Thursday, June 18, 2009

Iran, Iran, Iran



As usual, I'm incredibly busy. But I had to say a few things about the incredible developments in Iran. In the few years I've had this blog, I've written extensively on the country. Most of it is negative; between the Iranian weapons smuggled into Iraq (while I was serving over there), to Ahmadinejad's threats, I have had little cause for real hope. Until now.

My prediction is that there will be real change in Iran this year. Maybe small changes, maybe large ones. Maybe a complete revolution. But I think it is impossible for the Old Guard to ignore the younger Iranian generation right now. I believe the protests are no longer even about Hossein Mousavi anymore; in fact, I'm not convinced he is really even much different from Ahmadinejad. What started as election protests have turned into a general protest against hard line extremism, isolation of the country, and censorship of the press. I don't hold out much hope for a true revolution yet, however. The protestors are not armed, and without weapons they may end up with the same fate of the recent Buddhist protests in Burma, or the protestors in Tibet. Nowhere; and forgotten just a couple years later. But whatever happens, I truly believe it will be better than the status quo. It would be difficult for Iran to get much worse.

In America, the usual suspects aren't content with these developments alone. And as usual, they have to twist it to political ends. Andrew Sullivan ludicrously accuses the "neo-cons" of being against the call for reform, while Glenn Greenwald asks why many of the same people who now claim to be concerned for Iran were the ones advocating dropping bombs on the country several months ago.

Of course, the question is ignorant and a cheap political ploy on it's face.

Besides the fact that nobody was advocating carpet-bombing Iranian civilians, there is also the issue of threat to Israel if Iran continues it's nuclear program. A threat that the UN seems to believe is real enough.

Anyway, maybe Greenwald should start asking his friends some similar questions. Maybe he should wonder why many of the same leftists who were bending over backwards to apologize for Admedinejad are now so keen to see him kicked out. Juan Cole has done a fine job with extensive coverage of the current protests, yet who kidnapped him and put a double in his place? For it's hard to believe that this is the same Professor Cole who defended the Iranian government time and again on his site, claiming, just for a couple of examples, that the "demonization" of Admedinejad was a plot to create an excuse for war against Iran, and echoing the Iranian leader's wild conspiracy theories about President Bush.

Or look at articles such as Daily Kos's "Why I have a crush on Admedinejad" or elsewhere: "Debunking the Axis of evil", for just a couple of examples. These people were so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they readily become "useful idiots" for the Iranian government. On the Daily Kos, one writer who dared to call Ahmadinejad "evil" and put up a poll is trounced by the Kos crowd with 61% of readers disagreeing with him!


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Interested in reading more? Click on any label below to read related articles, bookmark this site, or subscribe to my  RSS Feed

1 comments:

K Simms said...

QUOTE
A better comparison would be O'Reilly with Olbermann. And Olberman has called for boycotting Fox News.

Incidentally, Garafolo has said "conservatives are stupid", and that the tea party protestors were "racists" and "tea-bagging rednecks". For all his faults, O'Reilly never throws around generalities like that.

Mr. Ebert, I could take your commentary much more seriously if you weren't so blatantly biased, and condemning only one side of the political aisle.
ENDQUOTE



"O'Reilly never throws around generalities like that." - You've got to be fucking kidding. He's the worst offender.