Very interesting article about Iran....

[Skeptic]

...to be found here.

It's a five-page article, by--of all people--the Iranian/jewish broadcaster of the israeli radio network to Iran in Farsi. He also, naturally, listens to a lot about Iran. Since it's long, I allow myself a bit more than usual of direct quoting as "fair use", in case some people can't log on or find it.

Some of the more surprising quotes:

When you say, "The Iranians don't really buy Ahmadinejad's view," which Iranians are you referring to?

Mainly those in the cities - the middle class - who comprise more than 60 percent of the population. These are the ones who are exposed to TV, radio and the Internet.

The Voice of Israel in Farsi has a few million listeners every day. There's also the Voice of America, the BBC, Radio France, a German station, and even a Voice of America TV program which is broadcast three hours a day.

Also:

Do you actually mean to say that in spite of a majority of Iranians opposing the regime, the only reason they're not taking action is the absence of a single individual to lead them? And if so, isn't that a harsh statement about Iranian mentality?

Repression is so strong that any potential leader who arises is arrested, punished and sometimes even killed. As a result, no such leader can emerge from within the country. As for outside of Iran, neither of the two potential opposition leaders is really an option. One is Massoud Rajavi, the leader of People's Mujahedin; the other is Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah.

Rajavi is hated in Iran for having cooperated with Saddam Hussein in Iraq and for promoting an Islamist-Marxist state. Pahlavi has many admirers, but they haven't forgotten the bad things his father did during his reign. This lack of opposition leadership is a major problem.

And:

Yet you continue to make a distinction between the regime and the people.

Absolutely. The people are peace-loving and humane, while the regime is made up of a group of extremists who believe in holy war and martyrdom.

And:

Weighing Iran's imminent nuclear capability against the "painstaking" work of toppling the regime by assisting internal resistance, what is the likelihood that regime-change will precede the bomb?

According to Intelligence estimates - barring sudden Iranian breakthroughs - it will take another five years for Iran to have a bomb. This is a sufficient time in which to topple the regime through internal uprising, which is the cheapest, fastest and least bloody of all solutions.

Having said this, however, I'm not so optimistic about the West's willingness to undertake it.

 

[andyandy]

How do the people view the United States?

Iranians love America. They love American music; they love the English language; they love the good life of the US. The fact is that of the three million Iranians who fled the country, at least half went to the US. Today, according to official data, there are 900,000 Iranians in the US. Unofficially, the number is far greater, probably around a million and a half.

This is why the current Iranian regime hates America, and why Khameini and Ahmadinejad keep portraying it as a hub of prostitution and crime and a repressor of other nations.

It is an interesting article, but doesn't it gloss over the fact that Ahmadinejad exploited anti-western sentiment in order to get elected in the first place? And that international pressure with regards to the nuclear issue has been regarded as strengthening support for the hardliners through fostering a greater nationalist sentiment?

The Iranian people are waiting for the US to save them?

Yes. And another caller said that if an American soldier arrives in Iran, "We not only won't kill him, we'll cooperate with him, shoulder-to-shoulder, to topple the regime together. When I asked why he was hoping for the intervention of a foreign country, he said that neither the regime in Afghanistan nor the regime in Iraq fell until the US intervened. "And we're unable to do it by ourselves," he said. So, from a moral, political-international perspective, it is important for the US to aim its efforts toward Iran.

weren't there iraqi exiles who were telling the west how the US troops would be welcomed as liberators? Not to say that this automatically invalidates her claims, just that it would seem that it's best to be wary about such claims from exile group members who have an agenda for regime change.....

 

[Raphael]

weren't there iraqi exiles who were telling the west how the US troops would be welcomed as liberators? Not to say that this automatically invalidates her claims, just that it would seem that it's best to be wary about such claims from exile group members who have an agenda for regime change.....

That's what I thought- "don't make that mistake again".
Interesting that there are up to a million and and a half Iranians in the US.
Does anyone know of any efforts to find an inspirational leader from within that expatriate community?

 

[Bikewer]

There have been a number of reports on NPR lately from corespondents inside Iran. They pretty much echo the gist of this article. According to a couple of these reports, the "young, middle-class" types are essentially divorced from government. They go out, do their jobs, keep up appearances, and go home to a much more "Westernized" private life.
To what degree one might be able to foment revolt amongst such individuals is moot; by all accounts they do not feel particularly oppressed...

One reporter attended Friday Prayers, and listened to the now-obligatory Death To America chants. His host, a young professional Iranian, made haste to point out that they were only against American foriegn policies, not America itself.
Note that this is what authors like Michael Scheuer have been saying for years; that it is our foriegn policies that inflame the Islamic radicals, not the simplistic "they hate us because we're free" line we got from the administration for so long.
The consensus of opinion from the various folks I've listened to over the last year is that Iran is not ripe for revolt; though the present government may have it's popularity problems.

 

[WildCat]

It is an interesting article, but doesn't it gloss over the fact that Ahmadinejad exploited anti-western sentiment in order to get elected in the first place?

But the mullahs that run the place have final say over who can be on the ballot. Moderates are not allowed, so the only choice they have in an election is which extremist to choose from.

 

[andyandy]

But the mullahs that run the place have final say over who can be on the ballot. Moderates are not allowed, so the only choice they have in an election is which extremist to choose from.

but in the presidential ballot which Ahmadinejad won, he was the more hardline of the two candidates.....

excerpt..http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1830

Iran's frosty relations with the West are likely to get a few degrees colder, after today's surprise election of the conservative hardliner, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to Iranian President.

He scored a landslide victory over the moderate candidate, former President Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani. Mister Ahmadinejad's distain of western policies has already caused ripples internationally.

 

[WildCat]

but in the presidential ballot which Ahmadinejad won, he was the more hardline of the two candidates.....

excerpt..http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=1830

Of course. Make the moderates disinterested, and they stay home.

It's not unlike primaries here in the US, which tends to bring out the fringes on both parties and freezes out the middle. So you have to hold your nose when you vote on election day.

 

[Skeptic]

One reporter attended Friday Prayers, and listened to the now-obligatory Death To America chants. His host, a young professional Iranian, made haste to point out that they were only against American foriegn policies, not America itself.

"Death to American foreign policy! But we don't hate America itself!"

Rolls off the tongue.

Note that this is what authors like Michael Scheuer have been saying for years; that it is our foriegn policies that inflame the Islamic radicals, not the simplistic "they hate us because we're free" line we got from the administration for so long.

Er, not exactly; the Islamic radicals most definitely DO hate America because it is free and non-Islamic. They say so all the time. So do the terroirst organizations like Al Quaeda. The question is, whether the NON-radicals hate America, and if so, why. They don't, on the whole, it seems.

In any case the administration's whole policy had been to distinguish all the time between the America- and Freedom-hating leadership of places like Iran or Iraq or Al Quaeda, and the mass of the people in Iraq or Iran who not only do not hate America or freedom, but like both.