An extremely interesting, and--for a change--cautiously optimistic view of the Iranian situation, from an Iranian blogger taking questions from (mostly) Israelies and American Jews.
Main points:
1). Ahmanedijad 2007 is not Hitler 1939 for three reasons: (a) he's extremely unpopular, unlike Hitler; (b) he has no real power, unlike Hitler; (c) Iranians mostly consider his runaway antisemitism an embarrasment, unlike the Germans.
2). Attacking Iran will be counterproductive because it is, essentially, the only thing that will unify the Iranians around the leadership.
3). Iran will not attack Israel (or the USA for that matter), partially out of fear of retaliation, but more so because no Iranian mother will send her son to die for "the liberation of Palestine".
4). Apart from a few popular sitcoms, official Iranian TV is in the main ignored by the Iranian population, but everybody watches international television.
5). Iran is in effect, apart from the leadership's trappings, actually a secular, modern country, multi-ethnic society, having far more in common with the USA and Israel than with, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
6). Why there was no counter-revolution in Iran: quite apart from the usual secret police and repression by the regime, "The mystique of Revolution only exists in the minds of those who have never experienced it". Since, as usual, the revolution against the corrupt and cruel Shah only resulted in a far more corrupt and cruel rgime, for a long time Iranian's idea was: "we had a revolution once and look where it got us".
To use the Hebrew idiom, me'hapeh shelo la'ozen shel elohim--"from his mouth to God's ear": were it to God that this is true! His claim that Iran is no danger and must not be attacked is, I am afraid, a non sequitor: unfortunately history shows that cruel regimes can do great harm even when most of their population despises them. But it does show us a lot about Iran.
But, read the entire thing and see for yourself. It's well worth the time.
Main points:
1). Ahmanedijad 2007 is not Hitler 1939 for three reasons: (a) he's extremely unpopular, unlike Hitler; (b) he has no real power, unlike Hitler; (c) Iranians mostly consider his runaway antisemitism an embarrasment, unlike the Germans.
2). Attacking Iran will be counterproductive because it is, essentially, the only thing that will unify the Iranians around the leadership.
3). Iran will not attack Israel (or the USA for that matter), partially out of fear of retaliation, but more so because no Iranian mother will send her son to die for "the liberation of Palestine".
4). Apart from a few popular sitcoms, official Iranian TV is in the main ignored by the Iranian population, but everybody watches international television.
5). Iran is in effect, apart from the leadership's trappings, actually a secular, modern country, multi-ethnic society, having far more in common with the USA and Israel than with, say, Syria or Saudi Arabia.
6). Why there was no counter-revolution in Iran: quite apart from the usual secret police and repression by the regime, "The mystique of Revolution only exists in the minds of those who have never experienced it". Since, as usual, the revolution against the corrupt and cruel Shah only resulted in a far more corrupt and cruel rgime, for a long time Iranian's idea was: "we had a revolution once and look where it got us".
To use the Hebrew idiom, me'hapeh shelo la'ozen shel elohim--"from his mouth to God's ear": were it to God that this is true! His claim that Iran is no danger and must not be attacked is, I am afraid, a non sequitor: unfortunately history shows that cruel regimes can do great harm even when most of their population despises them. But it does show us a lot about Iran.
But, read the entire thing and see for yourself. It's well worth the time.
Last edited:
