Is the country on the verge, or already in, a civil war? Michael Totten is on the case. Hit his tip jar if you can.
[Update a couple hours later]
More over at Gateway Pundit.
[Late afternoon update]
More from Michael Totten: Insurrection, Day Two.
More news at PJM. This is interesting:
There are widespread reports of police and security forces, around Tehran and other big cities where there have been demonstrations, who are not Iranian and either speak Persian with a very pronounced Arab accent or speak no Persian at all.
From Iraq? Or elsewhere?
[Update early evening]
Iran doesn’t have elections — it has circuses:
Stalin would be proud. But even his Soviet Union eventually succumbed to the dissidents, and while the regime has most all of the guns, the chains, the clubs, the tear gas cannisters, and the torture chambers, there are tens of millions of Iranians who hate the regime. The question is whether they are prepared to face down the Basij, the police, and the Revolutionary Guards. It is usually a matter of numbers in these cases: if a million people gather in front of the Supreme Leader’s palace and demand freedom, while half that number make the same demand in front of the government buildings in Isfahan, Shiraz, Tabriz and Mashad, they might win.
Until quite recently, the Iranians did not believe they could do such a thing on their own. They believed they needed outside support, above all American support, in order to succeed. They thought that Bushitlercheney would provide that support, and they were bitterly disappointed. But nobody believes that Obama will help them, and they must know that they are on their own.
Any hope they might have had in the Obama White House was quickly dismissed in the administration’s two statements on the matter. The first came from the president himself, anticipating a Mousavi victory (it is too soon to speculate on the source of this happy thought), and of course, in his narcissistic way, taking personal credit for it:
“We are excited to see what appears to be a robust debate taking place in Iran and obviously, after the speech that I made in Cairo, we tried to send a clear message that we think there’s a possibility of change and, ultimately, the election is for the Iranians to decide but just as what has been true in Lebanon, what can be true in Iran as well, is that you’re seeing people looking at new possiblities, and whoever ends up winning the election in Iran, the fact that there’s been a robust debate hopefully will help advance our ability to engage them in new ways.”
I’ve reread the Cairo Sermon, and I can’t find a single word calling for freedom for the Iranian people. Au contraire, Obama’s words about Iran were penitent, apologizing for the American role, back in 1953, in removing what the president called an elected government (Mossadeq, that is. Except that he was appointed by the shah, not elected at all). But then, history is not his strong suit.
No, it never has been.
On the other hand, as Michael points out, the Bush administration never covered itself in glory with Iran policy, either. There was a potentially huge pro-American youth movement there that they never engaged. I though that one of the (many) purposes of removing Saddam Hussein was to intimidate the Iranian regime and encourage its opponents, but that was never obvious from administration policy post 2003. Colin Powell never really bought into that grand strategy, and perhaps Condi didn’t either. Seriously, this time, I say that I blame George Bush.
I thought the President’s speech in Cairo took care of all this in advance. That’s what he seemed to be saying Thursday, anyway.
Yep, MfK – exactly right.
By expressing a willingness to open a dialogue with Iran, President Obama has fueled the hopes of those young Iranians who desire to ratchet down the levels of confrontation with the West. Mousavi himself is no great friend of the West (having played a leadership role in the events of 1979) but he has become a symbol for the millennial generation in Iran, a symbol of a road forward with lessened confrontation.
Daniel Pipes offers good commentary.
After had written yesterday that the re-election of Ahmadinejad would be good for the West and good for Israel (Pipes was openly rooting for Ahmadinejad) he now writes that Ayatollah Khamene’i has seriously miscalculated by imposing sham results. If the West stays calm and just lets this play out, we could be looking at a big big win against the hard line Iranian leadership.
Pass me a hit of that stuff you are smoking Bill!
Andrew Sullivan has a great many terrific links on the unfolding situation. But don’t take my word for it, this is what Michael Totten wrote in the post Rand linked to:
Totten: “A reader writes to Andrew Sullivan, who is doing an excellent job covering Iran this weekend.”
“Why did the clergy panic? Because they saw something much larger than just Mousavi being elected. They saw the beginnings of a wave that would sweep them out of power. This started with Khatami. and it won’t stop today just because they declared a fraudulent winner. Mousavi would have been the crowbar with which to pry open the tangled nest of corruption that came into power soon after the 1979 revolution. There is enough pent-up anger in Iran’s youth to fuel a complete wipeout of the regime. If the thugs were so utterly ham-fisted in their attempt to usurp power, they surely will commit scores of idiotic errors in the days to come. I cannot imagine Rafsanjani staying quiet for much longer; the theocracy is about to break wide open. Resistance will take many forms, and now will not stop until the mullahs are permanently out of power. Iran is headed for civil war.”
Sullivan got an e-mail from someone who said his father is in north Tehran and is saying that that Hezbollah and Hamas Arabs have been brought in to police the young angry Persians.
If true, that will ricochet badly against Ahmadinejad — and Hezbollah and Hamas — and signals panic on the part of the mullahs in charge.
Hezbollah and Hamas Arabs have been brought in to police the young angry Persians.
Yes, that would make more sense than Iraqis, even though the latter would be Shia. And it would indeed anger the Persians even more, to know that the government was bringing in foreign terrorists (in both race and religious sect) to subjugate them. Sort of like the British and the Hessians.
Unfortunately for them, in this case, it’s a lot harder to buy them off. No land in western Pennsylvania to send them off to farm.
Not just Hezbollah and Hamas, according to PajamasMedia. Looks like our buddy Hugo has gotten into the game as well:
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/iranians-protest-government-cracks-down/2/
“Reports are circulating that Venezuela has sent anti-riot troops to Tehran to help Ahmadinejad, joining Hezbollah members from Palestine and Lebanon who are employed by the Islamic government as anti-riot police — the reason such forces are being brought in is that some of the Iranian police are unwilling to hit people as ordered and some are even joining the protesters.”
Sullivan posts an Iranian student Twitter:
This will ricochet badly against Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah.
Hamas, Hezbollah and Venezuela swinging truncheons in Tehran. Swell. I can hardly wait for the Norks and the Burmese to put in an appearance.
Totalitarian Storm Trooper Action Figures! Collect the entire set!
The unwillingness of the State Department to support pro-democracy elements in the Persian Empire (and elsewhere) has long caused me to wonder on whose side are these federal diplomats.
The answer, it seems to me, is on the side of the international diplomatic corps. After all, if one solves the problems outside interminable negotiations, then why does one need the diplomats?
It seems it all comes back to saving the phony baloney jobs.
Bill, are you surprised Hezbollah would be assisting the Ayatollah’s government?
I am not surprised by Hezbollah’s willingness to assist — what is surprising is the idea that Iran actually imported Hezbollah to serve as riot police.
IMHO, such moves will only inflame rather than damp down the resolve of the protesters.
inflame rather than damp down the resolve of the protesters.
Inflaming protestors just creates a crisis, and we’ve all learned you can’t let a good crisis go to waste. A riotor against the Iranian government is just a self-identifying target. As for Iran importing Hezbollah, I wouldn’t be surprised if they just let them out of camp.
It doesn’t matter, the US isn’t going to do anything about the situation in Iran, and neither will anyone else. The rioting will be stamped down, and opposition within Iran will be a lot smaller.
I’m afraid Leland is right. Resentment of the government may continue to brew in Iran, but the active opposition is likely to be greatly diminished.
There are reports that two million Tehran-ians showed up to protest the sham election.
Two million is a large number.
Sounds good Bill, and I hope it is true. My former coworker (I left, he stayed) was from Iran, and he visited his folks there regularly. I know he and his family opposed the regime of the Supreme Leader.
Still, I haven’t seen any sign that the US government is prepared to show any support to the protestors. Shots are being fired, but the State Department, “knows too little about the conduct of the election to say for sure whether there was fraud.” This is diplomacy of talking softly and carrying no stick.
I should also note, there is little to get excited about in terms of the other Iranian candidate that is contesting the election.