As is the way of the news and political cycles, hysteria about Iran has died down. Maybe this is an apposite moment to consider some perspectives which are actually informed by what goes on in Iran and what underlies the American and international responses, as opposed to geo-strategic and politically motivated tub thumping. I’ve come across three interesting articles on the intertubes in the past few days which I thought worth a link.
Niusha Boghrati looks at Ahminajed’s fading popularity.
War and Piece blogger and foreign affairs correspondent Laura Rozen sees the American posture in Iran being driven by the same illusions that characterised the neocon Iraq adventure, in conflict with a realist perspective embodied by Condi Rice.
And the pick of the bunch, for me, is this excellent review essay by Marla Braverman in Azure: Ideas for the Jewish Nation which looks at a couple of recent books on middle class youth cultural resistance to the theocratic regime. But it’s not as straightforward as it might seem.
A closer look reveals that resistance is hardly a thing of the past. While the Iranian people are not politically active in the traditional sense, they are nonetheless involved in resistance of a different type. In place of articles and demonstrations, Iranians–and particularly Iran’s youth, who comprise more than 70 percent of the population–are waging what Iranian scholar Abbas Milani has termed a “passive revolution�: A widespread cultural rebellion, characterized by engaging in behaviors antithetical to the values of the regime. As Moaveni explains in Lipstick Jihad, one of two recent books to examine the phenomenon of social resistance among urban, middle-class Iranian youth, the regime does not officially sanction, say, colorful headscarves, makeup, or baseball caps. Rather, young people do it themselves, in a deliberate act of defiance: “A jihad, in the classical sense of the word: A struggle.� Whether this passive struggle has the potential to effect a transition to democracy in the Islamic Republic is far from clear. Yet as both America and Israel evaluate the conflict with Iran and the prospects for the emergence of a new regime, this cultural jihad may be far more decisive a factor than is commonly understood.
I’ve seen figures suggesting that about 60-70% of the Iranian population were born after 1979, meaning that most of them never experienced life under the Shah.
Consequently, one would expect more progressive attitudes to emerge, and for Ahminajed not to have been voted in. I suspect that the Iraq War, and subsequent saber-rattling, is partly responsibile for encouraging some of Iran’s conservatism.
Is a nuclear armed Iran OK?
If yes, how do you convince Israel?
If no, how do you stop them?
These are the questions that concern the world community, unlike whether or not Fatimah in Tehran sneaks on some lippy (although it is interesting to know what Iranian youth think and do).
What’s all this about Kim? Are you suggesting that we should stop and carefully examine all the evidence about what is a complex and often contradictory society with a confusing ruling apparatus and mounting demographic and societal pressures - not to mention declining economic performance before we unleash the paranoid conspiracy theories?
Utter madness…
HIDDEn Imam! False flag neoconservative gulf of Tonkin! Zombie Uranium enrichment satellites leaking sarin into Obby’s brain!
Conversation overheard in English Pub in 1933.
“Nope. Germany isn’t a threat to world peace even if they now have that slightly uptight Mr Hitler in charge.
“Too right, Bill. Germany today is utterly cosmopolitan. Why, they even have those Negro influenced Jazz bands in their cluibs. And the caberets, oh the caberets…. A nation with such bright and gay youth wouldn’t harm a fly.”
“Well put, Ted. That silly Mr Churchill ought to take a cold bath!!”
Laughter and the tinkering of glasses follows…..
Wait, this Hitler analogy for a current Middle East situation. Where have I heard it before? For the life of me can’t place it though I think it was back 2002, maybe 2003. Wonder what happened next?
Seriously, Kim’s all make the good point of not trying to discern the intentions of Iran by listing to Ahminajed. He is a bigoted loon but not that powerful. As much as his rhetoric as distasteful it is (especially the so called conference on the Holocaust) is aimed towards domestic politics rather tan any intent by Iran.
I just can’t buy the idea that Condi Rice is the only realist for the US on Iran. I think the recent get-together of Iraq protagonists in Egypt was the perfect occasion for the Secretary of State to do her job. But all we got was posturing and superficial pleasantries, much to the frustration of the Iraqis and the hosts. Its hardly the actions of a realist seizing the chances to do her job.
We get much the same US nonsense in relations with Cuba which has gone on for longer than Iran.
Yes, the US approach to Iran does seem a little bit Cubanish. A position of total intransigence not matter the situation, ignoring any other possibilities of dealing with the situation.
Also, I agree with the idea that there is a ‘passive revolution’ taking place in Iran. However a military attack on Iran could destroy such a movement because no matter how much they hate the regime, nationalism tends to push such thoughts aside and turn a united attention towards the perceived enemy.
Then stop worrying about a US attack on Iran and understand that all the shouting at Iran is to distract your attention from ending the 40yr war for greater Israel.
Actually, Steve, as regards Germany alarmists like Churchill (who got most of his info on the state of Britain’s defenses from disgruntled RAF pilots) did the opposite of what they intended and actually strengthened the case for appeasement by inflating and exaggerating German re-armament and military power. Ironically enough, they played into Hitler’s bluff while the reality, as even he knew, was that unil the end of ‘39 German rearmament was nowhere near as advanced as it needed to be and the British and French were much stronger than Germany, and much better prepared for war. Allied with the Poles and/or Czechs could’ve kicked his arse had they not been so cowed by his propaganda. Counterfactually it’s possible that had Chamberlain and others not been so terrified of massive (non existant)bomber fleets devastating London in 1938 they could well have called Hitler on his shenanigans back before he’d grabbed the Skoda armories and hundreds of Czech tanks (which were much better than the rubbish the Nazis were pumping out).
It’s much better to calmly, and rationally assess the nature of your opponent and then decide on a course of action than the other way around. The same goes for Iran, which despite Ahmadinejad’s bluff and bluster has done shit all, has had massive setbacks in it’s enrichment program and has mounting financial problems. They’re not getting any stronger, the US is just geting weaker thanks to it’s stupid adventure in Iraq, which has gifted Iran huge influence for no appreciable gain - and people who opposed it were the appeasers?