And I had zero context in which to view the hostage crisis. As far as I knew we, the United States, were minding our own business when suddenly, out of the blue, some evil people who hate us for no reason decided to attack us and harm us.

My response was to become a strident attacker of all things Iran. Carter had botched the rescue mission. But then Reagan was elected and I thought his tough talk and ass-kicking was what the world needed to restore justice and fight these evil people.

It wasn’t until about ten years after the Iranian Revolution when I was having a discussion about the middle east with someone (Who I viewed at the time as a peace-nik, tree-hugging, useless hippy). I said something about the attack coming out of the blue and they hated us because we were so great, and they responded by saying something like “they hate us for Operation Ajax”.

I looked at them as if they had 40 heads. I had no idea what they were talking about.

I then went to the library and started looking for information about operation Ajax. The short of it was that in 1953, the CIA overthrew the government of Iran and installed a dictator, the Shah. The shah was a brutal dictator and tortured and killed tens of thousands of Iranians so he could keep himself in power. The US did everything it could to keep the shah in power for decades. And it wasn’t until 1979 that the Iranian people were finally able to overthrow that brutal dicator.

It was at that point, I had to admit that if I had been born in Iran and lived through that, I would have supported the revolution.

The Iranian Hostage Crisis of 1979 had made me hate Iran. And it wasn’t until 10 years after that event that I got the context that, had I been born into their shoes, I would have hated the Shah and hated the US for keeping him in power for a quarter of a century.

It was probably another ten years after that realization that I was finally able to sort things out to my satisfaction, and understand all the events in the larger context of history.

1979 -> The event
1989 -> Learn I had been looking at the event with no context
1999 -> learn at least a minimal level of history about the event to understand it all.

The 9/11 attacks are this generations “event”. Today is the ten year anniversary after those attacks. And I just wonder if today’s generation is now starting to go through some realizations that their original view of the event was a view with no context.

I wonder if people who in 2001 believed President Bush when he said they hate us for our freedom, I wonder if those people today might be looking at 9/11 and realizing that Bush was lying.

It will be interesting to see how it unfolds over the next 10 years to see if we can get to a point of looking at 9/11 with enough historical context to truly understand that day.

Khomeini died in 1989, but is widely revered in Iran.

Burning a picture of Khomeini is against the law in Iran. That pictures of reformists burning a picture of Khomeini would be shown by the Iranian government leads one to wonder whether the whole thing was fabricated by the government to taint the reformists and give justification for more arrests.

While it’s possible the images are what the government says they are, that would mean that the reformists in Iran burned pictures of someone who has nothing to do with the presidential election, and is revered by many in Iran.

It’s not entirely equivalent, but it might be about as smart as if Americans protesting and opposing the US invasion of Iraq back in 2003 were to burn a picture of George Washington, revered by Americans as one of its founding fathers.

George Washington has nothing to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And Khomeini, who died twenty years ago, has nothing to do with the stolen presidential election in Iran in 2009.

I would not be surprised if the images of “reformists” burning the pictures of Khomeini were fabricated by the government of Iran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091213131421866166.html

Three students were killed that day and 7 December became known as “Student Day” in Iran. After the Shah was finally overthrown in the Iraninan revolution of 1979, the country swung from a secular dictatorship under the Shah to a religious dictatorship under the Ayatollah. In the 90′s, “Student Day” became an occasion to protest for social and political freedoms.

And yesterday was Student Day in Iran and thousands of students have taken to the streets to protest Ahmadinejad’s election in June.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091277850229658.html

Apparently, to Newt, the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 didn’t cause quite enough backlash in the form of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. No, Newt wants the US to meddle with Iran even more to make sure we angered every man, woman, and child in that country.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/07/200971023542914638.html

Authorities have banned all gatherings and protests of any kind. Police used tear gas and physical force to disperse the protesters.

That protesters are braving riot police at this point indicates strong unrest in Iran. But how much of it was motivated because of the anniversary remains to be seen. The question is whether the protesters can continue to make public demonstrations or whether the military crackdown will finally silence them.

At this point, anything could happen. Only time will tell.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/07/200979134022271172.html

Majd served as the English-language translator for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2006 speech at the United Nations. The son of an Iranian diplomat under the shah, and grandson of a powerful ayatollah, Majd grew up mainly in the United States. He is openly linked with the reformists, and is related by marriage to former President Mohammed Khatami.

If anyone knows what is going on in Iran and also has enough cultural experience of America to explain it to Americans, Majd is that man.

The bit from the article that really struck me was Majd talking about the “will of the people” in middle eastern countries and how America relates to it:

If Ahmadinejad is president, the United States is going to have to deal with him whether or not his election was the will of the people. Clearly it’s not the will of the people for Hosni Mubarak to be president of Egypt. It was the will of the people to have Hamas represent the Palestinian territory and we decided not to deal with the will of the people there.

We’ve dealt with Egypt for years and Mubarak has been president there since 1981. You don’t see John McCain condeming Mubarak for rigging his elections for the last two decades. Where is the American outrage over the will of the Egyptian people being suppressed by its government?

On the other hand, the Palestinian people elected Hamas to numerous political positions in their 2006 elections. Many saw Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas as ineffectual in securing a Palestinian state with the Israelis. Abbas was ineffectual. His approach to the Israelis was essentially give the Israelis everything they wanted and do nothing when the Israelis violated their agreements.

When Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parlimentary elections, Fatah and Hamas began infighting. Fatah ejected Hamas from the West Bank and replaced their seats with Fatah or other members. Hamas retained control of the Gaza Strip.

And when Fatah used violence to overthrow the will of the Palestinian people, what did America do? Nothing. Hamas was on America’s terrorist organization list and refused to make any contact with Hamas. In 2007, Norway was the first was the first Western country to recognize the 2007 Palestinian government consisting of both Hamas and Fatah, and America attempted to dissuade Norway from making that contact.

What it comes down to is that “the will of the people” is a smoke screen for “American Interests”. America doesn’t want to say it is in America’s interests if the Islamic Theocracy of Iran were overthrown and a secular democracy put in its place. Instead, since many people of Iran appear to be protesting the Islamic theocracy, America supports their cause by saying they support “the will of the people”.

When the “will of the people” might cause trouble for America, America ignores it. Such as in the case of Egypt. The will of the people in Egypt has been suppressed for two decades, but America doesn’t protest that and you don’t hear American soundbites about how this is a travesty and needs to be condemned, because the government of Egypt is giving America what America wants.

And when the “will of the people” elect politicians that America doesn’t like, America pretends they weren’t even elected. Hamas was elected by the will of the Palestinian people in democratic elections. America refused to acknowlege their existence. Not only that, but when Fatah used violence to remove Hamas from the West Bank, America did not condemn the use fo violence to usurp the “will of the people”.

This American concern for the “will of the people” in the Iranian elections, isn’t the reflection of a consistent idealogy in favor of democracy. Instead it is more a smoke screen to put some handwavium on something more ancient: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/25/hooman_majd/index.html

What remains to be seen is whether there will be further backlash as more Neda’s are murdered, or whether the brutality will be so great that the streets will be red with blood and any protester will be shot on sight, creating agreement by murdering anyone who disagrees.

It’s a lot of bullets.

Currently the opposition leaders have stopped calling for more protests and have called for a period of mourning for those already killed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090624/ts_nm/us_iran_election

Update: 25 June 2009: it looks like the mourning is being called off as well.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200962594056586436.html

There’s a good article over at Al Jazeera.

A number of developments have possibly put some stress on the Iranian government and how it can respond to Mousavi’s supporters who are protesting the presidential elections.

The sheer size of the protests may cause some military commanders to refuse to use lethal force against the protesters. And some members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are sympathetic to Mousavi’s plans to reform Iran. During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when the Shah was overthrown the army refused to kill members of the revolution. That may (or may not) play out again now.

The Basij militia (about 350,000 strong) are basically Iranians who get some military training and support the army and the police in using force. But they are probably the least trained of Iran’s forces. This could cause Basij members to go either way: they might break ranks to support the protesters, or some of them might take matters in to their own hands in their own vigilante attempt to keep the theocracy in power.

The biggest fracture might be occuring in the senior clerics in Iran itself. The Supreme Ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, is put into power by the Assembly of Experts, a group of Islamic clerics. And some of these clerics do not see Khamenei’s actions as being in line with Islam and some see Khamenei’s actions inciting the protesters to the point that the theocracy itself is threatened. Both would have incentive to remove Khamenei, rather than have the protesters tear down the theocracy that gives the clerics their political power.

This doesn’t mean they these clerics will support the idea of radically altering the theocracy to appease the protesters. But it means that they might withdraw their support of the Khamenei and install an new Supreme Leader who will then support a new presidential election.

Iran’s population is 70 million. According to the Iranian government, about 15 million people voted for Mousavi. According to many of Mousavi’s supporters, far more voted for Mousavi, but their votes were suppressed and not counted. This is a large enough number of people that if the Iranian government loses its legitimacy in the eyes of these people, then the entire theocracy is threatened.

