Iran Issues

[Wolf]

Fair enough--yes, my original point was that it's fairly obvious that some substantial amount of election fraud occurred. In that sense, I assumed that it necessarily meant that protests regarding elections fraud were legitimate--apparently, you guys want that divided into separate points. Done. I believe that substantial amount of election fraud occurred, there's significant evidence that indicates its presence, and I believe that many protests regarding the election are "legitimate" in the sense that there are people taking to the streets because this time the rigging of Iranian elections has violated their moral economy more so than in the past. Or, in other words, it was just too obvious. You can rig elections for years and years, and as long as you make it at least look like people have a say, they'll probably be okay with it. I would rather interpret the present phenomenon of people taking to the streets as a "final straw," if you will, representing the pent-up frustrations Iranians have with a terribly oppressive regime that replaced a not-so terribly repressive regime. This doesn't mean that Iranians were, up until only recently, "okay" with the idea of elections fraud--which you seem to imply--and because of other, external issues, have decided, rather disingenuously, to take to the streets. I don't think they were ever okay with it, and I think people reach a breaking point every now and then.

Sadly, however, I wonder if the recent death of Michael Jackson might not reduce the level of interest in the elections in these [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/2009IranElectionsResponse.png ] countries enough that the regime will be able to crack down on the remaining dissidents with little international criticism. (In the map, blue countries have questioned the elections results, green countries have welcomed them. In other news, just what bastards are the Russians, here was their official response to the protests: "On June 24 Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov expressed approval of the measures taken by the Iranian government in the aftermath of the election.")

And yes, it was '79, not '72. Significant libations proceeded the writing of that last post. And significant libations there will be tonight.

[Edric O]

Fair enough--yes, my original point was that it's fairly obvious that some substantial amount of election fraud occurred. In that sense, I assumed that it necessarily meant that protests regarding elections fraud were legitimate--apparently, you guys want that divided into separate points. Done. I believe that substantial amount of election fraud occurred, there's significant evidence that indicates its presence, and I believe that many protests regarding the election are "legitimate" in the sense that there are people taking to the streets because this time the rigging of Iranian elections has violated their moral economy more so than in the past. Or, in other words, it was just too obvious. You can rig elections for years and years, and as long as you make it at least look like people have a say, they'll probably be okay with it. I would rather interpret the present phenomenon of people taking to the streets as a "final straw," if you will, representing the pent-up frustrations Iranians have with a terribly oppressive regime that replaced a not-so terribly repressive regime. This doesn't mean that Iranians were, up until only recently, "okay" with the idea of elections fraud--which you seem to imply--and because of other, external issues, have decided, rather disingenuously, to take to the streets. I don't think they were ever okay with it, and I think people reach a breaking point every now and then.

Umm, I think the immediate reason why Iranians have taken to the streets is fairly obvious: They despise Ahmadinejad. They haven't taken to the streets after previous elections because those elections did not occur after 4 years of having Ahmadinejad in power.

Now, of course, I don't know enough to tell you why these people despise Ahmadinejad, and I'm sure there are a multitude of different reasons, but I think it's fair to say they care about who gets to be president more than they care about following proper electoral procedures. I doubt the same people would have taken to the streets if Moussavi had won, even if the evidence of fraud had been the same.

Sadly, however, I wonder if the recent death of Michael Jackson might not reduce the level of interest in the elections in these [ http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/11/2009IranElectionsResponse.png ] countries enough that the regime will be able to crack down on the remaining dissidents with little international criticism. (In the map, blue countries have questioned the elections results, green countries have welcomed them.)

Ahmadinejad wants international criticism - at least from the West - so he can continue to present himself as the sole defender of Iranian freedom and dignity against a West bent on world domination.

In other news, just what bastards are the Russians, here was their official response to the protests: "On June 24 Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov expressed approval of the measures taken by the Iranian government in the aftermath of the election.")

Well, presumably they're congratulating the Iranian government for doing what they're planning to do as soon as Putin becomes unpopular enough to actually lose an election.

And yes, it was '79, not '72. Significant libations proceeded the writing of that last post. And significant libations there will be tonight.

I... don't get that one. ???

[chatfsh]

Ahmadinejad wants international criticism - at least from the West - so he can continue to present himself as the sole defender of Iranian freedom and dignity against a West bent on world domination.

Perhaps, but if that were truly the case, wouldn

[Edric O]

Perhaps, but if that were truly the case, wouldn

[Andrew]

Iranian nuclear revelation a grave threat: Harper

So apparently they have a second nuke plant that people did not know about.

[Dante]

And there are hints, tiny hints, that Russia and China may be coming around to the idea of sanctions. Woot!

[chatfsh]

Russia says to fulfill Iran missile contract.  China still shows no desire to support increased sanctions against Iran despite Iran

[arnoldo]

Being an oil exporter, Russia would benefit if a regional conflict erupted in the Middle East which would send oil prices skyrocketing.  The spice, err, oil must flow! ;)

[MrFlibble]

Being an oil exporter, Russia would benefit if a regional conflict erupted in the Middle East which would send oil prices skyrocketing.  The spice, err, oil must flow! ;)

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard! >:(

[Dunenewt]

Russia likes to stoke the flames in the Middle East, but it wouldn't want a war that could potentially overspill into Chechnya and the surrounding areas.

[Wolf]

I love Mr. Flibble's righteous indignation. To be fair, they at least had the common human decency not to turn off Eastern Europe's gas this winter.

[arnoldo]

Russia likes to stoke the flames in the Middle East, but it wouldn't want a war that could potentially overspill into Chechnya and the surrounding areas.

Iran would benefit from a regional outbreak because it would banish the internal opposition and unite the country against a common enemy according to a news report I heard recently.  If the war spilled over into Chechnya perhaps this would also unite some of the former republics back to Russia.  This would seem like a win-win situation for Russia if it brought increased oil revenue plus more territory under it's control.

[MrFlibble]

If the war spilled over into Chechnya perhaps this would also unite some of the former republics back to Russia.  This would seem like a win-win situation for Russia if it brought increased oil revenue plus more territory under it's control.

Okay, I was wrong. This one is even more preposterous! :O In fact, I hope no one in charge ever makes any political decisions based on "analysis" of such kind...

I love Mr. Flibble's righteous indignation. To be fair, they at least had the common human decency not to turn off Eastern Europe's gas this winter.

Well, that whole story wasn't exactly the best example of how problems should be dealt with, but now we're not going to point fingers at those whose fault it really was, are we?

[Wolf]

Actually, Flibble, I'd love to know whose fault it really was.

[MrFlibble]

Actually, Flibble, I'd love to know whose fault it really was.

Well, I don't know the details, but the investigation revealed that some of the gas that was supposed to "transit" trough the Ukrainian territory to the Eastern Europe did not reach its destination... Which was eventually lead to the shutting down of the gas line as to prevent any further abuse on the Ukrainian side.

I love Mr. Flibble's righteous indignation.

It's not as much about any kind of "righteousness" really. Obviously any large-scale conflict would entail an increase in terrorist activity and further destabilization of the entire region. It would be reckless at best to consciously provoke such a situation, knowing the consequences you would suffer, even in spite of any potential benefits (which are very unconvincing in the scenario Mr. Arnoldo presented to us).

[Dunenewt]

I did hear rumours about the Ukrainians syphoning off gas which they hadn't paid for.

[MrFlibble]

Rumours? That was kind of the central point of the whole story...

[Anathema]

Well...assuming that Yanukovich does become president, eastern Europe won't have to fear such incidents for some years. Ukraine will probably get reduced tarrifs for their gas and Russia will cut them some slack on existing debts, much like before Yushenko became president...

[Wolf]

Haha, I asked you to clarify because I thought you meant something else, Flibble, my apologies. Carry on.