Thread: Iran

Tuesday, June 15th, was the first "anniversary" of the bloody events which took place last summer in Iran. Of course it was not and could not be the kind of anniversary one might expect.
Much has been said about the aftermath of that infamous presidential election which handed the power to the meanest monkey among present-day politicians. I ruefully remember that exactly a year ago, right after we managed to get home safe and sound through burning streets, we used to sit around and talk, and talk, and talk. Many nights were filled with heated political discussions literally till morning. And Russia was such a nice topic to talk about.
The gang of my 21-year-old classmates knew about my love for everything in connection with Russia, and I somehow had to play the role of attorney in a court where everyone else was against the accused. People wholeheartedly believed that Russia was providing political and military aid for the cheaters in election. At times, I found my duties as Attorney at Law exceedingly difficult.
In a word, Russia was the No.1 topic when it came to foreign policy talks. Does Iran matter to you too, Russian pals?
I would like to know what people on this forum, Russian or otherwise, thought of Iran last year. Did you know that something unusual was going on at all? And if you knew, how did you think of that?

Quoting Crocodile from here:

Misha, you might be surprised, but there was a lot of hype in the media that the opposition to Ahmadinejad in the last election was all sponsored and directed by the US and Europe. Below are just some of the points which were put forward:

1. Many of the placards were in English. Why not in Farsi? Allegedly, to show the 'work' to their masters/sponsors in the US.

2. The opposition demanding not to accept the legitimate election results was directed by the US to ultimately put a puppet government similar to Orange Revolution in Ukraine. Allegedly, the pro-US government would allow the US to loot Iranian treasures.

So, Misha, who were you working for?

Good question, Crocodile! Here's a little inside information for you. First, the two points mentioned above:

Why English placards? The ones that I had were all in Persian, but people did in fact ask me to translate a few slogans. The first thing that any sane person understands from it is that the protesters wanted the world to see them. They could just as well write their slogans in Mandarin Chinese, but fewer people would be able to read them in that case.

If it was all "for the masters to see the work", wouldn't it sound a bit dumb? Like: "Everybody look here: I got an English placard, because my sponsors want it so!"

Second, the opposition demanded not to accept the legitimate election results. The what? Legitimate? Well I tell you. The validity of the results were never proved. The opposition leaders (Mousavi and Karoubi) were simply asked to admit their defeat to the public, which they didn't.

Consider this situation: you have a president. The next presidential election is to be held by members of his own cabinet, namely the Ministry of Interior and such. This whole script is under supervision of an appointed group called "The Guardian Council", whose members have openly expressed their support for the president. Now, I don't know what you think, but I think it's a bit suspicious.

The Orange Revolution, the Velvet Revolution, these terms were heard more often than anything else in those days. Schoolboys accused their teachers of such things [after they went back to school, of course]. Rappers made fun of it. It was all too stupid to be taken seriously. As for me, it only made me take out my copies of "Animal Farm" and "Darkness at Noon". The opposition is directed by America, because they've got English placards! Can't these guys think of anything new?

Wikipedia; 2009-2010 Iranian election protests

Alright, so let me start my comments by first admitting I do not personally share the point of view of those who say the Iranian opposition was directed by the US. Neither would I think the Ukrainian Orange Revolution was directed by the US. Therefore, my comments would probably missing the hatred for the US heat required as I would just repeat what some of the other people [in Russia] were thinking.

Let me first state the obvious: the fact that you, Misha, do not think you were directed from the US does not mean those who made the hype you supported weren't directed by the US. The highest chic in politics and/or undercover operations is to use a person without the person realizing he's been used. The operative would sincerely believe he is acting on his own. Those operations are usually the most successful.

Now, let me address some of the individual points:

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

The first thing that any sane person understands from it is that the protesters wanted the world to see them.

Exactly! So, if you're opposing to YOUR government and want the other IRANIANS support your cause, you should write ALL your slogans in FARSI ONLY (and not in Mandarin or Cantonese) so YOUR PEOPLE would understand. If you want the WORLD see your placards, that means you rely on the REACTION OF THE WORLD. So, you are essentially inviting the US and Europe the other nations to press your own national government by the means they have! And, as you're not a naive person as you mentioned earlier, you might realize the other nations would never rarely act on your behalf, only if that serves their own interest. How much of being patriotic you actions were?

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Second, the opposition demanded not to accept the legitimate election results. The what? Legitimate?

Ok, so who decides what is legitimate and what's not? A communist party in the US can never win as it's not legitimate right from the start, so it can't participate in elections. But, what if the majority of the US people want the Communist regime? We would never know as they are not asked. The bottom line is - it's the present government who decides. The US elections are a joke because both parties are essentially bought by the large capital and ultimately serve it's interest. So, the Republicans and Democrats are fighting with each other creating some kind of a show that the US is an open society but in reality there's not much difference.

Originally Posted by Misha Tal

Consider this situation: you have a president. The next presidential election is to be held by members of his own cabinet, namely the Ministry of Interior and such. This whole script is under supervision of an appointed group called "The Guardian Council", whose members have openly expressed their support for the president. Now, I don't know what you think, but I think it's a bit suspicious.

Well, it's up to the Iranians to decide. It's not any other country's business. If the Iranians want the Guardian Council to supervise the main political processes and add to the stability of the society and enforce the traditional values, it's their right. That should not be changed by the all-bought-inside-and-out-and-full-of-liars Western media negatively portraying legitimately elected Iranian President who does not want his country to be 'liberated' by the US and become totally controlled state with an average salary of a just a bit over $15 per person whilst the US people would buy the Earth piece by piece, putting the puppet governments here and there, and rule the world with their strong hand primarily by bombing the peaceful civilians and their pets. So, the Iranian President doesn't want that to happen and so he's going to some extremes which are only necessary because his enemies are ruthless, have no control, totally greedy, and only understand the brute force. So, those extremes are completely justified. And, in fact, there's not much he's doing so bad to his people. Does he conveys mass-murders? Not really. Is he doing anything close to what Saddam Hussein did? (Halabja poison gas attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) Not even close. By the way, if legitimately elected Saddam Hussein wanted to kill his own civilians with gas, so that's the will of Iraqi people too. (Or, the US was behind this wrongdoing. Whichever you like better.)

Anyways, I think you got the picture. So, what do you think of that? (Please, try to abstain from granting titles of ' ', 'brainwashed', and alike. Thanks in advance.)

Iran is really interesting because it's an example of a government that is lead by neither economical, nor ideological principles, but religious ones. That is quite unusual.

(although I realise it's probably not "interesting" if you find yourselves in trouble with such a government..... particularly if it uses the death penalty etc, like Iran does - or if you get fed up and want some change....).

In Europe, religion stopped being able to influence governments some time between the protestant reformation and perhaps the 19th century... People stopped believing.. and even those who do, do not believe that it is God's will for the Church to run any countries, or for Biblical rules to be the law of any country (imagine living in a country with old testament laws applied!)
It seems that in Islam, it's common for people to believe that Islamic laws should be national laws.


As long as Iran does whatever it wants to do within it's own borders, it's not my business. Although I'd think it would be much better if the death penalty wasn't used or any torture or discrimination against women was stopped.

There is so much propaganda surrounding Iran that it's impossible to know whether most people support the present government or not. Whether they want a Western style "democracy" or not. Since the present governement got instated by a popular revolution, I imagine it could be taken down by a popular revolution too..... if people really wanted to. Or???

Another problem - so many Iranians have left the country that perhaps the people who could achieve change are no longer around! There are SO many Iranians who have sought political asylum in Europe. My impression is that they were just fed up with the situation in Iran. I know a few such people and although they are not strongly anti-Iran, they are definitely do not support the current regime.

It would be good if it was possible to run a fair referendum there and find out what people really wanted.

My grandfather has been travelling regularly to Iran since the 1960s for business (he stopped a few years ago). He says he really enjoyed the trips before the revolution, but after that he didn't enjoy going there anymore. Previously it was possible to have a nice beach holiday in Iran apparently, but post-revolution, it wasn't. However, there was no change at all in business for him.

I agree about what Mischa said about Saudi Arabia. The only thing the two countries have in in common is that Islamic law is state law. Seems to me it is more harshly implemented in Saudi Arabia though. I don't like Saudi Arabia.

"Interesting" comments by the Saudi leadership to the US revealed by Wikileaks (bomb Iran). Why would they want that?

Originally Posted by Hanna

Iran is really interesting because it's an example of a government that is lead by neither economical, nor ideological principles, but religious ones. That is quite unusual.