Sunday
Jan312010
Iran Analysis: Mousavi and Karroubi Answer the Regime --- "Defiance"
Sunday, January 31, 2010 at 7:57 
Occasionally the analysis is easy.24 hours ago, we were evaluating the regime's stepped-up threat, through the public declaration of Ayatollah Jannati, "We Will Kill You". We wrote, "This Government, this Supreme Leader has to prevent the mantle of the 1979 Revolution from being wrested from its grip on 22 Bahman (11 February)."
And we watched for a response.
Iran From the Outside: Helping Through “Active Neutrality”
Iran Document: Mousavi-Karroubi Declaration on Rights and 22 Bahman (30 January)
The Latest from Iran (31 January): No Backing Down
We got it within hours. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, in a meeting documented by video cameras, issued a declaration that stood upon Karroubi's own stepped-up challenge of the last week and, indeed, harked back to Karroubi's response last autumn to Government warnings of arrest: Bring. It. On.
In their expression of sorrow to the families of Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, the two men executed last week for crimes against national security, Mousavi and Karroubi offered a clever political riposte. They reassured supporters who had criticised the lack of comment over Zamani and Rahmanipour, and they made a connection with the Green Movement even though the executed prisoners were not involved with post-election resistance:
It seems like such actions is only to scare people and discourage them from participating in the 11 February [22 Bahman, anniversary of the 1979 Revolution] rally.
The widespread arrests of the political figures, journalists and academia, charged with protesting to defend their rights, are illegal. The process of obtaining confessions from these prisoners is also in contradiction to Islamic principles and the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Significantly, Mousavi and Karroubi renewed the latter's pointed challenge to Ayatollah Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council who is blamed for betraying the Islamic Republic by giving legitimacy to President Ahmadinejad.
Some in the Green movement will quarrel that Mousavi and Karroubi were unsubtle in declaring their allegiance to the Islamic Republic, "The majority of the people only want to regain their rights and are not seeking to overthrow the system," but this is an obvious strategy. It holds both the "middle ground" of Iranians who may be disillusioned with the Government and even the Supreme Leader but who do not want to put aside the Islamic Republic, and it makes the regime, rather than the opposition, the betrayer of and threat to the highest values of that Republic: "It seems like the rulers are even feeling danger by this voice of the people seeking justice."
And, of course, Mousavi and Karroubi offered the most defiant of responses to a regime which, over recent weeks, has tried to crush the prospect of mass demonstrations on 22 Bahman. To their followers, Mousavi and Karroubi put out the simple message: Join the Rallies. It was a message they did not give on 16 Azar (7 December) or even Ashura (27 December). Now the signal is clear: no more holding back.
Ayatollah Jannati, representing the regime, reviewed the prospects of more arrests, trials, and even executions and shouted, "Do It".
Yesterday, in a quieter but equally forceful manner, Mousavi and Karroubi responded, "Go Ahead. Try and Do It. We Do Not Give Way." Now it remains to be seen not only how the regime but also the Green movement take up that response.
On Friday
Reader Comments (31)
Those who defy us should be scared.
In answer to some questions raised: In being unfaithful to us, those charged with crimes are racked by guilt. We give them the opportunity to practice the fine art of prevarication we have perfected. It is an honor for them to perform at their show trial before death. Our twists of word are perfect. No one should question our perfection in these matters. We condemn those who think they can speak their own truth without our guidance. We determine what is to be understood and what is to be obscured.
It is the duty and honor of every citizen, even petty criminals, to be a scapegoat for the nation if we ask it. Not everyone gets to be a martyr, some are mere scapegoats.
The ability to withstand humiliation stoically at a trial takes practice. For this play, rehearsals are mandatory. We, of the leadership class, are never humiliated because we have no shame ever.
It is not a reduction of sentence that is promised but a reduction of the length of the sentences they must recite in their confessions. It's easier to memorize shorter sentences.
The lion doesn't have to justify his attack on the lamb. The leader of the wolf pack expects his underlings to herd the prey to him for first choice. He eats first. And upward to philosophy: we devour culture. We control the euphemisms and the doublespeak: the sky is polka dot when we say so. For every action we take, we can find a passage in the Koran that justifies it. Thus, we are always right, and we are never wrong. Those foreign to our circle are responsible for errors. We have been given velayat-e faqih and we keep it for ourselves forever. Protest is futile.
RE: “The majority of the people only want to regain their rights and are not seeking to overthrow the system,” but this is an obvious strategy.
I find it very difficult to know if it's just a strategy or an honest deep-seated belief. Mousavi and Karroubi towed this line back when their supporters were just trying to get their vote back, and then when their supporters were just protesting against the violence that had been used in response to their protest. Now, when many voices in the opposition have started entertaining desires for a completely different political system, Mousavi and Karroubi still tow the same line. How can we be sure it's just a strategy?
