Should patriotic Iranians fight the mullahs or aid them?


by FG

If Iran uses force to close the Persian Gulf, the likely consequence will be war: Iran against the world.  The subsequent conflict won't be about protecting Iran's resources or its people from outsiders.  It will have been initiated by the mullahs to save their ugly butts, given the probable consequences to the regime from any oil boycott.

Normally the intensely nationalistic Iranians rally on the side of whoever rules in Tehran against any foreign troops entering Iranian soil.  If the obvious goal of those troops is to oust the ruling mullahs and their thugs and leave as soon as possible afterwards, Iranians must ask themselves: Isn't Iran at already an occupied country controlled by non-Iranian elements?  Who are the REAL invaders and who are the liberators? Do the mullahs resemble Nazi occupiers in France during WWII while their opponents play the Allies after Normandy? 

This WWII analogy breaks down in one key respect. The Nazis--already losing in the East and having failed to stop western armies from getting a foothold on the conti nent--stood no chance of winning the French via propaganda, patriotic appeals or loosening up.  However, with their dictatorship at risk, don't be surprised if the mullahs steal a page from Stalin from whom they've already borrowed show trials, public confessions and Lubyanka-style prisons.  Expect the predictable, "It's all about oil" propaganda line.  Meanwhile, will Iranians be suckered by if the regime suddenly plays nice with the public only out of temporary necessity?

Don't be fooled by Stalin's belated popularity after victory in WW II.  At the time of the Nazi invasion, Stalinwas hated and feared by most of the Soviet population for many reasons.  When the Nazis gained so much ground, Stalin temporarily reversed long unpopular policies.  Appeals to religion, once verboten in a country where churches had been scorned as bourgeois, became commonplace.  In the first year after Operation Barbarossa, Stalin had cracked down on  anti-Nazi partisans out of fear they'd be a post war problem.  Eventually he has sense enough to assist them as allies though many would be arrested as soon as the war ended (Hint! Hint!)   Hitler lacked such capacity to be flexible if only out of temporary military necessity.  That was a major cause of the Nazi defeat in the East where many welcomed his armies at first.

Given the nature of war, anti-mullah forces can hardly avoid killing some Iranian civilians and damaging Iranian property (along with their own troops).  You can anticipate the mullahs will make the most of that.  How much sympathy have those mullahs shown toward Iran's people in all the crimes committed since 2009?   Like the French in 1944, Iranians must ask: Are such losses worth the gain (an end to mullah rule)?   To rally around the regime for a brief nationalistic high is unlikely to save the mullahs from defeat.  However it would surely prolong the conflict, causing avoidable destruction and casualties.   Let's suppose it did save the mullahs. Iranians would wind up right back where they started--enjoying the dubious benefits of hated, Nazi-style rule relying on the IRCG (playing SS), religious police (intensely despised) and the Basilj (playing brownshirts) to keep their boots on the people's faces. Call it missed opportunity.

Consider the advantages of not rallying to the mullah occupiers:

First, a shortened war in which the bad guys must fight on two fronts--external and domestic.

Secondly, if the only other alternative for ousting the regime is bloody civil war, which is likely to be worse?

Thirdly,  in contrast to most other outcomes in which the IRI goes bye-bye, an Iran liberated this way is far less likely to be stuck--like Egypt--with greedy generals determined to retain economic and political bribes Khamenei conferred as inducements for helping him mug the populace and Saudi-ize civilized Iranians.



more from FG

All the assumptions are false

by bahmani on

All too frequently we shift off course and into never never land by entertaining the notion of "removing" or "elimination" of the Mollahs.

Newsflash: They ain't going anywhere soon.

Iran has always had mollahs. Why do you think the jonoob-shahri chador wearers during the 70's existed?

Now that they have power, and can successfully command millions in attendance of their speeches the mollahs aren't about to give that fame and fortune up without a serious fight.

Stop deluding yourselves by suggesting grandiose platforms and plans based on the post-mollah assumption.

The sooner we face the fact that to de-mollahfy Iran is never going to happen, the sooner we can figure out a win-win way to get them to give up power (slowly) and put democracy in place.

Post Khomeini Iran has always been a lot like post Mao China. The next nearest Mollah Khamenei is about to die soon, when he does, one less as hard-line will likely take his place, and then he dies, and one less hard-line than him, and so on and so on, until it reaches a mass that simply shifts the remaining way to full democracy. I'd be comfortable to say maybe 3 Supreme leaders from now.

China isn't even there yet, but has been on a slow decline away from communism to capitalism, and eventually will get to democracy, once the last vestiges are too fat to hold the party line.

I know this sounds impossible to tolerate for some, and I know the sheer oppression and brutality of the current situation is too hard to bear.

But that's the way things change without a forced imposed change.

Considering the past, I'd rather wait for Iran to moderate over time, than bear the brunt of yet another US led regime change, and imposed ruler by choice of American politicians.

Although it would not have been a smooth road, had the US left well enough alone in 1953, we would not be here in the first place.

Assuming it will be any better now, is a sweet and entirely well intentioned delusion.

To read more bahmani posts visit: //

Arash Kamangir

What kind of question is this?

by Arash Kamangir on

The heart of patriotic iranians are always with the motherland Iran. Our country is occupied presently by  satanic extremist religeous forces . In order to fight off IR, using any cooperation or help from foreign countries  should be welcomed . Just like devil Khomeini used PLO to help him, why not us using others to topple mullahs?  


Good insights, as always.

by vildemose on

Good insights, as always. From your mouth to god's

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


Interesting post vildemose

by FG on

re: The working class is ready to fight and make the greatest sacrifices

It's hard to tell about this one as the economy continues going south and union leaders keep getting arrested. 

