Monday
Jul192010
Iran Analysis: Voices Raised --- Removing the Supreme Leader (Verde)
Monday, July 19, 2010 at 7:48 
Mr Verde writes for EA:In the last 24 hours, three statements have emerged:
Mohsen Kadivar, the cleric and scholar who is now based in the US, has written a lengthy letter, "Impeachment of the Leader", to Hashemi Rafsanjani, in his capacity as head of Assembly of Experts. The letter setting out the factual and legal case that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei should be removed from the post of Supreme Leader.
Kadivar accuses Khamenei of injustice, dictatorship, overthrow of the Islamic Republic and weakening Islam. He says that if the Assembly does not act on this, they will have proven that the Islamic Republic cannot be reformed via legal means. The letter, published in six parts in Rah-e-Sabz, provides substantial evidence in the form of statements by Rafsanjani, Guardian Council head Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, and Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi and the Constitution.
Seminary lecturer and author Ahmad Ghabel, recently released on bail from prison, has written that Khamenei has acted against national security on several occasions, propagated against the regime, and has often published lies with the aim of creating public anxiety. The Supreme Leader has insulted many of the opponents of the establishment’s policies and is acting to overthrow the Islamic Republic.
Ghabel also alleges that Khamenei’s statements are against Islamic teaching and that at times he talks nonsense. Ghabel notes that he is now accused by the courts of acting against national security; reworking this allegation, he says he is guilty of that act, since he voted for Khamenei in Presidential elections in the 1980s.
It is reported that journalist Isa Saharkhiz, detained for 13 months, refused to defend himself in court yesterday. Instead, he called for the removal and trial of Khamenei, since the Supreme Leader has strayed from the Constitution and is acting unjustly.
---
These are direct and bold challenges to Khamenei. They are not just criticisms of some decisions or actions but are calls for removal from office. They are not warnings that the removal might be necessary in the future, but presentations of the case that he should be removed now.
I would not expect any results from these in the near-future, except more pressure on Ghabel and Saharkhiz and more attacks on Kadivar. However, it is worth a close look to see if reformists in Iran are now raising the stakes.
Reader Comments (16)
[...] Aufrufe zur Absetzung Khameneis innerhalb von 24 Stunden (Mr [...]
Could we please get translations of these statements? I would love to hear all the details of their thoughts in these amazingly brave statements.
Issa Saharkhiz, former head of Iran's Press Supervisory Board accused Iran's Supreme Leader of "remaining silent in the face of detainee torture" and announced his intention to press charges against the leader.
More: http://www.zamaaneh.com/enzam/2010/07/prominent-detainee-calls.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.zamaaneh.com/enzam/2010/07/prominent...
Isn't Mohsen Kadivar the bete noir of some EA readers? Does he still have that status now that he is arguiing a detailed legal and factual case for the removal of Khamenei? Just curious.
Catherine,
Mr Kadivar will remain the bete noir as long as he spreads lies on behalf of the Green movement. With this case he is only trying to save his beloved IR, nothing else, but we are already accustomed to such games after 31 years...
Arshama
Mr Verde,
You are sharper on the issue as I had expected ;-)
But I beg to differ in one case.
Re: "BTW I think if the Reformists had managed to get some concessions out of Khamenei last year, they would not be in such a difficult position ideologically."
The Reformists did not loose their position last years, but in August 2000, when they bowed to the SL's veto of the new amended press law, which they tried to pass in the Majlis. As I said before, on that day they betrayed all their voters in order to stay in power.
By the way, I do not have the impression that you aimed at creating hate figures with your article, you just informed us about the strange coincidence of three attacks against the SL within 24 hours. Kheyli mamnun.
Arshama
Translation at Democratic Republic of Iran:
Isa Saharkhiz’s Moving Defense Behind The Closed Doors of The Islamic Republic’s Revolutionary Court (Part I)
http://droi.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/isa-saharkhizs-moving-defense-behind-the-closed-doors-of-the-islamic-republics-revolutionary-court-part-1/" rel="nofollow">http://droi.wordpress.com/2010/07/20/isa-sahark...
Mr. Verde,
“These to me look like people finding themselves ideologically between a rock and a hard place and saying things that make no sense.”
You are much too generous. In my book, these are crooked people trapped in their own web of deceit.
By the way, it was not you who have made me distrust, disregard, dismiss, and despise Akhounds and Akhound supporters; I was born with that predisposition!!!
