Iran Special: The Weakness of the Regime "It's Deja Vu All Over Again"

It's one of those phrases that I have always wanted to use in a news story. Yogi Berra, a great American baseball player but a notorious mangler of language, once said of the feats of the teammates, "It's like déjà vu all over again."

A few months we wrote of an attempt by the Ahmadinejad Government, as it set out the priority of a deal with the "West" on Iran's nuclear programme, that this was a blatant attempt to divert attention from internal political crisis. We added that, despite the headlines that the manoeuvre would get, the effort would soon be exposed.

Iran: The “Reconciliation” Proposals of Karroubi’s Etemade Melli Party
Iran: “Conservative Opposition” Offer to Mousavi “Back Khamenei, We Sack Ahmadinejad”
Iran Document: Karroubi’s Open Letter for 22 Bahman (6 February)
Iran: Quick! Look Over There! The Nuclear Distraction

In less than 24 hours, we were proved right as the "conservative opposition", figures like Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, and the Green movement attacked the Government on a number of fronts.

Yesterday, it was déjà vu all over again.


In the morning, all the buzz in the US and British press was Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki's declaration in Munich that an agreement could be reached on a "swap" of uranium outside Iran. There was the inevitable cycle of surprise that Tehran could hold out the prospect and then of scepticism as "Western" politicians put the brakes on expectations.

We, however, were listening to the tick-tick-tick of opposition within the Iranian establishment. As early as Thursday, there was unsubtle signals from Parliament and key politicians that they were unhappy with President Ahmadinejad's declaration on national television that uranium could be sent outside Iran. Yesterday morning, Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani left no doubt: his attack on the deal was not, first and foremost, an attack on the "West" but on his President.

Even this, however, was just another act in the nuclear sideshow. Throughout Saturday, only a few days before the demonstrations of  22 Bahman (11 February), the main event was the exposure of weakness and fear, not only in the Government but within the Iranian regime.

It came in yet more statements from opposition figures. Have no doubt: this is no longer a Mousavi or a Khatami or a Karroubi putting out a declaration but a co-ordinated campaign --- the "relay of opposition" --- to keep the Government unsettled and to build up momentum for 22 Bahman. Yesterday it was a statement from Mohammad Khatami, Mehdi Karroubi's forthright boost for protest and criticism of the regime in interviews and on his website, and then Karroubi's party Etemade Melli putting out a manifesto for this week's demonstrations.

The Government response? A whimper. As President Ahmadinejad went to a girls' school to proclaim the Revolution lived through more than 1200 education and sports projects, a couple of officials like Iran's police chief insisted that the protests would be broken. Bluster rather than substance was exposed, however, when it was the magazine of the Revolutionary Guards that was the key site for warning Karroubi-Khatami-Mousavi, "Repent or Else".

Or Else what? While the extent of the regime's crackdown should not be underestimated --- the detainees languish in prison, the Internet crawls to a near-stop --- the persistence of the opposition is clear outside Iran and, I suspect, inside the country. (Note that Mousavi started this latest cycle of declarations more than a week before 22 Bahman, probably to assure that --- despite the limits on communications --- there was enough time to get the message throughout Green networks.)

So last night it was not just a case of opposition confidence. It was also the clearest sign of regime fear. No firm predictions, but diligent historians may one day blow the dust off Saturday's open letter of prominent member of Parliament Ali Motahhari to Mousavi.

Of course, Motahhari tries to show strength through tough language: "Our gracious Leader in his recent speech has mildly described the actions of you and Karroubi as 'negligence'. These are signals for you to change your position with the aim of strengthening national unity." However, beneath the demand is a pleading: accept the supremacy of the Supreme Leader, and we will deal with this President who is undermining the Republic.

That letter,disseminated quickly in state media, is not one of a regime in control. That letter is not one of a regime in the blush of confidence. Even if the most cynical of us think it is a trick --- Mousavi acknowledges Khameini, walking away from the Green opposition, but Ahmadinejad stays --- you don't play tricks on opponents whom you think are on the verge of defeat.