While reform wasn't that big previously among workers, I think it had some minority support in 2009 among younger workers.  However the majority of workers were divided between Khamenei (he draws the pious poor) and Ahmadinejad (his economic populism and nationalism appeals to the rest).

Things must have changed a bit given all that has happened since.

I suspect Khamenei's thievery and brutality will have reduced support among the pious somewhat, especially when liberal ayatollahs speak up or get targetted by regime thugs.

I also suspect Ahmadinejad's tendency to make outlandish economic  promises without fulfilling them is starting to alienate unpaid workers.   He seems to get most of the blame for inflation and currency problems.  That includes the government's failure to deal with them though there may be no workable solution so long as the IRI exists.

RE:  The existence of a revolutionary party and leadership.

I've read that folks are forming cells to make crackdowns more difficult.  Too bad they didn't do that last time.  When people become radicalized, it's hard to tell what they are up to.  Any standout leader would be bagged easily if he stood out openly.

RE:  Rulers no longer wish to rule

Obviously that doesn't apply to Khamenei or Ahmadinejad.  I suspect some of the in-crowd is concluding that they grabbed hold of a loser in the Islamic Republic if you consider some of the open grumbling recently.


 FG: Very funny. You are a

by vildemose on

 FG: Very funny. You are a quite a

I think the pillsbury-dough boy is going to get the nomination and explode in his first debate with obama...

Re-Bush, old one but funny:


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


 conditions Lenin put

by vildemose on

 conditions Lenin put forth, the 6 conditions for revolution:

  1. The regime is split; there is a crisis in the regime.
  2. The middle class is wavering between the revolutionary forces and the ruling class.
  3. The working class is ready to fight and make the greatest sacrifices.
  4. The existence of a revolutionary party and leadership.
  5. People are sick and tired of the ruler
  6. Rulers no longer wish to rule

3,4,6 are MIA in this calculus

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


The Mullah Rap: Need a protest chant anyone?

by FG on

I'm no fan of rap music which is hardly music.   It's funny how easy it is to do.  Often it uses strong language.  Nevertheless this segment about the mullahs came into my head as I drove home after a haircut.  I've used asterisks here to control that feature without depriving anyone of the fun.

If that's not ok with the administrators, just delete. Otherwise, readers can fill in the asterisks themselves.  If you get stuck, any that appear at the end of a line rhyme with a prior line or one that follows.  Hint: the third line ends with a word that is also a name.  

If you have kids who actually enjoy rap, they may like this. I doubt it will translate well into Farsi but it would make a nice chant, wall slogan or currency graffiti for young Iranians.    If you post it on the internet please credit FG at


The god**** mullahs got to go.

I can't stand 'em they really b***

The Supreme Leader can s*** my p****

When he's sees a woman, he's gotta beat 'er.


I once taught a highly academic high school with kids of mixed backgrounds.  One was a rapper.   I told him rap never appealed to be personally because it sounded like a guy suffering from constipation, grunting and straining away.  I also said it was easy to do, and he disagreed.  So I made up this one on the spot.  The class was in stitches and the rapper asked if he could borrow these lines. "Fine," I said:

When I goes to the john

I can't get it on.

Needs my ex-lax

So I can relax. 


What follows next isn't related to Iran but folks at this site might enjoy it after listening to the stupidities of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Cain the Pizza Man and a Texas governor who thinks Erdogan is an Al-Queda Islamist.

Enduring America currently has an article entitled "How a Disastrous George W. Bush Led to Craziness Inside the Republican Party.

I like the beginning:

So much ink and so many pixels have been spilled of late, all
attempting to explain the modern conservative zeitgeist. What has
possessed the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Dwight
Eisenhower, to drive them to such extremes?

What happened to the Republican Party?

Simple. George W. Bush happened.

For the subsequent analysis see:





 LCS picture, very

by vildemose on

 LCS picture, very cute...


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


The Iranian oil embargo: does this mean war?

by FG on

This comes from the diplomatic editor at the Guardian.  It reviews likely US and Iranian tactics in the Persian Gulf


 much US naval planning has focused on how to counter "swarm tactics" –
attacks on US ships by scores of boats, hundreds of missiles, suicide
bombers and mines, all at once.

"Every couple of weeks in
Washington you can go to a different conference on swarming," said Sam
Gardiner, a retired US air force colonel who has taught strategy and
military operations at the National War College. "War games have shown
that swarming, missiles and mines all together put a strain on the
capacity of ships to defend themselves. Your challenge is how to protect
your minesweepers from swarming techniques."

One of the US naval responses has been to develop a new kind of fighting vessel, the littoral combat ship (LCS),
tailor-made for countering Iran's naval tactics. The LCS is sleek,
small and agile with a shallow draft and high speeds, allowing it to
operate along island-pocked coastlines.

At the low-tech end of the
scale, the Fifth Fleet is reported to have deployed a significant
number of dolphins trained to seek out mines.

Ultimately, the US
response to swarming will be to use American dominance in the air and
multitudes of precision-guided missiles to escalate rapidly and
dramatically, wiping out every Iranian missile site, radar, military
harbour and jetty on the coast. Almost certainly, the air strikes would
also go after command posts and possibly nuclear sites too. There is
little doubt of the effectiveness of such a strategy as a deterrent, but
it also risks turning a naval skirmish into all-out war at short







by amirkabear4u on

It is a difficult decision to make.

If you try to help the civilians you are considered as trying to help the mullahs;


very difficult.






Is the currency in free fall?

by FG on

Enduring America explores that question: