Thursday
Jul152010
Iran Follow-Up: The Story Beyond the Opposition, Enduring America, and US "Neoconservatives"
Thursday, July 15, 2010 at 9:25 
Yesterday I noted --- partly because I was annoyed, partly because I was amused --- that Enduring America had made an unexpected cameo appearance in a sweeping attack, published by the opposition website Rah-e-Sabz, on US "neo-conservatives" as "false friends" of the Green Movement. Mr Verde follows up by analysing the significance of the story far beyond Rah-e-Sabz and the article:
Iran Through the Looking Glass: “Never Judge Enduring America by Its Cover”
First, the reference to EA in the article:
The website “Enduring America” (meaning “Sustainable America”), by using the logo of the Pentagon for its site, pretends to support the Green Movement. The website “Tehran Bureau” has been criticized by many of its readers because it claims that it supports the freedom movement in Iran while at the same time it has an Israeli analyst, who writes his comments from the viewpoint of Israel’s interests.
The author is using reference to EA as an ill-fitting “filler” to move from Huntington to Tehran Bureau. There is no reference to any content, just a mention of the site name, its translation into Persian, and a reference to the site logo. Beyond this, there is no substance to the “exposure” –-- as the author would like to see it –-- of EA as part of the great neocon conspiracy to ensure that Iran does not become democratic.
The author starts the article with a quote from Ataollah Mohajerani, a Minister in the Khatami Government. It mentions Moajerani’s article “Keyhan and the CIA” (29 Khordad/ 19 June), and his 28 June speech about the risks to the Green Movement and his support of them.
Mohajerani recently started categorising and filtering the Green Movement into his version of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which he called the “nationalists”, “non-nationalists”, and “anti-nationalist”. It looks like he is trying to act as a Guardian Council for the Movement.
Mohajerani has been criticised for this seemingly “disqualification” of some of the Green supporters. The main aim of the author in Rah-e Sabz seems to be support of Mohajerani, trying to “illustrate” the neocon conspiracy and thus accuse some purported Green Movement supporters of being neocon stooges and anti-democracy in Iran.
The article also mentions the “nag ghazeh, na lobnan” (not Gaza, not Lebanon) slogan, referring to last September’s Qods Day chants by anti-regime protestors: “nag ghazeh, na lobnan – jaanam fadayeh iran” (“not Gaza, not Lebanon --- I give my life for Iran”). Referring to the regime’s support for Hezbollah and Hamas, the slogan declares forget Gaza and Lebanon and let’s fix Iran first.
A few weeks ago Mohsen Kadivar, who happens to be Mohajerani’s brother-in-law, said in an interview on Voice of America Persian that the protestors’ slogan on Qods Day was actually “ham ghazeh, ham lobnan –-- jaanam fadayeh iran” (“both Gaza and Lebanon –-- I give my life for Iran”). After he was criticized for saying this, given the video evidence, Kadivar sent an email to VoA conceding that the “not, Gaza, not Lebanon” version of the slogan was shouted by people on that day but adding that he preferred the “both Gaza and Lebanon” version. Perhaps far from coincidentally, the author of the Rah-e Sabz article also has a go at Voice of America.
My main point? This article is another indication of the crisis with the Islamic Republic and different interpretations of its founding ideology:
On the regime side, there are management crises everywhere (power shortages, water shortages, Bazaar strikes, etc.) and Ahmadinejad getting into arguments with his supporters --- or should that be former supporters? --- about neckties. The Supreme Leader compares himself with the first Shia Imam and thinks he’s going to war in the 7th Century AD.
The reformists, faced with their own ideological shortcomings (which is inevitable, as they come from the same background as Ayatollah Khamenei and the rest of the regime), are finding them very difficult to resolve. So some of them (I must emphasise some of them, and not all of them) instead opt for disqualifying Green supporters and trying to change the meaning of slogans. Confronted over these tactics, they start lashing out at everyone and anyone. Welcome to “politics” Iranian style!
Mir Hossein Mousavi who is sitting in Iran and having to put up with the consequences of not giving in to Khameni/Ahmadinejad’s demands (consequences which include the assassination by “unknown persons” of Mousavi's nephew during the Ashura protests last December) says that the Green Movement does not have a leader and also that the Green Movement does not have a spokesperson overseas.
