What is going on in Iran?

[Traveler]

It is my opinion that much more is going on than what we are getting from our various news outlets. There seems to be more difficulty getting information out of several gulf countries (not just Iran). I am wondering if Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries are more involved and have informed our president through diplomatic channels to “stay out” and say nothing.

The Traveler

[NeuroTypical]

The "much more" is that Achmedinijad won, because whether he cheated or not, the majority of Iranians:

* Don't live in the cities

* Don't speak English

* Don't have access to reliable telephones, much less Twitter,

and

* Like Achmedinijad, and voted for him overwhelmingly

Another bit of 'much more' - is that Arabs don't like Persians, and vice versa. Saudi Arabia and many other Arab countries would be happy to see a weakened Iran turning on itself. Some of them might be helping to stoke the fires. Others would if they could.

LM

[a-train]

I would not doubt for a second that foreign intervention is at work in Iran. I'll bet the President was really reelected by the people. Reuters is reporting that today's rally is cancelled. This does not mean that we could not see a serious exhibition today. The start time was almost an hour ago as I write this. I don't see any news of anything happening.

I'm glad our President is staying out of it.

-a-train

[Traveler]

I have a friend from Bahrain. I have been able to find out that the governments in the gulf region are assisting in the blackout of information coming from Iran. Bahrain is one of the more stark examples – but in the gulf region there has been both oppression of the majority of citizens and great distrust of “Royal” politics. Iran has long been seen as a beacon for political reform since the Shaw was overthrown. At the same time the Shiite mullahs are perceived as out of touch – especially with the more educated.

Let me give some background. In Bahrain a Shiite citizen cannot hold a public office of authority, such as policeman, lawyer, judge or manager of public works. They cannot go to a public beach or park. They cannot serve in the military or own a large business. They pay more taxes on the money they make than do the non-Shiite. Bahrain is 90% Shiite and is ruled by a Royal family related to the Saudi Royals. Bahrain is also home to the largest USA naval base in that region of the world. The citizens of Bahrain do not hate the USA but they do not see the USA as a source of their ever gaining freedom. They do see Iran and a free Iran as a possible catalyst to their freedom and very much support the opposition uprising in Iran. I am informed that this sediment is very strong in the gulf countries.

Bottom line – there is far more at stake than Iran for what is going on in Iran. Also just a side note. Iran is one of the best places for Arabs in most gulf countries to find a decent paying job without having to kowtow (pay under the table) to Royals. We picked the wrong side for economic and political reasons with the Shaw and it appears to me that we do not learn from history. Oppressive leaders are NEVER good alies to free societies. If oppressive leaders in the gulf area are influencing US policy we will regret for a very long time.

The Traveler

Edited June 20, 2009 by Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

Looks like things are getting nasty over there.

Mahdi, if you're reading this, keep your head down; good luck; and please let us know that you're OK.

[Aesa]

Do you pray for them?

[NeuroTypical]

Do you pray for them?

Does who pray for who?

[Aesa]

You, for these people (Iranians specifically, but for all people)?

[ToleranceGirl]

Hello. I am new to this forum and do not have the rules memorized. I hope it is okay for my to post this link:

https://sites.google.com/site/tatsumairanupdate/

I have been following the threaded discussions on Fark.com for over a week now and Tatsuma is a reliable source of information on what is happening in Iran.

Since I don't have any LDS friends anymore, I was wondering what the consensus is among the LDS community on the current situation in Iran.

[spiritseeker]

Speaking for the members in my ward our sympathy is with Iranians right now. It's no longer a political issue. It's a human rights issue... My heart aches for these children of Heavenly Father.

[NeuroTypical]

Do you pray for them?

Does who pray for who?

You, for these people (Iranians specifically, but for all people)?

I have not specifically prayed for anyone in Iran, or Iranians as a nation. Perhaps I will tonight, with my little girls.

LM

[Just_A_Guy]

I don't twitter, but if any of you twitter users want to help--here's one way.

[Traveler]

I am bewildered on many fronts – When women and children are being beaten in the streets by order of the government in power - - Why oh why????:

1. Does our president hardly say a thing – why not call for international intervention or oversight – NOW!!

2. Why do we not hear outrage from government leaders throughout the world?

3. Why are religious leader so quiet? Why don’t Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist (even LDS) leaders publicly denounce the violence in Iran?

4. Why do Muslim leaders watch with such silence? Where are the moderate Islamic clerics? Where are Egypt, Jordon, Turkey, and all the Arabic states that are so quick to criticize Israel for oppressing Muslim children to protect Israel’s interest? Are they really concerned about Muslim children or is it all just politics.

5. Where is the UN?

6. Where is Russia and China and for that matter India?

7. What is going on???

I submit again that what we are witnessing is far more than the oppression of Iranians seeking a voice. We are witnessing a world that will not listen to the oppressed but even in the distant hear the far and faint pleas for help, feel sorry, eat dinner and go to sleep thinking we are justified before G-d?

The Traveler

[ToleranceGirl]

Here is some information regarding the investigation into voter fraud in Iran:

"Iran's Guardian Council has admitted that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of those eligible to cast ballot in those areas."

