Iran demonstrations: Imperialist pathway to democracy?

Eyewitness Iran: What is the true character of the demonstrations

By: Mazda Majidi

Imperialists do not embrace true revolutionary movements

The eyes of the world have focused on Iran since the June 12 presidential election. The turnout was exceptionally high, with 42 million people, 85 percent of the electorate, going to the polls. Incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was declared the winner with 63 percent of the vote. Ahmadinejad’s chief rival, Mir Hossein Mousavi, declared himself the winner and called the announced results fraudulent. Iran has since been the scene of large daily protests.

A landslide victory by Ahmadinejad was not improbable. An op-ed piece by Ken Ballen and Patrick Doherty published in the June 15 Washington Post states that the election results conform to their pre-election polling.

“Our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election,” Ballen and Doherty asserted.

The survey of 1,001 respondents, conducted by phone between May 11 and May 20, had a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points. The study was funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Neither the Fund nor the Washington Post could be accused of having a pro-Ahmadinejad bias.

Of course, we are not in a position to know if fraud took place and to what extent. Nor can one be sure whether one or both sides engaged in some level of voter fraud. Voter fraud is rather widespread in the United States and both the Democratic and Republican parties have engaged in it. If the allegations of the opposition in Iran were true, this would have had to be voter fraud on a huge and massive scale. Interestingly, the opposition only seeks an annulment of the election rather than a recount of the disputed votes.

Bourgeois elections

In bourgeois elections, the citizenry is offered a choice between candidates that are acceptable to ruling class interests. In Iran’s elections, as in those of other countries, the candidates running for president were all acceptable options to the regime. All four had a long history of holding key posts. Ahmadinejad was the incumbent president; Mousavi was the prime minister of Iran in the first decade of the revolution; Mahdi Karroubi was a two-term head of Majliss (Iran’s Parliament); and Mohsen Reza’i was a long-serving commander of the Revolutionary Guard Corps.

The array of the class forces lined up behind the candidates is far more important than the electoral details. Mousavi’s social base is primarily among the upper and middle class elements, professionals, people with a higher education and students. Ahmadinejad’s social base, on the other hand, is primarily among the lower sectors of the middle class, the urban poor and most people of all classes in the provinces and rural areas. A cursory glance at the photos of the demonstrators on both sides confirms this class composition.

The class character of the conflict is more obvious when we look at the key issues in the elections. Mousavi and the other candidates have accused Ahmadinejad of economic mismanagement and inflationary policiesbuying votes by giving “handouts” to poor and large state-funded projects in the provinces. These “handouts,” ongoing during Ahmadinejad’s four-year tenure, consisted of substantial increases in state employees’ salaries and pensions, cash benefits to the needy and other forms of benefits including expanding healthcare. In a May 15 speech Mousavi attacked these programs, saying: “Distribution of money and opportunities as alms is hardly an instrument of growth and development.” (, May 13)

Ahmadinejad’s “adventurous” foreign policy has been another key election issue. His foreign policy has consisted of an uncompromising stance against the United States on the nuclear energy issue, outspoken opposition to the racist state of Israel, steadfast support for liberation movements in Palestine and Lebanon and expanding friendly relations with revolutionary and progressive governments around the globe, including those of Cuba, Venezuela and Bolivia.

As noted in the June 21 Associated Press article titled “Israeli president [Peres] applauds Iran street protesters,” the Israeli ruling establishment is openly hoping for the victory of what they call “the revolution” in Iran. The June 22 Jerusalem Post features an article on how the pro-U.S. regimes in the Arab world echo Peres sentiments, which begins: “Many Arab governments, including the Palestinian Authority, are quietly hoping that the latest crisis in Iran will mark the beginning of the end of the radical regime of the ayatollahs and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.”

Ahmadinejad is certainly no representative of the working class. The only true working-class orientation is a socialist orientation; moving in the direction of eliminating private ownership of the means of production by the capitalist class. But within the confines of capitalist relations, Ahmadinejad’s political line represents more income and benefits for the poor.

