The Iranian Republic: How its people are being gradually pushed to the brink


by FG

As an American, I'm struck by an observation in an article about the changing nature of the opposition and its demands since the rigged election.   As happened in our country in 1776, it is the government's ham-handed, post-election tactics (admittedly much worse and over a much shorter perior) that continues to widen and radicalizes Iran's people toward a point of no return.

    RELEVANT EXCERPT from RoozOnline's "The 'Iranian' Republic":

    when the Green Movement initially began its protests, it was merely calling for an investigation into the fraudulent measures during the June 12 presidential elections. Whereas now, the new measure is a warning to the rulers of Iran that they have brought this state of affairs onto themselves and the public is calling for more serious changes.


    Anyone familiar with events leading up to the American Revolution in 1776 will be struck by the strong resemblance circumstances in America then and circumstances in Iran today.

    When the French and Indian War ended in 1763, no one imagined Amerivans would go to war for Independence not long afterwards.  Instead of addressing a series of grievances, England's governement foolishly persisted in a hard, punitive line that aggravated those grievances.

    As in Iran today, some English conserrvatives, such as Edmund Burke, foresaw the consequences.  As in Iran today, their advice was ignored but proved all too prescient.  England's conservatives asked a great question: What was to be gained by pushing for certain measures that would slightly increase revenue when compared to what would be lost if the government persisted--Britain's great colony in North America.  When it was over, all sides realized that truth.  The hardliners who "lost America" have been universally condemned by historians, especially in Britain.

    Even to the eve of revolution, most Americans had favored continued links to England. just as some in Iran think the Islamic Republic can survive after all its crimes.  In American no one originally sought independence--only reform.  Once the fighting began, the majority of Americans became irrevocably committed to independence.   Adamently anti-reform, the Islamic is headed in the same direction.   In this case, it is so discredit I doub even major reforms can ever restore popular legitimacy.

    Nothing better exemplies public sentiments in both countries . than the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence.  Read them below to see why.   With a few minor changes, what Jefferson wrote then  could have been written by Iranians today.  The Preamble is so universal in its nature.


    When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

    (Since Iranians are being pushed toward a revolt but one which would change a government rather than achieve independence.   Hence, one minor change is needed)


    The next section, the famous preamble, includes the ideas and ideals that were principles of the Declaration. It is also an assertion of what is known as the "right of revolution": that is, people have certain rights, and when a government violates these rights, the people have the right to "alter or abolish" that government.[71]

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

    OBSERVATION: The author, Thomas Jefferson, expresses ideas about human rights that arose in the Enlightenment and are synomous with modernism.   As he makes clear, such rights are natural and "self-evident" and therefore apply universally to all human beings, not just Americans.  What follows the above Preamble, is a list of specific grievances against England.  Iranians would have to substitute their own.   

    The horrors Khamenei and his thugs have inflicted on Iran's people are so much greater by comparison.  If anyone ever had reason to lose total faith in a government it is the Iranian people today.   They too sought reform.   Where American efforts were greeted with a tap on the fanny by comparison, any Iranian demanding similar rights suffered virtual crucifixion.


more from FG

At his time there were many

by alimostofi on

At his time there were many who believed in these thoughts that were to become Islam. The roots of Islam can be found in Mani. People like Kartir and what he did created this monster we call Islam.

Ali Mostofi



Ali Akbar

Invoking the memory of St Augustine????

by Ali Akbar on

Interesting take yet he held a view of Original Sin that was taught by First Council of Nicaea he must have later accepted during his conversion.....   Also note that Islam did not exist during his lifetime... 


Augustine took the view that

by alimostofi on

Augustine took the view that the Biblical text should not be interpreted literally if it contradicts what we know from science and our God-given reason.  (//

So maybe Khamenei and Jefferson need to do a bit of homework.

And if it were not for good old Augustine the world would still be in the dark ages. 


Ali Mostofi




Jefferson vs. Khamenei: Who is correct on human rights?

by FG on

No two theories on human rights could be more opposed.


Humans have only such rights as as the Supreme Leader gives them as the man with God's ear.  If he offers his subjects no rights at all, it is because God told them it is what he wanted.  Therefore, any subject who dares contradict the Supreme ruler is an apostate guilty of contradicting God himself. 

In that case, he can be punished in any way the Supreme Leader, as God's spokesman, chooses.   To contradict the Supreme Leaders words or actions therefore justifies any punishment, including execution.  Mankind's duty is to accept this alleged "fact."

Basically Khamenei's theory rehashes the long-discredited western theory of a monarch's divine rights--giving it a pseudo-Islamic guise to make it more palatable in the Middle East.  

As in Europe, the prime beneficiary of such theories is the ruler himself, not God.  To the degree such theories are "true," it is not because of any basis in reality but only to the degree the Supreme Ruler says so and only insofar as he possesses the means to enforve it on a reluctant populace.


Rights originate with God--not with any ruler.  Thus any ruler who attempts to take them away sins against God.   When he does, the people have the right to insist on what God gave them insists on their natural rights who represent God's will.


1. Which theory would most Iranians find more natural and appealing?

2. Should the regime blame Jefferson's theory--so widespread and popular today--as an example of the sort of corrupting western influence responsible for the chaos in Iran today?  Or should he look to himself for causation?

3. Should the opposition make more use of Jefferson's theory?

Passing Through

Dear FG

by Passing Through on

This is a wonderful observation that you have made. There are a great many people, who in the past several months, have expressed the very same views that you have expressed here:

You are absolutely correct that initially, the voters were requesting that their votes be counted. However, as time went by, the issues of Human Rights, and a request for the establishment of a Secular Democracy was set forth. This is all evident from the various video footage that has been available on the internet.

What I am trying to say is this: The Very Genuine Grass-Roots Movement That Came About As A Result Of The Fraudulent Elections, Has Transcended In To A Movement To Change The System As A Whole. These Mullahs Completely Under-Estimated The Power Of The People.

Through Oppression, They Have Somewhat Managed To Reduce The Number Of Demonstrations, Etc. However, The Very Rage Of Injustice Is Very Much Alive In The Hearts And Minds Of The Iranian People .. All You Need To Do Is To Go To Iran, And You'll See It For Yourself.

Finally, I would like to leave you with this thought: The Combination Of This Grass-Roots Movement, Together With The Division And The Breach That Was Created Amongst The Clergy Themselves As A Result Of This Fraudelent Election, Will Ultimately Lead To The Downfall Of This Regime. Our Beloved Iran Needs A "SECULAR DEMOCRACY" Like The Rest Of The Civilized World.

Nothing More, And Indeed, Nothing Less .....

Thank you For This Post,





Remarkable similarities as

by vildemose on

Remarkable similarities as you mentioned. I do think the hardliners and their hizbollahi thugs who are in charge will be the ultimate losers in this struggle against injustice and tyranny.