Hi there, !
Today Sat 06/27/2009 Fri 06/26/2009 Thu 06/25/2009 Wed 06/24/2009 Tue 06/23/2009 Mon 06/22/2009 Sun 06/21/2009 Archives
493386 articles and 1741579 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 79 articles and 295 comments as of 9:45.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT        Politix   
Khamenei agrees to extend vote probe
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
0 [6503] 
8 00:00 OldSpook [6475] 
12 00:00 OldSpook [6484] 
3 00:00 mojo [6462] 
1 00:00 Jack is Back! [6457] 
4 00:00 AzCat [6468] 
4 00:00 Eohippus Spavitle1705 [6470] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
4 00:00 CrazyFool [6462]
1 00:00 Bright Pebbles [6479]
6 00:00 Lagom [6491]
0 [6464]
8 00:00 anymouse [6508]
9 00:00 Frank G [6468]
1 00:00 ed [6471]
4 00:00 Thing From SNowy Mountain [6468]
2 00:00 Steve [6464]
2 00:00 JosephMendiola [6469]
0 [6465]
3 00:00 Unique Battle [6463]
2 00:00 trailing wife [6461]
2 00:00 JohnQC [6469]
3 00:00 Eohippus Spavitle1705 [6478]
0 [6466]
1 00:00 g(r)omgoru [6458]
4 00:00 Steve White [6466]
0 [6473]
2 00:00 Redneck Jim [6501]
5 00:00 Besoeker [6466]
6 00:00 Hellfish [6468]
1 00:00 trailing wife [6460]
0 [6464]
0 [6491]
0 [6470]
4 00:00 Frank G [6499]
0 [6472]
0 [6470]
6 00:00 Redneck Jim [6469]
0 [6467]
0 [6469]
1 00:00 JohnQC [6459]
0 [6462]
0 [6467]
0 [6492]
Page 2: WoT Background
5 00:00 badanov [6493]
11 00:00 OldSpook [6475]
0 [6466]
1 00:00 Redneck Jim [6470]
4 00:00 Eohippus Spavitle1705 [6465]
4 00:00 SteveS [6483]
0 [6464]
2 00:00 JohnQC [6464]
15 00:00 Eohippus Spavitle1705 [6461]
15 00:00 CrazyFool [6495]
3 00:00 JosephMendiola [6504]
0 [6463]
3 00:00 Redneck Jim [6466]
5 00:00 Frank G [6476]
0 [6458]
1 00:00 Dave UK [6465]
1 00:00 paul2 [6470]
3 00:00 Frank G [6487]
1 00:00 gorb [6464]
0 [6462]
7 00:00 swksvolFF [6476]
4 00:00 Redneck Jim [6463]
4 00:00 SteveS [6481]
Page 3: Non-WoT
0 [6482]
7 00:00 eLarson [6480]
7 00:00 Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) [6508]
2 00:00 OldSpook [6477]
6 00:00 Redneck Jim [6462]
4 00:00 jack salami [6464]
22 00:00 Broadhead6 [6529]
5 00:00 GolfBravoUSMC [6482]
22 00:00 trailing wife [6470]
1 00:00 Besoeker [6462]
0 [6461]
Page 6: Politix
14 00:00 OldSpook [6501]
7 00:00 Bright Pebbles [6461]
Home Front: Politix
That was no press conference! It was a @#$%^&* scripted infomercial!
Dana Milbank, Washington Post

...After the obligatory first question from the Associated Press, Obama treated the overflowing White House briefing room to a surprise. "I know Nico Pitney is here from the Huffington Post," he announced.

Obama knew this because White House aides had called Pitney the day before to invite him, and they had escorted him into the room. They told him the president was likely to call on him, with the understanding that he would ask a question about Iran that had been submitted online by an Iranian. "I know that there may actually be questions from people in Iran who are communicating through the Internet," Obama went on. "Do you have a question?"

Pitney recognized his prompt. "That's right," he said, standing in the aisle and wearing a temporary White House press pass. "I wanted to use this opportunity to ask you a question directly from an Iranian."

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show." Missed yesterday's show? Don't worry: On Wednesday, ABC News will be broadcasting "Good Morning America" from the South Lawn (guest stars: the president and first lady), "World News Tonight" from the Blue Room, and a prime-time feature with Obama from the East Room.

"The Obama Show" was the hottest ticket in town yesterday. Forty-five minutes before the start, there were no fewer than 107 people crammed into the narrow aisles, in addition to those in the room's 42 seats. Japanese and Italian could be heard coming from the tangle of elbows, cameras and compressed bodies: "You've got to move! . . . Oh, God, don't step on my foot!" Some had come just for a glimpse of celebrity. And they wanted to know all about him. "As a former smoker, I understand the frustration and the fear that comes with quitting," McClatchy News's Margaret Talev empathized with the president before asking him how much he smokes.

Obama indulged the question from the studio audience. "I would say that I am 95 percent cured. But there are times where I mess up," he confessed. "Like folks who go to AA, you know, once you've gone down this path, then, you know, it's something you continually struggle with."

This is Barack Obama, and these are the Days of Our Lives....

...During the eight years of the Bush administration, liberal outlets such as the Huffington Post often accused the White House of planting questioners in news conferences to ask preplanned questions. But here was Obama fielding a preplanned question asked by a planted questioner -- from the Huffington Post....

Milbank is a reliably liberal member of the MSM herd, and definitely no friend of conservatives. If he's disgusted by the staged spectacle,....
Posted by: Mike || 06/24/2009 10:18 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6484 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The owl flies at midnight. Comment (n-1)^v
Posted by: mojo || 06/24/2009 11:13 Comments || Top||

#2  F150 C2H5OH repeat comment(x-1)
Posted by: swksvolFF || 06/24/2009 11:26 Comments || Top||

#3  Bush was able to give up alcohol cold turkey, Obama can't get beyond 95% cured. Could you imagine the reaction if GWB would have said that he has an occasional beer?
Posted by: Penguin || 06/24/2009 11:35 Comments || Top||

#4  BP for Barry. The media serve em up and he'll hit em out.
I wonder who he's bumming smokes offa?
Posted by: tu3031 || 06/24/2009 12:27 Comments || Top||

#5  Yeah, but when the batting average is lower than the Royals and the Nielson rating is 'Leslie'...
Posted by: swksvolFF || 06/24/2009 12:50 Comments || Top||

#6  Dana's just pissed because he wasn't picked to ask The One a planted question.
Posted by: ed || 06/24/2009 12:52 Comments || Top||

#7  As if to compensate for the prepackaged Huffington Post question, Obama went quickly to Fox News for a predictably hostile question from Major Garrett. "In your opening remarks, sir, you said about Iran that you were appalled and outraged," Garrett said. "What took you so long?

"I don't think that's accurate," Obama volleyed testily, calling his toughening statements on Iran "entirely consistent."

The host of "The Obama Show" dispatched with similar ease a challenge from CBS's Chip Reid, asking whether his hardening line on Iran was inspired by John McCain. "What do you think?" Obama replied with a big grin. That brought the house down. And the studio audience laughed again when ABC's Jake Tapper tried to get Obama to answer another reporter's question that he had dodged. "Are you the ombudsman for the White House press corps?" the president cracked.

The laughter had barely subsided when the host made another joke about Tapper's reference to Obama's "Spock-like language about the logic of the health-care plan."

"The reference to Spock, is that a crack on my ears?" the president asked.

Hostile question? Sounds to me like Major Garrett is the only one of the bunch who takes his job as a reporter seriously. And notice how 0 avoids any tough questions by mocking them and cracking jokes in lieu of a real answer.

If there's one thing he's mastered as a politician, it's the three Ds:

Posted by: eltoroverde || 06/24/2009 13:19 Comments || Top||

#8  Saw a video yesterday of the ONE at a bill signing in the Rose Garden. He walked up to the table doing the "Chicken Strut" like he was back in the "Hood". The backwards ball cap crowd must have loved it.

I've often contended that the ball cap is on correct, the head is on backwards.
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC || 06/24/2009 14:00 Comments || Top||

#9  "Chicken Strut" during the campaign... not so much. Things is different now.
Posted by: Besoeker || 06/24/2009 14:16 Comments || Top||

#10  A backwards, or sideways ball cap is saying FUCK YOU and should NOT be tolerated
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 06/24/2009 15:24 Comments || Top||

#11  Even Zambian monkeys do a better job on their president than our press corps does.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 || 06/24/2009 15:33 Comments || Top||

#12  Spock? Just like Spock, you DO NOT BELONG IN THE BIG CHAIR!
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/24/2009 23:26 Comments || Top||

Obama: too cool for democracy
The choice presented by the democracy protests in Iran could hardly have been clearer.

On one side: a brutal theocratic regime that jails and tortures its critics at home and is a deadly sponsor of terrorism abroad; that loudly proclaims its enmity for the United States and has murdered many Americans to prove it; that barely conceals its drive to amass a nuclear arsenal; that lusts for the annihilation of Israel; and that for 30 years has pursued a far-flung Islamist jihad. On the other side: throngs of Iranians calling for an end to their government’s abuses.

With whom should America stand - the bloody tyranny or the people opposing it? For most Americans the question answers itself, which is why both houses of Congress voted all but unanimously last week to condemn the Iranian government and support the protesters’ embrace of human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law. So why was President Obama’s response initially so ambivalent? Why was he more interested in preserving “dialogue’’ with Iran’s dictatorial rulers than in providing moral support for their freedom-seeking subjects? Why did it take him until yesterday to declare that Americans are “appalled and outraged’’ by Iran’s crackdown and to “strongly condemn’’ the vicious attacks on peaceful dissenters?

A disconcerting answer to those questions appears in the new issue of Commentary, where Johns Hopkins University scholar Joshua Muravchik isolates the most striking feature of the young Obama administration’s foreign policy: “its indifference to the issues of human rights and democracy.’’ In an essay titled “The Abandonment of Democracy,’’ Muravchik - the author, most recently, of “The Next Founders: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East’’ - observes that every president since Jimmy Carter has made the advancement of democracy and human rights one of his foreign-policy objectives. Now, he writes, “this tradition has been ruptured by the Obama administration.’’

The rupture was telegraphed at a pre-inauguration meeting with the Washington Post, during which the incoming president argued that “freedom from want and freedom from fear’’ are more urgent than democracy, and that “oftentimes an election can just backfire’’ if corruption isn’t fixed first. Muravchik points out that when Obama gave Al-Arabiya, an Arabic-language satellite channel, his first televised interview as president, he focused on US relations with the Middle East and Muslim world, yet “never mentioned democracy or human rights.’’

In February, Obama traveled to Camp Lejeune, N.C., to announce his timetable for withdrawing US troops from Iraq. His strategic goal, he said, was “an Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.’’ But other than a glancing reference to the successful Iraqi election that had taken place a few weeks earlier, he again had nothing to say about democracy.

Muravchik isn’t alone in noticing Obama’s reticence. In its editorial on the Iraqi election, which it termed a “political triumph,’’ the Washington Post celebrated Iraq’s progress “toward becoming the moderate Arab democracy that the Bush administration long hoped for.’’ Ironically, it noted, one major beneficiary of that election “may be President Obama, who has been a skeptic both of progress in Iraq and the value of elections in unstable states.’’ Bush would have cheered the Iraqi vote as further evidence of the country’s democratic advance. Obama merely acknowledged that the election made it easier to withdraw “a substantial number’’ of troops.

By April, former New York Times correspondent Joel Brinkley was explaining “How ‘democracy’ got to be a dirty word’’ in the new administration. Since taking office, he wrote, “neither President Obama nor Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has even uttered the word democracy in a manner related to democracy promotion.’’ Of the 30 releases issued by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, “not one . . . has discussed democracy promotion. Democracy, it seems, is banished from the Obama administration’s public vocabulary.’’

Authoritarian regimes naturally welcome the new approach. According to AP, Egypt’s ambassador to the United States expressed satisfaction “that ties are on the mend and that Washington has dropped conditions for better relations, including demands for ‘human rights, democracy and religious and general freedoms.’ ’’ Just as Obama has downplayed democracy efforts in the Middle East, he has also done so with regard to China, Russia, and even Sudan.

Obama may see himself as the un-Bush, cool to democracy because his predecessor was so keen for it. But to millions of subjugated human beings, he is the leader of the free world - an avatar of the democratic freedoms they hunger for. On the streets of Iran recently, many protesters held signs reading “Where Is My Vote?’’ There are limits to what the American president can do for Iran’s beleaguered democrats. But is it too much to ask that he take their question seriously?
Posted by: ryuge || 06/24/2009 06:18 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6468 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Or the one line explanation: President Obama is a Marxist.
Posted by: ed || 06/24/2009 7:46 Comments || Top||

#2  Sorry Ed: Too obvious.
Posted by: Secret Master || 06/24/2009 11:51 Comments || Top||

#3  But, but...what about the Gitmo detainees? He's very concerned about their rights.
Posted by: Abu Uluque || 06/24/2009 13:26 Comments || Top||

#4  [Obama said] "oftentimes an election can just backfire'' if corruption isn't fixed first.

Witness, for example, the recent US election.
Posted by: AzCat || 06/24/2009 21:06 Comments || Top||

Obama's Iran policy is a bomb
Jonah Goldberg

Here is the one immutable fact of Barack Obama's foreign policy agenda as it relates to Iran: It's over. The rule book he came in with is as irrelevant as a tourist guide to the Austro-Hungarian empire.

If the forces of reform and democracy win, Obama's plan to negotiate with the regime is moot, for the regime will be gone. And if the forces of reform are crushed into submission by the regime, Obama's plan is moot, because the regime will still be there.

If Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei come out on top, even the most soulless realists will be repulsed by the blood on the regime's collective hands. Politics and decency will demand that the world condemn or shun the regime.

Before June 12, Obama's eagerness to negotiate with Ahmadinejad -- ridiculed by his conservative critics -- was hailed by the establishment and the left as proof of his high-minded faith in diplomacy, a healthy antidote to George W. Bush's allegedly close-minded approach.

But now, if the clerical junta prevails, anyone who shakes hands with Ahmadinejad will have a hard time washing the blood off his own hands.

What is dismaying is how reluctant the administration is to accept this. As even some of Obama's most stalwart defenders are admitting, the president was caught flat-footed by the events in Iran. There's no shame in that; everyone was surprised.

His most ardent defenders might claim that he's been adept at "calibrating" his response all along, but it's obvious that he's been playing catch-up. His initial instinct, according to Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post, was to cling "to the pre-election paramount goal of keeping alive the chances for a nuclear deal with any government in Tehran." To that end, Obama said there was little difference between Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, and he refrained from "meddling." Within a week, he gave a full-throated denunciation of the regime's clampdown and a statement of support for the protesters. But he only did so after the Europeans and our own Congress.

Why is it so hard for Obama to get a handle on the Iranian challenge? Hoagland and others are surely partly right that the president is determined to negotiate with Iran. But Obama has made it clear that he sees the elimination of Iran's nuclear problem not as a stand-alone priority but as one part of his Middle East two-step. His inseparable goal is to also push Israel into a peace settlement with the Palestinians. As an unnamed Iran expert in contact with White House officials told Foreign Policy's Laura Rozen, "Obama is dedicated to diplomacy in a manner that is almost ideological. ... He wants to do some stuff in the Middle East over the next eight years. He may not be able to achieve half of them unless he gets this huge piece of the puzzle [Iran] right."

