| Submit your comments on this article |
| Syria-Lebanon-Iran |
| Watch the streets for Iran's future |
| 2006-01-06 |
| For months Iranian activists and even moderate clerics have been concerned about the radical tendencies of Iran's new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In the past few weeks - after he said that the Holocaust was a myth, called for Israel to be wiped off the map and banned Western music from state-run radio and television, the concern spread around the world. But there is another development in Iran - this one positive and with great potential - that the world should not miss: civic defiance against Ahmadinejad's authoritarianism is increasing. From the outset of his term, the new president's policies exhibited a volatile mixture of nationalism and radical Islamic social engineering. While touting Iran's nuclear program, he has promised to redistribute wealth to the poor and curb capitalists (without yet delivering on either promise). Ahmadinejad's language has been replete with contempt for religious and ethnic minorities, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, rejection of compromise, and readiness for violence in dealing with the political opposition and minorities, including Kurds and Arabs. His performance is disturbingly reminiscent of those of European fascist leaders of the 1920s and 1930s. While policy makers and pundits in the West are rightly chagrined by the language coming from Iran's new leader, less has been said and little has been done by the international community - now or in the past - to support ordinary citizens in Iran who have persistently been pressing for genuine democracy, the rule of law and economic opportunity. Iranians are risking imprisonment or worse by engaging in protests, not to satisfy American or European foreign policy, but because they are fed up living with fear, economic misery and arbitrary edicts from unelected clerics. Against all odds, nonviolent tactics such as protests and strikes have gradually become common in Iran's domestic political scene. Medical professionals, teachers and workers have gone on strike. Last month, Tehran's bus drivers walked off the job, paralyzing the city. In the week of the presidential elections, more than 6,000 Iranian women took to the streets to protest discriminatory laws, especially the ban on women from running for the presidency. Student activists have frequently resorted to strikes, sit-ins and demonstrations, and the violent response of the regime and repeated attacks of the paramilitaries have not succeeded in silencing them. From prison, a leading dissident and defector from the Revolutionary Guards, Akbar Ganji, is electrifying the country with hunger strikes, declaring the regime illegitimate. Unfortunately these are uncoordinated actions, and their organizers have not known how to anticipate and counter the inevitable repressive countermeasures - beatings, detentions, torture and extrajudicial executions. While there is a grass-roots movement for equal rights and civil liberties waiting to be roused in Iran, its cadres so far lack a clear strategic vision and steady leadership. Moreover, the failure of Iran's parliamentary reformists and the ensuing victory of Ahmadinejad have tumbled society into a mood of despair. But the new president's failure to deliver on any of his crowd-pleasing promises will surely create a new opportunity for Iranians who remain determined to resist repression and demand real economic reform. That determination should also be reflected by the international community in what it does to support freedom and justice in Iran. Governments should increase pressure on Tehran to stop human rights abuses and release political prisoners. Nongovernmental organizations around the world should expand their efforts to assist Iranian civil society, women's groups, unions and journalists. And the global news media should finally begin to cover the steady stream of strikes, protests and other acts of opposition. A regime like the one in Tehran always wants to pretend that it is popular and legitimate, whether it is or not. There is a historical legacy of such help being effective. Catholics in Europe and the United States aided the trade union Solidarity in Poland and the "people power" movement in the Philippines. African-American organizations gave crucial support to South African civic groups fighting apartheid. American labor unions backed the anti-Pinochet campaign in Chile. In each instance, the objective was assistance, not interference. That can also be the model in Iran. The constituency for justice and equality in Iranian society is vast but inchoate. Yet it is those Iranians, and not the power-hoarding, self-enriching members of the repressive government, who will ultimately shape Iran's future. Their prospects will not be enhanced either by pleading with Iran's rulers for moderation or threatening external intervention. As with a score of other peoples who transformed their countries from below - such as Poland, South Africa, the Philippines, Chile, Ukraine and Lebanon - Iranians themselves can summon the will and apply the nonviolent strategies that dissolve oppression. |
| Posted by:Dan Darling |
| #21 Aris, the point is that non-violence only works if the oppressor is susceptible to conscience. Many, if not most, dictatorial types especially early in the life span of the dictorship don't have morals or conscience as we define them. Therefore non-violent suasion works not at all. The MM certainly fall under that label. There is no way they will allow non-violence to make an appreciable dent. Just like Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot or Hitler or .......... After a regime has been in control for some number of generations there is a chance that it will mellow to the point that non-violence will work as a reforming tool. Iran is certainly not there a bare 25 years past the inception of the fascist religous tyranny. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-01-06 20:57 |
