Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Iran

Rate this topic


andrew

Recommended Posts

I did a brief search for a discussion on Iran in the forum and wasn’t able to find anything with real substance.

In my Middle Eastern Studies class we are supposed to go to class tomorrow ready to propose and discuss possible US involvement in Iran. The basic problem in Iran, which I’m sure you’re all familiar with, is the fundamentalist government has destroyed the somewhat prosperous Iranian economy, destroyed civil liberties, and managed to stay at the top of the list of states who fund terrorism. To make the problem even worse, it appears that they are desperately trying to develop a nuclear weapons program right under the nose of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). Some estimates have been made that if Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program that they could quite possibly have an arsenal of 50 nuclear weapons by 2006.

There seems to be some light at the end of the tunnel here with the students of Iran. It seems to me that this generation, which has had limited access to CNN and the Internet, is starting to denounce the ideology responsible for the “Death to America” slogan and is increasingly becoming pro-Western values. I’m not sure where I found this statistic, but I believe 1 out of 4 Iranian college graduates now work in America.

When I think about the subject of Iran I’m basically struck with two questions:

1.) Is there any real difference between the “conservatives” and the “reformists” within this theocracy?

2.) What should the US do when it comes to Iran? It seems to me, after a brief look at the issues at hand, that it is in America’s self-interest to change the current situation in Iran. Should we take military action? If so, to what extent? Should we somehow provide “support” (I’m not even sure what that would mean in this case) to the students and intellectuals of the country?

I’d appreciate any input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IMO,

A)the most important things thatt will happen with Iran will be those events that happen outside Iran.

Iraq; An Oil Rich Country with a Shia majority near Iraq is something which we can not let fall under the influence of the Iranian Influence. (Especially given the Historical tendency of Shia to support the integration of Church and State Thankfully, the polls seem to suggest the Iraqi's dont want this either.

Israel; The Terrorism that Iran supports is not mostly Al-Queda. It is mostly Hamas et al. The firmer our support for Israel's fight against terror, the more Israel will be in a position

Afghanistan; the Taliban was an enemy of Iran, and now that enemy is gone. They are gonna want to exert some influence there.

B ) the population boom of young people in Iran is an important factor to consider, especially an increasingly westernized and secularized cosmopolitan population which has been sexually oppressed. Think about it. When you were 17, did you want people controlling your life?

I have plenty other thoughts, but not much time

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1.) Is there any real difference between the “conservatives” and the “reformists” within this theocracy?
No, they are merely different power groups within the theocracy. See Cox & Forkum for details.

2.)  What should the US do when it comes to Iran?

Whatever it takes to destroy Iran’s ability to wage war on America. This may involve supporting the student groups or issuing an ultimatum, but the only thing likely to stop the ayatollahs is the use of overwhelming conventional and/or nuclear force to totally annihilate the regime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm taking a required class right now on Iran, so I've learned a lot about the country in the last semester.

Question 1: GC is correct.

I've talked to an Iranian student who attends Tehran University who said that the "reformist" party was simply created by the conservative hardliners in order to prevent the country from falling apart in the mid '90's. Considering that the party was at first led by a hardliner and now has spokesmen like President Khatami who issues blatant lies like "Iran has no political prisoners," I believe my student friend.

The "reformists" simply advocate a slightly watered down theocratic dictatorship (which is what Iran is, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise - the parliament and presidency is a show), while conservatives obviously advocate complete totalitarian rule.

Question 2: At the minimum, the US should support freedom supporting Iranian students (which many students are not) in any way possible. Also, all political/economic ties should remain severed.

If Iran presents a threat to the US by supporting terrorism or seeking WMD, the government should be annihilated.

I think it would be pretty easy to rebuild Iran into country respecting individual rights. Although the government is completely religious, a majority of Iranians - although still Islamic - consider themselves "secular," by which they mean that they advocate a separation between religion and state. I mean, in the 1960's, if you walked through Tehran, women were wearing miniskirts and eating KFC. In other words, Iran has not been a Western-hating Islamic state forever, and I think a change can be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In other words, Iran has not been a Western-hating Islamic state forever, and I think a change can be made.

My understanding is that there as many Marxists as Islamists in the 1979 revolution, but Khomeini prevailed mainly because he had less inhibitions about killing his opposition than the commies. In any case, Iran’s collectivism goes far beyond Islam.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the hardliners created the reform party and there's essentially no difference, why did the hardliners ban the reformists from running in the recent parlimentary election? I'm not challenging anyone's assessment of the situation, merely curious.

GC, do you really think there would be any need for nuclear weapons in a battle against Iran? I find that hard to believe, as I was under the impression their own military capabilities were limited. Also, there's a high probability that if we were to attack Iran, the people would rise up against the government as well. I have always viewed nuclear weapons as a last resort, to be used if we were forced into a life-or-death confrontation with a military juggernaut like China.

I'd like to add another question to this discussion: What are the chances of a revolution happening naturally within the country?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be pretty easy to rebuild Iran into country respecting individual rights.

Remember, no dictator can long hold his power without the sanction of the people. If a mass-murderer somehow gained control of the presidency of the USA, he would be opposed by nearly everyone in every which way. The corollary to this is that if the people support a dictator, and you remove him, they will find another thug.

Has Afghanistan become a free nation yet? When do you think it will happen in Iraq? Right after we finish off the last "regimist" in Fellujah, right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Remember, no dictator can long hold his power without the sanction of the people.

I believe the days of the Iranian regime are numbered, either way.

The main thing that's keeping the Iranians from overthrowing their regime forcefully TODAY is their long and bloody history of revolutions, which taught them to fear it.

The US should, in my opinion, focus its effort in expediting the natural downfall of the regime. Support the rebels, help them with forces and equipment, and at the right time land the liberal exile government in Teheran and help a new regime to organize.

These people are educated, liberal, pro-western. They are nothing like the folks the US has governing Afghanistan.

BTW - A great source for news about Iran is Iran Va-Jahan, an Iranian opposition publication run from France, if I'm not mistaken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Remember, no dictator can long hold his power without the sanction of the people." ???

That simply doesn't make sense. A dictator can't hold on to power without the sanction of his ARMY. If he keeps the people in a tight enough stranglehold, there's nothing they can do to remove him. In Iran, every time there's a massive student protest, the mullahs unleash their thugs to beat and jail some of the dissenters. Just because a regime is still in power doesn't mean the people like it, it means it has enough military might to crush any civilian uprising. With such constant protests and the recent widespread boycotts of the corrupt "election," how can you seriously maintain that the majority of people support the Iranian regime? Clearly, it maintains its power only through the powerful Islamist minority's superior force, and I think it's insulting to the liberal-minded population of Iran to suggest otherwise. It's a different place than Afghanistan or Iraq. (As a side note, Saddam held his power for a long time despite the 70% Shia majority wanting him out of power. Doesn't that contradict your statement? A dictator will stay in power long if he learns well how to crush uprisings.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the very long term, in term of decades or more, it's true that a dictator can't hold his power without the support of the general population.

However - the fact that the dictator lost his support doesn't mean he will fall overnight, or even in a few years - if he was "wise" enough to build a strong internal security force to keep him in power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in the very long term, in term of decades or more, it's true that a dictator can't hold his power without the support of the general population

First off, I think that this statement confuses the terms Support and Sanction. As I understand it, The words Support, Sanction, and Resistance lie at opposite ends of a spectrum of action. (For Instance Bush maay equivocate RE: hamas/hezbollah and thats upsetting, but I am more upset at people that send financial support to those organizations)

But replace those terms, and I think you may be right with this caveat;

I think that a negative correlation exists between the loss of sanction over time(which occurs naturally as Dictator's are driven to tighter extremes to control their population) and the increased tendency to rely on outside resources by such a dictator.(which tends to increase as people under his control lose both their will and ability to support and eventually to tolerate )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's important here to distinguish between sanction, i.e. of murderous dictatorship as such, and support for a particular gang in power.

The USSR maintained its power by liberal application of murder. Many Russians resented their government. But most merely imagined a different gang in power.

Today, Russia is still a murderous hole.

The same is true in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Remove the gang who's in power, and nearly everyone wants and expects a gang to be in power, and only disagree as to which gang.

Do you really think Iran is really different? How long have they had the Ayotollah regime? What did they have before that? As I recall, Iran was the first Muslim country to "nationalize" western oil properties, I think around 1950.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

would you please tell me what led you to believe this?

Afghanistan: the promised free republic hasn't happened yet, and shows no signs of happening.

Iraq: look at what the warring factions are demanding. I am not aware of one that demands a constitutional republic based on the respect for the individual rights of life, liberty, and propert.

Islam has no redeeming virtues (unlike the Japanese and German cultures at the end of WWII). Consider rationality, honesty, integrity, justice, independance, productivity, and pride. Islam explicitly repudiates each one, and Islam dominates every facet of their culture.

And, unlike Japan and Germany, we did not break down Islam's defiance with overwhelming force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Afghanistan: the promised free republic hasn't happened yet, and shows no signs of happening."
How does this lead to the conclusion that "nearly everyone wants and expects a gang to be in power?"

Iraq: look at what the warring factions are demanding. I am not aware of one that demands a constitutional republic based on the respect for the individual rights of life, liberty, and propert.

"

Deep in the marshlands of the Euphrates, the town of 15,000 people was the firstto rise against Saddam Hussein in the abortive intifada of 1991. Now it was holding the first genuine election in its history.

The poll was the latest in a series which this overwhelmingly Shia province has held in the past six weeks, and the results have been surprising. Seventeen towns have voted, and in almost every case secular independents and representatives of non-religious parties did better than the Islamists. "

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1185792,00.html

a quick google search pulled that up, and I know I have read of secular parties registering officially.

, they were against his party idealogy (Baathists are pan-arab socialists)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just read this article about UFO-mania in Iran. It’s interesting because obsession with UFO’s and other “paranormal” phenomena is a secular variety of mysticism prominent in mysticism-dominated societies that superficially embrace industry. (such as the USSR) In the case of Iran, it seems to have unhealthy doses of both religious and secular mysticism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is actually a pretty neat article in that it contrasts the secular mystics with "Sa'dollah Nasiri-Qeydari, head of the Astronomical Society of Iran," who, from his comments, appears to be a very rational man. I think this is a nice example of how there are both rational and irrational people in Iran.

GC's right though - Iran has a lot of mysticism. It's called "Sufi mysticism," and it is pervasive in Shia Islam and a lot of Iranian art. From what I've read, it's complete nihilism.

In regards to my statement that I think that Iran could become an individual rights supporting nation, I should have been more clear. Obviously, I don't see Iran becoming a LF capitalist nation any time soon. However, I could see Iran becoming a "mixed economy secular government" nation like the US.

Sure this isn't perfect, but it's much better than what they have now. From what I've read, most Iranians, even many of the religious ones, want a secular government. In fact, that's probably the primary thing that all Iranian student protestors can agree on. So, I don't think knocking the mullahs out of power is the problem. The problem is that Iran has a history of socialist and communist power groups (as people on this thread have noted). This is reflected in the fact that some of the student groups are communist or socialist.

If Iran was able to knock the mullahs out of power, I would expect a government similiar to the US but a little bit more left leaning to be instated. While this isn't perfect, at least people wouldn't be getting tortured in jail for speaking out against "Allah."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...