Anti-government protests embraced by imperialism

The post-election events have made the stakes much higher than a simple presidential election and a choice between candidates. Between June 13 and June 19, hundreds of thousands, some reports say millions, have demonstrated in Tehran demanding the annulment of the June 12 elections. There were other smaller demonstrations during the week in other major cities. While people of all classes with various grievances have joined the demonstrations, the central political thrust of the protests has a righward trajectory, in regard to both domestic and international issues. The dominant composition of the protests has been middle class and the privileged sectors of society.

Imperialist media sources, to which many Iranians, particularly the more privileged sectors, have access through satellite TV, played a key organizing role. BBC Farsi and Voice of America, continuously broadcasting into Iran, did their part in announcing the time and place of planned demonstrations. They also provided live coverage by interviewing people who used their cell phones to call and transmit images.

The Islamic Republic has attempted to jam these broadcasts with some success. Still, demonstrators rely on many other sources, including counter-revolutionary monarchist channels based in Los Angeles that do their best to broadcast information, and misinformation, to increase the size and intensity of the demonstrations.

During some of the street protests, buses were burned, buildings were vandalized and destroyed, large fires were made in the streets and rocks were thrown at the police. The millions of dollars of U.S. funding for “promoting democracy” in Iran were put to use. Among the demonstrators were agents and provocateurs whose specific purpose was to wreak havoc and cause maximum destruction. Iranian TV channels aired interviews with captured agents of the MKO, the imperialist supported terrorist organization, who acknowledged having been instructed to set gas stations on fire and destroy buildings. During the first week, repression of the demonstrations was limited, as evident from the number of demonstrators and the relatively low instances of state violence.

On June 19, Ayatollah Khamenei, the central leader, made an important speech at the Friday prayers, attended by hundreds of thousands of supporters. Khamenei announced that the specific complaints of the three losing candidates would be fully reviewed and the ballots of the disputed boxes would be recounted. This was followed by a June 20 announcement that, as a confidence building measure, a randomly selected 10 percent of the ballots would be recounted and the results announced. Khamenei also warned that unpermitted demonstrations that had been allowed in the week following the elections would now be dealt with legally and forcefully.

On the next day, anti-government protesters attempted to demonstrate in central Tehran. Western sources put the number of people at 3,000. But this time, the police in riot gear met would-be demonstrators with force, using water cannons, tear gas and batons. This turned into a violent confrontation. Iranian TV showed police being beaten by demonstrators. Western media sources showed footage of the police attacking the demonstrators. The street clashes caused at least 10 deaths, bringing the total number of people killed since the elections to 17.

On the day of this writing, June 21, there were no reports of significant protests in Tehran or elsewhere.

With typical arrogance, imperialist powers have directly intervened in the internal affairs of Iran, a sovereign country. President Obama has called “on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people.” On June 19, the U.S. House voted 405-1 to condemn the crackdown on protest rallies. The Senate passed a similar resolution. The House resolution openly backs anti-government demonstrators, supporting “all Iranian citizens who embrace the values of freedom, human rights, civil liberties and rule of law.”

Some imperialist leaders, including French President Sarkozy, have openly called the Iranian elections fraudulent, with no evidence to back their claim. George W. Bush stole the 2000 presidential elections after being fraudulently declared the winner in the state of Florida by five appointed-for-life millionaires who sit on the U.S. Supreme Court. Gore won the popular balloting by more than a half-million votes. But the great “Democracies” did not intervene. The U.S. elections were considered an internal matter.

Diplomatic norms of behavior like refraining from commenting on and interfering with other countries’ internal matters do not apply to the relationship between imperialist and oppressed countries, particularly ones that take an independent course. Imperialists see it as their prerogative to preach democracy and human rights even while brutally occupying other countries against the will of the occupied people. Ironically, but not coincidentally, two of those coutries—Iraq and Afghanistan—share long borders with Iran.

Some liberal and progressive forces in the United States, as well as some that claim to be leftists, have echoed the U.S. Congress and the whole imperialist establishment, expressing full support for the demonstrators. Some have even declared the demonstrations as the start of a new revolution in Iran.

