Iranian Power Struggle Gone Insane

How are we supposed to take Italy seriously?

To be honest its never suprising when one revolution turns and devours its children, leastwise it isn't when the country is Iran, which has revolutions every 30-40 years or so.

Who does? It doesn't even seem that Italians take Italy seriously. But the Italian government aren't the ones coming out with the scary shit the Iranian government does on a regular basis.

Oh please, Iran is only scary on a regional level, and even then this prooves that their political culture is more involved in "harem intrigue" and petty posturing to itself than it is in trying to do anything outside their borders, leastwise trying to do anything with any lasting effect.

About time. If the conservatives start fighting it out among themselves, the secularists may force the entire theocratic aberration to crumble.

Possible, but I wouldn't pin too much hope on it the army is rather used to putting down rebels.

(sigh) Montazeri shoulda been Supreme Leader.

edited 18th May '11 4:06:33 PM by FFShinra

I think the very fact that its leadership are throwing fairly ridiculous things like this at each other shows that they think their internal power struggle is big-stakes, dwarfing any concern for international image.

Iran is not a strong country, really. It's a weak, conflicted, poverty-stricken one. It's just big, by regional standards, and aggressive.

Agressive, or just petulant?

Iran is like a petulant, spoiled child. It remembers its good old days as Persia and wants them back, and that means much conquering.

It is very naive, and does not like to think that the world is intertwined and one country going to war will never be able to do much against the whole United Nations.

Well, with China and Russia showing vested interest, though...

India might start getting friendly with them too. They were very reluctant to cut off trade (and they only did it to make the US happy), and they need Iran for a naval base (to counter China's String Of Pearls) as well as for air access to their airbase in Tajikistan and to assist with Afghanistan (since neither China nor Pakistan are complying).

As for Iran's crisis, here's to hoping no one launches a Genghis Gambit.

One of the friends I know from Iran said that it was "Rather like the south of America", take from that what you will ofc.

Not really a great comparison. Christians prosecute people for having sex out of wedlock, not for being witches with demonic powers. ;)

edited 19th May '11 7:23:54 AM by Karkadinn

Its really just a bit of a similarity, same emphasis on patriotism I think.

edited 19th May '11 7:45:46 AM by JosefBugman

And religion.

Just typically a different one, obviously.

edited 19th May '11 9:31:26 AM by deathjavu

Wow. It's not even possible to make a parody of that. It's a parody of its self.

Hopefully the Iranian people won't be hurt too badly while the nation's leaders are off confirming their tenuous grasps on reality.

While Khamenei acts like a lunatic, I wouldn't necessarily say that he is one. He, like many other middle-eastern dictators, should be assumed to be extremely politically and militarily savvy—i.e. armed, dangerous, and a giant dick.

Also, I would advise the resistance to keep quiet while their enemies fight each other. Don't give them a reason to unite, and enjoy some popcorn in the meantime.

edited 19th May '11 11:36:58 AM by GlennMagusHarvey

Exactly. As said, Khameini simply uses every trick in the law book to go against A.'s faction, and if that involves "sorcercy"... well, if that's on the law book...

I think Gaddafi has taught us that insane does not mean powerless.

Khamanei isn't nuts. He's gaming his own system. He'll play lip service if it means power (which is why he's Supreme Leader and not Montazeri, who would have been a Reasonable Authority Figure).

That too. He's much less insane and much more of an extremely savvy asshole.

I still say Ahmadinejad has like one wish left with his current Genie, he is gonna use it for something...big.

If he should desire to topple Khamenei, please, be my guest.

I'm not so sure that would be a good thing. The problem with A. is that he is a more pragmatic dictator than Khameini. He's in it for the money and the power, and so are a lot of guys in the Revolutionary Guards these days as well. If A. wins more power he'd build up a (or well extend the already existing) typical system of dictatorical nepotism, based on a greedy military. True fundamentalism seems almost tolerable in comparison.

Please, please, please, let the clerics and the nationalists start killing each other in Iran. The world would be a much better place with a few less fascists and a few less fundies.

I would hesitate to compare favourably a total fundamentalist Islamic society to a "regular" militaristic totalitarian one.

If both systems were to be implemented in the form that they would likely take after a civil war (albeit limited, possibly, to the higher echelons of Iranian society) and the ensuing purges, and we were to compare them, it is unlikely that the military dictatorship would end up costing more in terms of lives and the quality of life of the Iranian public than the Islamist fundamentalist "option".

It is like comparing Communist China in the first 3 decades after the civil war to the Aztec society at the height of their obsession with ritual sacrifice. Both societies approach the least desirable systems imaginable, but the totalitarian religious one is probably worse than the military, nepotistic totalitarian one.

We've all seen some of the items that the Sharia law in its most literal interpretation endorses. If you ask me, it sounds worse than a country ruled by a military dictatorship.

At least the military is practical in the sense that they'll have little interest in supporting oppressive laws that don't help their cause, whereas a religious fundamentalist system will support the stoning of women for the crime of being raped, even though the murder of innocents will bring no practical benefit to the regime or the country. If the military were in the lead, the violence would be directed more accurately at the elements of society that are a threat to the regime, so while it, too, would result in the death of innocents, at least they wouldn't blanket the entire society with pseudo-random violence, so the extent of their violence might not be as wide as that of a religious totalitarian system.