Interesting times in Iran..

[RainMaker]

And Republicans know that too. They would have taken the opposite side of Obama no matter what he did. If Obama came out and spoke in support of them, Republicans would have called it reckless and inexperienced. Obama isn't going to win on the issue (or any for that matter) with them.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

Who said anything about bombing?

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

And Republicans know that too. They would have taken the opposite side of Obama no matter what he did. If Obama came out and spoke in support of them, Republicans would have called it reckless and inexperienced. Obama isn't going to win on the issue (or any for that matter) with them.

Completely untrue. First of all, the vote in the House today was 405-1. An awful lot of Democrats voted in favor of this resolution, which in and of itself is more than Obama has done.

Secondly, I haven't seen a lot of conservatives (actually, I haven't seen any, but I'm sure there are some) complaining about Obama's reaction to the North Korean Missile Crisis. I certainly haven't complained.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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.

A few more thoughts on this, because I really disagree strongly with almost every word you've written.

1- Please show me the policy, written or unwritten, that says that all Muslims are a common enemy. That's just absurd.

2- "It also allows us to defeat a repressive, backwards regime through a revolution of their own." If that revolution happens, then "we" won't have been allowed to defeat anything. Christ, and you all were giving Pete Hoekstra shit about his Twitter comparisons.

Standing on the sidelines gives us nothing. It earns us no respect from the regime, if they remain in power. It earns us no respect from the Iranian people, if they seize power. I keep reading this nebulous argument of not giving the mullahs any ammunition. They don't need ammunition. Do you think they've been giving the Iranian people the full and unadulterated truth about America for the past 30 years?

[McLovin]

posted on twitter - You have to admire the courage

“Tomorrow is a big day, maybe I’ll get killed tomorrow!”

“I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I’m listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It’s worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I’m two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow’s children…” - an Iranian blogger, with more courage than most of us will ever know.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Do you think they've been giving the Iranian people the full and unadulterated truth about America for the past 30 years?

You have missed the intricacies of this situation. Part of the reason that these people don't believe the hard liners is because they have not believed the west is evil line. For many decades there have been streets in Tehran where the young (25 or so and younger) gathered to not just buy Western goods, but to bathe in Western culture. None of the under 30 crowd involved in this "revolt" were up and aware during our involvement and support of the Shah.

Many of the people of this movement have seen of the West and the US is a culture they admire, while an archaic regime condemns us for no reasons that the people can clearly see.

What can we get by standing on the sidelines? We prove that we aren't the evil busy bodies we are portrayed as by the hardliners. We show the young in Iran that we are what they think we are. Rather than invest in a situation where we can be little to no help, and letting what supporters (or at least non-detractors) that we have in Iran down.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

A few more thoughts on this, because I really disagree strongly with almost every word you've written.

Oh the irony, that I find myself much more closely aligned with Rainmaker's p.o.v. on this one. (As I recall, he & I don't exactly have a long history of being on the same page)

Standing on the sidelines gives us nothing. It earns us no respect from the regime, if they remain in power. It earns us no respect from the Iranian people, if they seize power. I keep reading this nebulous argument of not giving the mullahs any ammunition.

Saying anything on the subject also gives us jack shit, beyond maybe some vague delusion that we had a positive influence on the outcome.
IF (and there isn't a big enough nor bold enough font to emphasize that IF) there's a regime change or "revolution" in Iran, it won't come from the people who wrote their signs in English hoping to play to some anonymous American TV viewer, it'll be the people who were ready to fight & die to get it because they want it, not because the U.S. government nor Saint Obama nor Paula Abdul nor Ronald freakin' McDonald said they supported their noble efforts. An outgunned populace isn't going to create a revolution on our words, ask the Cubans how well that works. In the end, if you aren't backing it up with something more tangible than some empty platitudes (and FTR I'm not remotely suggesting that we should in this instance) then the only benefit to saying virtually anything is all in our heads.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

1- Please show me the policy, written or unwritten, that says that all Muslims are a common enemy. That's just absurd.