Read the article here: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Worst. Damage Control. Ever.

[talisyn]

Well, I agree that repression of baby democracy is terrible and Iran seems to be going the way of China in 1988 and wish we could do more.....I just wish the leader of the revolt was a bit more palatable ><

We saw what happens when the people of a country do not fight for their freedoms, instead someone else fights for them, and if Pres. Obama says anything stronger than what he's been saying the protesters will automatically be called 'pro-American insurgents' which sadly will make them lose whatever credibility they would have gained with the pro-President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad crowd. I think he would have won anyways, but the vote will be forever tainted because he and those who supported him feared he wouldn't (!!!!!). That gives me certain amount of hope for the younger generation until I realize those who are actually physically beating on the protesters are also from the younger generation. What a mess. This is the last I heard Iranian police use force to break up protest - Yahoo! News

Edited June 22, 2009 by talisyn
clarification

[Hemidakota]

It is my opinion that much more is going on than what we are getting from our various news outlets. There seems to be more difficulty getting information out of several gulf countries (not just Iran). I am wondering if Saudi Arabia and other Islamic countries are more involved and have informed our president through diplomatic channels to “stay out” and say nothing.

The Traveler

Check the BBC news channels.

[Hemidakota]

Well, I agree that repression of baby democracy is terrible and Iran seems to be going the way of China in 1988 and wish we could do more.....I just wish the leader of the revolt was a bit more palatable ><

Actually, China learned something from that incident and now making progress in a slower pace towards a freer nation for its people. Even President Hinckley had a role with the Chinese Premier concerning church influence and 180-million youth.

Edited June 22, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Just_A_Guy]

Here is some information regarding the investigation into voter fraud in Iran:

"Iran's Guardian Council has admitted that the number of votes collected in 50 cities surpass the number of those eligible to cast ballot in those areas."

Read the article here: FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Worst. Damage Control. Ever.

I saw that story via Instapundit. Reynolds' tagline was "I didn't know ACORN was in Iran!"

[ToleranceGirl]

Traveler:

I've been reading your posts and find your messages to be insightful and sincere. I've been following the situation in Iran closely, and I believe I may have some answers to your questions.

1. Does our president hardly say a thing – why not call for international intervention or oversight – NOW!!

As much as he may want to give them a piece of his mind, the president is doing the right thing by remaining relatively neutral. The peace-loving protesters are in grave danger. The ruling government does not need any additional reasons to attack their own people. The the protesters themselves have said numerous times that they want us to keep out of their fight. I believe the president is being respectful of their wishes.

2. Why do we not hear outrage from government leaders throughout the world?

Please see my response to number 1.

3. Why are religious leader so quiet? Why don’t Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Buddhist (even LDS) leaders publicly denounce the violence in Iran?

I haven't been to any churches here in the U.S., so I can't say for certain if this is true or not. One of the things that I love most about the LDS church is that it doesn't (or isn't supposed to) get involved in politics. Again, the right thing to do for the Iranian people is to show support, not outrage.

4. Why do Muslim leaders watch with such silence? Where are the moderate Islamic clerics? Where are Egypt, Jordon, Turkey, and all the Arabic states that are so quick to criticize Israel for oppressing Muslim children to protect Israel’s interest? Are they really concerned about Muslim children or is it all just politics.

According to my sources, the silence has more to do with race relations than religious ideals. The majority of people living in Iran are Persian. Apparently there is no love lost between them and Arabs. Sad, but true.

5. Where is the UN?

And where do they stand on what's going on in Darfur? What are they supposed to do? Say, "stop...or I'll say stop again."

6. Where is Russia and China and for that matter India?

They've got their own problems keeping their own people silent and in line. Do you think they're going to condemn human rights violations? If anything, they are probably frantically trying to figure out how Facebook and Twitter work so they can head off any potential uprisings in their own countries.

7. What is going on???

Here, from my source Tatsuma, is a synopsis of what has happened in the past 48 hours.

21st of June

Two major events happened today:

- Grand Ayatollah Montazeri went directly against Ayatollah Khamenei's wishes and declared a 3-day mourning period in Iran, while Khamenei had ordered mosques to avoid making ceremonies in the memory of the fallen victims of governmental violence.

- The Guardian Council admitted that in 50 cities, there were in fact more vote recorded than there are registered voters and said they were looking into the situation. Seeing as the GC is under direct control of Khamenei, this is very likely an attempt at damage control from people who have yet to grasp how deep the schism in Iran is. This could be an attempt to ultimately blame Ahmadinejad for the irregularities and throw him under the bus in order to save their skin, which would be a sign they don't fully realize yet what is happening.

- Aside from that, as expected there were clashes all over Iran, but subsided since the 20th. The Iranian Government went on the offensive, kicking out a BBC correspondent and attacking Western countries for what they see as meddling in Iranian internal affairs. Tomorrow Mousavi has called for a general strike all over Iran. It seems that business activity that the already paralyzed country will be stopped completely.

22nd of June

Not much has happened today yet

- Members of the Parliament have commented that they are getting ready to hold Mousavi legally responsible for the protests and ensuing riots.

