Force-feeding freedom?

Imagine that we could magically extract a democratic regime from a peaceful neighborhood


Force-feeding freedom?
by Midwesty

There is a famous saying, that “every problem is a communication problem”. I have personally found this statement true in technical field because I’ve seen that the modern theories such as information theory, signal processing theory, control theory, and so on that have shaped our modern life are all a derivative of the communication theory.

Am I going to talk about science AGAIN?! No. Patience! It is hardly related to it. I want to say there might be a good reason why based on some people’s belief Iran has always been struggling with dictatorial regimes.

The very obvious reason for it is that, dictatorship is a survival tactic for a society. A nation under siege acts exactly like a human body under viral/bacterial attack. When you get sick your movements become minimal, you try to conserve as much energy as possible, you focus on your pain and sufferings so you don’t pay attention as much to your surroundings, and you do many other weird things that you would not normally do.

A society under a dictatorial regime is a human body on antibiotics. The free movements in thoughts become minimal, the enemy becomes on the center of focus not the society, and everything gets orchestrated by one person or a group of people in order to conserve energy. I am not saying that IRI is a dictatorial regime, but for some of you who think it is, there might be a good reason for it. Maybe it is the way Iran should be in order to survive at this transitional stage.

Imagine that we could magically extract a democratic regime from a peaceful neighborhood and drop it like a guinea pig in a cage of hostile countries. I used the word magic because in the real world free societies do not exist by themselves they are usually in a cluster of societies with similar fabric. Therefore there is no freedom island in the middle of dark and stinky water of hatred.

After we dropped the poor rodent into that violent dungeon, what do you think that normally happens? You think the helpless hamster is going to think about a logical way after any time it gets bitten by a pair of vicious fangs? Or it gets into a corner and watches everybody’s movement and acts like one.

In any war situation, communication is the most crucial task. A country should react in the fastest fashion, with minimal waste of energy against any threat. A dictatorial regime benefits from the most efficient means of communications. These types of regimes because of their coherent nature receive the threat quickly; decide upon acting over it fast, and they carry out the decisions even faster.

In contrast, in a democratic regimes, the message of threat gets lost in the labyrinth of various communication channels, if some of it gets to the central unit it gets piled on top of the bureaucratic mountain awaiting a long process, and finally when it gets out it might not get delivered to the right department to be carried out. But god knows by the time that they come up with a decision the nature of threat has been changed or it has already done its damages. That’s why US did not properly address the pre-Sept 11 threat but when it did address them quickly it had already moved away from its democratic principles.

I remember sometime ago Thomas Friedman in one of his NY Times articles on Iran, proposed to the Bush’s administration an open door policy towards Iran. But I am not sure if this administration is really concerned about IRI’s dictatorial nature. Since applying more force will just reinforce the core of a dictatorial regime, pressure is not the answer to such governments. ‘IF’ and only ‘IF ‘Iranian regime is one of them.

Therefore based on this administration’s policies towards Iran, either Iranian regime is not a dictatorial regime or this administration’s policies are brainless. If we hypothetically accept that there is just one ruling party in Iran then putting an external pressure on that party would be reckless. As we discussed earlier it would reinforce their popularity. Or Bush already knows IRI is not dictatorial in nature but fake the situation in order to weaken a democratic government with excessive pressure. That’s the $64,000 question.

Either way the current policies towards Iran are flat WRONG. A democratic Iran is desperately needed in that region of the world and a democratic Iran will not come to exist with pressure, period.


Recently by MidwestyCommentsDate
Iranians, The Camel Jockeys
Mar 04, 2012
Feb 28, 2012
Paradoxical Iranian love-hate relationship
Aug 28, 2011
more from Midwesty

Technically external pressures can work if

by Anonymouse on

Technically external pressures can work if the whole world unites behind it.  If ALL countries in the world stopped dealing with Iran and didn't buy their oil, how long do you think the regime would last?

So the subject should be if Americans stopped the external pressures.  That doesn't seem to work and it can have negative effects.  The Iranian economy is in ruins even with the price of oil at all time high.  Current sanctions are not that big of a deal and Ahadminejad had said it himself.

