Iran's Next Revolution?

I feel it is necessary to explain why this is my latest post and what compelled me to write this. After checking my twitter feed and noticing how the elections in Iran were a trending topic I started to notice a pattern. First there was great anger and frustration being projected not just at the government of Iran but also at the American media for its scant coverage of the events that are occurring as I write. I have to say despite the negative atmosphere, these comments are conveying the fact that Americans are interested in Iran and disappointed in their media. This gives me hope that this nation still does demand more from its media and that people as a whole still take an interest in what goes on outside of America. None of this explains why I feel the need to write a post on Iran, but the fact is I fear that many of the people commenting on this issue are misplacing their optimism, and misunderstanding Iran and its complexities. To help explain this I have written a post with an extremely brief history and a projection for the future.

To quote Health Ledger in his infamous role as the Joker, “Where do we begin?” Iran has a relationship with the United States that it seems we were all to keen to forget. The reality is that at one point the United States and Iran had a very close relationship. In fact not only did we help instill the dictator that ruled before the Revolution we also gave him sustained support and towards the end amnesty. This begs the question why does Iran hate us if we had a working relationship with her? The fact is that the Shah (Iran’s King) passed through and enacted some reforms that created a great deal of resentment towards him. He created a high unemployment rate and was viewed by a good deal of the youth as a tyrant. The Shah’s acceptance of Westernization provided the fuel for the inevitable backlash. This coupled with the fact that he had “illegally” seized power back with his own coup in 1953 with the assistance of the CIA; only perpetuated his image as a “Puppet of the West”. This anger allowed more radical clerics and fundamentalists to harness the power of Iran’s large youth population and eventually resulted in the Iranian Revolution. The Iranian Revolution had two targets in its sight the Shah and the Great Satan (The United States). This is really the underlying cause of our tensions with Iran today.

Fast forwarding to this very hour, again youth take to the streets, attack the police, start fires and chant “Down with the Dictator”. Once more it seems a spirit of revolution is in the air fueled by an “illegitimate elections result”, and as history repeats itself Americans have fallen “in love” with the spirit of REVOLUTION just as they did during the Tiananmen Square Protests. It is this optimism that I regard with great suspicion. The Iranian people are not discarding the pillars of the previous Revolution, and are not chanting for a pure democracy. What is being protested is an election result between a somewhat more moderate candidate and a fundamentalist one. This is not a call for a complete overthrow; in fact the election results carry very little weight in the grand scheme of things. This chart should help demonstrate my point.


The real leader of Iran is the supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei and the Guardian Council to a lesser degree. The fact that Khamenei has come out in support of the results creates a conundrum in Iran. Either Iran falls in line with his wishes, as it has done since the Revolution, or the dissenting voices strength forces the Ayatollah to demand a re-election or risk civil war. The second scenario is a stretch, however considering how unpredicted the first Revolution was it is a possibility. The real question is what reform any of the possible choices could bring.

98% of Iran is Muslim and that figure is not going to change. The leaders of the country are extremely conservative and have continued the same fundamentalist fervor that brought them to power. Most of the poor and peasants in Iran still show an overwhelming support of the radical president Ahmadinejad, and his power and populism is not something to be underestimated. The real dissent comes from the middle class and educated population. There is another country that tried a revolution with the backing of this group and it ended up in a Communist Republic instead of a Democratic system. I am referring to the Kadets who led the first Revolution in Russia and were quickly overthrown by the Bolsheviks. If history is to be the judge a successful revolution led by this group in Iran is highly unlikely.

As always would love comments and love to debate any of my points my email address is kremdond37@gmail.com

Chechnya, Russia and WHAT!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/world/europe/01torture.html

So I came upon this article, and I got to thinking about two different things. The first is that it is well known that Putin, (current leader by all measures), rose to power and popularity by brutally repressing, and destroying, the Chechnya Insurgency. This article fits perfectly in with the time line, and despite the fact that they did not mention it, it is kind of clear that Putin would of put this butcher-er, president, in charge of Chechnya. So this got me to thinking, how could the West be so naive to believe that we could turn a person like Putin simply with Capitalism? The idea's of Capitalization have wrongfully been mixed with the idea's of liberalism. The second observation I notice is that Russia is largely regarded as the greatest threat to the United States, them and China, and with the exception of the brief eight years that the Bush administration distracted the world with the idea that Terrorists were our greatest threat, most politicians and academia agree that Russia, and China are our two greatest threats. The thing I find interesting is that China may not be as big of a threat as we have previously estimated at least not in the short term. My feeling is that Russia is going to be extremely dangerous because if my prediction is right it will follow vaguely in Iran's footsteps. Iran became a threat after flirting with Capitalism and watching the market destroy their economy and prop up a corrupt and ruthless leader. From there the Islamic Extremism and Nationalism took over, and the rest is history, with the exception of N.K. few nations despise and distrust the west so much.

The problem in Russia is not that their leader is raping the population, however Russia has become a nation deeply invested in Capitalism and due to failures of it's own and the current collapse of the world's financial system and conversely a devastating downturn in the Capitalist market, Russia is being set on a path, that could prove challenging and dangerous for the United States. Russia's economy foolishly built on oil, has crumbled and the lack of divestment has forced Russia once rich Oligarchs to surrender to the Government as the state attempts to save the economy via a Nationalizing Agenda. The danger lies in the fact that the State, Russia, now inherits a modernized and efficient industry and because of its current history with Capitalism, it appears that Russia is backsliding into its Nationalistic Communist self. The recent events and undertakings that the Russian government has enacted, (Georgia, Ukraine Gas, NATO Missile, Darfur, Iran, Radiation poisoned Spy's), have only added further evidence that Russia has taken a more combative stance with the West and have sought to further Russia's interest above all. Fueled by his popularity Vladimir Putin has effectively set up a system where he has the final say, and is the main orchestrator in all of Russia's actions. So to conclude my thoughts, it is wise to learn from this article, two things, one that Russia under Putin has no limits as to the brutality it will employ to achieve its ends. The second is that Russia is a threat and that balancing that threat diplomatically will become crucial within the next few years, and Russia's power needs to be limited, it is simply unacceptable that Russia can literally bring the EU to it's knees via it's power over natural gas and oil.

The last thing I noticed in an unrelated manner is how underreported Islamic rebellions are against Repressive regimes. Western Media has all but ignored the plight of the Uyghur’s and Chechnya is mentioned just as rarely. Throw this in with the coverage of the current Palestinian conflict and a trend emerges. This is not to say that these rebellions are any better or that their methods are acceptable, rather it is being said to shine light on the disproportionate attention and sympathy the west dedicates. For further reference consider the way the West reacted to Tibet during China's Olympics, when it was clear that the events were not peaceful and were actually an anarchic battle waged