There are two green revolutions underway in the world at present - the one named for the color of the opposition in Iran and the environmental one. Their trajectories represent a study in contrasts.
The Green Revolution in Iran, starting shortly after the rigged election in June has continued nearly unabated since that time. This has occurred despite brutal repression including imprisonment and execution. Leaders have gone into hiding and the spiritual leader, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri has died, and yet, the fight goes on. The media has been completed suppressed yet the people continue to get images to the world. The government can only hold power through brute force, yet the people continue to take to the rooftops at night and the streets by day, sensing that now is the time.
The other Green Revolution, that of the environmental one, could not be more different. The world summit in Copenhagen ended with a whimper. The general public seems less concerned with the issue than even a few years ago. Lip service is paid in all quarters to the need to respond to the challenges of climate change. Little is being done with the exception of propaganda efforts by big polluters to convince the world there is nothing to worry about. At night, we light up the sky flashing advertising to interstates while by day we burn fossil fuels for convenience sake. This green revolution is dying for lack of warriors.
The people of Iran will be able to look back to this time with pride in a period when they did all they could to change their world. The people of the world will look back to this as a time when we did nothing to save or even help our environment.
Two very different revolutions indeed.
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Iran. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Iran's New Revolution
"A revolution is a struggle to the death between the future and the past." - Fidel Castro.
Weeks after the Iranian election, long past what anyone thought could endure, the people continue to take to the streets and protest their stolen election. Just as the country changed course in 1979, so it is has again. It has not yet finished this new change. The new revolution is incomplete, but the outcome is decided.
The future of Iran has stepped forward to confront the past. Although that revolution of 1979 rid Iran of a past of rule by outsiders and their puppets, it continued with a past of censorship, oppression and authoritarian rule. That past is now being confronted as the young of the country struggle for a future free or the giant boot of tyranny pressing down on their throats demanding compliance and obedience.
The war has been won, for the future always defeats the past, but the battles remain to be fought. The question in Iran is to what lengths the past will go to hang on for a few more moments.
Weeks after the Iranian election, long past what anyone thought could endure, the people continue to take to the streets and protest their stolen election. Just as the country changed course in 1979, so it is has again. It has not yet finished this new change. The new revolution is incomplete, but the outcome is decided.
The future of Iran has stepped forward to confront the past. Although that revolution of 1979 rid Iran of a past of rule by outsiders and their puppets, it continued with a past of censorship, oppression and authoritarian rule. That past is now being confronted as the young of the country struggle for a future free or the giant boot of tyranny pressing down on their throats demanding compliance and obedience.
The war has been won, for the future always defeats the past, but the battles remain to be fought. The question in Iran is to what lengths the past will go to hang on for a few more moments.
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Will News Coverage Begin Again Tomorrow?
For approximately two weeks since Michael Jackson died there has been a near news blackout. The protests continue in the streets of Iran, a military coup occurred in Honduras, there is ethnic unrest and governmental violence in China, sex scandals involving two different politicians, John Ensign and Mark Sanford, the surprise resignation of Sarah Palin, Minnesota has finally ended its 2008 Senate race, Karl Malden, Billy Mays, Farrah Fawcett and Robert McNamara have died and the economy continues to limp along, but one would hardly know it given media coverage. Throw out the Sarah Palin coverage and it's been pretty much -- All Michael, all the time.
Beyond the fact that his fans adored him, he sold lots of records, lived a freak show and was accused of pedophilia, there is really not much to say. The vultures are feasting on the corpse of roadkill on the highway of fame.
Where is the since of proportion. A pop star has died, but the very direction of the world may be hanging in the balance in Iran. Too bad Michael didn't want to be buried in Tehran, then the media would cover Persia.
The popular press bemoans the fact that it has fallen on hard times. Perhaps if the corporate media were more interested in news that sensationalism it would not be looking for a way to survive. Try to find actual news coverage, even on channels allegedly dedicated to news. All that can be found are bloviating pundits and production gimmicks.