Not a new revolutionary movement

There are no examples in history when a true revolutionary movement has been embraced and supported by all the imperialist governments in the world. There have been occasions when an imperialist government temporarily forges an arrangement with a communist or national liberation movement or even a socialist government that is fighting the same “enemy.” There are examples of this in both the first and second World Wars. When the entire imperialist world lines up to support a protest movement that seeks to topple a government that has already been targeted for “regime change,” one can be sure that they know that this so-called revolution is in fact a movement to the right.

Imperialism is about subjugating the people around the globe to steal their resources. Why would all the imperialists defend a revolutionary movement? Are there any examples in history when a revolutionary movement has been led by privileged layers of society against the poor and working people? The point of a revolution is to eliminate inequitable social relations. How could the privileged classes in any society lead a “revolutionary” movement that seeks to reduce and cutback the benefits and services of poor and working people? That is Mousavi’s program! And that program has an appeal to the privileged classes who have been in the streets.

Street demonstrations do not constitute revolutionary movements. In today’s imperialist-dominated world, the character of true revolutionary movements in oppressed countries is either socialist or nationalist, depending on whether the working class or the national bourgeoisie leads them. In either case, the revolutionary movement aspires to free the country of imperialist dominance, protect the country’s resources and win independence.

Counter-revolutionary movements move in the opposite direction, aspiring to move the country towards an imperialist-friendly regime that implements neoliberal economic policies and restores or increases the privileges of the propertied classes.

Mousavi, the main losing candidate in Iran’s elections, is no imperialist pawn. The demonstrations since the elections have not really been about Mousavi, as openly acknowledged by many demonstrators and their supporters. The demonstrations have become the rallying point for elements in Iranian society, mostly from the privileged classes, against the Islamic Republic regime and in favor of a pro-west, capitalist regime. If the demonstrations manage to destabilize and ultimately topple the Islamic Republic, the result will definitely not be a pro-worker, independent regime.

The political character of the anti-regime movement, no matter how many people have demonstrated, is not a left opposition to the Islamic Republic regime; it is a right opposition. U.S. and British imperialism hope that a victory of this movement would result in the counter-revolutionary overthrow of the anti-colonial 1979 revolution. That is why all the imperialist countries are unanimous in their support for the demonstrators, some stated overtly and some in more subtle ways. The character of the movement against the regime is similar to those of the U.S.-orchestrated color revolutions in Georgia and Ukraine, and the counter-revolutionary student protests against the progressive Chavez regime in Venezuela.

The task of revolutionaries and progressives in the United States is to condemn imperialist intervention in Iran and support the right of self determination for the Iranian people. U.S. Hands Off Iran!


ایران: سماجی طبقوں کی جنگ؟

کیا ’ثروت مند‘ طبقہ صدر احمدی نژاد سے خوش نہیں ہے؟

ایران کے شہروں میں بارہ جون کے انتخابات کے نتائج کے خلاف ہونے والے مظاہروں میں عوامی شرکت اگرچہ اس بات کا تو ثبوت ہے کہ وہاں تبدیلی کے خواہاں لوگوں کی ایک بڑی تعداد موجود ہے، تاہم اگر چند بنیادی حقائق کو متواتر ذہن میں نہ رکھا جائے تو نشریاتی اداروں میں گردش کرنے والی خبریں بلا شبہ گمراہ کن ثابت ہو سکتی ہیں۔

انتخابی نتائج کو’تقلب‘ یعنی دھاندلی کہنے والے لوگ شہروں کے امیر یا متوسط طبقے سے تعلق رکھتے ہیں۔تہران میں یہ طبقے شہر کے شمال اور مرکزی علاقوں میں رہتے ہیں جبکہ جنوبی تہران میں کم آمدنی یا لوئر مڈل کلاس کی آبادیاں ملیں گی۔ تقریباً یہی تقسیم چھوٹے شہروں اور قصبوں میں دکھائی دیتی ہے۔

