"In the current atmosphere, ANY mistake of this type by someone opposing the Iranian regime, or supporting the US position in Iraq, is going to get pounced on. One needs to be aware of that, and use caution."

Who is doing the pouncing here? People who cite Juan Cole as an expert. The point of my post is that we don't know for sure that it is a mistake, and there are reasons to believe that it isn't. I don't see why I should be more cautious than that, to avoid being pounced on by Andrew and Taylor.

I am simply asking people to reserve judgement. They are insisting that it isn't true, based on nothing but neo-con conspiracies. Guess who is going to have egg on their faces?

#13 - should have close italics after "speaker's bureau."

I'm sorry, that should be #15. :-0

(Joe, if you want to fix the post I am talking about and erase these two, I wouldn't object.)

#10: Mr. Rockford, you list a number of legitimate and well documented criticisms -- nay, outrages -- of the mullah regime. I'd rather rest my opposition on solid evidence than dilute my entire argument with dubious, ill-sourced, and sensationalist claims.

#15: Yehudit, there are sources that have indeed denied that enforced discriminatory dress for dhimmis was discussed. I remember one source describing the idea as "suicide" -- as well it should be.

Sure, I'd believe it of Amhacrazyguy and his Twelver-Rapture loons. But I can't act based on my bad opinions of people; I need evidence. And I have not seen sufficient evidence to back up Taheri's claims. Your opinion of his expertise is completely irrelevant, as is past history.

"What are the facts? Again and again and again - what are the facts? Shun wishful thinking, ignore divine revelation, forget what “the stars fortell”, avoid opinion, care not what the neighbors think, never mind the unguessable “verdict of history” - what are the facts, and to how many decimal places? You pilot always into an unknown future; facts are your single clue. Get the facts!"
–Robert Anson Heinlein (1907 - 1988)

Jim Rockford - DITTO!

A frog will die in a pot of water if brought slowly to a boil.

There is no moral equivalence of Islamofascism. It's time to call, "a spade a spade." This is pure evil.

RBT

I like Heinlein too. I too want the facts. The facts of the case have NOT been settled. I have made a good case for why we should not assume what the facts are, as long as they have not been settled.

And yes, past history IS relevant as long as the facts are in dispute, it is relevant in speculating on the facts when no direct evidence is available. Any private detective or historian or spy will consider motive and past history while deducing the truth about something. To dismiss this out of hand is dishonest.

Everyone who claims that Iran has not considered reviving their badge law is speculating, just as I am. But I am not claiming I have the facts, and you are claiming that. You want this case to be open and shut, because a particular answer suits your political agenda. But it isn't open and shut.

Yes, I agree with Heinlein, let's get the facts.

#22, Yehudit: "Everyone who claims that Iran has not considered reviving their badge law is speculating, just as I am. But I am not claiming I have the facts, and you are claiming that. You want this case to be open and shut, because a particular answer suits your political agenda. But it isn't open and shut."

I fear you have read too much into my posting. It is still possible that the Majlis, or the mullahs, have discussed this matter in secret. If that is so, I hope the flurry of activity dissuades them. But I have not claimed I have the facts, only reports. Then I see everyone construing those reports in the manner that puts them and their friends in the best possible light. It is a natural and human thing to do, but it obscures what data we do have.

What grieves me the most is that Mr. Taheri did not bother to gather more facts before running with his story. He got a sensational tip and a dubious confirmation and ran with it, because it suited his political leanings. This is very similar to another recent incident where one Mr. Leopold, working for the other side of our current ideological divide, did much the same thing for much the same reason. They both had to back down heavily on their claims, although both continue to stand by the gist of their story.

Speculation (especially that driven by agendae) moves a lot faster than the cold hard truth. I don't know what the truth is on the badge law; I do know Mr. Taheri's sources and publication have renounced their support of his story, and opposing sources have come forward, and no independent supporting source has stepped up to the plate. It still doesn't mean he's wrong but it does make him something of a lone voice in the wilderness at present. Please come back when you have something more than reputations to tell us about.