So if everything stays the same as they are, even with few more sanctions like the before, it won't have any effect on the regime.  If anything they can't use the sanctions as the reason behind the economic failures when oil prices are at all time highs.

Some conservatives have already started criticizing Ahmadinejad and NOT the West or America.

But if the kind of sanctions change or if any military adventure starts, surgical or other kind, then yes that will be used to strengthen the regime's foothold.


Midwesty looks like he has

by n.zanincanadai on

Midwesty looks like he has cute potential.



by Midwesty on

"You don't know America or Americans so well...Americans are exceptionalist and at the end of the day they want to be number one with all the fringe benefits that comes with it; hence, electing Bush twice. They are not as stupid as you think they are".

Well...I don't see myself in that position to lump sum an entire nation and characterize them with only a word, "exceptionalist". I wonder in all countries that I've been who else didn't think his/her country wasn't the best in the world because they had better food, bluer sky, denser forests, more lakes, taller skyscrapers, prettier women, smarter kids and what not.

Bush didn’t get elected by the people who voted for him he got elected by intellects and smart people that chose to stay home and not to vote. We are getting out of subject now but since you brought it up and I am at it I give you my two cents on US elections. I guarantee you if Hillary gets the DNC’s nomination McCain will be the president. This is what exactly happened in 2000 and 2004. People ran out of choice, stayed home and the republican base stayed energized and coordinated and finally got what they needed.

I believe in the goodwill and power of any people. This is not propaganda; I’ve seen it with my own eyes. That’s why the freaking media are trying so hard to influence the public’s view but they have always failed miserably. That’s why Internet is on rise and that’s why JJ has to work more on developing a sophisticated news section that holds every day a collection of diversified news section from rightwing conservative to liberal leftists. Americans are starving for a change. I know this is an Iranian website but you like it or not what happens in this country automatically and directly affects ALL Iranians.


"Believe or not the major

by Anonymousaa (not verified) on

"Believe or not the major muscle, the ordinary Americans who where behind Bush’s idea of spreading democracy got fooled with his language and his choice of words. "

You don't know America or Americans so well...Americans are exceptionalist and at the end of the day they want to be number one with all the fringe benefits that comes with it; hence, electing Bush twice. They are not as stupid as you think they are.

Plus, it doesn't matter what the American people want; the American foreign policy has never been based on what the people want...You're deluding yourself if you think so.

It is highly likely that they will elect McCain over Obama for the same exact reason...Just check out some of the most progressive blogs like daily kos of 4 or 5 years ago. They have changed drastically since, however, one more attack on US soil will change everything.


Couple of points...

by Midwesty on


I try to discuss my point in the context of democracy not the geopolitics of oil. I am seeing this from the people’s point of view and I reject it from the same angle. Believe or not the major muscle, the ordinary Americans who where behind Bush’s idea of spreading democracy got fooled with his language and his choice of words. They didn’t support Bush to bomb Iraq to stop China’s thirst for oil; they wanted to remove Saddam who was a vicious DICTATOR.


what Anonymouszxsa said was not related to this argument. He said,” If a society gets sick under a dictatorial regime …” I did not claim that. I believe a society gets sick when it is under external pressure. Again, the cause of sickness is “external pressure” the effect is a dictatorial regime which is what body takes/produces in order to get rid of the sickness.


Abarmard: No sanctions or

by Anonymousaa (not verified) on

Abarmard: No sanctions or attacks are going to bring democracy to Iran...However, you're under the false impression that the sanctions and any eventual attack on Iran is going to be for the cause of bringing democracy. This could not be farther from the truth and realties of US foreign policy.

Attacking Iran is going to be strictly based on cost-benefit analysis of geopolitical standing of the US in regards to rise of militristic China if the US left the Middle East for China and to some extent to Russia; Watch Obama's interview on CNN. Obama said the biggest threat to future economic and military standing of the US is China.