Oh please, Muslims were demonized. There's a reason a lot of people on the right emphasize Obama's middle name.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

2- "It also allows us to defeat a repressive, backwards regime through a revolution of their own." If that revolution happens, then "we" won't have been allowed to defeat anything. Christ, and you all were giving Pete Hoekstra shit about his Twitter comparisons.

We wouldn't have done it but we would get the desired result. My wording was wrong. I think it benefits us all to have that regime out of power and a more progressive one in place. So why would we not do what it takes to make that happen?

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Standing on the sidelines gives us nothing. It earns us no respect from the regime, if they remain in power. It earns us no respect from the Iranian people, if they seize power. I keep reading this nebulous argument of not giving the mullahs any ammunition. They don't need ammunition. Do you think they've been giving the Iranian people the full and unadulterated truth about America for the past 30 years?

The Iranian government has been able to keep control because they've been able to create common enemies. When you laud about the zionists in Israel and the United States, you take the focus off your own incompetence in running a country. Your people blame those countries for the failure of their leaders. I think sitting back doesn't allow them to blame us for the revolt (which they are trying to do).

I think the people of Iran need to have the ownership of this revolution. They need to know people support them, but you run the risk of allowing the hard-liners to project the uprising as nothing more than an American propoganda campaign.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh the irony, that I find myself much more closely aligned with Rainmaker's p.o.v. on this one. (As I recall, he & I don't exactly have a long history of being on the same page)



Saying anything on the subject also gives us jack shit, beyond maybe some vague delusion that we had a positive influence on the outcome.
IF (and there isn't a big enough nor bold enough font to emphasize that IF) there's a regime change or "revolution" in Iran, it won't come from the people who wrote their signs in English hoping to play to some anonymous American TV viewer, it'll be the people who were ready to fight & die to get it because they want it, not because the U.S. government nor Saint Obama nor Paula Abdul nor Ronald freakin' McDonald said they supported their noble efforts. An outgunned populace isn't going to create a revolution on our words, ask the Cubans how well that works. In the end, if you aren't backing it up with something more tangible than some empty platitudes (and FTR I'm not remotely suggesting that we should in this instance) then the only benefit to saying virtually anything is all in our heads.

What, uh, he said.

Once that resolution came up, it was really a foregone conclusion what was going to happen. I was hopeful it could be quashed in committee or something, because, as Jon said, the government getting involved in words does absolutely nothing for anybody but the 405 people patting themselves on the back for voting 'yes.'

But it was clear from the first moment Pence proposed that resolution that it was an attempt to score cheap political points at the potential cost of the lives of Iranian students and/or any soldiers we might eventually have to send in if Khamenei/Ahmadinejad remain in power.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

What, uh, he said.

See, that's not so tough is it?

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

Completely untrue. First of all, the vote in the House today was 405-1. An awful lot of Democrats voted in favor of this resolution, which in and of itself is more than Obama has done.

Secondly, I haven't seen a lot of conservatives (actually, I haven't seen any, but I'm sure there are some) complaining about Obama's reaction to the North Korean Missile Crisis. I certainly haven't complained.

Non-binding resolutions mean shit. No point in voting against it. Big difference in that and going on TV and taking sides on the issue and offering support for them.

And it's silly that Republicans don't just pick the opposite side. I mean these are the guys that are against spending now. Conveniently at the time that Democrats took over. Not a knock on them, but that's just how politics are played these days.

[Ronnie Dobbs2]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saying anything on the subject also gives us jack shit, beyond maybe some vague delusion that we had a positive influence on the outcome.
IF (and there isn't a big enough nor bold enough font to emphasize that IF) there's a regime change or "revolution" in Iran, it won't come from the people who wrote their signs in English hoping to play to some anonymous American TV viewer, it'll be the people who were ready to fight & die to get it because they want it, not because the U.S. government nor Saint Obama nor Paula Abdul nor Ronald freakin' McDonald said they supported their noble efforts. An outgunned populace isn't going to create a revolution on our words, ask the Cubans how well that works. In the end, if you aren't backing it up with something more tangible than some empty platitudes (and FTR I'm not remotely suggesting that we should in this instance) then the only benefit to saying virtually anything is all in our heads.

This is what I've been trying, and failing, to say all along. Twice tonight.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

This is what I've been trying, and failing, to say all along. Twice tonight.

Don't feel bad, I'm the guy who only discovered it was Friday & not Thursday around 5 pm today.

[Wolfpack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Don't feel bad, I'm the guy who only discovered it was Friday & not Thursday around 5 pm today.

That had to have been a good thing to find out, right?

[RainMaker]

Jon is the voice of reason here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

That had to have been a good thing to find out, right?

Eh, relatively neutral. Any benefit was wiped out by feeling incredibly stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Jon is the voice of reason here.

And I have long held that any situation where I'm in that role is pretty much FUBAR.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh the irony, that I find myself much more closely aligned with Rainmaker's p.o.v. on this one. (As I recall, he & I don't exactly have a long history of being on the same page)



Saying anything on the subject also gives us jack shit, beyond maybe some vague delusion that we had a positive influence on the outcome.
IF (and there isn't a big enough nor bold enough font to emphasize that IF) there's a regime change or "revolution" in Iran, it won't come from the people who wrote their signs in English hoping to play to some anonymous American TV viewer, it'll be the people who were ready to fight & die to get it because they want it, not because the U.S. government nor Saint Obama nor Paula Abdul nor Ronald freakin' McDonald said they supported their noble efforts. An outgunned populace isn't going to create a revolution on our words, ask the Cubans how well that works. In the end, if you aren't backing it up with something more tangible than some empty platitudes (and FTR I'm not remotely suggesting that we should in this instance) then the only benefit to saying virtually anything is all in our heads.

+1

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

See, that's not so tough is it?

You have moments of lucidity. That doesn't mean you're not, overall, batshit insane.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

You have moments of lucidity. That doesn't mean you're not, overall, batshit insane.

Leave Kim Jong-il out of this, that's a different thread.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Oh the irony, that I find myself much more closely aligned with Rainmaker's p.o.v. on this one. (As I recall, he & I don't exactly have a long history of being on the same page)

Hey, Father Coughlin and FDR got along swimmingly for awhile as well. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saying anything on the subject also gives us jack shit, beyond maybe some vague delusion that we had a positive influence on the outcome.
IF (and there isn't a big enough nor bold enough font to emphasize that IF) there's a regime change or "revolution" in Iran, it won't come from the people who wrote their signs in English hoping to play to some anonymous American TV viewer, it'll be the people who were ready to fight & die to get it because they want it, not because the U.S. government nor Saint Obama nor Paula Abdul nor Ronald freakin' McDonald said they supported their noble efforts. An outgunned populace isn't going to create a revolution on our words, ask the Cubans how well that works. In the end, if you aren't backing it up with something more tangible than some empty platitudes (and FTR I'm not remotely suggesting that we should in this instance) then the only benefit to saying virtually anything is all in our heads.

Jon, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more. People who seem to believe that American populace's cheering means shit in this situation have a extraordinarily inflated view of their own importance; it reminds of the Berkely Hippies who pick a cause a week to protest in order to feel good about themselves. Heck, I'm surprised Cam's on this list.

[DaddyTorgo]

i can't imagine writing a blog post like this...such...i don't even know what word I want to use

4:16 PM ET -- "Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed." A blog post in Persian, translated by the NIAC.

