Iran is experiencing its most serious civil strife in decades. The re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by an unbelievably high margin has led to violent street protests where demonstrators have clashed with the security forces. They’ve come out in large numbers. At least one person has already been killed when the Basij (a student paramilitary group that receives its orders from the IRGC) opened fire on a crowd in Tehran.
The election results remind us that the will of the people is not the deciding force in Iranian politics. All candidates were screened by the Supreme Council. The leading challenger was Mir Hossein Mousavi. He is now seen as a “reformist” but that is a relatively meaningless term. Afterall, he was once considered a radical.
Mousavi became prime minster two years after the revolution ended. He kept his post for eight years. It was a crucial time for Iran (as well as for Lebanon, which witnessed the rise of Hezbollah and the fall of the US mission there). Mousavi withdrew from political life in 1989. His resurgence has been interesting to watch as supporetrs have flocked to him in defiance of the current government. But there was no reason to expect much to change in Iran if he had emerged victorious. He is no Barack Obama. He is one of the boys, otherwise he wouldn’t have been allowed to run.
Whether or not Mousavi had the election stolen from him, it seems clear the ruling class has made a calculating move. Anti-American sentiment is one of the strongest cards those wretched clerics hold. By merely softening the tone Tehran hears from Washington, Obama has weakened their hand considerably. But re-instating Ahmadinejad ensures that US-Iranian relations will continue down a rocky road. What happens next is crucial. If Obama takes a firm position as a result of what’s happening, the mullahs may emerge victorious.
That would be a real shame. The system of governance in Iran is terrible. There is no democracy to speak of. The people are ruled by despotic men of ‘faith’ who do nothing to advance their country’s interests. Aside from keeping Iran in the headlines, Ahmadinejad has done nothing to improve his country’s standing in the international community. It should come as no surprise that so many Iranians are opposed to him. It’s tempting to say that US officials have learned from past mistakes, but they could be helping to incite protests now just as they did back in 1953.
Hopefully what is happening right now is a homegrown phenomenon. Iran needs another revolution if it is to rid itself of the backwards theology pulling the strings. Mousavi is hardly the right person to lead such a movement, but what’s important is that the people rise up. The process won’t be easy. We may be witnessing the beginning of something huge… It won’t happen overnight, but the “Islamic Republic” is bound to fall one day or another.
The people of Iran deserve better than Ahmadinejad and the clerics who give him his orders. The current regime is a complete disaster, but the media tends to focus more on the less important issues. In other words, this is not about Israel. Iran’s position on Zionism and the question of Palestine is a just one. The problem is the lack of civil freedoms and democracy, not nuclear weapons.
Just as Netanyahu has no intention of ever seeing a viable Palestinian state, Iran poses no existential threat to the state of Israel. It has enough problems of its own to contend with.
Related posts:
- KABOBfest Claims Victory in Iranian Elections
- Iranian Caricatures of Candidates Go Viral
- Sizing Up the Lebanese Elections
- Ahmedinejad Says No To Your Vampire Application Request
- Iranian University Chancellors Ask Bollinger 10 Questions
I am not sure that I necessarily agree with you. First, I don't think that the framing of theology vs secularism accurately describes the current discontents. What we see today is not the mullahs/the clerics vs the people. In fact, many reports have been surfacing that significant elements of the clerical elite are siding with Mousavi and calling the elections fraudulent. Mousavi is an establishment figure who appeals to the Islamic revolution, not against it. Second, I don't believe you give enough credit to the regime post-revolution. For all its shortcomings, it has also played an important role in keeping Iran independent while also developing a stable state apparatus that is probably more democratic than anything since 1953. Its system of governance is unique and sophisticated, and can't be blamed for all of Iran's difficulties over the past few decades. Third, I think you over emphasize Obama's role here. Iranians are not waiting to see what Obama does, and the tone of his speech certainly did not produce the current climate. Too much of the English language coverage about Iranian languages looks at these elections only in terms of US-Iranian relations, and while these are certainly important, there are actually other issues that Iranians care about. And while it is true that the people of Iran deserve better than Ahmadenijad, they probably deserve better than the Mousavi-Rafsanjani clique as well.