شاید اسلامی انقلاب کے تیس برس ایرانی معاشرے سے وہ طبقاتی اثرات مکمل طور پر ختم نہیں کرسکے جو ایران کے بادشاہی نظام نے کئی صدیوں میں مرتب کیے تھے۔ اس کے نتیجے میں لیڈری صرف ایلیٹسٹ لوگوں کےلیے مخصوص سمجھی جاتی رہی ہے۔

تاریخی طور پر دیکھا جائے تو ایران کے امیر طبقے جنھیں مقامی اصطلاح میں’ ثروت مند‘ کہا جاتا ہے، دنیا بھر کے دوسرے معاشروں کی طرح صرف اپنی سہولت کے بارے میں فکر مند ہوتے ہیں۔ اگر آپ نے محسن حامد کا ناول ’دا ری لکٹنٹ فنڈامینٹلِسٹ‘ پڑھا ہو تو اس میں جس پاکستانی ائیر کنڈیشنڈ کلاس کا ذکر کیا گیا ہے وہی تہران کے شمالی علاقوں کا طبقہ ہے۔

ایران میں بادشاہت کے زمانے سے لے کر اور اب بھی، یعنی اسلامی انقلاب کے بعد کے دور میں، ان کی غرض صرف یہ رہتی ہے کہ ان کے کاروبار اور نفع کے رستے میں کوئی رکاوٹ حائل نہ ہو۔ انقلاب کے دوران اور بعد میں جب اس طبقے نے دیکھا کہ ہوا کے ساتھ ہونے میں فائدہ ہے تو ان لوگوں نے اسلامی شعار اپنا لیے، مثلاً حجاب اوڑھ لیا یا داڑھی رکھ لی۔

سابق صدر ہاشمی رفسنجانی پر صدر احمدی نژاد نے انتحابی مہم کے دوران کئی الزامات لگائے تھے

اس طرح سے یہ طبقہ اسلامی انقلاب کے تیس برسوں میں ایرانی سیاست میں کسی نہ کسی طرح فعال رہا ہے۔ دوسرے ملکوں میں، خاص کر مغربی معاشروں میں، یہ سرمایہ دار طبقہ، عام طور پر عملی سیاست سے دور رہتا ہے۔ یہ طبقہ اپنے مفادات کے تحفظ کے لیے بیک وقت بظاہر متضاد سیاسی گروہوں کواستعمال کرتا رہتا ہے۔ لیکن ایرانی معاشرے میں اس قسم کے طبقے کے افراد کا عملی سیاست میں شرکت کرتے رہنا ذرا منفرد ہے۔

شاید اس کی وجہ یہ ہو کہ اسلامی انقلاب کے تیس برس ایرانی معاشرے سے وہ طبقاتی اثرات مکمل طور پر ختم نہیں کرسکے جو ایران کے بادشاہی نظام نے کئی صدیوں میں مرتب کیے تھے۔ اس کے نتیجے میں لیڈری صرف ایلیٹسٹ لوگوں کےلیے مخصوص سمجھی جاتی رہی ہے۔ ایسے کئی تاریخی شواہد موجود ہیں کہ ایران کی کمیونسٹ پارٹی کی قیادت سے لے کر دیگر سیاسی جماعتوں کی قیادتیں اسی طبقے نے پیدا کی ہیں۔

ہاشمی رفسنجانی کے آٹھ برسوں کے دور صدارت جتنی بھی اقتصادی ترقی ہوئی اس کا فائدہ سرمایہ داروں کے چند مخصوص گروہوں کو پہنچا۔

انیس سو اناسی کے اسلامی انقلاب کے بعد ایران کے پسماندہ طبقوں کو پہلی مرتبہ قائدانہ کردار ادا کرنے کا موقع ملا مگر شروع شروع میں اسلامی انقلاب کے اندر بھی اس کے خلاف ثروت مند طبقے نے مزاحمت کی۔ مثلاً جب ابوالحسن بنی صدر ایران کے پہلے صدر منتخب ہوئے تو انھوں نے اس وقت کے ایک غریب خاندان سے تعلق رکھنے والے سکول ٹیچر، محمد علی رجائی، کو اپنی حکومت کے وزیر اعظم کے طور پر قبول کرنے سے انکار کردیا تھا۔

