Any “support” given by westerners to the protesters will backfire spectacularly, no matter how well-intentioned.

“See! We told you all along! It is a CIA Zionist plot!”

Pretty much where I’m at.

I do hope the Iranian youth are prepared enough to fight this thing all the way through until they overthrow the theocratic assholes, but it has to be them doing the fighting, and if they succeed in toppling the current regime, whatever new government gets put in place has to be put there by them.

Not us.

It should go without saying that the USA intervening in this bullshit would be massively stupid, dangerous, and counterproductive.

“It should go without saying that the USA intervening in this bullshit would be massively stupid, dangerous, and counterproductive.”

...which probably means there are hundreds/thousands of Reichwing think-tankers working overtime to force the US into it, one way or another.  I mean, who cares about the sad state of American medical care, Wall Street, Detroit, and the housing collapse when we’re in a rousing (and for some, arousing) shooting war with airplanes and tanks and explosions…

“It should go without saying that the USA intervening in this bullshit would be massively stupid, dangerous, and counterproductive.”

...which probably means there are hundreds/thousands of Reichwing think-tankers working overtime to force the US into it, one way or another.  I mean, who cares about the sad state of American medical care, Wall Street, Detroit, and the housing collapse when we’re in a rousing (and for some, arousing) shooting war with airplanes and tanks and explosions…

Which pretty much blows wide open their false claims that they want to spread anything resembling true democracy in the Muslim world.

The fact is, the only real hope that democracy has of being established in Iran right now is if it is done from within.  You don’t “impose democracy” as a foreign invader - it has to come about organically, from the people who truly crave it.  I truly hope they do, but ultimately it is on them.

If it is meant to happen over there, it will be the Iranians who will make it happen, not us.  American intervention would be catastrophic to the cause of true democracy in Iran.

I shudder to think about what would be taking place at this very moment if George W. Bush were still in the Oval Office today, or if John McCain had won in November.

Come off it, Jesse.  No one is claiming these solidarity gestures are making anyone either active participants or experts on the matter.  In fact, understood correctly, it’s not even about supporting them, it’s about raising our own awareness of what is going on.  It’s certainly more useful to do that than sit back and watch tonight’s House rerun.

This isn’t worthy of you.

You know, considering it was US interference that was responsible for the 1979 revolution in the first place, you’d think…

Oh wait. I’d never even heard of Mossadegh until I read The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong. And I like to think I’m pretty clued in.

I agree with Felix, “changing your link color to to #00CC00 does not make you an active participant and/or expert in the fight against the country’s totalitarian regime” reminds me of nothing so much as media figures sneering about cheeto-eating bloggers in their parents’ basements. I thought the same thing when Cole slammed it. Find me anyone who actually believes they’re an active participant or expert, and maybe you’ll have grounds to sneer. All I see are people who are well aware there’s nothing direct we can do, and people online from Iran who seem happy to hear that people around the world are paying attention and care.

Andrew Sullivan isn’t the one leading the charge on this, and just because he did it doesn’t automatically make it stupid.

No one is claiming these solidarity gestures are making anyone either active participants or experts on the matter.  In fact, understood correctly, it’s not even about supporting them, it’s about raising our own awareness of what is going on.  It’s certainly more useful to do that than sit back and watch tonight’s House rerun.

Why is it more useful?  It’s just as voyeuristic as watching another “House” rerun.  I suspect that changing your link colors to green in “solidarity” is inversely proportional to having any clue about the political and social history of Iran.  That’s certainly the case with Andrew Sullivan.

I’m not immune to the appeal of watching someone else’s political struggles and projecting my fantasies onto them, but let’s not pretend that doing so is anything but ego-tripping.  It was great watching the Berlin Wall come down from the comfort of my living room, but I had no illusions that my support or opposition from 3,000 miles away was going to make one iota of difference.

hilzoy at Washington Monthly has a post up about why none of this is about us and how any kind of US interference could precipitate a disaster. 

There are probably a lot of people in my city who are following events in Iran very closely, because I live in a city that’s close to being majority Armenian and many of them have actual family and friends who are living through the chaos in Iran right now.  For me to run around saying, “Dude, I totally support the uprising!” when they’re wondering if their families and friends living in Iran will make it through the week seems patronizing at best.

A lot of people in the left blogopshere are confusing expressions of solidarity for what is clearly an emerging democratic movement with advocation of foreign policy.  I think most people recognize that our stance needs to be very measured in terms of policy, but to lump that in with an expression of solidarity.  Yes, it’s a small and trivial gesture.  But so is putting on a red ribbon.

So Sullivan’s made a gesture folks find facile - okay - if that was all he was doing, I might be inclined to sneer right along with Cole. But he’s blogging this story pretty much 24-7. It doesn’t seem at all proportional to pull out this one tiny thing he did and ridicule him for it when he’s been one of the better online sources of information on this story (at least from what I’ve seen) for the past 2 days.

As for the argument about the danger of over involvement from America, that seems to me to be an issue when it comes to political leaders, not Atlanticm Monthly bloggers. I highly doubt that the Mullahs are going to point fingers at the likes of Sullivan and say “ah, see, the protesters are clearly just puppets of this American blogger guy.”

While I think there’s certainly a larger issue that could be raised here about the sometimes-feeble and empty nature of American sentiment on international issues, I don’t think Sullivan’s quite as facile as the “going green” thing makes it sound like he is. He’s doing something important by providing one forum in which Iranians can get the images and videos of the protests and the violence out to a larger audience. In a system where power is so concentrated in the hands of a theocratic elite, information is one of the few tools the people have to keep their movement alive.

Also, really, I can’t get too superior about Sullivan’s enthusiasm. I think it’s pretty normal and human to have strong feelings when you see images like the ones coming out of Iran right now, and we make small gestures at times like this when we don’t know what else to do but our hearts are full and we need some way to let them overflow a bit.

And for the record I am generally not a Sullivan fan.

I also think that the wisest thing for American and European politicians is not to interfere right now. It would probably only taint the reform movement. Thank dog, Obama’s way too smart to do that.

On the other hand, I believe that gestures of solidarity and attention from the ordinary people, bloggers or journalists aren’t meaningless at all. While it’s probably true that much of the want for reform was triggered by the economic situation, from the comments I see in newspapers and blogs it seems that a large number of people, probably the most active, the young people and students, want some change in the regime - easing of the religious and political oversight and censorship, of the moral police, a change in the foreign policy… For these people, the feeling of support and care from abroad might not be crucial, but it certainly helps. That is, if the situation is at all similar to what was happening under the communist regimes in Europe. I’m from the Czech Republic, so my perception of the whole situation may be coloured by reminiscence of 1968 and 1989.

I’m not immune to the appeal of watching someone else’s political struggles and projecting my fantasies onto them, but let’s not pretend that doing so is anything but ego-tripping.  It was great watching the Berlin Wall come down from the comfort of my living room, but I had no illusions that my support or opposition from 3,000 miles away was going to make one iota of difference.

While this might be a good exercise in liberal guilt, I must disagree. It was exactly the impression that people abroad actually cared and that the news and anger would reverberate back into the country, what prevented the Communist regime from jailing our dissidents for life of executing them between 1970 and 1989. Of course, often the regimes are too hardline for Amnesty International letters and threats of public outrage and shaming to work, but it never hurts to care or try. Just my $0.02.

“It should go without saying that the USA intervening in this bullshit would be massively stupid, dangerous, and counterproductive.”

Making it the perfect Republican foreign policy plan!  Look, Bill Kristol is on board, of course it’s massively stupid, dangerous, and counterproductive.  But as Dick Cheney said while having a couple of beers with Kristol in January 2003; “invade Iraq?  That’s so massively stupid, dangerous, and counterproductive, it just might work!”

Okay, so it didn’t work out that way. Doesn’t mean it can’t this time.

the actual people actually protesting and fighting and dying will be discounted and discarded, for a narriative that makes the Eager American Patriot and Hero the, well, hero of the piece.

Meh, I disagree with this and with most of the previous comments.  Calling this the Twitter revolution in the context that some in the media are using it; did Twitter replace the MSM? is besides the point.  It really did not.  You really could not be sure reading it what was real and what wasn’t.  But Twitter became a tool for the revolutionists.  That could be important.  We don’t really know how this sort of thing is going to be utilized it the future but what we do know is that a Totalitarian government couldn’t shut it down.  That’s big. 

And I don’t think that young Americans following this on Twitter, and feeling like they’re helping by retweeting, and by wearing green, makes them think that they waged a revolution.  They watched one up close though.

What will the ramifications of that be?  We don’t yet know.

But there’s going to be some.  It’s times like this that make me wish I could live another 200 years.  The times, they really are a changing.  I envy the people who get to see what the next 100 years hold.

On the one hand, people advocating for a more “activist” intervention role by the US are either deluded or idiots.  Nothing would make the regime happier than to be able to paint protestors as “foreign agents” and send in the goons (well, even more of them). And as a commentor at Yglesias’ blog noted regarding our history of involvement there, when the couple downstairs is fighting, you don’t send in her abusive ex-husband or his cheating first wife as crisis counselors.

On the other hand, I find the snark and smugness over Sullivan’s “green” banner also disturbing.  I don’t have my ass on the line, ergo I can’t express hope for a peaceful resolution that results in a theocratic authoritarian having less power? That seems asinine.  Expressions of support from the American people (as opposed to the American president) seems entirely appropriate, and the sense that “the world is watching” may place some real constraints on how violently the clerics try to crack down on protestors. 

And in any case, it’s one thing to have a good and proper debate on our foreign policy options, it’s another thing to go around dictating how other individual people should “feel” about events otherseas.

Well stated TF. 

I also want to add something I forgot to verbalize earlier.  Sullivan aside, a lot of the people wearing green and retweeting are our youth.  Good idea to mock them now.  Let them know early on that activists of any kind and people who care are freaks in our society.  You’ll never change anything.  You’re not important.  You’re deluding yourself.

That’ll raise us another generation like the ones who allowed a President who was never elected (to a mass yawn from the population) to march us into a war based completely on lies.

I remember back in early 2003, when we were protesting the war in Iraq.  Because of the Right’s domination of the media, and the stronghold Bush had over huge swaths of the country, it felt really lonely being out there in the streets, putting your ass on the line for something even perfectly reasonable people thought was (at the very least) not worth getting too worked up over. 

One of the things that strengthened us, here, was the overwhelming support on the international scale.  Especially after the February 15 protests—we felt we could conquer the world, that we could accomplish ANYTHING if we worked hard enough at it.  For the first time, I felt like I wasn’t just an American, or just a dumb kid with silly dreams, I was a citizen of the world, working for something good and true and legitimate.  And even though we didn’t stop that particular war, that is something that has never left me.

The absolute least I can do now, in 2009, is extend that same support to people fighting the same good fight in other parts of the world.  Is my green avatar going to change anything?  Of course not.  But people all over the world doing it casts this battle not as a few upstarts who didn’t get their way in an election, but as a fight for freedom, as a potential revolution.  Reaching out also casts Iranians as real human beings fighting for a better lives for themselves, rather than a mass of evil brown people who hate us for our freedom.

There are probably a lot of people in my city who are following events in Iran very closely, because I live in a city that’s close to being majority Armenian and many of them have actual family and friends who are living through the chaos in Iran right now.  For me to run around saying, “Dude, I totally support the uprising!” when they’re wondering if their families and friends living in Iran will make it through the week seems patronizing at best.

Then again, it’s also possible to be on both sides of this, or to occupy a grey area somewhere in between.  Part of the reason I’ve been interested in Iran (for fucking YEARS, by the way, not for the last 3 days) is because I grew up with a few very close Iranian-American friends.  Who I know are worried over the safety of their families right now (and the safety of my friends loved ones isn’t exactly far from my own mind, by the way).  Which in no way invalidates my support for the protesters or my hope that Iran can find a way to freedom. 

Do I think it’s good to be a chump and run around calling up every Iranian you know and saying ZOMG I TOTES SUPPORT YER PEEPULLLL!!!!! GREEN AVATAR!!!!!! ?  No, that’s totally childish and narcissistic.  And maybe that’s what Sullivan is doing?  I don’t know, the nice thing about being a free thinking intelligent human being is that I don’t have to pay attention to Andrew Sullivan or make ideological decisions based on his idiocy. 

But I certainly don’t think there’s anything wrong with being clued in and/or vocally supporting a free Iran.  And the awareness that zomg there are people, who, like, know someone who might be from that part of the world doesn’t invalidate that.

It’s critical to make a distinction between Western governments pitching in and Western individuals pitching in. The former leads to disaster and plays into the hands of the theocrats and their thugs. Obama, given his statement on the matter, seems to understand that better than his former rival. Fortunately, the days of PNAC fantasist Presidents incompetently “tinkering” with cultures they don’t understand are over.

That said, Western individuals can provide the Iranian protesters with some valuable digital tools (outside communications channels, proxys for incoming news from reputable sources, internal co-ordination, moral support, etc.). As we see once again, the free flow of reality-based information is Public Enemy #1 for authoritarian priests and their enforcers—they bloody hate the Internet, so if Westerners can continue to provide them with unfettered access to it, so much the better.

But agreed 100%, this is not about us. This is an Iranian revolution, and ultimately it’s the Iranians (especially those under 40) who will make it happen. They’ve already forced a partial recount, and if they keep up the pressure I’m sure it will reveal enough “unforseen” irregularities to force a wider recount and, eventually, a do-over. Either that or the “Supreme Leader” will try to cement his illegitimate power using more violence and censorship, exposing his dark-age mentality for all the world to see.

Sullivan’s blog is widely read in Iran now. It makes perfect sense for him to make this graphic display of solidarity.

Why is it more useful?  It’s just as voyeuristic as watching another “House” rerun.  I suspect that changing your link colors to green in “solidarity” is inversely proportional to having any clue about the political and social history of Iran.  That’s certainly the case with Andrew Sullivan.

Mnemosyne: It’s more useful precisely for the reasons laid out by TF79 at 8:23, Caton at 8:41, and Nikolay at 9:11.  And your snark is both more concentrated than Jesse’s, and proportionally, less useful.

It makes sense to me that people express solidarity with the Iranian Reformists. It is good that the US, the “West” and the World, do so. It can only improve matters if American citizens feel that they are connected to the Iranians, and if Iranian citizens feel they are connected to Americans, and to the world. Citizens should be able to bypass their own national chauvanism and appreciate the fact that others are human, and have desires that are very similar.

And so I’m not particularly worried if Andrew Sullivan has taken on this new cause… even if his adoption of the Iranians as a people of interest is shallow, which it probably is. The only thing that worries me is that the neoconservative elements that are still quite powerful within Obama’s administration could seize on this crisis to start a war, or end Obama’s nascent effort at diplomacy. That is a real possibility and that is why I am cautious.

The thing is, I think Sullivan’s doing a fantastic job of covering the events in Iran.  The problem I always have with symbolic solidarity movements is that you show solidarity through actual support - the numerous bloggers with platforms who are covering Iran in-depth are doing a fantastic job of bringing necessary attention to what’s happening in Iran.  The problem with the “green solidarity” is that it results in displays like Glenn Reynolds’, where you get all the benefit of being a part of a movement to bring attention to an issue while substantively doing little, if anything, to help. 

What “green solidarity” does - and this, I will guarantee you, will happen if it hasn’t already - is allow the same sort of dictation by concern trolling that we all hate so very, very much. 

Your banner isn’t green?  Why are you such a moral coward about Iran? 

CNN, for instance, spent the entire weekend not covering the Iranian election and protests.  Would they have been excused if they changed the logo to green for the week?  Andrew Sullivan’s blog is widely read in Iran because it is providing great coverage and support in terms of its content - changing his banner to green doesn’t make what he’s written any better or more meaningful, it just draws more attention to the fact that Andrew Sullivan is writing about Iran rather than what he’s actually writing about Iran.

Your banner isn’t green?  Why are you such a moral coward about Iran?

Jesse, when people actually start concern trolling in this manner, I’ll be the first (ok, the second after you…) to decry it.  Right now, it’s surplus to requirements and comes off as pure snark.  The point is to do whatever we can to raise people’s awareness of what’s going on.  These things are admittedly limited and small, and we should all do them in full awareness we must be cautious lest we give the impression of the US throwing its weight around like the “Great Satan” the mullahs want people to believe we are.

Then how about the fact that I find it fatuous, superfluous and unproductive, if not counterproductive?  Or is that also disregarded because it serves to marginally raise some people’s awareness…maybe?

I’m not entirely sure what your argument is supposed to achieve - chances are wherever you’re donning green to show solidarity, you could do more by actually talking to the people around you.  Your Facebook avatar being green raises less awareness than, say, sharing a link.  Your green shirt raises less awareness than, say, talking to the people around you about what’s happening in Iran.  At every juncture, there are better and more substantive things that can be done to raise awareness than changing a color on your webpage (for instance, using the webpage to say something about Iran), which again makes the primary utility in doing it…what, exactly?

Jesse:  You are arguing that some people could do “more” than just changing color, etc.  I agree of course.  Not everyone is free to go balls out and join the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, alas, and we are not discussing what any given individual can do to achieve their theoretical maximum effectiveness in support of Iranian students.  If some people are willing to go so far as to wear green, or change their page theme, then while that may not be as effective as organizing a public seminar on Iranian internal politics, it is something more than that person was doing.  It may get someone else to ask about it.

At any rate, in my experience, someone willing to change a color scheme or the like is also willing…in fact eager…to discuss why they did it.  Or do you seriously suppose there are people out there wearing green (or changing their Facebook icon, or what have you) and taking affirmative steps to hide the reason why or not discuss it with anyone?

Symbolic gestures like wearing ribbons, pins, what have you, are a pretty standard and effective way to start discussions and especially to make the supporters’ presence felt, in sheer numbers.

the point being made here is that MANY MANY MANY people are going to see a simple action they can take - like wearing a red ribbon, or changing all their text to the color green - and think that because they did this one small little thing, *victory* is assured, and even if “we” don’t win in the beginning, because people “cared” enough to write in green, the US will go in and save the day!

This.  Having people actually blog and tweet about what’s going on is valuable.  Using your blog to point people to further information is valuable.  Turning your links or banners green and not providing actual information is completely fucking useless.  Walking around your city wearing green may make you feel good, but it doesn’t actually do anything.

How many people here scolding me for being cynical are going to a public protest or using their own blog to follow the situation?  Anyone?  Bueller?

And if Kids Today learn that sitting on your ass in a green t-shirt playing video games is not actual political activism, that’s a valuable lesson for them to learn.

And if Kids Today learn that sitting on your ass in a green t-shirt playing video games is not actual political activism, that’s a valuable lesson for them to learn.

One should take care that, having set up a straw man, it is at least sturdy enough to fall under the subsequent assault on it, and not merely the force of gravity.

No one—repeat no one—has asserted an argument in the form of :

1) I am wearing green;
2) Therefore I care;
3) Therefore, we win.  USA! USA! USA!

These hypothetical kids wearing green while playing Grand Theft Auto IV and refusing to discuss why they are wearing green or passing any other information along are certainly annoying.  They are also hypothetical, and one suspects, fictional.

Sure, but political engagement is often shallow and faddish, especially in the wider society. The two dimensions of political protest are 1. self-expressive and 2. goal-oriented. Neither dimension can exist without the other, and if you lose the silly, expressive, side, you will likely diminish the serious, goal-oriented side.

“Then how about the fact that I find it fatuous, superfluous and unproductive, if not counterproductive?  Or is that also disregarded because it serves to marginally raise some people’s awareness…maybe?”

Well damn, I guess I’d better go scrape that Obama/Biden bumper sticker off my car.  I hadn’t realized my self-expressive attempt at showing my support for their political cause was all those awful things.

One should take care that, having set up a straw man, it is at least sturdy enough to fall under the subsequent assault on it, and not merely the force of gravity.

Please defend your proposal that changing your banner and link colors is more than enough activism for anyone, because that’s what you seem to be defending.  Note that, as I said above, I have no problem with people doing coverage of what’s going on in Iran.  I have a problem with people who make symbolic gestures and then pat themselves on the back for being oh-so-enlightened without actually, you know, doing anything. 

It’s way too reminiscent for my comfort of war supporters like Jonah Goldberg avidly pushing for a war in Iraq that they freely admitted they would never, ever fight in because they have better things to do.  It’s not like Andrew “Fifth Columnists” Sullivan has no history of picking sides and deciding that everyone who doesn’t agree with him is a traitor.

Can’t get the Cole thing to come up.

Loved the “serious news” clevage of the lady who interviewed McCain (God why don’t they just put her in a Hooter’s uniform).  I think Obama has responed perfectly.  He used the languance of diplomacy which is heavily coded but which the players understand.  His expression of “concern” for demonstrators is code for “hands off.” 

This isn’t about us.  This isn’t about nukes.  Those aren’t ‘Love America’ rallies.  This is about the young people in Iran being fed up with the mullah bullshit and lack of democracy.  70% of Iranians weren’t yet born with the Revolution took place in 1979.

It’s okay to wear green but only if you take a picture of yourself and post it on their website.

Well damn, I guess I’d better go scrape that Obama/Biden bumper sticker off my car.  I hadn’t realized my self-expressive attempt at showing my support for their political cause was all those awful things.

I didn’t realize you were a non-American citizen living in Europe or the Middle East who can’t vote in US elections but put an Obama/Biden sticker on your car to demonstrate your support for voters in the US.

Please defend your proposal that changing your banner and link colors is more than enough activism for anyone, because that’s what you seem to be defending.

I will not defend that argument because I never made it, and I would like to know where you think I ever wrote such a thing.

My argument is as follows: every little bit helps, or at the very least, does no harm.  If someone changes their Facebook icon, or their page theme, or even wears green, it does that much more—granted, perhaps not very much—to get the issue out there.  People may ask questions about why it was done.  It creates at least the possibility of further engagement or action on the issue, whereas doing nothing does not.  In short, while I wish everyone *would* go out and join the Abraham Lincoln Brigade, I am willing to accept each individual’s (helpful) contribution for what it is and attempt to build from there.

And again, in my experience, someone willing to do something like this does not do it in a vacuum and refuse to discuss or spread the matter.  In fact, at least in my own experience, it means they want to get the issue out there.  To the extent people are out there who think it is useful to sit at home wearing a green shirt whilst refusing to discuss or engage the issue more broadly, well, shame on them.  I don’t think those people really exist in appreciable numbers, and it’s exactly the kind of unhelpful “youth” stereotype that I would think was not accepted here.

I also second atheist’s and TF79’s comments directly above yours.

Andrew Sullivan is a self-important jackass, and has always been a self-important jackass. He was when he had a hard-on for preemptive war, and he is now even when he is on our “side”.

gwangung: I mostly agree with you.  However, I think our enthusiasm is important and a good thing, and can have an effect on what is going on in Iran.  But yes, it is important that we retain our reason, our critical faculties.  We must also believe we can make things better.  These things in combination have always been, to me, what distinguishes us from the right wing.

Please defend your proposal that changing your banner and link colors is more than enough activism for anyone, because that’s what you seem to be defending.

I don’t see anybody actually saying that.  Those of us who are defending the green avatars are assuming that it’s being done either in conjunction with other activities or as a general “yay I support your movement!” gesture not unlike other similar things that have been done in the past. 

Is it true that these sorts of things often reach a tipping point where they’re used as empty branding tools or pop culture glurge, rather than their originally intended solidarity and raising awareness?  Sure.  I can’t tell you how many people I saw wearing yellow rubber bracelets a few years ago who probably didn’t have the slightest clue that the trend started as a fundraiser for cancer research.  Let’s not even say the words “pink ribbon” (pink ANYTHING, really).  But I hardly think green avatars on the internet are going to go from “nice gesture of solidarity” to “meaningless trend nobody even remembers the reason for” before the end of the current news cycle.

As for the “well why aren’t you at a protest or .... or ....” meme—you can’t have it both ways.  You can’t start by saying that popular support from Westerners is wrong because it’s not our fight and then end by saying that unless Westerners start getting on planes to Tehran and personally fighting off the Basij, it’s just empty narcissism. (and yes, when I become aware of protests happening in NYC at a time I can go, I will be there).

“I didn’t realize you were a non-American citizen living in Europe or the Middle East who can’t vote in US elections but put an Obama/Biden sticker on your car to demonstrate your support for voters in the US.”

And all the people around the world who did wear Obama t-shirts, put stickers on the car, put up posters, fliers and graffiti on streetposts and walls, they were being fatuous, superfluous and unproductive, if not counterproductive? 

And in any case, I’m terribly confused: is the problem that people in other countries shouldn’t show support for political causes in other countries because it’s narcissistic?  Or is the problem that showing support for political causes isn’t sufficient and people should do more?

Look, if people start using this as a drumbeat for war, or as a political club as Jesse noted above, I’m more than happy to heap scorn on the return of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders.  My hunch is that is where your antipathy towards this comes from (apologies if my hunch is wrong).  But bagging and snarking on people for wanting to visually express their sympathy and support for peaceful demonstrators getting the piss whipped out of them by goons in black on motorcycles seems off to me.  Hell, to some extent, in a country like the US where muslims are faceless, scary bad people trying to blow up our planes and steal our precious bodily fluids, I’m actually optimistic some good will come of this if it encourages people to see Iranian citizens as not that different from us, or encourages people to do some googling about the culture and history (including our own sordid involvement) of Iran.

Just take a step, don’t be ostentacious about it and be ready to follow their lead if there are other steps to be taken.

Following the situation closely on Twitter, I have to say that by and large this is exactly what is happening.  People on the ground are making their needs known, and non-Iranian supporters are facilitating those requests. 

Is it different on other social networking sites?  Maybe.  Is it different on high profile blogs like Sullivan’s?  Possibly.  But from where I’m standing, all the white liberal guilt hemming and hawwing is coming off as much more “ostentatious” and self-serving than the behavior of the folks who’ve turned their avatars green.

Ironically independent polling prior to the election had said Ahmadinejad was going to win:

The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin—greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday’s election.

While Western news reports from Tehran in the days leading up to the voting portrayed an Iranian public enthusiastic about Ahmadinejad’s principal opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, our scientific sampling from across all 30 of Iran’s provinces showed Ahmadinejad well ahead.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

So, just because the guy won doesn’t mean there is “obvious fraud.”

My hunch is that is where your antipathy towards this comes from (apologies if my hunch is wrong).

I think it’s more that Sully has decided to ride this particular pony to more personal fame and glory (and no doubt a book deal), and the green livery is an essential part of that personal brand strategy. Contrast with the owners of Twitter, who—without making a big fuss or turning their logo green—simply announced a delay in significant scheduled maintenance downtime so that Iranians could continue to use it.

Both Twitter’s owners and Sully will benefit from this situation, and both are doing more good than harm (for the moment). Sullivan certainly kicked CNN arse around the room more than a few times over the weekend when it came to reporting the situation for the domestic US market. But of Sullivan and Twitter, only one is promulgating the fantasy that this is as much about him and his glorious mission as it is about actually helping the pro-democracy protesters in Teheran.

I’m a substance over flash kind of guy, so that’s why Sully’s “me-me-me” posturing and wrapping himself in green bunting rubs me the wrong way. I’ve been more impressed with all the low-profile techie projects aimed at keeping good info flowing to and from Iran’s pro-democracy movement.

I find this article bereft of numbers, therefore useless.

Not to mention that this particular spin is so fucking Orwellian.  Remembering back to last week (remember how there was a last week?) the American news media was heavily covering the runup to the Iranian election partially because it was expected to be close.  If Mousavi had been seen by the international media as not having a chance in hell of winning (i.e. reliable 2-to-1 poll numbers), it’s unlikely that this would even be a story.

MosesZD, I’ll direct you to Juan Cole’s analysis here.

I also think it’s important to note that the article linked above is from the Op Ed section of the Washington Post.  If their results were worth taking seriously, wouldn’t this be a real news item rather than an editorial?

Oh thank you! Now I can take off my pink ribbon for my mother and sister, both of whom died of breast cancer, and pretty much stop going to fundraisers. And forget the red ribbon and driving folks with HIV to appointments. 

I wasn’t aware that it means nothing at all.

I find this article bereft of numbers, therefore useless.

There’s a linked PDF in the WaPo article giving some details on methodology, sample sizes, etc. A quick scan didn’t leave me impressed, particularly in light of what I’ve read on the issue from Juan Cole and 538.com.

So, just because the guy won doesn’t mean there is “obvious fraud.”

The “obvious” part comes more from the clumsy and ham-handed efforts by the Supreme Leader and his fellow clerics and thugs in the hours and days after polls closed: cutting off mobile phone and Internet services; restricting the vote count to one Interior Ministry toady and his two assistants behind closed doors; releasing statistically improbable returns; restricting international journalists; banning rallies; arresting rival candidates; arresting protesters; beating protesters; killing protesters.

If your guy (and Ahmadinejad is their creature) really won, there’s no reason to do any of those things—quite the opposite in fact. You want the victorious majority out in the streets, you want the international press to report on your guy’s landslide, you want the wires and wire-less buzzing with the news.

What seems to have happened is that they trusted their internal polling (some conducted by “independent” outfits like the Revolutionary Guard) and surveys conducted by international MSM outlets—polls in a closed society where a lot of the responses are understandably guarded. However, since Iran’s real rulers are trying to pretend they’re a populist democracy with an elected President instead of a theocracy with an unelected Supreme Leader, they had to have secret ballots. That part didn’t work out so well for the Ayatollah, so his people had to juke the stats under duress.

So, just because the guy won doesn’t mean there is “obvious fraud.”

No, but calling him the winner by a 2-1 margin within two hours of polls closing when it was expected to take 3 days to count the ballots (tens of millions of hand-written ballots which have to be manually counted), and having the Ayatollah say he absolutely won within a day sure seems mighty fishy.

Not to mention his massive margins of victories in the home provinces of his opponents.

“Obvious fraud”?  Maybe not… I’m not looking at the ballots.  “Fairly evident fraud”?  I would say yes, arguably so.

MosesZD, if on election night 2008 it was announced that McCain not only won, but carried California, New York, Illinois (AND the city of Chicago) and even the District of Colombia by huge margins, what would you think?