"I will participate in the demonstrations tomorrow. Maybe they will turn violent. Maybe I will be one of the people who is going to get killed. I'm listening to all my favorite music. I even want to dance to a few songs. I always wanted to have very narrow eyebrows. Yes, maybe I will go to the salon before I go tomorrow! There are a few great movie scenes that I also have to see. I should drop by the library, too. It's worth to read the poems of Forough and Shamloo again. All family pictures have to be reviewed, too. I have to call my friends as well to say goodbye. All I have are two bookshelves which I told my family who should receive them. I'm two units away from getting my bachelors degree but who cares about that. My mind is very chaotic. I wrote these random sentences for the next generation so they know we were not just emotional and under peer pressure. So they know that we did everything we could to create a better future for them. So they know that our ancestors surrendered to Arabs and Mongols but did not surrender to despotism. This note is dedicated to tomorrow's children..."

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Crapshoot

Jon, I don't think I've ever agreed with you more. People who seem to believe that American populace's cheering means shit in this situation have a extraordinarily inflated view of their own importance; it reminds of the Berkely Hippies who pick a cause a week to protest in order to feel good about themselves. Heck, I'm surprised Cam's on this list.

You shouldn't be surprised... heck, I'm the guy who advocated arming the victims of the Darfur genocide several years ago. I'd like to think that I'm being reasonably consistent here... at least far more so than the Democrats who were complaining just a few years ago that we invaded the wrong country; that we should have gone into Iran instead of Iraq.

That being said, I'm not sure that I could explain myself to your satisfaction. I think we may just be too far apart to even understand each other, and that's really sad.

[SirFozzie]

I get the feeling today is the day. Will there be the most open act of defiance of the whole election? Are we to see the "Velvet Revolution" gain even more momentum, or are we to see many lives cut short admist a brutal, bloody crackdown?

I'm not hopeful.

[fantom1979]

I must now leave this thread and take a shower. I am almost completely in agreement with JiMG.

[Flasch186]

From what Ive heard the rallies have been cancelled...but who knows CNN consistently keeps the block up that says [Unsubstantiated] the entire time.

[Edward64]

I predict progressively growing protests then a climatic Tiannamen Square-like confrontation with the government maintaning power. However, with the undercurrent of resentment, there will be another reckoning, date tbd.

[Wolfpack]

Hm. It's a different world from 1989, for sure. The PRC had the ability to suppress and crack down with relative impunity when they finally decided enough was enough. Everyone still depended on TV to get any real-time information and that was relatively easy for the PRC to quash, thus other than some bits and pieces of footage and smuggled photographs, the PRC has largely succeeded in blotting out what happened back then.

This will be infinitely harder for the Iranian government to do as has been illustrated with Twitter in even the comparatively light violence that has happened so far. I also don't think the Iranians have a strong enough, deep enough apparatus for sustained suppression as the PRC did, especially given the relative numbers on either side of the divide. I think there are a lot more people coming out against the government on a proportional basis than there ever was in Beijing. It's much easier to gain equal footing when the population's in the millions rather than a billion.

For these reason, I'm not totally sure we'll see a full on Tiananmen Square outcome. We may get bursts of violence in the short term, but if the Iranian government has sense, they'll try to ride this out as long as they can. Those that have the power can afford to be patient with it. Yesterday's comments by Khameni were probably the first step in that process, in essence saying, "Tough cookies, we aren't overturning the results," and then a threat of violence if they don't back down. Right now, the pressure's on the opposition. Now that the government's drawn the line, the opposition will probably start finding out what they've truly got in numbers and commitment. If Flasch's rumor can be taken to be accurate, then it would seem that the government is beginning to get a hold of the situation and it's just a matter of time. There would be anger and protests, but the scale of such things would likely start diminishing from this point.

[Galaril]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

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.

