Could We Beam Broadband Internet Into Iran? 541
abenamer writes "Some reporter at a recent White House press briefing just asked the White House press secretary, Robert Gibbs, this question: Was 'the White House....considering beaming broad capability into Iran via satellite so the opposition forces would be able to communicate with themselves and the outside world?' 'Gibbs said he didn't know such a thing was possible. (Is it?) But he said he would check on the technological feasibility and get back with an answer.' I'm not sure what the reporter meant by beaming broadband into Iran: Do they even have 3G? Would we bomb the Iranians with SIM cards that would allow them to get text messages from the VOA? Or somehow put up massive Wi-Fi transmitters from Iraq and beam it into Iran? How would you beam broadband into Iran?"
Ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Meddling West (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:2, Insightful)
And since all democratic countries use exactly the same equipment to monitor their own citizens, you could say: Nokia-Siemens has brought a bit of democracy to Iran.
Re:Ummm (Score:5, Insightful)
Eh sonny? (Score:5, Insightful)
And, if the plan is to provide large quantities of Officially Discouraged Hardware to all and sundry, we might as well just mix rifles in with the phones and call it a day.
Re:Ummm (Score:2, Insightful)
Don't do anything (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe people will change their mind or maybe they won't, either way you'll be covered.
Re:DVB-S2/RCS or BGAN (Score:4, Insightful)
The downside of all of these systems (besides getting the hardware into the country) is that the airtime is fairly expensive. BGAN runs you about $3.50/Megabyte, and it's cheap for satellite data.
Re:Don't do anything (Score:5, Insightful)
>> that's entirely consistent with what should be American values.
Are you being arrogant or just ignorant in presuming that American values are somehow intrinsically better than anyone elses?
The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Iran, murky as it is, is a sovereign nation. Revolutions come from within, which is why we're spending trillions in Iraq and Afghanistan. The clue is: the iranians will figure it out. The more external influences are brought to bear, the more a subsequent government will be suspect by its people. They have to do it. We have to sit back and watch. Otherwise, it won't stick, and it will devolve into the seventh civil war in the Middle East. Here's the current list, if you're not sure: Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Palestine, Pakistan, Somalia, Eritrea/Ethiopia. A quiet revolution makes much more sense than one that will continue to divide what were once peace-loving peoples.
Re:Ummm (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a little unfair. I think the OP's argument was made despite current events. I also agree with the OP that if the US government had the capability to provide broadband connectivity to its citizens as easily as "beaming" it over an area then we should ask why can't the government provide us with that now?
Re:Eh sonny? (Score:2, Insightful)
I guess Gehm's Corollary to Clarke's Third Law is easier to achieve for some than it is for others...
But more seriously, it has always been that way. It has always been a minority who apply the scientific method in their every day lives.
Do you think that every cabbage farmer understood the why and wherefores of fertilizing their fields, or do you expect that many of them did it because 'That is the way we have always done it.'
On the plus side, we can reap the benefits of greater specialization because all of those people need not understand exactly how a CRT or LCD constructs the images for them to see, they only need to know enough to do their one job and do it well.
Just like most of the geeks here probably don't know how much and how often various breeds of wheat need to be watered in different climates to get the best yield, or how much of what types of feed to give a pregnant sow, or all the details of a beef butchering facility.(at least until you decide you need to Google it), but you can still enjoy the benefits of all of those activities.
To me when something is described as magic, I just take that to mean 'I don't know how it works, but it does,' and that is a sentiment that we can all express about something that we use in our daily lives if we look hard enough for it.
No (Score:5, Insightful)
Could we beam broadband internet into Iran? Yes. Could they send anything back? No.
However, everyone assumes that we 'should' be doing this and helping the revolution so they can experience 'freedom'.
For one thing, this isn't a popular uprising. It's taking place in a liberal city and is mostly students (although not entirely). Polls taken beforehand that were trustworthy indicate that Ahmadinejad could've expected between 40-50% of the vote in the election. That means he has a whole lot of supporters out there.
How do you think these supporters would feel if the opposition not only got brought into power on the basis of 'liberal' protesters who didn't represent them, but they were helped and organised through American help? Even if it wasn't state sanctioned, they'll still see it as America behind it.
All this to get a president into power who isn't that much better than the current one in terms of how liberal he is.
Brown and Obama have taken a strictly hands off approach for a reason. It's best at the moment to hope the situation resolves itself without excessive bloodshed. Too much pushing will at best, make a good portion of the country think we're meddling, at worst, it'll push the two entrenched sides into a bloody civil war.
It's currently Iran's problem and it should be up to the Iranian people to resolve it, not for the outside to decide what they think is best for them.
Re:Get a pringles can and go to Iraq (Score:3, Insightful)
Wouldn't the Iraqi government have to sign off on that, since Iraq is sovereign nation? I suspect there is enough Iranian influence that they would not allow it.
Re:Ummm (Score:3, Insightful)
We screwed the Afgans. We promised them the world if they'd fight the Soviets, and when they won, we pulled out and left them with more unexploded landmines than people, and a hardass government that we'd put in power because we wanted evil bastards to fight the Soviets.
Pretty much the same story in Iraq. Saddam was one of ours, a secular dictator that we sustained in power as a foil against the religious extremists.
Turns out, if you put hardasses in power, they can turn around on you. If we just offered actual aid rather than screwing with their governance, we'd be much better regarded in that part of the world.
Re:Ummm (Score:2, Insightful)
That's a little unfair. I think the OP's argument was made despite current events.
It didn't sound that way to me. OP in no way made any reference to Iran in particular, or current events, and the use of "our own have-nots" (as opposed to Iranian have-nots) just sounds like a simple "we should aid our own people rather than foreigners."
Also, if this were possible, but were expensive and difficult maintain, that could be a reason to deploy it in special situations, rather than as general broadband service.
Re:Ummm (Score:2, Insightful)
"That's a perfect recipe for the US to be a foil to the hardliners."
Exactly. This is what happened the last time the democratic movement/reform was being pushed in Iran from inside (1990s, early 2000s). The U.S. started its sabre rattling, the hardliners started saying, "See? The U.S. is trying to keep us down again! It's all a foreign plot! All these bad things aren't due to our idiotic mismanagement, they're caused by [any outside power excuse]." They whipped up the nationalistic sentiment and gained more power that way, then crushed the opposition.
The best thing the U.S. can do is stay the hell out of it until such time as a genuine democracy takes root there, at which point they should promptly recognize the new government.
Re:Don't do anything (Score:5, Insightful)
There are too many people in the U.S. and UK who are WAY too into meddling in this fight. This is something the Iranians have to do or not do on their own. Nothing good can come of western meddling in this case. It will only give the Ahmadinejad regime an excuse to crack down on the dissenters as western-sponsored traitors. Even in the best case scenarios, the people we help will likely only resent us for it in the end (since it will taint their movement with the possibility that it was just some CIA sponsored coup, instead of a legitimate grass roots movement).
The best thing the west can do right now is to stay out of it and stfu.
Re:Eh sonny? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Ummm (Score:3, Insightful)
The media pundits were going on about how small a role the US government was taking in Iran and how the state should be doing more to help out over there, because it's our duty to meddle apparently.
If you see the clip (which I think should be at http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230709&title=Crisis-in-Iran [thedailyshow.com] ) and actually see the context in which the punchline was delivered, it'll make more sense.
Basically, we need to take a hands off approach to this as far as the State goes. US bashing is too easy for dictators to use. See also: Castro, Fidel and Chavez, Hugo.
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:1, Insightful)
Perhaps Anonymous will respond
Oh look, from their forums:
# nmap -v -A -P0 KHAMENEI.IR
Isn't that just the cutest. They're hacking Khamenei's internets. Which you ask? ALL OF THEM.
The last thing that government is concerned about right now is their webserver. They're more worried if they've got enough loyal soldiers that'll stay on their side long enough until the momentum wears off, and if they've got enough bullets in case it doesn't. Sorry if I sound like a bitter cynic, but these people need help, not a bunch of children wearing Guy Fawkes masks playing e-superheroes.
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
Is this like support from *individual Mormons* in the Proposition 8 campaign, because I don't think that kind of support will go down well with the Iranians either.
We can support ideals not a leader (Score:2, Insightful)
"propping up the Shah, funding Iraq in a war against them"
Those were blatant means of changing specific policy/removing governments we didn't like, etc..
I see no reason why the US can't help promote general ideals (freedom of press, etc..) while not commenting on any one leader. I think it is morally correct to pressure Iran into NOT arresting reporters and killing protesters for example.
Obama seems to be increasing the verbal pressure in denouncing some things, which I think it good. However, I see no reason why we should pursue additional means of pressure, sanctions, etc.. whatever.
It is a fine line between 'interferring' and upholding basic human rights. That is, assuming you agree that we should attempt to promote what we consider basic human rights in other nations (I do, but I know that some do not)
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
We replaced the Communists with gangs of illiterate Mujahadin and then Taliban warlords who were even more brutal than the Communists, who cut the country up into feudal feifs, destroyed everything and built nothing, who drove out Doctors Without Borders (after 30 years), and whose idea of education was having boys (not girls) read the Koran which they then interpret to mean "Anything we want it to mean." They were allied with lunatics like Osama bin Ladin who used all our training against the Soviets to attack us, and with the Pakistani islamists.
Our support for the Mujahadeen against the Soviets was in our interest only in the mind of an unrepentant lunatic cold warrior.
If the Russians would help us today in Afghanistan, we would be overjoyed (because it would mean fewer dead Americans).
If we had left them alone, Afghanistan would have been in more competent hands, with a secular or non-sectarian society, with more freedom than they have today, and with less of a threat to the U.S. than they are today.
Re:Ummm (Score:1, Insightful)
yeah, it's really a bad thing that France helped us out during the US revolution, that sure hasn't helped anyone has it?
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:4, Insightful)
"Paper ballots?"
"Digital voting machines are way too easy to tamper with, and campaigns get really competitive around here."
-- Sheriff Jack Carter and Deputy Jo Lupo; Eureka "Here Come The Suns"
I want a website where my ssn and vote are public record!
So... you want a system where your employer can retaliate against you for voting the wrong way?
Re:Don't do anything (Score:2, Insightful)
Are you being arrogant or just ignorant in presuming that American values are somehow intrinsically better than anyone elses?
American values are better than the values of the Iranian government at least on the score of free speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly. In America, if you make fun of the President, nobody cares. If Iran, if you make fun of the Ayatollah, you risk getting stoned to death.
Re:Ummm (Score:1, Insightful)
The Soviets put landmines in Afghanistan, and this is the Americans fault???
The Afghans choose to be ruled by the Taleban, and again this is the Americans doing???
Not everything that happens in the world is the doing of the USA, despite what you may think...
Re:Ummm (Score:3, Insightful)
Go look up the news for Tamil Tigers and War Crimes trials, Europe and the US want the Sri Lankan govt. to be punished, whilst China Russia and India don't:
That is completely untrue. In fact, the only evidence I can find is that the UK in particular seems a lot more interested in prosecuting Tamil Tigers than the Sri Lankan government.
Here in the USA we have a lot of Tamil immigrants. Some from India. Some from Sri Lanka. They make a lot of noise. I personally know a Tamil family and they are constantly trying to rally US support to "stop the killing" or whatever the phrase of the day is.