I am simply asking people to reserve judgement. They are insisting that it isn't true, based on nothing but neo-con conspiracies.

I agree with you. At this point there's no evidence that it isn't true. At this point there's no evidence that it is true.

We have no reason to decide that it isn't true, just because the original sources that say it is are completely worthless.

There is strong reason to believe this is black propaganda, a claim created only to confirm people in their bad opinion of iran, and chosen because it was likely to be believed. But it's also quite possible that it's something true that's getting used just like black propaganda. Just because some people who do not have your best interest at heart are trying to convince you, does not prove it's wrong. They are irrelevant to whether it's right or wrong.

Juan Cole is a professor in -- illinois? He collects links, reports what they say, and gives his opinion on them. Probably the particular links he publishes are a biased sample, he ignores some reports and publishes others. If you look at Juan Cole's website and find a link to a credible report, then he's done you a service. If you read his opinion and it helps you put things together -- either agreeing with him or disagreeing or off on some skew angle -- then again he's done you a service. If Cole were to announce that there hasn't been any plan to color-code nonmuslims in iran since 1902, you can look at whichever of his links you can read, and then you can decide how much attention you want to give his opinion. Speaking for myself, I occasionally look at his site, particularly when somebody links to it, and I look at his links. I try to remember that his stuff is a biased sample, kind of like MEMRI except with a different slant.

Cole is not a reporter. This other guy looked like he was reporting facts, and now he says he was just writing opinion and the other reporters should have noticed and not taken his reporting seriously.

11.

there are reporters, analysts, and links.

A link simply takes you to someone else's reporting or analysis.

an analysis makes a logical argument, using given information. I can read and check the analysis myself. I dont have to go on trust at all (assuming the info used as a basis is uncontroversial - and I can check if it is) I can use neo con analsyst that way, as I can use Cole that way (and thats mainly what Cole is quoted for, not his links) My experience is that while the analyses by neocons is sometimes weak, Coles' is just as often.

Then there is reporting. Someone saying what they saw, what a source of theirs said, or even translating a document.

I use the MSM reporters, though with considerable grains of salt. They all have biases. Washington Times and Fox one way, BBC, CSM, Reuters and many NYT reporters the other way. All of these can be useful as part of a larger picture. I like John Burns of the NYT though, and the WaPo is usually balanced.

I like to get additional balance - Iraq the Model and other Iraqi bloggers supplement, as do US Military personnel in Iraq. For Israel there is no substitute for the Israeli press (both the hawkish Jer Post and the dovish Haaretz) and I supplement with personal contacts.

There arent many good sources in Iran. MSM coverage inside is meager, theres no free internal press, and blogging seems to be censored.

I would discount Ledeen, Taheri, etc. Except that some of what they say, in particular about Iranians being "pro-US" is confirmed by two personal acquaintances who have been in Iran "They want to know, why doesnt the US invade" "Thats where we'll hang the mullahs". Now Im quite aware of the sample bias in THEIR contacts - upper class North Teheran. And I assume Ledeen's contacts reflect a similar sample bias. But at least Ledeen reports that this opinion exists, which one would hardly know from the MSM. So I still need Taheri and Ledeen as sources on Iran. If you only read the MSM, youd have been very surprised by the recent outbreaks of student protests, or the Azeri protests.

Its too bad Taheri seems to have gotten this wrong. Given his claimed sources, its still not clear whats really going on.

Is there an MSM reporter in Teheran who regularly interviews anti-Ahmadinajad members of the Majlis? If not, why not? Could it be that Iran is NOT at all an open society? Not even compared to Egypt?

"Who is doing the pouncing here? People who cite Juan Cole as an expert."

unfortunately even relatively reasonable people, like Gandelman at TMV, have picked up on this.

Its really good to use 24 hour rules on anything big.

JT - Taheri was not reporting from the scene, but WAS passing on what he heard from sources inside Iran. Now it may well be that there are members of the Majlis who want to "blacken" Iran. INTERNAL Chalabis. That in itself would seem to be important. Second - Cole DOES report, not just link. On something as important as the Ahmadinajad speech, he gave his own translation.

He also seems to feel a need to report on Chris Hitchens drinking habits, and some Iraqi bloggers alleged ties to the CIA. And on the eeevil "Likudnik" conspiracy.

Even paranoids have enemies.

The problem with Cole is taht he is an analyst who massages his data along ideological lines. I would have to see alot of proof before I would buy the baby story. The badge story is an article of faith too without some kind of discussion about minutes and laws.

Because I believe Iran is capable of those kinds of actions only betrays my own predjudices. I just have to be honest about it and not let credo consolens take over for rational jusgement.

The problem with Cole is taht he is an analyst who massages his data along ideological lines.

A problem he shares with Joe and AL and Yehudit.

Then there's Trent who so far out in right field it's actually funny.

FWIW, I am agnostic on the truth of the badges story. I went from belief, to unbelief to throwing up my hands. I view Tahari's confirmation of the story as a retrenchment. He backed off of some elements, while holding to others. I'm wary of the word parsing in the confirmation, but it tends to make me believe that the confirmation is true, though it may not constitute the "whole" truth.

1. Taheri didn't write the more inflammatory of the two articles in the National Journal, nor the NAZI comparison in the headlines of the newspapers. Chris Wattie wrote the second article, but it appears to have disappeared.

2. The Iranian legislative process is not as transparent as some assume. Bills are approved initially as to their generalities and their language becomes more detailed in committee and on final approval where amendments can be introduced. (Some discussion here ) Even the AP version of the bill (was it the first reading bill or the final form?) was general as to the Islamic dress code being mandated.

3. The Holocaust analogies were distracting and inappropriate. The badges have nothing to do with NAZISM They have to do with najis -- rules of ritual cleanliness -- some of which are currently in place in Iran and are difficult to comply with if you don't know whether the person you're touching, walking near, whose food you are eating or from whom raindrops might bounce is Muslim or Infidel. Yes, there are other other implications from such dress codes, but one need not believe that the mullahs are evil or want to kill all the Jews (Christians and Zoroastrians) to believe that resumption of the pre-1925 laws would be seen as good for Iran by many Islamisists. Frankly what good is an Islamisists if you don't want to legislate najis?

"The problem with Cole is taht he is an analyst who massages his data along ideological lines.
A problem he shares with Joe and AL and Yehudit."

Yah, well, how often are Joe and AL and Yehudit quoted in the MSM as experts on the region? Cole is often so quoted, in news stories and columns, with no explanation of his biases.

And Yehudit and AL are more rigorous, and in general more honest about what they think and why they think it. Cole has a black box mentality where alot of his stuff is backed up by a giant guilded "because I'm an expert."

I'll categorize it in terms of confidence of information: I have low confidence in the baby story, medium to fair confidence in the badges, and as far as Nazi allegories go, yeah I buy them. Basij are analogous to Brown Shirts, and the muscular nationalism with a huge mass of disenfranchised lesser rivals fits the picture pretty well. The Nazis of 1933 weren't the Nazis of 1945. The SS wasn't the dreaded elites that they became, and ideological considerations hadn't been handled. If you want to put it this way, Ahmahdi-najad could be Rohm as well as Hitler.

Truth be told, that kind of stuff can be satisfying, but its too clever to be anything worth making a judgement on. You shouldn't attack someone because after looking at data and subjecting it to a literary interpretation for previous allegory and deep hidden meaning, you have come to the conclusion that they are TEH NAZIS! Determine if they are a threat based on their actions in isolation. Who cares if they had badges in the past? Will they have badges now? And what would they do with that information? I see an escalation in persecution as being probable by the Basij. We should prepare to receive a flood of refugees in such a case.

Yah, well, how often are Joe and AL and Yehudit quoted in the MSM as experts on the region?

Could have something to do with the fact that none of them ARE experts on the region don't you think?

Cole can certainly be annoying and he has his viewpoints, but face facts here. None of the three you list posses anywhere near the expertise on the middle east region that Cole has.