Compare Motahhari's move with the previous pre-demonstration displays of machismo by the regime: the Supreme Leader's Friday Prayer of 19 June, the warnings before Qods Day in September not to take to the streets, the finger-wagging and attempts at intimidation before Ashura, even the threats of execution last week. The leaders in this system are shaking.

And, on the other side, compare the relay of statements from Karroubi-Khatami-Mousavi to their lack of statements before Ashura. This time they are vocal, this time there is no doubt that --- while the protest should be non-violent and respectful --- the dissent should be visible.

All the while, below the public level of the regime's fretting and the defiance of its challengers, the Green Movement(s) plan.

It is four days to 22 Bahman.

Iran: "Conservative Opposition" Offer to Mousavi "Back Khamenei, We Sack Ahmadinejad"

At the end of an intriguing political day, another twist: the high-profile member of Parliament, Ali Motahhari, an ally of Ali Larijani and a critic of the Ahmadinejad Government, has written an open letter to Mir Hossein Mousavi. (Note "open", which raises this to a very public signal of the position of the "conservative opposition".)

The summary of the letter, published in The Tehran Times, deserves to be quoted in full. At one level, the reason for publication is obvious: Motahhari is asking Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi to make clear their allegiance to the Supreme Leader and the system of velayat-e-faqih (ultimate clerical supremacy). There is another level of significance, however, Motahhari's unsubtle implication is that, if Mousavi and Karroubi come "within the system", then the abusers in the Government can be dealt with --- and "dealt with" may include the President himself

It is left up to readers to consider whether this move is linked to our analysis last month of a post-Ashura plan, involving Speaker of Parliament Larijani, Tehran Mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf, and Secretary of the Expediency Council and Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, to isolate and possibly remove Ahmadinejad:

I have read your interview in the Kalemeh website and saw positive and negative points in your remarks. I believe that you have stated the pains well, but you have not suggested remedies appropriately. The gist of your remarks is that you have entered the scene for making reforms not for seeking power, taking revenge, or devastating (the country). This approach can be the pivot of unity and the common cause to deal with the current political crisis, especially when one of the bases of the Islamic teachings is continuous social reform.


You in your statements have talked about the administration’s tendencies for breaking law and an inclination towards totalitarianism. You have said that the administration does not account for his actions to the Majlis (Parliament) and the judiciary. You have also mentioned explicitly and implicitly the violent treatments towards the protestors and a negligence by those who been managing the crisis.

Don’t you think that those who are blamed for such offences are seeking to make the current situation continue? Don’t you think that unity and calm are a deadly poison for them? Don’t you think the current situation makes it hard for the Majlis and the judiciary to deal with lawbreakers? For example in the current situation, it is possible to ask the president questions about some lawbreaking and cultural liberalism, but currently such legal actions are regarded as joining the leaders of protesters and attempting to intensify the crisis.

So you and Mehdi Karroubi have become obstacles in the path of making reforms that you and other considerate revolutionary figures call for. I am pretty sure that the grand Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution will deal with the offenses of the respected President, the totalitarians, and some extremists who claim to uphold principlism, if he has peace of mind about the actions of you two respected (figures). At least try (my advice) for several months, if it was not the case, then you can continue your path; the path that I believe is futile and damaging.

Some positive points and unifying steps are seen in your interview such as denouncing the foreign-based media outlets, distancing yourself from anti-Islamic slogans, and emphasizing to be committed to the Constitution. But according to the Constitution, the Leader says the last word on the political and social issues, even if some people are not convinced (about the decision). You have not heeded this principle in your interview duly. Some sections of your interview reveal that you are not willing that the crisis end and you think you are defending people’s rights.

However, by preparing the ground for lawbreaking, people’s rights are violated. The foreign enemies will take advantage (of the current situation) and our system and national interests are undermined. Our gracious Leader in his recent speech has mildly described the actions of you and Karroubi as “negligence.” These are signals for you to change your position with the aim of strengthening national unity. Even if you are right about the recent events, you should take Imam Ali (AS) as a model and give up your rights for Islamic unity and the preservation of Islam, and the public’s rights will be pursued somewhere else. This expectation from you who has a good revolutionary record is not a remote possibility.