Iranian government about to collapse?

posted at 10:12 am on January 4, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

What Western imperialist claims the Iranian government is on the brink of collapse?  Actually, in this case the analysis comes from the former head of Iranian intelligence and a high-ranking aide to Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, Mohammed Reza Mahdi, who tells the Bangkok Post that Iran’s government will collapse soon under its own weight.  Mahdi calls current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “crazy,” and advises Iran to seek better relations with the US, Europe … and Israel:

A former high-ranking intelligence official in Iran has called for his country to form better relations with the United States and Israel and says the government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is on the verge of collapse.

In an exclusive interview with the Bangkok Post Sunday, Mohammad Reza Madhi, a former officer in Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence service, described Mr Ahmadinejad as ”crazy” and unfit to lead his country.

”He has already destroyed international relationships with many countries and made them enemies of Iran,” said Mr Madhi, who was forced to flee Iran in 2008 after being jailed for 73 years on what he described as ”trivial” charges. ”This has cost the Iranian people so much. His ideas are dangerous.”

In the interview itself, Mahdi says the government has already collapsed, for all practical purposes:

Q: Do you expect a collapse of the government any time soon?

A: The government has already collapsed. There’s going to be big changes very soon. Believe me, it will happen soon. I can promise you that I will meet you for the next interview in Teheran very soon. However, I am afraid that the transition won’t be peaceful. You see what has happened during the religious ceremony called Ashura a few days ago. They killed so many people, 11 to be exact, not eight as was reported by the western media.

We want to keep our country as the Islamic Republic of Iran, but religion and politics must be separated. We want to change the structure of the government. The good clerics should help the people and the government, while the bad ones should be ousted from government. If you look back at history, several hundreds years ago, the church controlled everything in Europe. We are experiencing the same situation. Some of the top Ayatollahs have a lot of power.

If the Iranian government identifies itself as a theocracy, then Mahdi is right; it has already collapsed.  The revolt during the summer, as well as the rigged presidential election that triggered it, turned Iran into a police state.  The real power now is wielded by the Revolutionary Guard, as Khamenei cannot survive without them.  And even the IRGC can’t hold the country if a widespread revolt took place, which may be why Khamenei’s warming up his private jet on the tarmac.

However, a police state can exist for a long time.  The Soviet Union became a police state very early in its history, and lasted for decades.  East Germany existed as almost nothing more than a pure police state for over 40 years, and only collapsed when its chief financial backer, the USSR, abandoned it.  Predicting the end of the Iranian mullahcracy is a bit of a fool’s game, somewhat akin to predicting the return of the Twelfth Mahdi or Armageddon — although that may be redundant, in Ahmadinejad’s crazy philosophy.

The key to toppling Iran is to give them no oxygen to maintain its life.  That is why the US should be stepping up the pressure on Iran instead of giving the mullahs legitimacy by attempting to pander to them.  We should never have taken the approach that we could deal with people who profess a desire for genocide, as Ahmadinejad did regarding Israel, but the revolt in the summer was a particular moment the US should have seized.  We’re late to the game again in Iran, and given that we cannot deflect the mullah’s desire for nuclear weapons for their jihad against the Jews, we’re missing an opportunity to address more than one key security issue in the region.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

A collapse will only end the charade of Iran being anything other than a theocracy.

drjohn on January 4, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Send Sen. Lurch Kerry to their aid.

OmahaConservative on January 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM

I hope and pray that their nuclear program ends up in friendly hands…..

UltimateBob on January 4, 2010 at 10:16 AM

It just shows the power of Joe Biden…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM

I’m sure Dear Leader and Hillary are on top of this.

Dingbat63 on January 4, 2010 at 10:19 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

We’re late to the game again in Iran, and given that we cannot deflect the mullah’s desire for nuclear weapons for their jihad against the Jews, we’re missing an opportunity to address more than one key security issue in the region.

good analysis, Ed. Any further semblance of “oxygen” to this regime is dangerous, just as it has been in the past. Instead of giving it oxygen and support, we should be kicking this regime over the tipping point. I recall Reagan’s “Tear Down this Wall” speech which sped the reunification of Germany and helped push over the Soviet Union.

