Slashdot Mirror
Iranian Crackdown Goes Global
An anonymous reader writes "Tehran's leadership faces its biggest crisis since it first came to power in 1979, as Iranians at home and abroad attack its legitimacy in the wake of June's allegedly rigged presidential vote. An opposition effort, the 'Green Movement,' is gaining a global following of regular Iranians who say they never previously considered themselves activists. The regime has been cracking down hard at home. And now, a Wall Street Journal investigation shows, it is extending that crackdown to Iranians abroad as well. Part of the effort involves tracking the Facebook, Twitter and YouTube activity of Iranians around the world, and identifying them at opposition protests abroad. People who criticize Iran's regime online or in public demonstrations are facing threats intended to silence them."
I know this sounds odd, but it makes we want to get a million people who are not Iranians and put enough information on our Facebook pages to at least slow the Iranian govt. down, by making them wade through it.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
What I appreciate about this situation is that the Iranian people are standing up for them selves. Makes me want to help them. Something along the lines of supporting a justified patriot.
I dont care for the Afghan or Iraq wars because the people didnt stand up for themselves so I dont think that the rest of the civilized world shoudl sacrifice our soldiers lives for them. I think you will find many people much more willing to help the Iranians because they will stand up for themselves.
the best thing to do is to wait it out. this is the first time that the new generation is old enough to get involved in politics, and they made a very strong statement. over 70% of the country is under 30 due to the iran-iraq war, which basically wiped out a whole generation. this government is a legacy outdated establishment that is totally incompatible with Iran. The country was run by a foreign minority of non-Persians who used religion to control a country of children. Well, the kids grew up and they will rebel. Iran has a strong history and culture, and is too mature to put up with this crap for much longer.
My name is M. Ahmadinejad, Jr. I think Iran and it's Government are extremely corrupt, anti-Islamic, and a horrible place. The Iranian people deserve better than the lying cheating sack of shits that run the government - especially, the Mullahs - at least that's what my Dad told me.
It's NOT me! It's the meds! I'm on 1000mg of Fukitol.
To have pride in your liberty it must cost something, you must have earned it. its a cruel truth. Iraqis wont have pride in their liberty because they did not choose it, they are only accepting it. If the Iranian people can win, with or without international assistance, they will have pride in their freedom because they earned it.
Rule 1 of opposing an oppressive government on the interwebs: DO NOT put personally identifiable information on the same page as your opposing views.
The bad thing is, the US can't do much about this. If they press the hardliners too much, the pushback against that will push moderate Iranians into the hardliner's arms and unite the country behind them.
This happened in 2003-2004 when Iraq got invaded. People changed from considering the US as a superpower from afar to having military garrisons on two of Iran's borders and propaganda [1] going 24/7 about a pincer attack just hours away. Of course, this drove the moderate Iranians right into the arms of the extremists until recently.
The big reason the hardliners are having *any* resistance by moderates is that the evil bad bear of the US isn't making any headway with Iranians these days. They know that the US doesn't have the manpower or the technology for a sustained invasion of Iran in a conventional manner, and a nuclear attack just is out of the question.
[1]: The propaganda machines were even in the US. Infowars kept having articles that the Iran bombings were only hours away, and kept having those for years on end.
called iRan
When Iran cracked down on their citizens last time, during this summer's protests, Western companies such as Siemens and Nokia provided them the technology to do this.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124562668777335653.html
I also highly doubt they're building massive databases with worldwide surveillance on Iranian citizens -- for the purposes of going after their relatives within Iran -- with their own home-brew technologies.
This takes some scary stuff some Iranian University students could not simply hash together -- things like deep-packet inspection of all internet traffic and massive data-mining algorithms in the scope of millions upon millions of megabytes.
What all this obsession about who actually won the Iranian presidential vote masks is IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO IS PRESIDENT OF IRAN. Sorry for the all caps but that really needs emphasis. The Supreme Leader holds all control over foreign policy decisions, security and so forth even nuclear power/weapons. I mean come on you can't even run for President of Iran with out approval of the Supreme Leader. Ahmadinejad only has control over domestic policy and even then as long as the Supreme Leader approves. He is there as a bargaining chip, if he attracts too much heat internationally or domestically he will be thrown under the Revolutionary bus so that the Ayatolla can find someone else to implement his policies.
every anarchist is a baffled dictator. Benito_Mussolini
What the fuck does that have to do with Iranian's pushing for their freedom. No, seriously, you just insert some random-ass non-sequitur on political policies you don't personally agree with, particularly policies that have to be VOTED in, and you equate that to the martial law going on in Iran?! People are arrested, beaten, and killed for peacefully protesting a fraudulent election and the lack of any investigation. If you go out in front of the white house to protest and get beaten, physically not verbally, for your point of view, then I might see your point of view. But until then, at least keep your neo-conservative views on topic.
The invasion of Iraq may have helped a little in that way. As you said, many Iranians were extremely worried that the US would use Iraq as a stopping point to invade their country. What's more, they saw a demonstration of the US's true power, that an army which could hold them at bay (remember the Iran-Iraq war) was swept aside in a matter of weeks. As you said, there was heavy propaganda related to this at home and abroad.
Ok however, the threat didn't materialize. The US stayed in Iraq and did nothing towards Iran. Even when there were some fluff ups over things like a boat supposedly drifting in to Iranian waters, nothing happened.
What something like that does is cause people to question the propaganda. They start to say "You know, maybe the US really isn't bad like they are saying, they haven't made a move towards Iran at all." The government keeps the propaganda going, and yet the propaganda shows an increasing disconnect with reality. The US elects a new leader that tries to engage them in discourse and still the propaganda continues.
Then of course there's the blatantly rigged election and what does the US do? Nothing militarily, and the citizens speak up in support for Iran.
That kind of stuff can lead to people really questioning the government line. The US quite clearly has the ability to crush their military and destroy their cities if they wish, yet there has been no move to do so. That tells them that what they've been hearing is not the truth.
If Iranian expatriates or Americans of Iranian descent can prove that they are the victims of physical violence against themselves or their property while on American soil, that would be a legitimate reason for the United States to invade Iran. If a foreign state sends its agents to a country to kill that country's citizens, that has traditionally been recognized as an act of aggression and legitimate casus belli for the offended nation.
The Mullahs better be careful, lest they become the first, straight up legitimate victim of "American regime change" in the last few decades...
By 'earn it' do you mean 'achieve it through struggle'? If yes, does that mean that every country that achieved democracy peacefully has no pride in their liberty? Also, does 'pride in liberty' affect some property of a democracy, like its stability? I'm asking because there are lots of examples of countries which did not have to struggle for liberty (Canada, for example), or whose people suffered during history but not because of a struggle for liberty (like Japan) and now enjoy stable, inclusive democracies. These countries have pride in their liberty (depending on how you define it). I don't think bloody revolution is the only path to democracy.
If you are posting things supporting the Iranian protestors, better watch what you order out - portable leafy greens might be the death of you.
No reason they couldn't take the tactic abroad, and it's a lot less traceable (thus deniable) than Russian exotic uranium killings.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
OK, by citing Stormfront you just lost all factual and moral credibility.
If you're interested in helping, check out http://www.haystacknetwork.com/.
The two comments above are correct. Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of Islamic revolution had both power and legitimacy, from both people and army/guards' loyalty. He was also a real Ayatollah in terms of religious knowledge and acceptance. Khamenei, the current leader had none of these. He became an Ayatollah and the Supreme Leader almost overnight, through mostly his fanatic followers in guards calling him so and mildly threatening the Experts Council into making him the Supreme Leader. The rightful replacement for Khomeini was Montazeri; the guy who came up with (made up) the whole theory of a theocratic republic with a cleric at the very top of the system. You can read more on his fate after opposing Khamenei on Wikipedia.
Short version: Khamenei is not really that powerful as he relies on Revolutionary Guards and their civilian thugs Basij to keep him in power as they put him there originally.
