And the beginning of something that is going to go very badly for both sides.

It's definitely not the end. I'm just as interested to see if Obama further clarifies his stance on the situation now that Khamenei has made it clear that there is no **cough** fraud.

Obama should just stay away from the issue and just pipe in once the dust settles.

All the key players from both sides are not too keen about America, anyway. It's clear Mousavi and his peeps aren't looking for help from the US Government... they merely want to be recognized and want the world to see what they're doing.

However the standoff between Mousavi/Rafsanjani vs. Ahmedinejad/Khamenei ends, Iran won't be an American ally anytime soon.

Do people in Iran like the US? Why are people so concerned with what sentence Obama uses to voice his displeasure? It would seem that the opposition isn't really somebody who is that great, and by throwing support in one direction or the other it could actually cause more people to rally around the establishment.

I just don't get what any of this has to with Obama and why he HAS to clarify a stance we all pretty much know. But I guess, it gives you something to bash...or to be "interested" in (I wish I had that clip from the Daily Show where they made fun all the Fox News people saying everything was "interesting" when they just mean to shit on it.

1. There is great support and interest in Iran for the U.S. Don't buy into the ignorance spread by political figures on both sides of the argument. You would be very surprised how much you and other Americans have in common with each other. Their needs and wants are very similar.

2. I'm assuming you were responding to someone else when you made comments concerning 'throwing support in one direction or the other'. I've been steadfast that Obama has handled this extremely well. My only expectation from Obama when I seek clarity is that he increases the rhetoric around 'grave concerns about the voting process'. He's done that somewhat already, but he likely needs to further that sentiment given that Khamenei apparantly thinks he can ignore it.

Unfortunate but not really unexpected at this point that Khamanei took a hard line and sided with Ahmadinejad. If there's change to be had and a new election it will have to come from the Guardian Council and Rafsanjani.

An ally? No.

Less of a thorn in our ass? Absolutely. Given our current military commitments, that's extremely important.

Agreed. *HEAD EXPLODES*

Well, anyone else from the other presidential candidates would be better than Ahmedinejad, from a US-centric point of view.

edit: Obama can't really do or say anything that would help the opposition without harming their goals.

Yeah, I'm not sure it even matter WHO is the president if Ahmedinejad is removed. The most important thing is that the active government opposition get some kind of 'payoff' for these protests. If they do, it will embolden them moving forward while weakening the power of the current Supreme Leader and the government structure.

I thought this (Daily Show, I know, but I don't remember it being particularly political) is a useful look inside Iran and their views towards the US.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Recent tweets from @persiankiwi who has been very reliable throughout:

The situation in Iran is now CRITICAL - the nation is heartbroken - suppression is iminent - #Iranelection11 minutes ago from web

unconfirmed reports - Revolutionary Guard has been mobilised to secure Tehran - #Iranelection3 minutes ago from web

Tomorrow is a key day, with a huge election protest planned by Mousavi. Crackdown or no crackdown?

A) You're confusing the government rhetoric with how the populace feels. Admittedly the people I know and read are distorted somewhat toward a more liberal city influence, but the ones who are from outside Tehran say the city/countryside schism isn't nearly as big as is often portrayed by outside media and that any Ahmadinejad rural-base is pretty much bullshit.

The 1979 anti-Shah revolution also had many fathers and viewpoints - it wasn't explicit religious anti-Americanism. The hardline religious clerics used violence against many other groups (mainly communists and liberals) in the year after the revolution to consolidate their power, but even then there are still pretty big ideological differences between different imams on the guardian council, or a guy like Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad.

The same is happening now. Mousavi may be the figurehead, but all manner of causes have adopted him as the banner for their various grievances against the regime. Even he has acknowledged it wasn't about him as a politician (he's a pretty dull and ineffective one) but about change.

B) The state media is already alleging American and Israeli influence. Anyone that wants to buy it is already without Obama saying anything.

C) For the majority of the populace - the hundreds of thousands protesting and marching in the streets, the millions who believe the election was rigged - they know why they are protesting and why they believe what they believe. The state clearly can't convince these people that they are puppets.