اس طرح انقلاب کے بعد بھی روایتی سرمایہ دار اور ان کے پروردہ طبقے کی فضیلت برقرار رہی۔ دوسرے لفظوں میں ایرانی معاشرہ اپنے اندر موجود برہمن طبقے کی برہمنیت ختم نہ کرسکا۔ لیکن بعد کے حالات کی پیش رفت نے آہستہ آہستہ اس طبقے کو کمزور کرنا شروع کردیا خاص کر جب ایرانی حکومت نے غریب طبقوں کی ترقی کے لیے بڑی بڑی رقمیں مختص کرنا شروع کردیں۔

جب احمدی نژاد صدر بنے تو انھوں نے تیل کی برآمد سے حاصل ہونے والی دولت کو عوام میں برابری سے تقسیم کرنے کا نعرہ دیا اور صدر بننے کے بعد اس پر عمل درآمد شروع کردیا

جب اسلامی جمہوریہ ایران کے پہلے صدر ملک سے بھاگ گئے تو محمد علی رجائی صدر منتخب ہوئے۔ مگر انتخاب کے دو ہنتوں کے بعد ہی وہ اپنے وزیراعظم، جواد باہنر، کے ہمراہ اگست انیس سو اکیاسی میں ایک بم دھماکے میں قتل کردیے گئے۔ اس طرح امام خمینی کی زندگی میں ہی پسماندہ طبقے کے لوگوں کو اعلیٰ قیادت حاصل کرنے کا جو موقع ملا تھا وہ اس دھماکے کے ساتھ ہی پھر سے خواب بن گیا۔

رجائی کے بعد آنے والے تین صدور جنھوں نے مجموعی طور پر چوبیس برس تک حکومت کی ان سب کا تعلق براہ راست یا بالواسطہ ایران کے روایتی اعلیٰ طبقہ سے تھا۔ تا وقتیکہ ایرانی عوام نے اگست دو ہزار پانچ میں متومل طبقے کے ایک اہم ترین رکن، ہاشمی رفسنجانی، پر ترجیح دیتے ہوئے ایک غریب کاریگر کے بیٹے محمود احمدی نژاد کو اپنا چھٹا صدر منتخب کرلیا۔

جب ابوالحسن بنی صدر ایران کے پہلے صدر منتخب ہوئے تو انھوں نے اس وقت کے ایک غریب خاندان سے تعلق رکھنے والے سکول ٹیچر، محمد علی رجائی، کو اپنی حکومت کے وزیر اعظم کے طور پر قبول کرنے سے انکار کردیا تھا۔

تاہم اس دوران ایرانی معاشرے کے سرمایہ داروں اور ان کے پروردہ طبقوں کے مفادات کی حفاظت ایلیٹسٹ صدور کے ہونے کی وجہ سے خود بخود ہوتی رہی۔ اور اس طرح یہ طبقے اگرچہ خود تو سیاست میں صف اول کا کردار ادا کرتے نظر نہ آئے مگر انھیں ہر صدارتی اور پارلیمانی انتخابات کے موقع پر اپنے ڈالے ہوئے ووٹوں کی بدولت اپنے مفادات کی حفاظت ہوتی نظر آتی رہی۔

خاص کر ہاشمی رفسنجانی کے آٹھ برسوں کے دور صدارت جتنی بھی اقتصادی ترقی ہوئی اس کا فائدہ سرمایہ داروں کے چند مخصوص گروہوں کو پہنچا۔ اس طرح ایران کی دولت چند لوگوں میں مرتکز ہوتی رہی۔ ان چند گروہوں میں کچھ علما بھی ہیں جن کی نمائندگی رفسنجانی کرتے ہیں۔

