A flock of Seagulls and The Green Revolution.

Iran. (So far away)

If you have managed to avoid any sort of credible news outlet in the last week, you may not know there's some upheaval in Iran. Then again, if you're a major America Media Outlet, you probably did miss it.

So here is the background:

Blah blah ancient history blah blah 1921 Reza Khan (not the star trek guy) overthrows the Qajar Dynasty and becomes Shah. Reza attempts to stop Soviet and British influence in Iran. Here comes world war deuce. Standby, because Reza is starting to get friendly with perennial bad guy Hitler and company. The Soviets and Britain invade Iran and dipose Reza in 1941. They replace Reza Khan - Shah with his son, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.

In addition to the new Shah was an elected Prime Minister, Mohammed Mossadegh. He is a very popular man in 1951 and essentially controls the nations oil. That makes the US and allies pretty nervous. So in 2003 George Bush authorizes the invasion of... oh wait. What I meant to say was in 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower gives the green light to run something called Operation Ajax. The CIA and company essentially run a private coup and Mossadegh is hooked up. A new pro-Western guy gets the PM gig. His name is Fazlollah Zahedi .

Zahedi doesn't get to do much though because the Shah takes on more and more power. The country begins to modernize with western support. The shah also suppresses opposition with his security and intelligence forces.

Enter Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Khomeini is not a fan of the Government or its actions. Khomeini criticizes the Shah and company. In 1964 Khomeini gets arrested, does 18 months in an Iranian prison and then is exiled. The exile world tour included Turkey, Iraq, and France. While on tour, he continues to say not-so-nice things about the Shah and the pro-Western government.

This is where it gets good. Or not so good.

Starting in early 1978 there are protests, civil disobedience, strikes, and mayhem. The economy falls apart. The Shah sees the writing on the wall and beats feet. In January 1979 Khomeini starts the Islamic Revolution Reunion Tour with a sold out show in Tehran. The military says they don't know nuthin bout birthing no babies and won't get involved to stop the Ayatollah.

April 1st 1979, the Iranian people approve a national referendum to make Iran an Islamic Republic with a theocratic constitution.

So what exactly is the structure of the Iranian Government? Imagine the southern baptist convention with suicide bombers. Ok, its somewhat a modern democracy within an Islamic theocracy.

At the top is the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah. He is the highest ranking religious and political bearded guy in the country. He gets to pick the chiefs of the military, highest ranking judges, and 6 of the 12 members of something called the Guardian Council.

The supreme leader is picked by an 86 member body called the Council of Experts.

There is an elected President. Currently, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds that job. He was elected in 2005. He reports to the Supreme Leader and is responsible for the management of the country and acts as the executive of the country. He also gets to appoint his cabinet which must be approved by an elected Parliament.

Back to the Guardian Council and its 12 members. Remember the Supreme Leader gets to appoint half of the Council. The other half is chosen by the Parliament. The Guardian Council can veto anything the Parliament has to say or do. They also get to approve anyone who runs for office.

The Parliament (Maljis) consists of 290 elected seats elected by popular vote. Of course, it's a popular vote of those who survive the Guardian Council's approval process.

Right now, the Guardian Council and Maljis are controlled by conservatives. As late as 2001 the Parliament was a little more reform minded.

Back to the present and enter Mir Hossein Mousavi. He's selling himself as the Reformer. Ranting against much of the current political system. Interesting. Ask Azar Nafisi about it. You see, during the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Mousavi became Prime Minister and implemented many of the repressive measures he now denounces. Nafisi was a University Professor at an Institution Mousavi shut down.

There was an election held on June 12th. The "official" results show Ahmadinejad getting 62 percent while Mousavi held about 34 percent. The truth of the matter, or at least the less dishonest versions that are somewhat independent, actually believe Ahmadinejad legitimately won the election. Just by a smaller margin.

So why the protests? I'm still sorting that one out in my mind. Not so much why, but for what. The why is because they are upset they lost the election. Add to that, those in power made it look as though they lost by more. A legitimate recount would likely end up with the same outcome but closer race. Do the current actions of the establishment strike such a chord in the hearts of the Iranian people that a new election would provide for a different outcome?

What about the US? We've thrown one coup party in Iran and they didn't even have a fledgling nuke program at that time. Probably because Donald Rumsfeld was right when on 02/12/02 he said:

There are known knowns. There are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we do not know we don’t know.

The last thing the United States wants right now is an unstable, potentially nuclear armed Iran on the border of Iraq. You see, Ahmadinejad is a known known. Mousavi is either a known unknown or unknown known. This is completely different from a known gnome.

There is an interesting story being published on Fark and Google sites using Twitter services to get updates from Tehran and the protests. Take it for what it's worth, but perhaps worth reading. The writer asserts a call to prayer on Friday may be a big show down. The writer also claims approximately 5000 Hizbollah (Army of God) Fighters are running around dressed as Riot Police ready to do some dirty work.

If you're interested in finding out more about this debacle check out the sources I used:

http://www.voanews.com/english/
http://english.aljazeera.net/
http://www.stratfor.com/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/
http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.spiegel.de/international/
http://english.pravda.ru/
http://www.lemonde.fr/
http://www.csmonitor.com/
http://www.npr.org/
http://www.ap.org/
http://www.globalsecurity.org/
http://www.mir-hosseinmousavi.com/

Some scenarios

Scenario 1.

You walk into the local diner with some friends. You invited more but only a few came. You told your friends you had a coupon for a free meal for all. The food is okay. The service is somewhat lacking. You start looking through your wallet for that coupon.

The problem is you don't have that coupon. You knew that going in there. In fact, you're not sure you ever had it. Other patrons are staring and pointing fingers. Perhaps you thought your friend who is a waitress might help you out.

Slowly, your friends start to realise you don't have that coupon or any money whatsoever. Those friends begin to slip out the door. Now you're wondering if you should do the same.

Scenario 2.

You're a younger, suave, male with great aspirations and noble ideals. You befriend a stunning young lady who trusts you without question. You mistake infatuation for love. She lives in an abusive home and was looking for security. You tell her you will always be there for her and this is the ultimate act to express that love.

As in all "After-School-Specials" you fail to wear the appropriate protective gear. That stunning young lady is now carrying a child. Her parents reject her along with her friends and peers. She wants to keep the baby and she wants your help.

You expected a quick, enjoyable, relationship. Now everyone is telling you to run.

Scenario 3

You're a surgeon who has begun a heart transplant. Admittedly, the heart had problems. It was causing the lungs to work more than they should. Instead, you (the surgeon) tell the patient the heart has to be replaced because the brain-heart widget is broken. Being wondrous studies of anatomy and physiology, we know there is no brain-heart widget. However, the patient is on the table, you have removed the heart, and Oh? Did I mention we don't have a donor?

The point.

In each situation you have done something you perhaps should not have done. You are responsible for the situation, if not fully, at least in part. You made the mess. You clean it up.

Just because you may have created the mess under less than honorable motives, it does not absolve you of your responsibilities.

That said, make WMD the coupon. Iraq the diner. Iraq the poor girl and stability and sovereignty the child. Or, lastly, Iraq is the patient.

Many activists are calling for the withdrawal of US forces from Iraq because the pretense for the invasion is lacking in veracity at a minimum.

Well too bad. You've eaten the meal, the young lady is expecting, and you better find a suitable heart.

The withdrawal of forces from Iraq will not rectify any injustice incurred. Certainly, it will only amplify the problem. It is naive to think such a withdrawal will improve the situation. In a politically unstable region such as the middle east where human rights violations abound, such a withdrawal would lead to greater chaos. Chaos which undoubtedly would lead to a larger theater war destined to re-draw the US military into a larger and likely more distasteful engagement.

Perhaps the conflict is about oil. Fair enough. Get off your high horse... Scratch that. Get on your high horse and stop driving yourself to work. Stop running your PC 24/7 and using up power generated from fossil fuels. It is easy to take the road of nobility when you don't have to be accountable for your personal actions.

Anyone who purports to believe a complete and unilateral withdrawal from Iraq would improve the situation needs to lay off the psychoactives. The world is a shitty place. Yes, hindsight clearly shows there are better routes. Guess what though? You can't go back. It's done.

It is incredibly irresponsible and immoral not to clean up this mess.