Revolution Redux?
Submitted by Amir Taheri on Thu, 06/25/2009 - 07:06
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF versionAmir Taheri
Is Iran replaying its revolution of 30 years ago?
At first glance, there are many similarities between this revolt and the 1979 one.
First, the streets of Tehran and other major cities have become the power struggle's principal arena.
In 1979, a big part of Iranian society had lost all faith in institutional politics. The parliament was discredited, because it was composed of the members of a single party, Rastakhiz (Renaissance), set up by the shah. The Council of Ministers, headed by the prime minister, was dismissed as irrelevant if only because all power rested with the monarch.
Because there were no parties to act as an interface between the power elite and the broader society, small groups of militants, often operating in the streets, acted as vehicles for political expression.
Today, we have a similar situation. Within just a few days, all institutions of the state have ceased to function properly. Communication within the political elite is no longer conducted through those institutions but via street rallies and counterdemonstrations.
Second, both struggles began as efforts to enforce the existing constitution.
In 1979, the shah was criticized for having violated the 1906 Constitution, notably by preventing political pluralism and imposing a one-party system. Today's movement started as a protest of the alleged rigging of the June 12 presidential election, in violation of the 1979 Constitution.
The 1979 movement quickly went beyond its initial aim, re-emerging as a revolutionary bid to change the regime. Today, we're witnessing the rapid transformation of what started as a protest against electoral fraud into a bid for regime change.
Mir Hussein Mousavi, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's leading rival, has put it clearly in his latest statement: "This is no longer just about an election. It is about the nature of the system as a whole."
The 1979 uprising represented an unusually broad coalition, with at least a dozen leftist groups and almost as many Islamist factions along with nationalist, social-democratic and liberal outfits.
The same is true today. Dozens of different opposition groups -- ranging all the way from moderate Khomeinist to monarchist -- have come together to challenge the regime under a single umbrella.
But the differences between the 1979 events and those of today are even more striking.
To start with, the ruling establishment back then remained reasonably united until the very end. Even after the shah had left the country, no key regime figure switched sides. Today, however, the ruling elite is split down the middle. Almost as many regime dignitaries have sided with Mousavi as have backed Ahmadinejad.
In 1979, the people looked to the Shiite clergy for leadership. This time, the clergy is pushed into the background. The new "moral references" of Iranian society are no longer clerics; they are intellectuals, academics, lawyers and independent trade-union leaders. Whatever the struggle's outcome, one thing is certain: Mullahs will never regain their position of moral authority in Iranian politics.
Another difference is that the ruling elite in 1979 had little stomach for a fight. Many of its members had homes and investments abroad and thus could just pack and leave -- they weren't forced to fight with their backs to the wall.
But the overwhelming majority of today's ruling elite has no fallback position. If driven from power, "Supreme Guide" Ali Khamenei or Ahmadinejad would have nowhere to go. They have no choice but to fight to the bitter end. This time, it is in the opposition camp that one finds most of those who can pack and go to golden exile abroad.
There's yet another difference. In 1979, a majority of Iranians would probably have voted for the shah, had there been elections. Few, however, were prepared to fight for him in the streets. This time, the regime may well lose a free and fair election but still is capable of fielding large numbers of supporters who are ready to die and kill for it.
Finally, one must take into account differences between the shah and Khamenei.
The shah had no stomach for bloody repression. His constant, and rather charmingly naive, motto was: "A king cannot kill his own people."
In contrast, Khamenei has built his career as a tough street fighter. In his Friday sermon in Tehran declaring war on the opposition, he made it clear that he wouldn't shy away from a bloodbath in order to prevent regime change.
The perception that the shah was weak and unwilling to hit back played a crucial role in disheartening his supporters and encouraging his opponents. That perception was one reason so many of his closest aides simply fled the country at the first opportunity.
So is Iran heading for a civil war? My answer is a cautious no.
In a history spanning more than 2,500 years, the nation has seen only three events that can be described as civil wars: in the 5th century BC, in the 6th century AD and in 1911.
The reason is that as a power struggle builds up, Iranians know how to distinguish the side that's going to win. Once they've identified the winner, they will all rally to his side. No one is left on the other side to provoke a civil war.
Call it opportunism, if you like, but this is a part of the template of Iranian politics.
One's only hope is that the side that realizes it's losing won't deny the evidence and will agree to bow out without provoking a prolonged and bloody conflict.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amir Taheri writes for the New York Post. His latest book, The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution, is due out next month.
I guess you are 100%
I guess you are 100% right.
Besides there is another point you forgot to mention. Like the totalitarian communist regimes, Iranian mullahs are implementing utter terror to subjugate its population. Like China, Iran is charging for bullets and massacring its population by chopping them with axe, throwing them off the bridge, clubbing them to death, shooting and clubbing 12-15 year old boys, shooting women and mercilessly clubbing them, throwing any and all protesters remaining alive in jails etc. etc.
This un-abating utter terror will work in favor of the regime and most common people do not have the stomach to take such brutalities. They will surrender to regime. This is psychology. Most non-Islamic nations that became Islamic is through terror. Muhammad (may piss be upon him forever) understood the utility of pure terror in politics.
If Iranian people want some
If Iranian people want some change they would need to work from outside and an all out war on the regime is the only means to freedom, which will NOT take place in my opinion. What a strange world we live in. Iranian people made a istake in supporting Islamic government and still shout allahu akbar in streets while fighting against this Islamic regime. I know some Iranians and they still think Islam is being distorted by mullahs of Iran. Unless Iranian people learn the fact about Islam, karma will subject them to even more hardships. What you sow, you reap.
I hope Iranians will succeed
I hope Iranians will succeed in throwing out the dictatorial regime. The world needs to stand by the peaceful protestors who are facing violence of the worst order by the Basij, Revolutionary guards, and other forces of Khamenei.
The clergy should wonder who they will align with, or whom will they preach, if they are going to use force to crush a movement seeking justice. Is Islam or Allah against justice? Is God served only through the sermons of Khamenei? This same mistake the other followers of Islam have done in the past. So, the intolerance against others. That is why there is unrest wherever followers of Islam are in some sizeable strength. That is the reason the western world sees Islam as danger to other faiths and civic society.
It is time to overthrow the dictators. I hope the sane among the defence forces stand by the public and not by the dictators.
I have been readin FFI since
I have been readin FFI since the last 4 years and never have I ever seen any Muslim commenting on articles which expose the brutalities carried our in the name of Islam.
They will indulge in Ad Homenium and attack every religion and philosophy to defend the deeds of their fellow co religionsts. This war against Islamic Facism and intolerance has to be taken to the enemy's doorstep and the first step is to stop fighting amogst ourselves.
Till the time the Non-Muslims don't unite the hope is very bleak, as the Muslims are maters in trechery in all walks of life. They try and divide their enemies and this has a basis in the teachings of Islam.
Terror and Brutality the
Terror and Brutality the hallmarks of islam unleashed again upon the Iranian people. Islam is a black hole, once a nation sucked into it, rarely can one get out of it.
Hang on Iranians tomorrow may be better sans islam
Personally I think there is
Personally I think there is little or no chance of 'regime change' in Iran (regrettably).
My reasons for so thinking are:
1. Both Ahmedinejad (obviously) and Mousavi claim to support the Islamic republic.
2. Mousavi said: “It is about the nature of the system as a whole.” Now, "the system" is the Islamic republic, so Mousavi is only taking about changing the nature of it, not replacing it.
3. As has been said elsewhere on this forum, the argument between Mousavi (and his backers) and Ahmedinejad (and his backers) is about power within the regime.
4. (Almost) all Muslims seem conditioned to believe that Islamic Governance is the best (despite the overwhelming evidence that it is not - in practice at least), so the idea of overthrowing Islamic Governance must seem anathema to most.
5. The Iranian regime has proved its callousness towards its own many times (another common characteristic of Islam), so why would it not do so again?
It may happen that the Mullahs appear to relinquish (some) control, but through the Council, Mosque and Madrassa, I am sure they wil retain most of it.
Slightly off topic, I suppose:
Why do so many Western people believe/wish that Muslims want Western style democracy?
On a decreasing scale and for a politically stable state:
Can anyone identify ONE liberal (small "L") Islamic democracy?
How about one with true universal sufferage and equality before the law?
How about one that gives equal rights to non-Muslims?
How about one that guarantees Muslim womens' rights and equality?
How about one that doesn't restrict the top political/leadership job(s) to muslim males?
How about one that guarantees freedom of speech - including criticism of Islam itself?
Name just one Islamic state that fits the above, just one, and I'll concede that maybe Islam isn't inimical to democracy, freedom of speech, equal rights etc.
The point I'm making is that we Westerners seem to want to 'fit' Muslims into our mold of liberal, tolerant, democracy.
We may even be right, insofar as it probably would be their best option.
But the Muslims themselves do not want this.
They prefer their own Calpihate/Theocracy/dictatorships, because those systems are Islamically mandated - and no others are.
So, while Islam remains a potent force (and it will, through indoctrination and fear if nothing else) there will be no fundamental change in the "Dar-ul-Islam".
And that, regrettably, is what is needed if Moslems are ever, as a group, to become progressive.
Hello Jonc, I agree with most
Hello Jonc, I agree with most of what you are saying. Formulating it so that it helps me in my Assessment of the current world situation. My comments her are preliminary, still under construction.
But what we do notice in Holland is that the young Muslima's definitely, at least in part, are becoming more and more assertive. There were articles in magazines and newspapers about how self-assured Muslima's almost massively rejected marriages to old-fashioned Muslims for instance.
Just maybe the establishment of large Muslim-minorities in free democratic countries can and will eventually be used to democratic advantege in Islamic countries, with which our world is in so much contact nowadays.
It seems to me that if we democrats would be able to formulate a few key-goals, values, principles, especially to do with the rights of children and women, we have a great trumpcard. When we for instance educate as best we can our Muslima's, give them ample opportunity for independent careers, something many parents like, then: These Muslima's will adapt to getting the number of children of the other women, by and large, their children will be well-educated too, they in the end wil resist and oppose strict Islamic societies. Instead hopefully want some combination of Islam and democracy, or even apostasize.
I do think that Democracy has some trumpcards up its sleeve and Islam its weak spots. It is just that the Democratic people and leaders are so blind to Islamic danger, so absorbed by all sorts of other issues, or are being lazy, enjoying luxury or engaging in petty squabbles maybe.
Demo-crazy, it seems that you
Demo-crazy, it seems that you are as "crazy", meaning enthousiastic, about Democracy as I am. But we could also name those in favor of an Islamic Republic Theo-crazy, couldn't we?
Hello Demsci, you may be
Hello Demsci,
you may be right about Holland, I wouldn't know.
Perhaps we have Muslims from a different demography than you do.
I recall that:
1. the leader of the 7/7 bombers was an educated man.
2. the failed car-bombers at Glasgow(?) airport were both highly educated, being doctors no less.
3. One of our most viciously anti-Western Moslem societies is headed by Anjem Choudary, a man trained as either a solicitor or a Barrister (I forget which).
Sure, we have had some stupid and even at least one mentally deficient failed bombers.
But they wouldn't have done it on their own, more intelligent minds brainwashed them into it and I would suggest that it takes intelligence to so manipulate people.
In this Country at least, most of our extremists seem to be educated people, up to degree level, and they still can believe in a Religion that espouses violence in a way no other does.
I often feel that Islam is rather schizophrenic - you can find ayat (verses) that tell Muslims to treat other people with respect and, a Sura later, others that command them to kill non-muslims - and this schizoid mentality seems to affect Muslims irrespective of their intelligence and/or education.
It's as if their 'religious brain' just does not talk to their 'educated brain' and vice-versa.
Another problem we have is that a large number of the Imams in this Country are Wahhabi trained or influenced. This means that they preach destruction against Britain and the west in our Mosques (as several TV programs have shown).
The real problem with that is that the vast majority of moderate peaceful Moslems (and they are a majority, especially given the strength of the Sufi [liberal/mystic] tradition in the UK) are frightened to speak out against them for fear of being labelled either "bad Moslems" or apostates (and we know what can happen then).
Also, Jihadi literature is readily available from 'Islamic' bookshops etc.
All of this creates a religious environment in which the tacit support of the majority of Muslims can be claimed by the extremists and the extremist voice is the one heard, at least the loudest and most often.
However, I sincerely hope that you are right and that hope lies in the education of the Muslimah, even though they will have to battle against the Madrassa indoctrination, family tradition etc.
The king/shah did murder his
The king/shah did murder his own people. He was quite ruthless, and not covert. This is the main error in this article.