Overall, maybe it's a good thing that Obama is staying out of it as it allows the perception of Ahmadinejad being a Russian puppet to gain some traction. But as I pointed out with Lebanon, Bush vocally supported them, it led to the predictable accusations of being US puppets, and it had no adverse effect on the outcome of the revolution.

Interesting read (was linked on Andrew Sullivan's blog)

http://bloggerinterrupted.com/2009/0...olae-ceausescu

This is a serious question: What good could come out of Obama coming out hard for the protesters other than making Americans feel better about themselves?

It certainly would lift the spirits of the supporters. As has been pointed out in the previous posts, the idea that most Iranians hate America is a fable. They'd definitely be encouraged by the thought that the U.S. openly supports their movement towards freedom of speech and human rights for everyone.

With that said, I think Obama just needs to increase the force of his current message. There's probably no need to give direct verbal support to the opposition protesters. They already know that the U.S. is on their side. Same with the gov't.

Semi-dola. I also don't understand the rationale behind waiting it out so we can negotiate with whichever side wins. I mean, I already thought it was incredibly pointless, if not counterproductive, to negotiate with the current Iranian regime, but if Ahmadinejad pulls off this coup, why would he compromise at all? It's a government that has employed Death to America rhetoric for 30 years, funds terrorist organizations and desperately wants nuclear weapons. All that was bad enough, but at least you could see why people would delude themselves into believing that extending an olive branch could get them to negotiate some concessions. Now, if Ahmadinejad/Khameini are still in power, they'll be coming off a police state coup, the suppression of popular will in their country and the (probable) murder of thousands. So why should we care if we take a position against them? They'll be intransigent either way.

indications seem to be trending towards the conclusion that the security forces won't turn on the people (although of course you can never tell until that moment actually happens)

With the threatened shut down of foreign media the greatest fear is that the government can crack down without anyone knowing or caring. Merely bearing witness and letting them know the US is watching can go a long way to strengthening the resolve.

I don't know, it seems to me that they're certainly not lacking in resolve. It's more the guns and power that they're lacking, and hopefully that won't be the decisive part of the uprising.

Power comes in many forms.

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/the...protest-regime

If the people decide to simply stop producing, all of the guns in the world won't help the government.

It would be as if Kim Jong-Il came out for John McCain in the last election.

Most Iranians like most Americans, just like most Americans like most Iranians (those who have actually met Iranians, that is). However, most Iranians don't like the U.S. government, and most Americans don't like the Iranian government.

Stop conflating these two ideas.

This is why a strong statement by Obama (or indeed any western power) won't really help the protesters at this point.

28/3/88?

date/month/year

Different calendar.

I agree with you. He asked for an argument where it would help to support the protesters. I don't think it's a good idea personally, but that's certainly an argument that some would consider.

I obviously should have noted that I didn't agree with that tactic even though I was presenting it as an option. Apologies.

Ah OK, that makes more sense. Sorry about that. In my defense, I'm on my first cup of coffee after a low-sleep night. :D

To reiterate, I'm not sold it would be a huge boost to the protestors either - I just don't see the support for the counterfactual (that it would hurt the protestors.)

The Wall Street Journal has an interesting read:

'The Fear Is Gone' - WSJ.com

^----This quote at the top of your post sounds eerily similar to an article from someone you called a liberal, incorrectly assumptive, and insinuated was a bad journalist.

Flasch, the adults are talking. Go somewhere else to spout your ignorance.

my point was made.

your point is taken.

Wrong thread ---> I will take it back over to the Obama thread. apologies.

Very interesting... the House just voted 405-1 to condemn the crackdown on free speech and political protest in Iran. The lone dissenting vote... Ron Paul, who said, it wasn't in our interest to opine about “events thousands of miles away about which we know very little.”

House condemns Iran crackdown - Capitol Hill- msnbc.com

1:25 PM ET -- Another must read from Roger Cohen. It will be a sad day when his visa expires. His writing has been some of the best from the ground.

Iran has sought independence and some form of democracy for over a century. It now has the former but this election has clarified, for an overwhelmingly young population, the Islamic Republic's utter denial of the latter.
The feeling in the crowd seems to be: today or never, all together and heave!

