Friday, 11 June 2010
Last year a powerful movement erupted in Iran that shook the hated Islamic fundamentalist regime to its very foundations. All the conditions were present for a successful revolutionary overthrow of the regime. What was lacking, however, was the active participation of the working class as an organised force and, most importantly, a conscious, revolutionary leadership of the movement.
Read the rest here
RENEGADE EYE
25 comments:
"Where Is The Iranian Revolution Going?"
A one word answer:
- Nowhere! -
Job done. next.
Iran had its revolution more than 30 years ago. Now, it's time for a counterrevolution!
Comparing Iran in 2010 with Russia in 1905 in nonsense. The real comparison is with Poland in 1980.
Ren-
There might be one way there will be some degree of change in Iran. You know what you always said about the difference between reformers and reformists. Think reformist. Kind of on the level of Raoul allowing cell phones.
Sentinel: We'll see.
Pagan: I can foresee a stage with a Mousavi like character leading the country. I doubt it would be permanent.
Just a democracy movement, can have great repercussions throughout the Middle East.
I'm involved with the Iranians here in Minneapolis. They get help from Marxists to Michelle Bachman. They keep quiet about their real politics. They worry about the IRI, hurting relatives etc.
Sonia: Poland was inspired by a religious leader, while secularism is behind the protests.
No analogy is exact.
Ren-
"They get help from Marxists to Michelle Bachman."
Which is exactly why I don't worry about them. I know what kind of reform they have in mind. I concede that it makes a good political issue to hit Obama over the head with, but unlike Michelle Bachman, I need more than that.
Pagan: All of the politicians from Keith Ellison to Michelle Bachman send statements of support, or representatives.
My group is the only one on the left, who shows up. Like the labor party issue, we're ahead of the rest.
In not too long, Iran will be clear.
Well they better be getting clear pretty quickly, because even as we speak, Saudi airspace is being cleared for IDF jets, and just between me and you, its not so they can fly back to Khazaria.
I've become skeptical in my old age, of any public pronouncement of Israel or Iran.
Israel will only attack Iran, if a reformist like Mousavi, can't contain the protesters.
Israel doesn't want a secular Iran, anymore than it wants Hamas to go away.
Ren,
You said "Israel doesn't want a secular Iran, anymore than it wants Hamas to go away."
Why would Israel want Hamas in Gaza?
That's a bizarre statement, Ren. Hamas is not a stabilizing influence in the region. Neither is Iran.
Just because Israel might have funded Hamas at one time as a counter-weight to Fatah, doesn't mean they find the current situation acceptable or tenable. Nor is it in their interest for Hamas or Hezbollah either one to continue to receive funding from the Iranian mullahs.
Granted, they are not chomping at the bits with the desire to bomb Iran back to the stone age, because that would present a whole new set of problems that might not be so easily solved, but if they have the green light from the Saudis, that would have to make the prospect somewhat more palatable. They just have to ask themselves, what posture would the Saudis take afterward in conjunction with the global community?
This is something they have trained for in the eventuality it might become at some point in time unavoidable. Ahmadinajahd, the Iranian Guard, and the Mullahs are together seeming to push toward that eventuality in many different ways.
They are responsible for most of the instability in the region, more so than Saddam ever was. In fact, in comparative terms, Saddam was probably on balance a stabilizing influence.
Bear in mind, Israel must also consider the prospect of their future relations with the Iranian opposition. If they think attacking Iran would help them with their relations with a future government made up mostly of the opposition, you would think that would be a big inducement for them to attack the mullahs. Otherwise, not so much. You know they have to be mulling over all the different possible scenarios and they will make whatever decision they make based on that.
I can't answer for Ren, but I think what he means is that as long as Gaza is under Hamas and Iran is under the allatollahs, there will be very little Western pressure on Israel to give half of Jerusalem to the Palestinians.
But the day the Palestinians and the Iranians will finally learn how to present themselves as "progressive", "enlightened", "egalitarian" and "secular", Israel will surrender under pressure like apartheid South Africa did....
Sonia-
That might be what he meant, and it is somewhat of a good point. It would be an even better point if Hamas was also in control of or an influence in the West Bank. Since Hamas and Fatah's areas of influence are separate, that kind of minimizes the veracity of the point. An agreement with Abbas is not really dependent on cooperation with Hamas. Their cooperation would be helpful, but not really necessary insofar as an overall agreement with Fatah goes. Any agreement with Abbas would actually serve to marginalize Hamas to some extent. The situation as it stands now is actually more conducive to a three state solution, not a two state one.
It looks like I can answer everybody at once.
The question that was bothering me, is why did Israel allow Hamas to have a propaganda victory, with the flotilla incident.
The answer is that Israel didn't care. As long as they rule Gaza, the status quo can be maintained. The same is true with the IRI in Iran.
I heard a lecture, by a professor who works on Middle East issues, at times for the State Dept. He said when countries don't have normal diplomatic relations, they communicate in secret. The public statements are for domestic consumption.
I agree with what Sonia said.
Pagan: Abbas is openly involved with the IMF, building a structure for a state.
He has no following.
It not a one state, two state or ten state solution that is feasible. The problem has to be solved on a regional level.
It's too late in history for a Palestinian state. It can only be a ruthless dictatorship.
"It's too late in history for a Palestinian state. It can only be a ruthless dictatorship."
I agree wholeheartedly with that. In fact, if I were in charge of the negotiations giving those people a state, I would insist on it. Nothing else will keep them in line. The minute you give them "freedom" they are going to vote to piss it away by voting for a religious party, so they don't deserve it.
The only way democracy would work is if you insist on-A, banning all religious parties, and B, guaranteed minority rights. But A would only solve problems in the short term, and B is only as good as the people who enforce it.
I think I've got the perfect peace solution, one I think would solve most of the problems. I'll give you the short version here, and you tell me what you think.
Before too long, I'll say two or three years tops, the Arab population of Sudan are probably going to finally succeed in eliminating the black population of Sudan, by running off what ones they don't kill. That's going to provide a lot of empty land, much more than the Palestinians currently stand to gain if they gain everything they want-including all Israel.
MY idea is, the UN waits until the massacre is complete, like they've pretty obviously been doing, and after its over, they impose sanctions on the Sudanese. They take the Darfur area away from them. What to do with it?
Yep, they give it to the Palestinians. Then, the world community has the Al Aqsa Mosque and all other relevant "holy" places moved to the new Palestinian homeland, brick by brick.
As further punishment, the Sudanese are required to give their fellow Arabs and soon to be neighboring country a significant portion of oil land, to go along with their new fertile farmland.
Someone will of course have to teach the Palestinians how to farm, and how to run an oil industry. One plus in their favor-they'll already be experts at how to put out oil well fires.
Pagan: What nonsense.
There is no room for new viable small countries.
A country like Honduras, wouldn't even allow a literacy program. Capitalist classes in poor countries, are too weak to fulfill democratic duties as land reform, free press etc.
Pagan,
I assume that the idea of the Palestinians moving en mass to Darfur under UN auspices was only a "tongue in cheek" kind of thought process. It seems to me that they would never abandon the thing that makes up their entire identity.. namely.. the struggle to regain what they believe to be their homeland from Israel.
I agree, even though it's a pipe dream, that it would solve a heck of a lot of problems.
Pagan: You sound like Helen Thomas.
Roman,
-----------------------
it would solve a heck of a lot of problems
-----------------------
It wouldn't solve anything. Without the Palestinians, Israel would descend into a civil war between the secular and the Orthodox. Without the Israelis, the Palestinians (who are already in a civil war despite Israel) would exterminate each other down to the last man standing.
Sonia,
You said "Israel would descend into a civil war between the secular and the Orthodox"
Do you really believe that?
I could understand that there might be some more political infighting with the Palestinian question resolved, but a civil war? No way!
Israel is not a banana republic.
I don't see that scenario at all.
Young people in Israel, have no connection to 1948. In addition Israel isn't immune from the world capitalism crisis. It will make draconian cuts like Greece.
I think divisions are ultimately political.
Surprise! I'd predict class war, not religious war.
Roman: I was thinking about Sonia's comment.
Truth is material. Before going to war, people have to feel a reason. Why would people change their daily routine, for a religious war in Israel amongst Jews? They probably wouldn't.
Sonia-
You forget, the Israelis are, speaking for the vast majority, relativity sophisticated,and unlike the seventh-century savages they are surrounded by, they are civilized.
The major flaw with Jews are, they are for the most part left-leaning in their politics. If they were to come here, and start voting Democratic, like most of them here tend to do, then yeah Ren, I'd probably be like Helen Thomas and tell them, "please, go the fuck back where you came from."
But no, there's not going to be a religious war between secular Jews and Orthodox Jews. But if there were, I'd support the Orthodox Jews hands down. Not because I'm enamored of their faith (though on the other hand, I've nothing against it) but because I know their political leanings would be acceptable to me. Or at least tolerable. If nothing else, at least they wouldn't put up with the shit going on now.
Roman-
When I posted that, yeah it was kind of tongue-in-cheek, but the more I think about it, the better it sounds. You will kindly take note that not a single soul here took note of my implications that, while everyone is waxing poetic about the plight of the pooooooor, oh so supposedly downtrodden "Palestinians", there is an actual, real, honest to God genocide taking place in Darfur, being committed by A-R-A-B-S against blacks, who are fellow Muslims at that.
But hey, that's all right, neither is the great UN actually doing anything about it. Sorry, but if I have to spend anytime worrying about the downtrodden and the disposed, I would worry about them. The "Palestinians" are far down the list.
Oh wait a minute, excuse me, I'm wrong. The "Palestinians" aren't even ON the fucking list.
See, here's the deal. It's mainly about Jerusalem. That's what escapes most people. That isn't just the main issue. That is THE issue. Why? It goes back to the days when Jerusalem was the central focus of a trade route from Egypt to Babylon.
Arabs are so fucking backward they're still fighting, in fact they are blowing up the world, on behalf of a trade route that hasn't even existed for six hundred years or more. But I'm supposed to worry about these jackasses while they sit by while their fellow ARABS are killing a whole ethnicity for their farmland.
By the way, the real Palestinians (Philistines) were relatively cultured and civilized compared to this crew.
I'd support the Orthodox Jews hands down.
I doubt it. In Israel, the secular vs Ultra-Orthodox divide isn't about religion. Ultra-Orthodox are freeloaders. They don't serve in the army, they don't pay taxes and they get huge welfare for pretending to study the Bible. It's a huge scam. It wasn't a big problem until recently because they were a very small percentage of the population, but they have the highest birthrate and in a few decades they might become a very sizeable minority in Israel.
On top of that, the Ultra-Orthodox are against the existence of Israel (for religious reasons), so the divide isn't just economic, but political as well.
Incidentally, the Ultra-Orthodox have nothing in common with Modern Orthodox, who are very hawkish.
Post a Comment