War Handwavium

Reformists in Iran have been protesting Ahmadinejad’s election in June. This weekend, the Iranian government released images of what they claim to be “reformists” tearing up, burning, and trampling a picture of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who came to power after the Iranian Revolution in 1979.

Khomeini died in 1989, but is widely revered in Iran.

Burning a picture of Khomeini is against the law in Iran. That pictures of reformists burning a picture of Khomeini would be shown by the Iranian government leads one to wonder whether the whole thing was fabricated by the government to taint the reformists and give justification for more arrests.

While it’s possible the images are what the government says they are, that would mean that the reformists in Iran burned pictures of someone who has nothing to do with the presidential election, and is revered by many in Iran.

It’s not entirely equivalent, but it might be about as smart as if Americans protesting and opposing the US invasion of Iraq back in 2003 were to burn a picture of George Washington, revered by Americans as one of its founding fathers.

George Washington has nothing to do with the 2003 invasion of Iraq. And Khomeini, who died twenty years ago, has nothing to do with the stolen presidential election in Iran in 2009.

I would not be surprised if the images of “reformists” burning the pictures of Khomeini were fabricated by the government of Iran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091213131421866166.html

7 December1953, Iranians protested the overthrow of their democratically elected government by the US and British and the installation of a puppet government in the form of the dictator that was the Shah of Iran.

Three students were killed that day and 7 December became known as “Student Day” in Iran. After the Shah was finally overthrown in the Iraninan revolution of 1979, the country swung from a secular dictatorship under the Shah to a religious dictatorship under the Ayatollah. In the 90’s, “Student Day” became an occasion to protest for social and political freedoms.

And yesterday was Student Day in Iran and thousands of students have taken to the streets to protest Ahmadinejad’s election in June.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/12/20091277850229658.html

The former speaker of the US House of Representatives has said that the US should “sabotage” Iran’s oil and gas infrastructure as part of its efforts to bring down the government.

Apparently, to Newt, the overthrow of the democratic government of Iran in 1953 didn’t cause quite enough backlash in the form of the Iranian Revolution of 1979. No, Newt wants the US to meddle with Iran even more to make sure we angered every man, woman, and child in that country.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/07/200971023542914638.html

Iranians gathered on July 9 to protest the presidential election. They were motivated in part because it was the ten year anniversary of student unrest in 1999.

Authorities have banned all gatherings and protests of any kind. Police used tear gas and physical force to disperse the protesters.

That protesters are braving riot police at this point indicates strong unrest in Iran. But how much of it was motivated because of the anniversary remains to be seen. The question is whether the protesters can continue to make public demonstrations or whether the military crackdown will finally silence them.

At this point, anything could happen. Only time will tell.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/07/200979134022271172.html

Salon had an article yesterday by Iranian-American journalist Hooman Majd.

Majd served as the English-language translator for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s 2006 speech at the United Nations. The son of an Iranian diplomat under the shah, and grandson of a powerful ayatollah, Majd grew up mainly in the United States. He is openly linked with the reformists, and is related by marriage to former President Mohammed Khatami.

If anyone knows what is going on in Iran and also has enough cultural experience of America to explain it to Americans, Majd is that man.

The bit from the article that really struck me was Majd talking about the “will of the people” in middle eastern countries and how America relates to it:

If Ahmadinejad is president, the United States is going to have to deal with him whether or not his election was the will of the people. Clearly it’s not the will of the people for Hosni Mubarak to be president of Egypt. It was the will of the people to have Hamas represent the Palestinian territory and we decided not to deal with the will of the people there.

We’ve dealt with Egypt for years and Mubarak has been president there since 1981. You don’t see John McCain condeming Mubarak for rigging his elections for the last two decades. Where is the American outrage over the will of the Egyptian people being suppressed by its government?

On the other hand, the Palestinian people elected Hamas to numerous political positions in their 2006 elections. Many saw Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas as ineffectual in securing a Palestinian state with the Israelis. Abbas was ineffectual. His approach to the Israelis was essentially give the Israelis everything they wanted and do nothing when the Israelis violated their agreements.

When Hamas won 76 of the 132 seats in the Palestinian parlimentary elections, Fatah and Hamas began infighting. Fatah ejected Hamas from the West Bank and replaced their seats with Fatah or other members. Hamas retained control of the Gaza Strip.

And when Fatah used violence to overthrow the will of the Palestinian people, what did America do? Nothing. Hamas was on America’s terrorist organization list and refused to make any contact with Hamas. In 2007, Norway was the first was the first Western country to recognize the 2007 Palestinian government consisting of both Hamas and Fatah, and America attempted to dissuade Norway from making that contact.

What it comes down to is that “the will of the people” is a smoke screen for “American Interests”. America doesn’t want to say it is in America’s interests if the Islamic Theocracy of Iran were overthrown and a secular democracy put in its place. Instead, since many people of Iran appear to be protesting the Islamic theocracy, America supports their cause by saying they support “the will of the people”.

When the “will of the people” might cause trouble for America, America ignores it. Such as in the case of Egypt. The will of the people in Egypt has been suppressed for two decades, but America doesn’t protest that and you don’t hear American soundbites about how this is a travesty and needs to be condemned, because the government of Egypt is giving America what America wants.

And when the “will of the people” elect politicians that America doesn’t like, America pretends they weren’t even elected. Hamas was elected by the will of the Palestinian people in democratic elections. America refused to acknowlege their existence. Not only that, but when Fatah used violence to remove Hamas from the West Bank, America did not condemn the use fo violence to usurp the “will of the people”.

This American concern for the “will of the people” in the Iranian elections, isn’t the reflection of a consistent idealogy in favor of democracy. Instead it is more a smoke screen to put some handwavium on something more ancient: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/06/25/hooman_majd/index.html

It appears that the Iranian government is attempting option (1): Massive violent crackdown that puts an end to protests.

What remains to be seen is whether there will be further backlash as more Neda’s are murdered, or whether the brutality will be so great that the streets will be red with blood and any protester will be shot on sight, creating agreement by murdering anyone who disagrees.

It’s a lot of bullets.

Currently the opposition leaders have stopped calling for more protests and have called for a period of mourning for those already killed.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090624/ts_nm/us_iran_election

Update: 25 June 2009: it looks like the mourning is being called off as well.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200962594056586436.html

There’s a good article over at Al Jazeera.

A number of developments have possibly put some stress on the Iranian government and how it can respond to Mousavi’s supporters who are protesting the presidential elections.

The sheer size of the protests may cause some military commanders to refuse to use lethal force against the protesters. And some members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) are sympathetic to Mousavi’s plans to reform Iran. During the 1979 Iranian Revolution, when the Shah was overthrown the army refused to kill members of the revolution. That may (or may not) play out again now.

The Basij militia (about 350,000 strong) are basically Iranians who get some military training and support the army and the police in using force. But they are probably the least trained of Iran’s forces. This could cause Basij members to go either way: they might break ranks to support the protesters, or some of them might take matters in to their own hands in their own vigilante attempt to keep the theocracy in power.

The biggest fracture might be occuring in the senior clerics in Iran itself. The Supreme Ruler of Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei, is put into power by the Assembly of Experts, a group of Islamic clerics. And some of these clerics do not see Khamenei’s actions as being in line with Islam and some see Khamenei’s actions inciting the protesters to the point that the theocracy itself is threatened. Both would have incentive to remove Khamenei, rather than have the protesters tear down the theocracy that gives the clerics their political power.

This doesn’t mean they these clerics will support the idea of radically altering the theocracy to appease the protesters. But it means that they might withdraw their support of the Khamenei and install an new Supreme Leader who will then support a new presidential election.

Iran’s population is 70 million. According to the Iranian government, about 15 million people voted for Mousavi. According to many of Mousavi’s supporters, far more voted for Mousavi, but their votes were suppressed and not counted. This is a large enough number of people that if the Iranian government loses its legitimacy in the eyes of these people, then the entire theocracy is threatened.

At the moment, the options appear to be limited to very radical paths:

(1) Massive violent crackdown that puts an end to protests. (with the dangerous possibility of creating a massive backlash against the government)

(2) Complete overthrow of the Iranian government (and all those currently in power will not want to surrender their power)

The only tactical maneuvar I can see that might diffuse this enough is if the Assembly of Experts puts in a new Supreme Ruler who calls for new elections. This way, the majority of th Iranian government gets to stay in power. But the protesters might be sufficiently satisfied that they will stop protesting the government.

The only problem with that is, there have been only two Supreme Rulers. The first, Grand Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, was made Supreme Leader after the Iranian Revolution in 1979. He remained in that position until his death in 1989, at which point he was replaced by Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who is the current Supreme Leader.

Installing a new Supreme Leader while the current Supreme Leader is still alive might bring into question the fallibility of the Supreme Leader and the fallibility of the Assembly of Experts and the fallibility of the Islamic Theocracy of Iran.

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/iranincrisis/2009/06/200962355233501334.html

WARNING: IMAGES OF GRAPHIC VIOLENCE

Neda Agha Soltan, an Iranian student protesting the presidential elections with her father, was shot by a basij member (a paramilitary group loyal to the Iranian government) from a rooftop. She bled to death almost immediately. People nearby captured the moments after the shot on cell cameras. The video has been uploaded to youtube and has been shown on CNN and other media. (Her name has been reported in some places as Neda Soltani)

Neda means “voice” in Persian and “Neda” has become the rallying cry for some Iranian protesters.

The shot appears to have been from a rifle (the bullet went through her and splattered blood behind where she was standing) and the bullet appears to hit her high, centered, in her chest, probably hitting her heart. Within seconds, blood is coming out of her mouth and nose, covering her face. The start of the longer video shows Neda stepping backwards as she slumps to the ground. If she took a couple steps back after being shot, then the blood splatter on the ground would be consistent with the shooter being on a roof or other position above her.

This video shows Neda just after being shot. She is seen falling to the ground.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZERJTB3Go8s

This is another video, taken from a different angle and shorter duration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkJ274UIYv0

Wikipedia has an article here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neda_Soltani

It seems like the Supreme Leader of Iran is quickly losing his options. On one extreme: he resorts to massive and violent crackdowns and resorts to tyranny to keep the political oppostion in line for the next decade or so. At another end, Iran undergoes another revolution. Not only is Mousavi put in as president, but the Supreme Leader is ousted, and possibly the Iranian constitution is rewritten or thrown out completely.

A peaceful solution is quickly being eliminated as an option. How can the Iranian people make peace with the Supreme Leader who commanded the Iranian military and police to kill people like Neda? Things are either going to get ugly and Mousavi will take power, or the Supreme Leader maintains power and there is going to be a complete blackout and we’ll never know what really happened in Iran in 2009.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, made a public speech today endorsing Ahmadinejad as the winner of the presidential election, denying that any election fraud took place, and telling Iranians that they must stop protesting the establishment government.

Many view the speech as little more than a threat to the protesters in the streets of Iran to shut up and go home… or else. Essentially, this speech removes all possible alternatives to the situation but two. There will be no recount. There will be no new vote. There will be no dialogue with Mousavi and the protesters. The only options left are (1) do exactly what the Ayatolla says and accept the status quo or (2) continue to protest and face the wrath of the Supreme Leader of Iran who commands the police and military of that nation.

Clearly Ayatollah Khamenei is gambling that the threat of retaliation will force the protesters to accept his ruling. But his move escalated the situation to the threat of widespread military crackdown on the protesters, which might only make things worse.

The protesters believe they have been cheated by the election. They believe their vote has been ignored. They believe Mousavi won the election and the government is ignoring those results. But the Ayatollah’s speech adds more to the list of grievances being protested. Now the supporters of Mousavi have been told that they have no right to free speech, no right to dissent, no recourse to deal with perceived injustices. Yesterday, hundreds of thousands of Mousavi supporters marched peacefully through the streets of Iran. If all these protests had been violent demonstrations, one might understand the Ayatollah’s calls to end the protests. But the most recent and clearly massive protests have been peaceful. And the Ayatollah demands that even peaceful marches be stopped.

Even if the Ayatollah wins this round and the protests stop, there is no way these Iranians, these peaceful protesters, these supporters of Mousavi, there is no way these people will forget the injustices their government has done to them.

How this ends, I still cannot see. The only non-violent solution right now is for the protesters to shut up and go home and accept the establishment as it is. The alternative is to continue protesting, which will certainly lead to violence. Whether it looks like a Tieneman Square crackdown with massive deaths and a massive government coverup, or whether the protesters can somehow leverage the abuse of the government into some sort of “velvet revolution” and a peaceful change to their government, is unknown. Both outcomes are possible.

Those of us not in Iran will have to wait and see. That assumes the outcome isn’t buried under a mountain of government coverup to the point that there is nothing to look at.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009619102110594729.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961923416905779.html

http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/2009/06/200961781431119985.html

So, an overview of the elections and protests going on in Iran at the moment.

The 2009 Iranian presidential race was between the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a reformist challenger, Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

During the campaign, Mousavi said he wanted to allow privately owned television stations (currently all state owned), to transfer the control of law enforcement from the Supreme Leader to the President (the president is elected, the Supreme Leader is not), to dismantle Iran’s “Moral Police”, to review any laws that discriminate against women, to boost Iran’s international standing by reducing tension with other nations.

Mousavi acknowleges the facts of the Holocaust while Ahmadinejad questions whether the Holocaust really happenend.

Ahmadinejad was first elected president in 2005. He is critical of the US and Israel, and is pushing Iran’s nuclear program. Human Rights Watch reports that human rights in Iran have deteriorated since Ahmadinejad became president. Prisoners are tortured. Prisoners are held in secret prisons. They also report that Ahmadinejad shows no tolerance for peaceful protests and gatherings.

In 2006, Ahmadinejad forced numerous scientists and professors to resign or retire. It has been referred to as “second cultural revolution”. In December 2006, students protested Ahmadinejad during a speech he was giving at a university, shouting “Death to the dictator”, burning pictures of Ahmadinejad, and setting off firecrackers.

Ahmadinejad has been accused of corruption, mismanagement, and discrimination.

This isn’t to say that Mousavi is the perfect candidate, but he seems to have the possibility of improving conditions in Iran. As for America’s immediate interest, Iran’s nuclear program, both Ahmadinejad and Mousavi support the nuclear program.

Probably more importantly, though, Iran’s President is not the policy maker in Iran, the Supreme Leader is. Iran has had only two Supreme Leaders. The first started in 1979, during the Iranian Revolution, and his name was Ruhollah Khomeini, with the title Ayatollah. The Ayatollah Khomeini was supreme leader of Iran from 1979 until 1989, when he died. Ali Khamenei was then appointed Supreme Leader of Iran, and has remained in that position ever since. The Supreme Leader is considered as the ultimate head of the Iranian political and governmental establishment, above that of Iran’s president. According to the constitution, he has the last say in internal and foreign policies, control of all of the armed forces, and control of state broadcast. The head of the Judicial branch is also directly appointed by him.

Anyone hoping that Iran will radically shift in its policies if Mousavi replaces Ahmadinejad may be having too high of expectations. So long as Iran is a theocracy with a cleric being it’s non-elected Supreme Leader, Iran can only change so much.

The 12 June 2009 Iranian presidential election results were 63% of the votes for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and 34% for Mir-Hossein Mousavi. Accusations of election fraud has been thrown about. Mousavi’s supporters have slogans including “Where is my vote”. On 15 June 2009, Mousavi made his first post-election appearance with hundreds of thousands of his supporters in a rally in Tehran, despite being warned by state officials that any such rally would be illegal.

Iranian police have been cracking down on protesters, arresting more than 100 prominent anti-government figures. The police have also opened fire on protesters. As of 16 June 2009, there have been 20 confirmed deaths. The government has tried to quell the protests by blocking internet sites, including facebook, youtube, and twitter. Text messaging has been blocked. Foreign journalists have never had much access inside Iran, but since the protests, Iran has arrested a number of foreign journalists and confiscated their tapes.

Al Jazeera has described the situation as the “biggest unrest since the 1979 revolution.”

Now, I’m not sure if Mousavi won the election and Ahmadinejad stole it through election fraud, or if Ahmadinejad really did win the election. The country is an Islamic theocracy. About 77% of the population is literate. Considering that America is 99% literate and there is still a strong religious political presence in the US that pushes for Creationism to be taught in public schools, it isn’t beyond the realm of possibility that a right wing hardliner like Ahmadinejad really did get a majority of the vote. I mean, America reelected Bush in 2004, so crazy people win elections all the time.

But I’m not sure if that is the deciding factor here. In fact, I’m pretty sure it has a good chance of being completely irrelevant. It was a student revolution in 1979, among other things, that brought about the Iranian revolution against the corrupt and evil Shah of Iran. If Ahmadinejad is viewed as corrupt and evil by enough Iranians, then the election results won’t really matter. The Iranian government cracking down on protests to the point of killing protesters, shutting down communications, and arresting and black-bagging critics, certainly won’t help their standing in public opinion.

The difference between this event and the 1979 revolution, though, is that there is no political power vacuum yet. In 1979, the Shah was out of Iran when the revolution happened, and the military and police did not oppose the revolution. As of now, the police are cracking down on dissidents, Ahmadinejad is still president, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is still the Supreme Ruler, and the theocracy is still in power.

The question is whether or not the current supporters of Mousavi can create enough of a sea-change in Iran to make any lasting change in Iran’s political landscape. I don’t have the answer to that question. It certainly looks like it is possible. At this point, I think all we can do is watch and cross our fingers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iranian_presidential_election,_2009

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahmoud_Ahmadinejad

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir-Hossein_Mousavi

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009613181040285185.html