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)
Shadi, may I use your text when I read exactly the same attacks repeated robotically by all the dictator defenders and some misguided leftists on other places ? I wouldn't have had the patience nor the ressources to answer point by point.
pessimist, this is just too easy ... Please DO take the time and DO find the resources to answer point by point.
ok Shadi will do sometime. Talking about native indiens, if you understand french or german, there has been a series on them on ARTE. I only watched one last night - Geronimo, who, I learned wasn't only attacked by americans but mexicans for their repeated raids and thefts. Very good series with lots of images from archives. Doesn't invalidate their general elimination and later forced integration, by canadians too. Also, that this happened over a long period.
Unfortunately all those exemples are simply part of human history and hasn't stopped. I believe there is some fundamental brain default that went wrong somewhere during evolution. Maybe one day we'll be able to 'repair' it.
pessimist:
First let me explain that I was not saying it was right, but simply stating that it is in the past, and quite a few hundreds years ago, and that it is impossible to "undo". I mentioned especially natives in America because I was replying to Rezvan who was attacking USA, as if they were the only country who ever invaded/colonised another (p.s. it is important to note it was actually Britain who invaded/colonised the territory now known as USA). You surely know that the "same story" applies to Canada, and to most countries in South America as well, who were colonised by France and Spain.
Sadly invasions happened quite a lot in the past in most other countries, invading each other, and then repressing, harrassing, and even eliminating natives, and forcing them to adapt a new religion or way of life. But since we are talking specifically about USA, you should know that natives are granted some privileges (we are talking about natives who choose to continue living with a tribe and on a specific territory). I would understand if you chose to call it "rights" since they were there first, but eventho it may not seem fair, you should know that it is more then you will see in most countries, in most cases natives have no specific rights whatsoever due to their status of natives, they were invaded, conquered, and had to submit to the conqueror, end of the story (again not saying this is right, just stating a fact). Here is an example of "privileges" or "rights" natives have in America: http://www.narf.org/pubs/misc/faqs.html .
However you must know that many american citizens living presently have native ancestors, whether it is obvious or not by looking at them, and whether or not they live with a tribe. And of course when speaking of America, you must also know that America is a melting pot, and include all its citizens originating (or having ancestors originating) from most countries around the world, not only Britain, France, and Spain.
P.s. here is a good site, if you are interested in knowing more about natives in America, agreements and treaties, etc http://www.firstpeople.us/
pessimist:
About your last paragraph, I agree, and hope that in the future every country will be able to live in peace with the others, and its own citizens. Human rights should be universal.
Sometimes I wish Cyrus the Great would have conquered the world ... but then again we would probably have the same problems today anyway.
@Samuel
"when the fact is that the Americans and their Israelis allies are interfering in many different countries RIGHT NOW."
And the current Iranian Regime is not?????
Barry
@Shadi
"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."
I am quite certain that there are MANY Iraqis who would have preferred to live under Saddam - they had a good life within his Regime. Similarly, there are MANY Iranians who are currently also living a good life under the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran. They do not want change either. The higher they are up in the feeding chain, the less change they want. I am sure Khamenei is very happy - I'll bet that when he was a little boy, he would never dream that one day he would be a "Supreme Leader" :) . He has certainly hit the jackpot.
Barry
Shadi
I quite understood what you were saying and agree of course. I wasn't saying any different. Thanks for the links