Mizz,

You are basing this on what?................I think that the younger generation is Pro-WEST not necessarily Pro US. And if anything they are Pro-US Culture the Xbox and X-rated models culture. I saw it in South Korea the young generation walking around with NY Yankee ball caps, Nikes, and eating at a Chuckie Cheese or McDonald's and after launch go back outside and burn America flags and launch molotov cocktails at the US Embassy. This was not a long time ago 1994-2006. My point would be to not assume that just becasue they don't like the current regime who does not like us that they will be our friends.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

You shouldn't be surprised... heck, I'm the guy who advocated arming the victims of the Darfur genocide several years ago. I'd like to think that I'm being reasonably consistent here... at least far more so than the Democrats who were complaining just a few years ago that we invaded the wrong country; that we should have gone into Iran instead of Iraq.

That being said, I'm not sure that I could explain myself to your satisfaction. I think we may just be too far apart to even understand each other, and that's really sad.

? What Democrat was seriously advocating war with Iran in 2003?

As for Obama, I have said and continue to believe that there is a danger in coming out in strong support for Mousavi when we don't know what he stands for. Sure, he almost certainly better than Ahmedi, but to what degree? If we throw our support behind him now and he wins how do we handle the almost inevitable decision to continue uranium refinement?

But more importantly, it's not about us. Your line that it would have helped domestically is the problem. Helping domestically doesn't help the protesters, it just makes us feel important.

[DaddyTorgo]

7:33 PM ET -- Top clerical group Assembly of Experts supports Khamenei. If accurate, this statement reported by the Tehran Times -- by the one council with the authority to unseat the Supreme Leader -- appears to deal a significant blow to the idea that the clerical establishment would help bring down Khamenei.

In a statement issued on Saturday the Assembly of Experts expressed its "strong support" for the Supreme Leader's statements on the presidential elections on Friday.
The 86-member assembly stated in the statement that it is hoped that the nation would realize the current condition and by sticking to the Leader's guidelines preserve their patience and manifest their unity.
The Qom Seminary Teachers Society also issued a statement on Saturday declaring strong support for the guidelines of the Supreme Leader.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

a significant blow to the idea that the clerical establishment would help bring down Khamenei.

Okay, but did anyone seriously think there was more than a one in a million chance of that happening in the first place?

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Okay, but did anyone seriously think there was more than a one in a million chance of that happening in the first place?

more than one in a million...less than 50/50.

the thing is though - such a high percentage of the population there is under 30 that change will come. if it doesn't come this time it'll be next time, or the time after.

[DaddyTorgo]

then again i have a feeling the tehran times is under the control of the govt.

[DaddyTorgo]

ah ha!


10:05 PM ET -- More on the Assembly of Experts statement. Earlier today, the Tehran Times posted an article claiming that the powerful clerical group, the Assembly of Experts, had on Saturday "expressed its 'strong support' for the Supreme Leader's statements on the presidential elections on Friday." It would have been a major blow to reformists' efforts to win the support of many senior clerics.
But as it turns out, it's not true. Reader Ali writes in:

I just wanted to point out that the letter of support written by assembly of experts in support of Khamenei's sermon is only signed by the deputy leader of the assembly, who is a former head of the judiciary and a staunch supporter of ahmadinejad, as well as a rival of Rafsanjani for the assembly's leadership election. He is the only one signing the letter and the government sponsored news media are reporting it as a letter from the full assembly.

And reader Majid provides more details:

Once again thanks for the great job in reporting the events. Just a comment about your 7:33pm item about the Assembly of Experts. The statement is not by the Assembly of Experts, but by Mohammad Yazdi, the head of the "Dabirkhane" of the Assembly of Experts. His statement doesn't carry much weight and definitely not a blow to the freedom movement. After all, there are certainly many Khamene'i loyalists in the Assembly of Experts and such comments could be expected from these cowards.

[Wolfpack]

I just love this:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/as...455848331.html

We're not on Ahmadinejad's buddy list anymore?

[fantom1979]

First thing I thought of when I read that was Robert De Niro in Meet the Parents.

