VIEW
به زبان فارسی
PICTORY
LATEST MUSIC
SEARCH
Ex-Islamic Republic
02-Jan-2010
Six months ago, Iranians went to the streets, chanting "Where is my vote?" This is how the Green Revolution started. The protesters now no longer merely seek democratic elections but want regime change. Their new slogans are: "Khamenei is a murderer and his rule is unjust," "Neither Gaza nor Lebanon, I only give my life for Iran," and "Independence, Freedom and an Iranian Republic." In other words, they demand a stop to Iran's support for terrorists in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq; the separation of state and religion; and consider Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as public enemy No. 1.
By answering this summer's peaceful calls for democratic elections with violence, the Supreme Leader may have sealed his own fate. In June and July alone, more than 5,000 protestors were arrested and an unknown number of them killed. The use of such extreme violence at a time in which mass communication is no longer the monopoly of the government has led to the steady decline of the regime's credibility. The lies no longer work. Nobody in Iran believes the state media's propaganda that blames Israel and the U.K. for the death of Neda Agha Soltan, the young woman murdered by security forces, whose death throes captured on a phone camera shocked the world.
The revelations of rape and torture in the Kahrizak detention center by security officials who invoked the name of Allah and the Shiite Imam as they tormented their young victims particularly outraged Iranians. This type of rape also occurred in the 1980's, but back then no one would believe those stories. But this time it is different. The victims are speaking out and, as importantly, they have found prominent support in Mehdi Karroubi, a clergyman and former president of the parliament. Many ayatollahs not linked to the regime have voiced their horror as well. The unity which was forced between the religious cast and the regime has been torn apart by these events. As a result, the rulers' moral standing has suffered a blow from which it may not recover, for it is the religious authority of the ayatollahs which gives the theocratic regime its legitimacy.
These dissident ayatollahs—such as the late Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who in a famous fatwa last summer declared the regime neither Islamic nor a republic—are no longer alone in turning against Khamenei. Even religious scholars who until recently did not openly defy the regime, have now joined the calls of the opposition. There is the well-respected Ayatollah Yussuf Sanai, for example, who was a friend of Khamenei, who went so far as to state that Khamenei's continuing struggle for power is against Sharia law. There is Ayatollah Mousavi Ardebili, the former president of the judicial branch of Iran, who this summer openly declared his solidarity with the dissident Ayatollah Montazeri. And there are the ayatollahs Bayat Zanjani, Dastghaib, and Taheri who have aligned themselves with the protesting masses. Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in neighboring Iraq—who is held in great esteem by Shiites also in Iran—has declared that the oppression of the demonstrators is un-Islamic.
All this is significant because it broadens the protests to a truly popular movement. The students and educated class don't need fatwas to turn against the regime. But due to the criticism by prominent ayatollahs, the regime is losing its moral legitimacy even in the eyes of less educated and more pious Iranians.
The regime is not only losing the clergy but also the military. The communiqués from opposition groups and those that reach me personally all indicate that a large part of the Revolutionary Guards is no longer willing to be used as an instrument of oppression. Video images from nearly every demonstration show Revolutionary Guards members joining ranks with the protesters. A declaration signed by air force and army officers and published on the Internet warned radical Revolutionary Guards members to "Stop the violence against your own population."
This rift also explains why the much-anticipated "China Model" of ruthless and widespread use of force against the population, with thousands of deaths and executions in a matter of days, never happened. If Khamenei could have been sure about the loyalty of the military, he would have used it a long time ago to crush the rebellion for good. The only element of the Revolutionary Guards which still seems to be loyal to the regime is the Quds division, a hodge-podge of terrorists from Lebanon, Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and other regions.
***
This does not mean this regime will go out with a whimper. During these past six months, the Iranian regime has undergone a dramatic change of character. It has eliminated all pragmatic forces within its ranks. For religious support, they rely on a small but extremely radical group of ayatollahs such as Mesbah Yazde and Ahmad Janati. These are apocalyptic worshippers of the twelfth Imam, or Mahdi. Understanding this group is of the utmost importance for Western policymakers. The Mahdi is viewed as a Messiah-like figure whose return will bring peace on Earth. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad frequently refers to him in his speeches, including those held before the United Nations. While most twelver imam Shiites believe that the Mahdi will appear by his own accord, this radical group believes that his appearance can be triggered by creating the apocalyptic conditions necessary for his emergence. Iran's nuclear weapons program must be seen in this context. Ahmadinejad and the radical fringe group to which he belongs see themselves as the army of the Mahdi in his final jihad.
The regime's theological nature gives it a very different perception of reality. Despite the popular unrest and growing rift between the regime and the military and clergy, Ahmadinejad has no reason to see himself as weak or illegitimate. In his world view, bolstered by people such as Mr. Yazde, his regime does not rely on the consent of the people or dissident ayatollahs. Instead, it gains its legitimacy by its obedience to Allah. The regime surely fears the people, but controlling the masses serves the greater cause of obedience to Allah and therefore the interests of the people are of no real importance to this regime.
What's at stake here are not only the lives of the Iranian protesters and the future of the country, but global security. If the apocalyptic ayatollahs manage to survive this crisis, then the U.S, Israel and the region—judging by Iran's theological doctrines, nuclear aspirations, and existing conventional arsenal—will face a mortal danger. The emergence of a democratic Iran is therefore not only a moral imperative but should be the foreign policy priority of every cold-hearted realist as well as multicultural engager. That's why it is so incomprehensible that the Obama Administration still prefers dialogue with the apocalyptic ayatollahs over uncompromising support for the people crying out for freedom.
If the protesters shake off the yoke of theocracy and savagery, their success could herald the failure of political Islam way beyond Iran. At this turning point in history the West has no logical alternative but to unequivocally support the Green Revolution. The fate of this movement far outweighs the useless nuclear talks that will only buy the regime time and undeserved international legitimacy. The demonstrators in Iran on Dec. 7 rightfully exclaimed: "Obama, are you with them [the regime] or with us?" History will not judge him lightly if he chooses the wrong side.
AUTHOR
Afshin Ellian was born in Tehran. He teaches philosophy of law at Leiden University. This article was first published in the Wall Street Journal.
RECENT COMMENTS
IRANIANS OF THE DAY
| Person | About | Day |
|---|---|---|
| نسرین ستوده: زندانی روز | Dec 04 | |
| Saeed Malekpour: Prisoner of the day | Lawyer says death sentence suspended | Dec 03 |
| Majid Tavakoli: Prisoner of the day | Iterview with mother | Dec 02 |
| احسان نراقی: جامعه شناس و نویسنده ۱۳۰۵-۱۳۹۱ | Dec 02 | |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Prisoner of the day | 46 days on hunger strike | Dec 01 |
| Nasrin Sotoudeh: Graffiti | In Barcelona | Nov 30 |
| گوهر عشقی: مادر ستار بهشتی | Nov 30 | |
| Abdollah Momeni: Prisoner of the day | Activist denied leave and family visits for 1.5 years | Nov 30 |
| محمد کلالی: یکی از حمله کنندگان به سفارت ایران در برلین | Nov 29 | |
| Habibollah Golparipour: Prisoner of the day | Kurdish Activist on Death Row | Nov 28 |
Nuclear ...
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Wed Jan 06, 2010 07:35 AM PSTThe nuclear issue is a smoke screen to divert attention. They want to get people riled up about nothing. We need nuclear technology like we need a hole in our heads!
All the smart Westerners themselves are opposed to it. Heck do we really need 3 Mile Island or Chernobyl? We say "Khak-eh Pak-eh Iran" not "Khak radioactive Iran"!! The only thing that comes out of nuclear power is misery and pain. As for weapons that is plain out stupid. Never should we build or use them.
Instead there is abundant Solar power being poured onto Iran all day long. We should use that instead. It is clean; renewable and may not be used for mass destruction. The way to go.
the fat lady has sung
by I Have a Crush on Alex Trebek on Mon Jan 04, 2010 09:17 AM PSTthese guys are through.
Apocalyptic, indeed
by Cost-of-Progress on Mon Jan 04, 2010 09:08 AM PST"......Mesbah Yazde and Ahmad Janati. These are apocalyptic worshippers of the twelfth Imam, or Mahdi. Understanding this group is of the utmost importance for Western policymakers. The Mahdi is viewed as a Messiah-like figure whose return will bring peace on Earth. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad frequently refers to him in his speeches, including those held before the United Nations. While most twelver imam Shiites believe that the Mahdi will appear by his own accord, this radical group believes that his appearance can be triggered by creating the apocalyptic conditions necessary for his emergence. Iran's nuclear weapons program must be seen in this context. Ahmadinejad and the radical fringe group to which he belongs see themselves as the army of the Mahdi in his final jihad."
Couldn't have said it better myself.
This bunch does not care for Iran or her people as they are anti-nationalist to the core. The sooner we ALL realize this, the better for Iran and her people (the sane ones).
Those who defend the nuclear program in some twisted sense of patriotism will not think so once the murdering mullahs use it to bring back the 12th emam from that well.
____________________
IRAN, BEFORE ISLAM
____________________
Anonymoses
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 03, 2010 06:40 PM PSTI love your username.
Thank you for your kind words. I was fascinated by VPK from the day I learned about him in school back in Iran in history class. I often wondered what would have happened if Sassanian had survived. Iran would have been able to preserve all the knowledge that had led to the amazing things VPK had built.
Getting back to topic.
I agree that China; Russia and UK definitely prefer the IRI. The US however may be happier with a "Georgia" model i.e. a pro Western pseudo democracy. USA is getting obsessed with the nuclear issue and a regime change will address it.
I did look the link you provided. It is interesting reading. Thank you. The writer is "Stephen Walt" of the Walt and Mearsheimer paper. I am not sure how much influence he has on US policy specially with his stance on Israel.
In reality there are a lot of forces at work. One of the most important ones is the will of Iranian people themselves. I believe most Iranians really do want democracy. Whether that dream becomes reality is mostly in our own hands.
Veiled Prophet of Khorasan
by Anonymoses on Sun Jan 03, 2010 04:01 PM PSTI love your username.
Surely the influence of powers like China and Russia (and EU partially) is more influential on Iranian internal affairs given their economic muscle in the country. They favour the status quo, do they not?
Then can we really expect any kind of a meaningful change as long as it is in the interest of 3/4 of the major global spheres for Iran to maintain status quo?
I mean even this American foreign policy analyst argues that regime-change and democracy in Iran may not be in favour of US interests //tinyurl.com/y8toye5
Anonymoses
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 03, 2010 03:54 PM PSTIf the Iranian people weren't capable of organizing their
own revolution back then, surely they're not now. So who's organizing
all of this now?
1) I did not say the 1978 protests did not have local organization. Just that there was great deal of outside influence.
2) These are different times; a new generation. Maybe they learned organizing.
3) I suspect that there are outside forces at work again. My guess is US wants to have a "color" revolution like in Georgia. EU in particular UK would rather keep the Mullahs in power.
Anyway, foreign power has its limits. If people really don't want something it would be a lot harder to shove it down their throats. In 1978 people were sick of the Shah and therefore they were easy to manipulate by outsiders.
Now people are sick of the Mullahs and do not require outside forces. However I am sure US is only to happy to see them overthrow the Mullahs. Obama is however smart enough to avoid overt intervention since it may backfire.
Where is the Green Movement headed?
by vosough on Sun Jan 03, 2010 03:50 PM PSTMany Iranians would like to believe that the hardline regime is in its death throes. But such optimism must be tempered. The hardliners' ability to maintain power through force has not been diminished and is likely to outlast the Islamic Republic's crisis of legitimacy. The struggle for democracy in Iran is a Marathon, not a sprint. There is still a long way to go.
//www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/tehranbureau/2010/01/turning-point.html
benross... I'm not sure what
by Anonymoses on Sun Jan 03, 2010 03:48 PM PSTbenross... I'm not sure what you're trying to argue, and I'm not sure why you are bringing Abrahamian into this because I don't necessarily subscribe to his views... "My point about 'anti-revolution' is that it was fundamentally reactionary and stayed as such"
I haven't made any indication as to whether I believe the revolution was progressive or regressive. However, all revolutions are reactionary. Ever heard of the bolshevik revolution? there's some serious reactionary for you.
The definition for a revolution is pretty... clear. Specially in the case of Iran. I don't really see you trying to convince me that it was NOT a revolution succeeding. However I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the outcomes of this green movement/revolution/etc.
Veiled Prophet of
by Anonymoses on Sun Jan 03, 2010 03:40 PM PSTVeiled Prophet of Khorasan...
If the Iranian people weren't capable of organizing their own revolution back then, surely they're not now. So who's organizing all of this now? (I am not countering you, simply wondering)
Anonymoses
by Veiled Prophet of Khorasan on Sun Jan 03, 2010 03:35 PM PSTYou asked about forces behnid the"revolution"
And who was that Arabs? English? Chinese? Americans? French?
The English and Americans. In particular Jimmy Carter and the UK government. BBC practically organized the "demonstrations" while Jimmy undermined the Shah. It is all there higly documented and you can verify the facts for yourself.
Back away from the conspiracies.
Why should we ignore the truth? It is naive to deny reality that conspiracies do happen and happen a lot. Read history to find countless examples of conspiracies; they happen all the time and everyone does them.
نامه سحابی به هموطنان خارج از کشور
vosoughSun Jan 03, 2010 03:23 PM PST
عزتالله سحابی
خواهران و برادرانم تقاضای بنده را بپذیرید و بر احساسات، روحیات و دغدغههای فردیتان، به خاطر خدا و مردم، غلبه کرده و آنها را به نفع یک حرکت منطقی و تدریجی کنترل کنید. به خصوص جوانان عزیز میهنم، با همه حقی که در عصبانی و احساساتی شدن در زیر فشارها و سرکوبها و دروغها و تهمتها دارند، به خاطر نسل خودشان و آینده مردم و مملکتشان باید برخوردهای ولو واکنشی و احساسات پاکشان را کنترل کنند و درسهای تاریخ پرفراز و نشیب و مملو از درد و رنج و هزینههای بسیار ایران عزیز را آویزه گوششان نمایند و الا صداقت و شجاعت ستودنی و قابل احترامشان برای دستیابی به آزادی و عدالت کافی نیست.
//www.rahesabz.net/story/6979/
anti-revolution
by benross on Sun Jan 03, 2010 02:44 PM PSTMy point about 'anti-revolution' is that it was fundamentally reactionary and stayed as such. In the mind frame of cold war era, particularly for devoted communists, they were blinded of the fact that it was anti-modernity to the bone, because modernity was projected as 'U.S.A', and its dominant power over the regime and their strategic alliance, therefore, it was 'anti-imperialist', and that justified everything else for communists to join the rank and support the revolution and they still do.
Abrahamian is not faulted for calling it 'revolution'. He is faulted for seeing it a forward moving historical event -true to marxist understanding of advancement which is inherently mandatory in historical timeline- therefore, it is considered one step forward. All the efforts in portraying Khomeini as a 'populist' (and not a pragmatic Akhoond that he was) revolves around this main principal that a communist thinking can not be wrong. Everything else should be interpreted to keep this principal intact.
It had to be, because it was toppling the enemy of marxists, shouting 'down with U.S.A' and brandishing 'mostaz'afin'. You seem to be still locked in that perception which is not the truth and Iranian people will not buy it anymore.
His reference to Toodé party North oil policy is very revealing. 'Even the high ranking members were against that policy but they tolerated it for internationalism and solidarity'. (paraphrasing)... How touching!
But I respect Abrahamian for his valuable work. He is a true scholar with valuable research. It doesn't mean that he is not wrong. But he is not anything like the likes of Dabaashi. I give you that.
Oh no you don't
by Anonymoses on Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:06 AM PSTbenross: Yes, it was an anti-revolution. None of the conventional causes or elements that characterize revolution were present. It was also remotely controlled and organized by the ususal suspects to keep Iran backward and medieval.
And who was that Arabs? English? Chinese? Americans? French?
This kind of conspiratorial thinking prevails in Iran and I'm afraid it may have to some degree prevented us from taking control of our fate, as well as taking responsibility for our own actions.
Back away from the conspiracies.
You can't simply say
by Anonymoses on Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:03 AM PSTYou can't simply say something is an "anti-revolution" because it doesn't please you. The term revolution does not hold an inherent correlation with liberal progress:
The very basic basic encyclopedic definition revolution is either:
The Iranian revolution was a revolution, there was mass mobilization to undermine the current authority, an overhaul in the political system (unless there was a veliat-e faghih and sharia based laws during Shah's time that I've missed out in my readings) and and overhaul in the constitution (there is atleast a million mentions of allah and khomeini etc). The immediate products may not have been desirable, and it may have retained some elements of the past system, but that doesn't make it any less of a political revolution.
Now if someone could answer my question I'd really appreciate it.
benross: Yes, it was an
by vildemose on Sat Jan 02, 2010 05:51 PM PSTbenross: Yes, it was an anti-revolution. None of the conventional causes or elements that characterize revolution were present. It was also remotely controlled and organized by the ususal suspects to keep Iran backward and medieval.
We know what we're going to
by benross on Sat Jan 02, 2010 05:24 PM PSTWe know what we're going to get if the "green revolution" fails. But what are we going to get if it "succeeds"? Are there any historical examples of successes someone can give me (unless there is a Iranian exceptionalism of some sort)?
I'm sure Ervand Abrahamian will concur with you. But Islamic revolution was in fact an anti-revolution, a historic mistake that the society was trying to rectify almost from the beginning. This is exceptional enough to make anything possible. But communists like Abrahamian can see everyting except themselves. So they can't see the historic mistake. From this, they miss everything else that follows. Things should revolve around them, therefore three revolutions -more accurately social upheavals- can not happen because if it happened, it would put an end -a historic end- to everything they believed in.
Not surprisingly, 'Iran, Between Two Revolutions' book was started as a book on the history of party Toodé. But since everything else in Iran revolves around party Toodé -and to some extend true- it ended up being a book about the history of Iran in that period.
A footnote: I personally don't believe in 'green revolution'. I do believe in a revolution going on, but at the end, it will change the colour.
An analysis of obvious!
by Maryam Hojjat on Sat Jan 02, 2010 04:24 PM PSTThanks for writing it.
Payandeh Iran & truen Iranians
simply observing
by Anonymoses on Sat Jan 02, 2010 02:43 PM PSTthis analysis is simply restating what has happened... throws in a bunch of words (savage, regime, moral imperative) to make the readers of the Wall Street Jorunal happy. it's not an analysis but someone's diary entry.
meanwhile in the real world based on historical precedence: revolutions never work *immediately*...
given that assumption: if you have one every 30 years or so, you'll get all the shitty byproducts and non of the benefits.
We know what we're going to get if the "green revolution" fails. But what are we going to get if it "succeeds"? Are there any historical examples of successes someone can give me (unless there is a Iranian exceptionalism of some sort)?
NOT TRUE
by mannya2001 on Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:32 PM PST" Even Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani in neighboring Iraq—who is held in great esteem by Shiites also in Iran—has declared that the oppression of the demonstrators is un-Islamic."
Ayatollah Sistani has foresaken his right to talk. He doesn't talk, doesn't appear in public...exactly what he does? NOBODY KNOWS
Sistani= Silence on everything that matters. However, if you wish to know if chess is halal or haram- he can answer that!
Yeah yeah! Blah blah!
by AlexInFlorida on Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:01 PM PSTI just wish i was there... that kick seems so satisfying.
Of Course we want Regime Change. Whats New?
The picture shows anyone that can see... how Iranians treat unwelcome guests. it's time for Mullahs to go into goh.
MR ELLIAN
by shushtari on Sat Jan 02, 2010 09:47 AM PST....PERFECTLY WRITTEN ARTICLE....
thank you for educating obama and the lefties on what is at stake
Good Article
by Artificial Intelligence on Sat Jan 02, 2010 09:43 AM PSTGood Analysis! Thanks.