Maybe They Liked The Mullahs at One Point..
The NY Times today had a fairly decent portrayal of the Fizzle and the reasons why a good deal of Iran supported the Mullahs.
I scanned the NYT and couldn't find the reference to support of the Mullahs. I also haven't read every post in this thread, so I might be repetitive. So, I apologize in advance.
I have a fair number of friends who immigrated from Iran, and I'm fairly close to two ex-Tehran families.
That said, I can tell you that a fair number of Iranians supported the Mullahs as an alternative to Shah. They found out, in a few years, that they were worse off.
However, the Iranians are accustomed to living "in the closet" so to speak. The Iranians, or Persians, had to succumb to Arab Islam under threat of the sword. To survive, most Iranians put on an Islamic public face. This is essential for education, career advancement, and simple survival.
The Iranian Mullahs prescribe an Islam that is appropriate to Arab countries. I'll stay away from an explanation of that, lest I offend a TFL member or two. Be assured, though, that Persians have much more respect for Israel and the US than they do for Saudi Arabia, and I'll leave it at that.
The Mullahs for years have tried to force their brand of Islam onto a country the nerve center of which, Tehran, is educated, sophisticated, progressive, and Zoroastrian in culture and maybe faith. The Mullahs, for example, have tried to stamp out Zoroastrian cultural celebrations. They have had mixed success. And, it's as easy to get a bottle of good single malt in Tehran as it is in Los Angeles, I am told.
The only people who want the Mullahs to keep power in Iran are the Arab-ethnics in the outlying provinces and the uneducated folks. This generalization is probably fairly accurate.
Now, to the topic at hand. Gun control in Iran.
Oldcspsarge is correct. Private ownership of firearms is prohibited. One of my Iranian friends tells me that Shah confiscated all civilian firearms. After the revolution, the armories in Iran were opened and civilians armed themselves.
The Mullahs later demanded the return of all firearms, and executed people to make their point. After the firearms were returned, the Mullahs began their systematic execution of tens of thousands of civilians, many of whom were supporters of the Mullahs before the revolution--Communists, etc.
(So, if you know any lefties in North America who support the Islamic view--anti-Israel and all that, you might want to tell them that when Islam takes over, they and their families will be the first in line for torture and death.)
Anyway, another Iranian friend of mine tells me that mosques all over the country have buried arms caches waiting for the right moment. Obviously, the people who invented the game of chess don't think that the right moment is now.
One little-known fact is that the Iranians who consider themselves Muslim to not consider their own Ayatollah to be the supreme voice of Shia Islam. Rather, they respect Sistani--over the border in Iraq. He's the spiritual leader who encouraged Iraq's nascent democracy by saying that Shia Islam and a democratic political system can co-exist.
My best guess for the near future? The street demos have quieted down because they cannot compete with Michael Jackson. Behind the scenes, all sorts of interesting stuff is being set up. Alliances are being formed. Weapons are being acquired--the border between Iraq and it's zillions of AK's is probably porous right now.
Cash is flowing out of Iran as fast as the Mullahs and their corrupt buddies can shovel. Can anyone in the banking industry corroborate this? And where is it going?
To end on a note re
The New York Times. I think that if any editorialist at the NYT recommended an armed civilian population, his head would roll. But we all know that.
) pointed out that the Times' view of the 2nd Amend. vs. Friedman's analysis vs Hairdo power might need some rethinking.