Iran Feature: Why the Green Movement is Important (Dissected News)

Update: This piece was published on the Huffington Post, titled : "The Green Movement in Iran is Alive, and Important."I added a final closing line for the occasion.

Since then, it has been published in a book, "Current Controversies: The Iranian Green Movement, Greenhaven Press."

---

On June 12, 2009, Iran's now infamous elections were held and hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allegedly won with 62% of the vote. What resulted was a momentous period of time where Iranian dissidents voiced their opposition to the results and to the government itself, against all odds and at great personal risk.

On June 7th, 2010, Foreign Policy Magazine published an eight part series called "Misreading Tehran: Leading Iranian-American writers revisit a year of dreams and discouragement." It was written by mainstream journalists criticizing what were common assertions made by the media during the post election events: that Twitter was leading a "Revolution," that the regime was about to collapse, that the Green Movement would change everything by using technology to democratize democracy, and that Westerners could sit in their offices and homes and make a difference, 140 characters at a time. None of these things, according to some critics, were true. And so the conclusion must be that the Green Movement disappeared or has become insignificant since last summer. Technology (Twitter, social networking, New Media, ect.) , therefore, cannot really democratize a revolution. According to the media, all of the promise of post-election Iran has been lost.

But the critics saying these things, mainstream journalists, are really commenting on how in 2009 mainstream journalism, for a brief moment, attempted to copy, catch up with, and comment on New Media sources, such as Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and many blogs that were accomplishing what the old media could not. And in this rush to catch up,  the media got it wrong. While many of these writers have very critical things to say about the New Media's role in these events, they are really criticizing their previous belief systems surrounding the New Media and the Green Movement.

They neither understood then, nor understand now, the true significance of the so-called and misnamed"Twitter Revolution," or the grander significance of the Green Movement, or the real story in Iran.

Revolutions are not won in a day. The American Revolution was the product of over 100 years of philosophical thought, and several decades of discontent (the Stamp Act was passed in 1764, and by 1765 Patrick Henry was already a famous speaker), followed by several years of open rebellion and acts of defiance (Boston massacre in 1770, Boston Tea Party in 1773), and at least a year of open warfare (from Lexington Green to Breed's/Bunker Hill), all before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the opening chapter to a formal war that lasted more than ten years.  The "in-between" times were marked by backroom leadership, dinner table debate, church pulpit protests... democracy in an incubator. The idea that the Green Movement would be successful in a few short months is ridiculous, the product of the unbelievable promise and inspiring courage of the Iranian protesters crashing headlong into the ability for technology to spread the echoes of their "shot heard round the world" in an instant. Looking back, these hopes were naive, and the condemnation of their disappointment profoundly arrogant.

Dr. Scott Lucas, a former adjunct professor at an Iranian university and Professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham (England), sums it up succinctly:

Prize fights are settled within 15 rounds of 3 minutes each; the quest for civil rights is not. The election, after all, was just the public apex of a larger, ongoing climb for political, economic, and social recognition, respect, and justice. The Green Movement, as significant as it would become, did not displace the movements for women’s rights, student rights, labour rights, legal rights, economic rights, religious rights, and the rights of Iran’s many ethnic groups. (Indeed, one of the ongoing, “deeper” issues of this past year has been how the Green Movement — if it is more than a symbolic entity — interacts with the activism of these other movements.)

This post-election contest, which rested upon years of discussion and challenge within the Islamic Republic, was always destined to be a marathon and not a sprint.

Twitter wasn't the story last June, and it certainly isn't today. Twitter was always a tool for getting news out more than it was for getting news in (though its ability to get news to supporters on the streets has also been dismissed too easily). But the REAL story is that for the last year a fledgling democratic movement has moved from the shadows, where it has been hunted for decades, and into the limelight. And then back out of it, which also doesn't matter. The movement has matured and grown, even though (like anything in an incubator) it has often struggled and foundered.

And what are the results of the struggle of the opposition movement in Iran? Not failure. Externally, the movement has inspired Hillary Clinton (with the direction of some of the State Department's staffers, and perhaps our letters to them), America's Foreign Policy has evolved from the false dichotomy of "invade or ignore (Bush)" to one of fostering developing democratic movements through the use of technology and a "Three Cups of Tea" outreach process to people in Iran, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, China, and beyond.  This process will take a while, but internally, as a direct result of the Green Movement, the regime is getting weaker. There are now serious divides inside the Iranian regime.  As unemployment mounts, inflation rises, the problems mentioned above go unresolved, and as the internet outreach of those who still care about the Green Movement continues, the future of Iran may be a successful revolution.

The most painful part of the media's quick dismissal of the opposition to the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei regime is this; Those of us who follow Iran, who have contacts within Iran, and who spend hours a day following the news there, know that the movement is actually gaining ground. We see signs that the regime is showing cracks in its armor. But we also see the bravery and sacrifice of the Iranians dissidents, men and women whose names never make it to the media.

