As Syria's economy sinks like a stone, Iran's protestors need to borrow an idea


by FG

Words that denote exactly the same thing can have very
different emotional overtones (connotations).  So when it comes to supporting a regime or turning against it, the words you use can make a big difference.

"Secular democracy" and "civil democracy" refer to exactly the same
thing--a religiously neutral government that doesn't side with any sect,
that treats one's faith as a private matter and provides no special
powers and priviliges for a clerical class, especially not the "right"
to a one-man dictatorship.  Theoretically, therefore, either term should
be equally acceptable to the public.  It's the emotional overtones or
connotations which limits the appeal of the first and makes the second
much more attractive.

The Iranian opposition should consider why Syrian protestors have deliberately chosen the second term--because many muslims inaccurately see the term "secular democracy" as favoring something godless and wayward.  
Any dictatorship--especially a clerical one--will enjoy considerable
success by encouraging that belief.   After all, who wants to support
the "godless?"  On the other to rage against "civility is like
condemning motherhood and rice pudding.  It backfires by making the
accuser look as bad as protestors claim. Khamenei's government is truely
as uncivil as Assad's.

I found this Syrian opposition tactic buried in a MUST READ article ("The Squeeze on Assad" 
from The Economist, reprinted by Joshua Landis in his Syria Comment site
(worth bookmarking).  See:


The article's emphasis is on showing clearly the
many reasons why economic collapse is virtually inevitable so
long as the Assad regime remains in power and how rapidly that is undermining the remaining political support for Assad.  His regime cannot survive solely on the support of a small minority sect
alone.  It requires the support of the educated middle class.  The latter is desserting as it sees no prospects of economic stability.  You know panic is developing when people begin shipping money abroad by the basketfull.     


Iran will exchange its only important ally in the region for a hostile regime.  No amount of lies can cause Syrians to forget all the
assistance Khamenei, IRCG generals and Al Qods gave to Assad's thugs--possibly including snipers.   Whether the latter is true, Syrians believe it and that's what counts.  Can you blame them?  Syrians firmly believe it now. 

Whatever the effects of Assad's downfall on Iran, I'd say they will be multiplied should Ahmaninejad and his inner circle be ousted first.   The regime will then consisted of hard-line ruling clerics (increasing
hated by all) and their security force intimidators (IRCG generals, the basilj or the religious police) beloved by no one. 



more from FG
Maryam Hojjat

Green Leaders are from IRI/IRR,Criminals & Deliberately

by Maryam Hojjat on

are reformists to Keep this regime in Power.


Scott Lucas on Green tactics

by FG on

A few days ago, Scott Lucas at Enduring America wrote an article about how the Green’s lack of imaginative, flexible tactics assisted the regime's survival.  I agree.  

Scott notes how Green leaders even now fail to address bread-and-butter working class ready for explosion.  So long as their sole grievances concern civil rights issues exclusively the opposition remains handicapped.  

Scott points out that Green leaders turned to intermittent protests just when they had the regime on the ropes.  Protestors against other dictatorships made no such mistake.  Daily protests grew larger and wore such regimes down.  Brutality simply enraged the public.   By contrast, Green leaders gave Iran’s regime time to recover and plan effective countermoves.

A third mistake of Green leaders has been their continued insistance on reforming the unreformable.  The rank-and-file Greens and a substantial part of the working class know better.  Even many top ayatollahs suggest the regime must go.  They have take strong positons against clerical
involvement in government.  They observe how badly Khamenei's behavior
has discredited Islam and especially its clergy in general.   

Let's face the obvious.  First, the central tenet of the Islamic Republic is absolutely incompatible with civil rights, justice and democracy--all real power invested in one absolute ruler who claims divine right.   Secondly, lacking all transparency and any checks and balances, the Islamic Republic is doomed to remain economically corrupt and incompetent forever unless replaced.

I suspect that--deep down--Green leaders know major reform is impossible under this regime.  So why persist in an illusion?  Do they imagine it will limit harsh imprisonments and injustices?   It hasn’t.  Do they hope to win over hardline principlists?  It’s won’t happen.  A handful of defecting principlists would have little impact anyway.  The Iranian people don't require it any more than the people of Syria do.

I see only one temporary reason to hesitate for now when it comes to demanding regime change:

Let the clash between Ahmaninejad and Khamenei play out first, then strike when the loser (Ahmadinejad‘s faction) is irretrievably isolated and alienated.   The Green's visible weakness makes that clash possible.  It follows that any sign of a renewed Green threat at this time will drive the Bad Guys together.   Soon there will be no such risk.