That "stuff" seems to be some grand Middle East transformation, whereby Obama promises to negotiate away Iran's nuclear program in return for Israeli movement on an Israeli-Palestinian settlement. In effect, Obama would be using the threat of a nuclear-armed Ahmadinejad as a Medusa's head to petrify Israelis into concessions.

Whether such a strategy would have worked is open to huge quantities of skepticism. Now, after what's happened in Iran in recent days, such a plan is simply impossible.

For years, conservatives or, if you prefer, neoconservatives, have said that the Iranian regime can't be negotiated with. Some emphasized that anti-Americanism is at the core of the regime's identity. Some noted that Obama-style "open-handed" overtures to Iran were rebuffed. (Obama may have acknowledged U.S. support for the 1953 overthrow of the Mohammed Mossadegh regime in the hope that such frankness would win him goodwill from the regime. But no such goodwill followed Madeleine Albright's apology in 2000.)

Others pointed to the messianic and conspiratorial zeal that animates Iran's clerical junta. Many invoked Iran's steadfast animus toward our ally Israel as well as its endorsement and sponsorship of "scholarly" Holocaust-denial and the more tangible support for Hezbollah and others bent on murdering Jews. Iran's efforts to derail democracy and stability in Iraq by, among other things, supporting attacks on American troops is also part of the talk-is-folly brief.

None of that was sufficient evidence for Obama, in part because anything associated with Bush's freedom agenda was deemed absurd and ideologically rigid.

Well, Bush is gone. Obama has extended his hand. And the regime is supplying fresh evidence of the absurdity of his approach. All that's left for Obama now is to abandon his own ideological rigidity and start over.
Posted by: Fred || 06/24/2009 00:00 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6470 views] Top|| File under: Govt of Iran

#1  Obama does not believe in regime change ie. nothing will change in Iran.If anything they will get braver as they see weakness in Barry!
Posted by: paul2 || 06/24/2009 5:11 Comments || Top||

#2  Well, if the lion can get slapped down by Dorothy Gale of Kansas, then what happens to those under the lion's food chain? Exuding weakness and naivete led tin-horns Chavez and Ortega to show up with the balls to upbraid Obambi during the Latin summit a while back.
Posted by: jack salami || 06/24/2009 9:09 Comments || Top||

#3  Obama says, "Those who stand up for justice are always on the right side of history." (From his prime time speech)

If he does not 'stand up' against Iran's theocratic dictatorship (that means act, IMO), isn't he on the wrong side of history - according to himself?
Posted by: Rawsnacks || 06/24/2009 14:13 Comments || Top||

#4  His mentality is: events that supposedly took place in 1953 void US foreign policy interests in 2009.

In any case, if Iran' ministers attend Fourth of July ceremonies, Obama is FINISHED.
Posted by: Eohippus Spavitle1705 || 06/24/2009 18:47 Comments || Top||

Home Front: WoT
Obama's Iran policy can't possibly work
Jonah Goldberg

Before June 12, Obama’s eagerness to negotiate with Ahmadinejad — ridiculed by his conservative critics — was hailed by the establishment and the Left as proof of his high-minded faith in diplomacy, a healthy antidote to George W. Bush’s allegedly close-minded approach. But now, if the clerical junta prevails, anyone who shakes Ahmadinejad’s hands will have a hard time washing the blood off his own.

For some reason, Obama cannot fully accept this. In his press conference Tuesday, the president finally condemned the outrages in Iran in terms he should have used a week ago. But he also kept alive the idea that the current Iranian regime could be a fruitful negotiation partner, despite what has already happened in that country. “It’s not too late,” Obama explained, for the regime to negotiate with the international community. He wouldn’t even cancel plans to invite Iranian officials to Fourth of July barbecues at American embassies.

That amounts to tacit approval of the bloodshed and fraud that we’ve already seen and acceptance of the ultimate triumph of the regime. And it won’t work.

According to many analysts, Obama’s still clinging to his hope of talking Iran out of its nuclear program. That’s why he initially said there was little difference between Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, and why his recent denunciations only followed similar rhetoric from the Europeans and our own Congress. He just doesn’t want to let go of the diplomacy option.
Posted by: Mike || 06/24/2009 14:38 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6475 views] Top|| File under:

#1  You misunderstand, it's only supposed to work FOR Obama.
Posted by: Redneck Jim || 06/24/2009 15:26 Comments || Top||

#2  Like the administration's stance, so spins the centrifuges of Iran.
Posted by: swksvolFF || 06/24/2009 15:40 Comments || Top||

#3  I have my doubts about his fiscal policy too.
Posted by: JohnQC || 06/24/2009 17:28 Comments || Top||

#4  And health care. And cap and trade.
Posted by: JohnQC || 06/24/2009 17:28 Comments || Top||

#5  The policy favors the status quo: indulging ayatollah belligerence, in face of extreme moral disarmament.
Posted by: Eohippus Spavitle1705 || 06/24/2009 18:49 Comments || Top||

#6  The title works without the work Iran in it too.
Posted by: Hellfish || 06/24/2009 21:01 Comments || Top||

#7  Bambi has an Iran policy? Other than kissing Ahmahdinnahjacket's ass?

Who knew?
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut || 06/24/2009 21:02 Comments || Top||

#8  Spinning faster than the Ayatollah's centrifuges
Posted by: OldSpook || 06/24/2009 23:32 Comments || Top||

Negotiating with Terrorists
As the Iranian government's murderous repression of the Iranian people continues, critics right and left agitate over the deafening silence of an American president who, as a candidate, derided the Bush administration's ambitious democracy promotion as too timid. They speculate as to why Barack Obama won't speak out: Why won't he condemn the mullahs? Is he daft enough to believe he can charm the regime into abandoning its nuclear ambitions? Does the self-described realist so prize stability that he thinks it's worth abandoning the cause of freedom -- and the best chance in 30 years of dislodging an implacable American enemy?

In truth, it's worse than that. Even as the mullahs are terrorizing the Iranian people, the Obama administration is negotiating with an Iranian-backed terrorist organization and abandoning the American proscription against exchanging terrorist prisoners for hostages kidnapped by terrorists. Worse still, Obama has already released a terrorist responsible for the brutal murders of five American soldiers in exchange for the remains of two deceased British hostages.

Prepare to be infuriated.
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Pappy || 06/24/2009 22:18 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6503 views] Top|| File under: IRGC

Kass on Obama: "He's right not to saber-rattle in Iran"
I hope you don't mind two Kass articles in one week. I think this offers an interesting perspective. Excerpt here:
...For the past several days, Obama has been thwacked by Republican critics, Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham, for being too timid and weak on Iran. Other critics have pummeled him with images of the late President Ronald Reagan standing up to the Soviet repression of a democratic Poland, as the evil empire began to crack under Reagan's resolve.

But Iran isn't Poland. The themes involving freedom and self-determination may be similar, but the dynamics aren't the same.

After an extremely cautious first several days, Obama ratcheted up the rhetoric just a bit at his Tuesday news conference, saying he's appalled and outraged. But not enough to do anything about it publicly.

"I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran and is not interfering with Iran's affairs," Obama said carefully....
Posted by: mom || 06/24/2009 07:58 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6462 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Obama's tougher talk is welcome. His "I've been consistent" bullshit is not. He's a vacillating empty suit and a facile liar. Nobody asked him to send troops. All anybody expected is that the "Leader of the Free World™" show some f*cking spine and support a people struggling to overthrow a corrupt theocratic thugocracy. A simple "we stand with the people of Iran and support them in seeking a free and fair society" would've been acceptable, especially compared to the mealy-mouthed stumbling and ice cream/golf outings this tool gave us. Jebus. We're only 5 months in....gird your loins!
Posted by: Frank G || 06/24/2009 8:41 Comments || Top||

#2  Liz Cheney: “President Obama said that we’re going to offer unconditional talks if you unclench your fist and in response they’re shooting young women in the streets in Tehran.”

Posted by: Black Bart Ebberens7700 || 06/24/2009 13:41 Comments || Top||

#3  Kass has also fallen in love with the word "chumbolone", which I must admit really fills the bill as a descriptive for the clowns running Chicago.
Posted by: mojo || 06/24/2009 15:42 Comments || Top||

Iran's regime will never be the same
At this point, only the short-term future of Iran's clerical regime remains in doubt. The current protests could be repressed, but the unelected institutions of priestly rule have been fatally undermined. Though each aspect of the Islamic Republic has its own dynamic, this is not a regime that can last many more years.

When it comes to repression, Iran has a spectrum of security instruments that can be used synergistically. The national police can take care of routine crowd control; riot-police units can beat some demonstrators in order to discourage others; the much more brutal, underclass Basij militiamen enjoy striking and shooting affluent Iranians; and the technical arm of the regime can block cellular service to disrupt demonstrations, as well as stall Internet services. If the protests were to seriously escalate, the Revolutionary Guard troops with their armored vehicles might also be called in, though at some risk to the regime, given that reformist presidential candidate Mohsen Rezai was their longtime commander. The alternative -- calling in the regular army -- would be much more risky since the loyalty of the generals is unknown. So far the regime has required neither.

What has undermined the very structure of the Islamic Republic is the fracturing of its ruling elite. It was the unity established by Ayatollah Khomeini that allowed the regime to dominate the Iranian people for almost 30 years. Now that unity has been shattered: The very people who created the institutions of priestly rule are destroying their authority. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leading rival for the presidency, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was prime minister from 1981-89 when the Islamic Republic acquired its administrative structure, including its unelected head, the supreme leader. Though the supreme leader must be obeyed in all things, Mr. Mousavi now flatly rejects the orders of Ali Khamenei to accept Ahmadinejad's re-election. In this, Mr. Mousavi is joined by another presidential candidate, former parliament speaker and pillar of the establishment Mehdi Karroubi, and a yet more senior founder of the Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Rafsanjani. President from 1989-97, Mr. Rafsanjani is also chairman of the Assembly of Experts, whose 86 members choose the supreme leader and can ostensibly remove him.

During the campaign, Ahmadinejad accused Mr. Rafsanjani and his children of corruption on live television. So if Ahmadinejad's re-election is to be "definitive" and even "divine," as Supreme Leader Khamenei has declared, Mr. Rafsanjani would have to resign from all his posts and his children would have to leave Iran. Instead, he is reportedly trying to recruit a majority of the Assembly of Experts to remove Khamenei, or at least force him to order new elections. The other key undemocratic institution of the Islamic Republic, founded in part by Messrs. Mousavi and Rafsanjani, is the 12-member Council of Guardians that can veto any laws passed by the elected parliament and any candidate for the parliament or the presidency. In recent years, the Council has persistently sided with extremists and Ahmadinejad, using its veto powers aggressively. Supreme Leader Khamenei logically chose the Council to deal with the election dispute.

Last week, the Council of Guardians announced that it might recount 10% of the ballots and summoned Messrs. Mousavi, Karroubi and Rezai. All three rejected the recount offer, and only Mr. Rezai showed up before the Council. Messrs. Mousavi and Karroubi simply refused to appear, explicitly denying the Council's authority as well as that of the supreme leader. This is highly significant. Were it not for the office of the supreme leader and the Council, Iran would be a normal democratic republic. In theory, if Ahmadinejad, Khamenei and the extremists of the Council of Guardians were all replaced by consensus figures, the Islamic Republic could continue as before. But in practice, that is impossible. Huge numbers of Iranians haven't been demonstrating at risk of beatings and worse for the uncharismatic and only marginally moderate Mr. Mousavi. His courage under pressure has certainly raised his popularity, but he is still no more than the accidental symbol of an emerging political revolution.

