Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
Friday, November 13, 2009 at 8:09 The Latest from Iran (12 November): Ahmadinejad Moves for Nuclear Deal
Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis
Recently I had sharp words for an article by Borzou Daragahi of The Los Angeles Times because it was "so partial, so distorting, so wrong that it verged on sabotage of the demands, aspirations, and ideas of the Green movement". Daragahi cited a few "analysts" who, more from their personal interests than from knowledge of the opposition, denounced Mir Hossein Mousavi and called on the US Government to recognise the outcome of June's Presidential election.Fortunately, in my opinion, Daragahi quickly walked away from that piece, recognising that the 13 Aban protests would be "significant". However, he has now posted an interview with Karim Sadjadpour, one of the most prominent US-based analysts of Iran, which revives my concerns: "Is Obama administration dissing the 'green' opposition movement?"
Sadjadpour claims, in support of the headline, "There are certainly analysts in Washington, including within some branches of the U.S. government, who believe that Iran’s opposition movement is either dead or does not deserve to be taken seriously," then adding --- in an apparent contradiction --- "[But] I’ve never found them to be dismissive or unsympathetic towards the green movement". However, whether Obama's officials love, loathe, or have no time for the Green Wave, "They feel they can’t put all their eggs in the basket of the opposition."
My concerns are not over Sadjadpour, whose analysis I appreciate. Instead, it is with the "they" who he is invoking. I do not know their names. I do not know on what basis they are making their judgements. And I certainly do not know their motives for proclaiming the Death of the Opposition.
Sadjadpour throws out clues. Part of Washington's distance could be benevolent: "The Obama administration worries that if it is seen as too vocally supportive of the opposition...it could end up sabotaging the movement." On the other hand, it could be the calculation that a nuclear deal with Tehran trumps all other considerations: "The prospect of political reform in Tehran appears to be at best a medium-term process, while the prospect of Iran reaching a nuclear weapons capability is an immediate concern.
The point remains, however: We Just Don't Know. And my concern remains and now grows with each article --- the original Daragahi piece, the snide comments of Jackson Diehl on "Iran's Unlovable Opposition" in the Washington Post, and the distortions of David Ignatius in the same paper --- that claims to "know" the Iranian opposition. Are the ignorance that poses as knowledge and the insults that pose as analysis not only representative of the authors but of Government officials who stand as unnamed sources behind them?
----
Is Obama administration dissing the 'green' opposition movement?
Borzou Daragahi
As the United States attempts to grapple with Iran over its nuclear program, some worry that it will sacrifice the Islamic Republic's grass-roots opposition movement.
Karim Sadjadpour is an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He's regularly hobnobbing with Beltway policymakers and advisors as well as those within the kaleidoscope of think tanks issuing reams of recommendations for them.
He says that opinion in Washington is mixed. Though he himself believes that Iran's opposition movement remains a force to be reckoned with, some disagree.
"There are certainly analysts in Washington, including within some branches of the U.S. government, who believe that Iran’s opposition movement is either dead or does not deserve to be taken seriously," he said.
But, he said, "in numerous conversations with the key formulators of Iran policy in the Obama administration I’ve never found them to be dismissive or unsympathetic towards the green movement."
Still, for a whole bunch of reasons, the administration is also hedging its bets.
"They feel they can’t put all their eggs in the basket of the opposition," he said.
or one thing, they worry that Iran's drive to master nuclear technology is moving faster than its move toward democracy. "The prospect of political reform in Tehran appears to be at best a medium-term process, while the prospect of Iran reaching a nuclear weapons capability is an immediate concern," said Sadjadpour, who was last in Iran in 2005.
But there's another matter, says Sadjadpour. The Obama administration worries that if it is seen as too vocally supportive of the opposition, as has been demanded by some commentators, it could end up sabotaging the movement.
"They’re concerned that enthusiastic U.S. patronage of the opposition movement could prove more hurtful than helpful to their cause," he said.