Countries do what they have to do to protect their interests and you can't stop them. Politics is nothing but business....This is hard cold fact and has nothing to do with democracy, fairness, or justice. This is the way it has been since beginning of time.



That's why Anonymousaa

by Abarmard on

Based on your own argument, current regime is bound to collapse. Am I correct? Yet the external factors could keep feed the disease so it will last longer. Would that be the pressures of the west?

I believe sanctions and pressures on the current regime does just that. Otherwise we would react to get our bodies healthy again.


This is a false argument. No

by Anonymousaa (not verified) on

This is a false argument. No dictatorship whether dictatorship of porletariat or dictatorship of Bourgeoisi (sp?) is ever justified in the grand scheme of things. Not only that, it is a dysfunctional and unsustainable method of control because it is inherently reactionary and abusive and it will ultimately self-destruct. It is all in the way how human brain is hard wired to protect itself from a hostile environment.

I suggest your read up on irreprable damages caused by an authoritarian and abusive parents on their child.

There are thousands of scientific longtitudeanl, cross-cultural ,and empirical studies on authoritarian style of child rearing and how they affect your biology (brain organization) and psychology (cognitive deficiencies)...


Anonymouszxsa very nice pick

by Abarmard on

But could you argue that a sick society is also dictatorial. Chicken or egg! Thanks for bringing a good argument to this theory.


Thanks for your analysis

by Abarmard on

I would try to expand more on your ideas rather than jump from one example to a theory then a conclusion. I like the base of the analysis, but I believe a little more expansion on the concept and patience in writing would've made this article more effective. Based on your introduction I assumed the body would be more detailed in the exploring your idea. I personally would've like a bit more depth. Please don't think that I am saying it has no depth, I only think you could've expand a few prographs to enforce your theory. I enjoyed reading it alot. Thank you.


"Dictatorship is an Effect"!???

by Anonymousaa (not verified) on

What kind of twisted reality do you operate on. There are thousands of political science studies and historical evidence that will disprove your cockamamy theory; if you posit this ludicrous theory in a political blog such as dailykos, you will be a laughing stock...You, Q, Abarmard, and other usual suspects are insulting our intelligence and the only ones who don't realize how ridiculous and desperate you sound are yourself alone. You people epitomize and manifest the twisted thinking of a morally bankrupt system of Islamic Republic's indoctrination.

P.S. Freedom is a natural and God-given right of every human being. And it can only be taken away by brute force and oppression.



by Anonymouse on

What's up with the goatie?! is that the professor goatie or other kinds like just annoying, koseh, teenage or blast from past?!  Just joking my friend don't take me seriously, the picture is good :-)


You are correct, they are brainless

by farokh2000 on

The problem in US is the fact that no one who has any brain and qualifications would run for high office.

The ones who do are normally doing it to satisfy their big egos, selfishness and hunger for power.

You are correct, the current Admin. in DC is totally brainless. If it wasn't for his family's wealth and influence, GW would not even graduate out of Elementary School. His IQ could not be higher than 25, if that.

Thanks for the Blog.



by Midwesty on

Anonymous posters,

I believe a dictatorship is a an effect not a cause. The cause is the environment in which dictatorship grows. But I might be very well wrong. This is my opinion.   

Q jaan,

 You are right, there is a third possibility and it looks frightening and sickening to me!! However I hope the pre-Iraq strategies will never work for Iran. Dollar is in a dump, gas prices and inflation on necessary goods are soaring and the preemption doctrine is ditched along its parents. It's about time to see the real Americans and Iranians taking over.  

Fred, Your approach in commenting has changed and it's good:O) I like to know where in my writings I was contradictory.


The enamored

by Fred on

True to form, this is yet another exercise by an enamored in patch quilying together contradictory statments in support of the Islamist Republic


Gol Gofti

by Q on

even the worst dictatorships (Hitler, Mao, USSR, Mussolini) came to power with overwhelming popular support. That means the people felt justified in trading their own freedom for the security, focus and law/order that the system provides.