A man holds his mobile phone up to me: footage of a man with his head blown off last Monday. A man, 28, whispers: "The government will use more violence, but some of us have to make the sacrifice."

Another whisper: "Where are you from?" When I say the United States, he says: "Please give our regards to freedom."

I think that it is absolutely critical that some video make it out of there, perhaps live or else things could get more ugly than Tienanmen.

I'm sorry, but we cannot accept your regards for fear it might be seen as meddling. Have a nice day!

Why do you make broad sweeping generalizations about topics you know nothing about? Iranians are as fan of US "meddling" (however that is perceived) in their politics as the US is about foreigners (Remember John Kerry as the "Senator from France?")? Goodwill for American culture doesn't translate into goodwill for American policies, no matter what made-up source you're citing.

Ideology is fun and all, but I remain unconvinced that anything Barack, the House, or the Senate does will do anything positive over there, and *could* negatively impact things. I think people want us to say something so we can feel we're taking the moral high ground, which is nice but doesn't actually accomplish anything. Snark away.

It's sad the one makes more sense than the 405. :(

I love Ron Paul and I see his point. I'm so sick of "citizen of the world" crap. We can monitor the situation without making grandiose resolutions.

Then again, I also understand the people who voted for the resolution, and don't blame them at all.

Crapshoot,

Where in the post you quoted did MBBF talk about American policies? Besides, goodwill for American culture doesn't necessarily translate into goodwill for American policies, but it doesn't hurt either. Given the rapidly changing events on the ground in Iran, I don't think anybody on this message board, whether they're lefties, righties, or moderates, could be seen as having great insight into what's going on over there right now.

BTW, picking on every MBBF post has really jumped the shark.

+ 1

I don't always agree with the guy, but I pretty much skip any post that automatically belittles him or attacks him riht off the bat. It's just old.

I think the United States of America maintaining the moral high ground actually accomplishes quite a bit, domestically if nothing else.

As for any statement of ours making things worse... as it stands the regime is building up its nuclear program and has threatened to wipe our staunchest ally in the Middle East off the map. What do you see as "worse"?

so in using Twitter how would one go about finding threads from people on the ground there, en masse?

I've got no idea, beyond the usual hash tags like #iran, #tehran and whatnot. You're bound to get more noise than news though.

I thought it was interesting that there were a bunch of anti-Western chants during the Ayatollah's speech:

Chants against West punctuate Khamenei's defiant speech - CNN.com

The Ayatollah is clearly casting America in the role of the "bad guy", despite our president's measured response. If the theocrats win, then nothing changes, except that now some large percentage of the Iranian people will believe that we caused this latest round of protests, and those who were protesting will believe that either we didn't care about them, or perhaps that we set them up as patsies.

Either way, by my reckoning, the die has been cast. If the Ayatollah wants his people to believe that America is behind this, then shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to ensure that these protests are the best goddamned thing that's ever happened to an Iranian in his/her life?

They can't "win" long-term. Iran is 70%+ 30 and younger, and the vast majority of them are with the reformers. Even if the hard-liners "win" now, the young will not forget who the true "bad guys" were today.

when is the rally supposed to start our time? tonight?

I read Saturday afternoon (local time), so that would make it sometime early tomorrow morning. Actually, according to an AP story I just read, it's supposed to start at 4 p.m. in Tehran, which is 8 hours ahead of the east coast. So I'd say it'll be a long night and could be a very interesting early Saturday morning.

What's the banker offering?

What I see as worse is allowing the Iranian hard-liners to use the West and particularly the U.S. as their common enemy. It's easier to control your people when you've created a common enemy for it. For Iran (and many Mideast countries), it's been the Western world and Israel. We used to make common enemies out of blacks, Japanese, Commies, and now Muslims.

What staying back during this is not giving the leaders in Iran ammunition. It's not letting him sit back and use our support for Mousavi as wedge. It also allows us to defeat a repressive, backwards regime through a revolution of their own. You can't bomb the shit out of everyone and fix problems. The best scenario for the U.S. is for the Iranian people to become more progressive on their own.