Maybe instead of attempting to speak on behalf of the movement, mimicking the Guardian Council by disqualifying some regime opponents, and distorting the declarations of people who risked their lives in the streets in Iran, Mr Mohajerani and his allies might contemplate their roles --- as senior regime officials not that long ago --- in the mess that the Islamic Republic has created in Iran today. Maybe, instead of making false accusations, based on half-baked arguments, they might think about what it is that they stand for?
Reader Comments (25)
Mousavi: 'Anyone who defends justice & law is Green Movement member'
“In my opinion, anyone who seeks justice and moves towards achieving the people’s control over their own destiny, and anyone who defends justice and the law—wherever they might be—is a part of this Movement and we must all believe that in the end, it is the people’s vote that will count.”
http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2010/jul/14/2161" rel="nofollow">http://en.irangreenvoice.com/article/2010/jul/1...
Dear EA,
it took me weeks - if not months - to trust you. Indeed, the logo and the name is highly irritating. Then, after having followed your blogs, analyses and updates, I declared EA one of my daily sources for the debate on #iranelection.
I think your piece is counterproductive. Instead of lashing out at people like Mohajeraani and Kadivar you should have reduced your effort on emphasizing your fantastic work in the recent months. You should have made comments regarding your network of correspondents. You should have made comments about how you try to verify anykind of news that reaches you. Such a constructive response to the baseless criticism of the rah-e sabz item would have had a much better effect.
I personally have NO DOUBT that there is a HUGE NUMBER of actors outside Iran (both Iranians and Non-Iranians) trying to take advantage of Iran's crisis. Being skeptical about foreign support for the Green Movement is what I personally promote every day. Why is TehranBureau suddenly placed on PBS? Why has BBC Persia such a great infrastructure provided by the U.K. government?
I have respect for both outlets as I have tons of respect for EA. And the content of TB, BBC Persia and EA is more than convincing and impresses me over and over again for its journalistic value. This does not hold true for VOA. This outlet is more biased than anything could be.
Anyway... This is getting too long. I want to express my appreciation for what EA stands for and ask you to NOT be annoyed by the skepticism that faces you time and again but react in a more patient manner and respond appropriately, and not how you just did.
VIVA EA,
Ramin
Ramin,
Thank you for this thoughtful and constructive comment.
I should clarify that this piece is the attempt of Mr Verde, as an analyst, to use the Rah-e-Sabz article to take a wider look at issues and tensions within the opposition. It is not an EA response to Rah-e-Sabz, whose work I respect and value, or to anyone else. (After all, we are not the story here and never should be.)
Personally, I see an intense and sometimes heated discussion within the Green Movement right now over issues such as "leadership", including who --- if anyone --- speaks for the opposition, and the relationship between various groups within the opposition. The recent Mojaherani declaration, as Mr Verde points out here, escalated the discussion on some of those issues, and this opinion piece of Rah-e-Sabz continues to point to tensions over who is and who isn't really on-side.
For me, the central issue should always be the recognition of what Iranians want for their country and their future, and I hope that those who pursue this goal avoids labels of others who share this hope, even if there is a difference of perspective on certain issues.
S.
Mr Verde,
"Maybe, instead of making false accusations, based on half-baked arguments, they might think about what it is that they stand for?"
That is exactly the question, which Ramin Jahanbegloo poses in his short discussion about the Green movement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7mct3O9AQ&feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oU7mct3O9AQ&feat...
He starts with Spartakus as a model for a slave, who wanted freedom for himself and his likes, but had no plan for the future society, in which they wanted to live. Jahanbegloo demands the public to ask themselves, Mousavi and other Green leaders, if ethnic minorities or gays have a place in this new society. Actually the Green movement has no answer, but practice negative resistance. Also a critique of all those nationalists and leftists, who sacrificed their rights, especially women's rights, for the 1979 revolution.
Arshama
Dear Arshama
have you read the "Green Charta" by Mousavi? Therein, all important things on a future society are well explained. It is more than clear after reading this manifest how minorities OF ANY SORT will find their place in the society. I have tons of respect for Jahaanbagloo, but I must criticize him for this very clip because Mousavi had provided the answers to his questions earlier.
Cheers,
Ramin
Ramin,
As Scott says, this article is by me.