The fact is that the Tamil Tigers upped the ante in international terrorism and blazed the path for Al Queda to follow. While the family I know does not favor the Tigers per se, like almost all Tamils from or in Sri Lanka, they weren't real upset when things were going well for the Tigers and there was de facto self rule in Sri Lanka in Tiger controlled territory. I can promise you that at least unofficially the US position is that the Tigers got what they deserved and it sucks to be them.
The only reason the US cares about Iran is that a change of government might lessen Iran's desire for nuclear weapons and might be somewhat less inclined to support Hezbollah and other terrorist organizations. Yes, indeed the verious "Stan" countries "play ball" as you said, but they also don't seek nuclear weapons, support Hezbollah and work to destroy Israel and deny the Hollocaust.
Re:Ummm (Score:3, Insightful)
EVEN MORE IMPORTANT is why you care about Iran in the first place.
We the people, not saying anything about the government, care because the Iranians care. We care because the Iranians are pissed off enough at a sham election to demand real democracy. We see something of ourselves 200 years ago in what the Iranians are doing today, to the point that most don't know or even care about what the politics involved are. We simply like seeing people stand up for themselves against an oppressive government because the only effective way to get rid of oppression is from within.
Re:The question is wrong. Let Iranians figure it o (Score:4, Insightful)
Sit down.
Get rid of your bile and your testosterone. Leave them alone.
If our interests are the Iranians, let's watch them win this one. If it's US interests, then you're just one more corporate stooge looking for your next earnings statement.
Hedging your bet means getting your hands dirty. Let them win by exposing bias and distortions of the truth within their process. External pressure from the US and/or UK will have a negative reaction. Give them tools; let them do the work. Things are much more valued if you really have to earn them.
And the US tendency to meddle in the affairs of sovereign nations is plainly stupid and serves (often) only corporate interests, not those of the US people or those of the sovereign nation. Look at what history tells you. Look at the damage done.
Re:Ummm (Score:2, Insightful)
Giving a shit about Human Rights abuses in Iran is hypocritical and foolish.
Not necessarily.
You are right that there are a lot of places in the world where the situation is much worse than in Iran and those places deserve the attention of our governments. Most private citizens do not feel empowered to affect change in foreign countries on their own. The reason why Iran is different right now, is b/c Iranian reformists have a certain amount of momentum, which is lacking elsewhere. Many people feel that Iran is on the brink of change, if only they can overcome a few specific obstacles. I am not saying that this is necessarily the true state of affairs, but it can certainly appear that way to people forming their opinions based on the information coming out of Iran. Be it monetary donation to activist groups or setting up anonymous proxies, this is a rare situation where individuals feel empowered to actually change something through their own actions. This is not the case in the other countries you speak of.
Re:I don't get it (Score:3, Insightful)
A couple of things:
Mousavi *is* a reformer. At least, he certainly has been promising reforms during his election campaign.
His history is definitely not good. His promises of reforms may or may not be believable... I don't know.
To be clear, in the context of a Canadian election this man and his policies would be considered extremist religious lunacy.
In the context of an Iranian election his election platform is a worthwhile step in the right direction.
If he had been elected last week I would not have any great hope for major reforms... I would hope for some small incremental changes.
Even without significant reforms, simply reducing the amount jingoistic 'jews jews americans americans!' hate-promotion coming from the office of the president would have been a very good thing.
Since the electoral fraud (assuming for the moment that it was fraud) and the supreme leader declaring that the results were legit and will stand all bets are off.
Many millions of people in Iran believe that the announced electoral results were obviously fraudulent.
When the Supreme leader unilaterally declared the opposite he insulted the intelligence of the Iranian middle class and popular support for more democratic rule surged. At least, support for the current system of quasi-theocratic/democratic rule plummeted.
Things have now gone so far that the very structure of government could change (crosses fingers).
In short, Iranians signed up for theocracy, not despotism.
(sure, we could argue that it is the same thing but you know what I mean)
Re:Nokia / Siemens could provide an answer (Score:1, Insightful)
Granted, being in a mass of people in these demonstrations is a big help to them, but that's security through obscurity. what about when the Iranian government's agents are following a few home, to make examples of them by killing them and calling them terrorists?
