Do nothing. We're not really worried about who is in charge. The elections dont' change anything. Stay out of it because we're happy to fly under the radar. Let the country fall apart, or not. We'd rather you ignored us.

Actually that's probably the sanest advice I've heard. When the IRGC comes to nacht und nebel you, we won't care. I promise.

... and he made it several times.

But for the analogy to stick, Moussavi would have to give up his candidacy for the sake of national unity, and instead he's talking about martyrdom.

We're occasionally, and without any consequence, killing civilians in another country with 'accidental' airstrikes, in addition to the scores who, without any trial or even charges filed, have died in our custody due to harsh and inhumane treatment, it does seems a bit hypocritical for our leaders to be speaking out. Thanks Bush! And thank you Obama for covering Bush's ass and carrying on some of his most odious policies. And McCain... Ah, McCain, of course you feel for the Iranian people! You feel we should 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb' them! I'm sure they appreciate your concern.

These are people who would have actually preferred to have Ahmadinejad as president so they could continue to demonize him and were worried, as some wrote in Op-Eds, that Mousavi would be a distraction...

Hey, wait, someone else is saying it aside from crazed paranoid letter writers.

Maybe someone will actually start to believe it.

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/06/23/neda/permalink/cd41b26ee938b2018d2b5fc227e82358.html

I do not agree they are useful.

That's rich. They hate Iran because Iran has been nothing but a two bit sleazy car salesman of a neighbor. They hate Iran because Iran has been fuking over Afghanistan for the past 30 years.

Slobs are useful

to

Ahmad-I-Need-Job...

You bet your sweet ass they are.

Fuck both of them.

"Haven't the bogus elections put the legitimacy of the government at stake?"

Can you name even one single news organization that asked this question about the Bush43 2004 re-election? Why was this question not asked in the US in 2004?

Neither his appointment in 2000 nor his tainted re-election in 2004 brought this question to the forefront in any mainstream media that I was aware of. Was the legitimacy of Bush43 every questioned after his dubious elections?

Unfortunately sometimes this makes them useful to some groups.

that there is a sellers opportunity.

My son and I were watching Mr. Majd on a television program recently, and my son commented on how refreshing it was to hear someone who actually KNEW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT speaking about the situation in Iran. As hard as it may be for the MSM to believe, the American people actually crave information, insight, nuance, as opposed to the political bloviating that passes for "conversation" on TV today. I hope we continue to hear much more from Mr. Majd.

What this has exposed is a split in the clerical caste. And also the fact that Iran has NO method for adjucating rigged or screwed-up elections, except for the "supreme leader" to say, "it is all right, nothing to see here, go home." No legal process whatsover except what the Iranian Billy Graham thinks.

These events are opening up Iranian society a political space to operate for the repressed working class to begin to be active again. Unemployment and poverty in Iran are increasing. Unions were smashed, leaders jailed, 30,000 leftists killed by these 'democrats'. Majd is an apoligist for the Islamic 'republic' and their hostility to the labor movement. The bus drivers union, whose leader IS in jail, supports the street demonstrations, as does the representatives of the auto workers and a 30,000 strong union there. It is not all rich people calling the prsent regime out, which is the present right-wing populist Basiji calumny.

...would someone who knows a lot about Iran (and who disagrees with Majd) write a piece that counters this one?

I find this one persuasive but wonder if I'm missing something.

Also, if such a piece exists please post a link to it on this board.

Thanks.

" .. But the ideals of the American revolution and the Constitution were never changed. The Iranian constitution may not need to be changed, or it may be amended as in the United States, over time.

This idea of moving into a different phase is in keeping with Shia theology. Shia theology allows for Islam to be adapted to the ages. That's one of the reason the Sunnis hate us. And the Taliban. Because we adapt. We have ayatollahs. We have a clergy that is empowered to adapt Islam to the ages."

I found the above paragraphs fascinating, because an analogy could be made between our conservative jurists, or "originalists" and the more liberal members of the court. While we have a secular government and Constitution, Justices like Scalia and Thomas like to present the founding fathers as deities, making it more convenient for them to manipulate their words for the convenience of their most political arguments. In that context, I was happy to see Majd bring up the 2,000 election, even if, as he stated, the situation is in no way directly analogous. Nevertheless, it has been amusing to see the same people who loudly defended the "partial recount", who refused to acknowledge the suppression of the vote in some places and who applauded the Supreme Court's ludicrous assertion that the country would fall apart without their intervention, turn around and criticize Iran for similar decisions. Admittedly, the comparisons stop when it comes to the size of the disputed votes and the reaction to the dissent; a hundred or so "preppy thugs" disturbing the recount pales in comparison to the brutality seen on the streets of Tehran. But then our protests were equally puny.

Overall, it's ironic that conservatives in the US can't see how their reactionary views can mirror those of the people they most condemn. As Majd pointed out, the neocons call for our intervention, verbal or otherwise, as if we would represent the tipping point of the political situation in Iran is the inverse of the Supreme Leader's insistence that the whole rebellion is the fault of outside agitators. Unfortunately, the reverse is true, as well. The Iranian leaders insistence on portraying America as the Great Satan feeds directly into the fantasies of the neocons, who believe in American exceptionalism. It's difficult for people to mind their own business when they imagine their business involves the entire planet. It would be nice to believe that extremists on both sides are in the process of becoming anachronisms.