Growing Up in Iran and Watching the Election From the U.S.

I didn't see the Islamic Revolution. I was one month old when the Iran-Iraq war began. 8 years of my life were spent in an absolute fear. The soundtrack of my childhood was the air strike red alarm with that strident sound which was usually followed by the sound of bomb. I still have dreams of those dark days. I see my mother's pale face and my father's shivering hands clearly as if it all happened yesterday. 29 years later, I still see the dark cloud over the city and I still see desperate people running , screaming, and yearning for freedom . And I wonder why.

I grew up under the Islamic Revolution. My teenage years were empty and I don't remember how I grew up to become a woman. Since being a "woman" in the Islamic Republic of Iran is like being burried alive, my father provided me with another alternative: living in a free world!

In 1997, Mohammad Khatami, a so-called reformist ran for presidency with a message of "liberalization" and "reform" and unleashed our passion for democracy. I joined his campaign and did everything in my power to help him win. In August 2, 1997, he captured 80% of the votes. In 1999, I left Iran and came to the United States to study and enjoy freedom, but I was deeply involved with my country's politics. When Khatami was in office, hard-liners opposed to presidential reforms closed down many pro-democracy publications in a media crackdown and arrested several journalists. The massive closures came three days after Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the hard-line supreme leader whose powers supersede those of the president, said there were some reformist papers undermining Islamic and revolutionary principles, insulting constitutional bodies and creating tension and discord in society. The infamous "serial murder" of the leaders of the opposition, both inside Iran and abroad happened during Khatami's presidency and he chose to take no action because he couldn't.The fact is that Ayatollah Khamenei has the final say over Iran's social, domestic, and foreign affairs and the President has to obey orders from the Supreme Leader and work within the constitution, which I believe is corrupt and needs a major reform.

As a young Iranian who supported Khatami and voted for him in hope of change, I expected Mr. Khatami to resign after he realized he cannot oppose the Supreme Leader, but he chose to stay and hide his true face behind a smile mask. I do not deny the fact that during Mr. Khatami's presidency, there was more social freedom and as a matter of fact more newspapers emerged. This is why there were more closures and murders of intellectuals by the hard-liner.

On the other hand, we observed what's referred to as 18 Tir (Iranian date corresponding to July 8th). 18 Tir marked the students' opposition with the Islamic regime and showed their lack of trust in the government. When Ayatollah Khamenei ordered revolutionary guard to suppress the students' movement, to the astonishment of all of us who had elected Mr. Khatami in hope of democracy, he approved the Supreme Leader's decision by not opposing to it. I understand that he was not able to oppose to the Supreme Leader ,but he could have resigned to show his disapproval of what was happening.

In another retrospect, we experienced having Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the president whose firebrand style and statements have downgraded Iran in the eyes of the world (As Mr. Mousavi said in a televised debate during the 2009 presidential election). Therefore, people of Iran who have had extensive hunger for democracy and freedom for years sought hope in Mir Hossein Mousavi. Khatami's endorsement of Mousavi's candidacy caught the attention of those who still have sympathy for the charming former president. 2 Khordad (Iranian date corresponding to August 2, 1997 when Khatami took office) repeated again. Only the name of the movement was different. Instead of "2 Khordad movement" it was a "Green Wave," which refers to Mr.Mousavi's official campaign color, green.

As somebody who was actively involved in "2 Khordad movement" , I was in a very difficult position and I couldn't decide. First of all, I don't believe in boycotting election and I think the reason Ahmadinejad was elected 4 years ago was the so-called intellectuals and liberals who boycotted the election and encouraged people not to participate.On the other hand, I was very disappointed in former President Khatami and I saw no reason to repeat the same mistake and expect either Mr.Mousavi or Mr.Karoubi who both vow Islamic-based reforms to bring freedom and demoracy to Iran.
However, I decided to support the reformists just to say NO to Ahmadinejad's government. I also thought it MIGHT be easier with the U.S to engage with a reformist government in Iran although it's the Supreme Leader who decides on foreign policies.
Whatever their ideology was, on June 12th, 2009 millions of passionate and hopeful Iranians inside Iran and abroad put their votes in the ballot boxes . But in a fraudulent election, which was fabricated from the very beginning, Ahmadinejad declared victory with 24 million votes.

As an Iranian-American journalist, I think foreign media is being a little naive in covering the election's aftermath. First of all, we have to acknowledge that neither Mr. Mousavi nor Mr. Karoubi (the other reformist candidate) were elected by people of Iran. Unlike the United States' electoral system in which voters in each state choose among slates of electors pledged to one candidate or another, in Iran candidates have to be vetted by the Guardian Council, which is selected by the Supreme leader.

Therefore, the candidates who run for presidency are all selected and trusted by the Supreme leader and people don't have a say in this process. On the other hand, unlike American voters who have almost two years to get familiar with each candidate and his platforms, Iranians only have less than a month to think about the already "selected" candidates. Among those candidates who were selected and trusted by the Supreme Leader, the so-called reformists appeal to young people, who want freedom and democracy and have little sympathy for the Islamic Revolution due to the fact that the majority of them were born after the revolution.

We also have to acknowledge the existence of traditional and religious people who uphold the banner of Ayatollah Khomeini's heirs. "Reform" doesn't appeal to these people and these are the ones who vote for Ahmadinejad. Even the reformist candidates had anticipated about 13 million votes for Mr.Ahmadinejad and we simply cannot ignore millions of people who support Iran's hardline president. The root of many social and political problems in today's Iran is the paradox of tradition and modernism . There's also a population of Iranians in exile with a broad spectrum of perspectives. Some of them boycott the election, some support the return of monarchy, while some others call for a referendum. Therefore, when we say people of Iran, we have to be careful that we are referring to a highly diverse society inside Iran and abroad.

Now that there's a high level of fraud in Iran's election, the international community and people who are living in a free world must take action and be on Iranian people's side and don't let their voices to be silenced.

On Sunday June 14th, Mr. Ahmadinejad held a press conference and he said he is the president for all Iranians and when asked about those who are protesting the election and those who got arrested, he dismissed the unrest as "passion after a soccer match" and called the level of violence "insignificant".This is a huge slap in the face to all the Iranian people and I believe that the only way we could support them is by asking the international community to condemn this sham election instead of legitimizing Ahmadinejad's government.

As an Iranian woman who lives in the Unites States, it really hurts to see people's votes being stolen, their voices being silenced or to see them being beaten up . Many young Iranian women bravely and actively participated in the election in hope for freedom just like I did in 1997. I have the opprotunity to live in a free country and it's my duty to stay on their side and show my support. It's the responsibility of all of us , Iranians and non-Iranians. I voted for President Obama in hope for change and I expect him to genuinely support people of Iran and think beyond "nuclear weapons" and "terrorism". By supporting, I don't mean interference because change has to come from within the soceity. Even in my opinion , Iranians living abroad cannot decide for people who are living in Iran. By supporting, I mean NOT engaging with this illegitimate government.

Iranian people have experienced the harms of a revolution and I don't support another revolution. I think change has to come gradually.

Now, the momentum is right to call for change, but some questions remain unanswered:
Are all the Iranian people on the same page?
Are the world leaders really concerned about human rights in Iran or they just think about "Terrorism," "Nuclear Weapon," and "Threat" for the sake of their own safety?

Comments

[Shrinath]

The yearning for true freedom and democracy has to come from within. It would be up to the young Iranians to decide what they really want. True freedom or a sham. As you yourself noted, you now live in a free country and can express yourself freely without worrying about the consequences of speaking out.

We are showing our solidarity with the Iranian people in ways that we can. I do not thing it would be wise at this juncture to denounce this sham of an election. The US has meddled enough in the past as with the Iranian politics and it is best to stay engaged in a dialogue after frosty relationships in the past two decades plus. Remember, what the consequences would have been if McCain had been elected. I shudder at that mere thought.

In my opinion the POTUS took a very strong line and there is nothing more anyone can offer at this juncture.

The answer to your end note lies pretty much in the question it self. Every world leader's priority is their nation first. What ever might be the case, when it comes to choosing between "human rights" and "nuclear threat/terrorism" it is only inevitable that everyone would think of themselves and their nation.

So I ask you this question instead - Would you stand in solidarity with the Tibeteans against the Chinese?

[mergina]

Your contry can never really be FREE until your people have been released from the grip of CORRUPT Ayatollahs and their petty puppets put on display to falsely appease the masses, but YOU CAN HAVE FREEDOM and NOW just might be the time to really fight for it. The world is watching. The world is behind you. FREEEEEEDDOOOOOOOMMMMMMMM!

[madatnewsmedia]

Are the world leaders really concerned about human rights in Iran or hey just think about "Terrorism," "Nuclear Weapon," and "Threat" for the sake of their own safety?

The world leaders are concerned, but as you say, they can only do so much! The people of Iran will have to start this make things happen, but violence won't get them anywhere, other than killed, as we have witnessed. What do you suggest the world community do about human rights in Iran? Sanctions don't help, so what are the alternatives? And the world should think about their own safety! I am tired of these rogue countries, such as Iran and North Korea threatening the global communities. Everyday, we have to read where they are threatening to do this or that! I say, if you're as bad as you say, do what you threaten, but don't think that the US or any other civil country won't strike back and they're going to strike back three-fold! Maybe someone will have to call their bluff! I know, I'm tired of them

[QuidQuintessa]

I have known many Iranians over the years, and have visited Iran on a few occasions. I love the country deeply and hope the best for it.

But:

A) It is not our country and we should all hope that we Americans can kick the habit of entangling ourselves in other people's business, which, I would remind the young woman, is largely what got your beautiful country into a mess in the first place.

and

B) Much as I respect Iranian history and culture, hyperbole is a special Persian art form and I have no frikkin' idea who or what to believe about this whole situation.

[Hanzi Lai]

I applaud your courage and patriotism for your country. Iran can only be better off with more people like you, not from any foreign interference. Change must come from within and Iran must choose wisely who its friends are and who are the real wolves in sheep's clothing. Countries will only help Iran for as long as it benefits them, this is a sorry fact of life if you study history. Ultimately, Iran's people must select their own political system and their own social, cultural identities. They must be vigilant of being played as pawns by bigger powers which almost always comes as the expense of the common people.

[DANOSC]

"Supreme Leader". Orwellian.

[longtimegone]

Patriot Act, War on Terror, Operation Iraqi Freedom....we invented Orwellian, no one bests us!

[Luise22]

Very interesting, thanks. But I have to say you had me right up to the point where you put nuclear weapons and terrorism in quotation marks! While you are correct that they should not be the US government's ONLY concerns in its dealings with Iran, it is not appropriate to imply that they are phony issues. You also leave wide open the question of what it is you want the US government to do. Many Iranian dissidents have said that we should not interfere.

[viper234]

The United States isn't concerned about human rights or it would not have engaged in the illegal use of torture against innocent people, some of whom died as a result of torture, nor would it have eroded the civil rights of its own citizens. There's no evidence that every election in the US has been "fair" either. So don't look to the US for moral leadership on this score. This country doesn't hold that position in the world anymore. Iran would do better to look within for the change it wants. Don't look to the West.

[AnalyzeIT]

Very enlightening Sara, thank you.

[JustAnotherScreenname]

Sara, as an Iranian and American I can tell you this: you will NEVER find a country where everyone has the same opinion.

That being said, Mousavi has well over 60% of the population on his side and Ahmadi only has 10-20%. I don't know if that means we can call Mousavi the voice of the people, but it's a lot closer than Ahmadi.

[paixa3]

Oh, you mean similar to the shrub/gore issue. In Iran it is the religious body pulling the strings, in the USA it was a corrupt supreme court.

Would you care to elaborate on the difference, since, in the end, there IS NONE.

[dsws]

"I expected Mr. Khatami to resign after he realized he cannot oppose the Supreme Leader"

Didn't he know that before he ran for office? Today, anyone with an internet connection can find that out by looking at Wikipedia for five minutes (and following links for ten minutes, if they want to be sure). But even then, wasn't it obvious to anyone with the necessary contacts to run for office?

"Unlike the United States' electoral system in which voters in each state choose among slates of electors pledged to one candidate or another, in Iran candidates have to be vetted by the Guardian Council, which is selected by the Supreme leader."

In the United States, candidates have to be vetted by all manner of partisan hacks and special-interest fund-raisers. This guarantees that no one with any perceptible socialist tendencies can be elected senator, governor, or president, no matter how the general electorate might want it.

[peterg76]

US candidates are vetted above all else by corporate money.

[dsws]

You say po-tay-to, I say some sort of tuber commonly used to make chips.

[greenmonk]

Thankyou for the thoughtful article, Sara.
It is such a foreign system to us out in the West. Its like if we had to have Pat Robertson's approval of any candidate. *shudder* Some of us here think the religious extremists have too much power in America, but that is nothing compared to Iran.

Religion is such a powerful weapon. If you stand for it, you are "Godly" and pure, no matter what war crimes you commit (Dubya) if you stand against it you are someone who must have no morals at all, and thus the justification of abuse.

A candidate in Iran could not even run in an election if part of their platform was to diminish the power of Ayatollah Khomeini's heirs. In America, a candidate could run, but never win, in an election if he had a platform of reducing faith-based funding, or abolishing Creationism teaching in public schools etc...

We are not at the same point as Iran, but theocracy is a slippery slope, because once a nation gets to the point that it demonizes anyone who does not pay homage to * (what ever the officially sanctioned religion is) it is difficult to regain any ground back.

We in the West must realize that it is still a hard line theocratic dictatorship in Iran, no matter what the democratic trappings. That even if somehow Mousavi could gain power through civil unrest, he still was and will continue to be controlled by these religious leaders.

[longtimegone]

Your argument is harmed by thinking that religion is the common link between the two systems. In America it is the allegiance of the candidates to the "religion" of corporatism and its very far reaching agenda which determines who is given enough funding to keep running, whose funding is cut off, and who is never allowed in the game from the outset. It works just as effectively and just as certainly to ensure that the free choice of the people is only a choice between those deemed acceptable to our overlords. The Iranian people are resisting; we are not.