Michael Jackson's death was news for about five minutes. Everything since is just a failure to live up to the responsibility of the press. Bury Michael today and please begin news coverage again of the rest of the world.
Beyond the fact that his fans adored him, he sold lots of records, lived a freak show and was accused of pedophilia, there is really not much to say. The vultures are feasting on the corpse of roadkill on the highway of fame.
Where is the since of proportion. A pop star has died, but the very direction of the world may be hanging in the balance in Iran. Too bad Michael didn't want to be buried in Tehran, then the media would cover Persia.
The popular press bemoans the fact that it has fallen on hard times. Perhaps if the corporate media were more interested in news that sensationalism it would not be looking for a way to survive. Try to find actual news coverage, even on channels allegedly dedicated to news. All that can be found are bloviating pundits and production gimmicks.
Michael Jackson's death was news for about five minutes. Everything since is just a failure to live up to the responsibility of the press. Bury Michael today and please begin news coverage again of the rest of the world.
Monday, June 15, 2009
New Iranian Revolution
Iran is experiencing the beginnings of a new revolution. Ahmadinejad has officially been declared the winner of the election, but he, and the conservative clerics that pull his strings, have already lost the battles to come.
Things have changed in Iran. There is rioting in the streets. News services are reporting over 100.000 in the streets of Tehran. Even though the government has banned the rallies, and despite the fact that they are shooting at the people, the demonstrations are continuing. Moussavi has vowed to continue to press his case despite threats against him and the arrest of other opposition leaders.
The clerics and the military establishment, the Revolutionary Guard, must respond. The GOP of Iran, they are shrinking and isolated. Attempting to maintain control by any means necessary, they are responding in the repressive manner of tyrants everywhere.
Like the Republicans in America, the Iranian establishment has demographics working against it too. Iran is a young nation, and the youth are no longer willing to take the repression of rights and totalitarian controls. Women are also at the forefront of the new revolution, no longer willing to settle for a life in the shadows.
Internationally, Iran has been effectively neutralized. The government of Iran may be more difficult to deal with for the foreseeable future, but this will be mostly due to the fact that the government will have to turn its attention inward. There will be little ability to successfully do anything on the world stage as the legitimacy of the government is called into question. Efforts to control internal dissent and discord will ultimately backfire.
The new Iranian Revolution began not with the election or its likely fraudulent outcomes, rather it began with the run up to the election and in the aftermath of the same election, where the people came together. Awareness that the power structure is fraudulent can not be suppressed. The more the actions of the opposition are met with brutality, the more illegitimate the government becomes to the Persian peoples.
The youth of the country have time on their side. The old guard is just that, old, and no longer revolutionary. Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics may have continued their reign for the short run, but ultimately, the seeds of change have already taken root. The rot and detritus of continuing repression will only serve to nourish the resistance, which sooner or later, will bloom.
Things have changed in Iran. There is rioting in the streets. News services are reporting over 100.000 in the streets of Tehran. Even though the government has banned the rallies, and despite the fact that they are shooting at the people, the demonstrations are continuing. Moussavi has vowed to continue to press his case despite threats against him and the arrest of other opposition leaders.
The clerics and the military establishment, the Revolutionary Guard, must respond. The GOP of Iran, they are shrinking and isolated. Attempting to maintain control by any means necessary, they are responding in the repressive manner of tyrants everywhere.
Like the Republicans in America, the Iranian establishment has demographics working against it too. Iran is a young nation, and the youth are no longer willing to take the repression of rights and totalitarian controls. Women are also at the forefront of the new revolution, no longer willing to settle for a life in the shadows.
Internationally, Iran has been effectively neutralized. The government of Iran may be more difficult to deal with for the foreseeable future, but this will be mostly due to the fact that the government will have to turn its attention inward. There will be little ability to successfully do anything on the world stage as the legitimacy of the government is called into question. Efforts to control internal dissent and discord will ultimately backfire.
