February 11, 2010
On the 31st Anniversary of the Iranian Revolution
MAHMOUD AHMADINEJAD declares Iran a nuclear state and that Israel will be destroyed once and for all if it initiates an attack.
THE WHITE HOUSE dismisses Ahmadinejad's claim as based on politics rather than physics.
AT THE SAME TIME, the U.S. targets the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps with sanctions.
PROTESTERS clash with security forces.
THE IRANIAN GOVERNMENT, like the Chinese government, is now at war with Google.
FINLAND'S FOREIGN MINISTER says European Union sanctions against Iran are only weeks or even days away.
GREEN MOVEMENT LEADER Mir Hossein Mousavi's wife, who is 65 years old, was beaten in the streets by the Basij militia with clubs.
REUEL MARC GERECHT wonders aloud in the New York Times if Iran will at some point become a beacon of liberty.
Posted by Michael J. Totten at February 11, 2010 2:25 PM
Comments
The Obama administration will do everything it its power to sanction Iran, within the boundaries set by China.
Posted by: crosspatch at February 11, 2010 3:21 pm
Mr Totten,
Sorry if this is slightly off-topic here, but there was a BBC report today by Natalia Antelava which indicates that the Lebanese government would now regard an attack on Hizb'allah as an attack on Lebanon itself.
Do you agree?
Posted by: KB at February 11, 2010 4:20 pm
Sorry if this is slightly off-topic here, but there was a BBC report today by Natalia Antelava which indicates that the Lebanese government would now regard an attack on Hizb'allah as an attack on Lebanon itself.
Do you agree?
KB,
Lebanon's parliamentary majority is constantly accused by Hezbollah of serving the "Zionist Entity," and rhetoric like that is how it tries to innoculate itself from the charge.
If I were hired by the Lebanese government as an advisor, I'd tell them to just shut up about this. This kind of talk won't save Lebanon's majority from Hezbollah, and it might get some of them killed by the Israelis.
Let Hezbollah say they're serving the Israeli enemy. Who cares? Hezbollah will keep saying it regardless. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda accuses Hezbollah of serving the Zionists. Not even shooting rockets at Israel innoculates Hezbollah from that charge.
Anyway, if Israel bombs Lebanon again, almost all Lebanese will feel under attack--especially if the Israelis declare war on the entire country like they keep threatening to do.
I'd advise both governments to knock this kind of talk off, but I'm not in charge and nobody over there asks me.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 11, 2010 4:30 pm
Lebanon's parliamentary majority is constantly accused by Hezbollah of serving the "Zionist Entity," and rhetoric like that is how it tries to innoculate itself from the charge.
If I were hired by the Lebanese government as an advisor, I'd tell them to just shut up about this. This kind of talk won't save Lebanon's majority from Hezbollah, and it might get some of them killed by the Israelis.
Let Hezbollah say they're serving the Israeli enemy. Who cares? Hezbollah will keep saying it regardless. Meanwhile, Al Qaeda accuses Hezbollah of serving the Zionists. Not even shooting rockets at Israel innoculates Hezbollah from that charge.
Anyway, if Israel bombs Lebanon again, almost all Lebanese will feel under attack--especially if the Israelis declare war on the entire country like they keep threatening to do.
I'd advise both governments to knock this kind of talk off, but I'm not in charge and nobody over there asks me.
Many thanks. Enlightening as usual; worrying as ever in this part of the world.
Posted by: KB at February 11, 2010 5:02 pm
You are providing the most comprehensive look at Iran on this very important day.
As you have mentioned Lebanon here, I must ask you:
Notwithstanding the jockeying going on since May of 2008, do you not think that the May 14 movement is now totally dead, and that despite the desperate measures taken by its participants (and in the case of Jumblatt, it's former participant) to apparently avoid the violence? Do you believe that they in doing so, it is only delaying the inevitable result of civil war and perhaps a much bloodier conflagration at a later date?
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at February 11, 2010 9:14 pm
As you have mentioned Lebanon here, I must ask you:
Notwithstanding the jockeying going on since May of 2008, do you not think that the May 14 movement is now totally dead, and that despite the desperate measures taken by its participants (and in the case of Jumblatt, it's former participant) to apparently avoid the violence? Do you believe that they in doing so, it is only delaying the inevitable result of civil war and perhaps a much bloodier conflagration at a later date?
Sorry, that was unclear and it should have read:
"Notwithstanding the jockeying going on since May of 2008, do you not think that the May 14 movement is now totally dead?
And despite the desperate and unusual measures taken by its participants (and in the case of Jumblatt, it's former participant) to apparently avoid the violence, do you believe that they in doing so, they are only delaying the inevitable result of civil war and perhaps a much bloodier conflagration at a later date?"
Posted by: ankhfkhonsu at February 11, 2010 9:18 pm
"Notwithstanding the jockeying going on since May of 2008, do you not think that the May 14 movement is now totally dead?
And despite the desperate and unusual measures taken by its participants (and in the case of Jumblatt, it's former participant) to apparently avoid the violence, do you believe that they in doing so, they are only delaying the inevitable result of civil war and perhaps a much bloodier conflagration at a later date?"
Notwithstanding the jockeying going on since May of 2008, do you not think that the May 14 movement is now totally dead?
Very nearly.
Lebanese liberalism, though, isn't dead. If Syria and Iran had decent governments, Lebanon would be okay.
Posted by: Michael J. Totten at February 11, 2010 9:33 pm
Very nearly.
Lebanese liberalism, though, isn't dead. If Syria and Iran had decent governments, Lebanon would be okay.
Is there any reason to believe that this time, Mousavi and his faction of "reformers of the revolution" will behave differently than back in '79?
Once Mousavi's theocrats win, what's preventing them from killing the seculars and democrats off, suppressing the middle class and keeping the Islamic Republic with new Supreme Leader and President?
Sure, they'll have to take over RG and Baseej, but it's less of a problem if they have both the popular support and the military on their side.
This whole "once I only know about Che Guevara, now I know about Gandhi" thing is not very convincing... They spoke of freedom and peace and democracy back then too.
Posted by: Abu Sa'ar at February 12, 2010 3:31 am
Once Mousavi's theocrats win, what's preventing them from killing the seculars and democrats off, suppressing the middle class and keeping the Islamic Republic with new Supreme Leader and President?
Sure, they'll have to take over RG and Baseej, but it's less of a problem if they have both the popular support and the military on their side.
This whole "once I only know about Che Guevara, now I know about Gandhi" thing is not very convincing... They spoke of freedom and peace and democracy back then too.
If Syria and Iran had decent governments, we'd ALL be better off. >sigh<
Posted by: Pete(Detroit) at February 12, 2010 6:19 am
Good summary. Folks here might be interested in the following link:
http://planet-iran.com/
Posted by: bob at February 12, 2010 8:05 am
http://planet-iran.com/
I do not believe that Moussavi's motives are to dismantle the revolution's principles as he is a faithful pupil and a product of that revolution himself..however, it looks like as events unfold and the repression of the protesters worsens, things will spin out of control and may have the undesired effect of unleashing a counter islamic revolution in Iran that will usher in a new era...only time will tell.
Posted by: Mason at February 16, 2010 8:45 am
Post a comment
