by FG

This analysis relies on certain assumptions. If correct, principlists who hope to survive must conclude that drastic change is the only solution. Based on public fears and known positions of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, they are coming to grasp that no "successful" resolution is possible so long as Khamenei and Ahmadinejad enjoy any political power. No hen will accept a henhouse where foxes are left in charge.


1. The ONLY principalists who still retain strong motives to stick with Khamenei are a minority, consisting mainly of die-hard ideologues and individuals who have committed too many crimes to have an "out."

2. Most principlists are opportunists. They know when a lifeboat is needed.

3. (Though some readers will object...) Some principlists do indeed have moral objections. In 2009 Khamenei convinced many principlists to stick with him by lying: the crackdown would be the lesser or two evils, short in duration and relatively mild. In 1964 LBJ misled Congress, and thereby won overwhelming approval of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution--a disaster that led to endless escalation of the war in Viet Nam and turmoil on the home front. Many who voted for it later became bitter critics and decried trickery. The same is happening in Iran now for similar reasons.

4. Most principlists are savvy realists--the opposite of ideologues. Realists must conclude--based on repeated evidence--that Iran's problems (economic decline, external isolation and pariah status, a deeply alienated populace, discredited elections, the "need" for intimidation and a police state) can only grow worse as long as Khamenei and Ahmadinejad enjoy political power. They share with Iran's people a desire to avoid ending up like Syria today. That's not good for anyone.


Except for the first group above, all other principlists are reaching the inevitable conclusion: nothing can be salvaged unless the public can be won back. So long as Khamenei and Ahmadinejad enjoy an ounce of polical power, chances are zero. That move must be accompanied by the release of all political prisoners, an immediate end to censorship, a de-programming and dissolution of militias, an end to social policiing, the arrest of any long-protected individuals alleged to have committed serious crimes and a no-holes barred investigation into such crimes culminating in an open, credible and detailed release of findings. Almost none of these measures are conceivable under Khamenei or Ahmadinehad. The final step would be a reconciliation commission.

Notice that I am not talking "coup" here. The best way to remove Khamenei is a constitutionally sanctioned one, via the Assembly of Experts. Yes, it is made up of conservatives but how many are disenchanted, realistic principlists? As for offending the pious, the usual bunch of liberal ayatollahs is now being supplemented by conservative principlists. Finally, I've provided good reasons for elements within the IRCG to support such a move. You'll find all that in an upcoming link just below.


Insider criticism of Khamenei is growing rapidly. Yesterday I looked at why I think a certain news item seems especially significant (even if it got little attention in the press or anywhere else). You may have missed it because it appeared in a subpost under an unrealted news item. I suggest ou start there before going further. It's the "Assembly of Experts" subpost.



“The main people to blame [for unrest after the 2009 Presidential election] were those who managed the crisis. Some of the population were discontented. But how must they have been dealt with? Let’s even say that their leaders were traitors; But all these ordinary citizens and [religious] women in chador came out and protested; Shouldn’t we have allowed them to assemble in order to gradually extinguish the turmoil?”

OBSERVATION: Extinguishing "the turmoil" is the overriding concern of most principalists. So who stands inthe way?


Enduring America offers the following short report, accompanied by a clever photo in which Ahmadinejad and five pals sit up on a stage addressing a political rally. As they say, a picture is worth a thousand words:

The media outlet of principlist Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of the Expediency Council and 2009 Presidential candidate, gloats that the speakers outnumbered the audience at a pro-Ahmadinejad Resistance Front event.



Hated by Ahmadinejad, Rafsanjani continues to offend Khamenei for having refused to condemn post-election protestors and to encourage voters to turn out. He seems to be emerging as a major player in the movement for change. According to EA, this is what Motahari had to say about Rafsanjani after the latter was criticized in Parliament today by a Ahmadinejad supporter:

Supporting Rafsanjani's letter to the Supreme Leader, which warned of manipulation of the 2009 Presidential election, he said that Rafsanjani's July 2009 Tehran Friday Prayer --- his last appearance on the podium and a high-water mark for the Green Movement --- was "correct."


Most principlists and IRCG generals despise Ahmadinejad. Principalists worry that the turnout may suck and that Ahmadinejad's forces will benefit thereby. They blame Khamenei's stubborn persistanc in deeply hated policies for creating this dilemna. dilmenna. Here's what EA has to say about conservsative election fears:

Amidst economic concerns and reports of resignation after 32 months of repression and political conflict, it is uncertain how many Iranians will turn out for the Parliamentary elections on 2 March, but no one can deny the regime's efforts to get them to the ballot box.

On Monday, Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani, the head of the Unity Front, and Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi issued an announcement asking people to participate in high numbers.


more from FG

Supreme Thug: "I & My Family Don't Have ENOUGH Power Yet"

by FG on

"Screw the Koran and screw the people," says Khamenei, "In Iran Islam is what I say it is.  I'm the Supreme One.   Allah should bow down to me, not the other way around."  

On one thing you can bet: such a hereditary system he proposes will be imposed from above.   Don't look for the oppressed people to have any say.  The whole country knows who the Supreme One wants as his successor--his self-enriched son Murderous Mojtaba, the billionaire religious psychopath widely known among the populace as "Little Caligula."

Turning the IRI into a hereditary monarchy will go over big with both the frustrated principalists who see the inflexible Lady F leading them off a cliff.  If communists can have a monarchy in North Korea, why should not Islamists have one in Iran.  Why shouldn't the papacy be hereditary as well?  

