Hopes of a revolution in Iran are a pipe dream

Posted on Updated on

Coups happen when armies decide they want to run the show. Riots are not revolution. True, the Shah of Iran was removed from power by what started as rioting. But the mullahs used the power of Islamic zeal to destroy the Shah. The Shah also didn’t make things easy on himself by severely abusing the populace, despite the fact that he wanted to cooperate with the West. His abuses opened the portals of revolution. Now though, religion is already in power, and I see little reason to think that anything will change in Iran. The mullahs are there to stay.

I’ve made it clear that I have no tolerance for the Shia Theocrats that run Iran. But I find it irritating that only now, after an election in which no one really knows the true outcome, that some are showing disdain for this regime. US troops died because of Iran, but now that the government tries to stop violent protests, the regime is portrayed as an oppressive regime co-opted by apocalyptic mullahs.

Which it is.

In truth, the anti-riot forces have shown restraint. While thousands protested (and not really all that peacefully), 17 people died. Western nations would not have handled these riots much differently, except of course the media would never have been shut down.

Presidential candidate Mousavi would have been no better. He is an Islamist, plain and simple. Does anyone really think that Mousavi would have cut off Hezbollah’s state funding or stopped providing weapons to Hamas?


7 thoughts on “Hopes of a revolution in Iran are a pipe dream

    T. J. Babson said:
    June 23, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    This seems oddly appropriate:

    He merits well enough to have her that doth seek her, Not making any scruple of her soilure… He, like a puling cuckold, would drink up The lees and dregs of a flat tamed piece, You, like a lecher, out of whorish loins Are pleased to breed out your inheritors. Both merits poised, each weighs nor less nor more; But he as he, the heavier for a whore. (IV.i.55-66)

    –Shakespeare, Troilus and Cressida

    T. J. Babson said:
    June 23, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Why am I not surprised?


    He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.

    Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran’s ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.

    Amos Volante said:
    June 24, 2009 at 12:44 am

    Oh yeah, Mousavi is our buddy, sure. Just like the Ayatollah Khomeni was our ‘buddy’.

    For those who remember the Iran Hostage Crisis, yeah, sure, it was our own fault, but it doesn’t change reality;

    Iran only understands one thing:


    Hopefully we can get someone else to exert it for us.

    magus71 responded:
    June 24, 2009 at 5:40 am

    The Ayatollahs find themselves in a tough position, but it is tenable. They can’t have Mousavi killed off.

    But Mousavi has no real power, in my opinion. Guns trump words. And the mullahs have the guns.

    magus71 responded:
    June 24, 2009 at 5:44 am

    And like I said, Mousavi is no better–maybe worse.

    kernunos said:
    June 24, 2009 at 9:04 pm

    It doesn’t look good for those arrested. Might have been better to have been shot.


    magus71 responded:
    June 25, 2009 at 5:40 am

    Now–suddenly–Iran is a bad place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s