The administration's uncertainty stems in part from mixed messages it's getting from Iran and supporters of the opposition.
"Some think the U.S. could and should be doing much more, others argue that this is an internal Iranian drama and further American support would be counterproductive," he said.
Following the beatings, mass imprisonments and televised trials of opposition members, Sadjadpour said he thinks the administration could get away with being more outspoken in criticizing Iran for failure to measure up to globally accepted standards of human rights and justice.
"I have no illusions that raising the issue of human rights will compel the regime to have second thoughts about employing repression and brutality," he said. "But if we continue engagement while neglecting to talk about human rights, the United States sends the signal to the Iranian people that America is a cynical superpower willing to 'do a deal' at their expense."
While dialog with Iran is important, diplomatic engagement is not an end in itself, but a way to curb Iran's nuclear program and moderate its foreign policy, he said.
Sadjadpour, for one, said he very much doubts that the current ruling establishment in Tehran seeks an accommodation with the U.S.
"As long as Ahmadinejad remains president and [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei remains leader, I am skeptical about Iran’s willingness to make and adhere to meaningful compromises on issues like the nuclear issue and Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he said.
That doesn't mean the U.S. should revert back to the "regime change" policies and rhetoric of the Bush administration. In fact, Sadjadpour said he was convinced that that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would actually welcome a military strike.
"It may be their only hope to silence popular dissent and heal internal political rifts," he said.
But ruling out war doesn't mean the U.S. should get all lovey-dovey with Tehran's current establishment.
"We should certainly refrain from employing policies that dampen the momentum of the green movement, or alter its trajectory," he said. "This means treading carefully on 'engagement,' broadening the conversation beyond just nukes and avoiding military confrontation."
Reader Comments (26)
You might want to take a look at this:
"Arab liberals have criticised President Obama`s tendency to endorse conservative and radical forms of Islam while ignoring liberal Muslim trends. A Yemeni liberal journalist accused Obama of appointing Muslim advisors who do not represent the diversity of Muslim opinion and who want to implement oppressive shari‘a rules.[23] Others have criticised Obama`s overtures to the Taliban and IRAN as strengthening the radicals and weakening the reformists and liberals.[24]
A similar trend is visible in liberal and mainline Christian denominations whose leaders prefer to deal with Islamic traditionalists and hardliners in interfaith dialogue while ignoring the liberal reformist voices emerging within Islam."
http://www.barnabasfund.org/email/email.php?id=637
Obama`s Overtures Towards Iran Extremists Seen as a Sign of Weakness", MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis, No. 551, 29 September 2009.
This is worth looking at:
Michael Ledeen (Faster Please); The Sack of Iran. By Its Own Regime.
I am sure EA has seen this and will publish a relavant analysis on it.
This may well be one of the reasons for lack of news from inside in the last few days.
Pedrum,
I will try and corroborate the allegations in the column; until then, I personally treat the claims as intriguing rumours.
S.
I happened to hear K.S. appear at the Middle East Institute conference in Washington on Tuesday. (on a panel with James Woolsey -- gasp -- and Hans Blix & some very mild nonprolif. holdover chap in the DOS) Not sure if the panel was on C-span yet -- we should check. K.S. started off with a joke suggesting that his presentation would be incoherent -- reflecting his presumed subject (e.g., Iran decision making -- a point I fundamentally disagree with)
In the Q&A, he answered a 2 part question from me referencing Zal Khalilzad's throwaway line the previous night (that "the US should get on the side of history") by praising all the ways we could back the greens....
KS noticeably ignored the second half of my question -- does supporting the greens also mean that we support their general criticisms of the IAEA deal?
Yes, it was a not-so-subtle, yet pointed question (and there was quite an audience murmur at the question) K.S. either was too breathless about wanting to jump on the "get on the side of history" bandwagon or he realized the serious and embarrassing import of the question -- and as such, he ducked it. Or maybe he forgot it. :-}
Questions abound.... all such neo-neocon banter that we must assess "the nature of the regime" or "take sides in the factional struggle" and thus ignore A/N (as if he was free-lancing it at IAEA) barks up the wrong tree. Did we require China, the Soviet Union, Libya, or North Korea to change their regimes before we engaged in diplomacy with their regimes?
