The key to a successful revolution

Note:  i, Pundit has adopted a green header to express solidarity with the green revolution in Iran.
Today’s news from Iran, boiled down to two quotes and a photo.

First, from Michael Ledeen at pajamas media:

What’s going to happen?, you ask. Nobody knows, even the major actors. The regime has the guns, and the opposition has the numbers.

The opposition has the numbers, indeed! A photo via Paul Wells at Macleans:

Green Revolution massive protest

And the second, sobering quote, from the New York Times:

I received this note from an Iranian-American with family here: “The bottom line right now is whose violence threshold is higher? How much are the hard-liners willing to inflict to suppress the population and tell yet another generation to shut up? And how much are Moussavi and his supporters willing to stand to fulfill their dreams?”

How much violence can the regime stomach dishing out? How much violence can the people stomach absorbing? The key to a successful revolution — or a successful repression — may lie right there.


Bonus quote from Michael Ledeen. It’s a bit of a tangent, but a worthy point:

As most people have learned, the basic communiations tool is Twitter, which somehow continues to function. Bigtime Kudos to Twitter, by the way, for postponing its planned maintenance so that the Iranians can continue to Tweet. Would that Google were so solicitous of freedom. (emphasis added)


5 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Jack
    Jun 16, 2009 @ 23:27:23

    What do we know about Moussavi? I ask that in a friendly manner. I am just curious to learn more. Do we end up with a true reformer or a slightly more benevolent dictator.

    I hope that we see real change. It would be good for so many.


  2. Stephen
    Jun 17, 2009 @ 08:42:48

    The irony is, Mousavi is no radical. All of the candidates are pre-approved (by the clerics, I presume) before they can run for election. It goes without saying that a radical reformist would not be approved by the powers that be.

    So, if Khameini had allowed the election results to stand, he likely could have kept Mousavi within tolerable bounds. But evidently, Khameini and Mousavi are rivals or something. Khameini panicked when he saw the extent of Mousavi’s popular support (obviously, we’re speculating here).

    Now that they’ve tried to steal the election from him, Mousavi is aligning himself with the popular desire for far-reaching reforms.

    In sum: Mousavi has a power base among the establishment; and now he has a populist power base, too. If somehow he gets into office, we’ll discover how serious he is about reform. But the regime’s attempt to steal the election and suppress dissent is actually creating a climate where real reform stands a chance of success.


  3. Jack
    Jun 18, 2009 @ 03:41:12

    I guess what concerns me is that as you said we don’t have anyone different waiting in the wings. This guy is as dangerous as Ahmedenijad, except he doesn’t look like it, at least for now.

    But maybe this will turn into something positive.


  4. Anonymous
    Jan 04, 2010 @ 09:24:51

    Its typical for Americans in their arcade fast sensory gratification culture to think a revolution is dependent on violence, the side that can rack up the most gore points win but thats just a reflection of your way of life and what you’ve been programmed to be. Kill them all, shock and awe, no prisoners, zero tolerance etc…

    Much of the rest of the world still believe in ideas, morals and ideals and they know that this is what wins revolutions. Unfortunately ideas like this cant be expressed in 20 second sound bytes like “They hate us for our freedoms…”

    If I were you I would examine your own society and see where you lost it before trying to support regime changes abroad, a place to start would be to examine your actions and their results in Haiti, Afghanistan, Iraq, Honduras and, and and… … … …


    • Anonymous
      Jun 03, 2010 @ 19:10:34

      We are not at war with the WORLD. If the WORLD only had the truth then half of them would be on our side because they are women.

      -Kill them all, shock and awe, no prisoners, zero tolerance etc…

      Zero tolerance?

      You mean like where women can’t drive or work? Or was that where gang raped women are the criminals? Oh, you must have meant where gays are supposedly a phenomena that is not occurring. Are you sure you distaste the American way? I promise you, when exposed to the truth, over half of the worlds population would disagree with your net reasoning. I’m going to go out on a limb and peg you as being a male or you would not even agree with yourself. That is unless you are ignorant of truth and have no acceptance of reality.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: