Ahmadinejad: Not Crazy?

[generalstaff]

Crazy? No
A Loudmouth? Yes

From what I have heard him say, he is equally as "crazy" as some of our politicians judging by their statements. It is easier to make this argument after the tea party candidates in 2010. I doubt he believes all he says, he is a politician after all, especially when certain radical statements probably appeal to the rural, likely religious and poorly educated voters.

 

[Azale]

Nanocy, you are not really saying anything at all. Your position seems to be "nothing can be known, Iranians are dupes, nothing can be analyzed".

Do you honestly think the Iranian people do not realize the President is largely powerless? It is their own bleedin' country, and it is not like the Iranian government tries to keep it a secret (kinda hard, when there is a dude named the Supreme Leader hanging around). Therefore, the protests seem like protests directly pointed towards this method of government right? The Ahmadinejad leaks are interesting because it seems to show a crack in (or nonexistence of) government unity "against" the will of the liberalizers.

That might be some wrongheaded analysis, but it is much more substantive than waving a hand and saying nothing can be said at all.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Nanocy, you are not really saying anything at all. Your position seems to be "nothing can be known, Iranians are dupes, nothing can be analyzed".

Do you honestly think the Iranian people do not realize the President is largely powerless? It is their own bleedin' country, and it is not like the Iranian government tries to keep it a secret (kinda hard, when there is a dude named the Supreme Leader hanging around). Therefore, the protests seem like protests directly pointed towards this method of government right? The Ahmadinejad leaks are interesting because it seems to show a crack in (or nonexistence of) government unity "against" the will of the liberalizers.

That might be some wrongheaded analysis, but it is much more substantive than waving a hand and saying nothing can be said at all.

You are simply ignoring the ingenious nature of the Iranian state. It is a theocratic totalitarian state that mollifies its people by making it appear as if they have any participation. The people forever waste their time protesting and demonstrating against a state that they have no actual say in. As long as the people believe they can effect change without revolution, the state's hand is free to do as it pleases. That they occasionally realize, albeit tenuously, their true situation, is a risk, since you cannot always fool everyone. But, in the scheme of things, it's a plan that appears to be working.

Btw, have you noticed that we hear far less from Iran these days than before? I suspect that there's been a purge going on for the last 1.5 years.

 

[Traitorfish]

...totalitarian...

I think that's over-stating it a bit. If that word is to have any use, it has to be deployed more carefully than as an emotionally-charged synonym of "authoritarian".

 

[Cutlass]

Controlling people's religion isn't crossing the line from authoritarian to totalitarian?

 

[Traitorfish]

Controlling people's religion isn't crossing the line from authoritarian to totalitarian?

Not really, no. "Totalitarianism" is a concept of questionable usefulness as it is, being rooted in ideologically-motivated attempts to conflate Stalinist and Nazism, but if it has any meaning, it must refer to an authority which seeks to extend total control over the society it governs. As the Iranian regime, with its enthusiastic schemes of privatisation and its tolerance for a partially Westernised middle class, does not seem to pursue such control, it is inaccurate to characterise it as "totalitarian".

(Incidentally, it would be similarly inaccurate to say the same of any of the Fascist or Nazi regimes as implemented. Neither were quite as total as they or their opponents tended to present themselves.)

 

[Karalysia]

Controlling people's religion isn't crossing the line from authoritarian to totalitarian?

No it's not, because the individual and their identity and every aspect of their life is not subsumed into or subordinated to the state to the point that they become one and the same as it was in real totalitarian countries like Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Also what traitorfish said.

Neither were quite as total as they or their opponents tended to present themselves.

Rightist lies! You revisionist traitor.

 

[Formaldehyde]

You are simply ignoring the ingenious nature of the Iranian state.

And I think you are overlooking the history of the region. Iran used to be a modern secular representative democratic state until the US overthrew their legitimate sovereign country for nationalizing the oil. The current regime was a reaction to installing a real totalitarian government in its place.

Btw, have you noticed that we hear far less from Iran these days than before?

You mean ever since the GWB adminstration is no longer calling them the "axis of evil"? Yes, I have noticed that...

 

[Karalysia]

modern secular representative democratic state

I would scarcely describe Iran under either Muhammad Reza Palhavi or Mossedqh in those terms.

The current regime was a reaction to installing a real totalitarian government in its place

In part to an extent perhaps, but that is not the only reason Iran became an Islamic Republic. It could very well have gone differently after all the Iranian Reveloution did not take on an explictly Islamic characther until after the referandum on the constitution that established Kohmeni's role as Supreme Leader. If anything Iran became an Islamic Republic because of the actions of one man Kohmenini and his followers who systematically eliminated more moderate and leftist opponets, most notably Tudeh Party.

 

[Traitorfish]

Rightist lies! You revisionist traitor.