Catherine,
“Isn't Mohsen Kadivar the bete noir of some EA readers?”
Yes, he us and I am a proud club member.
“Does he still have that status now that he is arguiing a detailed legal and factual case for the removal of Khamenei?”
Yes, he does.
I do not care if Kadivar writes 200,000 pages and I do not care if he puts the noose around Khamenei’s neck himself; he is still a liar, an opportunist, and a fraud. His letter is worth zilch; a letter from a peon to a man with no power, Rafsanjani, only buys Kadivar 5 minutes in the sun. Furthermore, this letter exposed how slow Kadivar is in discovering that Islamic Republic is a lawless regime that cannot be reformed, something we knew 30 years ago.
Hi Mr Verde,
Thanks once again for your very informative reply. RE "My aim was not to create a hate figure (or two hate figures in this case)." - that was crystal clear to me. My question was really addressing those readers who have bitterly criticised Kadivar - I was just wondering if his legal and factual case for the removal of Khamenei had changed their minds about him somewhat.
That's also crystal clear!
[...] new in the latest round of the regime’s Hobbesian war of every man against every man is that the supreme leader was not spared in the recent outbursts of [...]
I agree, re: 2000 veto. I'd thought of that more as a pulling back of the curtain for everyone to see what most probably already knew. That the SL calls the shots (or delineates "acceptable" limits), and there is little actual independence for the Majles to pursue (like the previous regime). What you're saying is why they didn't stand their ground, I think, despite the threats. In that I agree. They talked a good game of Reform, but when it came down to it, people like the students of 18 Tir, who put them in power, were disposable. A year later, and that veto was the final nail in the coffin. At least, that's what I think you were saying. Sometimes, also, I wonder how Khatami was reelected...
On Kadivar, it is not my place. But, while he still hasn't been able to come to the obvious logical conclusions of his arguments, and I've read enough of his work to understand fully the criticisms of him, I still (hate me if you must) think he might serve some small function among the ulema (a means to an end, not the end itself), though he may think he can bargain and rationalize an untenable system. That he rides the coattails of Montazeri and grabs the spotlight, well, I get that too.
But, I'm at the cultural disadvantage to not fully appreciate the feelings against him, as an outsider looking in, is what I think is what's going on. I do fully understand the cynicism, but Kadivar is a common hot button I've not yet properly been able to fully comprehend without an analogous American political figure, for example. This is where my distance will always be an impediment to my understanding of Iranian issues.
Kurt, Catherine,
Re "2000 veto. I'd thought of that more as a pulling back of the curtain for everyone to see what most probably already knew."
Even if most people knew it already, they (reformists) still behave, as if it was a minor incidence that can be easily "amended" by amending the Constitution, which is in itself a crude mixture, i.e. a "democratic" state, led by the clergy.
Mr Kadivar and his fellows are just trying to impose this idea on the GM, but also on western politicians, who naively believe in a "democratised" Islamic state (and readily support all these propagandists). Such a state does not exist and will never exist, because "divine" legislation will always break secular legislation. There has been no reformation in Islam, and I suppose there will be none within the next 50 years, because religion has turned into a political ideology, serving as an autochthonous political concept vs the "bad" western democracy, which aims at destroying Islam through secularism (radical version).
Actually 3 main political concepts are on the stake in Iran: 1) this radical version, 2) Kadivar's "soft" version, pretending to give people the freedom to decide about their future, while insisting on the clergy's rule, and 3) real democracy.
To put it in western terms: Kadivar represents the clerics' and related reformists's lobby, fighting against the people, who have no lobby at all. The clerics have proven during the past 31 years that they are only interested in their own benefits (with few exceptions), and the reformists were mainly interested to stay in power within this system (and failed).
Why should the Iranian people trust them, and why should they repeat a failed experience?
Arshama
Arshama,
I think this is the real danger you see in in Kadivar, right? That too many influentials in the west are happy to believe in the possibility of a "democratised" Islamic state and Mr Kadivar comes across as a respected voice of reason arguing for the same?
Yes, Catherine, that is just what I am afraid of. During the past 10 or 15 years all these lovely "reformists" appeared abroad, telling nice stories about compatibility of Islam and democracy, while following straightly their IR course. Just put the label "Islam" on your studies and you are funded everywhere. Imho many westerners do not want to support democracy in the Middle East, because it is economically more rewarding to deal with undemocratic states, lacking public control over their international trade. Well, as they like it...
Arshama