Clampdown deters Iran protests

[DanS]

How long did that dynamic last from beginning to end? Was it months? Years?

Also, how was what the US or West Germans said about the matter perceived in Eastern Germany?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap

In most of those countries there were no organized political opposition forces, they developed within the process that lead to those revolutions in the East.

But did the people protesting have anotion of what type of soceity they wanted at the end? (read, like Western Europe, like West Germany) And in many East European states there were major dissident figures, and in Poland you had Solidarity.

Plus in Eastern Europe its was more than students tking to the streets, and the governments in eastern Europe could always be denoucned as formations of an outside power (the USSR), but the Iranian goernment is the result of a revolution itsef: no one impossed the system on Iranians from the outside.

over 250 Iranian intellectuals have put their names to a petition calling for change - and back in Decemeber there were protests connected to the jailing of a dissident figure. There do seem to be dissident figures, theyre just not very familiar to us in the west.

The moderate reformers in the Khatami govt have been a dissappointment to many iranians the students at least - its hardly a mark against the students that they dont care for Khatami - it may well be a sign of their political realism that they dont expect much from him. IIUC there are Iranian reformist MPs who are also discontented with Khatami.

News reports seem to indicate that the students are receiving at least some support from other elements of the population - reports of motorists honking support, etc.

Also reports of demonstrations outside of Teheran - in Shiraz, Isfahan, and elsewhere.

But yes, it could still peter out.

[lord of the mark]

Re: dissident leaders.


"Prominent among the 252 signatories of the statement against Khamenei were two aides to President Mohammad Khatami, as well as Hashem Aghajari, a lecturer who was condemned to death last year on charges of insulting Islam and questioning clerical rule. Ebrahim Yazdi, the leader of the opposition Freedom Movement of Iran party, also signed. "


What they want - the statement called for the reforms proposed by Khatami to be implemented. My impression is that the protestors do not have a problem with Khatamis proposed reforms - rather they have run out of patience that he will implement them over the objections of the ruling clerics.

[Az]

oh great. The Khatami "reformists".

[PLATO]

I wonder, if the protestors are ultimately successful, if the fall of Iran will have the same effect on fundametalism that the fall of the Soviet Union did on communism.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by PLATO1003
I wonder, if the protestors are ultimately successful, if the fall of Iran will have the same effect on fundametalism that the fall of the Soviet Union did on communism.

I don't think so. The USSR suffered from corruption before it's collapse and corruption is the reason Russia is still failing. I haven't heard anything about corruption in Iran.

[DinoDoc]

I think you missunderstood what he was talking about, Kiddo.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
The students don;t like the system, but ask 50 of them what the alternative should look like and you will not get the same 50 answers. .

source??

[Az]

In any case the answer is a " I don't think so". Iran is a sponsor of muslim terrorism, but it's not "the heart of darkness", that when destroyed, everything will be jolly great.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I think you missunderstood what he was talking about, Kiddo.

Yep, oops.

[lord of the mark]

dont think so either - Iran's shiism is related in complex ways to mass of Muslim fundamentalism, which is salafist, and thus sunni.


in 1979 Saudi had been heart of salafism, and of sunni fundamentalism such as it was. But saudi was royalist and conservative. Salafi terrorism existed (egyptian muslim brotherhood killed Sadat shortly afterwards) but no real state base.

The Iranian revolution was called heretical (because Shiite) by the anti-radical saudis - the iranians responded by emphasizing a more general islamic radicalism, and reach out to discontented Sunnis. Saudis responded by more aggressive outreach to sunni radicals, and strong funding and pushing of salafist islam - to avoid being "outradicaled" and to divert possible revolution. In this context Saudi supported some of the more extreme salafist elements among the "arab afghans" during the Soviet war in Afghan.

So while there have from time to time been alliances of convenience between sunni and shiite fundies (eg hamas and Hezbollah) there is an underlying tension and rivalry.

The situation is more analogous to communism during the sino-soviet split - with Iran taking the role of Maoist China - heretical, but more radical, and able to shame the USSR into more radical aggressive approach. Imagine the effect on the USSR if China, rather than the USSR had collapsed. A definite change in the balance and the dynamic, but could have been dismissed as the logical fruit of heresy.

[lord of the mark]

some excerpts from todays Christian Science Monitor

"Unlike the student demonstrations four years ago, say analysts in Tehran, these protests are tapping into an unexpectedly fierce determination by thousands of ordinary Iranians - many of them young, and some families with children in tow - who are frustrated with the slow pace of political change in Iran."

"But polls have shown that some 90 percent of Iranians themselves want change, and that 70 percent want dramatic change - results that hard-line ideologues say are wildly inaccurate."

'"What has been striking in the last year, is the rapidity of the collapse of social popularity of the regime," Mr. Ansari says. "People are no longer saying 'Tinker with the edges, and it will be OK.' People say: 'Let's get rid of them.'"'

"Witnesses note that students now make up less than 10 percent of the several thousand demonstrators who have taken to the streets five nights running"

[PLATO]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
dont think so either - Iran's shiism is related in complex ways to mass of Muslim fundamentalism, which is salafist, and thus sunni.


in 1979 Saudi had been heart of salafism, and of sunni fundamentalism such as it was. But saudi was royalist and conservative. Salafi terrorism existed (egyptian muslim brotherhood killed Sadat shortly afterwards) but no real state base.

The Iranian revolution was called heretical (because Shiite) by the anti-radical saudis - the iranians responded by emphasizing a more general islamic radicalism, and reach out to discontented Sunnis. Saudis responded by more aggressive outreach to sunni radicals, and strong funding and pushing of salafist islam - to avoid being "outradicaled" and to divert possible revolution. In this context Saudi supported some of the more extreme salafist elements among the "arab afghans" during the Soviet war in Afghan.

So while there have from time to time been alliances of convenience between sunni and shiite fundies (eg hamas and Hezbollah) there is an underlying tension and rivalry.

The situation is more analogous to communism during the sino-soviet split - with Iran taking the role of Maoist China - heretical, but more radical, and able to shame the USSR into more radical aggressive approach. Imagine the effect on the USSR if China, rather than the USSR had collapsed. A definite change in the balance and the dynamic, but could have been dismissed as the logical fruit of heresy.

This is an eye opening analysis. Thanks lotm! An excellent point that you made is the more extreme direction that the existance of a fundamentalist Iran has pushed the Saudi's in. Another Iranian revolution, coupled with a hopefully democratic Iraq, would seem to be a major pressure cooker in the makes for the Saudi royal family.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Azazel
Good luck to you, students, good luck.
And remember, we have never had any quarrel with your people.

Same goes for us in America. Best wishes for the people of Iran.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by DanS
How long did that dynamic last from beginning to end? Was it months? Years?

Well, I was quite young in 1989, but I remember it as a time of some months. The most decisive developments were between Nov. 1989 (after the Berlin wall had fallen) and the first free elections in the East (March 1990, re-unification was in October 90).

It is difficult to describe, political changes moved at light speed, nearly everything seemed possible, and the end of the development wasn´t at all clear at this time. Remember that at the beginning of this time, the old communist party was still in power (until those elections of spring 90). But their influence was fading away so fast, it was amazing. People simply didn´t care about them anymore - and still there was no anarchy. Sometimes there were fears those guys from the old regime could try to turn everything back, but they were totally overwhelmed by the development. The communist party still controlled army, police and security forces, but their loyalty melted away, and the party leaders were totally helpless in dealing with the situation that the people simply made what they want.

Also, how was what the US or West Germans said about the matter perceived in Eastern Germany?

Well, that´s difficult to tell. Before Nov. 89 I´d say it was more subtle - people used Western media a lot to get more information, to find their political position against the regime. But it didn´t work as a direct influence in a way that the people simply adopted exactly the positions known from the West.

This happened finally in spring 1990 when political parties from Western Germany aided their newly formed Eastern counterparts in the election campaigns - then the idea of re-unification became the driving political force. I know for sure it wasn´t in autumn 89. At this time most people (even many in Western Germany) thought esp. the Soviet Union would never allow that, because then the balance between NATO and Warsaw Pact countries would change dramatically.

From the international perspective, people were very thankful to Gorbachev, that he didn´t react on the changes as the USSR did so many times before in the East (with tanks like 1953 in Berlin, or in Hungary 1956, or in Czechoslovakia 1968). Also I remember that the US was for a unified Germany during the so-called "Two Plus Four talks" while the others of the WWII allies had some more concerns about it. But personally I think from mid-1990 there was an unstoppable process towards a single Germany, everything else would have been just another interim solution.