What McCain doesn’t understand right now: Obama doesn’t need to be a bad cop.  Netanyahu is the bad cop.  Obama is psyching out some “good cop” turf.  The good cop role is culturally sound and probably a decent strategy.

We don’t need to threaten anything, other than letting Israel loose to be it’s “jewhadist” self all over their ass if they don’t play nice with good cop.

McCain only understands the bad cop role.  That’s why he would have made a bad president - the more complex dynamic is lost on him.

@Ben D. - AND also that Pat Buchanan running on the Libertarian ticket got 10% of the vote, and Ralph Nader (circa 2000 Nader) got under a million votes.  And the election was called before 9pm, without any of the usual Big Map On CNN hoopla—they didn’t call states or precincts individually or follow any other election protocol, just “McCain Wins!”

Hey Jesse, when do the green “Iranstrong” bracelets come out?

I think it’s more that Sully has decided to ride this particular pony to more personal fame and glory (and no doubt a book deal), and the green livery is an essential part of that personal brand strategy. Contrast with the owners of Twitter, who—without making a big fuss or turning their logo green—simply announced a delay in significant scheduled maintenance downtime so that Iranians could continue to use it.

This.  In my experience, the people most likely to ostentatiously display their ribbons and web banners are also the least likely to actually be doing anything about the problem they’re supposedly drawing attention to.  Twitter is actually doing something.  The anonymous people lending technical and internet assistance are doing something.  If there are protests this weekend and you go to them, you’re actually doing something.  The people turning their banners green and leaving it at that are doing jack shit.

And, yes, all of this is giving me 2003 indigestion all over again, where the horrible evil dictatorship of Saddam Hussein gave us the moral right to invade a sovereign country because we felt like it.  If the promulgator of this wasn’t Andrew Sullivan, I’d probably feel a lot different, but, frankly, Sullivan can’t be trusted to make rational, measured decisions about whether or not bombing the crap out of people in the Middle East is a good idea.  I’m not going to trust that someone who called me a “fifth columnist” for opposing the Iraq War knows what he’s talking about this time, no, really.

If the promulgator of this wasn’t Andrew Sullivan,

I don’t really understand how/why Andrew Sullivan apparently holds a monopoly on this story, and one’s support for the protesters or total apathy was a referendum on him.  He’s probably the most famous person trumpeting it from the rooftops, but meh.  Last I checked I didn’t decide my political opinions based on what Andrew Sullivan did or did not choose to blog about this week.

He’s probably the most famous person trumpeting it from the rooftops, but meh.

He’s the one getting the warbloggers all excited about it, because they remember what he was like in 2003 and they know he has a hard-on for war, especially if it’s a war he can tell himself is “moral.”

You may not remember what it was like in 2003 to have every TV and newspaper commentator—including Sullivan—shoving us willy-nilly into war, but I sure as hell do, and I don’t want to have to go through that again.  There were plenty of people on the left who spent years working and agitating for human rights in Iraq, and they all got buried under Shock and Awe.

I’m saying, keep an eye on who’s driving the bandwagon, and be prepared to jump off.

I don’t really understand how/why Andrew Sullivan apparently holds a monopoly on this story

He doesn’t, but to his credit he was “all over it” (as we used to say in the newsroom) for almost 48 hours before CNN domestic and most of the MSM deigned to cover the story in depth. That doesn’t change my earlier comments, but credit where credit is due.

And if you don’t think the right wing is already using the events in Iran to agitate for war, I have a few links for you:

Sen. John McCain and Jake Tapper

Rep. Mike Pence (R-Ind.)

Jonah Goldberg in the Los Angeles Times

Incidentally, note the graphic on this story from FireDogLake.  I can’t imagine why they might be a little sensitive about American interference…

He’s the one getting the warbloggers all excited about it, because they remember what he was like in 2003 and they know he has a hard-on for war, especially if it’s a war he can tell himself is “moral.”

As I’ve said above, nothing I say, do, or believe is going to turn Sullivan into a pacifist.  Deciding to stop giving a shit and turning on I’m A Celebrity! Get Me Out Of Here! is not going to make him decide that, actually, this is a pretty lame reason for military intervention in Iran. 

I spent a lot of the weekend bonding with The Gals and dancing my ass off at a wedding.  That didn’t prevent him from exercising his right to be a warmongering blowhard.  So, y’know, I’m going to keep doing my tree hugging peacenik leftie thing and worry about stupid rightwing bloggers later.