Men like Farzad Kamangar, "a 34-year-old teacher and social worker, who was charged with Moharebeh (taking up arms against God), convicted and sentenced to death in February 2008, after a seven-minute long trial in which 'zero evidence' was presented." Then there are men like journalist and human rights defender Emadeddin Baghi, who has been arrested and is lavishing in poor health in Evin prison for daring to report the brutal crackdown of a ruthless dictator.

That doesn't include the (at least) 48 protesters who died in the streets, and the four more who were tortured and killed in prison, for speaking their voice of discontent. It doesn't include the 388 who were executed last year, or the 34 protesters who have been sentenced to death for speaking against  their government, or the 17 Kurds charged with "moharebeh" and tortured to confess,  just because they are vocal leaders of a hated minority.

Or Neda.

But the blood on the street means something. It means that the regime is sometimes forced into backing down. It means that some clerics are no longer afraid to question the authority of their government.

This is the real tragedy of the media coverage of Iran. Not only did they misrepresent the boat, and then miss the boat, but they missed the significance and importance of the boat. What we are talking about in Iran is a movement that could bring peace between Israel and Iran, unsanctioned trade between Iran and the rest of the world, and the replacement of one of our greatest enemies with a potentially great friend, without a single bullet being fired by the United States. Not only that, but the success of the Green Movement would be the first step in the victory against human rights abuses everywhere, abuses which stifle the democratic process and thus deny the rest of the world the next generation of peaceful neighbors.

By demonizing Iran for its nuclear program, the media has created a bugbear that has encouraged the warmongers and distorted the truth in the Middle East. These same pressures have forced Obama to risk destroying with his feet what he has built with his hands. The coverage of the Green Movement in Iran was a chance to break that narrative, and by having to retract a reckless, sexy story about social media, the news agencies have now reverted to their radioactive news cycle by dismissing the best hope for change in the region, and beyond.

Human rights violations have hampered democracy in Iran, and with it the best chance for hope and change in the Middle East. The media wants to dismiss this, because long and complicated stories don't sell. War sells. Nukes sell. But I'm not buying.

The success of the democratic movement in Iran cannot be measured in Tweets, in newspaper stories, in rallies attended (or not attended) by reformists, or even in protesters. It must be counted in the desire for freedom and peace. As such, the strength of the Green Movement in Iran is countless, and growing.

The Latest from Iran (9 June): Paying Attention

2030 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that the head of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign in Babolsar has been arrested.

2000 GMT: A Friendly Notice. To all journalists riding the two-dimensional bandwagon on Twitter & Iran, treating cliches like "Twitter Revolution" as if they were the core of meaningful analysis, I'm not going to respond for the moment --- this is a made-up dramatic revelation, which recurs every few months and does not get to the heart of what social media has meant in the post-election crisis. Best to let it serve as tomorrow's chip paper.

But if you keep it up, I may change my mind....

1900 GMT: Mahmoud Snaps Back. President Ahmadinejad, who has had post-election encounters with dust (read his "victory speech") and insects (see video), worked both into his response to the UN sanctions resolution: "These (U.N.) resolutions have no value...They are like a used handkerchief that should be thrown in the dust bin. Sanctions are falling on us from the left and the right. For us they are the same as pesky flies....We have patience and we will endure throughout all of this."

NEW Latest Iran Video: Obama Statement on Sanctions...and Rights (9 June)
NEW Iran Analysis: What’s Most Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions)
NEW Iran Analysis: 4 June “The Day the Regime Will Regret” (Verde)
Iran Election Anniversary Special: The Power of the “Gradual”
Iran Special Report:The Attack on Civil Society (Arseh Sevom)
The Latest from Iran (8 June): Tremors and Falsehoods

1855 GMT: Back to 22 Khordaad. BBC Persian reports on the increased security presence on the streets of Tehran on the eve of 12 June,the anniversary of the election.


1725 GMT: President Obama has just made a statement about Iran in the aftermath of the UN vote on sanctions. We've posted the video.

Here's the quick read: Obama proclaimed that the sanctions were the "most comprehensive" Iran has faced, said that the UN resolution sent an "unmistakeable message", and spent most of the rest of the time justifying the position on sanctions in connection with his policy of "engagement": "We recognize Iran's rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. Time and again the Iranian Government has failed to meet those responsibilities."

Then, in one of the eight minutes of the statement, having declared,"These sanctions are not directed at the Iranian people," Obama switched from nukes to rights. He noted this Saturday's anniversary of the election, "an event that should have been remembered for how the Iranian people participated with remarkable enthusiasm but will instead be remembered for how the Iranian Government brutally suppressed dissent and murdered the innocent, including a young woman [Neda Agha Soltan] left to die in the street".