What's clear is that after years of humiliating social repression and gross economic mismanagement, the more educated and the more productive citizens of Iran have mostly turned their backs on the regime. Even if personally religious, they now reject the entire post-1979 structure of politicized Shiite Islam with its powerful ayatollahs, officious priests, strutting Revolutionary Guards and low-life Basij militiamen. Many Iranians once inclined to respect clerics now view them as generally corrupt -- including the Ahmadinejad supporters who applauded his attacks on Mr. Rafsanjani. Had Mr. Mousavi won the election, modest steps to liberalize the system -- he would have allowed women to go out with uncovered heads, for example -- would only have triggered demands for more change, eventually bringing down the entire system of clerical rule. In the Soviet Union, Mikhail Gorbachev's very cautious reforms designed to perpetuate the Communist regime ended up destroying it in less than five years. In Iran, the system is much newer, and the process would likely have been faster.

Some important clerics have long suggested that men of religion should strive to regain popular respect by voluntarily giving up political power. That may provide a way out eventually. But for now, Supreme Leader Khamenei is in the impossible position of having to support a president whose authority is not accepted by much of the governing structure itself. Even the extremist Parliament Speaker Ali Larjani has declared that the vote count was biased. Therefore, even if he remains in office, Ahmadinejad cannot really function as president. For one thing, the parliament is unlikely to confirm his ministerial appointments, and he cannot govern without them. If Khamenei is not removed by the Assembly of Experts and Ahmadinejad is not removed by Khamenei, the government will continue to be paralyzed.

The great news is that, below the eroding machinery of priestly rule, the essential democratic institutions in Iran are up and running and need only new elections for the presidency and the parliament.
Posted by: ryuge || 06/24/2009 07:04 || Comments || Link || E-Mail|| [6457 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Somehow, when we look back on this period in Iran, I hope we don't end up regretting our approach much like we ended up regretting and criticizing Bush 41's approach to leaving Saddam alone in 92 after we destroyed his Army in Kuwait. The Shia misunderstood our intentions and look what happened to them. I see the same thing happening in Iran - very similar to Tianamen.
Posted by: Jack is Back! || 06/24/2009 9:47 Comments || Top||

Who's in the News
13Govt of Iran
2al-Qaeda in North Africa
2al-Qaeda in Pakistan
1Islamic Movement of Uzbekistan
1Lashkar e-Taiba
1Govt of Pakistan

E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Gulf War I
The Way We Were


On Sale now!

A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.

Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.

Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has dominated Mexico for six years.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Scooter McGruder
john frum
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Frank G
Alaska Paul

Two weeks of WOT
Wed 2009-06-24
  Khamenei agrees to extend vote probe
Tue 2009-06-23
  Revolutionary Guards Say They'll Crush Protests
Mon 2009-06-22
  Guardian Council: Over 100% voted in 50 cities
Sun 2009-06-21
  Assembly of Experts caves to Fearless Leader
Sat 2009-06-20
  Iran police disperse protesters
Fri 2009-06-19
  Khamenei to Mousavi: toe the line or else
Thu 2009-06-18
  Iran cracks down
Wed 2009-06-17
  Mousavi calls day of mourning for Iran dead
Tue 2009-06-16
  Hundreds of thousands of Iranians ask: 'Where is my vote?'
Mon 2009-06-15
  Tehran Election Protest Turns Deadly: Unofficial results show Ahmedinejad came in 3rd
Sun 2009-06-14
  Ahmadinejad's victory 'real feast': Khamenei
Sat 2009-06-13
  Mousavi arrested
Fri 2009-06-12
  Iran votes: Not a pretty sight
Thu 2009-06-11
  Gitmo Uighurs in Bermuda
Wed 2009-06-10
  Foopy becomes first Gitmo boy to stand trial in US

Better than the average link...

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (36)    WoT Background (23)    Non-WoT (11)    (0)    Politix (2)