Middle East Politics

This is from Trita Parsi, who knows Iranian politics as well as anyone and can't be accused of being a regime-change advocate (he's often accused of being a regime-apologist by his opponents):

There's something different about these Iran protests

In a matter of days, protests in Iran have quickly spread across the country, taking the government by surprise and leaving analysts and pundits alike confused. Part of the reason many have been caught off guard is because these protests appear quite different from their 2009 predecessor -- in terms of size, leadership and objective.

But another reason is that the drivers of these protests are from a segment of the population that has rarely figured into Iran's political developments in the past two decades -- those who never believed or have lost hope in the idea of real change through reform.

Similarities between the current protests and the 2009 uprising are quite limited. While the current demonstrations started outside of Tehran -- in Mashhad and Qom -- and quickly spread to other cities, their size remains relatively small compared to what the world observed after Iran's fraudulent 2009 elections.

In the first few days after that election, more than one million people protested in the streets of Tehran. Though quite ferocious, the current protests have rarely numbered more than a few thousand in any specific locality.

The protests in 2009 also had very specific goals -- at least initially. They were prompted by accusations of fraud in the presidential election, and the protestors were demanding the votes be recounted. The protests also had strong leadership from then-presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who gave the movement much-needed organization.

The current protests appear much more sporadic, with no clear leadership and with objectives that have shifted over the course of the past four days. According to witnesses I've spoken to, the protests were initiated in Mashhad by religious hardliners who sought to take advantage of the population's legitimate economic grievances to score points against the Hassan Rouhani government, which they consider too moderate.

But they quickly lost control over the protests as the economic message has resonated with a broader segment of the population than they expected. Frustrations with corruption and falling living standards appear to have given way to much sharper political slogans -- such as "Death to the dictator!" and "Down with the Islamic Republic!"

Few have been more surprised by all of this than Iran's reformists. The absence of slogans and chants invoking Green leaders such as Mousavi, Karroubi or former President Mohammad Khatami gives credence to their claims that they are not a driving force behind these protests. In fact, no major reformist figure has come out in favor of the protests, and some activists have even spoken out against them.

Key operatives in the Green movement that I have spoken to both in Iran and in exile have clearly adopted a calculated distance from the demonstrators, though they express sympathy for the population's grievances.

The fact that reformists -- who have been at the center of most of the large-scale protests in Iran for the past two decades -- appear to be neither driving nor even particularly involved presents a new political phenomenon in Iran.

The protestors likely include some disillusioned Rouhani supporters. But remember that Rouhani won re-election with 57% of the vote (and 70% voter participation) only seven months ago. That means it's more likely that the core of the demonstrators are of a different ilk.

Their uncompromisingly anti-regime slogans suggest they may belong to the segment of the population who tends not to vote, doesn't believe the system can be reformed and either never subscribed to or has lost hope in the idea of gradual change. Add to that those who have joined the protests out of a sense of economic desperation and humiliation.

Most analysts have not kept an eye on these segments of the population precisely because they have not been at the center of political change in Iran in recent history. Nor do they have a track record of being able to muster protests of this size.

Precisely because this is a new phenomenon, it is also more challenging to predict how the protests will evolve and how protestors will react to the likely crackdown by the authorities in the coming days. This may also explain why the government's reaction thus far has been relatively muted.

The Iranian government is certainly not known for its lack of brutality. Protests in 2009 were violently suppressed, with massive human rights violations captured by citizen journalists on their cellphones.

The brutality it is capable of has -- at least so far -- not been fully mustered. The question is why?

Is it because the Rouhani government calculates that the protests will fizzle out on their own and potentially even give him leverage against the hardliners to push more aggressively for reform? Or, is it because the hardliners are holding back to embarrass Rouhani and claim he is incapable of upholding security?

Or, is it simply that the government as a whole is scrambling to figure out how to respond to this outpouring of discontent from segments of society they rarely pay attention to?

Four days into the protests, there are still more questions than answers. The picture that is emerging, however, is that the political landscape in Iran is being shaken up by those seeking change outside of reform.
 