It is "revisionist" to observe fascist incompetence? Glorious Chairman Mao sneers from beyond the grave at your faith in your secret allies, Social Fascist!

 

[Formaldehyde]

I would scarcely describe Iran under either Muhammad Reza Palhavi or Mossedqh in those terms.

Certainly not for the latter given that he was a puppet dictator. But I think it clear that Iran under Mossedeqh was indeed secular and quite modern when compared to either a fundamentalist theocracy or a brutal totalitarian regime.

In part to an extent perhaps, but that is not the only reason Iran became an Islamic Republic.

That is certainly interesting speculation on your part. But I would obviously disagree given that no Muslim country has ever gone from a secular representative democracy to a theocracy without first being forced into a totalitarian dictatorship by those who hypocritically profess to be advocates of freedom and liberty.

 

[Karalysia]

Certainly not for the latter given that he was a puppet dictator. But I think it clear that Iran under Mossedeqh was indeed secular and quite modern when compared to either funamentalist Muslims or a brutal totalitarian regime.

I'm not seeing it. It was Reza Khan and to a lesser extent Muhammad Reza Shah who had modernized, and secularized Iran. It was Reza Khan who banned the veil, who introduced Western education, who allowed women to get an education, who began industrialization, who created the bureaucracy, who established hospitals and schools and so forth. Reza Khan was, and is the father of modern Iran.

Iran under Mossedqh was essentially the same state, only with a Populist leader in charge who had to a degree reasserted the authority of the semi-pseudo representative Majlies and circumscribed the power of the Shah somewhat. When the coup happened, it actually misfired since Tuedeh party warned Mossedqh and he was able to forestall it, and then he made the rather fatal error of using troops to crush the riots (of his own supporters) and sent the army in which allowed the army and the Shah to reassert themselves against him.

That is certainly interesting speculation on your part.

It's not speculation.

 

[Dachs]

Musaddiq didn't reassert the authority of the Majlis per se - just the elements of it that he could pack with his own supporters to achieve a bare quorum.

 

[Karalysia]

Musaddiq didn't reassert the authority of the Majlis per se - just the elements of it that he could pack with his own supporters to achieve a bare quorum.

He had a fairly broad base of supporters though, he was a populist after all, so he incorporated the nationalists, moderates, bazaaris, students, intellegensia, reformists, Islamist, socialist, leftists and for a while even some ulema who supported him. Of course he lost the support of the most conservative elements and the ulema later on who threw their support behind the Shah.

 

[Dachs]

Broad but superficial - none of those groups supported him in anything close to their entirety.

 

[holy king]

state that mollifies its people by making it appear as if they have any participation. The people forever waste their time protesting and demonstrating against a state that they have no actual say in. As long as the people believe they can effect change without revolution, the state's hand is free to do as it pleases. That they occasionally realize, albeit tenuously, their true situation, is a risk, since you cannot always fool everyone. But, in the scheme of things, it's a plan that appears to be working.

this describes a whole lot of states, actually.

 

[Karalysia]

Broad but superficial - none of those groups supported him in anything close to their entirety.

Some elements certainly turned against him when the going got tough the moderates dropped off and so did the bazaaris as the economic situation worsened from the British blockade and the boycott, and Aythollah Kashani comes to mind but the anger of the ulema was also related to the fact that he pushed through land reform which threatened the traditional massive endowments the mosques received through waqkf. (Incidentally the White Reveloution by the Shah also contained land reform which again alienated the ulema though in the Shah's case he also shot seminary students and insulted Kohmeni.) But other elements like Tudeh party and other socialists stuck with him to the end and paid for it when the Shah returned to power by being banned, persecuted and driven underground.

 

[Dachs]

Yes, that's more or less what I usually say when Forma or somebody else brings up one Musaddiq myth or other. What was your point?

 

[Karalysia]

I'm not sure anymore. Something related to Iran under Mossedqh hardly being a:

modern secular representative democratic state

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

I think that's over-stating it a bit. If that word is to have any use, it has to be deployed more carefully than as an emotionally-charged synonym of "authoritarian".

You really have no idea what totalitarianism means, do you?

And I think you are overlooking the history of the region. Iran used to be a modern secular representative democratic state until the US overthrew their legitimate sovereign country for nationalizing the oil. The current regime was a reaction to installing a real totalitarian government in its place.

That regime only lasted 3 years (1951-3). Iran has otherwise been a monarchy.

You mean ever since the GWB adminstration is no longer calling them the "axis of evil"? Yes, I have noticed that...

I do examine other news sources besides American. There has been eerily little news from Iran compared to the time just before the June 2009 uprising, and that suggests that there is a purge going on. That's just my opinion.

this describes a whole lot of states, actually.

True, but I think Iran pulls it off ingenuously. China, for example, has another method. It has bribed its people to accept totalitarianism, with money.