- Protesters have tried to protest peacefully and hold vigils, but were attacked

- A national strike should take place tomorrow, and the government warned that anyone who doesn't go to work will be fired

I hope this helps clarify some of your concerns. I understand you frustration. I wish we could do more. I choose to do as my brothers and sisters in Iran have asked us to do: pray for them.

[Just_A_Guy]

1. Does our president hardly say a thing – why not call for international intervention or oversight – NOW!!

As much as he may want to give them a piece of his mind, the president is doing the right thing by remaining relatively neutral. The peace-loving protesters are in grave danger. The ruling government does not need any additional reasons to attack their own people. The the protesters themselves have said numerous times that they want us to keep out of their fight. I believe the president is being respectful of their wishes.

And, from a more cynical point of view:

The protesters are not going to win this. They can't. They don't have the guns, they may not even have the majority, and there's no way in high hades they're going to get meaningful foreign intervention in their favor. President Obama has committed to a dialogue with the Iranian government, and endorsing a group that that government has just suppressed violently is not going to be conducive to that effort. That's the problem with diplomacy--sometimes you've just gotta bite your tongue. The President is gambling that by suppressing the natural impulse to impotently rant about Iranian oppression now, we might better be in a position to effect meaningful change in the long run.

Also--and I haven't been following this closely--but from what I understand, there's still a decent chance Ahmadinejad actually won. If they did carry out the recount in front of UN inspectors and it turns out Ahmadinejad and Khameni were right all along, we're going to come out looking pretty stupid.

[talisyn]

And, from a more cynical point of view:

The protesters are not going to win this. They can't. They don't have the guns, they may not even have the majority, and there's no way in high hades they're going to get meaningful foreign intervention in their favor. President Obama has committed to a dialogue with the Iranian government, and endorsing a group that that government has just suppressed violently is not going to be conducive to that effort. That's the problem with diplomacy--sometimes you've just gotta bite your tongue. The President is gambling that by suppressing the natural impulse to impotently rant about Iranian oppression now, we might better be in a position to effect meaningful change in the long run.

Also--and I haven't been following this closely--but from what I understand, there's still a decent chance Ahmadinejad actually won. If they did carry out the recount in front of UN inspectors and it turns out Ahmadinejad and Khameni were right all along, we're going to come out looking pretty stupid.

I'm thinking they're gonna come out looking stupid and scared. Fixing an election that they're gonna win anyways is a sign of uncertainty I don't think they wanted anyone to know about lol.

[Just_A_Guy]

Stupid and scared--but in power.

[NeuroTypical]

As far as what happens next, I'm afraid Stratfor is pretty good at predicting these things:

Successful revolutions have three phases. First, a strategically located single or limited segment of society begins vocally to express resentment, asserting itself in the streets of a major city, usually the capital. This segment is joined by other segments in the city and by segments elsewhere as the demonstration spreads to other cities and becomes more assertive, disruptive and potentially violent. As resistance to the regime spreads, the regime deploys its military and security forces. These forces, drawn from resisting social segments and isolated from the rest of society, turn on the regime, and stop following the regime’s orders. This is what happened to the Shah of Iran in 1979; it is also what happened in Russia in 1917 or in Romania in 1989.

Revolutions fail when no one joins the initial segment, meaning the initial demonstrators are the ones who find themselves socially isolated. When the demonstrations do not spread to other cities, the demonstrations either peter out or the regime brings in the security and military forces — who remain loyal to the regime and frequently personally hostile to the demonstrators — and use force to suppress the rising to the extent necessary. This is what happened in Tiananmen Square in China: The students who rose up were not joined by others. Military forces who were not only loyal to the regime but hostile to the students were brought in, and the students were crushed.

A Question of Support

This is also what happened in Iran this week. The global media, obsessively focused on the initial demonstrators — who were supporters of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s opponents — failed to notice that while large, the demonstrations primarily consisted of the same type of people demonstrating. Amid the breathless reporting on the demonstrations, reporters failed to notice that the uprising was not spreading to other classes and to other areas. In constantly interviewing English-speaking demonstrators, they failed to note just how many of the demonstrators spoke English and had smartphones. The media thus did not recognize these as the signs of a failing revolution.

Later, when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei spoke Friday and called out the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, they failed to understand that the troops — definitely not drawn from what we might call the “Twittering classes,” would remain loyal to the regime for ideological and social reasons. The troops had about as much sympathy for the demonstrators as a small-town boy from Alabama might have for a Harvard postdoc. Failing to understand the social tensions in Iran, the reporters deluded themselves into thinking they were witnessing a general uprising. But this was not St. Petersburg in 1917 or Bucharest in 1989 — it was Tiananmen Square.

LM

[MormonMema]

I pray for the people of Iran. I also pray for our military forces serving in the Holy Land. We are still in Iraq, have resumed operations in Afhanistan, so what is to keep us from getting involved in Iran, too. I hope we don't, but as volatile as that whole region is, I won't be too surprised if we do get involved.

[Hemidakota]

We don't have to invade when you squeeze left and squeeze right of the country you wanted in the first place, which caused the US allot of misery since the fall of the King.