Americans that love freedom and liberty support the Iranian people in their quest to topple the murderous government that oppresses them.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:22 AM

It would be nice,if some Iranian protesters found their way
to some Iranian missisles,and have them targetting the Mullahs compounds and the Revolutionary Guards area’s!!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 10:22 AM

I am so flaming mad at our country for not suporting the idea of freedom and aiding and abetting a police state. Obama, it has not yet been reported, has been given the award of World’s Biggest Pussy.

birdhurd on January 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

I’m sure Dear Leader and Hillary are on top of this.

Dingbat63 on January 4, 2010 at 10:19 AM

Nah, just let me eat my waffle. And take a nap. And play some golf. And work out. And take a swim. Then I’ll get to it.

Daggett on January 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

In other words, we should take the Jimmy Carter approach?

UltimateBob on January 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

This may explain why Israel hasn’t already struck.

TXUS on January 4, 2010 at 10:23 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

—signed, a Friend of Thugs and Murderers (Dinner Jacket you’re my BFF)
Bleeds Blue

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:24 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

The Carter administration ignored Iran when Islamists deposed the Shah, and how did that turn out?

At a bare minimum, the last election should have acted to give no credence to Ahmabibblebabble’s government.

All in all tho, Iran should have been “dealt with” years ago, when President Bush declared any nation that harbors, aids, and abets a terrorist IS a terrorist. It’s been clear as day Iran supplied Iraqi insurgents.

JetBoy on January 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM

So you want to believe a Muslim who fled 72 years of jail time for “trivial” crimes. And he say Ahmanutjob is “crazy”. So the government must soon collapse.

Thats top intel for wishful thinkers.

BL@KBIRD on January 4, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Sorry Ed, should have chosen my words better.

birdhurd on January 4, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Well, we know which side this admin. Will come down on, look no further than Honduras.

esnap on January 4, 2010 at 10:28 AM

If they do not do something radical to change the government, if a few days they will have NO nuclear program other than the glow from Isreal’s bombs.

They have about one week, maybe two to get it right with Isreal.

patriotparty1 on January 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Bleeds Blue: FREEDOM is such a dirty word!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Ya,I bet Israels banking on this!!(sarc).

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Mahdi calls current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad “crazy,”

So the Mahdi comes out of the well and he is against Ahmadinejad…go figure!

WashJeff on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

The Carter administration ignored Iran when Islamists deposed the Shah, and how did that turn out?

At a bare minimum, the last election should have acted to give no credence to Ahmabibblebabble’s government.

All in all tho, Iran should have been “dealt with” years ago, when President Bush declared any nation that harbors, aids, and abets a terrorist IS a terrorist. It’s been clear as day Iran supplied Iraqi insurgents.

JetBoy on January 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Just out of curiosity, what was Carter supposed to do? Invade?

I agree that we should act against Iranian support for Iraqi insurgents who are trying to kill Americans. However, given that the United States is perceived to have been a supporter of colonialist, fascist governments in Iran, our public embrace of the anti-regime activists would taint their movement.

Imagine how you’d react if Cuba or Russia endorsed a movement here in the U.S.

I hope and suspect that there are significant behind-the-scenes actions, but that’s where our involvement should stay.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran

Following this logic trail, then America should not support people who seek to “alter or abolish” their government when it commits a “long train of abuses or usurpations” against them, at least until we are better liked.

and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

So, since we’re “not well liked,” then the assumption is, that if America supports anti gov’t protestors (some of whom have been killed by the anti-people gov’t), then the strawman “silent majority” in Iran will side with the mullahs, since, obviously, it is better to side with a group of thugs who murdered your countrymen, than with a nation who rhetorically supports the people’s unalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

What great logic.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM
//

America is only disliked by the Iranian Gov’t.

Please fill us in on the “very good reasons” why Iranians hate us.

uknowmorethanme on January 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

How could he have been jailed for 73 years and while an intelligence official for the Revolutionary Guard? Has to be a typo.

rlwo2008 on January 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

So, blue, tells us—what is it that you have against the Declaration of Independence?

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

They have about one week, maybe two to get it right with Isreal.

patriotparty1 on January 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

If Iran really is on the brink of collapse, Somebody really needs to go in and kick some serious butt at those nuclear enrichment sites. If not, all of the enriched uranium will wind up missing in record time.

Johnnyreb on January 4, 2010 at 10:33 AM

B+rry Strategy= get nations to like us better.

How’s that strategy workin’ out these days?

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Covertly hand out to the opposition M 16s with full, 30 round magazines.

Level up the playing field.

… and China could also be considered a police state that’s lasted a while.

