That is the difference between a revolt and a revolution.

 Reply

I think the original Bush/Cheney plan, was to actually invade Iran to effect this change, but that China and particularly Russia were both dead-set against that. So US policy had to remain tied to establishing more or less democratic outposts east and west of Iran, and letting it stew in its own juices.

There have been signs for some years now that a large percentage of those supporting the original Iranian Revolution have been marginalized by a smaller and smaller elite, who are seeking to maintain what they view as doctrinal purity of their revolutionary ideals via repressive policies. And this pressure cooker has really evolved totally independent of any outside influences. It's finally reached a point where it is boiling over. So ultimately, the elites either have to open up the paths to power for those seeking to preserve the original revolution by moderation, or they will be pushed aside by the increasing number of those they step on with their repressive policies.

In neither case will the result be representative government as it is envisioned in the West; the highest authorities are still likely to be clerics. But the important thing, will be the ability, finally after so many decades, of the Iranians/Persians to develop their own culturally unique system of representative government, with traditions of tranfer of power other than coups and revolutions. And that's a good thing.

I don't think there is any way for the repression to work this time.

 Reply

No, he's not. Stop trying to cast an American pundit sitting safely in his Washington office into a figure of a revolutionary vanguard. His incessant posts don't remotely compare to the courage displayed by the thousands of people who keep taking to the streets of Tehran (and elsewhere in Iran).

When you say that "he has been ruthlessly compiling a lot of unfiltered information," I read that he puts up on his blog a pile of stuff that he doesn't bother to vet in order to keep the links to his site going. He's an opportunist and he's not helping to advance a truth-based narrative coming out of Iran.

See here for an analysis earlier this week of the misinformation about the Iranian elections and their aftermath that Sullivan helped to spread early and often:

[trueslant.com]

I also highly recommend this piece ([www.cinestatic.com]) by an Iranian political scientist on the elections and their larger context. If you want to inform your readers, you guys really need to link to diverse and knowledgeable Iranian voices much more and to poseurs like Sullivan much less.

 Reply

This country is run by the clerics. In order for that to change, someone has to stand up to the clerics. If this election was rigged, and it appears that it in all likelihood it was, I can now see why the powers that be prefer Ahmadinejad to Moussavi. Moussavi isn't controllable.

I would also like for them to quit choosing Ayatollah's with similarly spelled names that sound a lot alike when spoken out loud.

 Reply