Comments on: Why Ahmadinejad will win

By: Iran through the Burmese looking-glass « Pan-Asian Vision

Iran through the Burmese looking-glass « Pan-Asian Vision — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 05:21:32 +0000

[...] Khamenei basically told the protesters that they need to either stand down or be annihilated. Douglas Muir says that the protestors will lose if [If] the government is both willing and able to use massive [...]

By: flo

flo — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 01:43:28 +0000

@sid At least part of this statement is debateable I think … in any case especially after the “orange revolution” there is no more or less evidence of tampering than in iran: only suspicions. Apart from that I have to agree with sid that I have to agree with Jon that despite anything that went on in Ukraine, Belarus is much less democratic and much more troublesome.
Also, ofc while Ukraine factually belongs to eastern europe, many people if talking about europe will not regard ukraine and some other countries as included, because increasingly people speak of EU = Europe.

By: Iran: It All Depends Who You Talk (and Listen) to … « Far Outliers

Iran: It All Depends Who You Talk (and Listen) to … « Far Outliers — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:53:01 +0000

[...] ties between Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian/Sargsyan and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Why Ahmadinejad will win compares factors that affected the outcomes of similar protests in Armenia, Burma, China, East [...]

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 16:16:58 +0000

Good question, good method of analysis, bad conclusion and title because your facts are wrong. The regular army is clearly totally uninterested in a crackdown and the Revolutionary Guard appears to be splintering. Even the basij are not reliable for the regime. I don’t see a successful mass murder; civil war seems more likely.

Even if they *are* successful they lose by losing the last vestige of legitimacy.

By: Barry

Barry — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 15:18:06 +0000

jilm Says:
“Such a long analysis while you could sum it in one sentece: Iran´s regime will survive if it doesn´t hesitate to use massive force. ”

Not quite. ‘willing *and* able’ might be a better short summary. The other factors are there to support those two words.

By: sid

sid — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 13:36:41 +0000

“the issue is rigging the election, while still having elections. I do not know about Burma, but I think in all of Europe, at least since the fall of Milosevic, there has been no rigging the elections with the possible exception of Belorus.”

They rig elections (before during and after the “Orange Revolution”) all the time in Ukraine.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 12:19:45 +0000

Oliver, there is often rioting in many countries, the G8 meetings for example, demonstrations. I do not see any EU government “needing riot police to survive”! On the contrary, in the case of the greek government and the December riots, the main critisism against it was that it did NOT use riot police -this is why the damage what it was. Similar riots have taken place in many EU cities, for example Paris. In Iran’s case the issue is rigging the election, while still having elections. I do not know about Burma, but I think in all of Europe, at least since the fall of Milosevic, there has been no rigging the elections with the possible exception of Belorus.

By: Cerealis

Cerealis — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:09:37 +0000

Mr Muir

“Regime in Greece?!!!”. I hope that you are talking about the colonels’ dictatorship of 1967-1973. For otherwise, you just address an direct and serious insult to all the people in this country that fought for the restoration and the consolidation of democracy. I have to protest, although the grouping of Greece, together with Iran and Burma cannot but provoke laughter and suspicion as to your objectivity to every knowledgable reader in this blog.

As to your analysis, needless to say that biased (and irrelevant) examples bring biased results.

Dear Oliver,

All governments in the world have means of coercion at their disposal. The concentration of the means of coercion is a foundamental element of any state, if it is to be called a state. Riot police is one of this means. There are other more delicate ones, prefered by more “civilised governments’. However, riot police has been , and is being used in many Western states. Or better “regimes”?

By: Oliver

Oliver — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:33:55 +0000

There was no rioting against Bush, neither is there rioting against Brown. If we pretend that western governments are not subject to the rules governing the survival of other governments, we deliberately cloud our thinking.

Of course the the Greek government has legitimacy and that has been a major factor in its survival, but nevertheless it still needs riot police to survive. Any government facing riots needs its riot police.

By: Jon

Jon — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:12:54 +0000

This is mixing things and NikosR is right. The Bush “regime” was unpopular, Gordon Brown is not too popular either, why isn’t either on the list of “unpopular” regimes?