Green [R]evolution in Iran

As I was watching the images captured by camera and listening to Amanpour's reflections on the recent elections on Iran, the idea came about of a Green Revolution and its parallel to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine... Similarities were pretty stark. Interestingly, while I felt this independently, I was not the only one. Other commentators had the same feeling and parallel visions... see here

It came as a big surprise to many in the West that Iran is not united, as it seemed from afar. But that is a mistake we have always made in our assumptions, miscalculations and fears. That was the mistake we made after the 9/11, viewing all Arabs united, all Islamists united: against the United States. The naivete of that view was to dissolve pretty quickly in the ensuing years. And now it is with Iran. Iran like many other Islamic countries is far from united. This division only now came to the surface with greater force. Obviously, the elections are a perfect opportunity to express disenchantment with Ahmadinejad's extremist policies, views and statements. But I really do not know if political commentators are correct that there is political maturity in Iran currently. While there is grassroots movement and some political culture geared towards democratic principles, the existence of violence suggests lack of maturity. Disobedience and protests that result in violence and shedding of blood that are not necessarily caused by the militia, but simply by people getting angry with each other, is not the modern democratic way as we envision it here. In the United States the last elections were pretty emotional and dramatic, but there was no blood shed and the whole atmosphere was not dangerous. Watching the images on the screen from Iran, my blood chilled in my veins: people yelling and screaming, walking with rocks, angry...

Is this because of the fear on part of Moussavi's supporters that there will be a violent crackdown by the government that has bestowed victory (fraudulently or otherwise) on Ahmadinejad? Is there any expectation that the government backed by Khomeini will endure this opposition? Will the opposition get more organised and more level-handed? It remains only to be seen. At this point there is a lot of support for Ahmadinejad. There was a lot of support in Ukraine for Yanukovich. But it is quite reassuring to see Muslim women walking in the streets, demanding rights, respect and opportunity to be heard! If nothing else, this development will prepare a stage for something else... The very fact that people dare to express their discontent and voice against the current government is quite a big step forward.


Democracy gets developed through stages, oftentimes unseen to the ordinary eye. It all begins from the bottom, in the mindsets of the people, and slowly stage by stage, step by step, it develops from theory into real practice... Obstacles to it make the urge stronger and greater... That is why, it occurred to me, that this movement in Iran is rather evolutionary, than revolutionary. On the surface, this change seems revolutionary. But fundamentally the process of democratic growth is never revolutionary and more slow and evolutionary. Think about it, how many years did it take for the United States to become what it is?

The Iranian government will not be able to contain these forces for long... Either it will have to adjust and finetune itself to these demands, or else it will collapse, just like the Soviet Union.

No end to suffering...

Similar to Turkey, which with recent symbolic bill on the Armenian Genocide in the Congress took the opportunity to stack up all political cards to halt any further developments, Azerbaijan followed the suit. In a recent press release the President of Azerbaijan once again voiced the intentions of Azerbaijan on the 'occupation' of Nagorno Karabakh. Again there is the threat of war over Karabakh between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Well, the geopolitics is the fate of Armenians. Sandwiched between Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran, it is constantly victimized and an obstacle to larger expansionist goals of these countries. Turkey, in its shameful denial of the Genocide, is not oblivious of the vast historic territories that Armenia may try to request back at some point in time in the future. Azerbaijan is going to use its strategic reserves of oil and gas to blackmail those who are interested, namely the US, Turkey, Iran and possibly Russia to get Karabakh back. Anyone who knows history will simply throw up hands at the assertions of Azerbaijan that this region is 'occupied' by Armenians. What about just telling the simple truth that Azerbaijan like Turkey forcefully gained much of its current territory from no one else, but Armenians and Nagorno Karabakh was just one small parcel of land remained to be overtaken forever... Azerbaijan has been waiting for the Armenian Diaspora to spend billions of dollars on improvements in Karabakh and retake it easily with tanks... Armenia recognizes Nagorno Karabakh's right to self-determination (here). It is and should remain an autonomous republic. But since the vast majority of the population is Armenian, Azerbaijan's territorial claims are void.

What do the Armenians have in their political storage facility? What cards do they have? They have no oil, no gas, no natural resources. They only have a painful past, history filled with misery and constant terror... Perhaps, they also have an unending faith in themselves... They fight hard, in desperation trying to preserve the last remnants of their nationhood... All they have is the voice of the Diaspora, spread all over the world, echoing in the halls of justice...

Limited Test Ban Treaty

The Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) (see on this blog) was preceded by the Treaty Banning Nuclear Weapon Tests in the Atmosphere, in Outer Space and Under Water that was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963 by so-called 'Original Parties'-- USA, UK, USSR. Shortly, over 100 states became party to it. It sought to prevent nuclear weapon tests in the atmosphere or anywhere else if the test deposited radioactive debris outside of the state where the test took place.

Article I

1. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent, and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, or any other nuclear explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control:

a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or under water, including territorial waters or high seas; or

b) in any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted.

The Treaty was pushed by environmental concerns and also by the newly decolonized members of the General Assembly. Prior to this agreement, most of the nuclear weapon tests by Superpowers were conducted in the territory of former colonies or countries that were under the sphere of influence of the Original Parties... The Treaty sought to limit this practice.

In the 60s not all environmental ramifications of nuclear weapon tests were clear. Today, the world has become painfully aware of such. The fact that North Korea has joined the nuclear club and Iran is aspiring is just once again proving how lethargic and self-oblivious the humanity is...

Cold War--over?

The US realpolitik foreign policy under Bush and the Iraq war have come at a huge price. The astute commentators are pointing to the renewal of the Cold War. The relationship between Russia and US are at its lowest since the 90s. The recent Caspian summit among Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan where the involved countries have made progress in discussing the division of the seabed and oil in the region among themselves to the exclusion of any 'outsiders' has alarmed the US (here). Moreover, the statements by Putin at the summit that 'use of force' in the region is absolutely unacceptable in the face of Pentagon's talks with respect to the Iran nuclear project are in stark opposition to the US plans (here).

Also, the recent diplomatic meeting between US and Russia has been so unsuccessful that BBC called the relationship a 'Lukewarm war.' Well, Russia is alarmed in a major way with the Bush administration's attempts to place nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe. This is in breach of the promises made in the 80s between Gorbachev and Reagan, stipulated in bilateral treaties. The US reasoning that those weapons are to protect against Iran is of no avail, because Iran currently does not possess nuclear weapons. So, Russia is taking this move as directed against herself.

The oil-rich reserves targeted by all developed countries in the Middle East and Caspian seabed are an important reason behind these developments. But it is also Russia's dissatisfaction with the US superpower status. The US influence in the Caucasus, specifically in Georgia has increased. The Caucasus historically was a major stronghold for Russia, as a territory where it could protect its land mass from attacks. As a country constantly invaded, Russia's mentality is insecure and defensive. On the other hand, US also has become increasingly insecure since the 9/11.

Personalities do matter in politics. Gorbachev and Reagan were idealists relative to Putin and Bush, both realists. Of course, these labels should not be taken literally and Putin's legacy for Russia will probably be different from Bush's for America. It is not for me to judge. The national polls of Russian and American peoples' perception of their presidents is a beginning-point. The popularity of one is in stark contrast with the unpopularity of the other.

Is the Cold War really over? Perhaps we jumped to conclusions when we promulgated so... Or perhaps its end was contingent on parties' willingness to abide by their promises with full commitment...