Of course most of us are immensely sympathetic to the green wave and disturbed by the ongoing HR's situation. But it also happens that many of the key green figures, for their own pay-back internal political reasons, are loathe to see A/N achieve something (a nuclear breakthrough) that they too would have worked for, if they had been permitted to win in June.
That said, ALL of Iran's internal factions remains suspicious of whether or not they can trust the west's nuclear promises.... (Go back and read Rowhani's final report to then President Khatami -- for the litany of the grievances and suspicions) Or see R.K. Ramazani's recent agence global oped.
It just so happens that those presently contending from the best funded pulpits about why the US should back the greens also tend to be the ones saying we should start ratcheting up sanctions or unleashing the Israelis, should Iran reject the current IAEA deal
(as is counseled by the greens)
Quite an irony! And one I'd like to hear K.S. directly address when he comes to University of Virginia next week.... if he doesn't, he'll get it in the Q&A
In fairness, K.S. did indicate he was not in favor of more sanctions -- but seemed to float a curious idea about reducing the price of oil -- as that would put pressure on the regime. (I wonder if K.S. is well versed on the ways of oil futures manipulation.... )
Scott,
This is much appreciated. A fascinating report which makes me wonder further, "To what extent is Sadjadpour reflecting sentiments within the US Government or challenging them?"
S.
Good follow-up question -- and I am on slippery ground, as I know many in DC much admire Karim's widely followed work. Yet consider there may be more "factionalism" in DC than in Tehran.... Perhaps K.S. reflects more those "liberal hawks" within the administration (like Clinton when she's off the script), but not the quieter figures, like those who wrote that Noruz speech.
By the way, here's the link to the referenced Ramazani short essay:
http://www.agenceglobal.com/Article.asp?Id=2187
(Quite different from the dominant refrains in US, RKR references mutual mistrust as the key obstacle to be overcome re. the IAEA deal -- and that goes beyond factions or "nature of the regime")
There is no evidence that the elections were stolen, and several polls concluded that the people of Iran not only did vote for Ahmadinejad but are strongly in support of their nuclear program.
http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/2009/09/polls-iranians-support-ahmadinejad-and-their-nuclear-program.html
The fact of the matter is that the life of average Iranians has improved under this regime.
http://www.monthlyreview.org/mrzine/abrahamian160309.html
Scott, you're a lowly academic who has access to no one of consequence -- neither among policymakers or influential analysts in Washington, Paris, Vienna, Brussels, Berlin, Moscow or Tehran. Don't shoot from the hip against people who know what they're talking about.
The fact is that the CIA and Western intelligence agencies are now advising the Obama administration and their own governments to forget about the Green movement as it will have no bearing on their key matters of concern: the nuclear file, and the security of Israel.
(And maybe that's why two former CIA officials -- Fowler and Leverett -- were cited in the original story that you -- a political scientist -- should have taken as a warning, a reflection of what is happening on the ground, instead of posturing as a partisan and dismissing it .)
The fact that you cannot get anyone in government to publicly state that they don't really give a rat's ass about the Green movement is a political consideration. The Greens are popular. Being seen as discounting them is not politically astute. You should stop being such a cheerleader and look at the sobering reality for a second.
Hi Scott:
I saw this L.A. Times article first thing when I woke up. I was going to draw your attention to it if you hadn't seen it yet, but I came here to find you've astutely already done a writeup on it. The odd thing is, I was actually somewhat happy to see this article. Since I usually tend to have fairly similar reactions to you on Iranian matters, I found myself wondering why I had a much more favorable reaction to this article than you did. After thinking a bit, here's what I came up with (roughly in order of most obvious to least obvious)
1) I think I'm usually happy by default to see overdue attention drawn to the Green movement in a major US daily
2) I am always happy when someone sees fit to interview Karim.
