Chomsky & 50+ Intellectuals Back Freedom to Assemble in Iran

Al, I am heartened that Professor Chomsky is so publicly supporting the Iranian's battle for an open and honest democracy.  Thank you for posting his letter. 

Recognizing that not all those who are opposing Almadinejad and Khamenei are progressive, I wonder if you are aware of any emerging leaders there who are anti-clerical and socialist/democratic revolutionaries?  

Did any of the leftists from the 1979 revolution survive or were they all killed off by the clerics?  It was so sad to see the great freedom movement of 1979 turned into its opposite under the guise of "revolutionary" religion. 

The true measure of any revolution is how it treats its most oppressed members.  In the case of Iran, that means women and ethnic and religious minorities.  The status of women suffered greatly after the clerics took power, as did that of the such groups as the Ba Hai.  I'm not sure how the Kurds fared, but I expect not too well.

Hopefully, this revolution will truly transform Iran into a free and democratic socialist society.  It would be great to see Chavez support those progressive tendencies in the current movement.  Chomsky's views will no doubt encourage that.

Dunno if folks saw this rather odd article by Fournier on Obama's Iran press conference. I saw it in my Wisconsin State Journal, and I believe it wasn't labeled as "analysis" but was on the front page as reporting. I thought it was rather odd recounting of Obama's comments.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_obama_analysis

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98720&sectionid=351020704

"We call on the world to respect Iran because there are attempts to undermine the strength of the Iranian revolution," said Chavez on Sunday in his weekly radio and television address.

"Ahmadinejad's triumph was a triumph all the way. They are trying to stain Ahmadinejad's triumph and through that weaken the government and the Islamic revolution. I know they will not succeed," Chavez said.

Chavez needs to read more Chomsky, apparently.

Speaking of chavez.  His base is the ranchos on the side of the hills looking down on Altamira and Chacao.  Ahmadinejad has the same base, but he does not deliver as well as  Chavez.  Chavez opposition, Sumate, come from Altamira and Chacao.  Ahmadinajads oppostition is the same and comes from north Tehran.  When the Iranian "revolution" realized that their Mao was Rafsanjani, or even Reza Pahlavi, heavily promoted by CNN, the reform movement crapped out.

It was a remarkable display.  Hopefully the Iranian reform will develope real revolutionary leadership that can make real changes-not likely.

Long live the Abraham Lincoln Brigades
From somewhere in a country called America
A misguided soul from the left

Whiskey - I'm really not picking on Chavez. I've stated over and over again in the comments section over the past two weeks that I understand and even empathize - given Venezuela's experience with US-backed coup attempts - with the mindset that leaps to conclusions that the same is happening in Iran. But I do think colleagues have to speak frankly with each other, and it is an informational process, not a confrontation.

Jesus - Those of us who are working class can recognize each other easily enough. After watching hundreds of YouTube videos and other images from the streets of Iran, it's very very very clear that the suggestion that the opposition to Ahmadinejad is somehow "upper class" is blatantly false. The esqualidos in Venezuela would never have mounted the courage that the Iranian people are showing against their government.

I categorically reject the myth that Ahmadinejad enjoys "the same base" as Chavez. I also reject the myth that his opposition is only from North Tehran. Both are media induced falsehoods.

Nate Silver's analysis the past two weeks, among others', has unmasked the official election results (the rural v. urban canard, etcetera) as being invented fiction.

I repeat: It is slothful (and always provides an errant reading) to apply a situation in one country to explain what is happening in another. Usually it is folks in the US looking at world events through their own domestic lens. They always get it wrong. This time some folks are looking at Iran as if it's Venezuela. They are getting it just as wrong.

have you seen this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLZ5eNX1pOE

about a blogger in march this year who died while in Evin prison. he was imprisoned because he was accused of spreading propoganda and insulting the islamic leaders. 

"The March 18 Movement was born out of a tragedy. On this day in 2009, Omid Reza Mir Sayafi, Iranian blogger and journalist, died in Evin Prison in Tehran. The December before his death, he was sentenced to two and half years in prison for allegedly insulting religious leaders, and engaging in “propaganda” against the Islamic Republic of Iran. Omid Reza was the first blogger to die in prison and his death reveals that getting censored is far from the worst thing that can happen to a blogger.

The irony is that, as more members of both the public and the media praise the ability of bloggers to inform, the more these de facto journalists around the globe become victims in fact. The March 18 Movement aims not only to make sure that Omid Reza is remembered, but also that other persecuted bloggers around the world do not disappear into interrogation rooms and prison cells. The March 18 Movement would like to become a voice for bloggers everywhere who are in risk of being crushed under the heavy machinery of repression.

This day, in memorial to Omid Reza, is dedicated to all bloggers around the world who run real risks simply to tell the truth as they see it. The March 18 Movement seeks to actively expand our sense of self to encompass those of us who are in danger and to extend the protections normally accorded to journalists to all those who spend their time and intellectual capital in sharing information about our world." 

this is from their website:http://www.march18.org/

thought it might be of interest.

That was the pithy way Sandy Berger described it. This fact is becoming unavoidable to Russia and every other country as it relates to Iran.

In the first week after the election, the Chavez government uncategorially supported the President of Iran; this is the "realpolitik" of Chavez's world, given the fact that Venezuela and Iran share some key foreign policy goals (replacing the dollar with another currency for oil sales, for example.) But Chavez knows in his heart what we all do: that the regime in Iran is the enemy of socialism, having executed thousands of socialists and imprisoned many more. Fortunately, the Chavez government has slowly changed its attitude to one of a "wait and see" approach as the Iranian movement has gained traction, because Venezuela will have to make strategic alliances with ANY Iranian government, whatever the stripe. And for the past week Iran has been gradually taken out of the headlines of pro-Chavez media.  It has been very interesting to watch.  The base and their champion are slowly warming up to the idea of being on the correct side of history in Iran.

Jesus says:  "When the Iranian 'revolution' realized that their Mao was Rafsanjani, or even Reza Pahlavi, heavily promoted by CNN, the reform movement crapped out."

This statement has little relationship to what has happened: 

(1) The Mousavi-led "green" movement was largely sparked spontaneously by the theft of an election, and the measure of how the latter roused hostility by a broad cross-section of Iranian civil society was the magnitude (unprecedented in Iranian history, including the revolution against the Shah) of one solid week of demonstrations rivaling anything seen in any "people power" revolution anywhere.  It was -- and may still be -- a genuine bottom-up revolution, manifesting the depth of rage against the present system, and surprising even Mousavi, as he frequently said. The reformists were riding a tiger, but "the fire next time" will not be led only by them.

(2) Rafsanjani represents one faction of a corrupt, clerical ruling elite, which opportunistically joined the Moussavi/reform front; he was a longtime foe of the current Supreme Leader -- but he does represent the attitudes of the independent (non-regime) business class, which is in despair about Ahmadinejad, because the latter has destroyed the Iranian economy. If his maneuvering among his fellow ayatollahs had managed to oust the Supreme Leader, momentum against the totalitarian Ahmadinejad/basiji faction of the ruling elite, which falsified the election results, would have become decisive.

(3) Reza Pahlavi, the Shah's son, is a rich emigre ensconced in the suburbs of Washington, D.C. who has enough money to buy himself a megaphone and be taken seriously by CNN (which is hardly an astute judge of any form of reality) but by no serious leaders or informed observers of what has been happening in Iran.  The monarchists were able to get meetings in the Bush White House, but they have zero influence on the reformists, students, workers, women's rights campaigners, and ordinary people sick and tired with the incompetence of the Ahmadinejad regime -- who comprise the "green" coalition. 

(4) The only part of this coalition's action that has "crapped out" are public demonstrations, and that is due to the basiji-led crack-down.  But there are many other methods of resistance in a repressive state, including strikes, boycotts and economic noncooperation that can destabilize its hold on power.  Moreover, the biggest unnoticed development in recent events was the failure of the command level of the Revolutionary Guards to demonstrate conspicuous solidarity with the Ahmadinejad/Supreme Leader ruling group.  It has not been lost on military leaders that the totalitarians have lost the consent of a majority of the Iranian people.  What has not changed, and indeed has been reinforced a hundred-fold by the bestiality of the crack-down in the streets, is the hatred of this regime by the greater part of Iranian society. 

As Al has advised us, stay tuned...

Chomsky audio interview on Iran election and aftermath, plus other important comtemporary issues, including the current US health care debates.

http://www.worldstreams.org/past62.html