But that's not enough.  Aware of being widely hated and anxious to improve his own security, the Supreme Thug also wants another family member as head of Parliament--a great reason to vote for the disgusting Ahmadinejad's faction unless, as is preferable, you boycott the upcoming election.

... the Basij militia, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, has told his commanders that Gholam Ali Haddad Adel should be the next Speaker of Parliament, as he is the father-in-law of the Supreme Leader's son Mojtaba Khamenei and the "closest candidate" to Ayatollah Khamenei.

Meanwhile, in another imperialistic statement, Khamenei suggests that elections may not suffice, even if rigged.   Just in case the wrong guy (Khomeini's grandson perhaps) should win such office, here is the  newest bit of dogma.  

Ayatollah Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, said that if a President elected by people is not installed by the Supreme Leader, he is "taghout" and should not be obeyed.

In another subpost here, I wrote about how Khamene, also known as Mr. Inflexibity, has principlists frustrated as he keeps doing is best to make sure than Iran remains deeply isolated and that sanctions stay around for years if possible.   Every day he does something new to assure that.  So what did he do today to help?  Here's two itmes reported in Enduring America (also the source of other items analyzed in this subpost:

ITEM:  Speaking on State TV, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah said today that the Islamic Republic will continue its nuclear programme: "With God's help, and without paying attention to propaganda, Iran's nuclear course should continue firmly and seriously....Pressures, sanctions and assassinations will bear no fruit. No obstacles can stop Iran's nuclear work."

Khamenei spoke soon after the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that its inspectors had been prevented, during a two-day visit, from seeing a military facility which may be involved in nuclear development (see 0800 GMT).

ITEM:  More on the tension between the International Atomic Energy Agency and Iran, after Tehran restricted the movement of inspectors on a two-day visit --- a diplomat in Vienna says that the Islamic Republic asked the IAEA team to sign a document regulating their activists. They refused.


 FG: great round up.

by vildemose on

 FG: great round up. Khamenie is the Hitler of our time. The sooner the US does something about him (re-assissinate), the less likely the need for a war. The entire world is in Peril if these monkeys get the nukes.

A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.--Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.


FG, I Agree, NO

by Azarbanoo on

If this were a normal regime with normal intent and a normal leader would opposition to Iran's nuclear program be half as great?


One man is dragging Iran down as Hitler did to Germany in 1945

by FG on

RE: Regime sabotages new talks on nukes.

Successful negotiations could have reduced military pressure and the sanctions threat--two things most principlists wanted.  But Khamenei said "NO!"

Most principlists would prefer better relations with the world and diplomatic relations with neighbors and the world.  But Khamenei persists in imperialistic programs aimed at covert destabilization.  Once again Khamenei says "NO!"

Most principlists grasp that both they and the Iranian people would benefit diplomatic relations and amical policies with the USA were restored.   Khamenei  says "No!"

Do most principlists now see as well as the average Iranian that there can be no light at the end of the tunnel for anyone in Iran so long as Khamenei rules? I think they are getting the point.  

To nationalists who decry outsiders' concerns about trusting this regime with nukes, I say, "Imagine Milosevic or Hitler with nukes."  Would fears be justified or irrational?  If this were a normal regime with normal intent and a normal leader would opposition to Iran's nuclear program be half as great?


New threat for "pre-emptive attack" could backfire double

by FG on

RE: An Iranian military commander has said Iran would take pre-emptive action against its enemies if it felt its national interests were endangered.


Externally, it  encourages a potential target to strike first.    If the threat is directed at Israeli, where is the airforce that can carry it out. If directed at the USA (whose fleets are more in range) the regime will be committing suicide.

Internally, conservatives who don't want war, including civil war, will see it as another example of how Iran can never live with peace and security or be treated  as a normal state so long as Khamenei and the hard liners around him engage in dangerous, stupid conduct like this.  

Everything about the man--every word from his mouth or his hard-line compadres--says this walking disaster must go.  What fail to see is tht the message is becoming as strong for principlists as it is for greens and advocates of secular democracy.


The latest example of Khamenei's incorrigibility

by FG on

Among his most disasterous policies are those which have made so many enemies abroad that Iran is increasingly isolated.  Nevertheless, even after flops and exposure in Thailand and India, he can't stop himself.  His thugs have been caught in another terrorist plot before they could pull it off. 

The souce is an Israeli paper but the Israelis seem to understand what Khamenei does not; i.e., making up an easily checked story like this one makes no sense and undermines one's vested interest in future credibility


Cell headed by Revolutionary Guards officer, Hezbollah operative planned to stage attacks on foreign citizens in Azerbaijan, already bought explosives, ammunition.



Questions to ponder:

1. Would a man who uses Hezbollah for terror operations abroad hesitate at using Hezbollah against his own people if available and seen as essential?

2. Would a man who has used Hezbollah snipers to assist Assad against his people not use them at home?




Give principlists an out or drive them all into the same corner?

by FG on

There are lots of reasons to hate this regime and anyone who supported it.   The demands suggested above are reasonable concessions in light of past events and obviously essential to regaining public trust.

To go any further, such as demanding an immediate end to the Islamic Republic, or the arrest of all top figures who supported it (not to be confused with those who authorized crimes) would push all principlists into one corner and force them to uinite against change.  There is no doubt some made "mistakes" which they truely regret.  

Where people are given a free and open choice as part of the deal, how long does anyone imagine the IRI will last after the two Bad Guys and their chief lieutenants are ousted?  

Those who have not committed crimes should NOT be banned afterwards from competing for political office if you want to avoid instability (Iran has had enough).   If the public disapproves of a man, it will adminster its own "punishment" at the ballot box.