Can PROTEST and PEACE go hand in hand especially in Iran?

The abrupt politicization of this Twitter generation - to the extent that some are questioning the authority of the spiritual leader Ayatollah Khomeini - has titillated the West. From Obama downwards, policy makers are exploring the potential of internet social networking becoming a handle in the fight for change in Iran. Yet, in embracing the modernists so enthusiastically, the West has prepared the ground for a conservative retaliation. The backlash may not necessarily take the form of a Tiananmen Square-type massacre but in days to come the Twitter-bugs are certain to be subjected to two charges. They will, predictably, be accused of being un-Islamic and morally degenerate. But far more damaging will be the charge of colluding with the West against Iranian nationalism.

It's a charge they may find difficult to counter. In its 20 years of existence as an Islamic Republic, Iran has acquired a siege mentality. This stems contradictory impulses: a fierce desire to protect its civilizational vitality and the realization that cultural purity is impossible in a shrinking world. Indifferent economic progress has driven Iran towards populist adventurism which, however flawed, enjoys mass endorsement.

The Twitter-bugs of Tehran want to push Iran into acknowledging a national failure. Unfortunately, they haven't factored the biggest hurdle to Iran's return to the modern world: national pride.

If you doubt that the Iranian election media bombardment was deliberate, ask yourself - Do you know who won last months Panamanian election ? Did you even know there was an election? It’s not your fault if you don’t. Actually, I don’t see how you could know without a functioning media.

Have you heard much about the democratic elections in Saudi Arabia lately? Of course not. They don’t have elections. Any media outrage for the people of Saudi Arabia? A country ruled by one of the most repressive regimes on the planet. But hey, they’re our allies. We don’t talk about them (and certainly won’t tweet it).

What about the 2006 (monitored) democratic election in Gaza in which the people resisted western threats and bribes and elected Hamas as their leader? We responded by punishing the people of Gaza and cutting aid to the region. Well, they committed a supreme crime. They voted the wrong way and must be punished for it. I’m waiting for a sympathetic #GazaElection hashtag on Twitter, though I won’t hold my breathe.

The #IranElection hype has nothing to do with democracy and everything to do with effecting US public opinion. Why are “Iranian’s” microblogging in English and on Twitter (which they do NOT use)? According to Mehdi Yahyanejad, manager of a Farsi-language news site based in Los Angeles, “Twitter’s impact inside Iran is zero..here, there is lots of buzz, but once you look . . . you see most of it are Americans tweeting among themselves.” The Alexa rankings confirm that Twitter’s penetration in Iran is nearly 0%.

Ask yourself - If Iran’s army invaded and occupied both Canada and Mexico, would we want their “Help”? Would we find  popular Iranian websites and keep them informed of our nation’s vulnerabilities in their native Farsi?

The media campaign, however obvious it is to some of us,  has probably been successful. I’ll bet that if you poll the American people today, you’d find that 40-50% would support  military involvement in Iran to “Help” with their elections. I’d also assume that those 40-50% are  the same people (more or less) who believed that the u.s.  invaded Iraq because of 9-11,  another testament to the effectiveness of  propaganda marketing.

 

Please also read:

www.chartingstocks.net/2009/06/proof-israeli-effort-to-destabilize-iran-via...

and timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Right--Wrong/Why-the-twitter-bugs-cant-change-I...