Intimidation in Iran

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Intimidation in Iran

When I moved to Tehran in 2005 to work as a reporter and start a family, life was difficult but bearable. The country my parents had left behind for the U.S. in the 1970s was on the mend. The economy was poor and the pollution stifling, but if you asked most Iranians whether things were better than in the past, most would have said yes. Although the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that year had prompted worries that the regime would enforce social strictures with renewed vigor, the suppression never materialized.

Ahmadinejad declared that Iranians had more important issues to deal with than Islamic dress, so the system continued to deal permissively with the 48 million Iranians under the age of 30, who make up more than two-thirds of the population. Some continued leeway on social restrictions was all the government could offer this vast, disaffected young constituency, a small consolation for the absence of political freedoms and economic opportunities. It was not San Francisco--there could be no cocktail bars or nightclubs--but neither was it Saudi Arabia.

In the past few months, however, Tehran has become a different place. Convinced the U.S. is seeking to destabilize their Islamic system through economic pressure and covert infiltration of political life, the ruling clerics are retaking control of the public sphere ahead of next spring's parliamentary elections. "The more threatened the hard-liners feel, the more paranoid they will become," says Farideh Farhi, an Iran expert and professor of political science at the University of Hawaii.

Things began falling apart in the spring when authorities raided neighborhoods all over the city to confiscate illegal satellite dishes, Iranians' link to the outside world. The police swooped down on our building early one morning, kicking the devices down with their boots. Two of my neighbors, using their mobile phones, recorded footage of trucks carting off the dishes, only to have the phones confiscated as well. My 6-year-old nephew wept, desolate at the loss of his cartoon channel and angry that we had not called the police. "But the police were the ones who took the dish," I explained. "It was against the law." He naturally wanted to know why we had been breaking the law in the first place. This led to the sort of complicated discussion one hopes never to have with a young child--all about how we break the law at home while pretending to observe Islamic codes outside.

As news of what was happening on Tehran's streets filtered in, it became clear that the authorities had launched a full-scale campaign of intimidation, the likes of which the country had not seen in a decade or more. In the course of a few weeks, state news reported that some 150,000 people had been detained at least briefly. All the women in my life went out and bought dark, knee-length, shapeless coats, the sort of uniform we had discarded in the late '90s.

The crackdown had everyone on edge, in part because it was so inexplicable. Many women avoided going out in public unless it was necessary. Even the pious considered the new mood egregious. As a friend of mine who wears the black chador out of conviction put it, "This is a mockery to focus on dress when our country has so many more urgent problems."

Since the arrests, I, along with many of my journalist friends, have stopped meeting with foreigners altogether, worried that harmless socializing might be considered spying. I have canceled dinners with visiting American friends, screened calls from abroad and stopped giving interviews to foreign media. "I'm nervous," I confessed in June to an official at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, which oversees the work of foreign journalists. "The red lines have all shifted, and I can't figure out what to write that won't get me in trouble."

The official sighed, advised me to report as I had for years--honestly but with caution--and talked of the concerns swirling in the halls of government. "The Western media are distorting the image of Iran," he said. "Why does no one write about how Iranian women are ahead of the whole region in education, in public life?" I agreed with him but said it was difficult to communicate such gains in the midst of widening human-rights violations.

In past years, certain types of outreach had bought the state reluctant acquiescence from lower- and middle-class Iranians struggling with joblessness and record inflation. Low-interest loans and subsidies on basic foodstuffs have helped. High oil prices enabled this largesse. But oil's munificence is not limitless. The government, nervous that the West may impose sanctions on Iran's gasoline imports as punishment for its controversial nuclear activities, recently withdrew its subsidy of gasoline.

Despite its vast oil reserves, Iran cannot produce sufficient gasoline to meet consumption, so in June the government imposed rationing. For days, gas stations saw long queues at all hours. On the way home from a dinner party the first night of the rationing, we were stuck in a three-hour traffic jam, the air filled with smoke from a gas station that rioters had set on fire.

It can be difficult to understand the enigma that is the nation of Iran. Both oppressive and yet relatively progressive, the recent bombastic speech between exchanged between Tehran and Washington has triggered a resurgence in paranoia in Iran's leaders that expresses itself in attempts to quash Iranian contact with the outside world. Yet at the same time, we have what may be one of the most educated and inclusive nations in the region.