It was a bit awkward for the President to link back to uranium and sanctions, and he did not help by throwing in the spectre of Tehran's War of Terror --- "Actions do have consequences. And today the Iranian Government will face some of those consequences. Because whether it is threatening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime or the rights of its own citizens or the stability of its own neighbors by supporting terrorism, the Iranian Government continues to demonstrate that its unjust actions are a threat to justice everywhere".

However, at least for one moment, "Iran" was seen in more than the one-dimensional image of a nuclear weapon.

1720 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani's office has released a letter which, in the eyes of Deutsche Welle, criticises the Supreme Leader's silence over President Ahmadinejad and implicitly acknowledges fraud in the 2009 election.

1620 GMT: Sanctions. The UN Security Council has voted 12-2, with 1 abstention, for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

The relatively limited measures include restrictions on transactions with Iranian banks, asset freezes on Iranian individuals and companies, and an expanded arms embargo on items such as attack helicopters and missiles.

Turkey and Brazil, who recently signed an agreement with Iran on procedure for talks over uranium enrichment, were the two countries who voted against the resolution. Lebanon abstained.

1605 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Al Arabiya has just published an interview from May with Mehdi Karroubi. Topics covered include the rise of the Green Movement, party politics, accusations of prison abuse and torture, Government mismanagement, and Ahmadinejad's foreign policy. Karroubi also offered this in anticipation of 22 Khordaad (12 June), the anniversary of the election:

We promise and give assurances that no incident will occur. I am certain that if a march is held, paramilitary forces will attempt to turn it violent, but our people are wise, and politically mature enough that even if certain individuals come chanting radical slogans, the people have the ability to control the scenario and confront them. However, if authorisation is not granted for demonstrations, we will then decide what to do; but it is currently not possible to say much.

1545 GMT: On the International Front (Mahmoud Stays Home). On Monday, Iranian state media were trumpeting that their internationally-esteemed President would be showing his strength, in the face of Western pressure, by going to the Shanghai Expo in China.

Today, Agence France Presse says that Ahmadinejad plans to stay away from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting to snub Russia and China for supporting the US-backed sanctions resolution in the United Nations.

1120 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Amnesty International has launched a new campaign, "One Year On: Stop Unfair Trials". Cases include journalists Abolfazl Abedini Nasr, Hengameh Shahidi, Emaduddin Baghi, Shiva Nazar Ahari and Ahmad Zeidabadi, student activists Majid Tavakoli and Mohammad Amin Valian, and Zia Nabavi of the Council to Defend the Right to Education.

1015 GMT: The Nuclear Discussions. A piece of news that slipped under the media radar....

The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced that it has received replies from France, Russia, and the US to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey declaration on procedure for uranium enrichment talks.

No details were given beyond the note, "Attached to each of the letters was an identical paper entitled ‘Concerns about the Joint Declaration Conveyed by Iran to the IAEA’."

That, however, indicates co-ordination between the three governments. And the timing of the IAEA's statement, together with the lack of substance, indicates that it is happy to let the news be overtaken by today's sanctions vote in the UN.

0955 GMT: Reflecting on The Year. Journalist Masih Alinejad has offered her recollections and analysis in an extended video interview with Voice of America Persian.

0935 GMT: A Signal for the Week? Hamshahri features the colourful cover identifying the bad guys in "Sedition '88".

0930 GMT: Intimidation of Kurdistan Businesses? Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that, following a general strike on 9 May to protest executions, members of bazaars across Kurdistan have been summoned and threatened by government authorities and the businesses of others have been sealed.

0800 GMT: What is the Green Movement? An interesting interview with Fatemeh Sadeghi, a former professor at Tehran University, who argues that the Green Movement is not the opposition of the "secular" against the "religious".

0750 GMT: The Post-Election Abuses. Abdul Ruholamini has resurfaced to declare that those responsible for the abuse and killing of detainees in Kahrizak Prison must "pay for their deeds".

Ruholamini, the campaign manager for Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, is the father of Mohsen Ruholamini, who died in Kahrizak last summer. The case was instrumental in bringing the abuses to light and pressing the Supreme Leader to close Kahrizak. Ruholamini had gone farther in public statements at the start of 2010, declaring that high-ranking officials must take responsibility for the crimes, but had been silent in recent months.

Ruholamini may have been prompted to his statement by the news that the trial of 12 people over the Kahrizak case has finished behind closed doors.

0745 GMT: The Events of 4 June. Another perspective, complementing that of EA's Mr Verde, on last Friday's developments at the ceremony for Ayatollah Khomeini comes from Hamid Farokhnia in Tehran Bureau.

Tehran Bureau also features a review by Muhammad Sahimi, "The Green Movement at One Year".

0740 GMT: Parliament v. President (and Supreme Leader). It seems that Ayatollah Khamenei's intervention --- calling for Parliament-Ahmadinejad co-operation and threatening the Majlis with new "oversight" --- may not have been an overwhelming success.

