The U.S. has had a long history of interfering with Iran. The U.S. help overthrow a democratically elected prime minister and put a puppet leader in called the Shaw. (Yeah, I know it sounds very much like what the U.S. did in Chile in 1973.) Then you have Ronald Reagan playing both sides against the middle in the Iran-Contra affair and blamed it all on Jimmy Carter. Then you have George W. Bush with his cowboy diplomacy referring to Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" and then people wonder why Iran has anti-American feelings. The best way for the U.S. to handle this situation is exactly what we are doing-NOTHING!!! Let the Iranians figure out what is best for Iran. Then when the dust settles, we should open diplomatic discussions. Iran could be the U.S.'s greatest ally in the Middle East if the U.S. would recognize the fact that Iran is a sovereign nation and is an equal not a subordinate to the U.S. 



Cat 

The U.S. has had a long history of interfering with Iran. The U.S. help overthrow a democratically elected prime minister and put a puppet leader in called the Shaw. (Yeah, I know it sounds very much like what the U.S. did in Chile in 1973.) Then you have Ronald Reagan playing both sides against the middle in the Iran-Contra affair and blamed it all on Jimmy Carter. Then you have George W. Bush with his cowboy diplomacy referring to Iran as part of the "Axis of Evil" and then people wonder why Iran has anti-American feelings. The best way for the U.S. to handle this situation is exactly what we are doing-NOTHING!!! Let the Iranians figure out what is best for Iran. Then when the dust settles, we should open diplomatic discussions. Iran could be the U.S.'s greatest ally in the Middle East if the U.S. would recognize the fact that Iran is a sovereign nation and is an equal not a subordinate to the U.S. 

Cat   


Well the least that the US of A could do is to give the opposition forces some hot-copper bombs that they can use to attack Republican Guard armor, and give them a few RPG's to fling at the militias.

You know, same thing the Iranian government did to us.

Well the least that the US of A could do is to give the opposition forces some hot-copper bombs that they can use to attack Republican Guard armor, and give them a few RPG's to fling at the militias.

You know, same thing the Iranian government did to us.


I don't know about that...  Mousavi could end up worse than Ahmadinejad.

I don't know about that...  Mousavi could end up worse than Ahmadinejad.
worse than hack-on-my-dinner-jacket? surely not!

The Iranians gotta work this out for themselves.  I know its messy and ugly and scary and all, but if the U.S. gets involved, problems will multiply.  On top of that, the aggrieved faction will blame America for the next sixty years. 

I just hope there's no saber-rattling against Israel; that'll pressure the U.S. to stick its nose in where it don't belong!

::)

Late updates from the weekend, now that I'm finally caught up:

It's official:  The dinnerjacket not only sucks at Photoshop, he sucks at election fraud.

It's fake:  The one about the pregnant woman who got shot in the belly, with predictable photographic evidence.  The picture wasn't 'shopped, but it was from a year or so ago and from a different war. 

It's real:  What was real on Saturday was another woman who got shot.  If you haven't heard about her already, you will hear (if you haven't already) about her tomorrow.  Her name was Neda, and she went viral within hours of her death.  Normally, these kinds of stories were the ones that filtered out days/weeks after the dust had settled.  That doesn't work anymore.  It's on the 'net within minutes, it's distributed widely a few minutes later, and the rest is viral history.

It's viral: How viral?  Viral enough that everyone from Daily Kos to Michelle Malkin were in agreement.  Viral enough that Time picked up on it.  Viral enough that even the execrable CNN (whose Saturday observation, upon airing a blurred-out version of the video, used the words "Appears to have been seriously injured" -- an understatement comparable with describing a sucking chest wound as "nature's way of telling you to slow down") somehow found a testicle and aired the uncensored version.

Viral enough that she may turn out to be this generation's Tank Guy, aka "That dude at Tienanmen Square".  At least Tank Guy knew what he was facing down.  By most accounts, Neda was just standing there with her father, a kilometer away from the protests, when a nearby sniper took her out.  Which makes her different.

