Thank you for the information. Much appreciated.

Yes, I totally agree with you, but the issue is a bit more subtle. From my observations, the IR Security (NAJA), or the anti-riot police wearing riot gear that we see most of the time on YouTube videos and other pictures do not carry firearms. These are the non-ideological recruits from regular police force. Behind them, are the ideological thugs like uniformed, or mostly plain clothes Bassijis who carry concealed firearms (sidearms). These are the thugs who confront the crowd with non-conventional methods, by mixing with the demonstrators, kidnapping individuals, stabbing, or shooting at close range. I have also seen videos and pictures of these plain clothes thugs facing the crowds on their motorbikes with their pistols aimed at them. They intend to kill! Of the 10-12 pictures/videos of the shooting victims that I have seen so far, all except 2, had received fatal head wounds. These are obviously Mafia style behavior used to intimidate and discourage demonstrators, but at the same time using, in comparison, the “soft-force” of NAJA for most part, so far.

This is in contrast to the aggressive posture of the government back in 1978 that brought out the solders, machine guns, tanks and helicopter gunships to confront demonstrators at the first hint of any trouble. This was utter idiocy for a supposedly progressive government that we lived under, back then. The demonstrating crowds in September 1978 were much much smaller than the millions who demonstrated in June 2009. The sheer idiocy of mowing down a small crowd in September 1978 and subsequent avalanche of outrage and anger following the initial massacre had more to do with the ending of monarchy than the subsequent 28 years. But this is all water under the bridge now.

Although I quite agree with you about the fanatical core of this murderous bunch itching to come out with their Russian and Chinese made hardware to mowdown the infidels in one last show of their Islamic faith, I can also hope that just like in 1979, the multiple armed organizations under control of these criminals will split and take sides, sooner than later, as a deterrent to the fanatical core.

They do carry firearms. There is video and photo evidence. They have shot and killed people. But it’s not to the extent of ‘78-’79 yet, in which the military was out using heavy guns. But I assure you, they will come out when they see the basij/police can not control the situation. And unlike the Shah, they won’t hesitate to kill thousands because they have nowhere to go and everything to lose.

Lysander,

The Shah killed 744 people during that period. This is according to the Martyrs Foundation setup by the IRI. It’s still a far cry from 100, but things have just begun.

The current security thugs in charge now are the veteran organizers of the 1978-79 demonstrations and are acutely aware of the mistakes made by the security officials in 1978. Hence today’s crowd control thugs of the Islamic republic do not carry firearms, for now. And this may another reason for the slow start.

As for some of the questions by Lysander:

1) It is not logical to expect two revolutions to follow identical paths.
2) Again there is no reason why revolutions should take identical paths.
3) Khomeini was not the “architect” of the revolution. The real force behind it was Jimmy Carter in his ill concived notion of bringing “human rights” to the world. He did great in both Nicaragua and Iran.
4) 1n 79 much of the west including UK; France and USA actively supported Khomeini. Right now Russia; China and leftists in the US openly support the Islamic Republic while UK does so behind the scenes.

That’s why it is going to be more difficult but not impossible to get rid of the Mullahs in Iran.

There were both internal and external factors. Internally there were Marxists; Nationalists and Islamic groups. On the outside the British and Jimmy Carter were strongly supportive of Khomeini. Th

Still, one can’t help but notice a few key differences between now and 1979.

1) By 7 months into the Islamic revolution, the situation was well out of the Shah’s hands. Now, while there could easily be more protests, I really don’t see even a slim chance of the IRI collapsing.

2) 7 months into the 1979 revolution, the security services seem to have killed several thousand and still the protests continued. As of now, even the opposition does not claim more than 100 dead. That is not to minimize the value of those lives at all, but the difference is clear.

3) It seemed rather clear in 1979 Khomeini was the architect of the revolution and Musavi simply can’t compare to his stature or the passion he inspired. It also seemed clear that the Islamists were the driving force and other parties, Leftists, etc were the hangers on.

4) Crucially, while the world cheered and rooted for the Shah to survive, they now cheer for the IRI’s demise. That means while earlier protesters could accuse the government of being a puppet in foreign hands, now the protesters have to protect themselves from such a charge.

Any Iranian present during 1979, I would greatly appreciate his/her input and constructive criticism.

You should probably spend a little less time with Mohammad Marandi, who, working on behalf of the current illegitimate government, seeks to label the Green Movement as counter-revolutionary. You should also consider broadening your horizons when it comes to Iran – may be start by actually reading the Iranian constitution?

An example of your lack of understanding of the Iranian constitution:

On June 24th 2009 you wrote,

“Similarly, the Iranian government responded to the post-June 12 protests in a manner consistent with its own constitutional procedures — and with far less bloodshed than when the Chinese government suppressed the Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989″

Article 27 – the freedom of assembly. Therefore, the government did not respond in a “manner consistent with its own constitutional procedures” because they denied the assembly of peaceful protests. I also like how you justify the bloodshed (34 dead according to the government) because it was “far less” than the Tiananmen Square incident.

While some American politicians may be attaching themselves to the extreme elements of the opposition in Iran, it’s needless to say who is attaching themselves to the extreme elements of the illegitimate government of Iran.

1. There are actual protests in Iran by students, human rights activists, civil society, religious students, high ranking clerics, and my grandma (retired, generally apolitical person). Regardless of whether you believe the regime is about to implode or not (I don’t, but I do believe that some kind of change is coming), your cavalier headline shows that you could care less about these people being given the tiananmen square treatment. If I were less polite I would call you names for such indifference.

2. Obama is not Bush. Iran is not Iraq. Moral support for opposition is not Shock and Awe. I could go into details regarding these comments, but I hope I don’t have to explain the difference between the two administrations, their strategies and options.

3. I’m not sure if you were part of that crowd, but I remember a great deal of hand wringing about whether to support the lawyers and rule of law movement in Pakistan by people who sounded just like you. That seems a much more apt comparison than Iraq. I remember thinking about the utter lack of morals or clear vision that accompanies such views. McCain lost my vote over that banal attitude he called a position.

4. Lieberman, whether in Jerusalem or not, is as great a punching bag as Chalabi. Good job!! Keep showing pictures of idiots and I’m sure your baseless assumptions with short quotes from one article will be much better reasoned.

Have you considered writing for Kayhan? There is a guy there named Shariatmadari who would love your work. Just throw in the words, Baha’is and/or Zionists (the subtlety of Lieberman in Jerusalem would be lost on him) and I think he will be happy to finance your whole operation.

More seriously though, I’d like to point out that you can advocate for a policy that does not include US military action or sanctions without being this cavalier about the ambitions of millions of people who wish to have a better government.

I also agree with Hillary and Flynt Leverett’s fair and balanced analysis that US government should engage with Iran rather than impose sanctions or use military action.