Re. “Instead of lashing out at people like Mohajeraani and Kadivar...”
Contrary to your assumption, there is no attempt at malice or lashing out. I have tried to put into context the Rah-e Sabz article’s attack on EA.
The author’s “baseless criticism” – in your words - of EA, and the insinuation that EA is working towards military attack on Iran, in apparent attempts at defending Mohajerani’s definition of the Green Movement and Kadivar’s claims about “Gaza, Lebanon” slogan inextricably led me to state the well documented statements by the two gentlemen. I argue that, as with the two mentioned gentlemen, the author of the Rah-e Sabz article tries to confiscate the Green Movement in favour of a select group, while condemning and lashing out at others without even bothering to investigate beyond a website name and logo.
Regards,
Verde
Ramin,
The Green Charter says (I quote Khordaad 88's translation on EA):
"These factors are as follows: numerous deviations from and planned obstacles to the realization of ideals such as justice, independence, freedom, and the institution of the Islamic Republic itself, for which was carried out the magnificent Islamic Revolution."
"Magnificient Islamic Revolution"? Go read the victim's list of this murderous Islamic Revolution at: http://www.iranrights.org/english/memorial.php" rel="nofollow">http://www.iranrights.org/english/memorial.php
Actually the regime is destroying even the mass graves, in which hundreds of opponents were buried hastily. The Khavaran mass burial was flattened already two years ago.
Tell me, how gays will find a place in Mousavi's glorious Islamic Republic???
Stop fooling yourself and others, please...
Arshama
Mr. Verde,
If your clarification is indeed an accurate description of your intent from writing this article, you really need to work on your English!
I completely agree with Ramin in that your article reads as a tit-for-tat reactionary response from a less known site to a much more known one in order to satisfy some kind of hurt ego.
I truly appreciate EA's work but your article missed the mark, badly.
I suggest that you take this constructive criticism in the way it is intended and use it as a lessons learned.
Thanks again for your hard work.
Bahman
Ramin,
I am not just quoting any "short passage of this charta", but the essential part of it, which automatically denies all those beautiful words about freedom, justice, liberty blah blah!
As long as state and religion are not separated, nothing will change in Iran. There is no "Islamic Republic with a human attitude", just as no human communism existed, as history has taught us.
Ramin Jahanbegloo rightly points to the "post-ideological" and "post-charismatic" nature of the Green or rather Rainbow movement, while you are insisting on your Islamistic political ideology.
Arshama
Bahman,
RE "I completely agree with Ramin in that your article reads as a tit-for-tat reactionary response "
This is only if you completely ignore everything that Mr Verde writes starting from : "My main point? This article is another indication of the crisis with the Islamic Republic and different interpretations of its founding ideology:" all the way to the end of his post.
Ramin,
Re. “…it's just only one contributor. And yes, there are far too many actors trying to call this Movement their own. I think this conflict is actually more of a cleavage of Iranians of Iran and the diaspora. There is no doubt, that the views of these groups do not go along with each other at some point.”
I agree with you that this is just one article on Rah-e Sabz. I respect and follow Rah-e Sabz, which I find a valuable source of information and opinion. There is a note at the bottom of their opinion pieces, including the one we’re talking about, which says that the views expressed are not necessarily those of Jaras. I am talking about one Rah-e Sabz article (I should have made this clear; I mean the King of Neocons article), not the site. My main worry about the author’s attack on EA is that he is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. He talks about neocon desires to attack Iran and he includes in its list of culprits EA, basing his argument on the translation of EA’s name and the shape of its logo. Now this is one of the few sites run by non-Iranians which puts a lot of effort into trying to provide up to date information about the events of Iran. It does so without having stereotypical views of Iran’s events, and, perhaps more importantly, without regarding the events in Iran as either an excuse for pushing for military intervention or expressing hopes that they will lead to US domination of Iran. I just wish more pro Khamenei/Ahmadinejad people would contribute to EA, but I guess that not just the site name and logo(!), but the content would put them off.