It would seem that the long predicted change is nearing its due: Unemployment rates (particularly of the young) and inflation concerns are pushing the issue of easing restrictions on outside contact and investment. Riots are occurring. My major source of amusement from the article comes from the idea that President Bush may tip Iran over the edge much in the way Reagan purportedly spent the U.S.S.R. into oblivion. Overall though, it's simply a good educational read on a country in the news rather often these days.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Internally-inspired revolution in Iran would be the best thing that could ever happen. Just as I pray that the US does not go to war with Iran, I also pray that the Iranians soon rise up and take their country back from their kooky President and his merry band of fanatical wizards (the mullahs).

Iran's progressive population could defuse half of the world's tensions in one fell swoop, so let's just hope that they succeed!

DOWN WITH AHMADINEJAD AND THE MULLAHS!! RISE UP IRAN, AND LET'S GET THIS DONE! HELL, THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL EVEN HELP YOU GET BACK ON YOUR FEET ONCE THE DUST SETTLES!

TO ARMS!
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
It's a shame the Persian empire was not at its peak during the Islamic invasion of the world
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Internally-inspired revolution in Iran would be the best thing that could ever happen. Just as I pray that the US does not go to war with Iran, I also pray that the Iranians soon rise up and take their country back from their kooky President and his merry band of fanatical wizards (the mullahs).

Iran's progressive population could defuse half of the world's tensions in one fell swoop, so let's just hope that they succeed!

DOWN WITH AHMADINEJAD AND THE MULLAHS!! RISE UP IRAN, AND LET'S GET THIS DONE! HELL, THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL EVEN HELP YOU GET BACK ON YOUR FEET ONCE THE DUST SETTLES!

TO ARMS!

Once again, palehorse74 manages to self contradict himself. On one hand he says he does not advocate going to war with Iran and concludes with " To ARMS."

The point being the USA supported a Shah and got an Ayatollah and the Mullahs. We supported a Baptista and got a Castro. And supported a Saddam Hussein in the early 1980's and got a Suddam Hussein and now an Iraqi clusterfuck. Reagan armed terrorists in Afghanistan and we got a 911. Starting to get the counter productive picture dimhorse?

The situation in Iran is actually working in our interests but its very complex. History is littered with religious utopian states that always implode and have limited shelf lives because the spirit may yearn for religious enlightenment, but the flesh is always weak. And soon the religious leadership goes overboard, becomes both corrupt and over reaching, and their own people give them the old heave ho. The last thing on earth we should be doing is
is taking proactive action that can only strengthen both Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs when they both just committed suicide by taking the cartoon channel away from a 10 year old kid. Ahmadinejad is no longer popular with his own people, they regard his nutty statements on the holocaust as a national embarrassment, the Mullahs are now discrediting themselves in what amounts to a temporary crackdown that can only hasten their downfall,
and its time to have a little patience and let the Iranian people take care of their own messes.

As soon as we get involved as the unwelcome and unpaid policeman of the world, we create more problems than we solve. Or have not you noticed?
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Ummm Lemon? we got the Mullahs because we cut off our support of the Shah.

It was part of Jimmy Carters idea of not supporting less than perfect regimes around the world. A crazy ass liberal idea that haunts us to this day.

BTW it was this same crazy ass thinking during the Clinton years that made it illegal for the CIA to deal with ?bad guys? who were willing to help us.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Aimster
It's a shame the Persian empire was not at its peak during the Islamic invasion of the world

:confused:

Muslim nations are Muslim because Arabs invaded. They forced everyone to be Muslim. If the Persian empire was strong rather than weak, they would have bitched slapped the Arabs and most of the Muslim nations today would not be Muslim.

The Jews. They rewarded the Jews with the tasks of protecting their winnings.
Then the spread of Zionism happened and the Muslims decided to not be friends with the Jews anymore some many years later.
 

Saint Michael

Golden Member
Aug 4, 2007
1,877
1
0
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Aimster
It's a shame the Persian empire was not at its peak during the Islamic invasion of the world

:confused:

I think he's implying that Islam would have not been forcibly spread to Iran if it were a massive power then as it was during the Persian Empire period.

Edit: Er, whoops. Guess I was right anyway, though.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Ummm Lemon? we got the Mullahs because we cut off our support of the Shah.

It was part of Jimmy Carters idea of not supporting less than perfect regimes around the world. A crazy ass liberal idea that haunts us to this day.

BTW it was this same crazy ass thinking during the Clinton years that made it illegal for the CIA to deal with ?bad guys? who were willing to help us.

Non Prof John,

Still on your blame Carter kick I see. The point is that the Shah was untenable and no force in the world could still prop him up. Ditto Bapista who was pre Carter. And you still have not addressed the Reagan 911 link. Or what to do about Iran? Or why we are flopping so badly in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Carter still has a Nobel peace prize. What are you angling for? Maybe you are waiting to be in the running for a future Nobel Advocate Clusterfuck prize? But cheer up, you have my vote on that, and you are in the running if and when such a booby prize is awarded.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
The situation in Iran is actually working in our interests but its very complex. History is littered with religious utopian states that always implode and have limited shelf lives because the spirit may yearn for religious enlightenment, but the flesh is always weak. And soon the religious leadership goes overboard, becomes both corrupt and over reaching, and their own people give them the old heave ho. The last thing on earth we should be doing is
is taking proactive action that can only strengthen both Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs when they both just committed suicide by taking the cartoon channel away from a 10 year old kid. Ahmadinejad is no longer popular with his own people, they regard his nutty statements on the holocaust as a national embarrassment, the Mullahs are now discrediting themselves in what amounts to a temporary crackdown that can only hasten their downfall,
and its time to have a little patience and let the Iranian people take care of their own messes.
I agree with Lemon Law. Unlike many countries in the ME the Iranian Revolution was one of the people. They made their bed, they can unmake it.

As soon as we get involved as the unwelcome and unpaid policeman of the world, we create more problems than we solve. Or have not you noticed?
There are times when police are unwelcomed and other times when you can't wait for them to show up. And in both cases it's the very same police.

Tough job police have.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Internally-inspired revolution in Iran would be the best thing that could ever happen. Just as I pray that the US does not go to war with Iran, I also pray that the Iranians soon rise up and take their country back from their kooky President and his merry band of fanatical wizards (the mullahs).

Iran's progressive population could defuse half of the world's tensions in one fell swoop, so let's just hope that they succeed!

DOWN WITH AHMADINEJAD AND THE MULLAHS!! RISE UP IRAN, AND LET'S GET THIS DONE! HELL, THE REST OF THE WORLD WILL EVEN HELP YOU GET BACK ON YOUR FEET ONCE THE DUST SETTLES!

TO ARMS!

You don't want to go to war...

yet you yell "to arms"...

:confused:


Whatever - most of the fear seems...RIGHT

Convinced the U.S. is seeking to destabilize their Islamic system through economic pressure and covert infiltration of political life, the ruling clerics are retaking control of the public sphere ahead of next spring's parliamentary elections. "

People here easily advocate this, so they aren't far off the mark.

Originally posted by: Aimster
It's a shame the Persian empire was not at its peak during the Islamic invasion of the world

They ended up making some great Islamic contributions in math, science, literature, etc. - not all was at a loss ;)


As far as the article....its allllll politics. The Mullahs should really walk on the streets to learn what their population is thinking, rather than sitting in their huts trying to figure out the best course of action
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
TlC somewhat hits the jackpot when he notes---There are times when police are unwelcomed and other times when you can't wait for them to show up. And in both cases it's the very same police.

Tough job police have.

When we decide we are going to be the unappointed police, being unwelcome straight out sucks. But we better be very careful about those who call on us and will open the door and can hardly wait to welcome us in. When the welcoming committee consists of screwball, curveball and an fugitive named Chalabi, we have to wonder about our own delusions and gullibility. The police are not supposed to help the criminals rob everyone but that seems to amount to what our foreign policy boils down to.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
The reference that is being made TO ARMS is in an encouragement for the Iranian people to overthrow their existing government which should ratchet down the tensions greatly, not to the US tor prepare and attack.

Read the context that the phrase is being used in.

The reaction in this thread is just as bad as the other Iranian thread which has contingency plans.
The US military has many people developing such plans for every anticipated scenario that they could be involved.
It is one the the requirements of the War and Command&Staff colleges for mid & senior level officers.
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Once again, palehorse74 manages to self contradict himself. On one hand he says he does not advocate going to war with Iran and concludes with " To ARMS."
uhh, I guess you missed the first sentence in the post that described the upcoming battle as an "internally-inspired revolution"...?

