The White House probably has not called up the WSJ and said to print articles against Iran. But there is an consensus forming among the USA's elites, that Iran is the next enemy that needs to be dealt with.
In this environment, Iran becomes more interesting to the editors of the WSJ and other agenda-setting newspapers, like the New York Times. And, they will find that government agencies are far more likely to help with stories about Iranian oppression.
That said: the Iranian government is really making it easy to write such stories. SOPA is horrible, in that it upsets the balance between free speech and copyright holders. Installing cameras in every internet café, with the open objective of enabling the secret police to control everyone's thoughts and actions, all the time? I think that's in a different class of behavior. (Although, the USA is sadly inching in the direction of authoritarianism and unlimited government surveillance, there's still a big, big difference.)
So let's be skeptical of a rush to a conclusion that we must bomb the evildoers, but neither should we be complacent about Iranian internal oppression.
>> A conservative cleric blogger based in the holy Shiite city of Qum, Ahmad Najimi, said in his blog last week that the government was paying hackers hired in the network known as the "Cyber Army" the equivalent of $7 per hour to swarm the Web with positive comments about the Islamic Republic and post negative comments against dissidents.
So we ask ourselves, are comments here that are mitigating Iran's actions here - or ones that divert the conversation to say SOPA - getting paid by the hour?
but wait - if we assume _all_ positive comments are paid for, then we're denying those that are unpaid to voice valid counter arguments.
Oh my head, my poor head....
There is definitely some kind of propaganda war going on to, but that doesn't mean Iran's government isn't horrible.
One thing I realized is that they are completely brainwashed to believe that a revolution is the worst thing ever. They all take the attitude that it's better to stagnate forever with rape victims being regularly stoned than to risk a few deaths trying to change things. I think it's because they perceive the revolution and Iraq war during their childhood as horrible in a not normal way, whereas the stuff that happens currently is horrible in a normal way.
Combine this with a huge amount of nationalism, and you also realize they won't work with those who should be natural allies. For example, Iran's long oppressed Kurds/Balochs might join in a revolution if they get independence, but the Persian nationalists (read: those freedom-seeking youths you see in the media) would never consider this.
So no, I don't see a revolution happening.
Ultimately, all types of dictatorships are done by promoting the idea of "collectivism". That "group rights" are more important than individual rights, which can also be read that you can discount individual rights, as long as it's "for the greater good". It's also when some group rights become more important than other group rights, and lead to racism, anti-semitism, and so on, "because our group is better!".
It's no coincidence that USA, which is probably the most individualistic country ever, has also been the freest country, and with the most liberties. But I fear collectivism influences are starting to creep in there, too. Even most of the Republican party wants it now. It's only that their idea of collectivism is a little different than that of Democrats. For example, they want to "unite" people behind another war. But they both want Big Government and more Government intervention and control over people, even if some still pay lip service to the idea of "limited government", but only for minor issues, so they can keep appearances and pretend they offer real choice and alternative. And this is why a third of the country is Independent now, because they don't buy it anymore.
I agree though, although I'd note that the same held true for Egypt right up until the second that it didn't.
I've never spoken with a single Iranian who actually did that. It's all just talk of vague negative childhood memories.
Yep, it's been going on for a month or two now. Preparing the public for another brilliant war that we can definitely afford. I'm fairly sure we (the US and UK, probably the french) are already at war with iran already, in the form of the various cyber attacks, assassinations and embassy closures that've been in the news in recent months.
Here's a couple of articles on the subject, from the point of view of the war-weary and somewhat disbelieving british left. Trust me, we can't fucking believe they're doing it again either.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/06/iran-war...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/07/iran-war...
Preparing the public for another brilliant war
that we can definitely afford.
At least the Iraq war was arguably mainly about resource acquisition , have there been any studies about how cost-effective that resource acquisition is in the long term?
The wars cost billions of dollars, but the invading forces now have control over billions of dollars of oil resources as well. Has anyone done a realistic cost analysis on how those two stack up against each other?
