Your version of "history" is quite entertaining. Mosaddegh was not "democratically elected". Twice, he was appointed as premier by the Shah (who succeeded his father to the throne in 1941) and twice Mosaddegh was dismissed. The position of prime minister was not an "elected" one, let alone "democratically elected". The total number of people executed by the Shah during his reign (1941-1979) was about 400, as investigated by the French journalist Paul Balta. The Mollah Regime executed over 700 in 2014 alone! Not to mention, the tens of thousands of political prisoners executed by the mollahs in the 1980s. You were saying?
The deliberate kidnapping and premeditated murder of 3 Israeli teenagers is described as the "killing of three Israeli squatter youth". The power of words.
Dear Ted, several years back, 2 pollsters who conducted a survey showing most Iranians want good relations with the West were imprisoned by the ruling Islamist authorities. What exactly can one do inside a regime that is the world's leading executioner and kills people for "waging war against God"? And BTW, that regime is virulently anti-American and has made "Death to America" its mantra.
Joe, let's agree to disagree. If you believe that the Khomeinist regime has a real potential for meaningful and substantive political liberalization, then more power to you. I guess 35 years of utterly dashed hopes and expectations have made me, an Iranian by birth and citizenship, a mite more sceptical than you.
Dear Joe, Iranians have gone through this charade before with the 8 years of Rafsanjani the "moderate pragmatist" and 8 years of Khatami the "reformer". No substantive political liberalization whatsoever has been implemented by the Mollah Regime during its 35 years. None, nada, zilch. How many times must the same old wine be sold in new bottles before one realizes that the Khomeinist system does not allow for liberalization? Everything else is a pipe dream and wishful thinking.
First of all, there are different cliques in the Khomeinist system. None of these cliques can be described as liberal or democratic-minded in any meaningful sense of those words. The differences between them have more to do with jockeying for influence within the system and access to wealth. The same goes for any financial windfall to be gained from securing the release of billions of dollars in frozen funds. The respective cliques know that if their rivals were to achieve such a windfall, it could strengthen them at their own expense (politically and otherwise). This explains in large part why these cliques try to thwart each other's dealings.
Second of all, the "Green" protestors, who called for freedom have to be distinguished from Mousavi, who said he wanted a return to the "golden era of the Emam (i.e. Khomeini)" -- whatever that means. Indeed, Mousavi was prime minister during the years 1981-1989, which is literally, by far, the period of greatest state violence in recent Iranian history. After 35 years of the Mollah Regime, with 8 years of Mousavi as prime minister, 8 years of the "moderate pragmatist" Rafsanjani as president, and 8 years of the "reformist" Khatami, one would think that people would start learning that the Khomeinist tyranny is not "reformable" and leaves no room for meaningful "political liberalization" (or even lifting of mandatory Hejab!).
Rouhani's so-called "foreign policy dovishness" is the fruit of sanctions, regime cronies' theft, and mismanagement taking a toll on the Mollah Regime's treasury. In fact, Rouhani said in a recent interview inside Iran that the regime's treasury was running so low as to start jeopardizing the mollahs' ability to pay civil servants. The so-called "foreign policy dovishness" on display is nothing more than their desire to see the nearly $100 billion frozen abroad freed up, as they hope/expect the nuclear deal to do so. This deal will, in fact, give the regime a new lease on life. BTW, the regime has been executing Iranians at an accelerating pace, over 600 in 2013 alone. So much for meaningful (as opposed to minimal and cosmetic) liberalization and Khomeinism existing together. The two are profoundly incompatible.
And you know that the Khomeinist Rouhani, essentially vetted by his boss the Supreme Leader-for-Life, is interested in"domestic liberalization" because of ....what exactly? Because of his speeches saying student protestors should be "crushed mercilessly" or that opponents of the ruling Islamist tyranny should be "hung in public after Friday Prayers". Oh yeah, I am sure that cutting a deal with the Mollah Regimesand releasing $100 billion dollars of their blood money frozen abroad so that regime cronies can fill their pockets will lead to "political liberalization". Let's hold all our breaths for that one.
Mosaddegh, the former so-called "democratically elected" prime minister of Iran (NOT), received over 99% of the votes in his referendum (2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against), and he is viewed as some sort of democratic icon by Western leftists.
Dear Professor Cole, have you ever described the mollah-led Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading executioner (relative to Iran's population), as "racist and abhorrent"?
There was no Iranian "democracy" to overthrow in 1953, and Mosaddeq's government was not "elected". The Prime Minister was appointed by the Shah, and the Majles could support the appointment with a majority vote (which Mosaddeq received with the minimum quorum). Mosaddeq then proceeded to dismiss the very same Majles that approved his appointment, justified his power grab with a sham referendum in which he received over 99% "Yes" votes, and largely ruled by decree thereafter. Some "democrat he was!
No one would claim that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are democracies. But, Qatar and Saudi Arabia also are not massacring tens of thousands of their own people like Assad Senior and Assad Junior have done.
Thank you, Joe. Yes, I was being sarcastic. I think sarcasm is the most appropriate response to those individuals who, either out of delusion or bad faith, argue that the solution in Syria lies in "elections". As if, the Assad Family Hereditary "Republic" would ever allow free, fair, and democratic elections, Yeah, right!
President Assad and his late father, President Assad, have been winning and abiding by the results of elections since 1971. I believe President Assad received 97 percent of the vote in his most recent election.
Your version of "history" is quite entertaining. Mosaddegh was not "democratically elected". Twice, he was appointed as premier by the Shah (who succeeded his father to the throne in 1941) and twice Mosaddegh was dismissed. The position of prime minister was not an "elected" one, let alone "democratically elected". The total number of people executed by the Shah during his reign (1941-1979) was about 400, as investigated by the French journalist Paul Balta. The Mollah Regime executed over 700 in 2014 alone! Not to mention, the tens of thousands of political prisoners executed by the mollahs in the 1980s. You were saying?
The deliberate kidnapping and premeditated murder of 3 Israeli teenagers is described as the "killing of three Israeli squatter youth". The power of words.
Dear Ted, several years back, 2 pollsters who conducted a survey showing most Iranians want good relations with the West were imprisoned by the ruling Islamist authorities. What exactly can one do inside a regime that is the world's leading executioner and kills people for "waging war against God"? And BTW, that regime is virulently anti-American and has made "Death to America" its mantra.
In the Islamic world, about 85% are Sunni and 15% are Shia. Only 4 countries in the world have Shia majorities: Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Bahrain.
Joe, let's agree to disagree. If you believe that the Khomeinist regime has a real potential for meaningful and substantive political liberalization, then more power to you. I guess 35 years of utterly dashed hopes and expectations have made me, an Iranian by birth and citizenship, a mite more sceptical than you.
Dear Joe, Iranians have gone through this charade before with the 8 years of Rafsanjani the "moderate pragmatist" and 8 years of Khatami the "reformer". No substantive political liberalization whatsoever has been implemented by the Mollah Regime during its 35 years. None, nada, zilch. How many times must the same old wine be sold in new bottles before one realizes that the Khomeinist system does not allow for liberalization? Everything else is a pipe dream and wishful thinking.
First of all, there are different cliques in the Khomeinist system. None of these cliques can be described as liberal or democratic-minded in any meaningful sense of those words. The differences between them have more to do with jockeying for influence within the system and access to wealth. The same goes for any financial windfall to be gained from securing the release of billions of dollars in frozen funds. The respective cliques know that if their rivals were to achieve such a windfall, it could strengthen them at their own expense (politically and otherwise). This explains in large part why these cliques try to thwart each other's dealings.
Second of all, the "Green" protestors, who called for freedom have to be distinguished from Mousavi, who said he wanted a return to the "golden era of the Emam (i.e. Khomeini)" -- whatever that means. Indeed, Mousavi was prime minister during the years 1981-1989, which is literally, by far, the period of greatest state violence in recent Iranian history. After 35 years of the Mollah Regime, with 8 years of Mousavi as prime minister, 8 years of the "moderate pragmatist" Rafsanjani as president, and 8 years of the "reformist" Khatami, one would think that people would start learning that the Khomeinist tyranny is not "reformable" and leaves no room for meaningful "political liberalization" (or even lifting of mandatory Hejab!).
Rouhani's so-called "foreign policy dovishness" is the fruit of sanctions, regime cronies' theft, and mismanagement taking a toll on the Mollah Regime's treasury. In fact, Rouhani said in a recent interview inside Iran that the regime's treasury was running so low as to start jeopardizing the mollahs' ability to pay civil servants. The so-called "foreign policy dovishness" on display is nothing more than their desire to see the nearly $100 billion frozen abroad freed up, as they hope/expect the nuclear deal to do so. This deal will, in fact, give the regime a new lease on life. BTW, the regime has been executing Iranians at an accelerating pace, over 600 in 2013 alone. So much for meaningful (as opposed to minimal and cosmetic) liberalization and Khomeinism existing together. The two are profoundly incompatible.
And you know that the Khomeinist Rouhani, essentially vetted by his boss the Supreme Leader-for-Life, is interested in"domestic liberalization" because of ....what exactly? Because of his speeches saying student protestors should be "crushed mercilessly" or that opponents of the ruling Islamist tyranny should be "hung in public after Friday Prayers". Oh yeah, I am sure that cutting a deal with the Mollah Regimesand releasing $100 billion dollars of their blood money frozen abroad so that regime cronies can fill their pockets will lead to "political liberalization". Let's hold all our breaths for that one.
Mosaddegh, the former so-called "democratically elected" prime minister of Iran (NOT), received over 99% of the votes in his referendum (2,043,300 votes to 1300 votes against), and he is viewed as some sort of democratic icon by Western leftists.
Dear Professor Cole, have you ever described the mollah-led Islamic Republic of Iran, the world's leading executioner (relative to Iran's population), as "racist and abhorrent"?
Are you opposed to the US formally referring to the mollah-led regime as the "Islamic Republic of Iran"?
What about recognizing Iran, for example, as an Islamic state?
There was no Iranian "democracy" to overthrow in 1953, and Mosaddeq's government was not "elected". The Prime Minister was appointed by the Shah, and the Majles could support the appointment with a majority vote (which Mosaddeq received with the minimum quorum). Mosaddeq then proceeded to dismiss the very same Majles that approved his appointment, justified his power grab with a sham referendum in which he received over 99% "Yes" votes, and largely ruled by decree thereafter. Some "democrat he was!
The Mollah Regime's "Morality Police" (gasht-e ershad) arresting a young woman for "improper" dress":
link to youtube.com
No one would claim that Qatar and Saudi Arabia are democracies. But, Qatar and Saudi Arabia also are not massacring tens of thousands of their own people like Assad Senior and Assad Junior have done.
Thank you, Joe. Yes, I was being sarcastic. I think sarcasm is the most appropriate response to those individuals who, either out of delusion or bad faith, argue that the solution in Syria lies in "elections". As if, the Assad Family Hereditary "Republic" would ever allow free, fair, and democratic elections, Yeah, right!
President Assad and his late father, President Assad, have been winning and abiding by the results of elections since 1971. I believe President Assad received 97 percent of the vote in his most recent election.