Friday
Feb262010
Iran Analysis: Khamenei's Not-So-Big Push
Friday, February 26, 2010 at 7:35 
No doubt this morning about the big news out of Iran. On Thursday, the Supreme Leader tried to lock down the security of his position once and for all, declaring that opposition leaders “have lost their credibility by denying the results of the elections. They did not surrender to the law and committed a great sin....[They] have stepped down from the rescue ship and have lost their credibility to remain within the framework of the Islamic establishment.”Iran Follow-Up: Interpreting the Assembly of Experts “The Certainty of the Uncertain”
Iran Analysis: The Assembly of Experts Mystery
So that's an unambiguous warning to Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi to shut up, for example, giving up on Karroubi's latest call for a referendum on the Guardian Council and for the regime's permission for mass protest. But Khamenei has made such statements before: he did so just after the June election, before the Qods Day marches in September, and before the Ashura demonstrations in December.
What is distinctive this time is that the Supreme Leader issued his declaration in a meeting with the Assembly of Experts, which had just finished its two-day meeting. The regime blueprint was for the Assembly to add its 86-member weight to a resolution of the crisis; the problem is that, for reasons which will take some time to establish, it did not so. The "statement" published on Fars News condemning the "sedition" of the opposition (was it a draft? a "leak" from a few pro-Khamenei or pro-Ahmadinejad members of the Assembly?) was never officially confirmed.
So, in the absence of that resolution, here was the Supreme Leader's message. It was not the authorisation of the arrest of Mousavi and Karroubi (although, if either make a high-profile declaration with further demands and the prospect of a rally, this may change). Despite the insistence that the June election was settled, it was not support of President Ahmadinejad.
It was, to use the language of American football, "Protect Your Quarterback". Me.
Personal security, for the moment, equates to the security of the system of velayat-e-faqih (clerical supremacy). And, for the moment, that is accepted by all high-profile political figures. For all his ambiguities, Rafsanjani has done somersaults to be unambiguous on this point. Mousavi has never made a direct attack on Khamenei's position. And Karroubi, despite his "Mr Khamenei" statement last month, has ensured that his demands are narrowly focused on certain institutions --- the Iranian judiciary, the Guardian Council, the Presidency --- and not on velayat-e-faqih.
So, Supreme Leader/Quarterback, you're OK. And that is about all that can be settled....for the moment.
Reader Comments (33)
Khamenei is the only person who can solve the crisis without causing a major bloodbath. That is why all dissident figures and people like Rafsanjani try to comfort the Supreme Leader. There is no doubt that Rafsanjani himself is fully aware of the Supreme Fail of Khamenei. But he too must back him. Khamenei is needed to pave the way for toppeling this government, make major changes in IRIB, Sepah and the Bassij entities. No one else can do this - and that is why Rafsanjani keeps saying: "The Leader is the only competent person to lead us out of the crisis!"
We all despise the Leader - and we righfully do so. But we need to accept that without him there would be bloodshed and the complete IRGC takeover.
Ramin,
your opinion is totaly wrong. Khamenei is not the person who can avoid a bloodbath, he is the person in charge.
The only way he can help to solve the problem is to step down or to leave the country. You can wait long time for Khamenei to solve the crisis.
He is a murderer and a thief, how can such a person contribute to a solution?
He and his family and all the other Mullahs are not Iranian, so they give a shit about Iran and its citizin. They want to keep power, their stolen money and go on with toturing people.
"He and his family and all the other Mullahs are not Iranian, so they give a shit about Iran and its citizin."
I see, very, very interesting, they are not Iranian. Well that explains it all doesn't it. What are they?
South Africans, Brazilians, Vietnamese???
guess what they are not?
Answer: human beeings
[Removed by moderator]
They are aliens not Irenians or possibly rehearsing for a future Disney park called. I ran.
Khamenei gave his official warning to the opposition just days after the election and yet the Green Revolution has been going on for over 7 months. I suspect that it is becoming increasingly accepted in hardline circles that they are locked in a stalemate with the Green Movement that can never be "won". At this point I suspect that the more discerning among them realize that the game now is to get as much money and power as they can before the inevitable changes. This looks a lot more like the end of a dictatorship than a fresh start.
Even the confrontations and militarization of 22 Bahman would be unthinkable in most dictatorships. It looks more like Czechoslovakia 1989 than anything else.
"Mousavi has never made a direct attack on Khamenei’s position. And Karroubi, despite his “Mr Khamenei” statement last month, has ensured that his demands are narrowly focused on certain institutions — the Iranian judiciary, the Guardian Council, the Presidency — and not on velayat-e-faqih."
Mousavi has always stressed issues over personalities. He has called for civil rights and democratic principles instead of making political attacks. In this sense, even though he has not directly attacked Khamenei, he has certainly placed himself against him. More democracy in Iran, means less power for Khamenei.
It's the same for Karroubi. It's true that he has stated his long-time support for "velayat-e-faqih" but I think it's clear that he has quite a different interpretation for what this means than the hardliners. His call for a the "end of the reign of the Guardian Council" is a very direct attack on the power of the supreme leadership (and quite a remarkable development in reformist discourse).
rezvan
Too funny ! :-)
Adam,
"It looks more like Czechoslovakia 1989 than anything else."
Do you even understand the difference between a form of govt. imposed from the outside by foreigners as opposed to a home grown revolution? Do you recognize the inherent instability and deracinated nature of one as opposed to the other? Clearly you don't which is why you make such silly comparisons.
Let me teach you a little history as I set forth 20th century revolutions in simple basic term.
Russia: Revolution carried out in the name of a foreign, universalist ideology but the groundwork had been firmly set by others (Plekhanov, Zasulich, the Narodnik movement). The leaders of the revolution were Russians or (like Stalin) identified with Russia and were not servants of a foreign power.
China: Again the leaders of the Revolution were Chinese representing an ideology which in theory is anti-nationalist but which exploited the heroic role of the communist party in fighting the alien Japanese. Mao and company used patriotism as a valuable card against the western allied Kuomingtan party.
Cuba: Castro's revolution was an essentially nationalist struggle against American Imperialism and exploitation of the island nation. Except for Che Guevara all of its leaders were Cuban without any foreign ties.
Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, East Germany, Poland: These "Revolutions" were led and instituted by a man named Josef Stalin, the Secretary General of the Communist Party of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
See the difference now? Mr. Stalin was NOT an eastern european, he imposed communism on eastern europe on the point of a very sharp, very dangerous, bayonet mounted on a RUSSIAN Mossin Nagant Rifle.
Now the Russian, Chinese and Cuban Revolution have proven very stable while the systems in Czechoslovakia etc. proved to be a frail shed waiting for a stiff wind. (The ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union was brought about by a successor to Stalin from, ironically enough, the heart of the communist party)
Now for the Bonus question: Which of the above scenarios most resembles the Iranian Revolution of 1979? Take your time.
What if, what if, is there no closer information as to what goes on in SL's house and in his head ? Of course not, all is secret.
But reading Ramin, he seems to know how it works or rather how it might/could/should work. But what if, what if, he doesn't do what others' are hoping for ? What then ? I see ten years of brutal military crackdown.
"Which of the above scenarios most resembles the Iranian Revolution of 1979? "
Answer -- all of them!
They all (including Iran) have one thing in common - regardless of whether these situations/revolutions were imposed from outside, whether they were genuinely home-grown or whether they were indeed even Revolutions at all.
This thing is - that once the new ideology came about within these countries, regardless of the reason for the new ideology, these ideologies became sacrosanct and fixed in stone. They were/are never to be questioned - they were/are never to be altered over the passage of time- they were/are all policed by those who have benefited from the new ideology with no regard for any who may now no longer agree with the ideology. They all led to Dictatorship of one form or another.
Fortunately for the whole world - seven of those quoted no longer exist. One of the two remaining hangs on by forcing it's people to live in the 1950's and the other is a time bomb just waiting to explode.
Samuel - if you truly wish to have a political system that is long living, stable and beneficial to the Iran people, you will not be basing it on any of the Revolutions/Dictatorships you have discussed.
Barry
Barry I find that a PERFECT answer. I wonder what Samuel wished as an answer ? hi hi sammy, what d'you prefer, Cuba ? Iran ? Of course, but they are'nt the same, because one was atheist and your's is islamist, but both are brutal and don't care about peoples' lives.
whilst we are talking of brutality. To be fair can we make a proper list of the most brutal. Can I nominate the Great Satan, the USA, for dropping not one but two nukes on the innocent citizens of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Can we also add on the list for brutalities and the destruction of millions of lives by its oligarchic capitalists, white supremacists, oil barons, those wealthy who make millions out of armaments and need wars to keep their economic engine going. For annihilating almost 4 million native Indians, African slaves who got killed and lost whilst being stolen from their homes and on the seas. What of the millions killed in Vietnam, South America, Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan due to Uncle Sam's voracious appetite for inflicting war on other nations.
Samuel,
Iran's "revolutionary" government is now simply an ultra-corrupt power elite that can maintain the illusion of economic stability only as long as oil revenues continue to rise. In that sense the only comparable examples are probably the Soviet Union in the 1980's and Chavez's Venezuela.
Scott Lucas,
I am a bit tired of Samuel making childish personal attacks against me. If you aren't going to take down his comments for constantly making dishonest distractions and repeating regime propaganda ad-nauseum, at least take his posts down for personally attacking other posters on your board. By my count he has personally attacked virtually every regular contributor to this blog, enough is enough already.
[...] (Enduring America) | February 26, 2010 Scott Lucas [...]
I want to hear Sam's reaction to Barry's answer on his post. Samuel seems to portray himself as a master of history of revolutionary movement by giving us lectures like an elementary students. Go ahead Sammy boy! I dont know if you are fully aware that those remaining revolutionary govt you mention only holds power because of their brutality and repression of their own people.
@REZVAN
One of the mysteries of the human species is that two members of that species, while appearing physically to be very similar, can actually see something quite different - their visions of a particular matter can be diametrically opposite to one another.
It is obvious to me that your view of many things is very different to mine.
If we look at the past history of any Nation, any Race, we will see bad things. Even Islam had it's "Muslim conquests" - which forced Islam upon a large part of the world, killing many innocents in the process. None of us are without blame. We are told that Jesus said something like "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone!!".
But it is now the 21st Century - there are 7000 million people on the Earth, with projections of another 3000 million over the next 40 years. The time for Empires is over (Islamic or otherwise) . The time for vengeance of past misdeeds is over. The time for ideas of "a second coming of Christ" and " 12th Imam" is over. These notions, which I see the Iranian regime not only clinging to but actively pursuing, will bring disaster to the human species (and the Mahdi will not reappear to make things right)
Countries of the world all have their faults, past and present - but Iran at this time is a danger to the entire world.
Barry
Adam,
I am reading the discussion with great interest, especially as I think it is important that all points of view are able to be expressed. Of course, this should be done with respect to others who comment, and personal attacks will be removed.
S.
Barry,
"This thing is – that once the new ideology came about within these countries, regardless of the reason for the new ideology, these ideologies became sacrosanct and fixed in stone. They were/are never to be questioned – they were/are never to be altered over the passage of time-"
Not true at all. The history of Communism shows that it was altered many times. A Lenin was very different from a Stalin, Eastern europe changed dramatically over time under communism. China today is completely different that it was under Mao etc. Same with the IRI under presidents Raf, Khatami or AN today.
Barry,
You keep talking about forgetting about past misdeeds by all sides since we are now in the 21st century when the fact is that the Americans and their Israelis allies are interfering in many different countries RIGHT NOW.
@ Adam RE your complaint about personal attacks on you by Samuel.
Here's the deal. If he says "Adam, you're a bleeding idiot", that part of his post will be deleted. However, if he says basically the same thing in other words, for example: "Do you even understand the difference between .......? Clearly you don’t which is why you make such silly comparisons. Let me teach you a little history as I set forth 20th century revolutions in simple basic terms", then that part of his post will remain.
I don't see what can really be done about that. He knows the rules and plays by them. You can play that game, too, if you have the time and energy for it. Or you can ignore the insult. I've noticed he tends to treat others like simpletons when he knows he's got the facts to win the argument at hand. These are not necessarily always the facts which make him right and the other person wrong, though - very much like Dr Marandi's debating style.
His answer to Barry in post 20, that the history of Communism shows that it was altered many times, is purely cosmetic. These ideological alterations over time didn't/haven't changed the fact that the various dictatorial or authoritarian regimes Barry and Samuel are discussing (have) continued to repress some groups and benefit others in the manner Barry pointed out in post 11.
Samuel, and what are the criteria of those changes you mention? I can think of a couple : adopting (some) capitalist economy and/or allowing more freedom in politics. Obviously allowing one to sell his vegetables is already more freedom. One must also count the number of politcal prisoners in gulags, jail or executed.
There is a point that not many mention, the status and treatment of women and children. In the most religious countries they are not equal to men and in many, they are slaves. Ironically, it's in communist countries they were more equal. Today its only in the most advanced democratic countries that the struggle for equality has been put into law. They should also be counted as extra in the body count in all the killing mentioned by rezvan, baby girls in china, domestic violence, honor killings, adultery hangings/stonings etc etc. Iran has a way to go I observe.
Quote Rezvan: "To be fair can we make a proper list of the most brutal. Can I nominate the Great Satan, the USA, for dropping not one but two nukes on the innocent citizens of ... "
"Hiroshima and Nagasaki."
3 words : Pearl Harbor, retaliation. And they have regretted ever since, however if they hadn't done this I wonder how many more would have died on both sides ... (which doesn't mean I agree with nukes), however Japan are the ones who attacked first, maybe it should be mentioned.
"For annihilating almost 4 million native Indians:"
this one I agree, I don't know the numbers tho, this happened quite a while ago. This said, should we go over all the countries who invaded other countries? because there is quite a few ... how about "recently" Germany and Japan? how many do you think died because of their thirst to conquer the world?
"African slaves who got killed and lost whilst being stolen from their homes and on the seas."
Also agree, however remember that north and south USA fought a costly and bloody civil war to stop this. May it also be noted that they were far from being the only ones practicing slavery, and also that many STILL practice slavery, you should do some research about those countries. Sudan, Niger, to name 2 of them.
"What of the millions killed in Vietnam:"
First of all during WW2 it is Japan who attacked Vietnam and took it from the French. Then during the "Vietnam War" China supported the North, USA supported the South ... why is it that you blame USA for supporting the South and not China for supporting the North?
"South America:"
There is so much going on there, between different countries, that I am not even sure what you are talking about.
"Iran:"
I am guessing you are talking about Mossadegh and Shah ... First about Mossadegh, it was Britain who convinced USA to help them, not the other way around, but either way it was a mistake I agree on this.
About Shah, both (Reza Shah Pahlavi and Khomeini) thought the west was against them, Shah because USA didn't help him, Khomeini because USA didn't help him (remember the hostage crisis? do you do that to allies? ... I didn't think so ...). But again, you are focusing only on USA, what about all the people who voted for Khomeini as the leader? what about France who invited him in their country? what about Britain who was after the oil? If there was support for Khomeini, it surely wasn't only from USA. Either way ... it seems strange to support a person and islamic regime who hates you ...
"Iraq:"
Possibly false information by intelligence agents (not only americans), but also possibly correct information (saw interview with one of the men who questioned Saddam Hussein who admitted they had destroyed WMDs before the invasion). American troops now leaving, Iraqis now in charge again, and they got rid of the dictator Saddam Hussein. Whether it was right or wrong, I cannot judge because at the end of the day I don't know if the information about WMDs was correct or not. Anyway I guess Iraqis can tell you if they preferred living under Saddam Hussein's government or the present government, and if they have more freedom in their country now then before or not.
"Afghanistan:"
September 11, 2001, USA was attacked by terrorists, these terrorists were based in Afghanistan, this is why USA went there. It has never been a war with Afghanistan, only with the terrorists and their supporters.
A few more words: NO country is perfect. There has been thousands of wars, waged by most countries in the world, since the beginning of civilisation and surely before as well. Also you are demonizing a whole nation by calling it "the great satan" while in reality you are referring to a few greedy "business men" who are ripping people off in their own countries as well (and this is true for many countries, not only USA), it will be up to governments to have a better judgement.
Sorry but again @ Samuel, (or anyone), re reading your answer to Adam on the nature of the revolutions and the similarity with Iran, I don't get why you are comparing them because the first, the soviet, as you say fell, and from within. As for its reasons, I'm no historian, but some seem to be saying that it was because of the same problems in Iran : internal dissidence and dissatifaction and economic disaster, notably from arms and nuclear build-up.
So the question of whether they are grass roots or imposed is irrelevant. On the other hand, if the beginning of the fall hadn't been in the satelite countries, I don't know how long it would have taken in Russia. Gorbachev seemed more like the green leaders, wanting reforms not an overturn of the system.
In any case, when watching some good documentaries about the fall of the wall, it showed that it was totally spontaneous and Gorbachev hadn't a clue what was going to happen and stayed up all night with his wife watching western German TV 'live blogging' it.
Just as maybe the SL will watch satelite BBC when it happens in Iran, (using of course people's videos posted to AMERICAN youtube). Just as he has had to do for 9 months, except for the secret police films. What a joke, and no wonder he is depressed, infuriated over his having to rely on western medias and, the only secret police video revealed must be tame to what he was shown from the prisons. This guy is a real sado masochist.