Iran Watch: 50,000 Buses and One Million No Shows
By Jonathan Bean • Sunday June 13, 2010 2:31 PM PDT • 12 Comments
Before the USSR collapsed, “smart” observers bet that the regime had broad support and the people only wanted reform. This was a theme of writers like Stephen Cohen and required reading during my graduate school education.
Similarly, outside observers assumed that nominally democratic Iran maintained broad support for the Islamic Republic. Sure, sure, college students and urban elites would demonstrate but the people outside the capitol were loyal to the regime. Then the disputed election, massive protests and yet . . . still observers wondered if the demonstrators—matched by counter-demonstrators—represented only the educated stratum.
As Michael Ledeen shows in a recent Wall Street Journal column, we now know the answer:
The regime sent 50,000 buses across the country, offered free food and drink for the anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini, and the turn out was abysmal (imagine one person per bus!). This “demonstration of silence” is more powerful than the clashes we witnessed a year ago.
This boycott demonstrates the importance of civil society: that sphere buffering between individual and State. In communist nations (think Cuba), the buses would be full because the State controls everything—including your food rations. In authoritarian nation States where civil society exists, there is room for protest, even if it is refusing to show up for state-sponsored propaganda plays.
Libertarians loath neoconservatives but perhaps there was something to their distinction between authoritarian (civil society) and totalitarian states (no civil society). What remains to be seen is whether the government trends toward the totalitarian.
Meanwhile, don’t look for President Barack Obama to speak out. The people of Iran showed courage by remaining silent and staying home. President Obama demonstrates cowardice by doing the same. One is an act of defiance (the Iranian no shows), the other a “sin of omission.”
Tags: Civil Liberties, Civil Society, Iran, Middle East, Terrorism, The State 
Just wait another couple years. If we have serious sanctions placed on Iran, the unpopularity of the West will skyrocket there, and the popularity of the regime will increase again.
Eric | Jun 13, 2010 | Reply
It is certainly plausible that the regime in Iran is less than popular. However, I am not sure we can take stories like these on face value, in light of the amount of lies and manipulation our government interjects into circumstances like these.
D. Saul Weiner | Jun 13, 2010 | Reply
“It is certainly plausible that the regime in Iran is less than popular.”
Statements like the above — when one has been watching (best we can) the doings of that country — are nothing more than pure agnosticism about all overseas matters (or domestic, for that matter).
Given the amply documented public statements (and actions) of the regime, one would hope that it was “unpopular!”
The thing that worries me is this “blame the West” instinct on the Chomsky Left and among some libertarians. “Oh, well,” they say, “it’s our fault” (insert thumbnail history of U.S. intervention as the monocausal explanation.”
Or: “Well, it certainly appears bad but we don’t really know and since we can’t trust our own government, then we should say nothing.”
Or: “anything we do will make things worse”
It’s bad. We can do nothing but we can hope and pray. I’m not calling for military action or sanctions (though I don’t believe sanctions will make the regime popular). Instead, I’m calling for some moral sense that we can stand with those who have the courage to act in the face of evil.
Off the soapbox. . .
Jonathan Bean | Jun 13, 2010 | Reply
Those who control the cash can buy much loyalty. The world has not shown any support for those that would go up against the totalitarian society. Think of the US in 1776 and the French aid. Think of China and the help the US gave them against Japan. There are many times in history when help is needed, but our fine president has neither the stomach nor the strength to help even our strongest allies.
Bob Cusick | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Jonathan,
You certainly seemed to put a lot of words in my mouth. The notion that I embrace a pure agnosticism about domestic and overseas matters is absurd and can easily be dispelled through a google search. That said, I do my best to weigh in on things only when I have a reasonably solid grasp on them. But surely it is just easier to dismiss my criticism by imagining that I am the delusional leftie professor that you had to put up with in grad school.
I don’t think much of the regime in Iran and pity their subjects. That said, I know my own government well enough that I cannot take much of what it (and its shills in the media) say on face value, especially when it is escalating toward war with another country. The sources must have integrity and knowledge. Otherwise, we are bombarded with nonsense and follow our so-called leaders off a cliff. Can you say with confidence that Michael Ledeen has a track record of accurate and objective reporting?
How in the world am I “blaming the West”? Sure, I could have blamed the CIA for its role in installing the Shah, but even so, libertarians such as myself recognize that tyranny can and does emerge organically, without the aid of outside influences.
It’s nice of you to point out in your response that you are advocating hoping and praying, and I can go along with that. But what are you looking for Obama to speak out against that he hasn’t already done so? In light of the growing appetite in Washington for sanctions and war with Iran, is your criticism likely to add momentum to that or encourage a more constructive direction?
D. Saul Weiner | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Why should anyone believe anything Michael Ledeen writes? He doesn’t even mention where he gets his information regarding the 50,000 buses. Ledeen has a history of being less than honest and this particular story sounds more like a myth from the Likud than anything reality based.
No matter how “bad” things are in Iran, things aren’t nearly as bad as Mr. Ledeen wants to make it. Rest assured, things will get plenty bad in Iran if bombs start falling on the Iranians. It would be so refreshing if Americans would allow Iranians to solve their own problems without the “help” of America.
Tom Blanton | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
“what are you looking for Obama to speak out against that he hasn’t already done so?”
While Americans were concerned with jobs, Obama blathered on monomaniacally (sp?) about health care.
While Iran went into turmoil, he favored more sweet moderate talk. You call out the regime. Of course, by this point no one listens to Obama.
But I take back the “we can do nothing” — let our inept government allow/encourage/permit high tech companies (Google, et al.) to help with breaking down the Great Firewall of Iran to let information in and out.
Obama is good at letting BP handle a mess, let others do what is currently forbidden.
As for bombs over Iran, I don’t know who thinks this president is a real threat. Sometimes the potential of a threat (the USA might really do something) is more effective than the actual thing. Obama gives us neither. On so many fronts, he fiddles while the economy burns too.
What few videos made it through Youtube showed the buses and tiny crowd. If there was a great showing, the regime would be propagandizing it.
Most of these followup comments just go to prove what I fear about libertarians: they don’t trust any information about any country anywhere. That is agnosticism. And no one here has said that Iranian regime is evil, only that we are bad (proving my other point about self-blame as a knee-jerk response).
Jonathan Bean | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
I searched for evidence to contradict Ledeen’s account. The sites are varied and their trustworthiness may also vary but they all point to the poor showing. A few:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrSkSlWFjPA
http://iranstudentscommittee.vox.com/library/video/6a0137a4b4b7ef860c0137a58e32eb860d.html
http://www.worldthreats.com/?p=2582 — video links
Alas, there is far less information from Iran then there was a year ago. The regime is getting good at keeping the firewall up:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/06/press-roundup.html
Jonathan Bean | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Al Jazeera on “deep divisions”:
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/201064173841257975.html
The VOA cited Iranian claims of 50,000 buses and 2 million people:
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/middle-east/Iranian-Leaders-Blast-Israel-and-US-at-Khomeini-Memorial-95622619.html
Jonathan Bean | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Financial Times reports that the police “anticipated” 2 million with their 50,000 buses but footage indicated it was in the tens of thousands:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45bc1422-703a-11df-8698-00144feabdc0,stream=FTSynd,s01=1.html
Ditto here with a blow by blow of the day — footage only of the inner courtyard:
http://enduringamerica.com/2010/06/04/the-latest-from-iran-4-june-ahmadinejad-khamenei-a-showdown/
Iran News Digest links (this does have an excerpt from the FT):
http://www.irannewsdigest.com/2010/06/04/clash-at-khomeini-ceremony/
Jonathan Bean | Jun 14, 2010 | Reply
Should Obama speak out on the political situation in every nation in the world?
So what if he did? Who really cares what his opinion is? Am I to take away from this posting that everything was great under Bush, but now Obama comes along and America has gone to hell? Talk about “self-blame”.
Yep, Obama is a coward. Every politician is a coward to some extent. Credible sources have reported repeatedly that Ahmadinejad’s opponents don’t want U.S. intervention or involvement. Should America decide to help anyway as we always seem to know what is best for everyone else better than they do themselves?
With the west, led by Israel and the U.S., banging the drums for war/sanctions against Iran, it is difficult to know what to believe. But, it is no secret where the editorial boards of the FT or Wall Street Journal are on the Iran issue.
It should not be surprising to anyone familiar with the concepts of nonintervention or limited government that libertarians dismiss the opinions (or opinions passed off as facts) of neoconservatives. The feeling is apparently mutual.
Tom Blanton | Jun 15, 2010 | Reply
“Those who control the cash can buy much loyalty. The world has not shown any support for those that would go up against the totalitarian society. Think of the US in 1776 and the French aid. Think of China and the help the US gave them against Japan. There are many times in history when help is needed, but our fine president has neither the stomach nor the strength to help even our strongest allies.”
France’s assistance to the Americans in the Revolutionary War led to their country going into massive debt, which precipitated the bloody French Revolution. The US assistance to China helped the authoritarian Nationalists and the totalitarian Communists.
jim | Jun 19, 2010 | Reply