3) I tend to dismiss the headlines of articles. I've learned that in most cases (EA is an obvious exception) the author of the article is not the person who writes the headlines. I think I just assume that the headline will not necessarily properly reflect the content of the article. In this case, I believe the headline is much more negative than the article - the article itself is pretty well balanced. [I guess "Maybe The Obama Administration is Hopeful About, and Respectful Of, the Green Movement, and Maybe They Are Skeptical About It" doesn't make the best headline ;-)
4) I guess the info that I've gotten through my own contacts and conversations here in D.C. have led me to long ago believe that the "hints" that Karim throws out are actually pretty close to "facts" about the thinking of Obama and his people. Thus, I was hardly surprised to hear them, and didn't think them altogether too negative. I believe he's just reflecting what he is observing from his conversations. In short, what I've picked up independently is:
---------- a. People in the administration do sympathize with the greens, but do not know when they might be successful. Therefore, they believe they cannot necessarily wait for engagement until the regime changes. "What if the regime lasts another ten years?" they think. It's a little bit of realpolitik.
---------- b. People in the administration are by and large respectful of, and hopeful about (within reason) the Green movement. However, there are individuals inside and outside the Obama camp here in D.C. that have a more skeptical view of the likelihood of Green success. They aren't a majority, but they exist, towards one end of a spectrum. They are forming their viewpoint not because they dismiss the Greens as a bunch of hopeless losers, but just because they are pragmatic and see all the guns and levers of power still in the hands of the regime
-------- c. From Day 1 of the election crisis, the administration has been extremely sensitive to (and worried about) the possibility of anything they might say in support of the Greens "backfiring." I believe that they view overt endorsements of the Green movement as analogous to a Republican endorsing a particular Democratic candidate in a Democratic primary. (something that would probably not play too well with the Democratic electorate, and could be used against the preferred candidate.)
So I guess I just viewed Karim as reporting on fact that was hardly surprising to me. I don't really see too much of this as worrying. In fact, to a point, I probably share some of the concerns.
5) For the most part, the articles that have distressed you have been undersourced. They mostly have involved an opinion writer leaping to conclusions, even though they did not have enough information to properly comment. If those articles/editorials were written by a member of the Obama administration, OR if they cited numerous officials from the administration, then I'd be worried. But, they didn't. For example, if I recall correctly, the Jackson Diehl piece really only cited one single Karroubi aide to frame most of his arguments. I guess I view it as those reporters / editorialists not doing a good enough job in getting the information they should have before they write their opinions. I do not believe that their failings mean that the Obama administration is necessarily also failing to properly study the domestic situation in Iran.
Best, Kevin
Writer01,
If you can get past the invective and the mistaken belief that access = insight, you might begin by seeing that I share your perception that the "nuclear file" is now the priority for the Obama Administration. Part of my challenge over the Sadjadpour was to bring that policy into the open. Part of it, however, is to query what knowledge "CIA and Western intelligence agencies" have about either the Green movement or internal Iranian politics. You're happy to take it on faith that those intelligence services have a good read on what is happening; I am not willing to make that leap.
Ditto re your assertion that Fowler and the Leveretts are basing their readings, first and foremost, on an assessment of the evidence. Fowler's anti-Mousavi polemic, at least as presented in Daragahi's article, offers no confirmation that he has evidence and the Leveretts start from the premise that the June election was full and fair.
Since you're new to EA, have a read of the Iran coverage since 12 June. This lowly academic is happy, given the support of EA colleagues and contacts, to match up his sources on the post-election conflict with those that you or any intelligence agency might have. Indeed, if you come out in the open with evidence and knowledge rather than stock put-downs, I'd be very pleased to evaluate that with you. Until then, I think the posturing isn't coming from my side of this discussion.
S.