Reading comprehension ftw.

Think before you type next time...

EDIT: My nomination for phrase of the day: "self contradict himself"... you're a riot!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
When we decide we are going to be the unappointed police, being unwelcome straight out sucks. But we better be very careful about those who call on us and will open the door and can hardly wait to welcome us in. When the welcoming committee consists of screwball, curveball and an fugitive named Chalabi, we have to wonder about our own delusions and gullibility. The police are not supposed to help the criminals rob everyone but that seems to amount to what our foreign policy boils down to.
We were the police in Iraq before those events happened. Keep in mind that Kuwait specifically requested the assistance of the US when Saddam invaded, as did Saudi Arabia (which put a big dent in OBL's ego when SA denied his requests to use his muj to repel Saddam and, coincidentally I'm sure, is when OBL began directing his ire at the US).

We aren't involved in Iraq as "unwanted police." We are involved because we were requested to be involved and because some 6'5" Islamic militant screwball couldn't keep his pride and machismo in check.

Besides that, the same people that whined about it when the US wouldn't engage Iran now whine when they do. They really ned to make up their mind.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Now TLC is coming up with the totally fallacious Saddam Al-Quida link even GWB disavows when he says----We aren't involved in Iraq as "unwanted police." We are involved because we were requested to be involved and because some 6'5" Islamic militant screwball couldn't keep his pride and machismo in check.

And if it was not an Ossama link to Iraq we are still left with the welcoming committee of Screwball, Curveball, and Chalibi who promised we would be greeted with flowers and Candy. No one credible invited GWB in, he opted to go into Iraq and made a botch of it.

How you can compare a competently run and totally UN sanctioned Gulf war one with Gulf war 2 is beyond me. In Gulf war 1 we liberated Kuwait and got out, in Gulf war 2 we went in and occupied making a bad situation much worse.
 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Please argue about Iraq in a thread about Iraq. This is a thread about Iran. :p
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Now TLC is coming up with the totally fallacious Saddam Al-Quida link even GWB disavows when he says----We aren't involved in Iraq as "unwanted police." We are involved because we were requested to be involved and because some 6'5" Islamic militant screwball couldn't keep his pride and machismo in check.

And if it was not an Ossama link to Iraq we are still left with the welcoming committee of Screwball, Curveball, and Chalibi who promised we would be greeted with flowers and Candy. No one credible invited GWB in, he opted to go into Iraq and made a botch of it.

How you can compare a competently run and totally UN sanctioned Gulf war one with Gulf war 2 is beyond me. In Gulf war 1 we liberated Kuwait and got out, in Gulf war 2 we went in and occupied making a bad situation much worse.
Now, now, LL. Please step back on the little X taped to the center of the conclusions mat. I know the impulse of the left whenever Iraq and OBL are mentioned in the same paragraph is to make the mighty leap of 'OMGodzers! You are trying to claim a collaborative relationship between OBL, Saddam, and 9/11.' However, that is not what I said.

Whether you want to admit it or not, there is an indirect relationship between going into Iraq and 9/11. Without the outrage caused by the 9/11 attacks in the first place, Bush and Co. would have never had the support to invade Iraq. OBL cracked that door wide open and let us in. That doesn't imply there was any collaboration between Saddam and bin Laden. It's just a case of cause and effect. Without 9/11 we would not be in Iraq now. It's as simple as that.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: yllus
Please argue about Iraq in a thread about Iraq. This is a thread about Iran. :p
I tried my best, yllus...

Besides that, the same people that whined about it when the US wouldn't engage Iran now whine when they do. They really ned to make up their mind.

...but LL keeps refocusing the discussion back to Iraq. ;)
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: yllus

It can be difficult to understand the enigma that is the nation of Iran.

Both oppressive and yet relatively progressive

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Internally-inspired revolution in Iran would be the best thing that could ever happen.

Just as I pray that the US does not go to war with Iran,

I also pray that the Iranians soon rise up and take their country back from their kooky President and his merry band of fanatical wizards (the mullahs).
This is pretty amazing news.

Where did they get so many Satellite systems, Dish, Directtv, Hughes???