Any "control" that the US has over the oil in Iraq is in the form of contracts that US firms have to develop the oilfields, which are currently being bid against by chinese, russian and dutch firms:
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/258812/20111130/exxonmobil-i...
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-11/12/c_131...
I'd note that politically, from this point forwards it's a big win for Iraqi politicians to support non-US interests as far as the oil, so the only special treatment we'll be able to get is the same as in Nigeria, etc: Bribe the right people and hope you did a better job than the Chinese.
As far as the oil trade in general, it's been dominated by cloak and dagger stuff for decades, in the US we have a partnership between the oil firms and the gov't where the gov't goes to bat for them in foreign countries, and in return they don't pay their taxes. In China, there's less of a formal division between the two so it's simpler. But both cases are the same.
And I'm not saying that's right, but it's a lot more complex than "the US controls Iraq's oil". We don't, really, we have to bribe people and do underhanded stuff on equal footing with everyone else at this point.
Well yea, I can imagine Qaddafi saying "You fools, don't bomb us, you are the ones who buy our oil!" and then US and Co says "Well, you fool, we came here to take it for free!"
Edit: Where free means "We still buy it according to market rates, but heck, prove the opposite, we own the media anyway"
Based on the proposed budget: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/05/us/in-new-strategy-panetta...
A smaller Army would be a clear sign that the Pentagon does not anticipate conducting another expensive, troop-intensive counterinsurgency campaign, like those waged in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nor would the military be able to carry out two sustained ground wars at one time, as was required under past national military strategies.
Because the US is broke its debt keeps going up and its economy needs dirt cheap oil right now, not having it hit 200+ when Iran shuts down the Strait of Hormutz.
P.S. and, as an Iranian, I can assure you the last thing I want is to be bombed.
Obama really tried at first to bring in a different approach. First off he understood the structure of power in Iran and so wrote a letter to Khamenei directly. Then he tried to talk to the Iranian people in parallel by sending the message for Norooz (Iranian New Year). Next he offered to sit and talk with the Iranians without any preconditions, but what messed everything up for him was the Iranian elections. That was (read: is) a big pile of mess that no one really knew (read: knows) how to deal with.
People should see more videos and images like these, before they are quick to ask for bombing them:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a0_1185106657 WARNING : NSFL!!! Serious, It cannot be unseen!! Its your choice to view the link.
Motivational isn't it.... You think the Iran regime is not interested in spreading and expanding its joyful way of life thoughout the world given the chance? The "incredibly youthful, energetic, entreprenuriel and when it comes to the younger generation, liberal" people of Iran deserve/need your help in overthrowing the regime (with as little blood spilt as possible) that thinks this is how society should live. You can't argue the above away with.... look they have LV scarfs and pretty girls.
Why don't you btw demand the liberation of the US? Or perhaps you think the US is "spreading and expanding its joyful way of life throughout the world"?
Millions of dead civilians would disagree.
For those who are curios about Iran, events occurring there, and its relationship with the US (from a "non-mainstream"/"non-demonising" perspective), I can recommend:
- http://www.iranaffairs.com/iran_affairs/
- http://mideastreality.blogspot.com/
- http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/
- http://www.bibijon.org/iranimage/
Those who have questions regarding the 2009 elections:
- http://brillwebsite.com/writings/iran2009election.html (he is also a frequent visitor to the "race for Iran" blog)
The fact of the matter is that amongst all the countries in the Middle East, Iran is the one that most Americans and Europeans would probably find most similarities with. It's incredibly youthful, energetic, entreprenuriel and when it comes to the younger generation, liberal. While I don't doubt that the political establishment might be attempting to curtail free access to the internet I question why It's of concern to us when America is trying to ram SOPA and other bills down our throats and when our "allies" in the mid-east region already have complex and functioning systems in place to regulate and censore access to foreign websites.
I've spent many years living in the mid east and I just can't shake off the unmistaken feeling of an attempt to sway the public into thinking Iran is a monolithic demonic institute.