And she is different from Cro-Magnon man
She's different from Anne Boleyn
She is different from the Rosenbergs
And from the unknown Jew
She is different from the unknown Nicaraguan
Half superstar half victim
She's a victor star conceptually new
And she is different from the Dodo
And from the Kankabono
She is different from the Aztec
And from the Cherokee
She's everybody's sister
She's symbolic of our failure
She's the one in fifty million
Who can help us to be free
Because she died on Youtube
  - With apologies to Roger Waters

Neda's someone you need to see, even though you'll wish you hadn't.  Nobody's 100% sure if that's her real name, although it's audible in the screaming.  There are two videos.  Nuff said.

It's random::  No tanks in the streets; all of those rumors were bogus.  Nobody figured out what was being dropped from helicopters.  The Basiji suck at working water cannons.  Yeah, that might have been Basiji's theran HQ that got blowed up real good this morning on BBC.  140 characters is a novel when you're being shot at.  If Gulf War 2 made us all into armchair generals, the Green Revolution is making us all into armchair intelligence analysts, and it's made everybody in Iran under age 30 into into equally-inexperienced field agents. 

It's too late:  Sunday saw...

1) The mainstream media finally waking up to the fact that this is now about more than merely the results of the election... even though most of their reporters have, by now, been expelled.

2) (One of the moderate Grand Ayatollahs) Montazeri backing the protestors and essentially questioning (current "Supreme Leader") Khameni's legitimacy.  That schism could break the regime.

3) The Governing Council admitting to a 3-million-vote irregularity, and to 50+ cities with greater-than-100% voter turnout.  Which is less fraud than originally suspected, but that's not saying much.  I presume their hope is that if they throw the (President) Dinnerjacket under the bus and call for a revote (or better for them, a recount, and hope that nobody remembers the ballot boxes that were burned), they can save their position. This is understandably coming across as the Worst. Damage. Control. Ever. 

4) Generalized and decentralized calls for a silent protest - driving with one's lights on - for Monday, and a general strike, starting Tuesday. 

Current situation reports can be had by reading the first page or so of the latest thread Fark thread (currently Thread 38, soon to go to 39) or via the message boards hosted by Anonymous.  (NiteOwl's nightly Green Briefs, plus the first 50-100 pages of whatever the latest Fark thread is, plus the various Twitter feeds of people who have been found to be credible, should keep you at least 6-12 hours ahead of the mainstream media.)

Finally, something uplifting:  Zeroes and Ones.

Looks like a serious split among the clerics.  Seems Raftsamjohnnie's family was detained so as to get him to keep his mouth shut.

Looks like a serious split among the clerics.  Seems Raftsamjohnnie's family was detained so as to get him to keep his mouth shut.


That's the odd part.  Rafsanjani (sp?) pretty much was already keeping his mouth shut, at least in public.

Maybe he was serving as an agent provocateur behind the scenes.  :-\\

Seems like it is time for the Iranian people to do what people in their area of the world do best... mount a gueriulla insurgency to take out any form of organized government, corrupt or not.

Of course the problem is that none of the insurgents in the surrounding Muslim countries fight for "freedom", instead they fight for subjugation.  So none of those guy will be helping Mousavi's folks in this battle.

Although... I do not imagine that Mousavi has a very big probblem with subjugating his fellow Iranians either.  As long as he, of course, is the one doing the subjugation.  ::)

I love how even the Iranian Press can't keep it's story straight.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98746&sectionid=351020101

In the above article, it states how "Armed Vandals" attacked the terrorists protesting the rightfull Government, and that things have been quiet since Saturday.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98770&sectionid=351020101

Yet here they say they are going to let loose the Revolutionary Guard if they continue to riot.

Then there are the reports that the police did not shoot the protestors, and that only 13 are dead.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=98732&sectionid=351020101

What happened to the 20 they keep talking about to the rest of the world?

I have to admit, I love reading PressTV.  It takes me back to my youth, listening to Radio Moscow on the shortwave.   8)

Seems like it is time for the Iranian people to do what people in their area of the world do best... mount a gueriulla insurgency to take out any form of organized government, corrupt or not.


Yes, yes, I dare say, when we ran that country it worked!  You can't let the bloody wogs have a go at it!

--Colonel Blimp

Yes, yes, I dare say, when we ran that country it worked!  You can't let the bloody wogs have a go at it!

--Colonel Blimp

Before we interfered in Iran, it worked.. but that wasn't what the Western governments of the day wanted, so we installed a puppet Shah and screwed their country for them.

The very worst thing we (that is, UK/US/EU and the like) can do now is interfere.  At least Obama's got that bit right (whatever some of the pundits over there seem to be saying).

The very worst thing we (that is, UK/US/EU and the like) can do now is interfere.  At least Obama's got that bit right (whatever some of the pundits over there seem to be saying).


Oh, I can quite assure you that the US and other countries are interfering.  Do not think for one minute that the CIA and other similar agencies from the West aren't in the game in some way. That's why it is called covert support.

Oh, I can quite assure you that the US and other countries are interfering.  Do not think for one minute that the CIA and other similar agencies from the West aren't in the game in some way. That's why it is called covert support.
well that's why it's called "covert." i dunno about the word "support." who's being supported is definitely an open question.

Oh, I can quite assure you that the US and other countries are interfering.  Do not think for one minute that the CIA and other similar agencies from the West aren't in the game in some way. That's why it is called covert support.


And if we try to pull the kind sh*t we tried in 1953, we'll guarantee ourselves another half-century of "Death to America!"
Is that what we want?
???

And if we try to pull the kind sh*t we tried in 1953, we'll guarantee ourselves another half-century of "Death to America!"
Is that what we want?
???


I don't think it's a matter of what we want.  It's a matter of the CIA not willing to stay out of stuff like this.

Regardless, I think Obama is taking the right course.  Iran is weakening itself with every passing day.

Back in the 80s, we tried to create an insurgency against the Islamic government, and 20 years later, the people are doing it for us.  This bodes quite well for American interests in the long run.  Iran will likely be much more vulnerable and malleable when all this is said and done.

Amidst the lulz today (chiefly centered around unverified reports of an Iranian trojan/keylogger that reports back to a certain email address, which was subsequently deluged with Rule 34 on... well, everything), I saw the following little tidbit towards the end Fark thread 42.

http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm277/foretopsail/therantraffic623.jpg

The green line represents the average speed of traffic today, in km/h.  The red line represents the historical average speed for whatever portion of road was monitored by that sensor.  Traffic on that road typically runs at around 50 MPH, by slows to less than 30 MPH during rush hour.  Today, there is no slowdown.

If that graph is representative of traffic conditions in theran, people are staying home in numbers significant enough to eliminate rush hour.  I conclude that the general strike is on, and that it has sufficient popular support to materially affect Iran's capacity to do business.

Earlier today, I wondered what the Iranian government's internal polling was saying about the loyalties of their people... and then I realized that their internal polling is isn't going to be telling them anything useful, let alone the great unwashed of the Internet.  We don't want to know what the regime's polls are telling it, we want to know what's actually going on.

If you want to know whether the war's on, count the number of pizza delivery guys hauling pies to the Pentagon.

If you want to know whether anyone's participating in a general strike, look at the morning commute's traffic report.

Now Playing: DOA, General Strike.

Iran will likely be much more vulnerable and malleable when all this is said and done.

Spoken like a good imperialist... here was me hoping for an Iran that was more rational and cooperative in its dealings with the outside world.

I don't want a vulnerable, malleable Iran: you'd end up with more asinine attempts from outside to decide who's running the place, followed by more insurgency and destabilization.  A strong, rational Iran that realizes that the best way to make itself stronger and more prosperous is to deal with the rest of the world sensibly is a far, far better prospect - there might not be as much short-term benefit for the US in that, but frankly I don't give a sheesh about that.


Oh, I can quite assure you that the US and other countries are interfering.  Do not think for one minute that the CIA and other similar agencies from the West aren't in the game in some way. That's why it is called covert support.

That'd be the Criminally Idiotic A-holes, then? 

Slow news day on the cyberwar front.

