Iran up in flames- Episode MMIX
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared victory on June 12, claiming to have won 62% of the vote. His challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, a reformer, said the election was rigged and that he would demand a recount. Enter the riots. The people of Iran are pissed, and rightfully so. Millions are gathering in the streets to protest the outcome of the election, very few standing up to them, leading me to believe that there was some tampering involved. Had Mousavi received less than 40% of the vote, I find it doubtful that no one would stand up to the protesters. Reports have deaths, fires, and many wounded in the riots that have ensued.
President Obama, meanwhile, has been relatively silent. This seems to be part of the Obama strategy in regards to dealing with Iran. He supports the regime, not because he likes them, but as a way to bargain to appease them into talks and reducing nuclear programs. While it is a form of appeasement, it has its respects among the international politics community, but I disagree with it in this instance. While Mousavi isn’t the best of leaders, he is a considerably better choice than Ahmadinejad. I’ll give a few examples of the reforms he supports:
He supports looking into the discrimination against women in Iran, stating that he will set in law equality for all women.
He supports the privatization of news stations in Iran, which are currently nothing more than government propaganda machines (sounds familiar.)
He supports the freedom of expression, which is not entirely upheld in Iran currently (as seen by police forces beating protesters.)
He supports disbanding the so called “moral police”.
He said he hopes to ease tensions with other nations, which would make him less likely to develop nuclear weapons (he still will pursue nuclear power, which is perfectly legal and legitimate.)
Lastly, he has some respect for the Jewish faith. While Ahmadinejad calls the holocaust a myth, Mousavi has condemned the killing of Jews during the holocaust and attacked Ahmadinejad for denying its occurrence.
The people seem to be rallying against their government in Iran. They have no leader, nor organization. This is an uprising of the Iranian people against an oppressive and unjust government. I am pleased to hear those in the geek-world (which I am only loosely affiliated with) have been immensely helpful in the distribution of information from Iran. The government under Ahmadinejad has been trying to stop the protests and derail any and all information leaving Iran about the election and the riots. I believe that as the upholders of freedom and justice, it is our duty to help those who cannot do it on their own. I say we help the Iranian protesters, at least pressuring for a legitimate recount or special election, if not helping to unseat Ahmadinejad. It is in the world’s, United State’s, and Iranian people’s best interest to do so.
I leave you with a few videos of situation unfolding in Iran.
Protests in the streets.
Police beating and attempting to arrest a protester, just to have a crowd of other protesters scare them off.
Protesters raid Basij militia building. GRAPHIC. Some violence and moderately graphic images, feel like it needs a warning.
Obama….WHERE ARE YOU???????
Tim: He’s attempting not to get in the middle of a possible civil war and people’s revolution. Expect some kind of action next week if the demanded second election is denied on Friday.
Becca, I question if he will get involved. It seems his main bargaining chip, that of respecting Ahmadinejad’s rule, is being threatened. Should Ahmadinejad block the election, I doubt Obama will say much other than, “well we think he should have allowed the election”. At most he will send another strongly worded letter. He has a different strategy when it comes to confronting dictators/terrorists.
The only way he will change his stance is if the media gets on his case, which is doubtful.
Derek! You cannot used words like pissed. Your mother may see.
How can you write a piece on the current troubles in Iran and your own solution of American involvement without a single mention of 1953, Mohammed Mosaddeq, or what followed? I’ve been using it for years along with dozens of other examples as to why the U.S. should not intervene in foreign matters and you completely ignore it. Quick history lesson: the democratically-elected Mosaddeq takes office and nationalizes oil, angering the British. So the CIA conducts its first overthrow and the Shah is placed in power where he reins brutally until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Now Iran is a repressive theocracy. Great job America, typical of our involvement.
It would be like if, witnessing the 1824 elections in the U.S., France and Britain decided to just assassinate either JQA or Jackson, whichever they felt was in their best interest. Obviously the fallout would have shaken the nation and harmed, if not destroyed, the American experiment.
And yet you seem to advocate the same thing, that we simply choose a side and end the debate. Look first at the areas of the world we have, pardon my language, fucked up via our interventions (Cuba, the Philippines, Nicaragua, Honduras, Iran, Guatemala, Vietnam, Chile, Grenada, Panama, Afghanistan, and Iraq just to name a few). You have to think of the (unintended) consequences of prior interventions before advocating for yet another.
Having said that, I favor the revolutionaries and freedom fighters protesting this crooked election. There will be Iranian blood spilled yet I feel that it is for a just cause - liberty. I salute the men and women willing to fight to change their nation for the better and I would imagine the last thing they want is U.S. involvement. Especially if they know their history or lived under the Shah. Let things run their course and we shall see what happens.
The most Obama should do is rhetorically support those fighting for accurate election results and an overall change for their nation. But even that carries consequences and I outright support his plan to avoid a foreign matter as I told him today in a letter.
I hope I didn’t straw-man too much, I wrote this in a hurry and argued against the impression I got from your article. Talk of “unseating Ahmadinejad” is a scary thought, although it may seem like the best idea at the moment. Remember your history: just because it seemed best at the moment (Empowering the Taliban, putting Pinochet in power, supporting Pol Pot) doesn’t mean it’s best.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YwKVLwckDYw&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.coalitionoftheilling.com%2F&feature=player_embedded
“So the CIA conducts its first overthrow and the Shah is placed in power where he reins brutally until the Iranian Revolution in 1979. Now Iran is a repressive theocracy. Great job America, typical of our involvement.”
I thought the Shah was thrown out? The government which they instated became oppressive by its own means, not because of us.
“And yet you seem to advocate the same thing, that we simply choose a side and end the debate.”
This is no longer sides of a divided nation. This is the government versus the people. An oppressive government, which is illegitimate as they do not have permission from their people to govern, that needs to be removed. It isn’t just in the Iranian’s benefit, but in our benefit as well. The fact that Iranians are cursing America in the streets FOR NOT ACTING shows that me must at least do something to help. Why not? It helps us, it helps our friends, and it helps the people of Iran. The only people it doesn’t help are Hamas, random other terrorist factions, and the oppressive Iranian government.
“I would imagine the last thing they want is U.S. involvement. ”
Quite the contrary. They are holding us to our claim as the upholders of liberty and justice. They are cursing our name in the streets because we haven’t responded, at least, our government hasn’t. Again, it would help everyone.
“Remember your history: just because it seemed best at the moment (Empowering the Taliban, putting Pinochet in power, supporting Pol Pot) doesn’t mean it’s best.”
I’m thinking lesser of two evils here, one evil being manageable and the other insane with nukes.
“Tim: He’s attempting not to get in the middle of a possible civil war and people’s revolution. Expect some kind of action next week if the demanded second election is denied on Friday.”
Lol. Hindsight can be so hilarious.