Posted by yaman | June 16, 2009, 9:11 amI am not sure that I necessarily agree with you. First, I don't think that the framing of theology vs secularism accurately describes the current discontents. What we see today is not the mullahs/the clerics vs the people. In fact, many reports have been surfacing that significant elements of the clerical elite are siding with Mousavi and calling the elections fraudulent. Mousavi is an establishment figure who appeals to the Islamic revolution, not against it. Second, I don't believe you give enough credit to the regime post-revolution. For all its shortcomings, it has also played an important role in keeping Iran independent while also developing a stable state apparatus that is probably more democratic than anything since 1953. Its system of governance is unique and sophisticated, and can't be blamed for all of Iran's difficulties over the past few decades. Third, I think you over emphasize Obama's role here. Iranians are not waiting to see what Obama does, and the tone of his speech certainly did not produce the current climate. Too much of the English language coverage about Iranian elections looks at these elections only in terms of US-Iranian relations, and while these are certainly important, there are actually other issues that Iranians care about. And while it is true that the people of Iran deserve better than Ahmadenijad, they probably deserve better than the Mousavi-Rafsanjani clique as well.
Posted by yaman | June 16, 2009, 9:12 amMousavi is an establishment figure who appeals to the Islamic revolution
Isn't this kind of a prereq for entering politics?
Honestly I don't know jack about Iranian politics so at the risk of being the person that annoys me as much as when 99% of people talk about Lebanese politics, I think it's just as possible that the people in the streets are out to protest against something as for whatever it is that Moussavi stands for, or the economy, or much more likely a mix of all those factors which might be more significant than the particulars of his particular platform/track record, though yes the change it can yield is potentially really limited even if they succeed.
Posted by Nadia | June 16, 2009, 2:33 pmIn the end, our leaders will lead the way, whether it is Ahmadinejad or Moussavi, they are not real presidents like in America or Europe. They are leaders, but the Supreme Leader is the real leader.
I'm afraid of the complete unbarred freedom you enjoy in America. I am in America and I don't want what you have here in Iran. I love my country and I don't want to see all the bad things that come with freedom to come to Iran. It would destroy our country and our society. That is what our leaders are trying to protect us from. Yes, in America you have so so much good, but can we have the good and keep out the bad? I think not, because that wouldn't be too hard. But where do you draw the line? Example: the cartoons about the Prophet . . . that would never be allowed in Iran under the name of "Freedom," but then you say we're not really free?
As a believing Muslim, not an extremist, not a fundamentalist, but a follower of what's right, I don't want my country and my society, my family and my people to have to suffer when they are given so much liberty and so much freedom. I think Allah makes us free, but freedom should have limits, right?
Speaking to the West, the Khomeini said in 1979 when we regained our values and put an end to the unbridled freedoms of the Shah that were drowning our country in corruption and sin: "You, who want freedom, freedom for everything, the freedom of parties, you who want all the freedoms, you intellectuals: freedom that will corrupt our youth, freedom that will pave the way for the oppressor, freedom that will drag our nation to the bottom."
I want freedom, but I don't want the evils and the corruptions that would come with such freedom. And if it means not having those corruptions and having a little less freedom, I would rather be safe than sorry.
I'm just divided . . .
Posted by Reza Sadeghpour | June 16, 2009, 4:18 pmI wonder, is Mousavi related to Khomeini?
Wasn't his name Ruhollah Mousavi Khomeini?
Posted by Maryam Larsen | June 16, 2009, 4:33 pmHello Reza! Thanks for your post. I respect your point of view.
You mention that you are afraid of the things so-called 'freedom' brings .
I concur.
Are you afraid of things such as ( but not limited to) coercive prostitution to survive a vicious economic system , child neglect, wide-spread drug abuse, the scorn of the upper classes against the lower classes, people substituting consumerism for genuine reflection and spirituality, the corruption of genuine spirituality ?
Well, these things are widespread in Iran. Speaking as someone who has family there presently who witnesses these things,and having one who member who died as a result of drug abuse thanks to the upswing of opium production based on Western interference in the region and depression as to socio-economic factors.
The rulers will not protect you-most rulers anywhere just get us killed for their own benefit -,and in fact rulers cover these problems up.
It is up to to the people to make the changes. A simple change of rulers won't do it.
And for those on the other side: democracy is no panacea for these ills either. A veneer of democracy cannot be the end. Especially modeled on the corrupt, exloitive, corporate American version.
Good luck in the struggle against all oppressions and exploitations, whatever name they come under.
And the Iranian people are capable of envisioning and implementing a social system that is better than what is found from any "side" presently.
Posted by Markar | June 16, 2009, 6:01 pmWhile Mousavi is hardly a savior, at least he's more reasonable and less idiotic than Ahmadinejad. He has called Ahmadinejad out on his Holocaust denial, and he has also been a supporter of women's rights. His wife Zahra Rahnavard (who is a powerful figure herself) was a huge part of his campaign and did a lot to reach out to women. Ahmadinejad on the other hand didn't do any outreach to women, and you can see that in his support rallies.
Ahmadinejad is truly an embarrassment to all thinking Iranians. His inflammatory and idiotic comments have only served to isolate and demonize Iran. Even though he's obviously not the most powerful man in Iran, he is Iran's public face. He's actually a lot like Bush — his supporters are mostly ignorant country people who think he is "protecting"/defending their country. When in reality all he's doing is making the world hate them.
My heart goes out to the thousands of brave Iranian men and women who are protesting. Seeing pictures of people beaten, shot, and killed is just awful… I really hope something good comes from this. If not now, then hopefully in ten or so years when the old mullahs are dying off and all the twenty-somethings have grown up.
Posted by torshi | June 16, 2009, 5:45 pmThat the president of France is siding with the protestors, while Obama is, at best, fence sitting, is deeply troubling. This is telling because, even if the opposition proves to be not much better than what exists now, that the president of the United States won’t side with them, even on the issue of obvious voter fraud, is just another example of his appeasement of the regime.
Posted by Moataz | June 17, 2009, 4:02 amThe Iranian people definitely deserve better than the Mousavi-Rafsanjani clique, which is not that much different from the 'conservative' clique.
Dude, that's what Obama said and you made a post ripping him for it.
Pot, Kettle, Black thing on your part now? lol.
Posted by programmer craig | June 17, 2009, 9:03 amThat would be Fayyad's post you're referring to. Fayyad != Kalash. That would be the "not equal to" operator, "programmer" craig.
Posted by Nth_Republic | June 17, 2009, 1:04 pmThat's Fayyad's post you're referring to. Fayyad != Kalash. That would be the "not equal to" operator, "programmer" craig.
Posted by Nth_Republic | June 17, 2009, 1:04 pmWhatever. I think half the people here (at least from the old crew) are just Will using different "personalities", so who cares?
Posted by programmer craig | June 17, 2009, 8:48 pmMoataz – I really think Obama's decision not to obviously pick sides is extremely smart. People are already (especially Arabs – I was in Anahiem in an Arab cafe when the results were announced and they were ALL so happy that Ahmadenajad won) and they all think that Mousavi – just on the grounds that he is challenging Ahmadenajad – is pro-American.
Whatever Obama does, it seems, he will get accused of conspiring or trying to meddle and when he DOESNT do anything, he will still get blamed for it. It's still better he does nothing than doing something that will no doubt create more reasons to go against the opposition.
Posted by Lena | June 17, 2009, 3:31 pmAnonymous Iran
Why We Protest – IRAN http://iran.whyweprotest.net/
Even if a ballot is silenced, the voice behind it cannot be.
