Monday
Nov302009
Iran: How Washington Views the Green Opposition --- The Next Chapter
Monday, November 30, 2009 at 9:24 
Carefully tracking US policy towards Iran, we've noticed since October that many inside and outside the Obama Administration have either stigmatised or dismissed opposition movements. This reduction has both stemmed from and reinforced the Administration's quest for "engagement" and a nuclear deal.The latest chapter in this belittling of the opposition comes from Mahiar Bahari, the Iranian-Canadian journalist who has been writing and speaking about his post-election detention. We noted last week his curious, rather muddled attitude in a Washington Post opinion piece towards protest and the Iranian people. Now this comes out of the second part of his CNN interview, filmed almost two weeks ago but aired yesterday:
Latest Iran Video: The Bahari Interview on CNN (Part 2)
Iran MediaWatch: Has “Green Reform” Disappeared in Washington?
Iran Video: Maziar Bahari Tells CBS of His Detention and Post-Election Conflict
Iran Video & Text: Maziar Bahari on His 118 Days in Detention
Unfortunately...we cannot really talk about an opposition movement in Iran because the Green Movement in Iran is just a collection of different groups coming together against the Government. Some of them are monarchists, some of them are Communists, some of them are terrorists.
The majority of course wanted a peaceful reform in the Government, but since the Government crackdown which started in June, people just started questioning themselves, "What should be the next step?" At the moment, the slogans are political and cultural, but soon these slogans will be economic. Factory workers [who] were not paid will...join the opposition movement. Farmers who cannot sell their crop will join the opposition movement and then we will see a serious change in Iran....
Soon there will be a more united opposition movement. The danger really is both the opposition and the Government is becoming more militarised. The terrorists both within the regime and the opposition are taking over. As we saw in Baluchistan, there was a suicide attack....I'm sure we'll see more of it....
I think Obama is on the right track right now. I think the world community has to stop a nuclear Iran by any means possible, but most importantly through smart sanctions. But the Obama Administration also has to respect the Iranian people, I think, through smart sanctions and through keeping the dialogue open with the Iranian Government but at the same time talking about human rights abuses in Iran, helping the human rights organisations in Iran, talking about freedom of expression, helping the alternative media.
So, to break this down 1) the US Government cannot really put any faith in the current Iranian opposition; 2) at some point in the (distant?) future Washington can look upon a "more united" movement; 3) in the meantime, the fear of disorder outweighs the hope for change; 4) which, put on top of a nuclear-first policy, means a priority on dialogue with the Ahmadinejad Government while maintaining some supportive general rhetoric about the "Iranian people".
Engagement with the internal situation in Iran, as opposed to engagement with the Iranian Government, will consist of some steps to target elements in the regime through sanctions and to assist dissenting groups with communications.
I suspect readers will raise eyebrows and possibly voices over some of Bahari's analysis. In particular, he not only portrays "terrorism" in the opposition movement but somehow connects post-election protest to the activities of the Baluch insurgent group Jundallah and suicide bombings. His contrasting hope seems to be that a mass repository of factory workers and farmers will save the movement from itself, offering the cohesion that is now lacking.
That's not the immediate point, however. Bahari is very well-connected and well-respected in Washington and that significance has been elevated by his recent detention. So I would think that his line of reasoning will resonate with, and possibly be shared by, key members of the Obama Administration.
The problem for the US Government is that, combined with the difficulties in the nuclear talks, that --- in contrast to Bahari's articulate description of his detention --- that doesn't lead to clarity but even more muddle.
Reader Comments (34)
Scott, I see exactly what you mean. Intentionally or not, in the media the opinion of one person can be framed in very different ways and can have a lot of effect - especially in the case of Iran, as at the moment only few people with up-to-date views from inside are present in the West (or at least connected to western media). This, then, should be in the centre of deliberation: how could the movement overcome its current mis-/underrepresentation in the transnational media so that "one individual" does not represent such a "danger"??
[...] know I am going to get well and truly browbeaten for bringing all this up. I am used to it by now. Iran: How Washington Views the Green Opposition — The Next Chapter Bahari's own words: [...]
Mac,
" how could the movement overcome its current mis-/underrepresentation in the transnational media so that “one individual” does not represent such a “danger”??"
Any advice?
Megan,
I know asking questions is always easier than giving answers. My intention was to underline the damage done by this internal disputes, suspicions and doubts, between people who more or less share the same goals.
I think the movement has to agree on some basic common aims without going for a maximum. A campaign for fundamental civil rights/against injustice and repression resonates, in my opinion, most within in Iran and abroad. For now you can place the most essential demands of the Iranian people within this frame without touching the very complicated question of regime change that will alway lead to divisions within the opposition (which system do we want?) and radicalization on both sides, regime and opposition. Moreover, on a cultural level, a civil rights frame appeals both to Iranians and the West (think of Martin Luther King, the women's movement, the changes in Eastern Europe etc.) This became evident in Karroubi's campaign for the prisoners: as far as I observed, he received a lot of respect by Iranians and also considerable media coverage on an international level. The regime, too, perceived this campaign as a threat.
Then, it is only a constant cooperation between the exile community and Iranians inside the country as well as a persistent campaign for these very basic (but so essential!) rights that will lead to success.