It's not about the mask, though its symbolic importance seems to be at least holding strong. It is, in fact, about the people of Iran and protecting their rights by means of helping them protect themselves -- peacefully -- from their own government.
Re:Ummm (Score:1, Insightful)
So please stop reading your newspapers/blogs/slashdotinternationalnews and answering for dribble like "How can we beam happy sunshine into Iran". Have some self-respect.
Wow, who shit in your cheerios this morning??
In fact, giving a shit about human rights abuses at all is hypocritical and foolish..
What are you, fucking Dr. Evil or something???
Re:Ummm (Score:2, Insightful)
you read that in a book somewhere, or just have general u.s. chip on shoulder? Reality was a bit different, sure British and U.S. intelligence helped Shah, but the main people who put the Shah (back into) power were loyal factions of Iranian military and those Iranians who would profit from monetizing Irans oil in western market. In other words, the primary fault for putting the Shah into power lies with certain Iranians.
Also, the Shah did make some social improvements, including women's rights, education. The charge that he was brutal depended on whether you were in groups of his enemies, were the Q'oran thumping whackjobs who opposed or replaced him any better?
Re:Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
"you read that in a book somewhere"
No, Operation AJAX, is a well documented CIA operation to overthrow the government of Iran in 1953. I included the Wikipedia link which you apparently didn't read. It was initiated by American and British intelligence agencies when Mossadeq nationalized British oil fields in Iran. In a recent speech by Obama, maybe the one in Cairo, he for the first time officially acknowledged that the U.S. overthrew the Iranian government in 1953. The "loyal factions of the Iranian Military" you cite were lead by General Fazlollah Zahedi who was working with/for the CIA who were running the coup.
"were the Q'oran thumping whackjobs who opposed or replaced him any better"
I never said or implied any such thing. The Islamists who overthrew the Shah are just as bad if not worse. Only difference is one is pro western and the other is Islamic so the repression has a different flavor. The Basij and Revolutionary Guards are just as bad if not worse than SAVAK. The one redeeming quality of the Islamic revolution, in the eyes of Iranian nationalists, is they aren't stooges of the American government, the Shah was. A lot of Iranians still hate America for putting the Shah in power.
You should read the link I put in my original article on Mohammed Mosaddeq [wikipedia.org]. He was a secular Socialist, not an Islamist, moderate, very popular, and I'm sure women would have faired as well or better under his government than the Shah. The fatal mistake he made is he screwed British oil companies, by taking back control of Iran's oil fields, and you didn't screw with British and American oil companies in the 1950's.
The point I was making which was apparently completely lost on you is both the Shah, and the current Islamic regime are terrible. The best chance Iran had for a good government was Mossadeq. He probably wasn't perfect but the U.S. and Britian overthrew him, deprived Iran of a chance at a moderate regime and plunged Iran in to 56 years of brutal authoritarian rule which continues today, half under the Shah and half under the current Islamic Regime.
The U.S. did the same thing all over the world throughout the 20tj century and is still doing it today in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unfortunately the U.S. consistently abused its power to install one repressive dictator after another as long at they were:
A. pro business and let U.S. companies profitably exploit their resources whether they be oil or bananas (the U.S. installing dictators in Central America to protect the plantations of United Fruit is where the term Banana Republic comes from.
B. anti worker and labor union because places like United Fruit wanted their labor as cheap and exploitable as possible, which meant crushing unions
C. staunchly anti Soviet Union and anti Communist
Re:We can support ideals not a leader (Score:3, Insightful)
I see no reason why the US can't help promote general ideals (freedom of press, etc..) while not commenting on any one leader. I think it is morally correct to pressure Iran into NOT arresting reporters and killing protesters for example.
The question about anything the USA does in this situation is: will it result in more or fewer protesters and reporters getting arrested or killed?