US, Israel and Saudi Arabia trying to unsettle Iran from within, nothing new here. feck all to do with oppressive nature of the regime (which it is) and all to do with weakening your enemy that's gotten much stronger and more influential after recent wins in Syria.

Same shit, different country. Iraq, Libya, Syria, now it's Iran's turn.
Didn't you yourself discount people quickly pigeonholing the unrest according to their political agenda?

Edit: That was a different poster, apologies.
 
Last edited:


He's not the only one, look at this journalist tweeting the Bahraini protests in 2011 as the "Iranian protests".


Look how many times it has been retweeted. Of course it helps that most people in the West haven't even heard about these Bahraini protests, because you know "neutral, unbiased" reporting and all.

But it is very clear now that the lack of wide protests (number-wise) is posing a real problem for the media and the internet trolls who are desparately trying to make something out of this.

I don't know if there's any reason to believe that the protests weren't spontaneous/internal.
The inevitable, cynical use of these protests by people who have been itching for this war for decades, that is the problem.
The spontaneous protests were actually started by the conservatives (i.e. people who want harder approach against the US, against Rouhani reformist policies ...etc.). However, suddenly small groups in different parts of Iran started going out and burning things in an organized way. If it was spontaneous you'd see bigger numbers, less violence, and a clear objective. What we have here is exactly how the Cuban project was described.

Documents show the US government planned to build a subscriber base through "non-controversial content": news messages on soccer, music, and hurricane updates. Later when the network reached a critical mass of subscribers, perhaps hundreds of thousands, operators would introduce political content aimed at inspiring Cubans to organize "smart mobs" — mass gatherings called at a moment's notice that might trigger a Cuban spring, or, as one USAid document put it, "renegotiate the balance of power between the state and society."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/03/us-cuban-twitter-zunzuneo-stir-unrest

This is exactly what seems to have happened here, and now we also have evidence that some Telegram news channels in Iran have suddenly urged their subscribers to go out and throw molotov at police.
 
If the US were to try to foment unrest in Iran along the lines of what we're seeing, it's likely the MEK would be the top contenders among the channels they'd try to use - they've got a high profile presence and growing support in certain DC circles. With that in mind it is interesting that some of the first English-language Twitter accounts to start posting videos of the protests seem to be MEK-linked in some way. Searching "MEK Iran" on Twitter right now throws up dozens of videos explicitly attributed to MEK "activists".

On the other hand it seems a bit inconceivable that the MEK, who are generally despised by everyone in Iran for supporting Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, could have the means to provoke any kinds of protests, never mind protests all the way from Mashad to Kermanshah.

Yes, I find it to believe that the US is suddenly so politically popular in Iran that a US_aligned faction could organise these.
 
Yes, I find it to believe that the US is suddenly so politically popular in Iran that a US_aligned faction could organise these.

The US is always going to be viewed somewhat favorably among people in authoritarian countries who aspire to greater freedoms. There's a significant amount of soft power baked in historically from everything from Coca Cola to Blue Jeans to Hollywood to Facebook to any number of other cultural data points that get exported around the globe, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the cumulative benefits of this seeps into various countries. As for Iran, the biggest Iranian community outside Iran resides in California - in fact just around my 'hood of Westwood LA, so there is obviously going to be some favorable sentiment among Iranian factions who dislike the theocratic dictatorship.
 
The US is always going to be viewed somewhat favorably among people in authoritarian countries who aspire to greater freedoms. There's a significant amount of soft power baked in historically from everything from Coca Cola to Blue Jeans to Hollywood to Facebook to any number of other cultural data points that get exported around the globe, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the cumulative benefits of this seeps into various countries. As for Iran, the biggest Iranian community outside Iran resides in California - in fact just around my 'hood of Westwood LA, so there is obviously going to be some favorable sentiment among Iranian factions who dislike the theocratic dictatorship.

The diaspora might be very different politically from those who are still in Iran and are facing the impact of sanctions (and might remember US+Soviet-armed Saddam in the 80s).

