Going Green — Iran and The Future

One of the talking point a lot of people are using to dismiss the events in Iran is that Mousavi is not all that different from Ahmednijihad, a view I hold at least in general. The implication being it is not worth supporting the Iranian Greens because the new boss will be the same as the old boss.

The position being contested is one that works within a framework of the mullahs who are the real power in Iran, they hold a veto over what the president does. I think it fair to move from that point to believing that Mousavi was a 100% approved candidate that his views on most affairs were not significantly different from the other candidates, Ahmednijihad included. However, it is quite obvious there is some terrible difference that at least the likes of Ayatollah Khameni can not tolerate.

Now, what would be my guess of Iran's future if the Green movement succeeds? I don't expect a full fledged Jeffersonian liberal democracy or republic to emerge. I expect a nation more liberal than its current self but it will be a very very long time before trendy cafes in Isfahan will be hosting showings of Eve Ensler's famous work. I suspect too, a nation more willing to give up some of its nasty habits (e.g. assasinations, supporting the likes of Hezbolalalah and Hamas) and perhaps a nation we would be okay with exploring nuclear energy. Remember, it isn't the weapon, but the finger on the trigger.

Now, as I said above, I agree Mousavi is probably not very dissimilar from Ahmednijihad, so why do I still support the Iranian Green movement? Because it weakens the mullah's grip on power on Iran, even if this movement fails it has both weakened the mullahs and unmasked them for what they are. If it succeeds it is hard to say what will happen to Mousavi if he will continue to ride the wave he is on or if other forces will displace him.

I do not fear Iran lurching in a less liberal direction on account of the Mullahs, but I do fear Iran lurching leftwards one site I was reading talked about the Marxists organizing labor strikes and they could very well be riding that wave at the end of the storm.

Getting Around Proxy Servers

I have discussed this before, but with the events going on in Iran I will open this discussion again.

One frequent tactic totalitarian states use to restrict access to certain websites is to make everyone access the web via proxy server. Those proxy servers can then be used to restrict and monitor web traffic.

Here is a tactic I used to get around proxy servers. It has its limitations, but it should work and provide inconspicuous access to websites.

Here are the conditions that need to be in place for this to work:'

1. You have access to an internet account elsewhere in the world that does not have proxied web access.


2. You can access that account through either telnet or secure shell, remote desktop, or similar.


3. The account has all the standard Unix/Linux programs utilities.

Now what you need to do next is to get online and then connect to your foreign account. Once you have done that, you should be able to surf freely. Usually you will be using a low bandwidth access method such as telnet or SSH so you will have to use a text browser and that is lynx. You will not be able to see images but you should be able to submit forms & download images and files.

Using a client & protocol such as secure shell provides even more security as the traffic is encrypted with telnet data is not encrypted meaning Iranian thugs can read your traffic (though it will not appear like web traffic), I am guessing remote desktop will be mixed secure & insecure (plus remote desktop will not be lite in terms of bandwidth needs).

Grim Naivete

Source: Cox & Forkum Editorial Cartoons – Colossal Evasion The other day at the YMCA I was working out in the men's fitness center and one of the deacons from our church was there working out. Being we rarely attend our our church (another church in town has better timings) he did not recognize me, but I surely recognized him, all you need is to hear him as this fellow has a voice you will never forget.

Anyway, the TV was on and a story came on with the President in Eastern Europe and our deacon started having a BDS attack. A little bit later the TV had footage of Joe Liebermann on talking tough with respect to Iran and talking about the possibility of war with Iran. Our deacon again started talking about (in an extreme sarcastic tone) about how we need to make war with everyone it was irrationality at work in our deacon's head.

No wonder I have this notion the only problem with our parish is not just the timings.

What, Iran May Be Instigating Things?

The UK's Guardian newspaper passes on a story how IRAN is planning to make trouble in Iraq. Gasp, where are my smelling salts, Iran making trouble in Iraq who would have thought?

If the British Empire Shall Last 100 Years!

WTF?

WTF what you may ask? This story by the UK Independent The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis.

A failed American attempt to abduct two senior Iranian security officers on an official visit to northern Iraq was the starting pistol for a crisis that 10 weeks later led to Iranians seizing 15 British sailors and Marines.

Source: The Independent – The botched US raid that led to the hostage crisis Ten weeks later? Do you think this little event may play into it? The assumption at root of The independent's article is little Ole Iran was just sitting on its tuff eating its curds & whey whe their little Miss Muffet was nearly captured.

The Independent says a raid intended to capture two high ranking Iranian security officials failed and Iran retaliated by capturing the British sailors. Interesting. The Time Magazine story provides a very interesting prequel to all of this!

Now, lets deal with the Independent's claims.

Iran has had nothing to do with the violence in Iraq. I don't believe that for a second. Even if Iran does not like the Sunni & Ba'athist insurgents it's distaste for the West is even stronger.

There is no violence against US forces in Kurdistan. What is so unimaginable Iran will not set up channels to direct violence against US/Iraqi forces through their office in Kurdistan?

Oh yeah, there is the incident Time Magazine reports of an Iranian raid trying to capture American soldiers last September (more than 10 weeks ago). Why do we not place blame where blame belongs? On the Iranians?

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duty, and so bear ourselves that, if the British Empire and its Commonwealth lasts for a thousand one-hundred years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'

Source: Source: Sir Winston Churchill - restatement as forced by contemporaneous reality

In the movie Patton, George C. Scott noted the Germans still could win when it was late in 1944. He was correct and it is very easy now-a-days to see the inevitability of events back then. In the movie Apocalypse Now the general assigning Martin Sheen's character with the mission to kill Colonel Kurtz stated good does not always triumph, that just because you are fighting for right means you will win.

I fear, when the people of the West wake up to the need to fight to defend our way of life it will be way too late. We will fight eventually, but it will be with unimaginable bloodshed and destruction.

An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.

Circulating About the Internet

Is a Time Magazine story about how an Iranian force entered Iraq and ambushed a force comprised of Iraqis and US soldiers. Since we are just hearing about this story now instead of a long time ago should make you realize the Iranians did not get what they were hoping to get – the opportunity to relive their days in the late '70s with American hostages. However, hostage is not the correct word here but it will do. POW would be a better fit here but the embassy personal Iran held in the late '70s were hostages.

A short Army press release issued on the day of the skirmish offered the following information: U.S. soldiers from the 5th Squadron 73rd Cavalry 82nd Airborne were accompanying Iraqi forces on a routine joint patrol along the border with Iran, about 75 miles east of Baghdad, when they spotted two Iranian soldiers retreating from Iraqi territory back into Iran. A moment later, U.S. and Iraqi forces came upon a third Iranian soldier on the Iraqi side of the border, who stood his ground. As U.S. and Iraqi soldiers approached the Iranian officer and began speaking with him, a platoon of Iranian soldiers appeared and moved to surround the coalition patrol, taking up positions on high ground. At that point, according to the Army's statement, the Iranian captain told the U.S. and Iraqi soldiers that if they tried to leave they would be fired on. Fearing abduction by the Iranians, U.S. troops moved to go anyway, and fighting broke out. Army officials say the Iranian troops fired first with small arms and rocket-propelled grenades, and that U.S. troops fell further back into Iraqi territory, while four Iraqi army soldiers, one interpreter and one Iraqi border guard remained in the hands of the Iranians.

Source: Time Magazine – A Deadly U.S.-Iran Firefight So, this just has to make one wonder, why the UK commanders on the scene allowed the Iranians to waltz away with their sailors? I know the commander on the scene says his ROE did not permit escalating anything. Well guess what? Things are escalated anyway! If the Iranian raiders were turned into chum or at least sent scurrying away there would be absolutely no story here. Iran is using this to show how they are pushing around one of the great world powers and as some people are speculating as a diversion. Iran wouldn't be trumpeting a failure anymore than they talked about the failure Time Magazine reports above. But it isn't a failure, its little victory for them, even the fact Iran is changing elements of their story do matter much now, what matters is the fact the UK is being kicked around by Iran.

Wretchard at the Belmont Club provides some commentary and is the inspiration for this blog. I saw the story earlier today but was not moved to write about it.

There's a backstory behind the US assertion that American troops would have fought if they had been in the same position [emphasis added] as British soldiers who were taken in a cross-border raid by Iranian forces.

Source: The Belmont Club – The Past as Prologue You know the thought outlined above did occur to me. However, given the track record of our tiptoeing around Iran's belligerence I thought such commentary would be viewed as cheap talk, however the story Time Magazine relates provides support for the thought.

Again, what situation went away quietly and which situation is escalated? The one where the ambushed fought or the one where the ambushed surrendered?

I Bet Iran is Quaking!

EU foreign ministers support British position and warn of 'appropriate measures' if 15 sailors and marines not released

Oh my, I bet Ahmednuttyjihad is afraid now. What is the EU going to do? Issue a testily worded resolution?