Following the announcement by Iran's Interior Ministry that incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had won reelection in an implausible landslide, hundreds of thousands of Iranians took to the streets with the kind of unbridled political anger that may have the power to escalate into full-blown revolution. The ball is now in the court of the supreme leader, the highest authority in Iran, to avert the ultimate confrontation.
During most of the Islamic Republic's young history, elections have served as a kind of pressure safety valve, releasing discontent into ballot boxes within the framework of contested elections. By voting at rates that would put any U.S. election to shame, the Iranian people, reformists and conservatives alike, gave legitimacy to a system that was otherwise seen as corrupt and undemocratic, since real power always rested with the supreme leader and his close associates.
The shocking results of the June 12 election are a sign that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei feared becoming irrelevant amidst a campaign that both the candidates and the people seemed to be taking far too seriously. Green-clad supporters of leading challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi formed human chains in the streets of Tehran, while Ahmadinejad jettisoned Persian decorum when he called out former president and consummate insider Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on national television, accusing him of corruption. The 2009 presidential election looked less like the charade it was designed to be, and more like an all-or-nothing contest for power.
The supreme leader, however, decided to reestablish his importance in the most clumsy of ways: by handing Ahmadinejad nearly 63% of the vote, a blatantly exaggerated figure, given polling data, and given the groundbreaking 80-85% voter turnout, which by all indications was expected to favor Mousavi -- the change candidate.
To be sure, Khamenei would not be the first Iranian leader to consolidate power in shortsighted fashion. Following the 1953 coup against democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq, the last shah of Iran banned all but two handpicked political parties, forcing the opposition to adopt extra-legal and often violent means of confrontation with the monarchy. Peaceful and moderate coalitions like the National Front, which Mossadeq helped found, soon took a back seat to more extremist elements such as the Marxist Fedayeen, the People's Mojahedeen, and Khomeini himself -- groups that could more efficiently navigate the undercurrents of repressed political anger.
It may be too early to tell whether Khamenei has made an error in judgment comparable to that of the shah, and whether the current outrage may lead to a bona fide revolution. The last revolution took over a year of government fumbles and excessive violence before it reached full maturity and toppled the shah. What is foreseeable is that no revolution can take place in Iran without the involvement of particular segments of the society, including the bazaar merchant class, religious institutions, and the working poor, groups that are hardly in the pocket of the regime, despite their social conservative bent.
One sign that the supreme leader may be unwilling to risk further escalation was his decision to have a recount, which was made public on Tuesday. Although the idea was rejected outright by Mousavi, given allegations of destroyed ballots around the country, it could mark the first step toward Khamenei's change of heart. Sooner or later, the supreme leader will realize that abandoning Ahmadinejad will be a safer bet than confronting millions of young Iranians, who as of Saturday morning no longer have a stake in the system they inherited from the 1978-79 revolution.
Moving forward, the supreme leader has two clear choices: Save the fragile legitimacy of the Islamic Republic by calling for new elections, or move toward a system that increasingly looks like a dictatorship, in which all pretensions of popular will are thrown by the wayside. Either choice may be a losing proposition for the Islamic ruling elite in the long run. But what is certain is that a massive confrontation with the people of Iran very seldom benefits those in power, something Khamenei and his fellow revolutionaries from the class of 1979 know all too well.
Nathan Gonzalez, a Fellow with the Truman National Security Project, is author of Engaging Iran: The Rise of a Middle East Powerhouse and America's Strategic Choice.
President Ahmadinjead's post election comments that "Iran is the most stable country " while comparing the anger to his victory to that of a "football match" defined the lack of connect that the current leadership has with its own people. Iran is not and has not been stable underneath the surface for years. Post election reactions like this would not have happened had the foundation to rise up not already been in place. Iran is also not as Ahmadinjead proclaimed, " the most stable country in the Middle East.". In fact, today they could be the least stable. Mousavi supporters are not soccer hooligans upset at the outcome of a game. They are people furious at their political system and the people who lead it.
This is not going away. Revolution is no longer in the air. It's now on the ground. 150 are dead from the weeks events. Guns, tear gas, beating, house break ins and other acts of intimidation are being used by the police. Expect things to escalate. Each day from here on out, that ends without the Mullah's finding a way to silence the protests once and for all, will be another day that further cements the will of a nation that is poised to take down it's own government. Along with this, potentially change the temperature in the Middle East.
TJ
SHOCK AND AWESOME with TJ and the TUX
East Village Radio
Well you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright
You say you got a real solution
Well you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money for people with minds that hate
All I can tell you is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright
You say you'll change the constitution
Well you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well you know
You better free your mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman mao
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know know it's gonna be alright
Alright alright
Maybe even none at all.
What did they expect out of fundamentalists, democracy?
There are new signs as well. Written in English, "Where is My Vote?" (I can't help myself, the idea for an Al Gore-Mir Hossein Mousavi buddy film pops into my mind, "Dude, Where is My Vote?"). Another: 2 x 2 = 24 million, a play on the bogus economic measures touted by Ahmadinejad during the debates, now updated to reflect the equally dubious election results.
The chant goes up, the same as was used during the 1979 Revolution: "He who kills my brother, will be killed by me!"
Seiyed Ali Pinochet, Chile Iran nemishe" (Seiyed Ali Pinochet, Iran won't become Chile).' This chant is consistent with a 'Third Worldist' (including international left solidarity) tinge to the Green Revolution. I.e. it is not the chant of a North Tehran businessman but of someone who came to consciousness as a revolutionary in the 1970s and 1980s. (H/t to Robert Malley for the 'third worldist' discourse concept, which he applied to 1960s and 1970s Algeria.)
Here we have yet more chauvinism from a Western secular person. First of all, what the hell else were they supposed to do? Would simply not voting have solved anything? At least now, the world knows that the current regime are corrupt liars.
Second, the allegation that "real power always rested with the supreme leader..." is an instance of the pot calling the kettle black, since we know that in the U.S., real power rests more and more with the Supreme Court, whose members are unelected and nearly impossible to impeach. Aside from them, real power in America is mainly held by big business and other wealthy campaign donors. So, please hold off on the chauvinism a bit.
I don’t know about you guys out there, but the President is beginning to remind me a lot of Joe Lieberman, and I don’t like it!
JC
I don’t know guys, (I must have missed it), but just when did Obama turn into Joe Lieberman?
JC
The coup failed, and the U.S. have had to contend with angry Chavez ever since.
The principal reasons why we are so "popular" all over the world, is our long history of meddling and supporting tyrants, as long as these tyrants served or pretended to serve our short-term interests.
Viz. Saddam Hussein in Iraq, shah Reza Pahlevi in Iran, Marcos in the Philipines, etc., and in our own backyard Batista (Cuba), Trujillo (Dom. Rep.) Papa Doc Duvalier (Haiiti) Somoza (C. Am.), to name just a few.
It is about time that these hysterical war-profiteers start realizing that there is a new President in the White House; an educated man, who invites and listens to counsel and who respects the souvereignty of other countries.
There weren't many Che T-shirts in the crowd. And quite a few head-to-toe covered women.
- halelujah - while doing what they see as God's work.
I'm just saying that using religion or God to justify everything, even the vilest acts, is as old as mankind itself.
Yep, and when you don't have free, fair and democratic elections, about the only choice is to revolt or knuckle under to tyranny.
But even at times, when you do have free and fair elections, as in this country, the people elected abuse their Constitutional authority. But at least that can be reversed in the next election, unless, of course, the damage done is irreversible. That's what troubles me about what is currently taking place in DC, and has been for quite some time under both Democrat and Republican administrations.
The Executive, by its appointing of Czars, has been granting itself powers that are the province of the Legislative. Senator Robert Byrd has been one of the few to point this out and object to it.
"Red Herring" fallacy---another topic introduced to divert attention from the matter under discussion.
Format of the fallacy:
1. Topic A is under discussion.
2. Topic B is introduced. under the guise of being relevant to topic A
3. Topic A is abandoned.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh