Friday, January 05, 2007

Is The Supreme Ayatollah Of Iran Dead?

Rumors are circulating, but there has not been a lot of media coverage, nor has there been much speculation. (Hat tip to Greg)

Here is some information (and other links) from Regime Change Iran.

While on the subject of Iran, AC at Fore Left has a piece here that is certainly worth a look, followed by some thought.

Iran knows we have troops on both sides of them. It should come as no surprise that a stable Iraq and Afghanistan is not in the best interests of this present regime. So equally, it should come as no surprise that they have been trying to subvert the cause in its neighbors, almost from day one.

Now that Iranian elections did not go the way its president would have preferred, there might be some measure of instability for the government to deal with, if Khamenei is in fact dead, or near death.

12 comments:

Greg said...

In the great tradition of all totalitarian regimes, the Iranian government thinks it can distract its people from their misery by inventing external enemies and conflicts. Let's hope the death of the ayatollah, if true, moves the focus of those loonies away from ruining Iraq.

BTW, I read a great article that outlines what we are "secretly" (I know, with today's press there is no such thing as a gov't secret) doing to thwart the oppressive iranian regime. This is exactly what we should be doing!

Greg said...

If embedded links aren't allowed here, here's the link to copy and paste in your browser....

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2007/01/02/us_unit_works_quietly_to_counter_irans_sway/

LASunsett said...

Greg,

The link got cut off. Can you Tiny URL it?

superfrenchie said...

Greg: //In the great tradition of all totalitarian regimes, the Iranian government thinks it can distract its people from their misery by inventing external enemies and conflicts.//

That's a funny one. I don't know if it has to do with distracting from misery or simply because it's easier to keep power when you have enemies, but I certainly know of another regime that's been inventing itself external enemies and conflicts...

ms. miami said...

(I certainly know of another regime that's been inventing itself external enemies and conflicts... )

sf-

have you happened to see "the good shepherd"? there is a good scene regarding precisely this point.

p.s.- happy new year, la! congrats on the new blog- will stop by when i can.

LASunsett said...

SF,

//I don't know if it has to do with distracting from misery or simply because it's easier to keep power when you have enemies, but I certainly know of another regime that's been inventing itself external enemies and conflicts...//

Assuming that you mean the Bush regime, there are some things to consider before making the argument you are making here.

1. You have to assume that the U.S. was in misery, similar to that of the Iranian misery that Greg refers to. As I recall, except for a recession that began under the Clinton administration, we were not in misery. In spite of the recession, I cannot see how the average American was in that much misery.

2. You must assume that Bush took us to war to distract us from that so-called misery. WMDs were the main reason we went to war. And although none have been found in numbers that were believed to have existed, it still does not constitute the level of misery you imply. While our unemployment rate may have been elevated at the time of the US invasion, it was nowhere near the rate of Iran's current crisis. Iran is in an economic mess, mainly because the oil revenues go to groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Shiite militias in Iraq.

3. Even if all of this was the case, keeping power in this country (as opposed to Iran) is predicated on winning re-election. In the case of any US President, that can only happen once after he has been elected. So Bush did not need to worry about keeping power indefinitely, he can't due to term-limits.

4. You must assume that the enemies that you claim the Bush administration has invented were not enemies before he took office. But in reality, many of our present day enemies were enemies before he took power. Iran since 1979, Iraq since 1990, and AQ since the first gulf war.

In summary, I would say that when making comparisons, one should be careful not to confuse comparisons, with contrasts. In other words, compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. ;)

LASunsett said...

//p.s.- happy new year, la! congrats on the new blog- will stop by when i can.//

Why thank you MsM. Please do. Happy New Year to you too. :)

JPH said...

No it is not their interest because ...you ( we) are damned christians. But I think in Iran they try to resolve their domestic problems with a supposed challenge coming from occident. The nuclear crisis is, in fact, a domestic problem. The famous mantra : when something's wrong at home, try to find a foreign ennemy , patriotism will save our ass.

Anonymous said...

" ... recession that started under the Clinton Administration"? Here are the quarterly GDP growth rate (in real terms, i.e. chained 200 dollars)-- Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis

http://bea.gov/bea/dn/gdpchg.xls


Clinton 2nd term:

1996q1 2.9
1996q2 6.7
1996q3 3.4
1996q4 4.8
1997q1 3.1
1997q2 6.2
1997q3 5.1
1997q4 3.0
1998q1 4.5
1998q2 2.7
1998q3 4.7
1998q4 6.2
1999q1 3.4
1999q2 3.4
1999q3 4.8
1999q4 7.3
See any recession here? GDP growth was greater than average during Clinton's second term.

Enters Bush:
2000q1 1.0
2000q2 6.4
2000q3 -0.5
2000q4 2.1
2001q1 -0.5
2001q2 1.2
2001q3 -1.4
2001q4 1.6
2002q1 2.7
2002q2 2.2
2002q3 2.4
2002q4 0.2
2003q1 1.2
2003q2 3.5
2003q3 7.5
2003q4 2.7
2004q1 3.9
2004q2 4.0
2004q3 3.1
2004q4 2.6
2005q1 3.4
2005q2 3.3
2005q3 4.2
2005q4 1.8
2006q1 5.6
2006q2 2.6
2006q3 2.0

Anonymous said...

The alleged death of the Supreme Ayatollah comes from a "source close to Pajamas Media, i.e., the tight-wing nuttosphere. Not exactly credible, I would say...

Greg said...

I have some responses to S-F's comment as well:

(1) I sometimes forget that the the World Left, as I call it, denies even that there is a conflict with al Qaeda worth fighting. And denies that Saddam Hussein was not only a real enemy of the US but of the entire international community.

(2) I also sometimes forget that the World Left thinks there is no moral difference b/w the Soviet Union, totalitarian Iran, and the US of today. Or that the US is worse that the other two.

Had I remembered 1 & 2 when writing my original post, I would have reworded it to make clear that the World Left is completely ignorant on those points and blinded by their dangerous ideology. Thank God they don't run this country and that our lefties, while sometimes laughable, aren't quite that dangerous.

And I'd also point out that if I constantly compared la France to totalitarian regimes, I'd be labeled a french-basher.

Maybe I should just continually beat a drum of "France and the Europeans would rather stick their heads in the sand than address serious problems that require hard work and sacrifice." If only I could bring myself to be so childish and simplistic in my arguments.

Here's my article in tiny url.
http://tinyurl.com/yf8zjn

Yes, Iran's nuclear program is a grave threat that needs addressing beyond discussions over expensive meals in Paris.

LASunsett said...

Anonymous,

You argument has one major fundamental flaw.

Bush did not take office until 2001. The 2000 numbers cannot apply to him as he was running for President. So kindly remove them from the Bush columns and put them under the Clinton column.

Now do you see any recession, there?