The usual reports of beatings/torture/what-not on the streets, the usual rumors of splits amongst the clergy and defections from the military on the web, and at least one reliable news source appears to have gone dark; other reliable sources have been pretty quiet over the past few hours.

Traffic websites showing very light traffic on the opening of the second day of the general strike.

The implementation of the general strike is actually a pretty clever tactic.  It's downright lulzy.  No green-wearing, no finger-signing, no slogan-chanting -- just mobs of Anonymous people wandering to the bazaar to go shopping.  Except that nobody's buying anything.  "Sorry, just looking."  The guys selling merchandise at the bazaar can honestly tell the thugs they showed up work, even if they didn't make a single sale.  Opposition supporters, when threatened by club-wielding Basij, can honestly say they're not protesting, they're just going shopping.  To put it in Western terms, if the regime tries to ban shopping by beating up everyone who approaches the malls, the net economic result is the same as if the entire retail sector had walked off the job.  It's a perfect Catch-22 of which Joseph Heller himself would be proud.  Yossarian Lives.

That said, political momentum, at least yesterday, appears to be with the regime.  If the regime can continue to disperse protestors and kill the leaders, it can buy itself a few more years in power.  If the opposition has an ace or two up its sleeve (or if the strikes gain in momentum over the next few days), the regime could fall.  This loss of momentum was, frankly, to be expected; rioting without the support of a military is hard work that ultimately achieves little, and strikes (whether directed against corporations or governments) take more than a day to materially affect the balance sheet of the targeted entity.

Meanwhile...

http://content.cartoonbox.slate.com/?feature=60f84ce5172d44f1f82d489183ee144a

A good reminder that it took more than a week to get the current band of thugs in power 30 years ago, and it may well take more than a week to get them back out.

And if we try to pull the kind sh*t we tried in 1953, we'll guarantee ourselves another half-century of "Death to America!"
Is that what we want?
???


Where were you when the sh*t hit Iran? ???

;D

Tempting to do a Nickelback parody "Yeah, yeah.. I wanna be Iran's Tsar" ... I know, it'd work better with Iraq, but

Spoken like a good imperialist... here was me hoping for an Iran that was more rational and cooperative in its dealings with the outside world.

Maybe...  maybe not.  But Mousavi doesn't have a history of much rationality when you look at his connections to terror.

I don't want a vulnerable, malleable Iran: you'd end up with more asinine attempts from outside to decide who's running the place, followed by more insurgency and destabilization.  A strong, rational Iran that realizes that the best way to make itself stronger and more prosperous is to deal with the rest of the world sensibly is a far, far better prospect - there might not be as much short-term benefit for the US in that, but frankly I don't give a sheesh about that.

A strong Iran doesn't look like it's going to be a reality anytime soon.  Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see Iran become as Western as say...  the U.K., but that's not going to happen right now.  The people are at least more rational than a lot of the Middle East, but their government is extremely vulnerable and unstable.

Just because we refrain from influencing Iran doesn't mean everyone else will.  If not us, then it will be the Chinese or the Russians... or possibly just Iran's neighbors.  Once a political vacuum appears, it is immediately filled by SOMEONE.  The U.S. just prefers to be that someone when it could prove beneficial to our trade or strategic military presence.

I'm not saying it's the nicest thing to do, but it is the way of the world.  Besides, you know this.  You live in what was once the world's premier imperialist nation.

Before we interfered in Iran, it worked.. but that wasn't what the Western governments of the day wanted, so we installed a puppet Shah and screwed their country for them.

The very worst thing we (that is, UK/US/EU and the like) can do now is interfere.  At least Obama's got that bit right (whatever some of the pundits over there seem to be saying).


There is something a lot of people have to realize.

Almost every country interferes with every other country.  It is simply the nature of man, we all want what is best for our country.  The difference is that sometimes it is benign (to get better trade), and sometimes it is benivolent (we want to destroy them and elevate ourselves).

Iran interferes with us constantly.  Much of the Jihadists and their support comes from Iran.  They are also a major provider of intelligence for them.  As well as aid given to militants in Jordan, Syria, Afganistan, Iraq, Palestine, and Lebanon.  So for them to be giving out ultimatums is rather silly if you ask me.

And the "interference" they are talking about is other nations simply talking about their unrest and commenting on it, let alone condemning it.  In their minds, they are a "Religious Master Race", and they can do no wrong.  And anybody that says anything against them is an infidel and will be destroyed.

And what gives Iran the right to censor other nations?  They have been spewing out hate for 30 years now.  Hate at the US, UK, and all the other Western nations.  Hate at Iraq, hate at Saudi Arabia.  And hate at Israel.  But we point a finger and say "you are doing a bad thing to your people", and we are interfering.

Makes me want to interfere, with a flight of F-117 and B-2, right at the Supreme Leaders's houses.  Or return the favor and provide at least kevlar vests and helmets to their people.

And what gives Iran the right to censor other nations?  They have been spewing out hate for 30 years now.  Hate at the US, UK, and all the other Western nations.  Hate at Iraq, hate at Saudi Arabia.  And hate at Israel.  But we point a finger and say "you are doing a bad thing to your people", and we are interfering.
No, we point a finger and say "you're doing a bad thing" - that isn't interfering.  Sure, they may complain that it's interfering, but the way things are in Iran even if *everybody* were studiously looking the other way, they'd be complaining about outsiders interfering.  For much the same reason as Mugabe does: it's a way of distracting attention from their own failings.

In the same vein, Iran doesn't interfere with us constantly - that would be using such a broad-brush interpretation of the word "interfere" that it becomes meaningless.  I'm sure they'd like to be having the sort of international influence that you suggest (remember that Iran had an empire long, long before there was any kind of civilization in most of today's Western nations), but the effect of their interference isn't measurable other than in terms of our paranoia.


Maybe...  maybe not.  But Mousavi doesn't have a history of much rationality when you look at his connections to terror.

Mousavi doesn't fill me with confidence either.. but Ahmadinejad is simply too surreally irrational - so much so, I used to think it was an affectation: he was hamming up the "loony leader" act as a way of getting some kind of advantage... I mean, academically he's a clever bloke - even brilliant - yet the direction he has chosen with that brain of his is utterly insane.


A strong Iran doesn't look like it's going to be a reality anytime soon.  Don't get me wrong -- I'd love to see Iran become as Western as say...  the U.K., but that's not going to happen right now.  The people are at least more rational than a lot of the Middle East, but their government is extremely vulnerable and unstable.
I agree.. though I don't really care so much about how Westernized they become - it's the lack of rationality and plain common sense that has been the most worrying thing (especially when combined with a desire for nuclear weapons)

Just because we refrain from influencing Iran doesn't mean everyone else will.  If not us, then it will be the Chinese or the Russians... or possibly just Iran's neighbors.  Once a political vacuum appears, it is immediately filled by SOMEONE.  The U.S. just prefers to be that someone when it could prove beneficial to our trade or strategic military presence.
Some of Iran's neighbours would love to interfere, I'm sure: especially the non-Shia part of Iraq.  They must be loving it at the moment :)


I'm not saying it's the nicest thing to do, but it is the way of the world.  Besides, you know this.  You live in what was once the world's premier imperialist nation.

So does Ahmadinejad.

No, we point a finger and say "you're doing a bad thing" - that isn't interfering.  Sure, they may complain that it's interfering, but the way things are in Iran even if *everybody* were studiously looking the other way, they'd be complaining about outsiders interfering.  For much the same reason as Mugabe does: it's a way of distracting attention from their own failings.

In the same vein, Iran doesn't interfere with us constantly - that would be using such a broad-brush interpretation of the word "interfere" that it becomes meaningless.  I'm sure they'd like to be having the sort of international influence that you suggest (remember that Iran had an empire long, long before there was any kind of civilization in most of today's Western nations), but the effect of their interference isn't measurable other than in terms of our paranoia.


The interference from Iran is not comming directly, it is like our Shadow War with the USSR.

Sure, we knew who was supplying arms and equipment (and troops) to North Korea, Viet Nam, West Germany, Cuba, and every place else we were involved.  Much like we supplied the same in Afganistan, Nicuragua, and the like.  Both sides generally denied it, or claimed they were aiding people who asked for their help.  But it was still interference, and people died because of it.