Ok, that's it from my part. This is not at all exhaustive but rather meant to incite further reflection and debate. Pirouz bashid.
I believe it was a case of unfortunate editing and Mr. Bahari trying to make sense of a lot of information at once in a very stressful frame of mind. If you watch his other interviews since the Zakaria one, he doesn't go on to repeat any accusations of terrorism within the Green Movement.
However as people have pointed out, there is a need to inform the media that this movement does have defined goals. Firstly, they want the right to meet in peace to declare their other demands! I wrote some longer thoughts about countering these media-created objections to believing the Green Movement is on track to Victory at my blog here: http://revmagdalen.blogspot.com/2009/11/green-movement-countering-objections.html but there's a lot more work to be done, we should all think hard about how best to explain to the media what's really going on in Iran, in simple, easy-to-understand bites they can wrap in neat labels.
I honestly think someone at one of the networks TOLD Mr. Bahari that "terrorists, monarchists and communists" were buzzwords they wanted him to use, because that's how networks think. They like some nice sensational remarks to put on a ticker, because it makes people stop flipping channels and that sells more ads. We ARE the media, but we have to tell the people with the TV cameras what they need to be looking at, so they don't get haplessly sucked into believing whatever the latest trend is among pundits.
Josh Shahryar has now blogged his thoughts on Bahari's comments: "It is shameful in my opinion to so easily use one of the most misused words in living memory to describe members of a movement that have so far done everything possible to keep their demonstrations peaceful. That in the face of overwhelming brutality by the government and there is video documentation of that – not just empty words."
http://www.dailyniteowl.com/wordpress/index.php/2009/12/
Mac,
Thank you for taking the time and addressing my question.
From the two words of Pirouz Bashid at the conclusion of your comment, I take it that you are either of Persian heritage or an individual who speaks the language and knows the culture. So let me touch on some of the points you had made.
How would it possible to run a successful campaign for fundamental civil rights/against injustice and repression in Iran without a regime change? In Islamic Republic you have no rights to seek justice. On June 13 people were not asking for regime change, they were not even asking for sweeping individual rights, they were only challenging election results. Islamic Republic responded by calling them dirt and rabble rouser questioning God’s will, referring to AN victory as divine intervention. In the absence of balance of power, a person or a group with no power (legal, material, force, sheer number or otherwise) cannot ask for their civil rights and if they do it is at their own peril.
Why regime change is a very complicated question? Is it possible we frame it as complicated because we fear the unknown? Or is it the culture of coping (kaj dar o Nariz) that makes us to endure and not demand overhaul of a broken system? In my view nothing is more incomprehensible and more painful that being stripped of your individual rights. Nothing is more dreadful than living with the fear that life could be sucked out of you and your loved ones in a blink of an eye. Nothing would be worse than what people have today. I believe what is complicated is what they have today. If they dare to break away they will see it may be a lot of work to install a responsible system of government based on laws and it may take a year or two but it definitely will be empowering and exhilarating to watch it working for you.
I do agree with you that we all have a common goal but different road maps in achieving our goals. I am not concerned with quibbling among individuals or groups because debate and deliberation always generate a better plan providing there is willingness to hear others, to acknowledge their point of view, and readiness to concede on some points in order to move forward. For Iranians this is a learned behavior (not part of their nature) which means they have to consciously work hard at it, practice it and maintain it.
I do not think it is useful to attribute motives to Mr Bahari or to excuse his words, as some have done here. He is a professional. He is accountable for what he has said.
I do raise questions, however, as to how psychologically stable he is at the present time, what with only a month out of prison. Perhaps it is too soon for him to be on a speaking tour. There is the possibility (and I will admit that this is mere speculation) that his psychological torture in Evin resulted in some part of his psyche being manchurian candidatized.
By the same token, I agree with some of you that Mr Bahari has knowingly or unknowingly raised some good questions as to the weaknesses of the Green movement. The Green movement is by its very nature diverse, multilateral and, as such, vulnerable to lack of focus. Regime change does seem to be the obvious non-negotiable. But the big question remains: how?
I think the various Green groups will answer this question in diverse ways. I am actually of the view that a multilateral approach to regime change will be effective; the answer is always in the group and, in the case of the Greens, the group has many different skill sets to bring to the common endeavour.
Having said that, I am aware that a good number of Greens prefer a peaceful movement -- that many of their own uncles and nieces are members of the regime, but also that it is the Iranians themselves who must live with the result of regime change. Martin Luther King Jr once said, "not only do the ends not justify the means, but the ends are inherent in the means": that is, the fruits of violence are violence.
Nevertheless, this begs the question: how can you change a regime which is as heavily armed as this one is and which does not flinch at using its militarization to intimidate and interfere with the Green movement -- without at least some of the Greens adopting armed force themselves? The Green movement is comprised of very young, idealistic people. No doubt, some of these folks will take up arms sooner or later as experience (with a sociopathic regime) molds their worldviews.
Bottom line: We have seen that the so-called strengths of the regime can ultimately be their weaknesses. So too, the weaknesses of the Greens, as pointed out by Mr Bahari, can just as well be the strengths of the Greens. Each man fights his own war.
Thank you , Josh and Scott