One more addition before I have to get to work: Multiply this video–which is very graphic and disturbing, so viewer beware–many times over, and you’ll have a sense of what is going on and what is at stake:
Edited to add: Iran’s government has made it virtually impossible for foreign media–or any media other than its own, actually–to cover the demonstrations, making it even more important that people who can do what they can to help Iranians get the word out about what’s going on there. Today will be an important day. The government has scheduled a pro-Ahmadinejad rally (which means they bus in loads of people from wherever they can find them) to coincide, more or less, with the opposition ally scheduled for today. They, the government, I am sure, is hoping that there will be violence between the two groups which they can use as an excuse to step in with even more violence; and if there is no violence, I am sure the government will find a way to try an manufacture some. This is from the link to Reuters above:
TEHRAN, June 16 (Reuters) – Iran on Tuesday banned foreign media journalists from leaving their offices to cover protests on the streets of Tehran following the country’s disputed presidential elections.
The Culture Ministry said journalists could continue to work from their offices but that it was cancelling press accreditation for all foreign media.
“No journalist has permission to report or film or take pictures in the city,” a Culture Ministry official told Reuters.
The announcement came after three days of streets protests against Iran’s election results, during which at least seven people were reported to have been killed.
The demonstrations have riveted world attention on the world’s fifth biggest oil exporter which is locked in a nuclear dispute with the West.
Defeated presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi cancelled a planned rally on Tuesday in a move he said aimed to protect his supporters’ lives. Backers of hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad planned a counter rally at the same site.
I am posting again about Iran because I heard on NPR this morning that Iran’s state-run news agency has reported that the “leaders” of the protests that have been going on since the election “results” were announced have been arrested with guns and explosives. Almost certainly, this is an attempt to discredit the protesters, Moussavi and all the others involved. It is very difficult for Iranians to get word out about what is actually happening in the country, and it is very difficult for them to get news of what the world outside Iran is saying/doing about the situation in Iran. Support for the protesters seems to be spreading. University professors have been resigning; I have read or seen a video (it’s hard to keep track of which) that sanitation workers have joined the protests. And here is a video of hospital workers demonstrating because the baseej–paramilitary police–have been shooting and killing people. (My wife and I listened to an interview with one woman who alleged that she the baseej put a gun in a young man’s mouth and pull the trigger. Would not surprise me if it’s true.)
If you’re on Facebook, check out this man’s profile, and here is a Facebook photo album you should see.
And I want to post again a link to the Huffington Post liveblog, the most recent posting at which demonstrates that I was correct about the tack a President McCain would have taken in response to what’s going on there (because of course he knows far better than the Iranians and other experts who have been advising the Obama administration on how to deal with Iran). What’s objectionable here is not that he wants to speak out about, say, the violence that we’ve all seen on TV, but rather his insistence that “America leads,” even when we are being told by the people with the most at stake that it is precisely a time for America not to lead:
SENATOR JOHN McCAIN: Well, we lead; we condemn the sham, corrupt election. We do what we have done throughout the Cold War and afterwards, we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran and all the cities all over that country who have been deprived of one of their fundamental rights. We speak out forcefully, and we make sure that the world knows that America leads – and including increased funding for part of the Farda, Iranian free radio.
Finally, something else I found on The Huffington Post, that I don’t have the technical knowledge to fully understand, but I am assuming there are people who read here do: Given the extent to which the Iranian government has blocked Internet access, people have been setting up proxies for Iranians to use to get the word out about what’s going on in their country. Here are two sites with instructions for how to go about setting up a safe proxy for such use. I have no idea what risks are involved, and I have no idea what technical issues are involved. If I were running Windows, and I could do it, I would do it. I am posting it here in the event that anyone reading is so inclined.
Yes, this is McCain’s well-meaning blindness: “America leads,” “we speak up for the people of Tehran and Iran” — apparently unaware that they’re speaking up for THEMSELVES pretty damn well here. It’s sad that even after that whole “the Iraqi people will hail us as heroes!” let-down, some folks still haven’t sorted out that America sometimes needs to sit down and shut the hell up.
This is from a female medical student. It was posted on The Huffington Post liveblogging:
I am posting this here and in the open thread: A really good of why the election in Iran was most almost certainly stolen.
That’s an excellent article, Richard. Thanks for the link.
One minor quibble in the opening sections:
If you delve onto hard drives at the various MSM offices I’m sure you’ll find stories delving into great detail on how President-elect McCain won the 2008 election. It’s pretty common for news agencies to write up both sides of stories like that so that once the event happens all they have to do is touch up the details and rush them out.
Down the line in the last sections:
Elections in and of themselves do not a democracy make. In Iran candidates are refused a spot on the ballot if their political views or history are not in accord with the pleasure of an unelected body. Non-Moslems are lucky to be allowed to live in peace, never mind stand for election. And as that article points out in detail, the press is highly restricted. So far Iran doesn’t have a history as a democracy.
The writer presents a hypothesis as if it were fact. I’d be interested to hear what basis the writer has to make this assumption.
He’s right – it should be no surprise. CNN was doing the same thing when Saddam was in power. The problem with this is that few people have the time, understanding and expertise to take the excellent advice to “follow multiple and diverse news channels.” They’re going to listen to CNN, figure that they are a large and well known media outlet and will simply believe them. Faced with either being silent or lying to the public, Christiane Amanpour and CNN have chosen to lie, and the public believes them and bases their opinion and actions on those lies. Ms. Amanpour would claim that she’s serving the greater good by telling half-truths rather than no truth, of course. But the bottom line is that I listen to her and say to myself “You’ve lied to me before, and have tried to justify it when caught. I can’t believe you.”
Gee, and how much of a shit did China give about world opinion over Tiananmen Square? How much of a shit do you think that the Iranian Supreme Council will give over a UN Security council resolution? Not that the UN shouldn’t do it – it should. But unless it’s followed up with decisive action I wouldn’t expect Iran to pay any more attention to it than a fart in a hurricane. And the UN’s history is that it couldn’t take decisive action if it had diarrhea and was standing 10 feet from a vacant toilet.
RonF,
You wrote:
Fundamentally, I don’t disagree with you, but it is important to point out and to keep in mind when talking about Iran that, until the Ahmadinejad’s first election, when he won against Rafsanjani (the “cleanliness” of which has been called into question), the government (supreme leader, etc.) has respected the people’s vote. When Khatami was elected by a landslide, nothing was done to overturn that election; and he was elected a second time. So that while there is not a democracy in terms of what we would call free and fair elections, freedom of expression, etc., there elements of a nascent democracy. The people in Iran really give a shit about their vote, as demonstrated by what’s been going on there. The degree to which the government’s response has shown them that it does not give a shit about what they (the people) give a shit about has moved the people beyond caring merely about the vote–remember this whole thing started with the demand, simply, for a revote–is still to be seen. My point is that the question democracy in Iran is a little more complicated than a blanket statement like the one you made would suggest. It may be that Iran has no history as a democracy, but (elements of) democracy certainly has a history in Iran.
RonF,
“Non-Moslems are lucky to be allowed to live in peace, never mind stand for election.”
Actually, non-Muslims do stand for election in Iran. Iran’s constitution reserves a Parliamentary seat specifically for Jews, for example. It’s currently held by Dr. Ciamak Moresadegh.
As far as I know, the only religious denomination that faces outright governmental oppression is the Baha’i. I don’t mean that life is easy in Iran for Jews, Christians or Zoroastrians, but they are, for the most part, allowed to live in peace.
It may be that Iran has no history as a democracy, but (elements of) democracy certainly has a history in Iran.
I’ll go along with that.
As far as I know, the only religious denomination that faces outright governmental oppression is the Baha’i.
Hm. Can I bring a suitcase full of Bibles into Iran and sell them? Or even give them away? What’s the odds of getting a building permit for a new church or synagogue approved?
Actually, non-Muslims do stand for election in Iran. Iran’s constitution reserves a Parliamentary seat specifically for Jews, for example. It’s currently held by Dr. Ciamak Moresadegh.
What would happen if a Jew filed to run for a Parliamentary seat other than the one reserved for them? Would they be allowed to run?
Reading your comments brings a question to mind. How old are the people at the top of the governmental structures? I would think that the veterans of the Shah’s overthrow and the establishment of the current regime are getting a bit long in the tooth. Is there a group of people in charge who are afraid they’re seeing the whole “Islamic Republic” concept slip away? Are the heirs apparent well established, and are they as commited to the cause as the people they’re going to replace?
What would be the objection by those in power to a win by Mousavi? He wouldn’t have the power to really change things. What are they afraid that he might do? What difference does it really make?
RonF,
I don’t know the specific answers to your questions about building new synagogues, etc., but I can say this: that as long as you are not trying to convert people–and we could probably have an argument about whether prohibiting proselytizing is the same thing as governmental oppression–you could absolutely sell the Bibles. Muslims, you know, accept Jesus as a prophet, as they do the prophets of Judaism and the patriarchs and so the holy books of those faiths, in and of themselves, pose no threat to Islam. More, no one prevents Jews or Christians in Iran from worshipping (and that includes, as far as I know, building new synagogues/churches should the need arise–though I could easily be proven wrong about this) nor are Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians discriminated against because of the form of their worship, which the Baha’i are.