[Dr. Sak]

[fantom1979]

Iran's government said Sunday it arrested the daughter and four other relatives of former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the country's most powerful men, in a move that exposed a rift among the ruling Islamic clerics over the disputed presidential election.

Arrests of Rafsanjani kin show Iran clerics split - Yahoo! News

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Galaril

Mizz,

You are basing this on what?................I think that the younger generation is Pro-WEST not necessarily Pro US.

This goes back to the politics vs. people discussion. The politicians use the anti-US angle to the fullest extent. The Persian people love U.S. society and everything it demonstrates. But they also want to keep Islam as an integral part of their system because their religion is very important to how they live. The conservative side of the population wants decisions based on Islam. The progressive side of the population wants Islam to be a religion, not a form of governance. That obviously creates a huge conflict and power struggle that is tough to sort out.

I'm very fortunate that I have three Iranian-American friends that I eat lunch with on a daily basis. I've learned a lot about the country talking to them over the past three years as they tell me about the country and how their family members in Iran live. It's been even more incredible to hear them talk about the daily reports and what the various events mean to the leaders, the military, the militias, and both groups in the general public. It makes U.S. politics seem simple.

There's rumblings of a strike coming sometime this week starting with the oil industry. A similar oil strike occurred in 1979 and took down the Shah's regime. If the strike happens, expect big changes to occur quickly.

Looks like the non-partisan nod fell off the wagon over the weekend. Hopefully we can right the ship today.

[DaddyTorgo]

via the huffington post live-blogging (which i am checking compulsively these days)

3:18 AM ET -- Time magazine covers Neda. "In Iran, one woman's death may have many consequences."

Iran's revolution has now run through a full cycle. A gruesomely captivating video of a young woman -- laid out on a Tehran street after apparently being shot, blood pouring from her mouth and then across her face -- swept Twitter, Facebook and other websites this weekend. The woman rapidly became a symbol of Iran's escalating crisis, from a political confrontation to far more ominous physical clashes. [...]
Although it is not yet clear who shot "Neda" (a soldier? pro-government militant? an accidental misfiring?), her death may have changed everything. For the cycles of mourning in Shiite Islam actually provide a schedule for political combat -- a way to generate or revive momentum. Shiite Muslims mourn their dead on the third, seventh and 40th days after a death, and these commemorations are a pivotal part of Iran's rich history. During the revolution, the pattern of confrontations between the shah's security forces and the revolutionaries often played out in 40-day cycles.

4:43 AM ET -- Report: 40 senior clerics want election results annulled. The intense infighting among Iran's clerical establishment appeared to play out in new dramatic fashion on Monday. Via reader Art, the news site Peiknet reported that Ayatollah Rafsanjani has a letter signed by 40 members of the powerful 86-member Assembly of Experts calling for the annulment of the recent presidential election results.
Moreover, the letter (the authenticity of which has, again, not been verified) charges that the arrest of Rafsanjani's daughter Faezeh on Sunday was a way to exert pressure on him, and that she was followed and identified by the intelligence services during the rally.
More translation via a reader:

It says Khamenai has lung cancer and wanted to have his son as Supreme Leader (the position that Rafsanjani wants), and that the attempt to alter the election results was done in an attempt by Khamenei to eventually allow his son Mojtaba to replace him. It says that at the core the argument is not just about Mousavi but the overall system of government, as it's becoming a like Monarchy rather than a republic. So far, it says, most of the clerics have not accepted Ahmadinejad presidency, and quotes Ayatollah Javadi Amoly saying of the attack on Tehran University students, 'no Muslim will destroy another's property, they must be foreigners.'