Posted by eagle007blogger | June 17, 2009, 5:47 pmAnonymous Iran
Why We Protest – IRAN
Even if a ballot is silenced, the voice behind it cannot be.
Posted by eagle007blogger | June 17, 2009, 5:47 pmBased on the information from Mousavi's website , a group of Interior Ministry employees have leaked out the following results which seem to be closer to reality than the one released by the establishment:
Total eligible: 49.2 Million
Participated in the election: 85%
Mir Hussein Mousavi: 45%
Mehdi Karoobi: 33%
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: 13%
Mohsen Rezai: 9%
Cancelled votes: 3%
Posted by riskability | June 18, 2009, 1:30 amWhy is that closer to reality? In fact, those numbers are just as bad as those released by the authorities. 85% turnout?! 13% of the vote for Ahmadinejad?! While it is highly probable Mousavi received more votes than him, these numbers suggest his hands aren't clean… just like anyone sanctioned to run by the Supreme Council.
Posted by Kalash | June 18, 2009, 2:23 amConfirmed by several reports:
- Near closing time of the polls, mobile text messaging was turned off nationwide
Security forces poured out into the streets in large numbers
- The Ministry of Interior (election headquarters) was surrounded by concrete barriers and armed men
National television began broadcasting pre-recorded messages calling for everyone to unite behind the winner
@@@ -The Mousavi campaign was informed officially that they had won the election, which perhaps served to temporarily lull them into complacency
- But then the Ministry of Interior announced a landslide victory for Ahmadinejad
- Unlike previous elections, there was no breakdown of the vote by province, which would have provided a way of judging its credibility
- The voting patterns announced by the government were identical in all parts of the country, an impossibility
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_d…
- Less than 24 hours later, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamene`I publicly announced his congratulations to the winner, apparently confirming that the process was complete and irrevocable, contrary to – constitutional requirements
-Shortly thereafter, all mobile phones, Facebook, and other social networks were blocked, as well as major foreign news sources.
Posted by riskability | June 18, 2009, 2:44 amThey also add up to 103%.
Posted by yaman | June 18, 2009, 3:13 amyou add up the 3% cancelled vote, it's mentioned to calculate the exact number of votes every candidate got
Posted by riskability | June 18, 2009, 3:49 amThis was not a coup of an outside group against the ruling elite; it was a coup of the ruling elite against its own people.
It is still too early for a comprehensive analysis, but here are some initial thoughts:
- The willingness of the regime simply to ignore reality and fabricate election results without the slightest effort to conceal the fraud represents a historic shift in Iran. In the previous elections at least the Mullas paid lip service to the voice of the Iranian people. This suggests that they are aware of the fact that they have lost credibility in the eyes of many (most?) of their countrymen, so they are dispensing with even the pretense of popular legitimacy in favor of raw power.
- The Iranian "opposition", which includes some very powerful individuals and institutions, has an agonizing decision to make. If they are intimidated and silenced by the show of force (as they have been in the past), they will lose all credibility in the future with even their most devoted followers. But if they choose to confront their ruthless colleagues forcefully, not only is it likely to be messy but it could risk running out of control and potentially bring down the entire existing power structure, of which they are participants and beneficiaries.
- With regard to the United States and the West, nothing would prevent them in principle from dealing with an illegitimate authoritarian government . they do it every day, from what I see Obama and Khamene are at the same page (recount?!) do you think it matter if it's partial or total?
However this turns out, is a historic turning point in the 30-year history of Iran’s Islamic revolution. Iranians have never forgotten the external political intervention that thwarted their democratic aspirations in 1953. How will they remember this day?
It took less than 4 years for Iranians to realize that boycotting the so-called elections in the Islamic Republic of Iran can only bring to power even a worse. This time around the people turned out to vote for the lesser of two camps of evil –they know the mullah dominated gang of conservatives and "moderates."
Posted by riskability | June 18, 2009, 3:43 am