The more severe the surrounding conditions, threats and perceived assaults, the more people willingly allow authoritarial rule. This already happened in Iran during the devestating Iran-Iraq war where a sense of siege and assault on national identity was so strong that any tradeoff with civil freedoms was deemed worth the prize... and it WAS. The Islamic Republic didn't have to be as authoritarian as it ended up being by the end of the war, had it not been for the western supported invasion.

This is exactly why the absolute worst policy for furthering freedom and democracy in Iran is sanctions and threats of war, even the robbing of national rights (like nuclear enrichment) serves the purpose. Instead of weakening the authoritarian tendencies of the system, it will strengthen and legitimize them.

I think there is another possiblity you may not have considered: That the Bush Administration wants the IRI to be more authoritarian and to stay in power.

There is plenty of justification for this view, if you grant that the primary interest in Iran is economic. If US has decided that it can't change the regime by force and replace it with a puppet government ala Iraq/Afghanistan, the next best thing it can do is to keep it weak but in power.

The best case scenario for the Western powers isn't a "democratic" Iran, that's all BS feel-good propaganda. We all know how much they push "democracy" in other client states like Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. So, it's just a ploy. Democracy is only good if it can be controlled and subservient to the imperialist powers. That's why they have no problem calling current Iraq and Afghanistan "democracy", even though the average Iranian can exercise far more democracy than either of those two countries even right now.

What they want is control. IF the fruit of a "democracy" campaign can be controlled by them, they are for it. If it can't be, they are against it. That's why, if they can't implement regime change by force, they rather it didn't happen at all. Because if it ever did on its own, they would have no excuse but to allow Iran to enter into the world market without guaranteeing them any "no-bid" contracts. But if they keep the regime in power, and continue to keep it week, they may not get the loot, but at least, they are also keeping away the competitors. It's not a bad proposition to keep it "on ice" until they are ready.

That's what they did to Iraq during the 90s. They kept it weak, but purposefully kept Saddam in power just to prevent Iraq from falling into the hands of china and Russia (and Iran.)


"Those who would give up

by Anonymousaaqw (not verified) on

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"--Ben Franklin in 1759

Remember the US was a colony of the British.


"dictatorship is a survival

by Anonymousaswq (not verified) on

"dictatorship is a survival tactic for a society."

Only cowards and ignorant people deem such a dysfunctional tactic as a survival mechanism. This "tactic" spells their doom and it is only a manifestation of their pathology.

A better survival and enduring tactic is to avoid brute force and repression and be in the service of its people and citizens instead of sacrificing citizen's liberty and prosperty in the service of its dictatorial regime...

I've got to handed to you though, at first glance, your argument is deviously plausible...Twisted and warped mind can only come up with this kind of sophism.


"A society under a

by Anonymouszxsa (not verified) on

"A society under a dictatorial regime is a human body on antibiotics". A nation under siege...

You're stretching definitions to fit your agenda and in the same paragraph you contradict yourself. If a society gets sick under a dictatorial regime in which it would require antibiotic then how can equate the regime with the dicatorship disease-ridden nation. The name of the disease is "dictatorship" that has afflicted the nation not the other way around.

The dictatorial regime is causing the illness of the society in the first place.

A dictatorial regime is a like an AIDS virus (not bacteria that can be killed with antibiotics) attacking it's host's body and psyche. The patient(the nation) will eventually suffer from multiple organ failure (MOF) involving renal failure, as well as the failure of heart, liver, lung, and central nervous systems and eventually it's heart and soul stops. Iran is a very sick nation with a sick soul who needs to find the will to beat this disease and find strengths in her long history to survive this ravaging disease.


"A society under a

by ZenJen (not verified) on

"A society under a dictatorial regime is a human body on antibiotics."

I like that...or maybe a society under dictatorial regime is a human body with cancer, with selfish individuals multiplying and perpetuating their ideologies, while blindly wreaking havoc on the communities and societies they live in. It is strange to me that even the simplist mind can understand that this behavior is fatal in the human body, and yet some of the greatest minds overlook these effects in the world-body.

Thanks for your blog.