15 jun. 2009

Neither Real Nor Free

In Iran life is like in heaven: opposition is not allowed.

A The New York Times' op-ed named the real consequences of the fraudulent elections in Iran:
If the election were truly “real and free” as Mr. Ahmadinejad insisted, the results would be accepted by the voters and the government would not have to resort to such repression.
After four years of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s failed economic policies and ceaseless confrontations with the West, many of Iran’s voters clearly were yearning for a change. Mr. Moussavi promised that change; he also promised greater personal freedoms, including for women. If Tehran refuses to recognize that yearning or respect the will of its people — most of whom are too young to remember the 1979 Islamic revolution — the government will lose even more legitimacy.
The mullahs have had a tight lock on Iran up to now. But they should not forget what happened when the shah lost his people’s trust.
The elections are another potent reminder that there can be no illusions about Iran’s government and its malign intent. That is a hard political fact.
Iran’s centrifuges are still spinning and its nuclear program is advancing at an alarming rate. That is an even harder scientific fact.
We know that some in this country and in Israel will say that this election is proof that there can be no dealing with Iran and that military action is the only choice. The last thing the United States or Israel needs is another war with a Muslim state. An attack would only feed Iran’s nuclear ambitions and spur it to take even greater efforts to hide its program.
The only choice is negotiations backed by credible incentives and tough sanctions. Even if the mullahs had allowed Mr. Moussavi to win, that would still be true.

Also on My blog Pointer's Weekly I added:
It does not effect the vision of other countries on the Islamic Republic, which is in fact a theocratic led version of communism with all the commonly known poor economic performance. All larger businesses are owned by the state. It does not need enemies to break down at last. Inflation is high and poverty is growing, making the people the more dependent from the government, until the entry of starvation is reached. Oppression absorbs a large amount of the countries resources and the resistance can only become stronger and better organized, while a weaker dictatorship will seem more threatening with its dangerous pretensions. In fact the system is already heavy on the defense.
I’m not sure that a victory of Mir Hussein Moussavi, who’s idea of reform is moderate improvements of daily life and economic repairs by better foreign relations, should have done much on the system of the Islamic Republic and now we can aspect that the resistance will become more radical, making the real change to a more different system at the end of the day.
The best strategy in my opinion will be to isolate the system, cutting down their activities abroad, without interfering in the domestic policies by force or conspiracies. By then we will see it again: Democracy is a self-help organization.