The new Iranian Revolution began not with the election or its likely fraudulent outcomes, rather it began with the run up to the election and in the aftermath of the same election, where the people came together. Awareness that the power structure is fraudulent can not be suppressed. The more the actions of the opposition are met with brutality, the more illegitimate the government becomes to the Persian peoples.
The youth of the country have time on their side. The old guard is just that, old, and no longer revolutionary. Ahmadinejad and the ruling clerics may have continued their reign for the short run, but ultimately, the seeds of change have already taken root. The rot and detritus of continuing repression will only serve to nourish the resistance, which sooner or later, will bloom.
Friday, June 5, 2009
The Power of Rhetoric
Barack Obama demonstrated yesterday that rhetoric can matter. In a speech delivered at Cairo University in Egypt, he essentially re-ordered the direction of American foreign policy. Several statements can be given as evidence.
On two occasions he used the term "Palestine" in such a way as to elevate the Palestinian state to a current reality on an even footing with Israel. Use of the phrase will have greater reverberations in the Middle East than in the U.S. Further, he openly rebuked Israel for continuing to expand the settlements. This public flogging of Israel was a further sign that there is a different direction in this policy. In recognizing the plight of the Palestinians in a manner that no American president has ever done, he signalled a willingness to confront one of the major conflicts underlying all the other conflict in the Middle East.
He openly condemned torture and unequivocally stated that he would close Guantanamo by early next year. The Iraq War was referenced as a "war of choice." In all of these statements he not only refuted the Bush Doctrine, he refuted the whole approach of the Bush (mis)Administration. Obama also demonstrated a recognition that these efforts by Bush-Cheney served to further alienate the Arab and Islamic worlds.
He directly confronted stereotypes of both Islam and America as counterproductive. In so doing, he served to isolate the fanatics from the moderates, rather than driving them together. One of the major effects of the Bush-Cheney approach to Islamic radicalism has been to cause moderate Muslims, who would normally reject the extremists, to at least tacitly support them because of their anger at the actions at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc. Referring to "Holocaust deniers," he made a not-so-subtle jab at Ahmadinejad in a manner as to align him with the marginalized extremists just ahead of the coming elections.
He extended a hand to Iran with a defense of its right to have nuclear power, and then drew a line concerning nuclear weapons. In a deft maneuver that recognized the difficulty of the only nation that has ever used atomic weapons telling others not to build them, he took the opportunity to advocate a nuclear free future. Idealistic rhetoric not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, yet, a necessary statement to stake out a strategy that begins by making sure no other nations join the already too large nuclear club.
The most stunning revelation made by Obama was an open admission that the United States had played a part in the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq and the government of Iran. This coup directly led to the installation of the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi to the Peacock Throne. The support of the U.S. for the Shah is what ultimately led to the Islamic Revolution that occurred under Ayatollah Khomeini. In acknowledging this bit of history Obama demonstrated to the Persians that the tensions of the present have a historical basis that must be addressed in a truthful and cooperative manner.
This is the speech that George Bush should have given after 9/11. Of course, it would not have been possible for him to do so. This speech required a knowledge and understanding of history, an awareness of other cultures, and a thoughtfulness that Bush did not possess. Had such an awareness of the complexities and realities of the multiple interrelated conflicts in the Middle East been elucidated at that time, where might we be now? Instead we got, "Bring it on."
On two occasions he used the term "Palestine" in such a way as to elevate the Palestinian state to a current reality on an even footing with Israel. Use of the phrase will have greater reverberations in the Middle East than in the U.S. Further, he openly rebuked Israel for continuing to expand the settlements. This public flogging of Israel was a further sign that there is a different direction in this policy. In recognizing the plight of the Palestinians in a manner that no American president has ever done, he signalled a willingness to confront one of the major conflicts underlying all the other conflict in the Middle East.
He openly condemned torture and unequivocally stated that he would close Guantanamo by early next year. The Iraq War was referenced as a "war of choice." In all of these statements he not only refuted the Bush Doctrine, he refuted the whole approach of the Bush (mis)Administration. Obama also demonstrated a recognition that these efforts by Bush-Cheney served to further alienate the Arab and Islamic worlds.
