Zing!

Iran, so far away

I've been distracted for the past couple of days by events in Iran. I wish I could say I'd been following the politics and events in that country more closely for a long time, but the truth is that I, like too many of my fellow Americans, have only been taking in the drips and drabs coming through our more mainstream media outlets.

Which isn't to say that I consider myself completely ignorant of what's going on over there, or of that nation's history. But considering how important a role Iran has played in the region--both negative and not--it's a shame that all many Americans seem to know about it is that we don't want them to have nuclear capabilities.

And rightfully so! With Ahmadinejad and his ilk in charge of anything, it wouldn't be much of a safe bet. But it was entirely likely that the majority of the people of Iran were finished with him, and the prevailing wisdom in this past weekend's elections seemed to be that challenger and reformer Mir Hossein Mousavi would become the next president. Iran was ready for change.

Only, Ahmadinejad and his supporters appear to have thwarted the will of the people. The election results were announced by state media just hours after polls closed--despite many of the ballots being cast by hand, and the lengthy logistics related to counting them. Irregularities in the process cropped up almost immediately. And in great numbers.

In response, hundreds of thousands--if not millions--of Iranians have taken to the streets in protest, facing violence from angry mobs of Ahmadinejad supporters (most notably the Basij) and even death. It's a monumental event, perhaps the largest protest in the history of the country, and a clear-cut demonstration that many, many Iranians are tired of the far-right, inflammatory ways and words of Ahmadinejad.

If there was a time for those of us who believe in democracy and the freedom of people to live as they wish to stand up with and for everyday Iranians, this is it.

And yet, our mainstream media has so far done a relatively piss-poor job of covering what's going on. Instead, the best way to get real, up-to-date information and analyses is via Twitter, blogs, and some international press.

Andrew Sullivan, blogging for the Atlantic, has long been keen on current events in Iran, and his continuing coverage of the elections has been stellar.

Tehran Bureau, whose website crashed for unknown reasons (but has since found a re-route through an alternate server), has been diligently updating their Twitter account with news from on the ground.

The only bright spot in CNN's coverage, or lack thereof, was Fareed Zakaria's program on Sunday that featuring on-the-ground reporting from Christiane Amanpour (aka My Favorite Journalist) and some very decent in-studio analysis.

Point is, you've got to go to new and/or international media sources to get decent coverage of important events happening outside of the US these days (and sometimes inside the US, too). For all of the hullabaloo about the "death of traditional media," it doesn't appear that many traditional media outlets are doing much to help their case.

Anyway, I wanted to express my solidarity with and support for the protesters in Iran who are seeking a more meaningful and honest democracy. It's especially impressive when you realize the seriousness of the consequences often faced by those willing to stick up for something other than the hard line. It makes something of already great importance all the more crucial.

EDIT TO ADD: Read this article for a much more in-depth description of the power politics at play in this election, and how it's all breaking down.


(photo by .faramarz on Flickr)

Iraqanistan

I don't usually like to talk about national/world politics on this here wee lil' blog, but this is just far too interesting/important to let pass without comment.

According to the most recently released National Intelligence Estimate concerning Iran's nuclear ambitions, that country froze its nuclear arms program in 2003. That means that the previous year or so of saber rattling coming from the US government (the Bush administration specifically) has proven to be, much like their talk leading up to the Iraq War, pretty ill-founded. And knowingly, too, as the data from this report was likely available, in some part at least, to the president and other high-level officials prior to its release to the public.

The administration called new attention to the threat posed by Iran earlier this year when President Bush had suggested in October that a nuclear-armed Iran could lead to “World War III” and Vice President Dick Cheney promised “serious consequences” if the government in Tehran did not abandon its nuclear program.

Yet at the same time officials were airing these dire warnings about the Iranian threat, analysts at the Central Intelligence Agency were secretly concluding that Iran’s nuclear weapons work halted years ago and that international pressure on the Islamic regime in Tehran was working.

Unless, of course, extremely important information like this was being withheld from the people (unfortunately) running the country. But I somehow doubt that.

Of course, the far-right is already spinning this info to their benefit, claiming that the Bush administration can now take credit for pressuring Iran to stop their nuclear weapons program by invading Iraq. Even though that wasn't one of the reasons given for starting that particular war--none of which, it turns out, were correct.

The new report comes out just over five years after a deeply flawed N.I.E. concluded that Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons programs and was determined to restart its nuclear program — an estimate that led to congressional authorization for a military invasion of Iraq, although most of the report’s conclusions turned out to be wrong.

Intelligence officials said that the specter of the botched 2002 N.I.E. hung over their deliberations over the Iran assessment, leading them to treat the document with particular caution.

“We felt that we needed to scrub all the assessments and sources to make sure we weren’t misleading ourselves,” said one senior intelligence official, speaking on condition of anonymity.

At least some people can actually learn from their past mistakes. More and more, though, I doubt that Bush and company have any ability to do so, instead proving themselves to have more in common with, say, a particularly smart blueberry scone than with thoughtful, intelligent human beings.

The Outside World

All you hear about places like Iran, day in and day out, are things like "expanding their nuclear program," "supporting terrorists in Iraq," and other such generally unpleasant and anti-social things. You start to forget that people live in these demonized places, people like you and me--that is, until you stumble onto things like this: http://irangraffiti.blogspot.com/ - and then you remember.

I'd like someone to paint one of these murals or stencils on George W. Bush's bedroom door, so that he sees it every morning and every night. Not that it'd get through his seemingly skull-only head.

When there's nothing left but rubble, the graffiti artists will cover it all with color.