For example, in the late 70s, when SOviet-friendly Indira Gandhi suspended fundamental rights in India, the left+right combined opposition did not *openly* take help/inspiration from the US, and saying "foreign hand" (=> ISI, CIA) was her somewhat effective way of demonizing protests.
 
The US is always going to be viewed somewhat favorably among people in authoritarian countries who aspire to greater freedoms. There's a significant amount of soft power baked in historically from everything from Coca Cola to Blue Jeans to Hollywood to Facebook to any number of other cultural data points that get exported around the globe, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the cumulative benefits of this seeps into various countries. As for Iran, the biggest Iranian community outside Iran resides in California - in fact just around my 'hood of Westwood LA, so there is obviously going to be some favorable sentiment among Iranian factions who dislike the theocratic dictatorship.
I'm not sure if you really believe this or if you're just a part of the misinformation compaign (the second is more likely). What you said shows that you don't know the people in Iran and you probably have never been there (being a part of the US government and all).

The vast majority of the Iranians who live in Iran actually hate the US. That's the reality. That's why you see the protests (which was started by people who hate the US even more than the current Iranian government) died down quickly numbers-wise and turned quickly into mere violence by small groups (with known motives). It's also the exact same reason why all the publicity they get from people like Trump and the US government will actually hurt the spread of the protests (numbers-wise).
 
I'm not sure if you really believe this or if you're just a part of the misinformation compaign (the second is more likely). What you said shows that you don't know the people in Iran and you probably have never been there (being a part of the US government and all).

The vast majority of the Iranians who live in Iran actually hate the US. That's the reality. That's why you see the protests (which was started by people who hate the US even more than the current Iranian government) died down quickly numbers-wise and turned quickly into mere violence by small groups (with known motives). It's also the exact same reason why all the publicity they get from people like Trump and the US government will actually hurt the spread of the protests (numbers-wise).

The sad influence of the evil regime. Let's hope democracy prevails in the end.
 
Anyone seen anything about this at all?


I think that is the point of the timing of these protests, to distract from the embassy decision. It was a clear plan, move the embassy then do this. US is happy, Saudi Arabia is happy, Israel is 2x happy.

By the way, in May Mohammad bin Salman seems to have given something away about the recent developments...
In unusually blunt remarks, Prince Mohammed bin Salman said any struggle for influence between the Sunni Muslim kingdom and the revolutionary Shi‘ite theocracy ought to take place “inside Iran, not in Saudi Arabia”. He did not elaborate.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...o-chance-for-dialogue-with-iran-idUSKBN17Y1FK

I think Iran is going to take these comments very seriously now.
 
Israel and the US won't rest till the whole middle east is fecked.
Some countries just can't handle democracy, just stay the feck away.
Edited to add the Saudis to the bunch of trouble makers.
 






No surprise! The response of the EU
to events in Iran simply reflects the longstanding policy of 'Critical Dialogue'.
 
The Central Intelligence Agency has established an organization focused exclusively on gathering and analyzing intelligence about Iran, reflecting the Trump administration’s decision to make that country a higher priority target for American spies, according to U.S. officials.

The Iran Mission Center will bring together analysts, operations personnel and specialists from across the CIA to bring to bear the range of the agency’s capabilities, including covert action. In that respect it is similar to a new Korea Mission Center that the CIA announced last month to address North Korea’s efforts to develop long-range nuclear missiles.

The CIA didn’t publicly announce the new Iran organization. The agency declined to comment.


CIA Director Mike Pompeo is a longtime Iran hawk, and the U.S. officials said his emphasis on the threat the country poses to U.S. national security interests is reflected in the establishment of the new center.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/cia-creates-new-mission-center-to-turn-up-heat-on-iran-1496426232
 
Here we go again, party like its 1953.

They been getting the neo-Shah ready then?

That would be...

12-Maryam-Rajavi-and-Senator-McCain-meet-2.jpg


Ba44znoCIAMDfgR.jpg
 
Here we go again, party like its 1953.

