Skip to comments.REVOLUTION REDUX? THE 1979 REBELLION VS. TODAY
Posted on 06/23/2009 2:46:27 AM PDT by Scanian
IS Iran replaying its revolution of 30 years ago?
At first glance, there are many similarities between this revolt and the 1979 one.
First, the streets of Tehran and other major cities have become the power struggle's principal arena.
In 1979, a big part of Iranian society had lost all faith in institutional politics. The parliament was discredited, because it was composed of the members of a single party, Rastakhiz (Renaissance), set up by the shah. The Council of Ministers, headed by the prime minister, was dismissed as irrelevant if only because all power rested with the monarch.
Because there were no parties to act as an interface between the power elite and the broader society, small groups of militants, often operating in the streets, acted as vehicles for political expression.
Today, we have a similar situation. Within just a few days, all institutions of the state have ceased to function properly. Communication within the political elite is no longer conducted through those institutions but via street rallies and counterdemonstrations.
Second, both struggles began as efforts to enforce the existing constitution.
In 1979, the shah was criticized for having violated the 1906 Constitution, notably by preventing political pluralism and imposing a one-party system. Today's movement started as a protest of the alleged rigging of the June 12 presidential election, in violation of the 1979 Constitution.
The 1979 movement quickly went beyond its initial aim, re-emerging as a revolutionary bid to change the regime. Today, we're witnessing the rapid transformation of what started as a protest against electoral fraud into a bid for regime change.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I think it will be just a different kind of anti-American/anti-Israeli crowd.
If the mullahcracy remains and all they achieve is a government change. Yes.
If those who want Khamenei and the mullahcracy gone for good succed. No.
Those Iranians who want an end to the mullahs (except the communist ones) are not anti-Israeli (at worst maybe indifferent towards that non-Iranian Israeli-Arab conflict) and even less anti-American.
In any case a changed regime will have to improve the economy and social freedoms, which means it will need a new and improved international standing. This will mean inevitably an end to the warmongering policies of the current gang in power.
Israel and the US have a vital interest in removing the current regime.
Not sure what you know, but this goes against everything I've been told by friends in the region. It certainly doesn't fit with
Sorry, but you're doing a lot of wishful thinking from my point of view. Hope you're right, but I don't think so.
I really hadn’t noticed the media nor the administration getting excited about this revolution. In fact they seem to have been studiously avoiding it.
Few on FR have any illusions about Mousavi. However both he and Khorrubi are politically committed to removing the Besiji, which by itself would make an enormous change in Iran.
Moreover, it’s not really about Mousavi. The people of Iran are using him as a battering ram to break out of prison. If they get their way, the 30-year mullocracy will be maimed. Too many witnessed ‘Potato-face’ (the less than respectful popular name for Khamenei) publically approving the fraudulent election results
IMO the Mullocracy IS broken. It can now only be sustained as a military dictatorship: i.e. all the power in the hands of some Pasdaran strongman with the mullahs as puppets. And that’s pretty much the worst case.
I agree. But I recall a conversation with someone who was actively involved in the 79 revolution, who told me the mullahs were too happy to move in and say "We'll take it from here" after a similar uprising. (People tend to forget that part of it.)
I dunno, I am done with making predictions about countries I don't know enough about, and for all the feel-good vibes about generic "revolution" (the obama fans who are cheering this all seem to have Che t-shirts in their closets), all revolutions are not the same, and this one won't be clear until the dust settles, and I don't have a good feeling about it in terms of US and Israel either way.
Anti-Israel? Probably. That is too deeply ingrained to change overnight. But anti-American -- and more broadly, anti-Western -- I don't think so. Iran has a young population with none of the anti-modern mediaeval fervor of the mullahs. They are not itching for a war with Israel and the catastrophe that would bring.
One thing to get straight up front is that the Iranian nuclear program is broadly popular there, and a truly democratic government will not abandon it outright. But a reasonable hope is for a new Iranian government that, being more democratic, is also more pragmatic; as Thatcher said of Gorbachev, "a man we can work with." That would be progress.
** NEW **
*** IRAN POLITICS AND CULTURE PING LIST *** FREEPMAIL ME IF YOU WANT TO JOIN ***
A beautiful speech delivered in impeccable English
THE TEXT OF REZA PAHLAVIS SPEECH:
VIDEO OF REZA PAHLAVIS SPEECH:
REZA PAHLAVI OF IRAN Opening Remarks
THE NATIONAL PRESS CLUB WASHINGTON, D.C. JUNE 22ND, 2009
WASHINGTON, June 22 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Thank you all for coming. Thank you for your time, and attention to the cry for freedom and democracy on the streets of Iran. I can tell you, first hand, how much my compatriots are appreciative of your generous attention to their plight. The best I can do for you today is to recount what my fellow Iranians tell me about their conditions, hopes and fears.
Bear in mind that for the great majority of Iranians born after the Islamic Revolution, the unfolding events are the most significant transforming experiences of their collective memory. The courage of their convictions gives hope for peace and democracy in the most troubling region of the world. On the other hand, their defeat will encourage extremism from the shores of the Levant, to the energy jugular of the world. At the very least it will threaten regional tranquility and global economic recovery through fears of terrorism, slowdown of globalization and steeply higher energy prices. At worst, fanatical tyrants - who know that the future is against them - may end their present course on their terms: a nuclear holocaust.
But which will it be? That is the question of the day. My message to you is: do not underestimate the role you play in the outcome. International media are already the information artery connecting different parts of the freedom movement in Iran. That is why the regime has ominously warned media, that only officially approved reports can be dispatched out of the country. Having restricted the return path of media, they are also jamming electronic transmission and restricting internet traffic into the country. But it is the third leg of communication, from people to people, from one resistance cell to another, and from leaders to supporters inside Iran, of which the regime is most fearful. They cannot fight people who stand together. Only an information blackout can isolate individuals, so that they can be oppressed separately. Thus the outcome of this struggle will depend on your ability, the free media, to fight their blackout with the light of information.
Your second contribution is keeping your political leaders informed about the brutal violence of the regimes plain-clothes thugs against unarmed people. Your governments have insisted that they would not interfere in Irans internal affairs. I applaud that. Any such attempt will give the tyrants the excuse they need to paper over their own differences, and target every man struggling for freedom as a foreign agent. But that is not all they do. They are painting every statement in defense of human rights as foreign interference, benefiting from the confusion between the two. It is vital that the free world not fall for such cruel cynicism in the name of realpolitik.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights knows no national boundaries. Its defense is not only a matter of ethics, but a mutual obligation of all governments who are its signatories. It is also in their interest. No one will benefit from closing his or her eyes to knives and cables cutting into faces and mouths of our young and old, or from bullets piercing our beloved Neda whose only sin was the quest freedom - no one, no one but tyrants and their thugs. Do not let them define what is disrespect for sovereignty, what is interference in others affairs.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
A movement was born on the 22nd of Khordad in my calendar, the 12th of June in yours. It is not Islamic or anti-Islamic, it is not for capitalism or socialism, nor any other ideology or specific form of government. It cares little about historical squabbles before its birth. It is about the sanctity, even more, the sovereignty of the ballot box. It may not succeed immediately. It may have ebbs and flows. But, let me assure you it will not die, because we will not let it die.
A week later, the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic decided to stand erect as a dam in front of this movement, sanctioning theft of the ballot box and flagrant fraud, all in the name of Islam. It was an ugly moment of disrespect for both God and man. It will not stand. The citizens of Iran will not stand it. And at the end, he will not stand.
Rest assured, the Movement of 22nd of Khordad, already invested with the blood of my brave countrymen, with energy and support in every corner of Iran and the globe will not rest until it achieves unfettered democracy and human rights in Iran.
SOURCE Reza Pahlavi
hmmm..... description of Iran’s present government kinda sounds like ours doesn’t it?
hmmm..... description of Iran’s present government kinda sounds like our doesn’t it?
The crucial moment will come when they decide that the Ghandi approach does not work against pure thugs, and figure out a way to fight back.
Look at the good side of it! At least we don’t have a Jimmah Carter in the white House like we did in 1979!
I heard the same thing when the Shah fell, and I heard the same thing when we invaded Iraq. I've yet to see all these "American-loving" Middle Easterners make their appearance outside of the talking heads shows.
Not from anyone who knew what he was talking about. The Shah was "our man," and his excesses gave the anti-Americans fuel they've been coasting on for 30 years.
and I heard the same thing when we invaded Iraq. I've yet to see all these "American-loving" Middle Easterners make their appearance outside of the talking heads shows.
Iraq has as pro-American a government as you could possibly expect under the circumstances. An occupying army is hard to love.
Besides which, "American-loving" is not the point. We don't need them to love us. If the next Iranian government is at least reasonably pragmatic, and no more anti-American than the worst government in Western Europe, then our interests -- and those of the region and the Iranian people -- are far better served than they are today.