And not many deny the involvement of Iran with the fighters in the Middle East.  We have traced weapons captured in Iraq right back to those purchased by the Revolutionary Guard.  And the same with many other weapons and even some people.  And not many deny the involvement of Iran with Hezbolah and Hamas.

They are not very influential internationally.  But regionally they want to be the supreme power.  And they do not let anybody forget that they were once the global power.  Of course, that was back before the stirrup was invented, and the Chariot was a major weapon of war.

But I do not consider our President commenting on their current problems as interfering.  Of course, they are in a culture that "freedom of speech" is allowed.  As long as your speech is a variant of "Destroy the Infidels!".

::)

So does Ahmadinejad.

Touche... 

Touche... 


Reminds me of a skit on In Living Color...

"Douché... Or should I say, Summer's Eve?"
;D ;D

Reminds me of a skit on In Living Color...

"Douché... Or should I say, Summer's Eve?"
;D ;D


Oh fooey! You beat me to it!
:(

Reminds me of a skit on In Living Color...

"Douché... Or should I say, Summer's Eve?"
;D ;D


lol...  suddenly, I'm now thinking of that duo that did movie reviews on that show...

"Iranian election...  What did you think of it?"

"HATED IT!"  *with flaming accent and loose wristed flair*

Well, apparently the uprising in Iran is caused by the UK.

The Iranian news service has announced that 8 British Embassy staff members have been arrested.  They are accused of inflaming tensions in the nation after the election.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99243&sectionid=351020101

Hmmm, reminds me of 30 years ago.  First it was the CIA starting the riots.  Then the CIA snuck in a sniper who killed Neda and blamed it on the Iranian Government.  Now the riots are all being caused by England.

Curiouser and Curioser. ???

Well, apparently the uprising in Iran is caused by the UK.

The Iranian news service has announced that 8 British Embassy staff members have been arrested.  They are accused of inflaming tensions in the nation after the election.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99243&sectionid=351020101

Hmmm, reminds me of 30 years ago.  First it was the CIA starting the riots.  Then the CIA snuck in a sniper who killed Neda and blamed it on the Iranian Government.  Now the riots are all being caused by England.

Curiouser and Curioser. ???



Wasn't it all Obama's fault? After all it all Obama's fault that Mark Sanford flew down to Argentina to have an affair why wouldn't it be his fault for the Iranian protests?



Cat

Iran seems to be taking its cues from Pravda in terms of propaganda.

Wasn't it all Obama's fault? After all it all Obama's fault that Mark Sanford flew down to Argentina to have an affair why wouldn't it be his fault for the Iranian protests?


I don't know about that.  But it is lso the fault of the US and Israel.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99291&sectionid=351020101

One thing I love about that Iranian government, it is consistant.

Hmmm, reminds me of 30 years ago.  First it was the CIA starting the riots.  Then the CIA snuck in a sniper who killed Neda and blamed it on the Iranian Government.  Now the riots are all being caused by England.


That one I can figure out.  England still has an embassy in Iran.  The US, at least for the past 30 years, not so much :)

First rule of dictatorship:  have someone else to blame.

Hence, today's arrests of British embassy workers.  Subsequent to these arrests, some of the workers have been released.)  Some ambiguity as to whether the workers were Iranian nationals or British nationals.  Either way, as long the arrests happened off Embassy property, fair game, even if the charges are patently bogus.  By the Iranian government's standards, the act of taking in wounded and rendering medical aid - to combatants on either side, or to civilians caught in the crossfire - would qualify as interference/incitement.

Second rule of dictatorship:  get the dissidents to sign forced confessions.  Doesn't matter whether they're believable or not.

The past few days have seen the flow of information get squeezed down to a drip.  Several notable tweeters (one of whom is linked to on a post on the second page of this thread) are reporting that they've been arrested, and at least one is reporting about what it's like to be torturedaggressively interrogated.  Don't know if it's true or if the accounts have been compromised.  Leaning towards "true".

Momentum, for now, remains firmly on the side of the regime.  Maybe the bad guys win this one.  Maybe it's over.

http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff128/lajimi/More%20Lolcats/PEARLHARBOR.jpg

But if it is over...

Things we've learned from the Iranian government:
- If you want to fudge election results, don't fudge them by such a wide margin as to arouse suspicion.  51% is good enough.  They woulda gotten away with it if it weren't for those meddling kids (hell, they might have won - albeit by a razor-thin margin - for all we know!), but those meddling kids wouldn't have gotten involved in the first place if the faked election results hadn't been so obvious.
- Using hired thugs as muscle doesn't work during the opening stages - it only intensifies the protestors' resolve. 
- Using hired thugs as muscle might work during midgame and endgame - after all, you've always got the option of charging individual "useful idiots" for their crimes... as long as you do it after the rebellion's been quelled.
- If you want to stay in power, skip the thugs and negotiate early, preferably before mobs chanting "We want a revote to put our guy in power" start to chant "Burn it all down".
- If the government owns (or is) the only ISP, it can do lots of interesting things.  As one example of many, it can effectively blackhole SSL to anywhere outside the country, but leave it on for traffic within its network, and most of its citizens can go about their daily business without noticing anything truly wrong.  Consumer-level online banking in Iran, for instance, doesn't require users to connect via SSL with any servers outside of Iran.  Even if enabling domestic SSL means that dissidents can communicate with each other, they can only do so at the cost of exposing their entire social network to the regime ("Look at all this encrypted traffic that doesn't have anything to do with anybody's bank!"), and they can't securely get data out of the country ("Look at this encrypted VPN traffic - it times out, and then the guy connects in cleartext to some proxy in America, and the transmission contains lots of interesting words!"). 

Things we've learned from the protestors:
- It takes only one death on camera before "we want a revote within the current system's framework" becomes "burn it all down".
- It takes about 72 hours to go from being a nobody to being a leading source.
- After becoming a leading source, it takes a government about a week to track you down and compromise or eliminate you.  Sure, Anonymous does not forgive, Anonymous does not forget... but neither do the regime's Narus boxen and other DPI tools.

Things we haven't learned so far:
- Of the people on the ground, who got caught; who didn't get caught but merely went dark; and who's still operating under the radar.
- The sorts of COMSEC and INFOSEC mistakes made by the first group, but not by the latter two groups.
- To what extent is Anonymous capable of more than just coordinated DDOS on Iranian government sites?  And if they are, what happens if it turns out a non-state actor is capable of credibly threatening a nation-state? 
- Whether Western intelligence agencies have any idea what's going on any more than the Iranian government - or its opposition - does.

Iran seems to be taking its cues from Pravda in terms of propaganda.

"Pravda" being the Russian for "Truth"... always thought that was marvellously ironic :)


Wasn't it all Obama's fault?
Something like that


First rule of dictatorship:  have someone else to blame.
...

Another excellent post, FB

"Pravda" being the Russian for "Truth"... always thought that was marvellously ironic :)


Karma for reminding me of an old Russian joke from the Cold War era.  The flip side of Pravda (Russian for "Truth") was Izvestia, which is Russian for "News", and back when Pravda was the official newspaper of the Party, Izvestia was the newspaper of "the government", making it subtly different from "the Party".  It was basically the "alternative" (albeit a  harmlessly-fabricated alternative, as "the government" and the "Party" were effectively indistinguishable) viewpoint.

To illustrate the point, Izvestia would report on how well the current government's Five-Year Plan was going.  (It was always going well, even though there was no bread.)  Pravda reported how wonderful the Party's next Five-Year-Plan was going to be.  (Even if, by some strange coincidence, you were unlucky enough to have trouble finding bread on your store's shelves, there'd be plenty of bread in your store when the next Plan kicked in...)

Hence the joke:

"There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth."

It's one of the few Russian jokes that reads as well in English as it did in Russian, and as well today as it did 50 years ago.

:)

Thaks FB


Hence the joke:

"There is no truth in the news, and no news in the truth."

That's not news... but it is true :)