickly.
So I'm not sure it was so much the pendulum swinging the other way, as an organised group who were poised to take over when chaos ruled.
But my understanding is limited, so perhaps my view is poorly informed.
So I'm not sure it was so much the pendulum swinging the other way, as an organised group who were poised to take over when chaos ruled.
But my understanding is limited, so perhaps my view is poorly informed.
If only they’d read “the road to serfdom” by hayek, describing why in such situations, “the worst always come out on top”.
https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf
https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pd...
https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20serfdom.pdf
https://cdn.mises.org/Road%20to%20Serfdom%20in%20Cartoons.pd...
Yeah I'm not really sure that's the same thing, it's more about what happens in a power vacuum created during a revolution, rather than being concerned with creeping state power or a general fear of planning or anything that might be considered socialist.
You may be right about that… maybe less a pendulum but definitely cause and effect.
Classic case of blowback
Which reminds me of this great ADF song
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFlhA4e56I&feature=emb_title
Which reminds me of this great ADF song
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFlhA4e56I&feature=emb_title
> It’s worth noting that Iran was a democracy until the 1953, when the US and UK supported a coup to install a corrupt dictator
This simply wasn't the case. I discuss this in a post below, but by the time Mossadegh was removed he had used a fraudulent plebiscite (claimed a 99.94% victory) to dissolve the parliament he had been feuding with and rule entirely by fiat. The Shah also wasn't installed by the U.S., he had been in power since Russia and the U.K. removed his father during WWII.
Here's an interesting letter written by the naval attache to Iran about the internal situation[1], written three months before the Shah's removal. It highlights the complexity of the situation - Mossadegh trying to use the Shah's political powers against parliament, the British interested in curtailing the power of the Shah in favor of the office of the prime minister with the hope that a pro-British prime minister will arise, U.S. opposition to this because they feel the Shah is the only thing thing holding the country together politically. And excerpt:
> Ardeshir is aware that Mossadegh is planning to try to force the Shah to sign a Firman to close the Majlis and is fearful that by some means he might come close to success in this. However, in the meantime, intense campaigning revealing Mossadegh’s plan is now being planned and will be evident in a day or two in the newspapers and in the Majlis. If Mossadegh ever attempts to close the Majlis without a Firman from the Shah, Ardeshir feels that this would be Mossadegh’s greatest mistake and with the present strength of the opposition would be almost, literally, fatal to him.
> He also mentioned that in the voting for “Speaker” of the Majlis the opposition papers are encouraging the present internal quarrelling within the National Front. At present a bitter struggle is being carried on between Shayegan, Moazami and Razavi to be the National Front candidate for Speaker; this could weaken the National Front considerably.
> Ardeshir stated that it is evident to most Iranian observers that the British aim in Iran is as follows: To officially agree that Mossadegh should go, but not to actively, covertly, work to this end, feeling that the strength of the opposition itself will work this out and that there remains a possibility that by a weak change in government the British might be able to control the next government. The number one aim of the British, however, is to weaken the Shah’s powers to intervene in time of crises to the point that at some time in the future when a pro-British Prime Minister appears the most can be made of it. He feels that in spite of the weak character of the Shah such a curtailment of powers would be disastrous to the country and would place the country at the mercy of whatever adventurers might temporarily be in position of political power, and that the country is not yet ready for this. In addition, the only symbol which holds the diverse elements of Iran together is the Shah himself.
The actual history of the period is fascinating. It's a shame that it keeps getting reduced to a sound bit that has little connection to reality.
[1] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Ira...
This simply wasn't the case. I discuss this in a post below, but by the time Mossadegh was removed he had used a fraudulent plebiscite (claimed a 99.94% victory) to dissolve the parliament he had been feuding with and rule entirely by fiat. The Shah also wasn't installed by the U.S., he had been in power since Russia and the U.K. removed his father during WWII.
Here's an interesting letter written by the naval attache to Iran about the internal situation[1], written three months before the Shah's removal. It highlights the complexity of the situation - Mossadegh trying to use the Shah's political powers against parliament, the British interested in curtailing the power of the Shah in favor of the office of the prime minister with the hope that a pro-British prime minister will arise, U.S. opposition to this because they feel the Shah is the only thing thing holding the country together politically. And excerpt:
> Ardeshir is aware that Mossadegh is planning to try to force the Shah to sign a Firman to close the Majlis and is fearful that by some means he might come close to success in this. However, in the meantime, intense campaigning revealing Mossadegh’s plan is now being planned and will be evident in a day or two in the newspapers and in the Majlis. If Mossadegh ever attempts to close the Majlis without a Firman from the Shah, Ardeshir feels that this would be Mossadegh’s greatest mistake and with the present strength of the opposition would be almost, literally, fatal to him.
> He also mentioned that in the voting for “Speaker” of the Majlis the opposition papers are encouraging the present internal quarrelling within the National Front. At present a bitter struggle is being carried on between Shayegan, Moazami and Razavi to be the National Front candidate for Speaker; this could weaken the National Front considerably.
> Ardeshir stated that it is evident to most Iranian observers that the British aim in Iran is as follows: To officially agree that Mossadegh should go, but not to actively, covertly, work to this end, feeling that the strength of the opposition itself will work this out and that there remains a possibility that by a weak change in government the British might be able to control the next government. The number one aim of the British, however, is to weaken the Shah’s powers to intervene in time of crises to the point that at some time in the future when a pro-British Prime Minister appears the most can be made of it. He feels that in spite of the weak character of the Shah such a curtailment of powers would be disastrous to the country and would place the country at the mercy of whatever adventurers might temporarily be in position of political power, and that the country is not yet ready for this. In addition, the only symbol which holds the diverse elements of Iran together is the Shah himself.
The actual history of the period is fascinating. It's a shame that it keeps getting reduced to a sound bit that has little connection to reality.
[1] https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Ira...
This is a very white washed outlook on what happened. Would love to give a good reply when I have time. Suffice to say, this poster makes it seem like the US and UK were helpless and just stood by as things evolved in Iran. This is utterly insane.
> The Shah also wasn't installed by the U.S., he had been in power since Russia and the U.K. removed his father during WWII.
It's Disingenuous to frame it this way! He wasn't, but his father was installed and removed when needed so the son could take his place.
For the readers of this thread, if you are interested in how this went down, you can read this article [1] from "The National Security Archive" of GW University. There are references to the actual CIA documents that were declassified under "Freedom of Information Act".
This letter is from the people in charge of the coup. The same people wanted this information to remain hidden until they were forced to release it by law.
Also, this letter conveniently leaves out the part about the methods used by US-backed actors to 'persuade' those votes against Mossadegh in Majlis (Congress). The votes might not have been very "organic," as this declassified document [2] suggests.
[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
[2] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/docs/Doc%206%20-...
edit: formatting
It's Disingenuous to frame it this way! He wasn't, but his father was installed and removed when needed so the son could take his place.
For the readers of this thread, if you are interested in how this went down, you can read this article [1] from "The National Security Archive" of GW University. There are references to the actual CIA documents that were declassified under "Freedom of Information Act".
This letter is from the people in charge of the coup. The same people wanted this information to remain hidden until they were forced to release it by law.
Also, this letter conveniently leaves out the part about the methods used by US-backed actors to 'persuade' those votes against Mossadegh in Majlis (Congress). The votes might not have been very "organic," as this declassified document [2] suggests.
[1] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/
[2] https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/docs/Doc%206%20-...
edit: formatting
Can you explain to what extent the US coup fits in to all this?
This is a decent article that covers U.S. involvement:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164417/https://www.forei...
Basically, when the U.S. saw opposition to Mossadegh growing they tried to organize and fund the opposition forces against him, while also lobbying the Shah to have him dismissed. The Shah was reluctant at first, but finally agreed as Mossadegh's efforts to gain political control progressed. The strategy the CIA envisioned failed, however (Mossadegh refused to step down when the Shah dismissed him and began arresting opposition). At this point the United States thought that Mossadegh would remain in power, but opposition groups inside Iran reorganized and removed Mossadegh.
https://web.archive.org/web/20150820164417/https://www.forei...
Basically, when the U.S. saw opposition to Mossadegh growing they tried to organize and fund the opposition forces against him, while also lobbying the Shah to have him dismissed. The Shah was reluctant at first, but finally agreed as Mossadegh's efforts to gain political control progressed. The strategy the CIA envisioned failed, however (Mossadegh refused to step down when the Shah dismissed him and began arresting opposition). At this point the United States thought that Mossadegh would remain in power, but opposition groups inside Iran reorganized and removed Mossadegh.
I just read the Wikipedia link in the parent of this thread and it covers it in very interesting detail. Lots of moving parts, and I can’t give a synthesis. But this includes: nationalization of the oil fields that broke prior agreements with Britain (big money maker for Britain, but a bad deal for Iran), gradual move towards authoritarian leadership by Mosaddegh as his popularity waned due to economic hardship after a British oil embargo following the nationalization, Mosaddegh alignment with communists. Seems like there was both western meddling and also inherent power struggle happening in the country at that time. USA supported shah but who they should support was actually under debate. It states the USA coup attempt actually failed but may have precipitated the successful one, which was possibly natural. Finally, USA broke the British monopoly after the coup and Iran did get much more money from their oil after this.
please correct if I got anything wrong here.
please correct if I got anything wrong here.
