This regime poses the gravest threat to both the Iranian people and to the free world. This is a maniacal religious regime that wants to bring an end to humanity. Why in the world would Obama try to weaken these sanctions when it passed 100-0 by the Senate and simultaneously U.K. and France is trying to come up with a consensus with Greece to boycott Iran's oil.

Obama...you let us down in 2009...I forgave you as I have credited that to your naivety and idealistic ignorance of your 1st year of Presidency...don't let down the Iranian people again...the Iranian people will not forgive you...

Enough is enough, it's time for regime change. I speak as an Iranian and an American - this regime is truly evil. Shall we not learn from history and become an appeaser to evil? Didn't we learn the mistake of appeasing Hitler? How many people must die this time around??

It's a classic case of analysts connected to the urban middle class with whom they come from/identify/talk to and projecting that the sentiment they read there is ubiquitous.

I think this also explains the consequent focus on the violence afterwards as well and the claims that the mainstream media are deliberately dodging the story. It has gone on long enough now that the dissent in Iran is gaining wider traction, however that usually comes when a government pushes back with violence.

There is also a reliance on the new media forms for information as well. These are not always so reliable and they are not always representative of the population at large. A good example recently is that my wife is looking for a new car and her mother asked if she had checked in the classifieds of the newspapers - an action that did not occur to either my wife or I to do.
These are just a handful of data points that have been shooting around the Internet, via Twitter or the opposition-friendly blogs. And all have been instrumental in building a public opinion case against the Iranian government for undercounting the support for Mousavi.

The problem is, none of them appear any longer to be true. The crowd was in the hundreds of thousands, most newspapers reported. Mousavi's own wife said he wasn't under house arrest Sunday, and Monday he appeared in person at the protest. And if the president of the election monitoring commission has gone over to the opposition, no serious reporter has reported it.

So we come back to the issue of governance in Iran. A theocratic government has been tried numerous times in both Western and Islamic history and all have been economic, social and cultural failures when compared to liberal democracy. Regime after regime aimed for Augustine's City of Light and none have been able to compete with capitalism and liberal democracy.
The protestors in Iran are using the lack of democracy and a stolen election as the irritant, which does not appear to have an empirical basis. The real reason for the pent up irritation, and where youth will put their lives on the line when faced with state violence, is that the theocratic governance of Iran is a failure when compared to liberal democracy and free markets.

Youth unemployment is exceptionally high in Iran and there is a large swell in the demographics for youth in the 15-30 range; approximately 40% and nearly half of them are out of work; though they don't appear to be the ones protesting. Those with access to twitter, facebook and the internet seem to be at the forefront, which suggests it is Iran's youthful elite doing it.

I wish them luck, I would not like to live under a theocracy, and I hope they manage a relatively peaceful transition to liberal democracy and free market capitalism. It is not unheard of, Indonesia has made a remarkable transition from a junta based dictatorship to a free market liberal democracy recently.
Well, there shouldn't be any - if Iran can be believed.

Iran insists all it wants to do is provide a stable supply of electricity to a country of 70 million. Iran's goal is to generate 7,000 megawatts of electricity through nuclear power plants by 2020.

Sounds good, so far. But it's the second part of Iran's goal that has some worried. Tehran also wants to be self-sufficient in making fuel for its reactors. The process that makes nuclear power fuel, though, is also used to make material that can be used in nuclear weapons.

Still, under the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, a country has the right to make its own nuclear fuel - as long as the process is closely monitored. Most countries that generate nuclear power import the fuel they need.

The International Atomic Energy Agency - the UN body responsible for monitoring the treaty - hasn't been convinced that Iran has been completely forthcoming about its nuclear intentions.

Some western countries also argue that Iran does not need to generate power from nuclear plants because it is rich in oil and natural gas deposits.

In 2002, Washington became very concerned after intelligence reports pointed to the existence of two secret nuclear facilities. According to an Iranian opposition group, the plants had been funded by front companies. The IAEA said the construction of the plants may have violated Iran's obligations to the agency - especially if Iran introduced nuclear material into the facility to test it, without informing the IAEA.

Through much of 2003, Iran allowed inspectors into the country.

On June 19, 2003, the IAEA called on Tehran to stop plans to begin enriching uranium and to allow inspectors the access they would need to clarify questions over Iran's nuclear program. The agency did not declare Iran in violation of its treaty obligations, nor did it refer the matter to the UN Security Council, as some U.S. officials had urged. The IAEA's director general - Mohamed ElBaradei - said the country had failed to report certain nuclear materials and activities.

In August 2003, UN inspectors reported they had found traces of weapons-grade, enriched uranium in an Iranian nuclear facility - but that it could take months to fully analyse the material.

On Sept. 12, 2003, the IAEA board of governors expressed "grave concern that, more than one year after initial IAEA inquiries to Iran about undeclared activities, Iran has still not enabled the IAEA to provide the assurances that all nuclear material in Iran is declared and submitted to Agency safeguards and that there are no undeclared nuclear activities in Iran." The board called on Iran to fully co-operate with the IAEA and ensure there are no more failures to own up to its nuclear capabilities - or risk being declared in contravention of the non-proliferation treaty.

A toughly worded United Nations resolution, which strongly deplored "Iran's 18-year cover-up of a nuclear program including uranium enrichment and plutonium reprocessing," prompted Iran to freeze nuclear inspections.

In March 2006, the IAEA sent a dossier to the UN Security Council that accused Iran of withholding information. After looking into the "Iran file" for three years, the agency said it had serious doubts about the nature and direction of Iran's nuclear program.

In September 2003, the United States chastised Russia for helping Iran in its nuclear program. Russia said it was helping only with the technology to generate nuclear power.

In February 2004, the man who developed Pakistan's nuclear program admitted he transferred nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Abdul Qadeer Khan reportedly sold centrifuge parts to Iran for about $3 million. Centrifuges are used in the process of making fuel for nuclear power plants - and material for nuclear weapons.

Pakistan's president pardoned Khan.

Thanks

Admin of wall clock | Kettles