Key MP Ahmad Tavakoli, an ally of Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, has commented in Khabar Online that the Constitution is written for people to cooperate, not to fight. So far, so good for the Supreme Leader.

But then Tavakoli re-asserts, "The Government has no right not to implement the laws from the Majlis."

0715 GMT: On a day when "Iran news", for most non-Iranian media, may be dominated by the passage of the US-led sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council, we set out priorities with two analyses: Scott Lucas declares, "What's Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions), and Mr Verde looks at "4 June: A Day the Regime Will Regret".

One US outlet shares our attention to the internal: Newsweek notes last Friday's events, with the shout-down of Seyed Hassan Khomeini, under the (over-blown) headline, "Iran's Hushed-Up Civil War":

For his part, Supreme Leader Khamenei did little damage control, even though he has worked hard to present a united front for Iran’s leadership, knowing that discord suggests vulnerability. He took the stage after Khomeini and asked the crowd to act in a more appropriate manner. But that was it. No defense of Khomeini and no rebuke to the crowd. With the anniversary of the contested election just days away now, Khamenei has been trying to manage a delicate balancing act between quieting and frightening the opposition—and sending mixed messages in the process.

In another warm-up for 12 June, the anniversary of the election, Zahra Rahnavard gives an interview to the Italian paper La Republicca. Beyond general criticism of the Government and the declaration, "I hope to shed the last drop of my blood in the cause of freedom and democracy," she focuses on key issues:

The demands of the women in Iran are twofold: 1) National demands such as freedom, democracy, the rule of the law, freedom of political prisoners, right to individual freedoms; 2) Elimination of discrimination and strengthening of cultural rights, women's rights and equal rights under the law.

....Democracy is not possible without women and without paying attention to the demands of women.

Iran Election Anniversary Special: The Power of the "Gradual"

This morning, I drafted this contribution to a new project for the anniversary of Iran's election. (More details soon, I hope.) I decided to post this after reading a series of high-profile analysis in Foreign Policy magazine which try to define Iran One Year Later for us. Ironically, given that the title of the collection is "Misreading Tehran", I found some of the pieces misleading, misguided, and even at times --- although I know this was not the intention of the authors --- belittling in their representation of Iranians.



So, in part, this is my response to those unhelpful definitions. But, in larger part, it is a Thank You to those who have been my instructors during this past year.

On 12 June 2009, I was enjoying a night out in London. My wife, who patiently puts up with the daily demands of my website on international affairs, had asked if I could risk trading an evening with Iran's Presidential election for dinner and the theatre. I assured her that it was clear that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi would move to a second round of voting.


At 7:30 the next morning, the BBC rang to ask for an urgent comment: Ahmadinejad had won in the initial ballot with 63% of the vote. After I gave them a remark based more on surprise than insight, I realised two things: 1) I would be covering this story every day until there was a resolution; 2) to do so, I would have to become a student, seeking a variety of teachers to give me a crash course on the dynamics of Iranian politics, economics, religion, and society.

It is a year later. There is no resolution, and I am still learning.

I had had the good fortune, in the years before the 2009 election, to be introduced to Iran. I had worked with Iranian colleagues and students, and eventually --- despite my US passport --- had been able to visit the country to teach, participate in seminars, and give interviews to the Iranian media. I had even become an Adjunct Professor at a leading Iranian university.

Those opportunities had given me a glimpse of an Iran which was one of the most political environments I had ever encountered. There was constant discussion --- even as there were limits on that discussion --- of what the country was and what it might become. There was consideration, beyond the simplicities of the US v. Iran, of Tehran's role in the region and in the world, there were concerns about an economy facing both internal challenges and external restrictions, and there were glimpses of debates on social and cultural issues. Inevitably, given that I was working with students, there was much attention to the “Third Generation” that had grown up after the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s. I was told often --- by both critics and defenders of the Government --- that 30 years after the 1979 introduction of an Islamic Republic, this was a “Gradual Revolution”.

In the weeks before and after the 2009 election, however, change did not seem “gradual”. Even watching from a distance, I was swept up in the excitement that surrounded a campaign which, with its televised debates as well as its well-attended speeches, appeared to offer a louder political voice to Iran's people. That fervour continued after the election when President Ahmadinejad's victory speech, with its description of opponents as “dust and tumbleweeds”, was met by millions on the streets of Tehran. It crackled when the Supreme Leader's Friday Prayer vindicating the vote encountered more demonstrations of anger, tragedy, and hope. It would be resurgent when there were more public encounters: in mid-July after former President Hashemi Rafsanjani's Friday Prayer, on Qods Day in September, from 13 Aban (4 November) to 16 Azar (7 December) to the funeral of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri to the commemoration of Ashura on 27 December.

These were dramatic, still vivid events, yet I wonder if they misled us into forgetting about the “gradual”. Narratives were written as if a knockout blow would be landed either by the Green Movement or by the defenders of President Ahmadinejad. Predictions were uttered about the imminent fall or unshakeable permanence of the Islamic Republic. Each public occasion, while important, was given the aura of the defining incident that would finally conclude the inconclusive outcome of 12 June 2009.