BowHuntingTexas on January 4, 2010 at 10:34 AM

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Here’s another question. What do you have against Freedom, Bleeds?

kingsjester on January 4, 2010 at 10:35 AM

May Iran become free, and may the blood spilled to free her be limited to those packing machineguns.

Browncoatone on January 4, 2010 at 10:36 AM

Now here’s the $64,000 question. If the Iranian Government collapses, will it’s successor be better or worse?

SoulGlo on January 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Why do they bother to have elections, anyway? Doesn’t Allah run the joint via proxy?

mojo on January 4, 2010 at 10:37 AM

One Question: What will this do to the price of oil?

Tommy_G on January 4, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Imagine how you’d react if Cuba or Russia endorsed a movement here in the U.S.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Bleeds Blue: Ya their called Liberals!!

canopfor on January 4, 2010 at 10:39 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Don’t know where you’re getting your information, but I know a number of international oil traders who regularly travel to Iran and would disagree that Americans are not well-liked there. The Iranian people, however, are frustrated about our government’s indifference to their cause and its attempts to curry favor with the mullahs.

Their anger, however, is not aimed at our people.

If Obama would man up and become a vocal advocate for their cause, in addition to supplying logistical and financial support, we could expedite the fall of their government.

TXUS on January 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.
Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Wrong. America is very well liked by Iranian citizens. It’s segments of the Iranian government that can’t stand us. There is no way on earth that those who like us would suddenly embrace this regime if we took a stand against the current government of iran. No way.

joejm65 on January 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM

and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

From our middle east expert….the “silent majority” is silent because they are dead…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM

hope and suspect that there are significant behind-the-scenes actions, but that’s where our involvement should stay.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

So in other words, vote present then take credit or no blame bassed on the outcome.

booter on January 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM

Of course, we can expect our “smart power” Unprecedented and SOS to denounce the impending collapse as being “illegal”.

ya2daup on January 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM

said Mr Madhi, who was forced to flee Iran in 2008 after being jailed for 73 years on what he described as ”trivial” charges.

So this guy was jailed in 1935? Was he a high-ranking intelligence official before or after he went to jail?

BobMbx on January 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM

Imagine how you’d react if Cuba or Russia endorsed a movement here in the U.S.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Why would they, they got what they wanted in your man Obama.

fourdeucer on January 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM

In an exclusive interview with the Bangkok Post Sunday, Mohammad Reza Madhi, a former officer in Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guards’ intelligence service, described Mr Ahmadinejad Obama as ”crazy” and unfit to lead his country.

And he’s probably thinking that, too.

behiker on January 4, 2010 at 10:44 AM

“The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves.”

sound like someone we know here?

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Whatutter nonsense. The administration ignored the riots last spring with that very same lame excuse (POTUS took the brats out for ice cream and went golfing that weekend). Iran still blamed America.

This nation needs to stand on the side of freedom, not with you and the filthy lying coward in the White House.

highhopes on January 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

Iranian’s have always embraced the U.S. The American/ Iranians (Persians) love this country, but long to return home. And their families long for a renewed relationship with America.
Where you get some of your “knowledge” is beyond me…where do you learn this stuff?

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 10:45 AM

the “silent majority” is silent because they are dead…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 10:41 AM

damn, there’s that truth thing again for our resident brainstem, bleeds blue

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM

I guess I’m jaded but I’ve seen too many cases where a government is supposed to collapse and ended up not doing so, so I won’t be surprised if the Iranian government gets through this.

Dave_d on January 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM

I guess I’m jaded but I’ve seen too many cases where a government is supposed to collapse and ended up not doing so, so I won’t be surprised if the Iranian government gets through this.

Dave_d on January 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM

ditto that. If it is going to happen, then it’ll likely catch us all unaware, because, we’re obviously missing something in any of the outside analyses. The Soviet Union fell apart, and IIRC, it was a surprise when it did so.

ted c on January 4, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Imagine how you’d react if Cuba or Russia endorsed a movement here in the U.S.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Apparently you are not well read…try reading a little history of the SDS and other liberal movements. Spend a little time reading some background of David Horowitz, and who he worked with when he was a liberal activist…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

Obama’s already gotten himself involved – he declared the ‘election’ legitimate much to the disappointment of the Iranian people on the street (who were at the time being killed by this ‘legitimate’ government). These Iranians don’t want us to invade but they would like to know that America – which supposedly is the beacon of freedom and Democracy in the world – supports the cause publicly and openly. The least Obama could do now is support those trying to reform their country.

gwelf on January 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

BS.If obama had made a strong statement in support of the protesters during the summer protests,more world leaders would have done the same.That would have encouraged many more Iranians to join the protests..including moderate politicians and clergy.This might be all over by now.Plus i believe earlier this year obama killed a 100 million$ program that was supporting dissidents within the country.Another wise move that got nothing in response*eyeroll*.But dont worry,if the mullocracy does collapse,O will claim credit,and the MSM will spin it that way as well.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM

If Obama would man up and become a vocal advocate for their cause, in addition to supplying logistical and financial support, we could expedite the fall of their government.

TXUS on January 4, 2010 at 10:40 AM

Not a lot of chance in that. Obama took months to pick a puppy and even more time than that dithering over what to do in Afghanistan before being forced into making a decision. Bold decisive leadership and demonstrations of American exceptionalism are not part of this administration.

highhopes on January 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Nothing to see here…move on…

/humor

MarkT on January 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

Imagine how you’d react if Cuba or Russia endorsed a movement here in the U.S.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

LOL we did and now its been twisted into an insult…”Mccarthyism”.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 10:51 AM

I guess I’m jaded but I’ve seen too many cases where a government is supposed to collapse and ended up not doing so, so I won’t be surprised if the Iranian government gets through this.

Dave_d on January 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Yes, and then there is always the chance that someone worse comes up…and one other thing just popped into my mind.
Is this some sort of “spin”, to give Obama more time to dither?
Stating that he doesn’t want to push Iran on the nuclear thing because it looks like something is brewing over there?
I don’t trust a lot of these reports…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Imagine how you’d react if Cuba or Russia endorsed a movement here in the U.S.
Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:30 AM

I see you were “educated” at public school, so I guess you never learned about the USSR bankrolling the “Peace” movement of the 60′s or the “No Nuke Programs” of the 70′s.

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM

I see you were “educated” at public school, so I guess you never learned about the USSR bankrolling the “Peace” movement of the 60’s or the “No Nuke Programs” of the 70’s.

LincolntheHun on January 4, 2010 at 10:53 AM

Don’t confuse him with historical facts….you will destroy is make believe world…

right2bright on January 4, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I guess I’m jaded but I’ve seen too many cases where a government is supposed to collapse and ended up not doing so, so I won’t be surprised if the Iranian government gets through this.

Dave_d on January 4, 2010 at 10:46 AM

Youre probably right,unfornunately.This regime has no respect for life.They will do whatever it takes to stay in power.And we have a gutless administration/congress that wont do anything about it.And a gutless.lying MSM that barely even reports whats going on.Compare that to their tears over a Palestinian terrorist that gets taken out,or terrorists getting water boarded.It doesnt fit the meme.If Neda had been killed accidently by Israelis she would be a worldwide household name.But since she was just intentionally murdered by the Iranian jihadist govt,it doesnt mean sh*t to the MSM.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Obama is reprehensible for legitimating the butchers of Tehran. He is the single worst thing ever to happen to this nation.

That said, while this guy’s pronouncement is welcome, there is a lot of bluster regarding the regime’s downfall, and has been for years. And his concept of an Islamic republic with separation of “church” and state is irrational. Islam IS “church” and state. The reforms need to go much deeper than he envisions.

Still, I hope and pray that his predictions of imminent collapse are correct.

paul1149 on January 4, 2010 at 10:57 AM

When Iran issues Senator John Kerry a visa so he can visit, then I will believe it.

albill on January 4, 2010 at 10:58 AM

America is only disliked by the Iranian Gov’t.Please fill us in on the “very good reasons” why Iranians hate us.uknowmorethanme on January 4, 2010 at 10:32 AM

Because the CIA engineered a coup that put the despotic Shah on the throne, and supported him throughout his reign.

BS.If obama had made a strong statement in support of the protesters during the summer protests,more world leaders would have done the same.That would have encouraged many more Iranians to join the protests..including moderate politicians and clergy.This might be all over by now.Plus i believe earlier this year obama killed a 100 million$ program that was supporting dissidents within the country.Another wise move that got nothing in response*eyeroll*.But dont worry,if the mullocracy does collapse,O will claim credit,and the MSM will spin it that way as well.theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 10:50 AM

You are utterly incorrect. If Obama had made a serious commitment to the dissidents, he would have condemned them to guilt by association. This movement, if it is to succeed, is going to have to have the support of the Iranian version of Joe Sixpack: relatively religious (and so not seeing the mullahs as inherently evil) very patriotic and averse to change on general principles. If the opposition becomes identified with (imperialistic, anti-democratic, anti-Iranian, anti-Muslim) United States then they’re going to turn against the insurgents. This movement has to be home-grown to succeed.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:59 AM

One can only hope! That would be one happy new year!

scalleywag on January 4, 2010 at 11:00 AM

Wishful thinking. Not happening. Dinnerjacket ain’t going nowheres for now.

AlexB on January 4, 2010 at 11:03 AM

You are utterly incorrect. If Obama had made a serious commitment to the dissidents, he would have condemned them to guilt by association. This movement, if it is to succeed, is going to have to have the support of the Iranian version of Joe Sixpack: relatively religious (and so not seeing the mullahs as inherently evil) very patriotic and averse to change on general principles. If the opposition becomes identified with (imperialistic, anti-democratic, anti-Iranian, anti-Muslim) United States then they’re going to turn against the insurgents. This movement has to be home-grown to succeed.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Sorry but i believe you are utterly incorrect.What has obama gained by playing pussyfoot with the Iranian govt?NOTHING.And he wouldnt have had to be blatant about it,but he immediately legitimized the fraudulant election.If anything ,that will make the Iranian people dislike us even more.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 11:03 AM

You are utterly incorrect. If Obama had made a serious commitment to the dissidents, he would have condemned them to guilt by association. This movement, if it is to succeed, is going to have to have the support of the Iranian version of Joe Sixpack: relatively religious (and so not seeing the mullahs as inherently evil) very patriotic and averse to change on general principles. If the opposition becomes identified with (imperialistic, anti-democratic, anti-Iranian, anti-Muslim) United States then they’re going to turn against the insurgents. This movement has to be home-grown to succeed.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Then why did Obama declare the elections legitimate? How does that help the cause? Why were the protesters disappointed that Obama backed the thugs who were killing them in the streets?

gwelf on January 4, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Dont worry Ed, Obama is in close contact with Jimmeh on the matter of Iran, and is crafting a brilliant policy of open arms and unclenched fists.

EscapeVelocity on January 4, 2010 at 11:15 AM

Then why did Obama declare the elections legitimate? How does that help the cause? Why were the protesters disappointed that Obama backed the thugs who were killing them in the streets?

gwelf on January 4, 2010 at 11:11 AM

Exactly!Congradulating the “winner” while hundreds of thousands were protesting(and gaining steam),hundreds were being beaten/arrested/tortured,and dozens killed was the absolute WORST thing to do.It discouraged the protesters,it pushed”fencesitters”or the fearful away from joining in,and scared off other world leaders from denouncing them.If anything he should have said NOTHING,rather than what he did say.

theTarCzar on January 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM

***
HI BLEEDSBLUE–10:30 AM. President Jimmy Carter served in the U.S. Navy during WW2 as an officer. Iran and Iraq were locked in a war over the Basra area oil fields during this time. Iran needed to sell oil and import arms and food–by sea. There are only a few roads into Iran.
***
The right strategy was obvious to anyone with military history skills. A U.S. Navy blockade in the Gulf to starve the Iranian supply line–Saddam Hussein would have used this to take over more of the Iranian oil fields. The U.S. Air Force–and a battleship or two–could have started shelling and bombing Iranian port facilities. The Air Force could also have hit bridge and railroad targets to cut highway transport into Iran. Slowly tightening the noose around the Ayatollah would have worked–and Iraqis would have done the ground combat fighting.
***
Jimmy Carter–the second worst president I have seen in 68 years of life–came up with a half-a**ed helicopter raid after a year of imprisonment for our diplomats–and it was an EPIC FAIL.
***
Comrade Obama (PBUH) is the worst president in my memory–he makes Jimmy Carter look brilliant by comparison.
***
John Bibb
***

rocketman on January 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM

Mr Madhi, who was forced to flee Iran in 2008 after being jailed for 73 years on what he described as ”trivial” charges.

Do the arithmetic, and this sentence means he was first jailed in 1935 – long before Ahmadinejad, long before the Shah. Could the Bangkok Post mean he was sentenced to 73 years?

bgoldman on January 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Bleeds blue

If the opposition becomes identified with (imperialistic, anti-democratic, anti-Iranian, anti-Muslim) United States then they’re going to turn against the insurgents. This movement has to be home-grown to succeed.

I wonder who would ever suggest such a thing?

Sonosam on January 4, 2010 at 11:25 AM

I hate to rain on anybody’s parade, but Iran has been “on the verge of collapse” for over thirty years now.

That’s their standard operating procedure. Iran has never really been a theocracy, or a dictatorship. Its leaders have just been very good at making its citizens fear anarchy more than they fear tyranny. Even through huge upheaval and many wars, this has provided a weird sort of stability to the country.

If anything, that terrorocracy is stronger now than it has ever been. Whether the fearless leader who comes out on top of this latest “collapse” ends up being a mullah, a Socialist dictator or calls himself a president, it won’t really matter much. No country can be free while its citizens fear freedom more than they do anything else.

Iran can’t reform without a safety net. And there is no way in Hell Obama is going to provide one.

logis on January 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Imagine how you’d react if Cuba or Russia endorsed a movement here in the U.S.

Cuba and Russia have, in fact, not only endorsed but started movements in the U.S.

Reaction: yawns and accusations that the whistle-blowers were McCarthyists.

bgoldman on January 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM

iranian gubmint collapse………

That would be a good start to the new year……..

syria would be a good follow up……..

and I would bet then the plo or whatever they are called would be begging bibi for a settlement…….

RealMc on January 4, 2010 at 11:31 AM

Any time GWB wanted to or needed to put the screws to the Iranian regime the dems were quick to offer a counter

Iranian thugs have no worries from Obama

Sonosam on January 4, 2010 at 11:43 AM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions.
Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

According to this guy, you are wrong.

Here is the money quote, fourth paragraph from the end:

“The most promising solution is in the free world’s united support of the Iranian opposition groups to the rule of the Mullahs.”

Amil Imani

Sorry Bleeds, Mr. Imani’s opinion carries more credibility than yours.

rukiddingme on January 4, 2010 at 11:59 AM

From his lips to God’s ears…Collapse…

Tim Burton on January 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM

The Soviet Union became a police state very early in its history, and lasted for decades.

But…But… But.I thought The Soviet Union was a Statist Paradise… Isn’t that why is lasted so long?

The stark reality that the Soviet Union was just a police state can be too much of a mental body blow to young National Socialist Democrats,
let’s hope they can endure the truth instead of the lies they’ve been marinating in all these years.

Chip on January 4, 2010 at 12:02 PM

Wishful Thinking

J_Crater on January 4, 2010 at 12:03 PM

No country can be free while its citizens fear freedom more than they do anything else.

logis on January 4, 2010 at 11:30 AM

Are you talking about Iran or the US?

Juno77 on January 4, 2010 at 12:05 PM

Bleeds Blue;
The Iranian regime blames the US and UK already.
As for the opposition, They keep asking where Obama stands. “Obama, are you with us or them?”
No matter what the religion, Freedom is the truth people seek. The Iranians want their Republic back, not a theocracy or police state. Yes, the US Gov should speak up.

elclynn on January 4, 2010 at 12:18 PM

The murder of Neda will lead to the hanging of the mullahs and ayatollahs from streetlamps, just as the 1989 governmental murder, by Saddam Hussein, of the British journalist Farzad Bazoft -”for spying”- led to Saddam’s own necktie party.

What goes around comes around… to string up the terrorizing maniacs.

profitsbeard on January 4, 2010 at 12:27 PM

The absolute worst thing the United States could do at this point is to publicly support Iranian anti-government actions. For some very good reasons, America is not well-liked in Iran and our support would push “silent majority”-type Iranians into the mullah’s camp.

Bleeds Blue on January 4, 2010 at 10:21 AM

I find it amazing how the left says this anytime the people start to protest against a left wing govt.

Of course, the truth is the exact opposite of anything bleeds brains says. Most of the protestors don’t hate the US and have been very open about their desire for expressions of support from our govt.

MarkTheGreat on January 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

…as the 1989 1990 governmental murder…of Farzad Bazoft…

(date typo)

profitsbeard on January 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

What nonsense.

As long as the revolutionary guard is willing to gun down anyone challenging the regime, it is perfectly safe. And since it was specifically designed to do exactly that, they’ll shoot until they run out of ammo.