If I may humbly say so you too are categorizing Iranians here: in this case into Iranians of “Iran” and Iranians of “elsewhere”. Forgive men for sounding cheeky, but if we are to go along with this argument, then Mohaverani , Kadivar and Jaras will also fall in the category of Iranians “elsewhere”. But seriously, Mousavi (arguably the closest thing there is to the leader of the opposition), who is in Iran and under enormous pressure, goes out of his way to state that the movement does not have a leader and that the people (note: “the people”, not “the people in Iran”, not “the people elsewhere”, not “the people with beards”, not “the clean shaven people”, etc ) are the leaders of the movement. And he has repeatedly said that the movement does not have spokespersons overseas.
Regarding Mousavi’s views about overseas spokespersons: he is probably saying that overseas based people who say that all clerics should be hung from lamp posts, or that the US should attack Iran, etc do not in his view not representing the Green Movement. I would also argue that Mousavi’s views about overseas based spokesperson is also directed at people who try to disqualify others from the Movement simply because they don’t agree with them.
As for his views about the leadership of the movement: there is probably some element of trying to shield himself and others from Khamenei/Ahmadinejad accusations that they are leading an insurgency. I would also argue that Mousavi knows that in order to be able to claim leadership of the movement the way he sees it, he and his allies will have to rethink some of their fundamental assumptions. I think his statements over the past year show that he has started that process (he even said recently that his green charter is a working progress and said that for example there should be more emphasis in it on minority rights). But, respectfully, as an insignificant person I would say that the revision of the assumptions by Mousavi and others is exposing the elephant in the room: the ideological paradoxes. While some, like Mousavi, seem to be trying to explain them or work them out, others seem to be resorting to the establishment’s methods for making up such shortcoming: the exclusion of others, based on their opinions.
This leads me to the Mohajerani/Kadivar criticism. First of all, I am not condemning them off hand. If anything, Mohajerani’s work as Culture Minister has to be remembered: he tried to open up the cultural and press environment while he was minister. His speech in Majles, to defend himself against impeachment was probably the best speech any Islamic Republic minister has made in parliament. That led to even the hostile Fifth Majles to vote against his impeachment. He was eventually ousted by behind the scenes pressure. As for Kadivar, he steadfastly stood by his views and was jailed for them.
My main concern is that why is it that these people now seem to be intent on excluding others or trying to change the meaning of slogans? Is it that they have suddenly made a u-turn and are becoming dictators? Or is it that what we are seeing is the symptoms of other problems? Namely they need to look at compatibility of their ideology with the reality of Iran.
Talking about excluding people from the Green Movement: I do not recall that during the demonstrations against the election fraud last year (inside and outside Iran) anyone requiring the demonstrators to provide a copy of their shensnameh in order to verify that they voted in the elections before “allowing” them to protest. When we were faced with the horrific video of Neda Aghasoltan’s death, did anyone first think whether she had voted in the elections? So if we were now to find out that she had not voted in the elections, does it reduce the significance of her murder or the value of her life? By the same token, does it matter that Mohsen Rouholamin was the son of a Mohsen Rezaii’s advisor? Should we say that made it OK for him to be so gruesomely murdered in Kahrizak? The huge numbers of post-election demonstrators in Iran and elsewhere have managed to destroy the duplicitous facade of the current rulers of the Islamic Republic. I hope it is not the case that now that they have achieved the aim of discrediting Khamenei/Ahamdinejad they should be discarded (similar to Khamenei’s talk of the 42 million who voted in the elections, without mentioning the post-election protests at alleged fraud).
Regards,
Verde
@Arshama: Please, don't be narrow-minded. Look how easily you call me an ideological political islamist. How dare you? Only because some of my views are different? And, you must have missed the part in Mousavi's "Charta" about his immediate demand for clergy and government being independent. Haven't you read that? But then again, if you stop listening to a person only because he/she starts with "Islamic Republic" or "Islamic Revolution" than, I am afraid, no real debate about the future of our country is possible.
@Mr. Verde: Thank you big time for your explanations. I think what makes my statements sound like excluding people from the Green Movement is the following: I know so many Iranians abroad who are (sad enough) completely detached with the reality in Iran. Their wishes for the future of Iran is different from the demands of many Iranians in the country. You will know examples for that yourself. Thus, I am promoting the idea that "ownership" of the Green Movement must be respected. Iranians abroad should only support those demands which are raised by their compats inside the country. It is THEIR fight in the first place. People like Mohajerani, Kadivar, Shirin Ebadi, Masoud Behnoud, Dr. Soroush and some other exiled Iranians have lived long enough in Iran to know the reality of society and politics in Iran. Other expats who have the experience of life in the I.R. for some time will also have maintained their realistic view...
Anyway... such debates are difficult to lead due to lack of time and space. I appreciate your efforts, Mr Verde, and I enjoy many of your analytical pieces. Hopefully some day we get to meet and have a long talk with "Chai va khorma" on the table :)
Take care,
Ramin
Ramin,
I dare to call you narrow-minded, because you are apparently unwilling to see the realities. Your "Islamic" Republic automatically excludes all Iranians with other religions and of course the atheists!
If Mousavi favours a separation of state and religion, why should this new state be named "Islamic"? Why not an Iranian Republic?
Do you have a problem with an Iranian Republic? Are you ashamed of being an Iranian? I am not!
Mr Verde,
Re: Mohajerani
"If anything, Mohajerani’s work as Culture Minister has to be remembered: he tried to open up the cultural and press environment while he was minister."
I beg to differ. This same Mr Mohajerani allowed the closure of dailies "Jame'e", "Shargh", and "Toos", when he was culture minister, and he ordered the imprisonment of "Toos" journalists. At that time I started to list shut down newspapers (must be around 250 by now), and I never forget my anger about these "reformists", who obeyed this system, instead of defending the people's rights. We really don't need to repeat failed experiences...
Arshama
Arshama,
I really appreciate your factual, substantive replies to some of the polemical obfuscators on here.
Ramin, you keep making the same flawed argument. Iranians inside, good; Iranians outside, bad and ignorant. And you keep acting as if YOU exclusively know EXACTLY what Iranians want. It's a pluralistic movement, you don't have a monopoly on understanding what Iranians want.
Call me what you will, doostan. It is interesting for me to see how people start to discredit me as an Islamist, intolerant and ideology-driven person only because I bring up thoughts that are of Iranian origin and based on the ideas people had in mind when they went to the ballots to vote Mousavi as their president...
Please, go on with your black & white thinking pattern, but do not expect me to accept it. I never said Iranians abroad are the bad... Neither did I say Iranians inside the country are always right. I only ask expats to think of their cousins, aunts and grandmas first before focussing on their very own ideas of Iran's future.
Doostan, you must understand the principles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. Therein all religious minorities are considered. It is shameful and horrible that law is broken in my provinces - but that is not a problem of the Constitution but of those who are in charge. Therefore, I say, the concept of the Islamic Republic is not over - but it needs a more modern form of statesmanship. And in my view, Mousavi and the reformist faction, is the right one.
Hate me for my views and call me names - but don't call yourself pluralistic democrats then.
"Call me what you will, doostan."
Do you want us to throw you a pity party? No one called you "names." Arshama identified you as an Islamist, which you are, by your own admission, inasmuch as your support the constitution of the Islamic Republic, and all that it entails, such as the rule of the supreme jurisprudent and the use of sharia as the basis of all legislation.
"Doostan, you must understand the principles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic. It is shameful and horrible that law is broken in my provinces - but that is not a problem of the Constitution but of those who are in charge. "
We do understand it. That's WHY we oppose it. Iran will never become a progressive nation under a constitution that implements unaccountable religious dictatorship with democratic window dressing.
"Therein all religious minorities are considered."
Oh, such as, let me think, Baha'is? What about gays? Are they protected?
"It is shameful and horrible that law is broken in my provinces - but that is not a problem of the Constitution but of those who are in charge."
Iran's sorry state today is due to a schizophrenic structure of governance that fails to create responsible, accountable rule based on popular sovereignty, and not some god-king with a towel on his head. The issue is systemic, not an issue of personalities.
"I only ask expats to think of their cousins, aunts and grandmas first before focussing on their very own ideas of Iran's future."
Thank you for your patronizing suggestion. Duly noted. Just so you know, it's out of love for my relatives in Iran that I give a crap about this country. And when I speak with them, they express complete contempt for the IRI. And no, they don't live in North Tehran.
"Hate me for my views and call me names - but don't call yourself pluralistic democrats then."
Stop your self-loathing. You're the one who simply makes assertions and then runs off.
Would you be kind enough to answer a couple of questions that I have?