At the moment, the options appear to be limited to very radical paths:

(1) Massive violent crackdown that puts an end to protests. (with the dangerous possibility of creating a massive backlash against the government)

(2) Complete overthrow of the Iranian government (and all those currently in power will not want to surrender their power)

The only tactical maneuvar I can see that might diffuse this enough is if the Assembly of Experts puts in a new Supreme Ruler who calls for new elections. This way, the majority of th Iranian government gets to stay in power. But the protesters might be sufficiently satisfied that they will stop protesting the government.

The only problem with that is, there have been only two Supreme Rulers. The first, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was made Supreme Leader after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. He remained in that position until his death in 1989, at which point he was replaced by Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the current Supreme Leader.

Installing a new Supreme Leader while the current Supreme Leader is still alive might bring into question the fallibility of the Supreme Leader and the fallibility of the Assembly of Experts and the fallibility of the Islamic Theocracy of Iran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iranincrisis/2009/06/200962355233501334.html

WARNING: IMAGES OF GRAPHIC VIOLENCE

Neda Agha Soltan, an Iranian student protesting the presidential elections with her father, was shot by a basij member (a paramilitary group loyal to the Iranian government) from a rooftop. She bled to death almost immediately. People nearby captured the moments after the shot on cell cameras. The video has been uploaded to youtube and has been shown on CNN and other media. (Her name has been reported in some places as Neda Soltani)

Neda means “voice” in Persian and “Neda” has become the rallying cry for some Iranian protesters.

The shot appears to have been from a rifle (the bullet went through her and splattered blood behind where she was standing) and the bullet appears to hit her high, centered, in her chest, probably hitting her heart. Within seconds, blood is coming out of her mouth and nose, covering her face. The start of the longer video shows Neda stepping backwards as she slumps to the ground. If she took a couple steps back after being shot, then the blood splatter on the ground would be consistent with the shooter being on a roof or other position above her.

This video shows Neda just after being shot. She is seen falling to the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZERJTB3Go8s

This is another video, taken from a different angle and shorter duration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkJ274UIYv0

Wikipedia has an article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neda_Soltani

It seems like the Supreme Leader of Iran is quickly losing his options. On one extreme: he resorts to massive and violent crackdowns and resorts to tyranny to keep the political oppostion in line for the next decade or so. At another end, Iran undergoes another revolution. Not only is Mousavi put in as president, but the Supreme Leader is ousted, and possibly the Iranian constitution is rewritten or thrown out completely.

A peaceful solution is quickly being eliminated as an option. How can the Iranian people make peace with the Supreme Leader who commanded the Iranian military and police to kill people like Neda? Things are either going to get ugly and Mousavi will take power, or the Supreme Leader maintains power and there is going to be a complete blackout and we’ll never know what really happened in Iran in 2009.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, made a public speech today endorsing Ahmadinejad as the winner of the presidential election, denying that any election fraud took place, and telling Iranians that they must stop protesting the establishment government.

Many view the speech as little more than a threat to the protesters in the streets of Iran to shut up and go home… or else. Essentially, this speech removes all possible alternatives to the situation but two. There will be no recount. There will be no new vote. There will be no dialogue with Mousavi and the protesters. The only options left are (1) do exactly what the Ayatolla says and accept the status quo or (2) continue to protest and face the wrath of the Supreme Leader of Iran who commands the police and military of that nation.

Clearly Ayatollah Khamenei is gambling that the threat of retaliation will force the protesters to accept his ruling. But his move escalated the situation to the threat of widespread military crackdown on the protesters, which might only make things worse.

The protesters believe they have been cheated by the election. They believe their vote has been ignored. They believe Mousavi won the election and the government is ignoring those results. But the Ayatollah’s speech adds more to the list of grievances being protested. Now the supporters of Mousavi have been told that they have no right to free speech, no right to dissent, no recourse to deal with perceived injustices. Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters marched peacefully through the streets of Iran. If all these protests had been violent demonstrations, one might understand the Ayatollah’s calls to end the protests. But the most recent and clearly massive protests have been peaceful. And the Ayatollah demands that even peaceful marches be stopped.

Even if the Ayatollah wins this round and the protests stop, there is no way these Iranians, these peaceful protesters, these supporters of Mousavi, there is no way these people will forget the injustices their government has done to them.

How this ends, I still cannot see. The only non-violent solution right now is for the protesters to shut up and go home and accept the establishment as it is. The alternative is to continue protesting, which will certainly lead to violence. Whether it looks like a Tieneman Square crackdown with massive deaths and a massive government coverup, or whether the protesters can somehow leverage the abuse of the government into some sort of “velvet revolution” and a peaceful change to their government, is unknown. Both outcomes are possible.

Those of us not in Iran will have to wait and see. That assumes the outcome isn’t buried under a mountain of government coverup to the point that there is nothing to look at.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009619102110594729.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961923416905779.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/06/200961781431119985.html