Prize fights are settled within 15 rounds of 3 minutes each; the quest for civil rights is not. The election, after all, was just the public apex of a larger, ongoing climb for political, economic, and social recognition, respect, and justice. The Green Movement, as significant as it would become, did not displace the movements for women's rights, student rights, labour rights, legal rights, economic rights, religious rights, and the rights of Iran's many ethnic groups. (Indeed, one of the ongoing, “deeper” issues of this past year has been how the Green Movement --- if it is more than a symbolic entity --- interacts with the activism of these other movements.)

This post-election contest, which rested upon years of discussion and challenge within the Islamic Republic, was always destined to be a marathon and not a sprint.

But marathons are hard to cover. And, in the immediate aftermath of 12 June, that coverage --- at least by “mainstream” media --- would be complicated as Iranian authorities cracked down on domestic and foreign correspondents. The “mainstream” non-Iranian press was effectively blinded within weeks as reporters were expelled or fled because of intimidation and threats of detention, camera crews were restricted to offices and hotel rooms, and bureaus were shut. Iranian journalists persisted, but many of them --- eventually more than 100 --- would wind up in jail. By September, even the most prominent reformist newspapers and websites were being shut down, their offices raided and ransacked, their editors behind bars.

Unsurprisingly, some non-Iranian outlets --- deprived of their “normal” capacity for effective reporting --- would thus look for the big event rather than the gradual shifts. There would be weeks of silence or muted coverage of internal events, often as headlines were devoted to Iran's nuclear programme, and then a sudden burst of attention to a gathering such as the Ashura demonstration or the rallies on 11 February, the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution. Then, when that high-profile event did not produce a clean, final “victory”, the mainstream media might retreat into somnolence, sometimes after a benediction that the Green Movement had been vanquished.

Well, here's the paradox: amidst and even beyond these big events, the “gradual” has triumphed in media as well as politics.

Ultimately, it is not the speed of technology that --- despite the repression of the Iranian Government and despite the retreat of the “mainstream” media --- has ensured that Iran's post-election story is still ongoing in June 2010. Rather, it is the “gradual” efforts of those who, each day, often at risk to themselves, have persisted in telling their tales or passing on the information from others.

They are not the international correspondents with news programmes named after them, they are not the anchormen and anchorwomen with weekly talk shows to define the news, they do not even have by-lines. Sometimes their names are not even their own but are the pseudonyms and usernames that have to be adopted to ensure that they can report again.

However, it is they who remove our blindness by giving us a glimpse of the day-to-day. It is they who break up the deafening noise of State propaganda and pronouncements with sounds of what has occurred in their neighbourhoods. It is they who give form to the meaning --- not in the abstract, but in the real --- of “rights” and “justice”.

Ironically and somewhat sadly, I write this --- four days before the anniversary of the election --- as yet another set of articles by analysts tries to define all that we have experienced. One headline blares, “The Green Movement was a historic success. Too bad no one was watching.” (No. We are still watching, still writing, still learning.) A commentator proclaims, "Getting the real story out of Iran today is virtually impossible." (Difficult, yes. Impossible, no --- thanks to those whom the commentator, focused on mainstream media, never notices.) A journalist declares, “There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran.” (No, but that was never the issue. Twitter is a tool, a powerful tool that allows us to ensure that the “gradual” does not disappear --- we are still reporting, still writing, still learning --- as those in power try to shut down information into and out of Iran.)

[An important caveat: the collection also includes a redemptive piece by Nazila Fathi which avoids the dismissive generalisations and assesses, "Despite those all the obstacles put in its way, the media has done a remarkable job in properly identifying the enormity of the past year's events. The Green Movement has, indeed, shaken the very core of the Islamic Republic. The country is polarized and the regime's legitimacy has been compromised. All of this, the Western media -- at least, those of us who had any real experience covering Iran -- got largely right."

My one suggestion is that Fathi's "media" be considered as not only "Western media" but many Iranian journalists and Iranians who report even if they do not carry official press credentials.]

But, as I write this, irony rebounds and sadness turns back to hope. For I read these edicts from those analysts and journalists who try to define, once and for all, what has happened. Then I read the contributions in this book, contributions which come not from anointed experts or the by-lined professionals, and I realise that the story of “what has happened” is in these essays.

And it is not just “what has happened” but “what may happen”. There are no proclamations of the final outcome in these pages, no ringing of the bell to say that all is complete. Instead, the victory is in the process, the pursuit of the “gradual”. As long as the search for rights is persistent in these words of sorrow or hope, then rights cannot be denied. As long as the vision of fairness is offered in these reflections, then others have not succeeding in making us --- inside or outside Iran --- blind.

The power of the vote may have been taken away on 12 June 2009. Some may try to pronounce that Iranians --- repressed by their Government, bedazzled by false hopes of Twitter --- are reduced to the powerless. But As long as the power to express is put in the simple but effective phrases by these authors, then the power of expression remains.

A marathon, not a sprint.

Iran Analysis: One Year After the Election (Shafaee)

Masoud Shafaee writes for The Guardian of London:

At the beginning of June last year, a thaw in Iranian-American relations looked increasingly likely. President Obama had been inaugurated less than five months earlier, promising the leaders of the Islamic Republic that America would "extend" its hand if the Iranians were willing to "unclench" their fists. Having been vilified as part of an "axis of evil" by the Bush administration, the Iranian leadership suddenly faced a harder time painting the United States, with its charismatic new president and his middle name of Hussein, as "the Great Satan". Obama even recognised Iran's right to enrich uranium, something the previous administration had refused to do.

In Iran, a similar political realignment was under way. The country not only faced staggering inflation and unemployment, but had had three sets of UN Security Council sanctions imposed on it since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office. With two-thirds of its population under the age of 30 and pressing for more social freedoms, the incumbent president was by no means a popular candidate heading into the 2009 election.



In the final weeks of the campaign, the progressive-minded youth mobilised en masse to ensure that he would not be re-elected. As Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main reform candidate and eventual figurehead of the Green movement, put it just before election day, the atmosphere in the country was "similar to the first days after … the revolution".

But Mousavi was by no means a foe of the establishment either. Having served as prime minister for almost the whole of the eight-year Iran-Iraq war and under Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the Islamic Republic's founding father, Mousavi had the respect of many in the establishment. In fact, he was one of only four candidates not disqualified from running for president in 2009 by the Guardian Council, the regime's constitutional vetting body. Even at present, Mousavi stresses the importance of staying true to Khomeini's vision and within the constitution's framework.

Which is what made the rigging of last year's election so remarkable. For the Islamic Republic, Mousavi was the right man at the right time: a former revolutionary suited to steering Iran through rapprochement with a remarkably different White House. With respect to Iran's nuclear programme, the core issue guiding its foreign policy, he openly statedthat he would not compromise on the country's inalienable rights. President Obama even posited just five days after the contested election that policy differences between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad "may not be as great as [had] been advertised".

Policy differences aside, the Islamic Republic's image would have greatly benefited from a Mousavi presidency. In a region dominated by authoritarian Arab states, Iran's theocracy has always been the exception. What's more, the democratic elements of the Islamic Republic's constitution – however tattered they may now be – have been a source of the regime's authority. The election of a socially progressive reformist over a far-right incumbent would have done much for its perceived legitimacy. Perhaps this is why the vote was so lopsidedly fixed.

Driven by motives of political survival, a fringe "New Right" ultimately took Iran hostage. Not wanting to relinquish power through its loss at the polls, the current administration has not only weakened the regime, but in the face of an enduring and growing opposition, has perhaps hastened its demise.

On the nuclear front, Iran is facing a fourth set of Security Council sanctions –the first since Obama took office. The uranium-for-fuel deal that the White House was proposing back in February is now being rebuffed after Iran agreed to come to the table following Turkish and Brazilian mediation. And with the hastily rigged election, the Islamic Republic has suffered considerable harm to its image and to its clout. Ahmadinejad's second term was widely seen as illegitimate from the start, and the regime chose not only to reaffirm the election results but to severely repress the opposition. Whatever "democratic" lustre the Islamic republic once had has surely now been irreparably tarnished.

More consequentially, perhaps, the regime has lost its religious standing in the eyes of countless Muslims. In a region with an increasing number of devout followers – be they Sunni or Shia – it was always the Islamic component of the "Islamic republic" that earned Iran admiration outside its borders. A year after the election, in the face of overwhelming evidence of state-sanctioned murder, torture and even rape, the regime's moral authority is in shreds. Several of Iran's grand ayatollahs have even publicly blasted the government during the last year. As the late dissident cleric Grand Ayatollah Hussein-Ali Montazeri, the former heir apparent to Khomeini, put it: "This regime is neither Islamic nor a republic."

Today, many are speculating about the death of the Green movement. Following a brutal crackdown, the massive protests seen in June tapered off, before being definitively suppressed on the Islamic Republic's 31st anniversary in February. Yet while the streets may now be emptier, the Green movement is far from finished. As the Iranian saying goes, "There is fire under the ash."

Read rest of article....

Iran Document: Mousavi "Imam Khomeini, Revolution, and the Green Movement" (2 June)

Khordaad 88's translation of an interview with Mir Hossein Mousavi on the website linked to him, Kalemeh:

Kalemeh: We are approaching the anniversary of the death of Imam Khomeini [on, 4 June].This year the ceremonies seem different from previous years. On one side, old opponents of Imam inside and outside the country try to desecrate his image and they are supported by foreign media. On the other side, there are those in State TV and amongst the strong advocates of imprisonment who promote an image of the Imam that advocated oppression. What is your opinion on the goals that these groups seek? And what may this end with?

MOUSAVI: If the unintended collaboration of the State TV and opponents of Imam in THE desecration of his image is allowed to continue and is not met with a response, it would end with nothing but hatred towards our past.

The Latest from Iran (2 June): Where’s My Crowd?

These new images are introduced by constant meddling in the original perception of Imam and the Revolution. Those who have directly experienced those years with Imam perceive an image of him that has no proximity to what is being promoted right now.



The Revolution won its victory with the messages of independence, freedom, and the Islamic Republic. It was these messages that gained the support of people. People gave Imam a unique welcome in the days of revolution in 1978. In Imam’s funeral, people came out in numbers four times greater. I don’t think such crowds came out to just see and get some time off.

The clips from those days clearly show the waves of emotions and opinions that people had toward Imam. Let us remember that people showed that much emotion after enduring the hardships of the war, and the early days of the revolution. If Imam’s image was even slightly close to what the State TV claims it was, then we would not have had so many people pouring the streets on his funeral, or at least we would have witnessed people being more indifferent. I think there is a lot of light to be shed on this distorted image of Imam promoted by his opponents outside, and the authorities inside who are now turning into guards that constrain freedom.

Kalemeh: There are expensive programs being organized for anniversary of Imam’s funeral. Why do you think such a course of action is taken?

MOUSAVI: Please pay attention to the fact that the system still gets a significant amount of its legitimacy from Imam and the collective memory of people from that great character. In the current context, those currently in power who have violently constrained the legitimate freedom of others and filled the prisons, and those who promote superstition and advocate a stone-age Islam, need to excessively spend this great social asset.

Instead, when one brings forth this [correct] image [of Khomeini], one is also highlighting the differences between those times and now which questions the corrupt and despotic nature of policy approaches today. A right look back at the early years of the Revolution shows how far we have deviated from those goals and values that we first set.

Note that saying pay attention to those years does not mean to return to those days. The goal is to remember the roots and the directions that we set for the revolution: justice, freedom, and spirituality.

We want to use the Islamic Revolution to launch [our nation] to [a bright] future. We don’t want to create a chaotic emotional environment and lose our direction to that future. We must constantly remind our younger generations that what is happening today is different than what happened during the time of Imam.

I am confident that if...the youth of today were there yesterday, they would be amongst the martyrs like Martyr Bakeri, Bagheri, or Hemmat. Similarly, if the youth of that time were here today, they would be the leaders of the Green Movement of Hope and would probably be in prisons, held captive for their national and religious beliefs.

Kalemeh: You talked of the early years and the initial goals of the revolution. But how can one talk of those years in an environment of today that is bombarded with propaganda?

MOUSAVI: There are countless papers and books written, and that continue to be written on the Islamic Revolution in Iran for obvious reasons: the Revolution’s great impact on the region and throughout the world. After the rRvolution, not only Iran started to look very different, but also the whole region started to change.

However, what we need today in the back and forth around the media and propaganda is promotion of a clear and visible image of that time and the Imam. As I said, there is a immature attempt to highlight ostensible similarities between now and Imam’s time, and this must be stopped. For instance, you can discuss the theoretical perspective of Imam on parliament. You can break down his ideas to what was in religious scholarship and what was acceptable to people and to recognition of Parliament, whether from the religious perspective or acceptability of it lays on the people. Parliament is composed of representatives of people, and these representatives come out of the people themselves.  Accordingly, the parliament is “at the forefront of the affairs”.

But more important and more effective is to recount memories that demonstrate the means of political action at the beginning of the revolution. For example,I was talking to Mr [Mehdi] Karroubi about election process during Imam’s era. He recited a memory that helps us get a more clear understanding of Imam Khomeini’s personality and the values that were dominant in society at the time.

In the third Parliamentary election two candidates,  a poor, hardworking intellectual teacher and  a person with ties to Imam Khomeini’s family , were running in the region of Khomein. Although a person close to Imam Khomeini was supporting the second candidate, people chose the first one. The person who was a relative of Imam sent a letter to him questioning the results. Imam replied laughing ,  “What is a better indication of a fair election than that a person related to me, who also enjoys the support of yourself , runs for election but people choose a simple teacher who does not have such supporters?"

Isn't this one of the beauties of election that we should be grateful for? Compare this with the case that occured during the 6th parliamentary election in Tehran [region] when 700 ballots were cancelled to replace  an intellectual [Alireza Rajaie] who enjoyed no [state] support with an individual [Gholam Ali Haddad Adel,  father-in-law of the Supreme Leader’s son Mojtaba Khamenei] with relations [to high establishment officials]. Or the implementation of “approbation supervision”, that did not exist during Imam’s time, which is in reality a mean of dividing the election in two stages. If you pay attention carefully, you will see how this term that has no root in the Constitution or  public wisdom has been [mis]used to disqualify a large number of valuable and caring individuals. The result has been to undermine the status and role of the parliament.

I ask all the conservative members of the Parliament, who have not stained their faith with tyranny: doesn’t thinking about all these humiliations directed toward Parliament make you feel worried and empty?  Is the current situation you are in fitting to the meaning of [Imam Khomeini's] sentence “The Parliament leads all affairs”? [3] You have been incapable of scrutinizing even a small portion of the government's financial irregularities and of receiving a proper response. What answer would you give God and his servants whom you represent? Does the current situation in the Parliament have any resemblance to parliaments during the time of Imam Khomeini?...

Some people in this country are destroying everything including Imam’s image and the first 10 years of revolution.  This was a project that was started in the 10th presidential election [of 2009]. As I said, a proper introduction of Imam Khomeini and a fair introduction of the Revolution will expose and scathe the politics of oppression and superstition.

Kalemeh: You are known as the prime minister of Imam Khomeni. In your speeches, statements, and interviews you always speak about the bright era in the first decade of the revolution and Imam’s path. In general and in the political sphere of Iran , have different dimensions of Imam’s personality been exaggerated?

MOUSAVI: Dr. Shariati once said, “ Peak of the Damavand [highest mountain in Iran] does not need a proof that it is the tallest.”Imam was an extraordinary person. He brought an irreversible change in our history and ended the monarchy , a system that prided itself in humiliation of peasants in face of their kings. Some images from the epoch of Shah could mislead our youth. But [they ] should be reminded that one of the posters published repeatedly in newspapers of the time showed a poor peasant kissing Shah’s shoes.

In response to your question, I should reiterate that Imam was an extraordinary man. But he did not perceive himself as such. He despised praise and eulogy. Once he banned national TV from showing his picture and said ,“ Whenever I open TV, I see myself. It make me want to puke.” He had the same ban [on his picture] for newspapers for a period.

People who have experienced that era remember that, when the top elected member of Parliament from Tehran praised him,  he ferociously interrupted him....A similar case occurred with the head of the Expediency Council, who was also Imam Khomeini’s student. When he lauded Imam Khomeini in public, Imam rejected his words publicly.

It is not strange if we see him as a symbol of a new system that is progressive, seeks freedom, and demands justice. Without his charisma and his relationship with people, our nation would not have resisted for eight years of war [with Iraq]. Without our nation’s belief in him, we would not have survived numerous terrorist attacks during that era.

Kaleme: Some members of Green Movement raise a question as why you repeatedly speak about Imam Khomeini or use his picture?

MOUSAVI: I referred to the necessity of introducing Imam Khomeini to the youth. But I should also discuss another point, which I have no doubt  all supporters of Green Movement agree on , and that is integrity.

I cannot pretend against my attachment to and admiration for Imam Khomeini and Revolution. Since the formation of Green Path of Hope, I clearly introduced myself as a companion of the Green Movement so I can discuss my beliefs transparently. A characteristic of this movement is transparent and honest discussion of thoughts and ideas. Exchange of ideas does not harm us.

We should remember that one of the best posters regarding the movement was the one that read, “Lying is disallowed.”. What kind of expectation requires me to ignore a 10-year period full of experiences and various events? Not only me but a large number of our people have thousands of memories from Imam Khomeini. They have been influenced by that era and are not willing to keep quiet in the face of injustice and distortion toward Imam’s character. Is it correct to ignore this great political capital? Is not this what the prison guards want us to do?

Kalemeh: You introduced yourself as a member of the Green Movement, and talked about your devotion, and love for the Imam and the revolution. You talked about how it is necessary to protect the spiritual asset that is the experiences during the Imam era. But haven’t these talks stopped you from critically viewing those times? Don’t you think that there are problems with those times as well?

MOUSAVI: I have heard this issue before, especially after the speech of Tehran’s Attorney General [Abbas Jafari Dowlatabadi]. There is also a letter published on one of these websites addressing this very issue. As a Shiite Muslim, one of our beliefs is that after the 14 innocent ones, all the rest of God’s people are not innocent and the commit sins, unless God keeps the innocent. The same reasoning applies to Imam’s era.

However, I don’t see it necessary to criticize when internal and external enemies have aimed for the Imam’s image and that era. Obviously, in the context of today, even a slight allusion to a problem would be greatly magnified just like the plot of the tearing of the picture of Imam, that was abused by enemies outside and inside the country.

Today, the enemies of the Green Movement are looking everywhere for a prey or an excuse to destroy that bond that connects us together. Millions in our country like and appreciate Imam, and I am one of them. Recognition of this affinity [to Imam] and the freedom that brings about is a great asset that we cannot make a mistake about, especially in the current conditions. Let me repeat again, we do not expect a companion [of the movement] to lie, no matter how small a member that person is.