Wednesday, December 20, 2006

Unrest among Iranian students

By Heraclitus

Here's a story from the BBC about a wave of student protests against the current hard-line government dominated by clerics and other religious conservatives. More generally, the article details some of the attempts by the Iranian government to control speech and thought at Iranian universities by banning student groups and newspapers, intimidating students, and forcing professors into retirement. The students are referring to these as purges.

Iranian students say there is a second cultural revolution under way in the universities with scores of professors forcibly retired and politically active students being threatened with expulsion.

Student anger exploded with an unprecedented show of defiance when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad went to Tehran's Amir Kabir University on 12 December.

Pictures shot on a mobile phone showed angry students chanting against the president, accusing him f being a fascist and a puppet of the hardliners.

They held portraits of Mr Ahmadinejad upside down to mock him and then set them on fire.

The day before the president visited, the university was in turmoil with students shouting "Death to the dictator".

Iranian television only showed a few seconds of the disturbance. Later Mr Ahmadinejad put a brave face on it saying the protest showed there was freedom of speech in Iran compared to his tudent days under the Shah.

**********

It was the president who appointed a cleric for the first time since the revolution to head Tehran University -- he country's most political and prestigious university.

Mr Ahmadinejad told journalists the chancellor should be friendly with the students, moving among them and visiting their dormitories --otherwise he should give up his job to someone else.

The first time the new chancellor entered the university, students protested by knocking off his turban - a sign of extreme disrespect for a cleric.

**********

Students complain the international community is not paying enough attention to the worsening human rights situation in Iran because of the obsession with the nuclear issue.

"The Islamic Republic has managed to focus the international community's attention on Iran's nuclear case and the possibility of an Israeli attack. That has diverted attention from the human rights situation in Iran," says Mr Nesbati.

He believes it is possible that one day Iranian officials will solve the nuclear crisis but "in the mean time they will have crushed all their internal critics".

The ISG aftermath

By Creature

Politically speaking, can't it be said the White House's reaction to the Iraq Study Group's report has been a complete and utter failure? They chose to embraced the "new way forward" slogan and go out on an elaborate listening tour, all the while knowing that they would continue to stay the course just under a new and bolder name. But in opening up the decision making process they have opened up a can of worms: leaks, delays, back-stabbing, public support in the toilet, a shaken and defensive "I will not be rushed" president, Tony Snow having to defend the process, and the president, day after day after day. Not the smoothest sailing for the boys at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but then again, politically speaking, these folks -- Karl Rove -- have been off their political game for a while now.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

"We're not winning, we're not losing"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Sure, Mr. President. That's the latest spin, I understand, and it beats the "we're winning" nonsense that you spewed before the midterms, but only your most delusional supporters believe you now. I think I'll take Powell's word over yours. Of course, your spin raises the question of the meanings of "winning" and "losing," but you can't possibly convince me that the meanings of "winning" and "losing," as well as the line between the two, are what you imagined them to be back when you were rushing to war and then celebrating mission accomplished. How can being stuck in a quagmire not be losing?

Regardless, I hear that you want to expand the size of the military for the sake of the Iraq War and that nebulous war on terror. I am tempted to make some obvious quip about the matter of size, but I'll restrain myself. Besides, whatever the size, it's what you do with it, right? And look what you've done with it. Would more make any difference? Not, I'm afraid, with you deciding when and where to shove it in.