Is it better or worse for neo-con interests if Sunni's stay engaged and share some power or better if more moderate although Iranian leaning Shites dominate?

Neocons hate the Shi'ites.

So, the question is still valid isn't it?

Perry:

People seldom care about what's actually in their interest when emotions are involved.

It would be better for everyone if the Sunni just went along, but it's not a bad thing if the Shi'a have to force them to.

To put it a little differently, a succussful Shi'ite democracy in Iraq would transform the middle east and the world and usher in the golden age, but it's not all that likely an outcome even if all the other Arab leaders plus Iran didn't understand that they have to stop such a thing from developing or face the noose themselves.

Iran is developing its own.

No, it's not.

They just had another smooth election and transfer of power. they're doing as well as most any Western democracy did in its early days.

Except that their elections are rigged constitutionally and this last election was rigged extra-constitutionally. Their governmental structure, with the superseding power of the clergy, hasn't changed at all since the revolution and their society has gotten less free over time.

None of which matters one bit. The truth choices they have are to reform themselves or commit "suicide by cop". Despite all the blather in the MSM about Americans losing patience with the WOT, all it'll take is another 9/11 -- or even 9/11-lite-- for Americans to reluctantly come to the conclusion that this cancer needs radiation therapy.

We read that New Yorkers are back to being anti-Bush. Any bets on what their thoughts would be if 4 bombs go off simultaneously in New York subway stations?

Funny thing is, a Democratic president would push the button faster than a Republican will.

David:

They had fewer candidates than they ought, but elected a reformist and, indeed, all three of the top candidates were reformers, only each coming from a different power base. Popular participation in the elections was high enough to allay any concern that the elected leaders aren't representative of the general will of the people. The clergy is a problematic check on the elected regime and that will have to be dealt with, but isn't that dissimilar to the British monarchy when we were developing our system.

Yes, they're sure developing towards democracy, so long as by "developing" you mean moving away from and by "democracy" you mean rule by a self-selecting theocratic elite.

Hardly self-selecting and not at all theocratic. The liberal secular reformers just biffed by calling for a boycott of this election so they got a secular conservative reformer instead.

What the heck are you talking about? The Leader and the Guardian Council are a check on candidates and all legislation, the one selects the other, and their very purpose is to ensure the continuation of Islamic theocracy.

The liberal secular reformers thought that the election was a sham because, um, it was a sham, as it is only an "election" between those candidates acceptable to the theocracy. Khatami was proof that, in this context, "reformers" aren't all that interested in reform and, to the extent that they try for some small reforms around the edges of the system, they are stymied by the theocracy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "secular." Ahmadinejad is not a mullah, but he is a member of the Alliance of Builders of Islamic Iran, an Islamist political party.

David, all candidates in the Canadian federal elections must be approved by the leaders of the parties, (in other words, three people).

Would you consider Canada a democracy?

Randall: The two situations aren't even remotely similar. The Leader of the Iranian government is selected from a small group of people for life. He and the Guardian Council are tasked with making sure that all candidates and all legislation conform to the dictates of Islam. The Leader's powers include (from Section 110 of the Iranian constitution):

1. Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation's Exigency Council.

2. Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system.

3. Issuing decrees for national referenda.

4. Assuming supreme command of the armed forces.

5. Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces.

6. Appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignation of:

a. The fuqaha' on the Guardian Council.
b. The supreme judicial authority of the country.
c. The head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
d. The chief of the joint staff.
e. The chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.
f. The supreme commanders of the armed forces.

7. Resolving differences between the three wings of the armed forces and regulation of their relations.

8. Resolving the problems, which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation's Exigency Council.

9. Signing the decree formalizing the election of the President of the Republic by the people. The suitability of candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, with respect to the qualifications specified in the Constitution, must be confirmed before elections take place by the Guardian Council; and, in the case of the first term [of the Presidency], by the Leadership.

10. Dismissal of the' President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution.

11. Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation [to that effect] from the Head of judicial power.

If that summarizes the constitutional role of the leaders of Canada's parties, then no, Canada is not a democracy.

That's not a bad description of the way Chretien and Trudeau governed which is why parliaments need a king to balance the power of the prime minister.

There is an interesting entry in the Oxford English dictionary that pops up on my Macintosh (note the example usage):

"Democracy noun : a democracy in Iraq is quite unlikely for now or any time soon

representative government, elective government; self-government, government by the people; republic, commonwealth. antonym dictatorship."

David:

The Council was forced to allow a liberal reformist candidate but he lost in round one because of the boycott. It was a mistake on the liberals part. The clerics only have veto power over legislation and the reformers could have retained control of the agenda, if not the government entire. Instead they've got a conservative reformer who is though the first non-cleric to be elected president. If he doesn't get the economy going--an impossibility if he tries Islamist methods--he'll lose the next election. It's imperfect, but still a reasonably representative democracy by historic standrads and a remarkable one by Middle Eastern. They'll get there. Though in the short term it may be a matter of the reform being driven more from below than above:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/middle_east/jan-june05/khatami_interview.html

Randall:

Indeed, Iran basically just substitutes the clerisy for the king.

oj -- that is exactly how I look at it. I know a few Iranians; one was educated in a school called Hezbollah. They are hard working, excellent at business and freedom-loving people who have a heart that tends toward religion. They are suspicious of the U.S., but not insanely so.

The real hope for Iran is the incredible number of people under 20. With a thriving democracy next door, Iran will have no choice but to follow -- just to employ all those kids.

China is becoming Christian. Russia is committing suicide. North Korea is nothing more than a petulant child that can hurt South Korea or Japan or China, but not the U.S. And Iran is slowly becoming a democracy.

Things are looking pretty good.

A liberal reformer who can get past the Leader is not the same thing as a liberal reformer. Khatami was a liberal reformer in that mold and got nothing. I don't see how you guys can say that they're progressing towards democracy when structurally they're not moving at all and oppression of dissenters, including shutting down newspapers and the jailing of democrats is heating up. A few years ago, I was hoping that Iran could reform peacefully, but now I think that's almost impossible. Right now, it is more likely that they're either going to have a bloody revolution, or we're going to have it for them.

Here's where your argument falls apart: Iran is allowing terrorists and material to cross its border into Iraq to aid AQ and the Sunni insurgency, despite the fact that all these American idiots think that the new government is going to be an Iranian puppet. Iran knows that a true Arab democracy dominated by the Shi'a and the Kurds cannot be allowed to exist on its borders.

The more uncertain authority is of its capacity to retain power the more repressive it becomes. That these rather light measures are the harshest they think they can be without tipping the whole thing over suggests just how close to the end they are.

Ah, so by "developing democracy" you mean "increasingly repressive." Why didn't you say so? We agree, then.

Yes, think of it as their Alien and Sedition Acts period. Although, we have to note that they've already successfully transferred power from one party to another, something we hadn't at that point.

What's repressive about the Alien and Sedition Acts?

http://www.lessig.org/blog/archives/002343.shtml

The Alien Act empowered President Adams to arrest, detain, and deport any non-citizen he found to be a danger to the security of the nation. The individual was given no right to a hearing and no right to present evidence in his defense. The Republicans objected that this was unconstitutional; the Federalists responded that aliens had no rights under the United States Constitution because they were not part of “We the People.” The Sedition Act effectively made it a crime for any person to criticize the President, the Congress or the Government of the United States. The Republicans vehemently object that the Act violated the First Amendment; the Federalists argued that in time of war it was essential to stifle criticism of the government because if the People lost confidence in the government they would not make the sacrifices war demands.

The Federalist prosecutors and judges used the Sedition Act exclusively against Republicans, especially against Republican congressmen and editors who criticized the President. Although the Federalists argued that this legislation was necessary because the nation was on the brink of war, the real reason the Federalists wanted it was to silence Republican criticism and thus to ensure that Adams would defeat Jefferson in the election of 1800.

Anon: Much of what you write is wrong, but even so, where's the repression?

Not in Iran either apparently, if those aren't your standards. But using the law to repress opponents is small potatoes given the repression of women in blacks in early America.

Yes, as I said, you think that increasing repression and developing democracy are the same thing. You (monarchist, misogynist, Shia'philic) like the Iranian system as it stands because you like its results. Too bad Iranian women can vote or it could be your perfect polity.

Once again, you make my argument. We repressed blacks, but that wasn't part of our developing democracy. Ultimately, we had to have a bloody civil war to end that repression. The Iranians, too, will need a bloody civil war if they are to have any hope of overthrowing their oppressors. With the monarchy, too, we had to throw it off by force of arms in order to develop our democracy.

The Alien and Sedition Acts, on the other hand, were constitutional at the time and are arguably constitutional today. If that's repression, and I have a hard time seeing it as such, then we haven't developed much at all.

Yes, the far more democratic Iranian system only represses a few people according to its own constitutional standards as well. They won't have a bloody civil war, just a natural evolution and they'll be a fully liberal regime decades quicker than we were.

Being the second to do something is always easier, never mind 180th.

The problem with this bout of optimism is that their constitution is clear that the Koran as interpreted by the Leader is the fundamental law, not the constitution. Even the constitution cannot be amended if, in the Leader's view, the amendment offends against the commands of the Koran. The Leader also has, as noted before, command of the armed forces and of the Revolutionary Guards, a name you should mull over. This is not a system that is going to peacefully evolve.

yes, but it's a heretical system and the young don't like it, so it'll change. Given that armed forces are made up of the young it'll change fairly easily.