He directly confronted stereotypes of both Islam and America as counterproductive. In so doing, he served to isolate the fanatics from the moderates, rather than driving them together. One of the major effects of the Bush-Cheney approach to Islamic radicalism has been to cause moderate Muslims, who would normally reject the extremists, to at least tacitly support them because of their anger at the actions at Abu Ghraib, Gitmo, etc. Referring to "Holocaust deniers," he made a not-so-subtle jab at Ahmadinejad in a manner as to align him with the marginalized extremists just ahead of the coming elections.
He extended a hand to Iran with a defense of its right to have nuclear power, and then drew a line concerning nuclear weapons. In a deft maneuver that recognized the difficulty of the only nation that has ever used atomic weapons telling others not to build them, he took the opportunity to advocate a nuclear free future. Idealistic rhetoric not likely to happen in the foreseeable future, yet, a necessary statement to stake out a strategy that begins by making sure no other nations join the already too large nuclear club.
The most stunning revelation made by Obama was an open admission that the United States had played a part in the overthrow of Mohammad Mosaddeq and the government of Iran. This coup directly led to the installation of the Shah of Iran, Reza Pahlavi to the Peacock Throne. The support of the U.S. for the Shah is what ultimately led to the Islamic Revolution that occurred under Ayatollah Khomeini. In acknowledging this bit of history Obama demonstrated to the Persians that the tensions of the present have a historical basis that must be addressed in a truthful and cooperative manner.
This is the speech that George Bush should have given after 9/11. Of course, it would not have been possible for him to do so. This speech required a knowledge and understanding of history, an awareness of other cultures, and a thoughtfulness that Bush did not possess. Had such an awareness of the complexities and realities of the multiple interrelated conflicts in the Middle East been elucidated at that time, where might we be now? Instead we got, "Bring it on."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
What Obama Didn't Say
Last night, February 9, 2009, Barack Obama held a press conference in the East Room of the White House that was remarkable. What he said was interesting enough, but it was what he did not say that was even more noteworthy.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
The whole event, which lasted one hour, was a welcome change from the past eight years. Speaking in complete sentences and actually answering questions, rather than blithering platitudes such as "Freedom's on the march," Obama gave thoughtful, coherent answers that were direct and complete. Spending seven minutes answering one question demonstrated that a different approach is being taken with the media. He even called on Helen Thomas.
Speaking of Helen Thomas, this is where what Obama didn't say comes into the picture. In general, the press conference was marked by a forthright approach that did not try to sugar coat things. Using phrases such as "permanent recession," he did not avoid the dire circumstances of the moment. However, it was with a question by Helen Thomas, the maven of the White House press corps who Bush avoided out of fear, that Obama appeared to dissimulate. Thomas asked a multi-part question related to the Middle East and at the end inquired as to whether "any nation" in the Middle East had nuclear weapons. Obama answered the bulk of the question and ignored the final part about nukes. Throughout the evening he routinely answered a number of multi-part questions, taking his time to address each sub-question. But with the question by Thomas, he avoided the question even when she persisted with a follow-up.
In not answering that one question, Obama slipped. His only alternative, I believe, was to lie. By not categorically denying that there were nations in the Middle East that had nuclear weapons, he appeared to reveal there are. Who could it be? Technologically, there are only two nations in the region that seem anywhere near capable: Iran and Israel. It is unlikely that Iran has developed nuclear weapons because the moment they do they will almost assuredly tell the world. Israel, on the other hand, has long been rumored to have this capacity. Obama seemingly verified this.
There was one other question that was more notable for what he did not say than what he did say in response. In reference to a question concerning trying members of the Bush Administration for crimes, in which he was asked if he would guarantee no prosecutions for them, Obama gave a very interesting response. He did not categorically state that there would be no prosecutions. He talked about following evidence and the rule of law. He seemed to imply that if Congress or the Justice Department were to proceed with investigations and prosecutions, he would not interfere. He added his usual line about moving forward instead of backwards. However, he preceded this statement with the phrase, "... in general, ...". The "in general," bit of this phrase is the crucial part. Linguistically he is stating that he agrees with what follows the "in general," but that he excepts what preceded it. In effect, he is prepared to let prosecutions proceed.