They been getting the neo-Shah ready then?
I'd wait with the alarmism until there's more definitive information on what's currently happening and where the journey goes. The predictions of several posters that Israel (or Saudi Arabia via Israel) is about to immediately strike Lebanon were proven to be quite premature as well.

It's only logical that the recent expansion of Iranian influence/control in key Arab countries will meet a response at some point. And if the Mullahs'/IRGC's offensive will be curbed, it must not automatically be for the worse. Building up a deterrent military threat that makes them think twice about further advances wouldn't automatically be the same as an all-out war, or a regime change attempt à la Iraq.

Sure, this can also turn out to be the prelude to a total disaster like 2003. But I think at this point it pays to wait and observe before drawing definite conclusions of that kind.
 
Last edited:
The US is always going to be viewed somewhat favorably among people in authoritarian countries who aspire to greater freedoms. There's a significant amount of soft power baked in historically from everything from Coca Cola to Blue Jeans to Hollywood to Facebook to any number of other cultural data points that get exported around the globe, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the cumulative benefits of this seeps into various countries. As for Iran, the biggest Iranian community outside Iran resides in California - in fact just around my 'hood of Westwood LA, so there is obviously going to be some favorable sentiment among Iranian factions who dislike the theocratic dictatorship.

While there is an affinity for American culture and American people, the same affection is not extended to Uncle Sam.

America, as a state, is actually viewed with distrust. It's common knowledge that they intervene for self serving purposes that have little to do with democracy, liberty or any other ideal. Well-being of citizens of these states is not really high on the list of American priorities. It would be naive for a citizens of these countries to think otherwise, and America would be naive if it thought the world wasn't aware of their motivations.
 
While there is an affinity for American culture and American people, the same affection is not extended to Uncle Sam.

America, as a state, is actually viewed with distrust. It's common knowledge that they intervene for self serving purposes that have little to do with democracy, liberty or any other ideal. Well-being of citizens of these states is not really high on the list of American priorities. It would be naive for a citizens of these countries to think otherwise, and America would be naive if it thought the world wasn't aware of their motivations.
So you don't believe Trump's concern for the rights, freedom and well-being of Iranian people is sincere? Not from Costa Rica are you?
 
While there is an affinity for American culture and American people, the same affection is not extended to Uncle Sam.

America, as a state, is actually viewed with distrust. It's common knowledge that they intervene for self serving purposes that have little to do with democracy, liberty or any other ideal. Well-being of citizens of these states is not really high on the list of American priorities. It would be naive for a citizens of these countries to think otherwise, and America would be naive if it thought the world wasn't aware of their motivations.

There are no motivations other than to have more democratic systems on the planet to facilitate more stable economic and cultural exchanges.
 
So you don't believe Trump's concern for the rights, freedom and well-being of Iranian people is sincere? Not from Costa Rica are you?
No mate, worse than that. My country (Sudan) has been on the naughty list and under sanctions for decades.

Funny part is that it was Trump that lifted them a few months ago.
 
There are no motivations other than to have more democratic systems on the planet to facilitate more stable economic and cultural exchanges.
The emphasis being on stable economic exchange. If a despot can provide that then no worries, as seen in the special Saudi-American relationship.

I'm fine with any country looking out for their interest. It's the natural order of things, but America's position as the world's cop makes it like a cop on the take, one who doesn't mind doing business with shady types if the price is right. In most of the middle east a politician would be described as "Having close ties to America" to discredit them.

The ideals that America stands for, democracy, freedom, liberty and the right to pursue happiness are what people find inspiring.
 
There are no motivations other than to have more democratic systems on the planet to facilitate more stable economic and cultural exchanges.

But yet after every American intervention, the region has been left less stable and there is a big common factor in the nations which get granted these 'democratic systems' and which do not.
 
But yet after every American intervention, the region has been left less stable and there is a big common factor in the nations which get granted these 'democratic systems' and which do not.

No doubt about it. These sort of interventions need full international cooperation in order to work the way they are supposed to. The first Gulf War was a good example of a successful operation with full international backing and clear end state objectives.
 


Not sure how reliable or representative it is.

Edit: seems to be in line with this:
 
Last edited: