04 November 2009

The rebellion that will not die

As predicted, protests have re-erupted across Iran today, and the theocracy is again openly at war with the Iranian people. NIAC and Andrew Sullivan are providing frequent updates and video.


Blogger 50 said...

I don't think the theocracy is at war with its subjects, I think it is at war with itself. This is a battle between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi for control of the state apparatus. The Iranian people are not stupid and they realise that Ahmadinejad's hardline stance both in foreign and domestic policies is hurting them and their nation. Mousavi has tapped into this and seems to promise a more moderate stance on the nuclear program and on political freedoms; but he is not advocating the overthrow of the Islamic Republic which he helped to establish.

04 November, 2009 17:05  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Mousavi probably isn't -- he's been part of the establishment for a long time -- but he and Karroubi have become rather peripheral figures in what's happening. The mass uprising was triggered by the fake election and adopted Mousavi as a symbol, at least at first; but it is rooted in much more fundamental grievances, and it's certainly not being led or directed by Mousavi. I don't think the Iranian people are enduring all this struggle and suffering just to replace one set of old clerics with another within the same old dysfunctional theocracy. They are rebelling against the theocracy, not rebelling on behalf of the Mousavi faction within it; and so, yes, they are at war with it.

The MSM focus on conflicts within the ruling establishment, among Mousavi, Karroubi, Ahmadinejad, Khamenei, Rafsanjani, etc., because that's what's easy for them to report on and understand. During the long uprising against the Shah there was a lot of attention paid to factional maneuverings within that regime as well. Ultimately they proved irrelevant in the face of a mass rebellion increasingly determined to sweep away the entire system, and I think the present uprising is heading for the same outcome.

04 November, 2009 19:11  
Blogger 50 said...

The difference between the uprising against the Shah and this uprising is that in 1970s the revolutionaries (now the reactionaries ;) had the Ayatollah Khomeini safely in exile in France from where he could urge on the people. This time around, there isn't an exiled revolutionary for the people to rally around (at least not that I'm aware of); if Ahmadinejad and the old clerics want to silence all opposing voices, those voices are within Iran and thus much easier to quash.

I agree that many of the people in Iran are revolting against and revolted by the current regime, but the circumstances are different this time around.

I hope that you're right and I'm wrong, Infidel. Time will tell...

04 November, 2009 19:56  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

It's true that the current uprising is essentially leaderless, but it seems more likely to succeed for that reason. The 1979 uprising did rally around Khomeini as a leading figure, which is why it just resulted in replacing one tyranny with another. If it were being led by Mousavi or a Khomeini-like figure, it could not accomplish any more than a changing of the guard within the Islamic Republic (and, as you say, a leader within Iran could easily be silenced). As it is, there is some hope of bringing down the theocracy and replacing it with something better.

Probably the only reason Mousavi and Karroubi are still alive is that the regime understands that killing them wouldn't slow down the uprising, since they are not leading it.

05 November, 2009 04:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home