اپنی دو مدتی صدارت کے اختتمام پر جب وہ انتخاب نہ لڑ سکے تو ہاشمی رفسنجانی نے اپنی ہی طرح کہ ایک امیر عالم، ناطق نوری کو صدارتی امیدوار کے طور پر میدان میں اتارا۔ مگر عوام نے ناطق نوری کے برعکس اس وقت کے ایک صاف ستھرے اور قدرے غیر معروف امیدوار، سید محمد خاتمی کو منتخب کیا۔

خاتمی تھے تو صاف صدر مگر ان کا تعلق بھی روایتی طور پر اعلیٰ طبقے سے ہے۔ ان کے دور میں سیاسی اصلاحات کے لیے پیش رفت تو ہوئی مگر اقتصادی طور پر عدم مساوات کو دور کرنے کے لیے کوئی قابل ذکر کام نہ ہوا۔ امیر طبقے امیر ہوتے رہے اور غریبوں کیلئیے نسبتاً حالات تنگ ہی رہے۔

تاہم جب احمدی نژاد صدر بنے تو انھوں نے تیل کی برآمد سے حاصل ہونے والی دولت کو عوام میں برابری سے تقسیم کرنے کا نعرہ دیا اور صدر بننے کے بعد اس پر عمل درآمد شروع کردیا۔ ایران کے پسماندہ طبقہ سے تعلق رکھنے والے اس صدر نے اپنے طبقے کی مقبول اقدار جنھیں ایران کے مذہبی لوگ اسلامی اقدار کہتے ہیں، انھیں پورے تہران کے معاشرہ پر لاگو کرنے کی کوشش کی۔

اس طرح انقلاب کے بعد پھر سے تہران کے سرمایہ دار اور اس کے پروردہ طبقے نے اپنے آپ کو سیاسی طاقت سے محروم سمجھنا شروع کردیا۔ ایسا لگنے لگا ہے کہ ان کے لیے صدر خواہ کوئی بھی ہو مگر ایک پسماندہ طبقے کا فرد صدر نہیں ہونا چاہیے۔ مثال کے طور پر بارہ جون سے قبل انتخابی مہم کے دوران احمدی نژاد کے خلاف جو نعرے لگے ان میں ایک مقبول نعرہ یہ تھا ’یک ہفتہ، دو ہفتہ، محمود حمام نہ رفتہ‘ یعنی ایک ہفتہ یا دو ہفتہ سے محمود حمام نہیں گیا ہے۔

احمدی نژاد کی سابق صدر رفسنجانی اور سپریم لیڈر آیت اللہ خامنہ ای کے ساتھ ایک تصویر

اس طرح کے اور بھی کئی نعرے لگائے گئے جو محمود احمدی نژاد کے پسماندہ طبقے سے تعلق کی طرف اشارہ کرتے ہوئے ان سے تہران کے ثروت مند طبقے کی بیزاری کا اظہار کرتے تھے۔ میر حسین موسوی جو اپنی ذات میں ایک شریف شخص ہیں، بہرحال روایتی طور پر شمالی تہران کے ثروت مند طبقے کے رکن ہیں۔ موسوی کے حامیوں میں تمام کی تمام بڑی شخصیات ثروت مند طبقے سے ہی تعلق رکھتی ہیں۔

ان لوگوں کی امید بندھی کہ بارہ جون کے انتخابات میں موسوی کی فتح سے وہ اپنی کھوئی ہوئی سیاسی قوت دوبارہ سے حاصل کرلیں گے۔ مگر ایسا نہ ہوا۔ اب جب کہ قدرے پسماندہ طبقات اور دیہاتی ایران نے محمود احمدی نژاد کو دوبارہ چار برسوں کے لیے صدر منتخب کرلیا ہے تو اس ایلیٹسٹ سیاسی قیادت کے لیے یہ کسی طور بھی قابل قبول نہیں ہے۔