Why would or should they rise up against their President, the U.S. hasn't risen up against Bush.
 

nick1985

Lifer
Dec 29, 2002
27,153
6
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: yllus

It can be difficult to understand the enigma that is the nation of Iran.

Both oppressive and yet relatively progressive

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Internally-inspired revolution in Iran would be the best thing that could ever happen.

Just as I pray that the US does not go to war with Iran,

I also pray that the Iranians soon rise up and take their country back from their kooky President and his merry band of fanatical wizards (the mullahs).
This is pretty amazing news.

Where did they get so many Satellite systems, Dish, Directtv, Hughes???

Why would or should they rise up against their President, the U.S. hasn't risen up against Bush.


Start the revolution Dave!
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: yllus

It can be difficult to understand the enigma that is the nation of Iran.

Both oppressive and yet relatively progressive

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Internally-inspired revolution in Iran would be the best thing that could ever happen.

Just as I pray that the US does not go to war with Iran,

I also pray that the Iranians soon rise up and take their country back from their kooky President and his merry band of fanatical wizards (the mullahs).
This is pretty amazing news.

Where did they get so many Satellite systems, Dish, Directtv, Hughes???

Why would or should they rise up against their President, the U.S. hasn't risen up against Bush.


Start the revolution Dave!
Don't push him any harder. Dave's already revolving as fast as possibly he can. :p
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
The U.S govt pays Los Angeles based Iranian t.v stations that broadcast via Satellite. President Bush gave millions to them, but this is not about Bush. The U.S has been supporting them forever.

It is entertainment but it is also propaganda against the Iranian Regime.
Iranians in Iran receive the propaganda.

Iran tried to block the signal from Cuba, but I don't know if that worked. Obviously not.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Internally-inspired revolution in Iran would be the best thing that could ever happen.

For a change I agree with what you are saying---I just point out internally inspired means just that. The second the US starts greasing the skids for the Mullahs, is the very second that its no longer internally inspired and likely to only strengthen and not weaken the Mullahs. Its hard to wait for the Iranians to move and hard to be patient. But internally inspired still means internally inspired.

I know its hard to resist, but we just need to mind our own business and let the Iranians take care of their business. It usually works out better in the end and we see what happens when we get too interventionist.

But I see dmcowen674 asks, why should the Iranians rebel? Short answer, the Mullahs took the cartoon channel away from a 10 year old boy. As others have pointed out, the bulk of Iran is very young partly due to the Iran Iraq war that decimated the better part of two generations of Iranian males. And sooner or later the youth will rebel against the Mullahs for restricting their freedom and they will probably go in much the same way we gave Joe McCarthy the ole heave ho. And for that matter, the Mullahs are over reaching now and sowing the seeds of their own destruction. The last thing we want to do is getting the Iranians once again uniting behind the Mullahs.
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,822
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: nick1985
Originally posted by: Aimster
It's a shame the Persian empire was not at its peak during the Islamic invasion of the world

:confused:

Muslim nations are Muslim because Arabs invaded. They forced everyone to be Muslim. If the Persian empire was strong rather than weak, they would have bitched slapped the Arabs and most of the Muslim nations today would not be Muslim.

The Jews. They rewarded the Jews with the tasks of protecting their winnings.
Then the spread of Zionism happened and the Muslims decided to not be friends with the Jews anymore some many years later.

I have had it with you Aimster, this is the 3rd time you bring this issue up and I have to comment on it, yet your opinion stays the same. I am so sick of having to re-explain this to you every time, that I will go ahead and quote my reply from another thread where you again voice out your hate for Arabs.

Originally posted by: DarkThinker
<blockquote>quote:
Originally posted by: Aimster
This thread is going to get locked because it an attack.

Arabs murdered and raped my Persian people and forced them to convert to Islam. Maybe I should "hate" them too?

It was a long time ago. Get over it.
</blockquote>

With all do respect Aimster, but you make it sound like the Persians never made a single step outside current day Iran. You seem to exaggerate that Arab conquest stuff too and use it often, IIRC the Persians weren't going around giving out flowers and candy to the rest of the world when they had the military power.

Here, that's the map of the Persian Empire right before Islamic-Arabic conquest by the Caliphate.
Well last time I checked that wasn't the Persia we all had in mind, that land they were spread on looks mostly Arabic to me, no? We all have a different picture now don't we?
Good.