[DaddyTorgo]

and re: strikes

5:03 AM ET -- Khamenei to deliver another address on Friday. That news comes via a very reliable Iranian on Twitter, who cites Iran's state television. The same Twitter user also wrote earlier today about apparent plans for a broad strike being organized by reformists:

Soon Mousavi will announce full national strikes, probably starting with Petrochemical - prepare for this... Expect food shortage - transport stoppage - money shortage in bank... Gov will respond with electric power cuts - prepare and have gas cylinders at home or gasoline for light/cooking... People of Iran - THIS IS THE DAWN - This is the new begining - have hope and prepare.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

People of Iran - THIS IS THE DAWN - This is the new begining - have hope and prepare.

reading stuff like this - i wish i could be there. wish i could be doing more than just sitting here watching. so much passion, so much determination.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

DT mentioned the 'Neda' story in a previous post. It's been amazing to see just how involved the women of Iran have been in these protests. They're a huge motivating movement within the opposition. As oppresive as the regime is in general, it's MUCH more oppresive to women. They're marching on the streets, shouting, pushing forward, helping the men fight the police/military, etc. I'm sure they're thrilled at the chance to stand up for themselves and their rights and it shows. It's incredible stuff.

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

reading stuff like this - i wish i could be there. wish i could be doing more than just sitting here watching. so much passion, so much determination.

Just be thankful that you live in a country where you do not need to go out on the streets, risking life and limb, just to have your voice heard.

[Neon_Chaos]

Ahmadinejad breaks his silence!

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Just be thankful that you live in a country where you do not need to go out on the streets, risking life and limb, just to have your voice heard.

true. but i wish i could help others have their voices heard.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Just be thankful that you live in a country where you do not need to go out on the streets, risking life and limb, just to have your voice heard.

At the same time, I think American citizens occasionally need a wake-up call that our current rights took these kinds of sacrifices to reach this point. It's easy to forget it given that our battles are rarely fought on our home turf. It generally does not hit close to home like the things we're seeing in Iran where the battles take place right in front of people's homes.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

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

I wish I had this quote from you back when we were talking about rendition and torture.

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"?

"Worse" is them actually doing it. I seriously doubt Iran has ever been, certainly in the past 10 years, a hair-trigger away from invading/bombing Israel. I mean, come on now, no half-way rational state has though an outright attack on Israel was a good idea since 1967. It's a very easy way to end up without a military.

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

They don't need ammunition. Do you think they've been giving the Iranian people the full and unadulterated truth about America for the past 30 years?

As has been pointed out, millions of Iranians have learned about the West all on their own, including the (probably millions) who have travelled to the West for vacation, work and/or study. This isn't North Korea we're talking about here.

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Saying anything on the subject also gives us jack shit, beyond maybe some vague delusion that we had a positive influence on the outcome.

Agreed 100% with Jon's assessment, and, to reiterate, this is what I've been saying all along. This has to be an Iranian revolution, and they need to directly create the government they want. If, after it's all over, there's something we can do for them, and they ask for our help, we should engage with them as wholeheartedly as we can. But not until.

It's amazing to me that people continue to have this delusion that the U.S. can invade countries, install governments, and then easily transition to the local populace. It doesn't work because the local people don't believe the government is theirs. And often they're right. Witness the problems in Iraq & Afghanistan. Witness the failure of legitimacy in Vietnam.

You know, people want a government that's theirs, even if it's a shit government. Gone are the days when you can set up a puppet regime and repress the hell out of the populace and not worry that the resentment you cause gets that puppet government thrown out 20-30 years later. I think I see our thinking on the foreign policy front changing on this, and moving more to a paradigm of lower-key support and engaging the local power structures.

Originally Posted by Wolfpack

Hm. It's a different world from 1989, for sure.

Agreed 100% with Wolfpack's analysis of this vs. Tienanmen Square.

Originally Posted by JPhillips

? What Democrat was seriously advocating war with Iran in 2003?

Perhaps Cam's suggesting that some who said "well, if you're going to use that criteria, you should invade Iran instead" was an argument for invading Iran. I've long held that the criteria that was used for us to invade Iraq should have had us invading North Korea and Pakistan long before Iran.