اس طبقے کی سیاسی محرومی صرف احمدی نژاد کے صدر منتخب ہونے کی وجہ سے ہی نہیں ہے بلکہ ایران کے پارلیمانی انتخابی نظام کا ایک خاص انداز بھی ہے۔ ایران میں پارلیمانی انتخاب جغرافیائی حلقوں کی صورت میں نہیں ہوتے ہیں بلکہ یہ متناسب نمائندگی کے نظام کے تحت ہوتے ہیں۔ اس کی وجہ سے تہران کے متمول علاقے کے لوگ اس بڑے شہر کے تقریباً بیس اراکین پارلیمان میں سے کسی ایک کو بھی اپنے مفادات کا نمائندہ محسوں نہیں کرتے ہیں۔

صدارتی انتخاب میں ہی اب تک وہ کسی نہ کسی کو اپنے طبقے کا نمائندہ سمجھتے رہے ہیں۔ لیکن احمدی نژاد کے بعد سے وہ اپنے آپ کو ایران کے سیاسی نظام میں سے خارج سمجھتے ہیں۔ اور جب یہ طبقہ اپنی پوری طاقت کے باوجود ایک باہر کے شخص کو شکست نہ دے سکا تو یہ اپنے ہی بنائے گئے اصول و ضوابط کو توڑ کر حکمرانی اپنے طبقے میں لانے کے لیے کچھ بھی کر گزرنے کو تیار ہے۔


Some Relevant Comments:

Keep up the pressure
floppsiefrog wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 12:46 am (UTC)

Macho Miliband, another gobby creepy opportunist like Netanyahu, must be in his prime milking the Iran election fiasco to score points against an inconvenient regime of stuffed shirts who, besides other innumerable sins, are at a loss to know how to meet the aspirations of the country’s young elite. Whatever stunts his expelled diplomats were pulling to attract attention, they certainly weren’t keeping a low profile innocently pushing bits of paper around the office. Never mind. With any luck Iran’s social order will implode, the economy will collapse and the country will need Western humanitarian assistance. A new multi-billion dollar American embassy in Tehran and giant military bases in the provinces should do the trick.

Radical decision, lateral or unilateral
mackname wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 02:59 am (UTC)

Sanction does not work

What is happening in Iran is GENOCIDE.

Look what Iranian regime does to its people and ask yourself what it is going to do to those that it is not happy with.

We need to consider a similar action that we took in 1995 against Serbs in old Yugoslavia.

Let us remember what happened in Iran after the events of regime change in 1979 that led to establishment of current dictatorial regime with a primarily objection of destroying West (us).

Desperate people do not need our sympathy alone, they need our might.

We did not stop helping occupied Europe in the Second World War.
Nazi Germany was killing millions, bombing us with its V1 and V2 rockets, testing its A10 rockets to hit America and, about to make its nuclear bomb.

No dear, it is not a joke.
It is what is going to happen if we do nothing!

Re: Radical decision, lateral or unilateral
ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 12:15 pm (UTC)

A post shining with half ignorances….

Comparing the Iranians to the Nazi’s does not wash I am afraid, Iran has not crossed its border in might in many many years nor is it bombing nations or annexing its neighbours.

As for needing our “might”, Iraq is tiny compared to Iraq and it couldn’t with “all its might” bring the country under control, America is getting its ass kicked in Afghanistan daily, Iran is a country that has refurbished and renewed its military hardware fresh with cutting edge material from Russia, Iran has the SunBurn Missile in good numbers, a missile that can obliterate a aircraft carrier, it can drive the US navy out of the gulf if it so chose, close the straits if it so chose, bring the world to a grinding halt if it so chose.

On land, Iran also possesses other little gifts ready to be given freely, the reason Israel or the US never did bomb the nuclear facilities is because they can’t without massive losses, as the Iranians have state of the art Russian air defences now, defences that can take out the B-52 and stealth bombers.

And remember Chavez… If Iran was violated by the US or its allies, Chavez will turn off ALL oil exports to the west, so think about it, Iran stops all oil export except to its allies of Russia and China, so the EU suddenly faces a huge crisis, Chavez finishes that off by turning his exports off except to Russia and China and America is dependent to a quarter of its CRITICAL needs on Chavez’s oil, the closure of the straits too would see this planet save Russia and China suddenly without oil, America would be cutting its own throat.

The failed Green Revolution
ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 12:04 pm (UTC)

Anyone with half a brain can see this is a promulgated CIA/Mossadi ploy that is failing…

America’s goal here is to remove democracy and reinstall the monarchy, this is born out by recent statements by the Shah’s son, think about it… America wishes to end ALL democratic process in Iran in order for a paid dictatorial puppet to run the nation for American interests only.

If you check the pictures from spurious rallies in the US, the people are all waving the flag of the Persian crown, not the standard Iranian flag, flags being handed out by unknown people straight from the boxes. Link this with the upsurge in “I’m ready to rule Iran” messages from the Crown Prince himself, it just stinks.

A poor attempt by the CIA but it has failed, the plan was to use Mousavi who is their man, to incite the people, then when Mousavi drew the Iranian government’s ire, to switch support to the son of the Shah.

This has media collusion stamped all over it as well, the election exit polls much of which done by foreign media e.g. BBC have never been published, showing that the current President did enjoy hugely populist support, nor is the media linking Mousavi’s extreme terrorist past in his attacks against the Americans and the curious situation why the Americans are suddenly supporting a man that has done much harm to them in the past makes him sound like another Osama Bin Laden…

Israe/US/UK vs Iran
johnjackson wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 12:22 pm (UTC)

$400 million allocated by US for covert actions against Iran; UK allows Jundallah terrorists responsible for blowing up mosques full of worshippers in Iran a safe haven in Britain; Israel continues to push US/UK to attack Iran. And it’s all Iranian paranoia is it?.

Re: Israe/US/UK vs Iran
09843ut09843 wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 01:05 pm (UTC)

Another point worth noting. The article states that the BBC’s coverage was not “less than scrupulously accurate”. This statement is untrue:

Re: Israe/US/UK vs Iran
jerusalem1 wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 01:21 pm (UTC)

It’s mullahs’ nightmare – they may lose their grip on power and oil money. Poor souls! They won’t be able to fund Hamas, Hizbullah, and blow up Jewish community centres around the world. Maybe then Iran will invest more money into its own infrastucture rather than wasting millions on islamic caliphate.

You crazy lefties – Iranians want decent life, and not dance to the tune of mullahs, and it’s all of course CIA plot! Blaming CIA, Israel is more important for you that standing up for people’s freedom.

Re: Israe/US/UK vs Iran
ancientoneuk wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 01:22 pm (UTC)

Do you remember when Bush said a few years ago “As I speak British and US special forces are in Iran right now taking the fight back to them…”? That was a week where 400 Iranian soldiers were blown up in a border town and the Americans were certainly in the frame on that one.

This was around the time the British soldiers dressed up as Arab’s were caught with that bomb laden car and huge arsenal of weapons were caught and the British response was very out of character too, blowing open the prison to retrieve the soldiers, you wonder what they might have said if interrogated…

Then there was the odd incident of the British forces killed on a boat, lots of sympathy because the sergeant was a nice looking girl, regardless of the fact she was MI6 and the soldiers with her were experts in covert surveillance, intrusion and demolitions, I always suspected they “pulled” the plug before they were about to be captured by Iran.

Although the funniest was the “munitions” ploy, ancient 105mm artillery shells and 80mm mortar shells written on in English and claimed to be Iranian but someone forgot to mention Iranian munitions have Farsi on them and the stenciling bore a marked similarity to British shell stenciling…

And when the Iranian navy captured those sailors… strange how quickly rumours here in the UK of US manipulating GPS transmissions was buried, that it was very very likely and this accepted now by the MoD that those sailors were well within Iranian waters, sounded to me at the time those people were sent in there as a lure and a trap but the Iranians didn’t play ball and treated them ever so nicely hehe

lkdamo wrote:
Wednesday, 24 June 2009 at 02:20 pm (UTC)

It’s funny how the Iranians can get the bbc for free, yet I have to pay for it.