There's another angle in this analysis that I submit should be challenged by serious Iran observers -- the view that Khamenei fundamentally cannot abide by better relations with the US -- as it would somehow compromise his domestic legitimacy. (In so saying, KS disregards myriad statements from Khamenei, recently and going all the way back to when he was President in 1984, on the "open door" and conditions for better ties to the US.... They're there, for those who wish to look.)
But from this KS's now familiar assessments of Khamenei, we get the rather flip analysis that Khamenei & Ahmadinejad would somehow welcome a military attack on Iran, to shore up their standing at home, as if war with America was the only leg they could stand upon.
Scott H. (U. of Virginia)
PS: There are a half dozen "Scott's" who post here.... and it gets a wee bit confusing sometimes figuring out which Scott is getting pilloried. :-}
Kevin,
See my response to Writer01 --- I'm still at a loss to see a coherent analysis from the Administration of either the opposition movement or the internal political dynamics in Iran.
S.
Scott,
In this case, we'll both have to get pilloried. I agree that regarding Khamenei as an inflexible "idealist" on conflict with the US is a far-from-productive simplification. He is enough of a pragmatist to weigh up the advantages at home of a deal with the Americans and to present it as a victory for Iran over a weakened Washington.
S.
I don't think it matters very much what Obama or anybody else thinks about the Green Movement. I'm sure the people on the streets would get a warm feeling inside if they could be sure Obama was cheering them on, but otherwise it doesn't actually affect their plans or actions very much. Things have gone too far, too many people know someone who was raped or tortured or simply disappeared, for anything to dishearten them now.
The situation in Iran has gotten to that rare historical point where the people, uninfluenced by any marketing campaign or politician's rhetoric, have collectively decided that they want something, and they aim to get it. This is a phenomenon that politicians must dread, that unpredictable element they can't plan for or buy off, when tides just shift in the minds of the people, and they decide that something must come to pass. Nobody can stop it when that happens; you would have to kill all the people, not just the loudest, bravest ones.
This is why I am so excited to study everything going on in Iran right now, people rising up like this only happens once in a great while in history, but when it does it's a sight to see.
Consider this matter from the point of view of around 300 million "ordinary" Americans. They don't spend much time analyzing what is now going on in Iran - nor do they get told that much by the mainstream media, and probably don't care too much about Iran. What they do know is that, for the past 30 years, they have seen hordes of Iranians, masses of thousands upon thousands, time and time again, at Rallies and in Mosques - screaming "Death to America". That sight, repeated over and over again, has burnt into their souls.
If you were an "ordinary" American on the street - how many figs would you give about the welfare of Iranians. There are admittedly a much smaller number of Americans who do know what is happening and are sympathetic to the Iranian people. But, as regards the vast majority, they are antagonistic.
Also, just how many people in Iran truely want the overthrow of the "Islamic" Republic, to be replaced by by a Democratic republic. How many men that we have seen over the past 30 years on TV, praying to Mecca and women everywhere in Chadors, really want this. At this time, I am not convinced that it is the majority.
Barry
I hope to write something in detail concerning this debate, but for now let me say this: I think there are "analysts"—and I don't know of course if they are/are not part of the administration, Dep of State, the intelligence services, or what—from what I read and surmise, who are not sympathetic to the Green nor to this enormous grassroots upheaval in Iran. Is it perhaps that they want to appease the IRI in giving up their nuclear ambitions? Is it due to some mistaken belief that the IRI will serve to curtail Jihadi Islam of the Alqaeda variety and such? Is it the left over group sentiment of anti Shah thinking and thus still believing that the IRI is the answer? Is it that they have not done their homework and are out of touch with what is really going on in Iran? Other questions, too. I don't know. I do know that the U.S. is making a mistake by ignoring this popular upheaval. You have no idea, this is taking over all of Iran rather rapidly and in the minds of countless intelligent and observant Iranians whose life does not depend on some job in a think tank, in a U.S. university, in other such organization, but are real and truly desire a democratic Iran, this is real and it is genuine and it is not dying out. I have heard some so-called Iranian experts claim that A.N. won and is very popular. I have heard they say that Oh the Green are a few uptown Tehranis who are well off and want to live that fast life and want to imitate the West and all other such nonsense. Believe me these people are saying what they think you want them to say and they believe that by taking this pseudo-leftist stance their jobs in think tanks will grow in rank. No! They are wrong. You have to take a real look at all of Iran. See what is going on in small towns, which can serve as good models, for things are very transparent there. And when you do, and when you do without having an agenda and without a presupposed result already envisaged, then you will see that Iran has changed. Power has shifted. The upheaval is real. The IRI is desperate. You will see that people have gathered around an inherent and old and lasting Iranian complex that has withstood despots for thousands of years, and is now once again born and is growing. This is not the first time. We are very complex people but when the final straw that breaks the camel's back has been cast, then tremendous, qualitative change does come about in Iran and will engulf all. We are already seeing the mythos play out. Zahhak is having its final temper cries, and Kaveh is out there, soon collectively we will bring about change. The pundits, and what is worse the insincere Iranian "specialists" over in your think tanks and universities will be shown how wrong they are. Now I hope there are still real thinkers in western governments who can see beyond today and are not fooled by false analysis and will see how amazing the Green is. They will see that the Green has the potential to transform the ME, to transform obscurantist Islam to put an end to the culture of hate and death. Take a good look. Humanity is of one essence. We must all safeguard it against this evil that has grown with multiple heads and is evil and is brutal and does not value life and lives on the blood of sacrificial youth. We must all help to stop it before it is too late. The danger is real, and the movement in Iran is an enormous instrument for bringing about positive change and for, yes, all of us to have life, liberty, and pursue happiness. Let us stop the sacrifice. Life is too precious.
"then you will see that Iran has changed. Power has shifted. The upheaval is real."
Hossein
I sincerely hope that you are correct. And I really would like to say that the "Westerners" (in US, UK, Europe and other places) will rally to support the Iranian people when they realize this.
But I cannot. "Ordinary" Westerners are sick and tired of the "Middle East" - Israel, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia,etc. They just want these places to go away, to sort out their own problems for themselves. They do realize that some of the problems of this area come about from past history - going way back. How far do you want to go back?? Pre-Roman times - European Medieaval times - Islamic times - WW1 leading to WW2 leading to Cold War times leading to current times??
But they also see that these problems are also partly a result of the culture of the people in these areas. Their capacity for hatred, for ongoing remembrance of past injustices, their "useage" of their religion.
There is still hope however- who would have thought that the Communist Soviet countries could have imploded as much as they did and as quickly as they did.
Barry
Barry -- good reminder of the problem of ordinary Americans -- that their memories are still quite beclouded by the defining images of the hostage crisis 30 years ago -- and a media that overwhelmingly has tended to "simplify" Iran as "black."
However, there's was a marvelous irony in the elections and protests thereafter -- millions of Iranians, often colorfully attired, demonstrating for something other than "marg bar Amrika." :-} The monolithic image of Iranians as "fanatically black" was broken..... It's a bit more of a challenge now for the neocon outlets to talk about "helping these people" by bombing them....
As to Hossein's important voice, I do understand the sentiment -- and I too was quite astonished at how some seemed to rely on their ideological frameworks (from the left & also libertarian angles) rather than at the compelling evidence of the widespread support for the reformists.
But back to the insinuation of the headline (and KS), I would not suggest that those who counsel the diplomatic effort to move forward are somehow "dissing the greens." More like a reflexive "dissing" of anyone who dares to disagree.
You're not a very good reader, Mr. Lucas. Slow down when you read posts and articles.
You wrote, "You’re happy to take it on faith that those intelligence services have a good read on what is happening."
