Please take the time to reflect on what the author discusses in this article in regards to the current political climate in Iran. Provide some personal insight or reflection on what you read.
To me it seemed the author, Hooman Majd, took the position that the West, specifically the United States and the United Kingdom, are trying to spark a revolution in Iran. Many of the things Majd said seemed to indicate this, such as when Majd indicates that the West supports Iranian opposition groups thinking that “reformists could or would replace the existing system with one more to the liking of the liberal democracies of the West,” and also that making the lives of the Iranians difficult hasn’t “resulted in their rising up to overthrow the autocratic regime, as some might have hoped in Washington or London.” The West would never come out and say this, but Iranian’s have good reasons to think this. “No one doubts that Israeli and Western operators are behind recent assassinations of nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran.” Iranians also blame much of their financial crisis on the United States and the United Kingdom, “confidence that the regime could withstand international financial pressure -- particularly after the British government cut all financial ties with Tehran -- had sunk to an all-time low.” If the goal of the West is to promote a revolution, it will be a very difficult goal. The Iranian people may not all support the political system, but they all dislike the West. Similarly to the position taken by many during the 1979 revolution, most citizens just want independence and to be taken seriously as a country. They have not forgotten what happened in their country while the Westerner’s puppet, the Shah, was in charge. Iran’s previous president, Muhammad Khatami said, “In case of war… we Iranians are all united.” The West will not get the people to turn on their government. Their inability to trust the West seems justified given their history. I did find it interesting that the British embassy in downtown Tehran was attacked recently. It reminded me of the attack on the United States embassy in Tehran in 1979. That attack and other events of the time sparked the Khomeinei Revolution, when the Theocracy was developed. I agree with what Majd had to say about predicting Iran’s future, that it “is a fool’s game, as the country and its people have defied expectations for years.” I think that we do not have a clear enough understanding of the religious aspects of the lives’ of the Iranian people to understand how they perceive their government. I do not think that Iran will move towards a liberal democracy any time soon for this reason.
Hooman Majd's article "Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution" was interesting to say the least. I disagree with Jessie's perspective that the article was focused mainly on the West (the United States and Great Britain) and its involvement in Iran. I believe the focus was on the Iran’s process of moving on from the turmoil of the past and the general discontentment the country feels over the “ ‘smell’ of war waft[ing]” over the nation.
Majd was an intriguing writer who immediately infused us with the understanding that he was quite familiar with the country and its political culture. In many of the articles we’ve read, I’ve often had the feeling that the author was disconnected from the topic, not having anything personal to say. With Majd, it was clear that he had been listening to the world around him in Tehran, the heart of the country. By spreading little bits of personal anecdotes throughout, he enlightened me to what a politically diverse country Iran really is today. As we have not quite reached modern day political culture in class (only in our Briefing Paper), Majd’s article serves as first evidence that Iranians are as varied in their political, social, and economic values/beliefs as we Westerners are. I had been under the impression that the country was so entrenched in their religious beliefs that the country had no room for dissent among its citizens, but he claims that there is a “general defiance of authority” among the youth and others in the rural and urban areas. Although many may feel this way, it seems that none are dissatisfied enough to effect real change or stage a revolution – many even maintain hope that the government’s leaders will reform it themselves or don’t care to have a revolution. I remember in Ethel Wood’s book she describes Iranians as believing that they are “Iranians first and Muslims second” which may apply here as the citizens seem to be united by their overall comfort in the government’s care.
The economic crisis is, however, a large part of Iranian lives. Just like in the United Kingdom, China, Russia, Nigeria, and Mexico, “most Iranians worry about their pocketbooks, and the economy is what they want to see improve more than anything else.” Additionally, the Briefing Paper says “the Islamic Republic made social welfare a high priority, viewing it as a precondition for spiritual wellbeing.” (46) Majd does not mention this, but perhaps it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, as the youth becomes more disillusioned with the source of the real problems (Majd: the ‘Elizabeth incident’ at the embassy), the government officials are also unsure as to who has the real power behind the scenes. If a country does not know their leader, it is impossible for the international community to know either. This is a source of confusion for many Iranians and Westerners as we attempt to discern who in Iran and the West should be talking now, but aren’t due to Western attempts to isolate the country by “cut[ting] off financial ties with Tehran” and refusing the come to the table in order to negotiate terms of Iran’s nuclear energy program. Which, by the way, most Iranians are convinced is just a benign government program, and I, for one, agree. Majd makes a very good point when he says that perhaps the key point to Iran-Western foreign relations is “what the United States and its allies don’t do… [which] may also give Iranians looking to effect domestic change some badly needed breathing room.”
In this class, I often forget that we’re not dealing with countries as a whole, but rather as hundreds of different aspects (political, economic, and social) that make the country’s populous diverse in nature. They may practice a different religion and have a different structural-functional model to their theocracy, but perhaps the West must be patient with Iran as they are already a semi-democratic state by law.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it's laughable to believe an Iranian democracy that the West craves will be built so soon, but I don’t think Iran needs democracy; I think they need stability and the chance to survive on their own.
At the latest Republican debate, the one in Tampa (it is quite probable that yet another debate has gone on, they occur with the frequency of the setting sun...), the foreign policy discussion was dominated by Iran talk. While there was a brief intermission from war-mongering with Ron Paul's declaration that the US has already made an act of war via sanctions (and he's right), the very next question went to Santorum and was phrased as such: “When we bomb Iran, what are your top 10 places to hit?” (exaggerated slightly). War is in the air and “this time, you can smell it.”
I am not an optimist when it comes to America's foreign policy, having grown up in a household that opposed the Iraq war from the very start, having read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, and having been a devoted Chomsky-ite for several years. I don't know if y'all were reading newspapers prior to the Iraq war, or have gone back and read the New York Times articles claiming Iraq's possession of WMDs, but there is an astounding similarity to the present dialogue. We've replaced a Q with an N and the Hussein with the much-more-fun-to-say Ahmadinejad. Unless the way we talk about Iran changes drastically, I fear that we will see another war in the Middle East. We'll look back on this article in a few years and smack our heads, the foreshadowing will become so blatantly obvious.
The truth is that we want to go to war with Iran. Or rather, Israel wants to go to war with Iran, and since we give enough money to Israel to call it our own, we do as well. I mean, what did the Mossad agents who assassinated an Iranian scientist dress up like? Answer: the CIA. Israel does not want a regional power that supports Palestine to have the same sort of bargaining chips (nuclear capabilities) that they have. There (our) plan to do this is genius-ly devious. But first: all this talk of sanctions, but what do they entail? What is our ransom?
“The sanctions legislation passed last year demands Iran release all political prisoners and detainees, cease violent repression against peaceful Iranian protesters, conduct a transparent investigation into the killings of Iranian protesters, and make progress toward establishing an independent judiciary. Just in case those conditions are insufficiently implausible, the president must certify further that the Iranian government "has ceased supporting acts of international terrorism." Even if Iran miraculously did this, it is unlikely that the president could certify it.” (This comes from the excellent article 'Stop the Madness' from this week's Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/19/stop_the_madness?page=0,1 )
Now who are these “international terrori[st]” organizations? The PLA and Hamas, two Islamic-Palestinian resistance groups in annexed areas of Israel. But what will force Israel, the US, and the West to talk to Iran, sanctions or no? Nuclear capability. Why should Iran stop its nuclear program if they can get more respect by finishing it? It's especially hypocritical to critique Iran's treatment of protesters in 2009 when the US did much the same to #occupiers this year. As Majd points out, “the United States faces similar [problems]”.
The Iranian protesters in 2009 wanted a revolution about as much as the Tea Partiers, #Occupiers, or London Rioters did. The idea that our sanctions serve to topple the regime is inane. Not only is it ineffective (look at those revolutions in North Korea and Cuba!) but it is blatantly false. The United States supports and trades with much worse regimes (Saudi Arabia anyone?) so long as they do not threaten Israeli dominance.
Iran is going to develop nuclear capability, it is the next logical step from their point of view. We can greet them with open arms, dropping the sanctions and trading with them (making both countries richer) or we can make a powerful enemy through war. As Khatami says “In case of war, we Iranians are all united.”
I think that the article focused more on the fact that Iranians don't want to overthrow their government than on anything else. The West would probably support a revolution, since it doesn't like the current regime, but the Iranian people don't seem to care as much. The author points out that many of them are not very happy with their current leaders (for example, they are turning to Western currency to save themselves from inflation caused by the government) and that there are people who complain about the government. However, this is much the same as the situation in any other country right now; especially with the economy the way it is, people may complain about their government, but that doesn't mean they want to get rid of it. Also, the Iranian form of government (theocratic republic) is acceptable to most people in Iran, because they are Muslim but want to have some elements of democracy in their system. I think this makes it more likely that they will demand reform than completely destroy the system. Regarding Iran's relations with the rest of the world; I don't agree with Cam in that the US wants to go to war with Iran. Maybe some radical politicians do, but I think we've realized by now that going to war in the Middle East doesn't always turn out very well. And the opinions of the Iranians probably contrast similarly; Ahmadinejad may want to go to war, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. The problem here has not been directly caused by the people of Iran, the US, or of Israel, but by their governments. Mutual disrespect and distrust left over from the shah's regime have also contributed.
Agreeing with Paige, Hooman Majd seems to have a very personal connection with affairs in Iran, and describes the current events that affect the lives of Iranian citizens with a type of emotion that has generally been absent from other articles that we have read. It is doubtful that there will be any sort of major revolution against the government by Iranian citizens because to these people, revolution does not have much appeal to their needs and desires. Iranians, for the most part, believe in their regime, and right now Iran needs stability more than they need a democracy. Many Iranians are more concerned about their economy more than anything else right now. Majd does make quite a few points about the United States and the UK wishing for a revolution in Iran, but I think that the main idea for this section of the article was that Western influence and criticism has simply triggered an increase in anxiety amongst Iranians in Tehran and throughout the entire country. Unclear intentions by the West involving the topic of nuclear power has only invoked fear in Iranians. Without the constant pressure Iran receives from the West, Iran might be able to properly fix some aspects of their government and their struggling economy, and focus on strengthening their democracy based around the needs of the Iranian people.
I think the article focusses mainly on the view of the Iranian people and their views, not necessarily the views of the government. A point that really stood out for me was when the author, Hooman Majd, said "The result is an uncertainty and nervousness among officials.....in which it has become hard for people to know exactly who is in charge, or even whom to blame for policy gone bad." I think the west tends to assume that, with a theocratic government, the people are in complete agreement with the government. This article brings up at multiple points that the people, especialy the youth, are and have been showing their distain for the goverment.
I also thought it was interesting that the author brought up the point that not all Iranians wholeheartedly love the regieme, but later stated "and most Iranians inside Iran would support the nation-even the regime-should foreign forces initiate aggression against their country." I think these two points show that Iranians are pulled in two directions; in one direction they have strong nationalistic feelings and a history of distrust for the west, but in the other direction they are not completely satisfied with thier own government.
I agree with the author when they say "But virtually none of these Iranians believe that revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable." I dont think the people are looking for a war, or even a full scale revolution. Majd also says "Most Iranians worry about their pocketbooks, and the economy is what they want to see improve more than anything else." I think the people want major improvements in their lives, but not a revolution.
I agree with Jessie's points, especially how the author views the West and their role in trying to essentially encourage a revolution in Iran. However, it seems as if one of the main points that the author makes is that Iran's sense of nationalism is deeply rooted. It does seem that for the most part, there is a strong sense of mistrust among the Iranian people of the West due to their past experiences with them. This has contributed to the idea that "the British themselves were behind the assault" on the British embassy in Tehran. Due to this apparent set-up by the West on the British embassy, "the result is an uncertainty and nervousness among officials, and a kind of political paralysis in which it has become hard for people to know exactly who is in charge, or even whom to blame for policy gone bad". This is what the author thinks the west are attempting to do to spark this revolution. He even claims that "escalating talk of military strikes, promoted by respectable Western and Israeli politicians, analysts, and commentators...raised anxieties in Tehran to a level not witnessed in many years". I do agree with Jessie that if the West was trying to spark such a revolution, it would be unsuccessful, not due to the fact that they support the political system, but because they are united in their general dislike of the West. "But virtually none of these Iranians believe that revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable". His solution, is for the U.S. to essentially back off Iran. "In fact, its what the United States and its allies don't do that might be the key to the issue--and what may also give Iranians looking to effect domestic change some badly needed breathing room".
What I got from this article was that the author, Hooman Majd, was that it did talk about the West, but did not make this topic its central focus. Rather, the West was used as a scapegoat to their problems, such as the tensions surrounding the development of nuclear technology.
I also think that the author had a centralized Iranian view, and he focused on the internal conflicts of Iran. These conflicts are related to the West, especially Britain and the US. The West has created a sense of “general hardship” because of their radical approach to the Iranian nuclear program; as a result, a wave of “uncertainty and nervousness among official” and “a political paralysis in which it has become hard for people to know exactly who is in charge” have formed.
I don’t think this outlook is shared by all Iranians, yet I feel as though the author of this article projected an anti-West, most specifically anti-US, attitude. I do agree that the US should take caution on how much they immerse themselves in Iranian affairs, but I don’t think that they are plotting to do such things as conspire to assassinate all officials of the nuclear scientists.
In saying this, I disagree with Majd’s implications of the US wanting to lay the foundations for a revolution. I think that Iran does need a change, but this change won’t have the same effects unless it is instigated by Iranians themselves. From what I got from the article, I feel as though this ‘revolution’ isn’t going to happen anytime soon. I get the feeling that the Iranians don’t expect much from their government, and they don’t know any better. To them, a theocracy is basically all they’ve known. Also, most are against the west, and so a democracy is pretty much out of the question. There are also many things that need to be done to cause this revolution. Right now, there isn’t a large enough problem (in the eyes of the Iranians, of course) that seeks immense reform. Most importantly, “[very few Iranians] believe that a revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable. Iranians inside Iran recognize that the regime, the Supreme Leadership, and the concept of an Islamic Republic still enjoy some support…Like everywhere else in the world, most Iranians worry about their pocketbooks, and the economy is what they want to see improve more than anything else”. But, according to Majd, a fiscal or economical problem is not one to incite a revolution.
In addition, Hooman Majd concludes his article saying that the US should give Iran “some badly need breathing room”. This would actually prove positive, in the end, because it is allowing for Iran to incite some of its own changes; changes that would work for what they picture as an ideal government. Here, they can seek their own stability rather than receiving pressure from the US to form a democracy. Without Western pressure, I think Iran would do a lot better. I feel this way mostly because it is the Western ego that is hurting Iran, the whole idea of “go for democracy; it’s the best!” It’s crucial to keep in mind that democracy doesn’t always work for everyone, and also that there can be a balance. But, this balance should be sought by Iran, not chosen by the US.
I really enjoyed reading this article because of the author's perspective. Many times when learning about a country articles present you with facts about the country that only scratch the surface, and the reader feels as if they are on the outside looking in. This article really gave you an idea of how it feels to be living in Iran. With how the author referenced Christmas and some Islamic holidays are celabrated in Iran, you were able to make a connection with the culture of the country and better understand the people of Iran. The author does a great job of capturing the feelings of the Iranian people. When talking about the nuclear program and the potential of war, Majd said in the past few people took it seriously but now there is a sence of worry over a possible war. "'You can smell it.'" A local said when talking about the worry of a war. With quotes like these and the style of writing, the author makes you feel as if you really were in Tehran.
The main point of the article seemed to be that whether or not the west is trying to force a revolution on Iran, it is not what the people are looking for. A few protest don't mean they want to turn their whole government upside down. At most the Iranian people are looking for some reform in the government. The pressures from the west and their sanctions are being felt and it is making the country unstable and worried about what is to come in the future in the terms of war. Economically the sanctions are a big problem but it is hard to tell how this is effecting Iran politically. At least for right now. The autbor ends the article by saying, for now Iran is going to continue as it always has and there is no guessing what could come in the future. The thing that may be best for the west to do now is give Iran "some badly needed breathing room" because "nothing the United States or the West can do -- not even war -- will solve the 'Iran problem' to its sattisfaction".
After reading the article "Christmas is no Time for an Iranian Revolution" by Hooman Majd, I came to agree with most of Paige's points. I noticed how Hooman Majd was able to really connect with the people of Iran especially after living there for most of 2011. I thought that the author definitely focused his main ideas on the fact that the West is trying to almost create a revolution in Iran. The author however emphasized the fact that the most of the Iranians did not want any sort of revolution. The Iranians are certainly focused on the economy more than they are on getting nuclear weapons, going to war, or causing a revolution.
I think that one of the main points that the author is trying to get across is that much of the Iranians do not actually like their government, but they do however support their nation. The fact that many Iranians do not necessarily agree with their government does not inquire that anyone wants a revolution or could actually create one. "Neither Ahmadinejad nor the conservatives who oppose him are strong enough to shake up the system, and neither side is so weak that it will completely lose any influence, through elections or otherwise. ". This quote clearly shows the fact that a revolution is not likely to happen.
Like Jessie, I also found it interesting that the British embassy was attacked. I think that this shows another reason why the Iranians are less apt to move to a revolution. By doing this it is clear that many people in Iran strongly disagree with the West and their ideologies. The Iranian people are not going to revolt any time soon into a liberal democracy, especially when they still have a strong hatred towards the West.
Agreeing with Paige and Melissa, it was truly nice to read an article that was written from someone's personal experience, as opposed to someone's drawn conclusions from the outside. For me, the article seemed to show Iran's hope for reform, but not sweeping changes throughout the whole country. The very fact that the article is called "Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution" indicates Iran's willingness to adapt to other people's beliefs. More than anything though, it also demonstrated the wish for Western Involvement to be decreased as much as is possible in a globalized world. The assassinations and general involvement of the West is what is making it so difficult to talk with Iran now when it's truly necessary. If the West lets Iran be, they will be able to draw their own conclusion, but also they may start to loose that deep distrust of the West. One the subject of revolution in Iran, it does not seem very likely. The whole 'Green Movement' did not cause a revolution, and it seems that anything the West does will just force Iran to become more difficult to talk to than it already is. Though theocracy is not OUR kind of government, it does seem to be one that the Iranian people like having. There are principles of democracy in it as well as their own religion, and even in theocracy there is the ability to express one's own thoughts. I also thought one of the comments towards the very end of the article really brought Iran's mentality to light; "A nation that weathered a revolution, and eight-year war with Iraq, and more than 30 years of sanctions and the enmity of the West is not about to crumble, nor to change direction." That really shows for me that no matter what the West does, Iran is Iran and they will always be Iran
After reading the article "Christmas is no time for an Iranian revolution" by Hooman Majd, I came to a couple of conclusions. I agree with when Jessie said the West is trying to cause a revolution in Iran because it seems that with any moment given to instigate internal disagreement, they have. The West keeps trying to form some type of backlash, whether it is the people to the government or the government to the west. The article also gave me the impression that the people while annoyed are fine with their government. They don’t want to uproot everything they have worked for; they just want to update what they have. They resent their government, but they don't want to overthrow it. "Their disdain for their government, it isn't a sign that they are waiting to rise up in revolt, or that they support one or another of the reform or opposition figures. In Tehran it's a sign of their general defiance of authority." Iranians are angry with their government because they can be and they feel they have the right to be. They grumble about inflation and a "strangled economy" (while true) this is what they worry about day to day, if they have money in their pockets. From the article I concluded that the government to the Iranians is outdated and needs to be updated, modernized, And Reformed. Iran doesn’t need or want a revolution they just want be a competing country that isn't old and rusting.
A previously stated in many of the comments, this article gives a view of the Iranian people and how they are effected by the current events as told by an Iranian citizen. One of the most interesting parts of this article for me though was the completely absurd Western view that the Iranian citizens want a revolution or that a revolution is about to happen. Although all citizens are not in love with the current regime, they are still very loyal to their current government. This difference of views can be seen in the very wording of the article. When talking about the Western view he uses the word revolution, and overthrow but when talking about the Iranian view he mainly uses the word reform. The Iranian citizens are very content with their government and despite the fact that some people are unhappy with certain aspects of the government it doesn't mean that they want a complete overhaul of the government, in fact it means quite the opposite. When governing a country there will always be those who want change and the fact that they can voice their opinions and make themselves heard means that the system is actually working, it's when those people are completely ignored that the problems start happening. One example of a major difference of views between the West and the Iranian people is the Green Movement in Iran. The Green Movement was a series of street protests following the 2009 elections that came about in opposition to one of the candidates campaign color. To Iranians this movement is done and over with, and the color green no longer means anything. But in the West the media portrays it as a huge deal and that even the simple act of wearing green in Iran can get you arrested. Based upon this article it is a simple fact that the Iranian citizens are very loyal to the current regime and are at most looking for modern reforms but not a revolution. Also based on the article the disconnection between the Western portrayal of Iran and the actual feelings of the Iranian people is huge and is going to be cause many problems when dealing with Iran in the future.
I disagree with some of you who say that the article was not about the effects of Western interactions with Iran. On the second page of the article, when discussing the recent attack on the British Embassy in Iran, while many believed that the attack was government supported, the author of the piece introduces a concept of his friend’s, who believed that it was the work of the British themselves. While it is unfathomable to believe that the British would target their own embassy, the friend also added that an attack “would validate their actions in sanctioning Iran’s central bank.” Another concept ventured in the article is the nuclear issue that has plagued the nation for some time. This, too, is a “West vs the Rest” issue. Yet again, the author introduces another friend’s insight on the matter, arguing that war is so inevitable they “can smell it.” Western operators are blamed for the recent assassinations of nuclear scientists.
Majd blatently displays a pro-Iran, Western-bashing position. I agree with some that the article displays the belief that they are trying to initiate an Iranian revolution. The west is blamed for supporting opposition groups to Iran, as well as the financial crisis that currently exists in the nation. A western supported revolution would be very difficult to initiate as the west is widely disliked, they are blamed for the atrocities that have shaped Iranian culture, the west is well known for their position against the current regime and the West is only expected to be desiring this for personal gain.
The positions made throughout the article are all made by an Iranian citizen, or by friends of his. So while the West, as said in the article, is desiring a revolution in Iran, the people of the nation are not requesting the same thing. Though they do not trust their government wholeheartedly, they trust the United States far less. The Iranian people, while they are occasionally protesting, only desire a reformation process, not an overthrow of the existing government. The author closes his article stating that they are going to continue living as they are, and let what happens wait another day.
I think this is a very goood article. It presents the situation in Iran from someone that's living it, not some westerner on the news stating his point of view on the situation half a world away. The author presents a first hand account of Iran and its people. They suggest many things about a western role in Iran that they have learned themselves or from Iranian citizens. He discusses the Iranian public's view: that there is no urgency for a revolution that the current government may not be perfect but it is doing enough. They do not like their current relationship with the west but they are not blaming their government or their current regime for it the Iranian people seem the most upset with the western countries themselves. The Iranian people seem fairly happy with how they live and do not appreciate the west intervening and trying to play such a big role in their government and possibly instigating a war in the future. The Iranians do not love their own government by any means but it is tolerable and they accept that. The Iranians do things their own way and they want to continue to do so without anyone telling them to do so and I feel the author did a great job encompassing this.
I personally like that the author is a common person with actual ties to the country rather than an outsider performing some political analysis to figure out how people feel, these are real feelings. The author Hooman Majd helps to convey the image that not everyone is as satisfied as it may seem. The theocracy and democracy are too contradictory to work together perfectly in my opinion and it seems based on the article that people are beginning to choose one or the other.
It seems that while the government may not be perfect, revolution is definitely off the table for this round. The author’s point of view seems to be that the West wants a revolution, but probably won’t be able to rally the support for another. Unfortunately it is much more difficult for us to covertly pass legislation than it is to rally in the streets. It’s hard to keep our desire for democracy to rule over theocracy a secret. According to the author Iran doesn’t want us interfering and want to rule themselves, their way.
Personally I don’t see a war or revolution coming out of this. If it does nothing will be gained by either side. It doesn’t seem worth the resources to invest in something like that when the result may not be what we want. It seems like the best option right now is to let Iran deal with its internal problems and external problems separately and see where it goes.
In my opinion, the author, Hooman Majd, does not focus entirely on the West trying to incite a revolution within Iran, but more on current affairs that are affecting the daily lives of Iranian citizens. Due to her personal connection to Iran, I felt that this article was written genuinely, and wasn't just a retelling do facts, but more of a personal stance that showed us the viewpoint of an Iranian citizen.
Majd mentions frequently how Iranians feel about their government, and from the article, I've come to the conclusion that it is the young people in Iran who tend to be the reformists, who want a change in their government, to modernize and progress with the rest of the world. However, she does say that most of these Iranians are realistic, saying that "virtually none of these Iranians believe that revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable." Although people in Iran want change, they are generally content with their government currently, especially because of their deep religious roots.
I really agree with what Sara said, "Iran is Iran, and they will always be Iran." They have a really strong political culture that has always included strong religious ties, and I think that their theocratic system is the perfect embodiment of their political culture. However, as we discussed in class today, a lot of Iranians are leaning towards the more liberal side of the spectrum. You have to remember that this is by conservative Shiite standards though, and that leaning is issue based. Most people aren't fully conservative or fully reformist/liberal, they commonly switch based on the issue. So, as Sara said, Iran isn't really going to change too much. Their political culture is too strong, and there just simply isn't enough of a push for a liberal democracy.
I really liked how this article offered a different point of view on Iranian politics. Instead of seeing Iran through the mind of a westerner, we got to learn a little about what Iranians themselves think about their government. I liked when the author, Hooman Majd, talked about the Iranian people's opinion of their government. When Majd says: "some simply gave up and are now fatalistacally resigned to a system that they cannot change. They complain loudly, but are inactive otherwise." he explains how most Iranians disagree with their government, but are either too busy, or just don't care enough to do anything about it. Majd explains how this defiance to the government is also apparent in Islamic law, which is enforced by the moral police, because many Iranians "live their lives as if the Islamic restrictions on behavior and style were recommendations rather than absolute law." I think it really shows how Iranians have gradually come to tolerate the Islamic government. The government enforces Islamic code which the people disagree with, but the people just don't care enough to overthrow it. The kind of democratic revolution where western values of freedom of religion and expression would emerge and Iran would miraculously become this great western ally is unreallistic. I would agree with Corrinne, that the article is mainly about how the people don't want to overthrow there government, especially when Majd says: "even considering...thinking that Iranian reformists...would replace the existing system with one more to the liking of the liberal democracies of the West is simply foolish. Predicting the future in Iran is a fool's game, as the country and its people have defied expectations for years." I don't think that the Iranian people are ready to rebel against their government anytime soon. On the subject of politics, they may seem vocal, but when it comes to getting things done, they represent the passive group of citizens who would rather be left out of political affairs.
(Sorry it took so long my router kick the can)On the Article, Christmas is no Time for an Iranian Revolution by Hooman Majd, The author does take the stance that the Western powers, more specifically the United States and Great Britain are trying to spark a revolution in Iran. I do happen to agree with Paige that, I believe that they are trying to reform not revolt.
In the article the author stated, "Neither Ahmadinejad nor the conservatives who oppose him are strong enough to shake up the system, and neither side is so weak that it will completely lose any influence, through elections or otherwise." I feel that the Iranian people don't necessarily like their government officials but they like their country, and with that comes nationalism. I feel that if the United States or UK were to spark anything I believe that the Iranian people would be as mad with their government as they would be at the West.
Also, I agreed with the author when he stated, "nothing the United States or the West can do -- not even war -- will solve the 'Iran problem' to its satisfaction." I believe by treating Iran as such a rouge nation for pursuing something that would give the country a little more it not the best idea. Because it's like telling a little kid no, once you do that they are still likely going to do it out of defiance anyway. I think we should let Iran develop Nuclear power, and if they are developing nuclear weapons, which I highly doubt, they should be allowed to develop those as well.
I found this article to be refreshing in that the point of view actually seemed to come from someone with first-hand knowledge. Furthermore, Hooman Majd appeared to be invested in what he was writing about in "Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution," which made the article that much more interesting to read. On the matter of material, I agree more with what Paige had to say. Although Majd did mention the idea of the West trying to insight an Iranian Revolution, the focus of the article was on the Iranians, not the West. It provided a good look into the lives of everyday people living in Iran, something we have not yet really seen. Before reading this article, I had given little thought to how the global economic crisis has affected the people of Iran. The Green Movement was a large point made in "Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution." It is clear that some of the citizens living in Iran do not approve of the current government system. However, according to Khatami, "the Iranian opposition has no real leader." Because of this, I don't believe their will be a revolution any time soon in Iran. The reformists are not united in what they want, and subsequently will have a difficult time overthrowing the current government. Majd agrees, "even conseidering the widespread regional revolt of 2011 and pressure from outside, thinking that Iranian reformists could or world replace the existing system with one more to the liking of the liberal democracies of the West is simply foolish." Also, it is clear that the Iranian people would unite against the West before turning against their own government. Trying to insight a revolution in Iran is a vacuous route for America or Great Britain to take, because it would create more conflict between the West and Iran, than it would solve.
Although Hooman Majd didn’t like some things about the government, aka the moral police, political paralysis, inflation; however, he seemed to be a nationalist at heart. Majd put many things in perspective for me.
First, “few in Iran believe that the nuclear program is a quest for a Shia bomb to obliterate Israel once and for all.” Second, the Iranian do not want a revolution and that “a currency problem (or perhaps, even a real fiscal problem) will not incite another Iranian revolution.” Third, the people are not as oppressed in society as I had thought; “They (women) wear their jeans and sneakers, and they live their lives as if the Islamic restrictions on behavior and style were recommendations rather than absolute law…” Fourth, Iran is diverse in their opinions, and like in the US, people “complain about rampant inflation, a strangled economy, and general inconvenience on a daily basis.” Foreign countries need to understand that these complaints are not strong enough to start a revolution either.
Western powers such as the United States and Great Britain need to back off from Iran. The Iranian people are going to suffer because of their deficient leaders. As I think of the future, I predict that we might raise a new generation of Iranians that will only remember the west for plaguing poverty and senseless control over their country. If a child doesn’t have a chance to learn at a young age, how do you expect it to act as an adult?
Ultimately what scared me about the article was when Majd said that “…most Iranians inside Iran would support the nation –even the regime—should foreign forces initiate aggression against their country.” I think that the boycott of Iranian oil could be considered aggression, and start just what western powers do not want, another war.
23 comments:
To me it seemed the author, Hooman Majd, took the position that the West, specifically the United States and the United Kingdom, are trying to spark a revolution in Iran. Many of the things Majd said seemed to indicate this, such as when Majd indicates that the West supports Iranian opposition groups thinking that “reformists could or would replace the existing system with one more to the liking of the liberal democracies of the West,” and also that making the lives of the Iranians difficult hasn’t “resulted in their rising up to overthrow the autocratic regime, as some might have hoped in Washington or London.” The West would never come out and say this, but Iranian’s have good reasons to think this. “No one doubts that Israeli and Western operators are behind recent assassinations of nuclear scientists on the streets of Tehran.”
Iranians also blame much of their financial crisis on the United States and the United Kingdom, “confidence that the regime could withstand international financial pressure -- particularly after the British government cut all financial ties with Tehran -- had sunk to an all-time low.” If the goal of the West is to promote a revolution, it will be a very difficult goal. The Iranian people may not all support the political system, but they all dislike the West. Similarly to the position taken by many during the 1979 revolution, most citizens just want independence and to be taken seriously as a country. They have not forgotten what happened in their country while the Westerner’s puppet, the Shah, was in charge. Iran’s previous president, Muhammad Khatami said, “In case of war… we Iranians are all united.” The West will not get the people to turn on their government. Their inability to trust the West seems justified given their history.
I did find it interesting that the British embassy in downtown Tehran was attacked recently. It reminded me of the attack on the United States embassy in Tehran in 1979. That attack and other events of the time sparked the Khomeinei Revolution, when the Theocracy was developed.
I agree with what Majd had to say about predicting Iran’s future, that it “is a fool’s game, as the country and its people have defied expectations for years.” I think that we do not have a clear enough understanding of the religious aspects of the lives’ of the Iranian people to understand how they perceive their government. I do not think that Iran will move towards a liberal democracy any time soon for this reason.
Hooman Majd's article "Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution" was interesting to say the least. I disagree with Jessie's perspective that the article was focused mainly on the West (the United States and Great Britain) and its involvement in Iran. I believe the focus was on the Iran’s process of moving on from the turmoil of the past and the general discontentment the country feels over the “ ‘smell’ of war waft[ing]” over the nation.
Majd was an intriguing writer who immediately infused us with the understanding that he was quite familiar with the country and its political culture. In many of the articles we’ve read, I’ve often had the feeling that the author was disconnected from the topic, not having anything personal to say. With Majd, it was clear that he had been listening to the world around him in Tehran, the heart of the country. By spreading little bits of personal anecdotes throughout, he enlightened me to what a politically diverse country Iran really is today. As we have not quite reached modern day political culture in class (only in our Briefing Paper), Majd’s article serves as first evidence that Iranians are as varied in their political, social, and economic values/beliefs as we Westerners are. I had been under the impression that the country was so entrenched in their religious beliefs that the country had no room for dissent among its citizens, but he claims that there is a “general defiance of authority” among the youth and others in the rural and urban areas. Although many may feel this way, it seems that none are dissatisfied enough to effect real change or stage a revolution – many even maintain hope that the government’s leaders will reform it themselves or don’t care to have a revolution. I remember in Ethel Wood’s book she describes Iranians as believing that they are “Iranians first and Muslims second” which may apply here as the citizens seem to be united by their overall comfort in the government’s care.
The economic crisis is, however, a large part of Iranian lives. Just like in the United Kingdom, China, Russia, Nigeria, and Mexico, “most Iranians worry about their pocketbooks, and the economy is what they want to see improve more than anything else.” Additionally, the Briefing Paper says “the Islamic Republic made social welfare a high priority, viewing it as a precondition for spiritual wellbeing.” (46) Majd does not mention this, but perhaps it is a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, as the youth becomes more disillusioned with the source of the real problems (Majd: the ‘Elizabeth incident’ at the embassy), the government officials are also unsure as to who has the real power behind the scenes. If a country does not know their leader, it is impossible for the international community to know either. This is a source of confusion for many Iranians and Westerners as we attempt to discern who in Iran and the West should be talking now, but aren’t due to Western attempts to isolate the country by “cut[ting] off financial ties with Tehran” and refusing the come to the table in order to negotiate terms of Iran’s nuclear energy program. Which, by the way, most Iranians are convinced is just a benign government program, and I, for one, agree. Majd makes a very good point when he says that perhaps the key point to Iran-Western foreign relations is “what the United States and its allies don’t do… [which] may also give Iranians looking to effect domestic change some badly needed breathing room.”
In this class, I often forget that we’re not dealing with countries as a whole, but rather as hundreds of different aspects (political, economic, and social) that make the country’s populous diverse in nature. They may practice a different religion and have a different structural-functional model to their theocracy, but perhaps the West must be patient with Iran as they are already a semi-democratic state by law.
Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it's laughable to believe an Iranian democracy that the West craves will be built so soon, but I don’t think Iran needs democracy; I think they need stability and the chance to survive on their own.
At the latest Republican debate, the one in Tampa (it is quite probable that yet another debate has gone on, they occur with the frequency of the setting sun...), the foreign policy discussion was dominated by Iran talk. While there was a brief intermission from war-mongering with Ron Paul's declaration that the US has already made an act of war via sanctions (and he's right), the very next question went to Santorum and was phrased as such: “When we bomb Iran, what are your top 10 places to hit?” (exaggerated slightly). War is in the air and “this time, you can smell it.”
I am not an optimist when it comes to America's foreign policy, having grown up in a household that opposed the Iraq war from the very start, having read Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States, and having been a devoted Chomsky-ite for several years. I don't know if y'all were reading newspapers prior to the Iraq war, or have gone back and read the New York Times articles claiming Iraq's possession of WMDs, but there is an astounding similarity to the present dialogue. We've replaced a Q with an N and the Hussein with the much-more-fun-to-say Ahmadinejad. Unless the way we talk about Iran changes drastically, I fear that we will see another war in the Middle East. We'll look back on this article in a few years and smack our heads, the foreshadowing will become so blatantly obvious.
The truth is that we want to go to war with Iran. Or rather, Israel wants to go to war with Iran, and since we give enough money to Israel to call it our own, we do as well. I mean, what did the Mossad agents who assassinated an Iranian scientist dress up like? Answer: the CIA. Israel does not want a regional power that supports Palestine to have the same sort of bargaining chips (nuclear capabilities) that they have. There (our) plan to do this is genius-ly devious. But first: all this talk of sanctions, but what do they entail? What is our ransom?
“The sanctions legislation passed last year demands Iran release all political prisoners and detainees, cease violent repression against peaceful Iranian protesters, conduct a transparent investigation into the killings of Iranian protesters, and make progress toward establishing an independent judiciary. Just in case those conditions are insufficiently implausible, the president must certify further that the Iranian government "has ceased supporting acts of international terrorism." Even if Iran miraculously did this, it is unlikely that the president could certify it.” (This comes from the excellent article 'Stop the Madness' from this week's Foreign Policy: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/01/19/stop_the_madness?page=0,1 )
Now who are these “international terrori[st]” organizations? The PLA and Hamas, two Islamic-Palestinian resistance groups in annexed areas of Israel. But what will force Israel, the US, and the West to talk to Iran, sanctions or no? Nuclear capability. Why should Iran stop its nuclear program if they can get more respect by finishing it? It's especially hypocritical to critique Iran's treatment of protesters in 2009 when the US did much the same to #occupiers this year. As Majd points out, “the United States faces similar [problems]”.
The Iranian protesters in 2009 wanted a revolution about as much as the Tea Partiers, #Occupiers, or London Rioters did. The idea that our sanctions serve to topple the regime is inane. Not only is it ineffective (look at those revolutions in North Korea and Cuba!) but it is blatantly false. The United States supports and trades with much worse regimes (Saudi Arabia anyone?) so long as they do not threaten Israeli dominance.
Iran is going to develop nuclear capability, it is the next logical step from their point of view. We can greet them with open arms, dropping the sanctions and trading with them (making both countries richer) or we can make a powerful enemy through war. As Khatami says “In case of war, we Iranians are all united.”
I think that the article focused more on the fact that Iranians don't want to overthrow their government than on anything else. The West would probably support a revolution, since it doesn't like the current regime, but the Iranian people don't seem to care as much. The author points out that many of them are not very happy with their current leaders (for example, they are turning to Western currency to save themselves from inflation caused by the government) and that there are people who complain about the government. However, this is much the same as the situation in any other country right now; especially with the economy the way it is, people may complain about their government, but that doesn't mean they want to get rid of it. Also, the Iranian form of government (theocratic republic) is acceptable to most people in Iran, because they are Muslim but want to have some elements of democracy in their system. I think this makes it more likely that they will demand reform than completely destroy the system.
Regarding Iran's relations with the rest of the world; I don't agree with Cam in that the US wants to go to war with Iran. Maybe some radical politicians do, but I think we've realized by now that going to war in the Middle East doesn't always turn out very well. And the opinions of the Iranians probably contrast similarly; Ahmadinejad may want to go to war, but that doesn't mean everyone else does. The problem here has not been directly caused by the people of Iran, the US, or of Israel, but by their governments. Mutual disrespect and distrust left over from the shah's regime have also contributed.
Agreeing with Paige, Hooman Majd seems to have a very personal connection with affairs in Iran, and describes the current events that affect the lives of Iranian citizens with a type of emotion that has generally been absent from other articles that we have read.
It is doubtful that there will be any sort of major revolution against the government by Iranian citizens because to these people, revolution does not have much appeal to their needs and desires. Iranians, for the most part, believe in their regime, and right now Iran needs stability more than they need a democracy. Many Iranians are more concerned about their economy more than anything else right now.
Majd does make quite a few points about the United States and the UK wishing for a revolution in Iran, but I think that the main idea for this section of the article was that Western influence and criticism has simply triggered an increase in anxiety amongst Iranians in Tehran and throughout the entire country. Unclear intentions by the West involving the topic of nuclear power has only invoked fear in Iranians. Without the constant pressure Iran receives from the West, Iran might be able to properly fix some aspects of their government and their struggling economy, and focus on strengthening their democracy based around the needs of the Iranian people.
I think the article focusses mainly on the view of the Iranian people and their views, not necessarily the views of the government.
A point that really stood out for me was when the author, Hooman Majd, said "The result is an uncertainty and nervousness among officials.....in which it has become hard for people to know exactly who is in charge, or even whom to blame for policy gone bad." I think the west tends to assume that, with a theocratic government, the people are in complete agreement with the government. This article brings up at multiple points that the people, especialy the youth, are and have been showing their distain for the goverment.
I also thought it was interesting that the author brought up the point that not all Iranians wholeheartedly love the regieme, but later stated "and most Iranians inside Iran would support the nation-even the regime-should foreign forces initiate aggression against their country." I think these two points show that Iranians are pulled in two directions; in one direction they have strong nationalistic feelings and a history of distrust for the west, but in the other direction they are not completely satisfied with thier own government.
I agree with the author when they say "But virtually none of these Iranians believe that revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable." I dont think the people are looking for a war, or even a full scale revolution. Majd also says "Most Iranians worry about their pocketbooks, and the economy is what they want to see improve more than anything else." I think the people want major improvements in their lives, but not a revolution.
I agree with Jessie's points, especially how the author views the West and their role in trying to essentially encourage a revolution in Iran. However, it seems as if one of the main points that the author makes is that Iran's sense of nationalism is deeply rooted. It does seem that for the most part, there is a strong sense of mistrust among the Iranian people of the West due to their past experiences with them. This has contributed to the idea that "the British themselves were behind the assault" on the British embassy in Tehran. Due to this apparent set-up by the West on the British embassy, "the result is an uncertainty and nervousness among officials, and a kind of political paralysis in which it has become hard for people to know exactly who is in charge, or even whom to blame for policy gone bad". This is what the author thinks the west are attempting to do to spark this revolution. He even claims that "escalating talk of military strikes, promoted by respectable Western and Israeli politicians, analysts, and commentators...raised anxieties in Tehran to a level not witnessed in many years". I do agree with Jessie that if the West was trying to spark such a revolution, it would be unsuccessful, not due to the fact that they support the political system, but because they are united in their general dislike of the West. "But virtually none of these Iranians believe that revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable". His solution, is for the U.S. to essentially back off Iran. "In fact, its what the United States and its allies don't do that might be the key to the issue--and what may also give Iranians looking to effect domestic change some badly needed breathing room".
What I got from this article was that the author, Hooman Majd, was that it did talk about the West, but did not make this topic its central focus. Rather, the West was used as a scapegoat to their problems, such as the tensions surrounding the development of nuclear technology.
I also think that the author had a centralized Iranian view, and he focused on the internal conflicts of Iran. These conflicts are related to the West, especially Britain and the US. The West has created a sense of “general hardship” because of their radical approach to the Iranian nuclear program; as a result, a wave of “uncertainty and nervousness among official” and “a political paralysis in which it has become hard for people to know exactly who is in charge” have formed.
I don’t think this outlook is shared by all Iranians, yet I feel as though the author of this article projected an anti-West, most specifically anti-US, attitude. I do agree that the US should take caution on how much they immerse themselves in Iranian affairs, but I don’t think that they are plotting to do such things as conspire to assassinate all officials of the nuclear scientists.
In saying this, I disagree with Majd’s implications of the US wanting to lay the foundations for a revolution. I think that Iran does need a change, but this change won’t have the same effects unless it is instigated by Iranians themselves. From what I got from the article, I feel as though this ‘revolution’ isn’t going to happen anytime soon. I get the feeling that the Iranians don’t expect much from their government, and they don’t know any better. To them, a theocracy is basically all they’ve known. Also, most are against the west, and so a democracy is pretty much out of the question. There are also many things that need to be done to cause this revolution. Right now, there isn’t a large enough problem (in the eyes of the Iranians, of course) that seeks immense reform. Most importantly, “[very few Iranians] believe that a revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable. Iranians inside Iran recognize that the regime, the Supreme Leadership, and the concept of an Islamic Republic still enjoy some support…Like everywhere else in the world, most Iranians worry about their pocketbooks, and the economy is what they want to see improve more than anything else”. But, according to Majd, a fiscal or economical problem is not one to incite a revolution.
In addition, Hooman Majd concludes his article saying that the US should give Iran “some badly need breathing room”. This would actually prove positive, in the end, because it is allowing for Iran to incite some of its own changes; changes that would work for what they picture as an ideal government. Here, they can seek their own stability rather than receiving pressure from the US to form a democracy. Without Western pressure, I think Iran would do a lot better. I feel this way mostly because it is the Western ego that is hurting Iran, the whole idea of “go for democracy; it’s the best!” It’s crucial to keep in mind that democracy doesn’t always work for everyone, and also that there can be a balance. But, this balance should be sought by Iran, not chosen by the US.
I really enjoyed reading this article because of the author's perspective. Many times when learning about a country articles present you with facts about the country that only scratch the surface, and the reader feels as if they are on the outside looking in. This article really gave you an idea of how it feels to be living in Iran. With how the author referenced Christmas and some Islamic holidays are celabrated in Iran, you were able to make a connection with the culture of the country and better understand the people of Iran. The author does a great job of capturing the feelings of the Iranian people. When talking about the nuclear program and the potential of war, Majd said in the past few people took it seriously but now there is a sence of worry over a possible war. "'You can smell it.'" A local said when talking about the worry of a war. With quotes like these and the style of writing, the author makes you feel as if you really were in Tehran.
The main point of the article seemed to be that whether or not the west is trying to force a revolution on Iran, it is not what the people are looking for. A few protest don't mean they want to turn their whole government upside down. At most the Iranian people are looking for some reform in the government. The pressures from the west and their sanctions are being felt and it is making the country unstable and worried about what is to come in the future in the terms of war. Economically the sanctions are a big problem but it is hard to tell how this is effecting Iran politically. At least for right now. The autbor ends the article by saying, for now Iran is going to continue as it always has and there is no guessing what could come in the future. The thing that may be best for the west to do now is give Iran "some badly needed breathing room" because "nothing the United States or the West can do -- not even war -- will solve the 'Iran problem' to its sattisfaction".
After reading the article "Christmas is no Time for an Iranian Revolution" by Hooman Majd, I came to agree with most of Paige's points. I noticed how Hooman Majd was able to really connect with the people of Iran especially after living there for most of 2011. I thought that the author definitely focused his main ideas on the fact that the West is trying to almost create a revolution in Iran. The author however emphasized the fact that the most of the Iranians did not want any sort of revolution. The Iranians are certainly focused on the economy more than they are on getting nuclear weapons, going to war, or causing a revolution.
I think that one of the main points that the author is trying to get across is that much of the Iranians do not actually like their government, but they do however support their nation. The fact that many Iranians do not necessarily agree with their government does not inquire that anyone wants a revolution or could actually create one. "Neither Ahmadinejad nor the conservatives who oppose him are strong enough to shake up the system, and neither side is so weak that it will completely lose any influence, through elections or otherwise. ". This quote clearly shows the fact that a revolution is not likely to happen.
Like Jessie, I also found it interesting that the British embassy was attacked. I think that this shows another reason why the Iranians are less apt to move to a revolution. By doing this it is clear that many people in Iran strongly disagree with the West and their ideologies. The Iranian people are not going to revolt any time soon into a liberal democracy, especially when they still have a strong hatred towards the West.
Agreeing with Paige and Melissa, it was truly nice to read an article that was written from someone's personal experience, as opposed to someone's drawn conclusions from the outside.
For me, the article seemed to show Iran's hope for reform, but not sweeping changes throughout the whole country. The very fact that the article is called "Christmas is No Time for an Iranian Revolution" indicates Iran's willingness to adapt to other people's beliefs. More than anything though, it also demonstrated the wish for Western Involvement to be decreased as much as is possible in a globalized world. The assassinations and general involvement of the West is what is making it so difficult to talk with Iran now when it's truly necessary. If the West lets Iran be, they will be able to draw their own conclusion, but also they may start to loose that deep distrust of the West.
One the subject of revolution in Iran, it does not seem very likely. The whole 'Green Movement' did not cause a revolution, and it seems that anything the West does will just force Iran to become more difficult to talk to than it already is.
Though theocracy is not OUR kind of government, it does seem to be one that the Iranian people like having. There are principles of democracy in it as well as their own religion, and even in theocracy there is the ability to express one's own thoughts.
I also thought one of the comments towards the very end of the article really brought Iran's mentality to light; "A nation that weathered a revolution, and eight-year war with Iraq, and more than 30 years of sanctions and the enmity of the West is not about to crumble, nor to change direction." That really shows for me that no matter what the West does, Iran is Iran and they will always be Iran
After reading the article "Christmas is no time for an Iranian revolution" by Hooman Majd, I came to a couple of conclusions. I agree with when Jessie said the West is trying to cause a revolution in Iran because it seems that with any moment given to instigate internal disagreement, they have. The West keeps trying to form some type of backlash, whether it is the people to the government or the government to the west.
The article also gave me the impression that the people while annoyed are fine with their government. They don’t want to uproot everything they have worked for; they just want to update what they have. They resent their government, but they don't want to overthrow it. "Their disdain for their government, it isn't a sign that they are waiting to rise up in revolt, or that they support one or another of the reform or opposition figures. In Tehran it's a sign of their general defiance of authority." Iranians are angry with their government because they can be and they feel they have the right to be. They grumble about inflation and a "strangled economy" (while true) this is what they worry about day to day, if they have money in their pockets.
From the article I concluded that the government to the Iranians is outdated and needs to be updated, modernized, And Reformed. Iran doesn’t need or want a revolution they just want be a competing country that isn't old and rusting.
A previously stated in many of the comments, this article gives a view of the Iranian people and how they are effected by the current events as told by an Iranian citizen. One of the most interesting parts of this article for me though was the completely absurd Western view that the Iranian citizens want a revolution or that a revolution is about to happen. Although all citizens are not in love with the current regime, they are still very loyal to their current government. This difference of views can be seen in the very wording of the article. When talking about the Western view he uses the word revolution, and overthrow but when talking about the Iranian view he mainly uses the word reform. The Iranian citizens are very content with their government and despite the fact that some people are unhappy with certain aspects of the government it doesn't mean that they want a complete overhaul of the government, in fact it means quite the opposite. When governing a country there will always be those who want change and the fact that they can voice their opinions and make themselves heard means that the system is actually working, it's when those people are completely ignored that the problems start happening. One example of a major difference of views between the West and the Iranian people is the Green Movement in Iran. The Green Movement was a series of street protests following the 2009 elections that came about in opposition to one of the candidates campaign color. To Iranians this movement is done and over with, and the color green no longer means anything. But in the West the media portrays it as a huge deal and that even the simple act of wearing green in Iran can get you arrested. Based upon this article it is a simple fact that the Iranian citizens are very loyal to the current regime and are at most looking for modern reforms but not a revolution. Also based on the article the disconnection between the Western portrayal of Iran and the actual feelings of the Iranian people is huge and is going to be cause many problems when dealing with Iran in the future.
I disagree with some of you who say that the article was not about the effects of Western interactions with Iran. On the second page of the article, when discussing the recent attack on the British Embassy in Iran, while many believed that the attack was government supported, the author of the piece introduces a concept of his friend’s, who believed that it was the work of the British themselves. While it is unfathomable to believe that the British would target their own embassy, the friend also added that an attack “would validate their actions in sanctioning Iran’s central bank.”
Another concept ventured in the article is the nuclear issue that has plagued the nation for some time. This, too, is a “West vs the Rest” issue. Yet again, the author introduces another friend’s insight on the matter, arguing that war is so inevitable they “can smell it.” Western operators are blamed for the recent assassinations of nuclear scientists.
Majd blatently displays a pro-Iran, Western-bashing position. I agree with some that the article displays the belief that they are trying to initiate an Iranian revolution. The west is blamed for supporting opposition groups to Iran, as well as the financial crisis that currently exists in the nation. A western supported revolution would be very difficult to initiate as the west is widely disliked, they are blamed for the atrocities that have shaped Iranian culture, the west is well known for their position against the current regime and the West is only expected to be desiring this for personal gain.
The positions made throughout the article are all made by an Iranian citizen, or by friends of his. So while the West, as said in the article, is desiring a revolution in Iran, the people of the nation are not requesting the same thing. Though they do not trust their government wholeheartedly, they trust the United States far less. The Iranian people, while they are occasionally protesting, only desire a reformation process, not an overthrow of the existing government. The author closes his article stating that they are going to continue living as they are, and let what happens wait another day.
I think this is a very goood article. It presents the situation in Iran from someone that's living it, not some westerner on the news stating his point of view on the situation half a world away. The author presents a first hand account of Iran and its people. They suggest many things about a western role in Iran that they have learned themselves or from Iranian citizens. He discusses the Iranian public's view: that there is no urgency for a revolution that the current government may not be perfect but it is doing enough. They do not like their current relationship with the west but they are not blaming their government or their current regime for it the Iranian people seem the most upset with the western countries themselves. The Iranian people seem fairly happy with how they live and do not appreciate the west intervening and trying to play such a big role in their government and possibly instigating a war in the future. The Iranians do not love their own government by any means but it is tolerable and they accept that. The Iranians do things their own way and they want to continue to do so without anyone telling them to do so and I feel the author did a great job encompassing this.
I personally like that the author is a common person with actual ties to the country rather than an outsider performing some political analysis to figure out how people feel, these are real feelings. The author Hooman Majd helps to convey the image that not everyone is as satisfied as it may seem. The theocracy and democracy are too contradictory to work together perfectly in my opinion and it seems based on the article that people are beginning to choose one or the other.
It seems that while the government may not be perfect, revolution is definitely off the table for this round. The author’s point of view seems to be that the West wants a revolution, but probably won’t be able to rally the support for another. Unfortunately it is much more difficult for us to covertly pass legislation than it is to rally in the streets. It’s hard to keep our desire for democracy to rule over theocracy a secret. According to the author Iran doesn’t want us interfering and want to rule themselves, their way.
Personally I don’t see a war or revolution coming out of this. If it does nothing will be gained by either side. It doesn’t seem worth the resources to invest in something like that when the result may not be what we want. It seems like the best option right now is to let Iran deal with its internal problems and external problems separately and see where it goes.
In my opinion, the author, Hooman Majd, does not focus entirely on the West trying to incite a revolution within Iran, but more on current affairs that are affecting the daily lives of Iranian citizens. Due to her personal connection to Iran, I felt that this article was written genuinely, and wasn't just a retelling do facts, but more of a personal stance that showed us the viewpoint of an Iranian citizen.
Majd mentions frequently how Iranians feel about their government, and from the article, I've come to the conclusion that it is the young people in Iran who tend to be the reformists, who want a change in their government, to modernize and progress with the rest of the world. However, she does say that most of these Iranians are realistic, saying that "virtually none of these Iranians believe that revolution is imminent, or, for that matter, even desirable." Although people in Iran want change, they are generally content with their government currently, especially because of their deep religious roots.
I really agree with what Sara said, "Iran is Iran, and they will always be Iran." They have a really strong political culture that has always included strong religious ties, and I think that their theocratic system is the perfect embodiment of their political culture. However, as we discussed in class today, a lot of Iranians are leaning towards the more liberal side of the spectrum. You have to remember that this is by conservative Shiite standards though, and that leaning is issue based. Most people aren't fully conservative or fully reformist/liberal, they commonly switch based on the issue. So, as Sara said, Iran isn't really going to change too much. Their political culture is too strong, and there just simply isn't enough of a push for a liberal democracy.
I really liked how this article offered a different point of view on Iranian politics. Instead of seeing Iran through the mind of a westerner, we got to learn a little about what Iranians themselves think about their government. I liked when the author, Hooman Majd, talked about the Iranian people's opinion of their government. When Majd says: "some simply gave up and are now fatalistacally resigned to a system that they cannot change. They complain loudly, but are inactive otherwise." he explains how most Iranians disagree with their government, but are either too busy, or just don't care enough to do anything about it. Majd explains how this defiance to the government is also apparent in Islamic law, which is enforced by the moral police, because many Iranians "live their lives as if the Islamic restrictions on behavior and style were recommendations rather than absolute law." I think it really shows how Iranians have gradually come to tolerate the Islamic government. The government enforces Islamic code which the people disagree with, but the people just don't care enough to overthrow it. The kind of democratic revolution where western values of freedom of religion and expression would emerge and Iran would miraculously become this great western ally is unreallistic. I would agree with Corrinne, that the article is mainly about how the people don't want to overthrow there government, especially when Majd says: "even considering...thinking that Iranian reformists...would replace the existing system with one more to the liking of the liberal democracies of the West is simply foolish. Predicting the future in Iran is a fool's game, as the country and its people have defied expectations for years." I don't think that the Iranian people are ready to rebel against their government anytime soon. On the subject of politics, they may seem vocal, but when it comes to getting things done, they represent the passive group of citizens who would rather be left out of political affairs.
(Sorry it took so long my router kick the can)On the Article, Christmas is no Time for an Iranian Revolution by Hooman Majd, The author does take the stance that the Western powers, more specifically the United States and Great Britain are trying to spark a revolution in Iran. I do happen to agree with Paige that, I believe that they are trying to reform not revolt.
In the article the author stated, "Neither Ahmadinejad nor the conservatives who oppose him are strong enough to shake up the system, and neither side is so weak that it will completely lose any influence, through elections or otherwise." I feel that the Iranian people don't necessarily like their government officials but they like their country, and with that comes nationalism. I feel that if the United States or UK were to spark anything I believe that the Iranian people would be as mad with their government as they would be at the West.
Also, I agreed with the author when he stated, "nothing the United States or the West can do -- not even war -- will solve the 'Iran problem' to its satisfaction." I believe by treating Iran as such a rouge nation for pursuing something that would give the country a little more it not the best idea. Because it's like telling a little kid no, once you do that they are still likely going to do it out of defiance anyway. I think we should let Iran develop Nuclear power, and if they are developing nuclear weapons, which I highly doubt, they should be allowed to develop those as well.
I found this article to be refreshing in that the point of view actually seemed
to come from someone with first-hand knowledge. Furthermore, Hooman Majd
appeared to be invested in what he was writing about in "Christmas is No Time
for an Iranian Revolution," which made the article that much more interesting to
read.
On the matter of material, I agree more with what Paige had to say. Although
Majd did mention the idea of the West trying to insight an Iranian Revolution,
the focus of the article was on the Iranians, not the West. It provided a good
look into the lives of everyday people living in Iran, something we have not yet
really seen. Before reading this article, I had given little thought to how the
global economic crisis has affected the people of Iran.
The Green Movement was a large point made in "Christmas is No Time for an
Iranian Revolution." It is clear that some of the citizens living in Iran do not
approve of the current government system. However, according to Khatami, "the
Iranian opposition has no real leader." Because of this, I don't believe their
will be a revolution any time soon in Iran. The reformists are not united in
what they want, and subsequently will have a difficult time overthrowing the
current government. Majd agrees, "even conseidering the widespread regional
revolt of 2011 and pressure from outside, thinking that Iranian reformists could
or world replace the existing system with one more to the liking of the liberal
democracies of the West is simply foolish." Also, it is clear that the Iranian
people would unite against the West before turning against their own government.
Trying to insight a revolution in Iran is a vacuous route for America or Great
Britain to take, because it would create more conflict between the West and
Iran, than it would solve.
Although Hooman Majd didn’t like some things about the government, aka the moral police, political paralysis, inflation; however, he seemed to be a nationalist at heart. Majd put many things in perspective for me.
First, “few in Iran believe that the nuclear program is a quest for a Shia bomb to obliterate Israel once and for all.” Second, the Iranian do not want a revolution and that “a currency problem (or perhaps, even a real fiscal problem) will not incite another Iranian revolution.” Third, the people are not as oppressed in society as I had thought; “They (women) wear their jeans and sneakers, and they live their lives as if the Islamic restrictions on behavior and style were recommendations rather than absolute law…” Fourth, Iran is diverse in their opinions, and like in the US, people “complain about rampant inflation, a strangled economy, and general inconvenience on a daily basis.” Foreign countries need to understand that these complaints are not strong enough to start a revolution either.
Western powers such as the United States and Great Britain need to back off from Iran. The Iranian people are going to suffer because of their deficient leaders. As I think of the future, I predict that we might raise a new generation of Iranians that will only remember the west for plaguing poverty and senseless control over their country. If a child doesn’t have a chance to learn at a young age, how do you expect it to act as an adult?
Ultimately what scared me about the article was when Majd said that “…most Iranians inside Iran would support the nation –even the regime—should foreign forces initiate aggression against their country.” I think that the boycott of Iranian oil could be considered aggression, and start just what western powers do not want, another war.
Post a Comment