I willingly admit that I may be reading too much into what he did not say. However, Obama appears to choose, and use, his words very carefully. To the other questions he gave precise, in depth answers. Only in these two questions did he avoid a direct answer. In this sense, what he did not say was far more noteworthy than what he did say.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Fooled Again?
Recently there have been familiar rumbles coming out of Washington concerning Iran. The ratcheting up of the rhetoric and the belligerent posturing towards another nation seems like just another summer rerun. The demonization of their government and the alarm over their weaponry have long been undercurrents in the U.S. politicization of relations with Iran. The Democrats are so afraid of being called unpatriotic during an election year that they seem to, once again, be going along with Bush Administration policies.
The European Union has joined in the complicity. By giving even symbolic backing to the U.S. in it threats towards Iran, which it did in threatening sanctions, the EU has created the conditions by which the Bush Administration can claim international support for its efforts to start its third war.
Maybe the U.S. isn't trying to start a war. Maybe it's setting the conditions for Israel to act as its proxy and bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Perhaps the clandestine beginnings of the war have already been initiated. How would we know?
The lack of coverage in the American press over this most pressing issue is disturbing. As this slow build of hostilities begin, the media appears fascinated with flag pins, questions of patriotism and other absurdities. Why is this not the lead story on every news outlet every day? If not the lead, one would think it would be there with the other lead stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Taliban has apparently regrouped.
Would that these were the stories pushing out the crucial news of Iran. But this is simply not the case. Take whatever news outlets you normally rely upon and note how much of the news is devoted to these crucial stories. Better yet, simply divide the news you receive into important and trivial. See what you think of your news sources now. Let us all demand that our media outlets immediately begin to cover the real news of the day. Only an informed populace can properly maintain a democracy.
The latest run-up in tensions with Iran seems eerily familiar. Just as disturbing is the seeming media complicity in keeping the tensions sufficiently out of sight that we aren't quite sure what's going on. Even news junkies are having trouble getting to the truth of such issues as Israel's bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear site and reported border incursions. Like the Iraq War we seems to be headed to a point where war is a forgone conclusion, or at least is presented that way. Will we get fooled again?
The European Union has joined in the complicity. By giving even symbolic backing to the U.S. in it threats towards Iran, which it did in threatening sanctions, the EU has created the conditions by which the Bush Administration can claim international support for its efforts to start its third war.
Maybe the U.S. isn't trying to start a war. Maybe it's setting the conditions for Israel to act as its proxy and bomb the Iranian nuclear sites. Perhaps the clandestine beginnings of the war have already been initiated. How would we know?
The lack of coverage in the American press over this most pressing issue is disturbing. As this slow build of hostilities begin, the media appears fascinated with flag pins, questions of patriotism and other absurdities. Why is this not the lead story on every news outlet every day? If not the lead, one would think it would be there with the other lead stories about the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan where the Taliban has apparently regrouped.
Would that these were the stories pushing out the crucial news of Iran. But this is simply not the case. Take whatever news outlets you normally rely upon and note how much of the news is devoted to these crucial stories. Better yet, simply divide the news you receive into important and trivial. See what you think of your news sources now. Let us all demand that our media outlets immediately begin to cover the real news of the day. Only an informed populace can properly maintain a democracy.
The latest run-up in tensions with Iran seems eerily familiar. Just as disturbing is the seeming media complicity in keeping the tensions sufficiently out of sight that we aren't quite sure what's going on. Even news junkies are having trouble getting to the truth of such issues as Israel's bombing of the alleged Syrian nuclear site and reported border incursions. Like the Iraq War we seems to be headed to a point where war is a forgone conclusion, or at least is presented that way. Will we get fooled again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
Posts