So unless the Iranian army throws in with the protesters, we’ll be talking about the “Iranian regime beginning to collapse” for a long time to come.

Rebar on January 4, 2010 at 12:46 PM

You see what happens when a tyrant has fallen and a country liberated(Iraq). Your next door neighbor wants the samething. The Iranian people want a regime change, and free elections because they see Iraq prospering.

jaboba on January 4, 2010 at 12:57 PM

If Iran collapses, you can bet anything that the inept Obama and his leftist-zombie army will attempt to take credit for it, despite the fact that the current administration has contributed to prolonging the current suffering in Iran rather than ending it.

Edouard on January 4, 2010 at 1:02 PM

MarkTheGreat on January 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

Correct. Those brave Iranian youth protesting the Mullahs are not anti-American. Infact, they are damn near Americanized. They listen to American music that has been smuggled in, watch American TV on satellite.

But there are elements of the Oposition that would probably join the Mullahs if America starts supporting the Opposition. I think it is a small minority.

Obama being tight-lipped about it has nothing to do with hoping the Revolution in Progress succeeds. It all has to do with covering his ass.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 1:19 PM

Of course, the truth is the exact opposite of anything bleeds brains says. Most of the protestors don’t hate the US and have been very open about their desire for expressions of support from our govt.

MarkTheGreat on January 4, 2010 at 12:29 PM

The Iranian youth, such as the Martyr Neda, are not anti-American. They listen to American music and watch American TV.

There are elements of the Opposition that might switch sides if it appears America is exploiting the situation but I’d have to say they are small.

Most of the Iranian units that are involved in squashing the Protests are not Iranians. They are outsiders, Arabs.

Obama being mum on the situation has nothing to do with support for the Revolution in Progress. But covering his six.

Holger on January 4, 2010 at 1:23 PM

The key to toppling Iran is to give them no oxygen to maintain its life.

I disagree, Ed. Thats only part of it. Once the people have arms and start to swarm the IRG it will be over. The Iranian people we actively fighting the cops and taking their equipment. The IRG cannot contain the people, but it will be a bloody revolution.

dogsoldier on January 4, 2010 at 1:58 PM

I’m looking forward to the mobs in the streets shouting in Farsi:

Obama! Filthy dawg! Our blood is on your hands!

Obama! Filty dawg! We will open our fists to Sarah!

DanOwillbookem on January 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Obama will try and take credit that his “approach” was the right thing and helped achieve the result. If you havent figured out by now that this administration blames everybody else for every negative event, and takes credit for anyting positive, I cant possibly know what media you are watching.

CriticalUpdate on January 4, 2010 at 4:58 PM

As long as the revolutionary guard is willing to gun down anyone challenging the regime, it is perfectly safe.

Brutish and partisan as they are, the RG is not shooting everyone challenging the regime. If reports of Guard defections are reliable (which may be a stretch), some are even joining the protestors.

It’s true the regime has weathered other upheavals before. But so had Ceausescu’s – the Securitate had eliminated or repressed threats to his regime many times before 1989. Even in 1987, the secret police and military managed to forcibly disperse a large labour strike at Brasov.

But the regime (temporarily) isolated the events in Brasov from the rest of the country, and especially the capital. That doesn’t appear to be happening in Iran.

Grunchy Cranola on January 4, 2010 at 5:07 PM

The Carter administration ignored Iran when Islamists deposed the Shah, and how did that turn out?

JetBoy on January 4, 2010 at 10:25 AM

I beg to differ. Carter did not sit idly while the Shah was ousted. He went out of his way to help make sure that whatever deals would support the Shah WERE CANCELLED!

Blacksmith8 on January 4, 2010 at 5:08 PM

BobMbx on January 4, 2010 at 10:43 AM

I suspect the ‘misunderstanding’ comes from a poorly worded sentence; I’d say he got a harsh sentence from the current government, and split before they could toss him in the slammer.

Normally, I take anything said by a ‘defector’ with a grain of salt, but his description of Dinnerjacket as ‘nuts’ doesn’t sound that far off-base.

But the earlier comments concerning teh One are on-base.

He’ll do nothing to bring the Mullahs down.

But he’ll take full credit if they decide to split [with their briefcases stuffed full of loot and bank books . . . ].

And the MSM will wet themselves with joy at his stunning display of ‘smart power’.

You can bet on that.

CPT. Charles on January 4, 2010 at 5:11 PM