As a reformist, (1) what do you want to reform about the Islamic Republic, (2) how do you plan on doing it, and (3) why should the people of Iran trust reformists when they've constantly capitulated to regime hardliners (i.e., July 1999)?
Dear dadash/khaahar Bozorg,
your expression "giving a crap for this country" reveales your approach towards this debate. And I really do not feel motivated to tell you my thoughts on how to reform the Constitution in a detailed manner.
But just to give you an example: There is a main source for all the problems we have in our country: the Guardian Council. Its encompassing powers over electios must be reduced to a minimum. No vetting of candidates whatsoever. If this is achieved through the reform of the constitution, both the Majles and the Assembly of Experts can be real counterparts to Government and Velayat-e Faqih. Of course, there is no future at all for velayat-e faqih...
Just one more last thing, we are talking about major changes. If we want to prevent another revolution which leads us to chaos we must work slowly but solidly. And in my opinion these steps can be taken only with people like Mousavi and Khatami.
Khaste nabaashid,
Ramin
"your expression "giving a crap for this country" reveales your approach towards this debate. And I really do not feel motivated to tell you my thoughts on how to reform the Constitution in a detailed manner."
Ok, I'm going to chalk up this fatuous remark to your misunderstanding of the expression "give a crap." I give a crap (meaning, I care) about Iran chiefly because my relatives live there, and I give a crap (meaning, I care) about their well-being. Clear? Do you need any more cheap excuses to bow out of a real discussion?
"There is a main source for all the problems we have in our country: the Guardian Council. Its encompassing powers over electios must be reduced to a minimum."
No. The main source is called the constitution, which empowers a backwards theocracy based on religious law from 1400 years ago. The main problem is that the country is run by a god-king, and his paramilitary minions, and that, contrary to your claims, this is not a perversion of the constitution but EXACTLY the situation that you would expect to arise from it.
Interesting to note that you don't actually call for the abolishment the Guardian Council. This is quite telling. You're not interested in real, progressive change in the country. You simply want an Islamic Republic lite.
"both the Majles and the Assembly of Experts can be real counterparts to Government and Velayat-e Faqih. "
Yes, we've seen how smoothly and wonderfully it's worked for the past three decades. You're talking as a cloistered theoretician that's taking a head-in-the-sand approach to the past 31 years of backwardness, corruption and unworkability of this governmental structure.
"Of course, there is no future at all for velayat-e faqih.."
Well, this is a breath of fresh air. But then why do you need an Assembly of Experts and other medieval-sounding bodies as a check something that is no longer feasible? I sense typical Islamist equivocating here.
"If we want to prevent another revolution which leads us to chaos we must work slowly but solidly. And in my opinion these steps can be taken only with people like Mousavi and Khatami."
You've failed to answer my questions. Frankly, I'm not surprised. So the future of Iran lies in the hands Khatami, a man who has likened the questioning of the constitution to "treason," who has constantly given rosy talks about civil society but then abandoned the very same people and students who were fighting for that civil society, and Mousavi, a man who, to his credit, has stood firm but who has failed to truly harness the momentum of this movement?
I see. You know what, if that's the case, we're going to be having this exact same discussion in 2060.
Lead to chaos? You mean, there isn't chaos in Iran, right now? You're offering a false dilemma. Either slow change, or chaos. That's simply untrue.
And please, tell me, in light of the events of the past year, and the current state of Iran as a military-theocracy, how do you plan on implementing these changes? Please, enlighten us.
Bozorg,
Thank you so much for these remarks :-)
"So the future of Iran lies in the hands Khatami, a man who has likened the questioning of the constitution to "treason," who has constantly given rosy talks about civil society but then abandoned the very same people and students who were fighting for that civil society, and Mousavi, a man who, to his credit, has stood firm but who has failed to truly harness the momentum of this movement?"
"You know what, if that's the case, we're going to be having this exact same discussion in 2060."
I fear, with such a regime nothing will be left over from Iran in 2060...
Arshama
Ramin,
I'm afraid Bozorg and Arshama have peeled away all the false layers of this onion. And if you amend the present IRI constitution to the extent that you remove the rule of the supreme jurisprudent and the use of sharia as the basis of all legislation, then you end up with nothing other than an Iranian Republic and not an Islamic one.
Sometimes it's just so hard to let go....
Sure, the major weakness of the IRI is its highly contradictory system. Arshama is right that the crucial reform of the Constitution would turn this system into a secular Iranian Republic. But, hey, that's where I also want to go!! All I am trying to say is, we are not there yet. If tomorrow a referendum was held in Iran, I'm not so sure whether the majority would say no to IRI - I couldn't be happier if they voted for an Iranian Republic but I guess we will need another generation for that to happen.
The future of the country is certainly not in the hands of the Reformists. It's in the hands of the people. But the reformists are the only politicians, in my opinion, who would listen to the people in contemporary Iran. Sure, they have made major mistakes - but they learned out of those mistakes. And things have really changed in the past year. Although many problems have existed from the first weeks of IRI, many turned really ugly in the past 12 to 13 months.
I know many people have lost their hope in the clergy... Although I am not a too religios person I tell you I haven't. Letters like the one from Safi-Golpayegani to the Supreme (Mis)Leader will have their effect. If they only joint their forces they can bring about change in the behaviour of "Kha'enei".
We all want exactly the same: A free Iran with a governing body emerging out of the will of the people. No doubt about that. Such a major change is simply not possible within a few years. The chaos I am talking about is nothing compared to the crisis we are witnessing today.
The chaos I am talking about is the consequence of a violent revolution. There is no way violence can bring down the power of the IRGC. The Shah's forces obviously had at least some kind of class - these people would tear your stomach open in the name of their leader. These dogs must be leashed again. There is only one person who can do that. And that is why I also think (although I don't like that) that we need Khamenei to find the path out of this crisis. He must order the IRGC crazies to step back. He must order the Bassij lunatics to step back. They would, as it is their leader speaking. Without Khamenei, these dogs would sharpen their teeth and attack everyone who is not in their favour.
I admit that this vision is quite apocalyptic. It is out of my big concern for my country that I try to find the most sensible approach towards better times. I am willing to pay the price to live more years in an IRI lite (as Bozorg said) and work towards IRANIAN REPUBLIC than fighting and losing more compatriots for a armed war we simply cannot win.
---
All in all I admit that my contributions are not too well structured and sometimes lack of proper argumentations. This is due to a real lack of time each time I check this highly interesting debate.
Reaching out my "green" hand to you,
Ramin
Ramin,
Somewhat earlier in your discussion with the others, I was tempted to interject what you yourself have written in your last post: "We all want exactly the same: A free Iran with a governing body emerging out of the will of the people." :-)
I don't think Khamenei anymore has the the power and standing, let alone the wisdom and desire, to "order the IRGC crazies and Bassij lunatics to step back". His survival, and that of the system under (or heavily influenced by) his son and the extreme right-wing faction when he is gone, is all that matters to him. To this end he has made a pact with the devil and allowed the IRGC and Basij to come as far as they have, a process which started in 2007 and has been has been expedited since 2008.
See: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35277" rel="nofollow">http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_...
Ramin,
I am happy that you are acknowledging some facts, but I simply cannot understand how you build your hope on the SL? Have you already forgotten that he opposed the people one year ago, ordering their oppression?
Since then things have gone worse in Iran with oppositional newspapers getting banned, journalists, human rights activists, political opponents etc. getting imprisoned.
I am following the news on a daily base (not only for my blog), and all I can see are growing restrictions: hijab punishments, clerics in schools, muzzling news agencies (today), and the IRGC taking over control of more and more institutions. We are heading for a paramilitary dictatorship, and Kham is ready to sacrifice anyone and anything to stay in power.
Your beloved clerics are a shame to mankind: with a few exceptions a majority of them does not cry out, when one of their comrades (in crime) calls for killing people on national TV!
I promise you that you will live in an Islamist paramilitary dictatorship soon, if a leading political group does not decide to put an end to the growing oppression and militarization of our country. Obviously I do not expect that the hardliners will do so. They are still dreaming of keeping their comfortable positions, and the last thing which matters to them are the people!
Regards,
Arshama
Ramin
The entire system of "Government" in Iran - including the Constitution - is like a house built on poor foundations. You can prop it up here , you can prop it up there - but sooner or later the house will fall, as houses need solid stable foundations. There is no doubt that the existing tenants do not want the house to fall, they do all they can to stop it from falling and there will be much pain when it does fall - but fall it will because it simply cannot withstand the force of gravity.
Barry