A slight correction. I'd substitute "credentials" for your use of the word "expertise".

Genuine expertise is rarer than professorships.

Just sayin', is all.

IIUC Cole is an expert on Bahaism, and on certain related religious tendencies. He has no academic expertise in modern ME politics.

His only claim is that he can read Arabic and Farsi. Well so can Mr Taheri, I presume. And many others who dont get nearly the coverage of Cole.

And Cole spends a lot of time analyzing the motives of Israel, despite being unable to understand Hebrew. So much for the centrality of language to understanding modern politics.

BTW, im not the one who compared Cole to our local bloggers - YOU did. Someone indicated the problem with Cole as an analyst. YOU responded by comparing him with our local bloggers. Which is IRRELEVANT, as they are not cited as experts. Pointing out that they are NOT experts does not add to the relevance of the comparison.

Then there's Trent who so far out in right field it's actually funny.

A one-dimensional scale is probably not adequate for modern politics. Trent is probably extreme along a few dimensions and rather near the middle on a lot of others.

But what got me to respond to this was the "right field" metaphor. This is from baseball, right? You can be way out in right field or left field. But can't you get farther out in center field before you hit the wall? Nobody every accuses anyone of being way out in center field.

Cole is an expert on Bahaism, and on certain related religious tendencies.

I didn't realize that and it checks out, but isn't it interesting that googling his site one finds only 18 references to baha'i and 163 to likud.

That's probably because Baha'i is one of the oppressed "identities", while Likud is the Man -- you know, what with all the Baha'i villages being strafed by the Israelis. And whatnot.

/snarkasm=off

What do we know for sure.

Iran was considering (passed?) a law requiring Muslims to wear distinctive clothing. Presumably non-muslims would not be allowed to wear such clothing.

Sort of a mild yellow badge scenario.

I don't think Iran is out of the woods on this one yet.

> What I didn't add to my post is that there is a general consensus that requiring traditional dress for Iranian Muslims was discussed.

What are the problems with dhimmi badges that don't happen with a Muslim dress code?

Are there significant problems specific to badges themselves, or are the interesting problems produced by differentiation? If the latter, does a Muslim dress-code, which is also a differentiator, also produce them?

What happens legally to non-Muslims who wear traditional western dress? What happens outside the legal system to non-Muslims who don't wear it? Or, to those who do.

The bottom line is that a law supposedly being discussed is inherently difficult to prove or disprove until it has been tabled in some formal fashion. This is especially true when dealing with a semi-closed society like Iran where the real decisions happen behind closed doors within a theocracy.

Under those circumstances, it's possible to say that "a law is under consideration" or even "a law has been broadly agreed on," and also say "that law doesn't exist," and have no contradiction.

Ultimately, we do not know for certain one way or the other. Iran is not the kind of society where such things are open to scrutiny. The fact that Nuremberg-style laws are completely in line with the mullahs' belief set and the historical practice of Islam, however, is something that is worth taking into account and should give one pause.

Indeed, if the idea is in fact percolating in Iranian clerical circles, then making such reports an international issue is an excellent way to make sure the idea is less likely to become legislation.

Which is by far the preferred outcome in such situations, and would be reflective of successful pressure - not dishonesty.

We also know that

• On May 23rd, the religious police of Tehran announced that they "have already admonished and ‘educated’ 32,000 women and 64 men for their clothing and behaviour”, including 190 shops fined for violating the ban on selling non “Islamic” clothes and other goods, confiscation of 230 cars and arrests of 164 persons (119 women and 45 men). Reported here

• This last week Iran's Baha'i complained the government had "recently intensified a campaign of arrests, raids and propaganda that was aimed at eradicating their religion in Iran." The government newspaper in Tehran has published more than 30 articles denigrating the Bahai faith — even accusing Bahais of sacrificing Muslim children on holy days. Reported here

AFAIK, these events precede the law at issue, which I do not believe has yet been approved by the mullahs, but I think they provide a useful context of what the law might seek to accomplish.