Catherine,
I think it's a stategy AND a deep-seated wish rather than belief; as Scott says, they try to hold the middle ground and shift the charge of betrayal on the government's side. but in my opinion it's also an attempt to discourage any temptation in the Green Movement to demand more radical changes.
As far as I'm concerned, I support those among the Greens and others who want to put an end to this Islamic Republic, but I don't know what proportion of the Greens and protesters they represent.
Florence,
That's an important distinction: deep-seated *wish* as opposed to *belief*. Thanks for you comment.
Discussing whether holding the middle ground (reform within the system) is a sincere belief or just a strategy by Karroubi and Mousavi is such a byzantine debate!
First, because even if they wanted, challenging the regime upfront (by calling for an end to the Islamic Republic) would be plain suicidal from the duo, and would allow the regime to present them as traitors (or "mohareb") and break the green movement. Let's not forget they ran for elections within the regime framework, giving away the middle ground - their best line of defense for now - would play perfectly in the regime's hands as it would make it much easier to isolate them and divide the green movement.
Second, because what Mousavi and Karoubi really and intimately wish (and my bet is that they, as long-time regime insiders, cannot so easily - at a mental level - distance themselves from the system as such) is no longer relevant at this stage. I have witnessed directly the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, and there are some similarities with what's going on in Iran. Once a dynamic of challenge to the regime is put in motion, even if initially led by moderate reformists, it's all but certain that it will lead to the regime's end, because it's just impossible to halt it middle of the road - even if the initial (moderate) leaders may not realize it. Remember Gorbatchev only wanted to reform - and keep in place - the communist system. Also, some of the champions of the anti-communist revolutions started their fight by challenging the regime to live up to its declared principles (which of course it could not) rather than calling for regime change upfront (which would have made them much easier targets for repression).
Actually, in my reading the system (of the Islamic Republic) missed its chance to survive when it denied the election victory of moderate reformist Mousavi. Halting the challenge half-way - at least for some time - was still possible then, as it had been under Khatami. But by choosing the path of radical confrontation (thus abandoning the middle ground), the regime signed it death warrant, and is now living on borrowed time.
So, in brief: it would be wholly unnecessary and very dangerous for the green movement to give away the middle ground at this stage. And whether Mousavi and Karoubi sincerely want to keep the system in place or not is totally irrelevant, what they have been doing is anyway contributing to an irreversible dynamic of events that spells the end of the regime.
Pelin
I agree with you 100%; even if Moussavi and Karroubi want to keep the Islamic systeme, it's iranian people who will have the last word !
Pelin,
Yes, it would be a good idea to keep the "Gorbatchev" of Iran. But although the Soviet Union's empire fell and had stayed independent, Russia has been taken back by Putin.
Who would be the "Yeltzin" of Iran? And can such an entity transition without a "Putin" figure?
Pelin,
Byzantine or not, I would like to know where they're really coming from as an indication of where and how far they're willing to go. For the rest, I agree with you. And I hope they pursue the strategy of holding the middle ground and challenging the regime to uphold its own laws, its constitution and the international treaties it has signed on to.
Clarification: I meant "Gorbatchev" as a temporary transition to allow the people to establish a free republic. I'm not endorsing keeping the present system.
I guess the people of Iran are collectively the "Yeltzin" standing on the tank....
Pelin,
Another analogy or historical parallel:
Remember that Gorbatchev was held captive at his Dacha and Yeltzin had to rescue him. Is that right? I don't remember.
So in this case, if Mousavi and Karroubi are arrested or put under house arrest or isolated, the People must take to the streets and stand on a figurative tank and seize power?
Doug - yes, in August 1991 there was a communist hardliners' putsch against Gorbatchev. Yeltsin (who was president of Russia at that time, while Gorbachev was president of USSR) called on people to resist and - yes - he "saved" Gorbatchev from the putschists - only to let him jobless a few months later, when Russia declared its independence from USSR and Gorbatchev resigned (that was effectively the end of USSR).
Re Mousavi and Karroubi
Per Pelin “contributing to an irreversible dynamic of events that spells the end of the regime.”
And that is all the contributions many Iranians (I hope a great majority) are asking them for now and in the future. After regime goes to dust, I would like to wish Mousavi and Karroubi well and seem them disappear into the sunset and take their “deep wish” or “deep belief” or long-life-dream of Khomeini Islamic Republic with them. I am sure Iranians will thank them for their contributions and will not pursue them for their past deeds.
Iran and Iranians have to start all over again if they truly want democracy and a constitutional republic.
Dr. Mohsen Kadivar's take on the future of the clerical system in iran (English Subtitles) :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vUzVnQ2gw0
English translation of BBC Persian interview with former Iranian president Banisadr:
http://www.twitlonger.com/show/64215
For original interview (25 Jan) on video see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbslWtCysns
Pelin,
I agree with you too, but as you say yourself, Khatami succeded in saving the regime and Mousavi would probably have done the same thing if he hadn't been denied his victory. That's precisely why I think it's important for protesters in Iran to be fully conscious of K and M's deepest aim, so as not to be fooled by them.
For the time being, of course I think Iranians's strategy of making use of K and M's contibution is the best one.
Ange Paris, Salut!
Good to see you back :-)
Catherine,
Very good read!
Banisadr: There is no minimum or maximum. There is only one demand: NO TO VELAYAT FAQIH, YES to a PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC.
Pelin,
Thanks for your allusions to the fall of communism in Eastern Europe, although the direction of developments in Iran can also be explained by internal processes: Khatami's presidency and the failed experience of reforms within the system have proven to a majority that it is not reformable. Even though some reformers, especially the expatriates and so-called religious newthinkers, are still advocating a "revised" IR with more republican elements, the futility of such attempts is obvious to domestic reformers, mostly arrested after the fraudulent elections. Conflicts between diverging movements within the system or the society in general, which became apparent after Khatami's landslide victory, have been reinforced by AN, who tried to reestablish postrevolutionary conditions during his first term.
What we actually see are widening gaps on several levels: generational, religious, political and ideological. A senile clergy, determined to impose its obsolete anti-Western political ideology and its backwarded interpretation of Islam on a young and vibrant society, which is fed up with constant restrictions on all levels of private, public and political life and demands modernization. This senile clergy and their offsprings (aghazade-ha) are as profit-oriented as the IRGC militia, devoid of any "revolutionary virtues", which procured them with popular respect as well as religious and political legitimacy initially. As the SL continues to enforce his obsolete concepts of the IR, these gaps are likely to become more distinctive.
Killing protesters on Ashura and closing down mosques during the holy month of Moharram alongside with rising poverty (47 % of Iranians below poverty line) are the two most evident proofs for the failure of a system, which prides itself on being Islamic and committed to the "mostazafan" (deprived). I believe that the process of democratisation and secularisation, which started with Khatami and the reformers is irreversible and is slowly spreading throughout the Iranian society.
Catherine,
Re. “I find it very difficult to know if it’s just a strategy or an honest deep-seated belief.”
Mousavi and Karoubi have said over and over again that they are loyal to the Islamic Republic and its founder. It is hard to find a statement from Mousavi not motioning Khomeini with great affection (the latest joint declaration seems to be an exception).
There are a few things t consider here:
Both Mousavi and Karoubi (and Khatami and all most all other Reformists) own their political existence to the Islamic Republic. If the IR was not around, who is to say that any of these people would be anyone special in Iran’s current political scene? Since the IR is an exclusive system of government, then merit is a distant second to belonging to the fold when it comes to gaining positions of power and responsibility.
Equally the reformists own almost all that they have within the IR to Khomeini. Remember that some of the current reformists were Khomeini’s darlings in the 1980s. Over the past 20 years there has been a steady (albeit at times slow) move to push the reformists out of IR. And Khomeni is a life line (perhaps the only IR inside lifeline) that is available to the reformists. So it is no wonder they keep on talking about him to the point that it makes any IR outsider sick.
I would think that Mousavi and Karoubi and a lot of other IR insiders would probably wish to see the IR remain as Iran’s system of government (perhaps with many changes). The problem for them I think is that what they want is looking less and less possible. When they talk about IR and Khomeini, it sounds to me like old men talking about a nostalgic time way in the past that has less relevance every day. And what they say about IR’s merits is sometimes heavily influenced not by the actual events that happened, but at how they would like to remember those events and how they would like to recount those events.
I am sure if you were to sit down and discuss the merits of IR with any other these people in a detailed, frank and honest discussions, they too would tell you that the recent events in Iran have proven that there is something really wrong with the way the idea of Islamic Republic has been implemented in Iran. In fact they are even almost admitting this in public: they keep on quoting Khomeini when he said, be careful that the wrong people do not take control of the revolution. Or when they say that the IR has strayed from the path of the revolution. What they are doing here is actually admitting that the IR system does not have a mechanism for self correction. If you don’t have a system that can correct itself, it would do a lot of damage and will eventually fall to pieces.
I think Khamenei is fed up having to live under the shadow of Khomeini and, amongst other reasons, out of personal vanity he probably would wish that no one ever mentioned Khomeini ever again. If you look back at his 19 June “we will kill you all” Friday sermon (which I think was the pinnacle of Khamenei’s feeling of power), you will notice that Khamenei did not mention Khomeini even once. He talked about the revolution and Rafsanjani, but not Khoemeini. He spoke of the war with Iraq and Mohsen Rezaii (whom Khoemini used to affectionately call “agah Mohsen”) and did not mention Khomeini. He talked about Karoubi as being Majles speaker, but did not mention Karoubi’s more important revolutionary and IR credential as being appointed by Khomeini to head the Martyrs’ Foundation. And a couple of weeks later when talking about the post election street protests he said that they are a caricature of the 57 (1970) revolution. Note that he referred to the Islamic Revolution as 57 revolution. Mind you, after the people did not back down Khamenei had to resort to hide behind Khomeini (with the burning of Khomeini photos campaign on 16 Azar, which BTW failed). I think that one of the aims (not the main aim, a bonus aim) of the reformists in bringing up Khomeini may be to keep on slapping Khamenei in the face with the fact that he will always be under the shadow of Khomeini.
In any case, I think as things stand in Iran the true intentions of Mousavi and Karoubi re. Islamic Republic is really not that relevant. The way I see it, these people (Mousavi, Karoubi, other reformists) are IR insiders who are picking a serious fight with the rest of the establishment. This fight is weakening the establishment which is helping to reduce the pressure on the people a little bit (It should also be noted that the pressure that the people are putting on IR is acting as a shield for Mousavi, Karoubi, etc. If it was not for the public pressure, they would long be in jail or dead.) so as long as Mousavi and Karoubi are helping in the people’s confrontation with the dictatorship I don’t see any danger in supporting them. Remember we are not talking about blindly following them wherever they wish to take up.
I don’t think that the idea of politics and religion being mixed with each other will have many fans in Iran. It is a lose-lose situation: religion is used as a excuse to make politics holy and unquestionable; and being so closely identified with politics, religious people will feel that their beliefs are being abused for other’s political advantage. And I think like Montazeri, a lot of the ex-IR insiders are well aware of this. If so, then the idea of staying within IR framework will be a nostalgic dream.
BTW I am impressed with the stand Mousavi and Karoubi took re the recent executions. I was not expecting them to take such a string stand so quickly. They may have many reasons of their own for this, but it is very good that they did take this stand.
Greeny,
Great explanation as always. Thanks. I was also pleased with Mousavi and Karroubi taking so many points from the open letter (of the Islamic Participation Front? you know who I mean) to include in their reaction against the executions.
Greeny
Thank you so much for your analysis - it's extremely helpful - especially that whole part about Khamenei not liking playing second fiddle to Khomenei any more.
Florence,
I find Bani Sadr a bit unfair in his comments about Mousavi and Karoubi. Those two are walking on a fine line: remaining truthful representatives of a growing popular revolt while confronting an unscrupulous and brutal regime within the legal frame of a constitution. Most importantly, their lives are litterally at stake which is certainly not the case of Mr Sadr.
Arshama - fully agree. I also wrote back in June on the irreversible generation gap (IRI's incapacity to integrate an educated, politically active, technologically literate and demographically very numerous youth) - it's linked from here: http://rational-idealist.blogspot.com/2009/12/making-history-in-death-grand-ayatollah.html (the earlier post was in Romanian).
Greeny - great explanation indeed, thank you, fully agree. Karroubi and Mousavi have been very courageous, and so far their stance - even though nominally within the regime framework - has helped the people's fight for freedom.
Gloumdalclitch,
What you say about M's and k's lives being at stake is true and I agree they are courageous but I'm not so sure they are " truthful representatives of a growing popular revolt ". As many have said here, more and more Iranians are determined to get rid of IR, and this is not at all M's and K's aim.
Greeny,
Your explanations may be right, but you are largely dismissing Montazeri's role in this general picture of the IR as a system, which did not only eliminate all its secular critics (by executions or forcing them into exile), but also critical clerics like Montazeri (placed under house arrest) or Kazemeini Boroujerdi (in jail). Montazeri's importance for parts of the Green movement become evident at a glance at Jaras site, where numerous articles are dedicated to this spiritual leader of parts of the movement:
http://www.rahesabz.net/story/9113/
Citing Khomeini in order to anger the SL and as a lifeline within the system is a plausible move by Moussavi and Karroubi, but apparently not representative for a part of the movement, which adheres to his most staunch critic Montazeri.
Sometimes I have the impression that large parts of the establishment and its political dissidents simply fear to give up Khomeini, serving as a garant for their mendacious system for more than 30 years. The big challenge would be to convince them that they will not be forced to give up all their religious beliefs, if they accept a critical approach to their religion, which has always encouraged criticism. By this I do not mean concepts of the so-called religious "new-thinkers", who merely propagate a rotten compromise between incompatible ideas, but a genuine reformation of Shiite religion.
Thank you for pointing out their obvious strategy :)