I never said that. In fact, the CIA's read on domestic Iranian politics is rather weak, and the Obama administration takes its analysis on the topic with a grain of salt. But there are also the Brits, French, Germans, Italians and Persian Gulf Arab states who do maintain embassies in Tehran and operate deeper networks. They also have written off the Greens.
Here are some of your other mistakes and signs of sloppy thinking, Mr. Lucas:
1. You conflate my assessment of the situation on the ground in Iran with that of those in the administration who have written off the Greens as a player in achieving U.S. foreign policy objectives. Believe it or not, I personally am committed to the Greens. But in my analysis of Iran's politics and prospects, I'm more committed to reality rather than some fantasy.
2. You mistake honest appraisal of the situation in Washington for advocacy. You're the advocate. You're not balanced. You are a partisan.
3. The coterie of activists you rely on for your information are brave and committed folks who should be commended for their struggle, but they are hardly sources for assessing what is really happening on the ground in Washington, or the corridors of power in Tehran, even one is able to glean from them a fairly accurate assessment of the street.
4. You simply gloss over Green movement's glaring obvious current weaknesses in the eyes of the West: lack of leadership, lack of vision, lack of organizational coherence, unwillingness of leadership to address key concerns of the West.
And here's the biggest reason the West has written off the Greens: even if they were triumphant, there's no guarantee they would suspend enrichment -- it was under Mousavi that the nuclear program started in the first place.
That is all the evidence that people in Washington, Paris, Moscow and London need to write off the Green movement (for now) as a force to change the situation.
Writer01,
So, given your dismissal of Scott's position to analyse events, we can only assume that your own insights into CIA reporting on Iran, Obama's skeptism of it and the attitudes of various governments regarding the Green Movement, is based on your unparalled access to the corridors of power?
We are indeed grateful that you took time out of your busy schedule to treat us to your condescension.
However, nearly all the points you so arrogantly make have been raised by Scott and others on this site- usually in a more cogent manner. In fact, most of your posts seems to be dedicated to refuting arguments nobody here is making.
So unless you have anything to offer us apart from your scorn, might I suggest you fornicate off to another site?
Writer01 Stuff is ALWAYS happening that think tanks didn't predict. Which think tank predicted the fall of the Berlin Wall? Analysts are hampered by their methodology, which only allows them to examine the present through the lens of the past, and to say well, the Green Movement lacks this, this, and this, which we've seen in previous successful movements, and so therefore it is incomplete and won't succeed.
Analysts can't take a leap and say, ok, the internet and text messaging have vastly changed things so that now it's not required to have one leader guiding the people, now they can come to consensus through rapid online debate, and then instantly disseminate the message to everyone. No revolution of the past has had this tool, so analysts can't say exactly how useful it will be to the Greens.
As for the Greens having a coherent goal, they have every bit as much of a goal as the American Founders did when they declared their independence from England. The Greens, in fact, want the exact same things as the Founders did. They want an end to rule by one monarch, whether he wears a crown or a turban, and they want civil rights. They don't need to have a new constitution all ready to go, that can be worked out after the fall of the Regime in a proper Constitutional Convention with delegates from all provinces.
Goals don't get much more simple and clear than "Marg Bar Diktator," and the Iranians are the world's experts in kicking out leaders they don't want anymore, so I see no reason they shouldn't succeed this time too.
Rev Magdalen is correct in my view. And this is it. We want life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as I have stated in different ways. And, we are tired of despotic rule and we want civil rights and indeed we want freedom. What more of an agenda does anyone envisage, or goal, or program, you name it,
ChrisE, it's obvious you're Scott Lucas in disguise. But you got it, dude. I'm gone. I have no wish to try to elucidate facts for a group of ill-informed intellectuals engaged in group think.
Writer01,
Provide information not allegation and invective. Otherwise there's no possibility of a discussion producing constructive analysis.
S.
Writer01- I can categorically confirm that ChrisE is not Scott Lucas in disguise. Multiple identities are not tolerated here, and that rule is adhered to by the bloggers here.