June 17, 2009

Be careful for what you wish for.

I have read some information about the election in Iran and the protest that have followed. Granted that I don't believe the elections were fair and I am upset about those murdered, but I would be cautious in supporting their cause.

There are many blogger who see this as a call to democracy and freedom, the Green Revolution. They see the government's repression as naturally giving the protesters righteousness. I have no problem of those who give the protesters the means to speak, but outside of understanding that they think they have been robbed of an election, I have no idea what kind of government they want.

I question who is this reformer; is he indeed a reformer or the lesser of two evils who would give only superficial appearances? I remember the fervor in which the young people and women embraced the Ayatollah Khomeini after the repressive regime of the Shah. What followed was a disaster in my eyes, something I could not support. The cause just replaced one form of oppression with another. It was another set of people being murdered, not so much of the old political dissidents, but women.

A more rigorous examination.


Anonymous said...

I agree with your sentiment, "being careful what we wish for."

And frankly I would have preferred for our President to have maintained his distance in commenting, directing words to the Iranian people. I "suppose" that he "might" be reacting to some in the GOP. But (my personal feeling) Mr. Obama is one cagey character, and I realize he's got better resources than I.

I would make note of something from back in '89. At that time the old USSR was beginning to show signs of cracking. Then President Geo. HW Bush took quite a bit of heat from his fellow Republicans for not "jumping on the bandwagon" and ramping up the rhetoric.

History, it would seem, proved him right (at least in that specific case).

There is the possibility of a "change for the better" here - but like you, I shall be very, very cautiously optimistic.


Hathor said...

I think the Republicans in some ways are using this to be contrarians. They seriously want to find a cause in a grass roots kind of way; to be relevant. They have also latched onto the "Tea Parties."

They along with the libertarians are trying to wrest the ideas of liberty and democracy from Democrats.

There are also quite a few liberals who side with the GOP and are disappointed with the President's comments. I think for the boomers there is a need to return to activism and for younger people to create the atmosphere of their parents youth.

miss e said...

the revolution of 1979 was never an "islamic" revolution. it was robbed from the people and taken over by the islamists. back then, students and leftists joined forces with the islamists to fight the shah..this undoubtedly turned out to be a huge mistake. however, it no doubt suited western and capitalist powers-they would rather have seen an islamic regime than a socialist one. since 79 there have been attempted uprisings and protests however these have always been quashed fairly quickly untill now. if u follow blogs or news from activists in iran, its fairly obvious that most people do not support moussavi. he was in power in the 80s when tens of thousands of intellectuals and activists were executed, and so he is seen to be part of a regime that is widely detested. however, by supporting moussavi the people were undermining khomenei. when we view protests from the outside, we have to understand that to go on the streets and denounce the islamic regime outright can get you killed and/or severly tortured. so instead people hid their true feelings behind banners of support for moussavi. if you look at statistics though, a huge number of iranians want democracy and many students and intellectuals are fighting for a progressive and secular society. this if fairly obvious from many independent iranian blogs and papers..however, for some reason, western mainstream media are ignoring this trend.