Iran: the sign we've been looking for

When government muscle joins with protesters - thus becoming former government muscle, a regime can crumble very quickly:

Source: Reuters
TEHRAN, Dec 27 (Reuters) - An Iranian opposition website said police forces refused orders to shoot at pro-reform protesters during clashes on Sunday in central Tehran, where it reported earlier four demonstrators had been killed.

"Police forces are refusing their commanders' orders to shoot at demonstrators in central Tehran ... some of them try to shoot into air when pressured by their commanders," the Jaras website said. (Reporting by Reuters Tehran bureau)

Is this report true? Or, is it a plant which is designed to encourage other government muscle to ignore orders and join with the protesters?

The Iranian protesters (the Greens) are running an outstanding propaganda campaign. Their public relations strategy, and their organizing, is aided by a few key Iranians in America (who, in turn, might or might not be aided by CIA action which was begun by order of George W. Bush, and which at one time funneled money and communications equipment into Iran). If the Green strategists and propagandists did not plant the story, they ought have. If it's really true that government muscle is refusing to shoot protesters, historic shifts of power could happen very rapidly. Revolutions = unpredictable, volatile, boring, boring, bloody, bloody, suffering, suffering, then sudden, dramatic, and historic. Revolutions happen in the way Hemingway's Mike Campbell described going broke (from "The Sun Also Rises"):

Bill Gorton: "How did you go broke?"
Mike Campbell: "Gradually, then suddenly."

Side Note:

President Obama's ongoing calculation that he can negotiate with the Iranian regime has been and still is one of the laughable calculations in all of history. The moment, in June 2009, when the Iranian regime began to wobble, was the moment a wise U.S. President would have spoken out in favor of the protestors and against the regime. Because negotiations have always been virtually hopeless, the best bet to prevent an Iranian nuke in the hands of fanatics is to topple the regime(the second best bet is internal sabotage, the third best bet is a series of attacks by Israel, and there is no fourth best bet). In June of 2009, instead of acting on the best bet and encouraging a topple, President Obama tried to maintain the viability of the regime (so he could negotiate with that viable regime). Pres. Obama's Administration issued statements which verbally propped up and legitimized the Iranian regime. Madness. One of the most incompetent foreign policy actions in all of history.





When I say Pres. Obama is incompetent, I mean: Pres. Obama, of all U.S. Presidents, likely has the least knowledge of world history and of U.S. History. Worse, the history Pres. Obama thinks he knows amounts to false leftist propaganda. Mark Twain:

"It ain't what he don't know, but what he does know that ain't so."

With Pres. Obama, it's both, i.e. what he don't know AND what he does know that ain't so. Partially because he doesn't understand history, Pres. Obama also doesn't understand humanity. Such lack of understanding makes him particularly unqualified to lead the most powerful nation in the world. It makes him actually dangerous.

Speaking of Iran, Charles Krauthammer says:

"This is a moment in history, and he's missing it."

Why is Pres. Obama missing it? It's because he is ignorant of history, and is resultingly ignorant of humanity. Nothing in Pres. Obama's life has prepared him to notice that a revolution is about to succeed in Iran - either now, or in the not too distant future. Pres. Obama can't mentally grasp it. He suffers from a failure of imagination. Pres. Obama thinks revolutions are always clean, bloodless, and led from behind teleprompters. He is incompetence on toast.





Finally: when the Iranian regime is toppled (imo, it's a matter of when, not if), if Pres. Obama and his people then attempt to take credit for the topple, I will vomit for a week.