maven
06-28-2009, 04:18 AM
I just heard a short but worrying analysis of Iran on the BBC which makes me think that even an overthrow of the regime may not sufficiently solve it's problems to allow it to become a successful democracy.
Iran, says the BBC, has been controlled by a number of mafias since the Islamic revolution. It is not surprising that a such a manifestation of evil as as Ayotollah Khomeni would have poisioned the country in a way that it might never recover from.
The Iranian economy was parcelled out to his supporters, the two main ones being Ayotollah Rafsanjani (reputedly one of the richest men in the world) and the Republican Guard who own vast interests in oil and gas and most of Iran's nuclear programme.
There are two major powerbases in the regime; Rafsanjani who was an early associate of Khomenei, and the Supreme leader Ali Khamenei. Khamenei seems in a powerful position as he controls both the Republican Guard and the Baseji. But Rafsanjani as head of the Council of experts has the power to replace him.
Hitler used similar tactics to Khomenei in the thrid reich to make sure that if his subordinates were to challenge power, it would be each others power and not his.
As we speak, according to the BBC, the two power blocks; the Rafsanjani block and the Khamenei block are locked in a power struggle.
Should this result in the replacing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the annulment of the election and coming to power of Mousavi, nothing really would have happened structurally in Iran. Yes, in the words of Neil Young, Iran would have "a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand." Youth could hold hands in public, girls might not have to wear headscarves if they wish as in Turkey. But like Iraq Iran's economy would continue to be stiffled by it's ownership by Regime conglomerates.
Added to this Mousavi would have difficulty satisfying the West and Israel about it's nuclear intentions because the very nature of such a regime means that it can only survive by having enemies. So even if enmity itself were reduced Iran would not be able to fully relax its hostile stance.
Added to this is the pernicuious influence of unfettered Islam. We have seen that the majority of the protestors still believe that Islam can be conjoined successfully with running a nations politics and economy. So how many more years would it take for the Iranian people to learn the lesson that that is not the case?
In the meantime as in Iraq the control of ministries by different blocks would deny central government the ability to wholly control the country finances and sectors from the center. Given the business orientation of the Iranian people this would surely suffocate all their attempts at economic success while the continuing existance of the regime would prevent meaningful social and cultural development.
So even if the regime were to be overthrown the Iranian people would not have control over it's economy. Surely a bleak prospect. Looking to the future some analysts claim that Iran might collapse as eastern European states have and it's many fractious factions may engage in civil war.
maven.
Iran, says the BBC, has been controlled by a number of mafias since the Islamic revolution. It is not surprising that a such a manifestation of evil as as Ayotollah Khomeni would have poisioned the country in a way that it might never recover from.
The Iranian economy was parcelled out to his supporters, the two main ones being Ayotollah Rafsanjani (reputedly one of the richest men in the world) and the Republican Guard who own vast interests in oil and gas and most of Iran's nuclear programme.
There are two major powerbases in the regime; Rafsanjani who was an early associate of Khomenei, and the Supreme leader Ali Khamenei. Khamenei seems in a powerful position as he controls both the Republican Guard and the Baseji. But Rafsanjani as head of the Council of experts has the power to replace him.
Hitler used similar tactics to Khomenei in the thrid reich to make sure that if his subordinates were to challenge power, it would be each others power and not his.
As we speak, according to the BBC, the two power blocks; the Rafsanjani block and the Khamenei block are locked in a power struggle.
Should this result in the replacing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, the annulment of the election and coming to power of Mousavi, nothing really would have happened structurally in Iran. Yes, in the words of Neil Young, Iran would have "a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand." Youth could hold hands in public, girls might not have to wear headscarves if they wish as in Turkey. But like Iraq Iran's economy would continue to be stiffled by it's ownership by Regime conglomerates.
Added to this Mousavi would have difficulty satisfying the West and Israel about it's nuclear intentions because the very nature of such a regime means that it can only survive by having enemies. So even if enmity itself were reduced Iran would not be able to fully relax its hostile stance.
Added to this is the pernicuious influence of unfettered Islam. We have seen that the majority of the protestors still believe that Islam can be conjoined successfully with running a nations politics and economy. So how many more years would it take for the Iranian people to learn the lesson that that is not the case?
In the meantime as in Iraq the control of ministries by different blocks would deny central government the ability to wholly control the country finances and sectors from the center. Given the business orientation of the Iranian people this would surely suffocate all their attempts at economic success while the continuing existance of the regime would prevent meaningful social and cultural development.
So even if the regime were to be overthrown the Iranian people would not have control over it's economy. Surely a bleak prospect. Looking to the future some analysts claim that Iran might collapse as eastern European states have and it's many fractious factions may engage in civil war.
maven.