Monday, February 15, 2010

RT report on Hilary Clinton's recent Iran comments

An interesting Russia Today segement in which Wayne Madsen assesses the comments made by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton when she stated that Iran is becoming a military dictatorship.


Mark Pyruz said...

Good find, Paul.

Amusing comments by Wayne Madsen.

Nader Uskowi said...

If I was an analyst concentrating on the US and European politics, definitely Madsen’s approach to Hillary’s comments would have made a lot of sense. How come we are talking about a growing sense of military dictatorship in Iran, but keep silence on Saudi Arabia, the hierocracy and related issues.

As an Iran analyst, however, I like to approach Hillary’s comments y examining if indeed IRGC is moving toward complete control of Iran’s military, political and economic institutions. No matter if what she said was hypocritical, was it true? Do we have enough evidence that the IRGC is moving toward a complete takeover of the Iranian government? If so, that is a military dictatorship disguised under an Islamic “Republic” name. This is where I think the conversations should center on.

This is a manifestation of a larger divide when it comes to Iran analysis. There are generally three distinct approaches: the all-out supporters of the regime and its apologists who say whatever they have to say to justify everything IRI does. I do not care much about this type, there are present in all the countries, not just Iran.

The second group are those progressives and leftists that see US and Western danger as the real danger in the region, and start defending the Islamic Republic not because it is a democratic country but because it is standing up against the US and Europe. This, I believe, is a very widespread tendency among the intellectuals in Iran and in the region. Let’s get Hillary’s comments. They concentrate on her hierocracy, why did she say Iran is moving toward dictatorship while cozying up to the Saudis? Ironically, same type of people faulted shah for his military dictatorship (that was easy because US was his ally) but are hesitant to denounce dictatorial tendencies within the Islamic Republic.

Then there is a smaller group who want to analyze the internal political development inside Iran, regardless of where they stand on US policies in the region. There is absolutely no contradiction in opposing US policies in the region and denouncing dictatorial tendencies in the Islamic Republic. We need not link the two.

The conversation should be concentrated on IRGC and its role on political development in Iran, when it comes to matters of democracy and dictatorship in the country.

Kemjika said...

Hi Nader,

in regards to your comments, my opinion is that as pressure on Iran increases, the IRGC's power/need for more power also increases because to me, its the most powerful and effective body in the country in dealing with tensions/sanctions. THe US and Iran are entering a more tense period in their relationship,so i'm pretty sure it will be the IRGC retaliating against US if Iran decides it wants to do that.ALso, this "green revolution" will surely give the IRGC more power because the IRGC is probably telling the iranian govt: "look at what these protesters are trying to do, they're trying to bring down the country's govt, so we must act on them", and that can only mean more power for the IRGC. Iran is probably already a military dictatorship, but still maintaining the structures of a constitutional govt like majlis, councils etc. I do have to say that there is a HUGE propaganda campaign against Iran now by the US, and HIllary's comment is another evidence of it. Why is the US so recklessly poking its nose in other countries' business? At the end of the day, its iran's job to create an iran that Iranians want, not the stupid "international community" which is often just a cover for malicious US activities against other countries(just like Tibet- is it really about "freedom" or US using it as a leverage point against CHina?). As i said before, if these sanctions pass, expect afghanistan and iraq to get more deadly. WIth the troop drawdown in iraq already happening, US forces won't be able to contain an Iranian surge of insurgents in iraq...guaranteed. Everyone fights the way they know best when cornered, and the IRGC will keep pressuring US in afghanistan and iraq, and no wonder the US is complaining so much about iran these days!- seeing dead soldiers coming back home in coffins is VERY VERY hard for the US, and Bin Laden understood this more than a decade ago, and iran does too now, so the more the pressure on iran, the more dead US soldiers there will be IMO..

Anonymous said...

"Which path to Persia? Options for a New American
Strategy toward Iran" .... a full report by a white house
think tank institute called the Brookings institution (democrat think
tank) that was put together before the iranian elections!

Pay close attention to part III "regime change" on how they have
suggested plans beforehand to take advantage of the the internal
conflicts after the elections.