But the tweaks will be twicky. Under majority rule, the clerics don't get to pre-select the slate of candidates.

Indeed, Iran is a "Republic" only slightly more than North Korea. I suspect they need more than "reform" to get a decent government.

"Constitutional tweaks" just won't suffice for a government that is openly defying the UN, murdering US troops every day, has assassinated enemies in probably 10 nations around the world, and continues to threaten more than a few places with nuclear fire. On top of that, dissidents are treated with brutality akin to Zimbabwe, women are beaten in the streets, and there is no accountability for any of the various gangs that run the country. Not to mention the foreign citizens jailed and killed by the Guard.

The 'revolution' has no legitimacy, and Khameini's attempts to make it so (the election of Khatami, for example) have never been more than window dressing.

While Khomeini was alive, there certainly was nothing legitimate about anything in Tehran. The creation of the Basij and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children put Iran right up there with China and North Korea with respect to governmental insanity.

The government of Iran is 'republican' only in the sense that each gang fights for its own piece of the pie, and nobody has the strength or the guts to try and kill all the others. The people are represented by no one.

Of course it will do, none of those things have ever been held against anyone who has the basics right.

The Communists wouldn't win an election in North Korea.

ghost:

Yes, they should retain a veto over the results, a la the old British monarchy, not a monopoly over candidates. That's minor in historical terms.

Jim's list is correct, and could easily be lengthened. So in what sense does the regime "have the basics right"? To me, everything he mentioned is basic.

Indeed they are basic -- here's a clarifying passage from the article:

In Tehran's mind, there looms the larger American conspiracy of regime change. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice disavowed this goal in a recent interview with the Financial Times, but she didn't halt spending from the $75 million fund created last year to broadcast pro-democracy messages to Iran and help Iranian NGOs. Tehran believes this money is really aimed at encouraging a "soft revolution'' in Iran, on the model of the recent color revolutions in Lebanon, Georgia and Ukraine.

That's why the Iranians arrested Haleh Esfandiari, an Iranian-American who works for the Woodrow Wilson Center. They know she's no spy -- Iran's own counterintelligence service concluded that she had no espionage role. But the country's leaders want to send a message that they will imprison even a harmless grandmother to intimidate activists.

There's really no reason to take that kind of action unless something that is (or is perceived to be) "basic" is threatened. Admittedly, the mullahs are right to be concerned: We wouldn't spend that money unless we were trying to change things, either by instigating a "soft" revolution or a more substantial kind.

Hmmm - getting the 'basics' right. On an individual level, are we talking freedom as in First Amendment freedom? Are we talking just minimal property rights? I know we're not talking about the Second Amendment. And I know we're not talking about the independence of the judiciary.

Corporately, Iran is no better. Much of its commerce (primarily from Europe) is under sanction, its foreign policy is directed towards creating chaos with almost everyone, and it seeks a level of sovereignty far above its level.

So what is left?

Those are details, not basics.

Indeed, Matt, anyone who would pretend that we aren't trying to get rid of Mahmoud, for good reason, is just being precious.

Well, they don't have any right to "life, libery, and the pursuit of happiness", either.

When a nation is cobbled together on hatred, it is always a 'basic'. And a lot of people die, which is not a detail.

There is a difference between authority and totality, as noted by Jeanne Kirkpatrick. And there is a difference between Iran and North Korea. Iran is not a totalitarian state. But its various gangs give it the reckless flavor of Imperial Japan, which was quite unconscienceable for many bloody years. That was not a detail, especially to the Chinese, the Koreans, the Filipinos, the Vietnamese, and others.

Yes, they do. And that's why they have a fairly low level of dissatisfaction with the regime overall -- though they are disgusted with the president -- and want merely some reforms. Their ability to vote out the twelvers is the basic.

Utter exhaustion and futility does not equate to 'a fairly low level of dissatisfaction'.

Wanting too much is a dangerous thing in Iran, because you never know which gang is watching you. So people shuffle along, probably like Muscovites of the 1960s.

Oh, and show us the average Iranian citizen who has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We would like to meet him.

For the utterly exhausted they sure turn out at the polls to voice their dissatisfaction.

OJ:

Agreed, we're obviously trying to get rid of him -- for Condoleezza Rice to pretend otherwise is funny. But we were also hoping to democratize the government before he even came on the scene.

That you don't consider Iranian government suppression to be "basic" is puzzling, particularly since you think sovereignty rests on a government's behavior towards its citizens.

It is democratic. We encouraged reformists not to vote. They didn't and got stuck with the loon. Next election we'll be begging them to turn out and they'll toss him, as they already punished his party in their local elections.

There isn't much suppression. It isn't needed.

OJ:

There isn't much suppression? Then why are they arresting grandmothers to intimidate activists? Why do young Iranians hate the guts of their government?

The problem is deeper than Ahmadinejad. Remember when Iranians thought Khatami was their savior?

Yes, Khatami was a disappointment too them. But the point is it's a system where a Khatami can be elected. People want greater separation of church and state, so they'll get it.

OJ:

The point is they elected Khatami and he couldn't do anything. The mullahs are in charge.

He couldn't do as much as they wanted. He did do some things, not least ratchet down tensions, which is why Iran was largely forgotten until Mahmoud was elected. Of course, Mahmoud has been unable to crack down on the social liberalization that took place under Khatami, likewise because he isn't in charge.