or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Iran's Next Revolution
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Iran's Next Revolution

post #1 of 14
Thread Starter 
Michael Ledeen seems to be the only person in the U.S. press writing about Iran these days. This was in the WSJ last week.

June 5, 2002
COMMENTARY

<a href="http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110001818" target="_blank">Iran's Next Revolution</a>

By MICHAEL A. LEDEEN


[quote]Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian Islamic Republic and the central figure in the creation of modern Islamic terrorism, died in 1989 on the 13th day of Khordad, the third month of the Iranian calendar. Thirteen being a famously unlucky number, the Iranians celebrate Khomeini's death on the lucky 14th of Khordad, which was yesterday. In honor of the great man, amid the obligatory chants of "Death to America! Death to Israel!" 167 top leaders of 25 terrorist organizations gathered in Tehran for a conference on "Support for the Intifada." They included the usual suspects, among them seven representatives from al Qaeda, whose leader, Osama bin Laden, has been reported by local newspapers to be living in a remote region of Iran itself.

The terror summit comes at a time of considerable internal agitation and intense Iranian support for terrorist activities against the U.S., Britain and Israel. The country's internal problems catalyze its external violence. Just two weeks ago, Ayatollah Ebrahim Amini, deputy leader of the Council of Experts - perhaps the most powerful institution in Iran - publicly warned that the country was on the verge of insurrection. Life is so bad for the Iranian people that many have begun fleeing the country. In recent days 10 Iranians were found by Turkish authorities in the city of Van. Three were dead of malnutrition and the others were in desperate physical condition.

People Power

The Iranian people's mounting desperation and disgust with the regime is driving them to take more and more overt action against the mullahs. A week ago, a group of armed young people in the city of Lamerd in Fars Province attacked the Revolutionary Guards' headquarters, badly damaging the building. Troops had to be called in to put down the uprising, the latest of many in the last year...<hr></blockquote>

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: spaceman_spiff ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #2 of 14
all corupt and bad governements collapse one day or another.
The governement of Iran is not an exception to this rule.
post #3 of 14
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>all corupt and bad governements collapse one day or another.
The governement of Iran is not an exception to this rule.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, they do but sometimes they go on for decades or longer (dynasties). Iran seems to be 'polarized' between progressive and religious conservative (via edict) with the latter firmly in trenched.

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
post #4 of 14
Powerdoc,

I think a more important point is to try to deal withthe corrupt government before they cause too much damage to those around them. I would be very happy if this current regime were to collapse tomorrow and be replaced by a more progressive regime. But what is more likely is that the regime collapses and gets replaced by another like it or worse (If that is possible.) Especially when you have Islam at its base.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #5 of 14
You should see Italy. Not wuite as violent but justas stupid politically.

there are hundreds of registered political parties. About 40 powerful ones.

The country is democratic.

The only way for a party to gain enough power to win an election is to join forces with 2 or 3 others.
They win.
The power strucutre of the country is thrown out and completely remodeled.
The winners start bickering.
The whole thing falls apart.

There's anothe vote.
post #6 of 14
Israel and Italy I think share the same type of democracy. I think the way Israel solved this is by requiring political parties to amass at least 1/120 of the popular vote to qualify for a seat in parliament. This encourages small parties with similar views to join forces and ran as a bloc. Thus you have a centrist bloc, a leftist bloc, a rightist bloc, a religious block, an anti-religious bloc, and an Arab bloc. So in reality you really only have 5-6 political parties. This works quite well, I think. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />

mika.

[ 06-11-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
post #7 of 14
A democracy is always a work in progress. That's why they last as long as they do. When the need to change arises it does.
post #8 of 14
Italy is TOO much of a good thing.

As someone important once said, "The poison is in the dose."

Vitamin D will kill you just as surely as arsenic. In fact, I dunno the numbers, but by weight it may actually be more toxic. The multivitamin tablets contain maybe 1/20 of a lethal dose.

The only problem with italy's system is that there's too many names.

Each American party has multiple factions within it, but they're all willing to call eachother Republicans. Most don't approve of abortion, some do. Some approve of a strong military, some don't. The thing is, the party ITSELF evolves, not the system. The people respond to the changing of society by changing the character of the party they represent, rather than making a new party to trumpet fron.
post #9 of 14
The US needs one or two more strong parties to compete with the republicans and democrats. I would even support a split between the parties. Personally I feel the Republican majority is too right and the Democrats are too left. I like to drive in the middle lane.
post #10 of 14
Yeah, in each party in America you generaly vote with your party, but always with your issues. As a republican I support small business, less social programs, space; but I also am pro-choice, and in favor of limited gun control. There are 3 main blocs Democrat, Republican, and "Nuts". I don't think you should have to use multipage documents with party listings on them to figure out which party you will vote for on each issue.
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
post #11 of 14
Umm, I forgot what my main point was in my post. Maybe it was you chose a party to vote for on the important issues, and a party to vote for on the smaller issues, or something...
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
"Its a good thing theres no law against a company having a monopoly of good ideas. Otherwise Apple would be in deep yogurt..."
-Apple Press Release
Reply
post #12 of 14
George Washington was opposed to the formation of political parties in the first place.

The danger in the back of everyone's head with regard to the highly atomized political scene in countries like Italy is that the old Weimar Republic of Germany had this problem, and Hitler used the situation to his advantage.

Italy is like the US in that no amount of government turmoil will really stop everyday life over there. The system works well enough that life will go on. But where in the US the greater ideas of republican rule and human rights maintains a peaceful transition of power in pretty much any event, in Italy it's more pragmatic. There's a certain sense that ultimately, governments are a dime-a-dozen. So they love their politics and get very involved, but they don't get too phased by the spectacle. It's more sport than anything else.
post #13 of 14
[quote]Originally posted by NoahJ:
<strong>Powerdoc,

I think a more important point is to try to deal withthe corrupt government before they cause too much damage to those around them. I would be very happy if this current regime were to collapse tomorrow and be replaced by a more progressive regime. But what is more likely is that the regime collapses and gets replaced by another like it or worse (If that is possible.) Especially when you have Islam at its base. </strong><hr></blockquote>
You are right, what i wanted to say in that post, is that they where doomed, and when you are doomed nothing good occurs. And i won't teach you, that the best way to escape the damnation is the ... redemption


More practicaly, you are right (and eat@me too) to say that the sunlight will not occur automaticaly after the (long?) collapse of this dark governement.
post #14 of 14
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by powerdoc:
<strong>
More practicaly, you are right (and eat@me too) to say that the sunlight will not occur automaticaly after the (long?) collapse of this dark governement.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Which is the point of Mr. Ledeen's report. We need a strategy for toppling the Ayatollahs. It won't require the same resources that Afghanistan needed or what Iraq will require, for that matter. But it does need planning.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Iran's Next Revolution