I’m curious about GP’s reply. The nuance about the British wanting a PM they’d be able to sway is a piece I hadn’t heard before. Oil/nationalization of the Anglo Iranian Oil Company still seems like a key flashpoint in UK/US opposition regardless of what they considered doing instead.
The 1979 Iranian revolution was the pendulum swinging back hard the other way.
There's nothing good to say about the 1953 coup - but in no sense was the 1979 revolution a "swing back the other way", let alone a hard swing. If anything it was a swing sideways, to a different (and in the view of many people I know from that beautiful country, substantially worse) form of dictatorship.
There's nothing good to say about the 1953 coup - but in no sense was the 1979 revolution a "swing back the other way", let alone a hard swing. If anything it was a swing sideways, to a different (and in the view of many people I know from that beautiful country, substantially worse) form of dictatorship.
> we
Careful with that "«we»", Eugene. I am certainly not responsible for the actions of the empowered.
Careful with that "«we»", Eugene. I am certainly not responsible for the actions of the empowered.
Generally people are considered responsible for the actions of their governments - at least those that were democratically elected.
> Generally people are considered
Considered by whom? They must be insane, if they think that the presence of severely imperfect systems of election of candidates makes individuals in a population responsible. Only the use of a non intellectual organ can come to that conclusion.
You have just proven, through stating the pervasiveness of lunacy, that the responsibility of the sane can only be limited.
Considered by whom? They must be insane, if they think that the presence of severely imperfect systems of election of candidates makes individuals in a population responsible. Only the use of a non intellectual organ can come to that conclusion.
You have just proven, through stating the pervasiveness of lunacy, that the responsibility of the sane can only be limited.
Genuinely curious about why this was flagged, if anyone feels like enlightening me so I can be a better citizen here.
The US didn’t install a corrupt dictator. It basically backed groups who were looking to overthrow Mossaddegh, who himself was fighting to stop from being ousted by the Shah (who held that power legitimately).
There were already riots in the streets over his rule. He was going to be ousted CIA involvement or not.
Plus it’s a bit odd to blame the US for a ruling body who ousted the US backed one.
That’s like blaming the US for the Vietnamese Communist party today.
There were already riots in the streets over his rule. He was going to be ousted CIA involvement or not.
Plus it’s a bit odd to blame the US for a ruling body who ousted the US backed one.
That’s like blaming the US for the Vietnamese Communist party today.
Okay, but why are you blaming the UK when the Romans invaded in the 40s AD? And of course the US was created from the UK.
So surely that means it's actually all Italy's fault by your logic. These countries didn't have their own agency.
So surely that means it's actually all Italy's fault by your logic. These countries didn't have their own agency.
I don’t know enough about that period of history, but surely the Roman invasion in the 40’s had some consequences in the following decades for which the Romans could be assigned responsibility?
Behind every tyrant there's a wealthy European.
breitling(1)
-
Do you work for chatGPT or something? I've seen a lot of really spammy people use phrasing similar to the beginning of your post lately. I'm not flagging you or downvoting you, but you made me raise my eyebrows, I can't tell if posts like these are authentic interaction.
(I don't mind if someone's a sincere fan of a service, there's places I've plugged, for lack of better phrasing, if I've found value from them, but I'm trying to cut back on uncompensated endorsements since folks abused the spirit of trying to respect good work.)
(I don't mind if someone's a sincere fan of a service, there's places I've plugged, for lack of better phrasing, if I've found value from them, but I'm trying to cut back on uncompensated endorsements since folks abused the spirit of trying to respect good work.)
I just played with it around and wanted to compare what an article about this event would look like.
But maybe it was a bad idea to post it, if we want to stay on topic.
But maybe it was a bad idea to post it, if we want to stay on topic.
No it's fine, I just was being hypervigilant about spam, I apologize.
But what about the morality/morality police?
American outrage towards the rights of women in Iran is so fake it’s comical.
They just banned abortion in several states and not a peep from anyone. Where is the outrage for American women?
They just banned abortion in several states and not a peep from anyone. Where is the outrage for American women?
I don’t disagree with the point you’re making and I too am angry about abortion bans but I’d hardly say there was “not a peep from anyone”. I heard and continue to hear (and make) a lot of peeps.
https://twitter.com/borzou/status/1599396059251253249