Back to the matter of presidency, the idea is not that much who is president -- though I would say it does make a lot of difference, as it did when Ahmadinejad replaced Khatami but that's a different story, too long to fit in a comment -- however that who people want to be president. Us Iranians wanted to vote Ahmadinejad out to tell the world that we do not approve of him and his policies, whether foreign or economic which were all disastrous. That's why he stole the election and that's exactly why people poured into street when they found out it doesn't really matter who they vote for anymore. The protests are the only reason the world now differs between people of Iran and the thugs running the country.
Long time user, posting anonymously for obvious reasons.
The GP was a little of in the value of liberty, but he's on the right track.
While your example, Canada, didn't struggle to have liberty, they did earn it. As a people, they got together and chose to live in a free, open nation. Put another way, no one gave it to them. Which is the problem with Iraq. The US (my home) is trying to give it to them. That doesn't take away from the value of any such liberty, but it does bring into question the staying power of it.
While I don't agree that the majority of Iranians support their government, a large enough minority does to make a quick transition to some type of truly representative governing impossible without violence.
What I absolutely agree with is the idea that the US, the UN and everyone else needs to stay out of the way and not become a distraction or 'common enemy'. The greatest good we can do in America is to be less dependent on oil, lowering the price. Right now a little bit of isolationism would help force them to get their own house in order. In time.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
"I don't think bloody revolution is the only path to democracy."
It may not be the only path, but the required path is decided by the opposition.
If they are friendly and weak, the Ghandi method works.
If they eventually tire of their political charade, they shut it down (Gorbachev is heroic for doing this.)
If they think they are anointed by their imaginary celestial friend, they require enthusiastic liquidation in the manner of the French Revolution.
(A beautiful act, and worthy of emulation.)
If they are inherently logical and nationalistic, they can be seduced by capitalism and the tasty wealth reform brings with it. (Beijing.)
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
So basically, if we want to see where the pro-Israel lobby is astroturfing, we just have to download their "megaphone" app and wait for it to point us in the right direction. Then we can just follow them there and post actual facts. Brilliant!
Aide-toi, le Ciel t'aidera - Jeanne D'Arc.
How is this bigot not modded troll/flamebait?
To turn a blind eye to murder due to the victims ideology, race, or religion is reprehensible.
Imagine the year is 1941:
A few attacks on individuals, especially those who hail from an enemy culture and religion , are not nearly enough to bother with invading Germany. Real Americans aren't Jews and don't care what happens to them any more than we'd care if some thoughtful soul was murdering Japs.
Does the above seem any different?
there were two schools of thought in iran since the 1979 revolution:
1. its a democracy. the whole supreme leader bs is just for window dressing
2. its a theocracy. the whole elections bs is just to appease the crowds
this central crisis in the iranian government seems to have been resolved in june 2009, with iran going the theocratic route, which is the substance of your comment
but its actually going a third route: military dictatorship, with the supreme leadership bs as window dressing AND the elections bs as crowd appeasement
the supreme leader is actually now hostage of the elite revolutionary guard, he has no real power. ahmadinejad is an old hand of the revolutionary guard. watch the next leader of iran to be handpicked from the revolutionary guard and "elected" by the people and "approved" by the ayatollah. now, the whole of the complex iranian government apparatus is under their sway and influence. the central unanswered schism between theocracy and democracy in the previous complex government arrangement has meant someone had to fill the power vacuum, and it has been filled: by the military
either way, the crowd appeasement obviously isn't working. the people of iran are pissed, and as in any country where the will of the people is not addressed, the government's illegitimacy grows over time, as the agenda of the government and the agenda of the common man grow further apart. this will reach a breaking point. could take years or decades, with plenty of suffering during that time. throw in nuclear weapons for fun
but until such time as iran falls yet again into revolution due to not being a democracy, iran is now a military dictatorship. not officially of course. much like north korea is officially the DEMOCRATIC people's republic of korea. yeah, north korea is a democracy (roll's eyes)
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
now that you have weighed in on a dead argument that has already been resolved, when do you point some of your withering moral denunciations on the illegitimate government of iran?
or is your insightful probing mind permanently pointed only at the usa for some reason?
pffft
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
When in the last century has the US actually tried not interfering with *anything*?
Right now we are doing exactly that, bending over backwards in fact to say just about nothing about the protests or questioning whatsoever the legitimacy of the current regime in Iran.
And what does it get us? The exact same rhetoric they have always used. When U.S. involvement they complain about is imaginary continuing to not get involved can hardly stop the complaints. Back in WW2 the soviet line is we were causing the potato famine by dropping evil U.S. Potato Bugs from Colorado on the fields. In reality they had stripped away all sorts of trees which meant the birds moved out which meant bugs flourished...
You can never appease a chronic complainer. You can only stop the complaining.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
if you say your concerns are wholly domestic, then you need to refrain your criticism of the us government to only domestic issues
if you say that is impossible, that our relationship with the outside world matters, then you also need to be intellectually honest and look at and criticize other regimes, since that certainly matters in our relationship with the wider world
but you can't have it both ways, as you are currently claiming, that somehow criticism of only the us government on matters that involve other governments is somehow logically coherent or in any way helpful
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
There is absolutely no evidence that the election was rigged. Ahaminejad is very popular and has previously won election with big margins.
There is circumstantial evidence, and then there's the way the Ahaminejad and his supporters have acted. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth. This regime seems to be like the ZANU PF in Zimbabwe. Violent, mad, megalomaniacs.
Like all pain, suffering is a signal that something isn't right
> If they think they are anointed by their imaginary celestial friend, they require enthusiastic liquidation in the manner of the French Revolution.
(A beautiful act, and worthy of emulation.)
If you think that chaotically seizing and killing anyone who appeared to be rich or who was denounced by someone loudly enough is "worthy of emulation," you're quite nuts. I mean, it's not like they call it the Reign of Terror. Maybe you like it because among the revolutionaries were many atheists as well as those who merely hated the Catholic church (both for real and imagined wrongs). But the crazy mob during the Terror killed the "father of modern chemistry" who gave us things like the law of the conservation of mass. Antonie Lavoisier was beheaded because someone claimed he sold watered-down tobacco.
Read about NITV:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/24/magazine/24NITV.html?pagewanted=all
One of the regulars on there was attacked in Los Angeles with a bat and lost an eye.
Do you have ESP?
Respectfully, I think justification for Iran's nuclear program is a crock of shit. Iran has roughly 10% of the world's total proven petroleum reserves. Iran is the world's fourth largest oil producer and is OPEC's second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia. At 2006 rates of production, Iran's oil reserves would last 98 years if no new oil was found.
Their problem is that Iran has one of the most inefficient economies in the world. It has a large public sector, with an estimated 60% of the economy directly controlled and centrally planned by the state. The combined budgets of the religious foundations [Bonyads] are said to make up as much as half that of the central government. Combination of price controls and subsidies, particularly on food and energy, continues to weigh down the economy, and contraband, administrative controls, widespread corruption, and other rigidities undermine the potential for private sector-led growth. High oil prices in recent years have enabled Iran to amass nearly US$ 97 billion in foreign exchange reserves. Yet this increased revenue has not eased economic hardships, which include double-digit unemployment and inflation. References [1] [2]
I would suggest that Iran has every opportunity in the world of becoming a prosperous, modern nation if they simply reformed and diversified their economy over the next 50 years. Nuclear power is the last thing they need right now. Once they achieve a modern, diversified, efficient economy, energy technologies will have advanced to the point that there will be a number of options they will be able to take advantage of, such as enhanced oil recovery techniques. Even now, there may exist other options they don't appear to have considered, such a tidal/wave/thermalcline power from the Persian Gulf or perhaps geothermal, solar or wind energy production.
In my opinion this mad rush to develop nuclear technology makes no sense from an energy perspective, when their top priority should be economic reform. In just a few short years, if they went at that goal with the same determination that they pursue nuclear technology now, the Iranian people could enjoy prosperity and a bright future rather than the double-digit inflation they suffer now.