| #20 AQ is helping enforece the MM's rule in trade for sheltering it's leadership and support I would guess too Pappy. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet O´ Doom 2006-01-06 20:20 |
| #19 Anyone has knowledge of how willing Iran's forces have been to fire on their own civilians in the past? In August 1994, some Pasdaran [Revolutionary Guard] units reportedly refused orders from the Interior Minister to intervene in the riots in the city of Ghazvin, 150 km. west of Tehran which left more than 30 people dead, 400 wounded and over 1,000 arrested. Subsequently, senior officers in the army, air force and the usually loyal Islamic Revolutionary Guard reportedly stated that they would no longer order their troops into battle to quell civil disorder. In a communiqué sent to Ayatollah Ali Khameini, [they] stated that "the role of the country’s armed forces is to defend its borders and to repel foreign enemies from its soil, not to control the internal situation or to strengthen one political faction above another." They are said to have then recommended the use of Baseej volunteers for this purpose. In a move believed to indicate a shift in the trust of the ruling clerics from the Pasdaran to the Baseej volunteer force, on 17 April 1995 Ayatollah Ali Khameini reportedly promoted a civilian to the rank of full general, placing him above [the] commander-in-chief of the Pasdaran and Brigadier General Ali Shahbazi of the regular armed forces. Source. Based on Iranian websites and other sources, a significant portion of the 'volunteers' are of Palestinian, Lebanese, Chechen, and Afghani origin. |
| Posted by: Pappy 2006-01-06 19:02 |
| #18 Aris K, Iranian websites have stated that the regime is using Palestinian mercinaries to crush recent demonstations since the Iranian troops are unwilling to do it. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2006-01-06 16:38 |
| #17 As the saying goes, the success of Ghandi said more about the British then it did for the effectiveness of non-violence. How'd that thing at Tienaman Square work out again? Either approach, that non-violence solves nothing, that non-violence solves everything, is ridiculously simplistic. Tienamen is a data-point. Ukraine, Georgia, Lebanon are other data-points. The outcome seems to depend on the willingness of the armed forces to shoot on their own civilians -- and it seems to me that this willingness (or unwillingness) to a great extent derives from the ethnic and class homegeinity between these armed forces and the protesters. You don't shoot on the neighboorhood kid that's friends with your son. Anyone has knowledge of how willing Iran's forces have been to fire on their own civilians in the past? This may provide a hint on how likely a widespread popular peaceful revolt is to be successful or crushed instead -- though it still doesn't help us determine on how likely such a peaceful revolt is to *happen*. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2006-01-06 16:18 |
| #16 |
| Posted by: Brett 2006-01-06 15:53 |
| #15 civic defiance against Ahmadinejad's authoritarianism is increasing. Yawn, let me know when that "defiance" includes bullets and their so-called "morals police" being gibbeted. Until then, SSDD. From the outset of his term, the new president's policies exhibited a volatile mixture of nationalism and radical Islamic social engineering. While touting Iran's nuclear program, he has promised to redistribute wealth to the poor and curb capitalists (without yet delivering on either promise). So, where's all the money going? Well, shuckey darn, a big ol' nuclear weapons program usually tends to suck down bazillions at a gulp. Mebbe that's what's happened to all the moolah. As noted already about rural Iran, you know - that vast tract of underedumahcated goat herders who think lopping off hands and wimmen's privates is jes hunky dory, is where the major support for the mullahs resides. The city folk have neither the numbers or the weapons to force any change. Killing a huge portion of the mullahs, their revolutionary guard and Iran's legislators all at once is the best we can hope for. Sure, maybe all we'll get are some less-mad-mullahs. But that should just make the "rinse and repeat" indicator light up on our launch boards. We are faced with crippling Iran's facist government or standing by as they obtain nuclear weapons. This is one of recent history's most glaring no-brainers since fighting Hitler. If we do not crush Iran's nuclear aspirations, it will rank as one of the greatest military follies of all time. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-01-06 15:23 |
| #14 I am not sure the bazaars or the countryside supports the MM. The photoblogging from the Iranian elections made it seem like NO ONE was voting. There is widespread suspicion that most of the votes in the last election were bogus. However one thing that is obvious is that the MM are not going to give up power peacefully. Al |
| Posted by: Frozen Al 2006-01-06 14:44 |
| #13 ...The ONLY way I can see a popular overthrow is if the MMs overplay their hand internally SO badly that you get a spontaneous nationwide uprising. As was pointed out, the overwhelming majority of Iranians are rural, not urban, and they still pretty solidly support the MMs. Another thing to keep in mind is that we are dealing with people who - at best - dislike us far more than they dislike the MMs. If the best-case scenario somehow happpened and the current MM leadership was strung up aux lanternes , all we would get is Somewhat Less Mad Mullahs to replace them. There would be no sudden dawning of freedom and renunciation of terror and/or nuclear weapons, just a promise from the new SLMMs to be nicer in the future - and the future would last until the next 'provocation' from the Great Satan, the Joos, or whatever else some senile holy man in a mosque in Teheran decides is worth it. IMHO, these folks are the Imperial Shinto Japan of the 21st century - nothing short of vaporizing a good chunk of their nation will get their attention. Mike |
| Posted by: Mike Kozlowski 2006-01-06 12:05 |
| #12 This kind of story pops up every time there is saber rattling in Iran. I remember reading similar articles here at Rantburg over a year ago. Sit-ins and hunger strikes are not going to bring down the Mad Mullahs. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2006-01-06 10:45 |
| #11 As the saying goes, the success of Ghandi said more about the British then it did for the effectiveness of non-violence. How'd that thing at Tienaman Square work out again? The screws will keep getting tightened until there is no effective resistance possible and the out side NGOs can't do squat about it. |
| Posted by: AlanC 2006-01-06 10:17 |
| #10 Spengler made a good point the other day. Giving power to the demos is only good insofar as the people are good. If the people have a zero sum culture that condones things like taking booty, might makes right, "a thousand years of tyranny are better than one day of anarchy," and the US (or Joooos) must be rich because they are stealing everyone else's wealth, then the result of democracy is going to be Ahmadinejad or Nasrallah or Saddam Hussein. Gromguru is right. Khomeini came to power based on his popularity in the Bazaars. That was the phrase that was used at the time: bazaar power. These are rural people or rural transplants into the cities. They are anti-West and religiously conservative. One of the mistakes that we keep making in these conflicts is that we keep allying with the cosmopolitan city dwellers when the fighters and the opposition are coming from the small towns and farms. Well, as we are finding out with our own politics, the city dwellers are corrupt, aren't very good fighters, and tend to be more interested in entitlements than freedom. In Vietnam, we controlled the cities easily, but had a hard time controlling the countryside. We are running into the same problem in Iraq. Goatherders and farmers fight us or at the very least look the other way while Baathists and Jihadis use them as a base to launch attacks. It is an an epic mistake to expect the urban masses to rise up against the mullahs. The "street" wants bread and circuses, not freedom. If you read Josephus or Maccabees, the rallying cry of the largely rural fighters is freedom -- the freedom to live their lives the way they always have without the corrosive effects of Hellenistic culture forced upon them. Depending on the Iranian street to rise up against the Mullahs will result in disappointment -- just as the Iraqi street never rose up against Saddam. I've been thinking of some ways to ways to win in this environment. I don't think that they are well enough thought through yet... at least not to present here. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2006-01-06 10:10 |
| #9 I should have been more specific in my earlier comment. The street isn't completely irrelevant but the most important thing is to watch what happens to each agency in the government. Agencies make mistakes and agencies controlled by ideological hacks make more mistakes and egregious ones at that. When a mistake happens, what happens to the ideological hacks at the top. If nothing happens, it creates a culture that results in more mistakes. If people get sacked, it may result in a schism amongst the hacks with the political equivalent of red-on-red conflict. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-01-06 09:47 |
| #8 Watch the |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2006-01-06 09:15 |
| #7 Is the "International Community" that useless? Yes. |
| Posted by: Shase Uleang1784 2006-01-06 09:05 |
| #6 The Street only works when the Gov power is weak and corrodeed by inside. No signs of that in Iran. |
| Posted by: Elmeatle Ebbomorong1203 2006-01-06 08:49 |
| #5 Ahmadi Nejad is currently in the process of purging his potential enemies from the higher levels of govt, the military, the diplomatic core, the police and various special security forces. One problem with this is that he will basically own the country and they country has problems. |
| Posted by: mhw 2006-01-06 08:25 |
| #4 THE STREET WILL RISE UP! Yeah right, that's what they always say. Just like the Turkish Army and the European Street. Some movies are had to watch, just cause the plot is always EXACTLY the same. I'mmadinjihad has consolidated enough power to begin his purges. Unless someone manages to bump him off, he will follow the traditional Hitler, Stalin, Saddam path to absolute power. The only question left is at what point will this same ol' story end. Will it end when he is killed? Or will we get down to the scene with a digital red clock, ticking down the seconds until the bomb goes off before Arnold defuses it? Will cities be turned to glass to be followed by an epic battle scene between good and evil? Or will we let it go all the way to Mad Max? The first options are always the least bloody. |
| Posted by: 2b 2006-01-06 06:57 |
| #3 The article assumes a level of liberality and reasonableness that is not evidenced by any actions or words by the Iranian government. The Polish situation succeeded because even the Poles who supported Moscow were reasonable. How many reasonable religious fanatics have we seen in the Middle East? Heh. |
| Posted by: DanNY 2006-01-06 06:36 |
| #2 Watch the streets for Iran's future The bulk of Iran's population are rural, city streets mean nada. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-01-06 05:34 |
| #1 If you can persecute them from any angle of the law, including GOD himself, what is the problem with deposing these bad Kings? Is the "International Community" that useless? |
| Posted by: newc 2006-01-06 01:34 |