Iran Revolt, Week 2
![]()
The second week of the protester revolt begins in Iran. Though violence was heightened over the weekend, and several dozen died, there was no Tiananment like crushing of the protest movement. The regime appears willing to threaten and enact some violence, and hope the protests die a slow death over time.
The British Embassy is pulling out families of its personnel in Tehran. Embassy officials will remain. Iran is threatening to expel all western diplomats.
The Guardian Council will start the week. They have apparently rejected all election fraud protests. And this was after they confirmed that over 50 cities in Iran had more votes than citizens. Ah, repression at its best. I am sure this will go over well with the protest movement, though after Ayatollah Khameini’s speech on Friday, no one expected anything less.
The Revolutionary Guard is threatening to crush any remaining dissent today. A statement posted Monday on the Guard’s website warned protesters to “be prepared for a resolution and revolutionary confrontation with the Guards, Basij and other security forces and disciplinary forces.”
Word is spreading that organizers are trying to implement a countrywide strike. This would continue the movement, while at the same time limiting violence. People have been told to stock up on supplies like food and medicine. This would be especially profound if the oil workers, who account for the bulk of Iran’s GDP, join in the strike. That would also harken back to 1979, when the oil workers strike greatly diminished the Shah’s power base.
____________________________________________________________________________________________
“America’s position in the world is one of moral leadership. It’s not about what takes place in the streets of Iran. It is about what takes place in America’s conscience.”
Andrew Sullivan continues to bash the ‘NeoCons’ who are calling for Obama to be tougher. To support his point, he uses…Zbigniew Brzezinski. You gotta be kidding. One of the least useful statesmen in our generation. This man was the most despised of Carter’s Cabinet, and he quietly waited around as the Shah was overthrown in Iran and the Soviets entered Afghanistan. Is this really the best the liberals have to offer? Pretty sad.
Again, liberals like Brzezinski don’t get it. This isn’t just Republicans. And other than a very small sliver of ultraconservatives, these aren’t warhawks either. The House of Representatives voted a measure supporting a strong statement 435-1. Does that sound partisan to you? Obama’s own Secretary of State and Vice President appear to disagree with Obama’s current stand…and remember, Obama brought them in because of his lack of foreign policy experience. There was also a real reason that the U.S. decreased in strength and the Soviets increased in strength under people like Brzezinski. Oh well, liberals apparently never learn.
Even some Iranian protesters are starting to attack Obama. From Gateway Pundit: Courageous Iranian student activist Ahmad Betebi was sentenced to death by the evil regime in Iran after the student protests of 1999. He was severely tortured for years in the notorious Evin Prison in Iran. Last year Ahmad Batebi arrived safely in the United States. “His (Obama) lack of response will not be regarded lightly. We will watch for how much his response will help the people or the regime. We will know more this week… Obama can hold talks with the regime in Iran if he wants. Is it morally correct for Obama to support the regime?”
I guess Zbigniew Brzezinski considers John McCain a neocon.
John McCain had a strong performance on Face the Nation on Sunday. McCain said he “appreciates” President Barack Obama’s statement warning Iranian authorities that the world is watching its crackdown on protestors, but said that the comments by other world leaders, such as France’s Nicholas Sarkozy and Germany’s Angela Merkel, have been stronger than President Obama’s. “Every time that there has been a totalitarian dictatorial government that has faced protestors from their citizens, they blame the United States,” the senator reasoned.
And McCain has been exactly right. Remember, Reagan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all in one way or another tried to form relationships with Iran. Bush 43 was the most vitriolic, too be sure. Obama’s demands, that Iran give up their nuclear program, is much MORE demanding than any of his predecessors outside of GWB. No matter what America says, Iran needs the West as a foil; someone to blame all their ills on, much like they blame the ‘Zionists in Israel’ for all of their troubles.
Obama has been about as tepid as you could be. He could only go further by voicing his support for the regime. And yet, Iran is still blaming the US and the West for the dischord. You can’t win with a lying regime. They have accused America of fighting a ‘cyberwar’ against them because of Facebook and Twitter. Heck, Obama has not rescinded his invitation to Iranian Diplomats to celebrate July Fourth at the White House. No, I am not kidding.
Schieffer asked what happens if the Iranian government does not heed a stronger condemnation from the United States. McCain quoted Daniel Webster, who argued that rhetorical support could help those involved in the Greek Revolution of 1823. “I hope it may, it may give them courage and spirit,” Webster said according to McCain, “teach them that they are not wholly forgotten by the civilized world…The fact is, America has been and will be the beacon of hope and freedom,” McCain said. “We are on their side as they seek freedom,” he said of the protestors. He also spoke proudly of how American technologies such as Facebook and Twitter have been influential in allowing protestors to communicate.
I couldn’t have said it better myself.







Umm…yea, whatever..like anything will change.
Things don’t change…until they do.
This morning, CNN’s headline says “Hundreds Protest in Iran”. Last week, it was “Tens of thousands”. The “new” revolution is fizzling. Apparently, not enough Iranians are sufficiently motivated to risk injury in a fight for their own freedom. Oddly enough, you have to be willing to fight and die for freedom in order to have it. I don’t think they want it badly enough, because they’re uncomfortable with rebelling against their own belief system. In rejecting the Supreme Leader’s judgment, they violate their long-held religious laws and Islamic traditions. This is the predicament that people living in theocracies often face. Unfortunately, things will probably have to get much worse inside Iran before they can get better.
There is no place in the modern world for theocratic dictatorships.
I think the bigger problem is the violence. Right now, if the regime killed 10,000 protesters, what would the International community do? One word: nothing. They would yell for a couple weeks, and then go back to buying the Ayatollah’s oil next month. The protesters know that…so they know they need to be careful. I think if they do go ahead with a national strike, that would be smart. It could shut down the country, and would be almost impossible for the regime to stop.
Let me get this straight> Obama is supporting the Iranian regime because he is trying to have a tempered response and not fly off the handle. Didn’t flying off the handle get us involved in a war we should have never been involved in considering the initial reasons for rushing into war ie. non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Also, if you were paying attention the Iranian regime is already accusing the Obama administration of meddling too much. If Obama gets too hawkish it could very easily make the situation worse for the people of Iran. Obama has condemned the violence what else should he do bomb ‘em. I guess it’s easy to criticize since those being critical don’t have to go up against the Basij or make tough presidential decisions! Also our armed forces are stretched too thin but, so what, just up their deployment time some more. They knew what they were getting into when they volunteered to serve. That was sarcasm for those of you who didn’t catch on! I’m not religious but I do know that the Supreme leader of Iran must not fear God since he surely realizes if there is a god he has some explaining to do over his brutal treatment of peaceful demonstrators. Iranians stay strong!
National strike through solidarity is the only way the people of Iran can control their destiny. Very good point!
I just think it’s hypocritical to chastise the USA for meddling in everyone’s business until you need the USA’s help. Every countries foreign policy is driven by said countries interests that’s it. It is not in the best interest of the USA to get more involved in the Iranian protests then it currently is for various reasons.
1) It could very easily inflame not subdue tensions surrounding the rigged election causing extreme violence to Iranian people
2) If the issue does get inflamed the USA really doesn’t have appropriate resources to deal with any real conflict in the area considering campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan.
3) There are more pressing threats on the horizon ie North Korea! The USA can’t be everywhere.
4) Response to the inhumane treatment of Iranians is the job of the UN and should be dealt with by the international community not just the USA.
What could the international community do? Bomb Tehran? Sanctions would just end up making the Iranian people hate the West even more because they would be the ones who suffered. Any change in Iran will only come with courageous action by the people of Iran. Nobody on the outside should get involved. I think a national strike would be a great idea, but only if it was truly “national”. But, again, the people who would suffer most would be the people going on strike. The Supreme Leader couldn’t care less about the suffering of the people.
No. There is NO military options, let us be clear (outside of Israel’s planned strike on Iran). And that won’t help us.
The West can limit Iran’s foreign exchange. Hidden among all this is that Iran is in bad economic shape. There biggest trade partners are in Europe, especially France and Germany. If there is international support for sanctions, that would hurt the regime. We could threaten to have an international embargo regime if the Iranians clamp down on protesters. At least that would be a potential threat that could work.
As for the strike, I agree people will be economically hurt…but a revolution never occurs painlessly. You can either die in the streets, or survive at home. Both may be effective. And it is untrue the Ayatollah doesn’t care. Read your history: What eventually helped bring the Shah down was strikes that severely limited Iran’s oil production. There is historical basis for this.