Why Ahmadinejad Can't Show His Face
Submitted by Amir Taheri on Tue, 10/20/2009 - 23:28
Printer-friendly version
Send to friend
PDF version
Amir Taheri
To cancel or not to cancel? For the last three months, that has been the question for Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
His allegedly fraudulent re-election last June triggered a crisis that has shaken the Islamic Republic, forcing the authorities to cancel dozens of events that the opposition might have used as cover for mass protests.
Among those are the Asian Games, the 20th anniversary of Ayatollah Khomeini's death and the start of the second decade of Ali Khamenei's reign as the "supreme guide," the International Jamboree of Islamic Girl Guides and virtually all of Ahmadinejad's trademark visits to the provinces. Even major soccer matches have been canceled or, for contests against foreign teams, transferred to other countries.
There was one event that the regime dared not cancel: the annual Jerusalem Day at the end of the fasting month of Ramadan. The regime managed to mobilize thousands of supporters -- but the opposition succeeded in bringing almost as many people into the streets with cries of "Death to the dictator!" Many Iranians dubbed the occasion "Iran Day" and chanted slogans that indicated a rejection of the regime's anti-Israel and pro-Hamas positions.
Now the regime is pondering canceling the annual ceremony of "cursing the Great Satan" on Nov. 4 -- the 30th anniversary of the day in 1979 that Khomeinist "students" raided the US embassy compound in Tehran, taking hostage the diplomats who'd be held for 444 days.
The occasion has entered Khomeinist folklore as the second-most important date on the Islamist calendar, after Feb. 11, which marks the mullahs' seizure of power.
On Nov. 4, militants gather in front of the former embassy, long since transformed into a "Museum of American Crimes," to burn US flags and an effigy of the sitting US president. The rituals start with the reading of a message from the "supreme guide," calling for the "destruction of America," followed with vitriolic speeches by regime grandees, including the president.
This year, however, the democracy movement has served notice it intends to transform the occasion into a day of "opposition to despotism and terror."
Appeals on Web sites and via e-mail and phone urge Iranians to "turn out en masse" to show their rejection of "evil xenophobia" and support for free elections. Instructions for pro-democracy activists include replacing the traditional anti-US slogans with 12 new slogans targeting the Khomeinist regime.
Judging by the part of the regime's internal debate that's leaked to the public, three options are on the table:
* Scale down the event by limiting it to a televised reading of the supreme guide's message at the former embassy.
Supporters of that option, including Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, argue that the move would send a positive signal to the Obama administration, encouraging it to offer greater concessions. At the same time, a scaled-down event would deny pro-democracy groups the chance to flex their muscles in the streets.
* Opt for "the biggest anti-American demonstration in history," in the words of Revolutionary Guard commander Gen. Aziz Jaafari, who thinks he can maintain control of the capital and keep pro-democracy demonstrators off central streets.
A huge anti-American demonstration, he argues, would force Obama, who's supposedly desperate to reduce world anger at America, to placate Iran with more concessions.
* Quietly cancel the event, thus avoiding the exposure of divisions in the ruling establishment. This option is advocated by some regime grandees, including Ayatollah Nateq Nuri, a former speaker of the Islamic parliament.
Ahmadinejad's position remains unknown. But one thing seems certain: He won't appear in person to deliver the usual anti-US tirade -- because he's no longer sure of the reception he might get from the crowds, even ones his agents put them together.
Another thing that seems certain is that, outside some shrinking radical circles, anti-Americanism is no longer fashionable even in the Khomeinist establishment.
For the first time this year, there will be no festival of anti-American films and no exhibitions of anti-American art. Nor will there be the traditional avalanche of books and article about the "Great Satan's crimes." Most of the usual seminars and conferences on "American crimes" have been canceled, depriving many foreign professional anti-Americans of a free trip to Iran.
Anti-Americanism never acquired roots in Iran, where a majority has always had a positive view of the United States. The regime used anti-Americanism as part of its ideological paraphernalia, to garner support from the left and radical regimes across the globe.
A source close to pro-democracy-movement leader Mir Hussein Moussavi says the opposition hopes to "focus attention on the real enemy within, not the imagined one abroad."
The opposition is concerned that, while it is fighting the regime, America may give Ahmadinejad some legitimacy by accepting him as interlocutor. "We have the courage to fight this regime, but do you?" is the message that Moussavi hopes to transmit to America and other democratic powers.
FamilySecurityMatters.org Contributing Editor Amir Taheri writes for the NY Post. His latest book is The Persian Night: Iran Under the Khomeinist Revolution. 
Ahmedinijad is just a tool of
Ahmedinijad is just a tool of islam, if not him then some other as in a theocratic system like islam the more radical will be king. Till islam, nazism, facism, communism etc is there dictators, thugs etc will be there.
So if islam, nazism, fas..
So if islam, nazism, fas.. commu are all bad... how about the pseudo dictators of capitalism?
Well, that is our old
Well, that is our old position; democracy is an attempt to really let the people decide who rules, however dumb the masses seem to be. But we know also that it is of vital importance to educate the people from their birth on well, so that later they can be informed and inform themselves, so as to be able to make good informed choices.
And yes, in the democratic world there always are people who want to be powerful without informed choice by the people, like big multinationals, but at least there also is a great deal of freedom of speech, which helps people to find out the truth and act on information about power-abuse.
And it seems to many of us that precisely because America is free, has freedom of speech, and is arguably in many regards successful and powerful, that Islamic propaganda is so anti-American. And this propaganda still influences Muslims all over the world, including those in Western countries, so much.
But at the same time there are the vehement, merciless shaming and ridiculing protests against Islam and the atrocious behavior of some of its followers, whether or not it is inspired by Islamic teachings.
And I believe that Muslims now can choose between Democracy and Tyranny (all non-democratic government-systems) and so also between Democratic and Theocratic/ dictatorial countries. And only inside the Democratic circle they then can choose between Islamic-Democratic countries, like Turkey, or other sorts of Democratic countries, like America, which one they like more.
But, as I see it, if Muslims, on aggregate, criticize America and Democratic countries more than the world's theocratic and dictatorial states, then the many other-belief-followers that now lash out so vehemently, but only verbally, against Islam and the bad behavior of its followers, now have ample motivation and justification to do that. Because an Islam, and a vast majority of Muslims, who support or condone theocracy and tyranny, and prefer that over our democratic system, over our chosen representatives, are really our enemies.
Whereas we desperately want the majority of Western Muslims to be in favor of democracy, even at the cost of Islamic tyrannical governments. We want to start holding all Muslims a little bit accountable for what sort of government system they prefer and support, everywhere.
And I can see that choosing a worldwide best government system can be a matter of opinion, instead that one has to be better than the other, OK. But if Muslims even want to topple or blockade democracy, then they are in big opposition to the vast majority of other-belief-followers worldwide.
Then it is no wonder we prefer ex-Muslims over Muslims a lot.
He has lately realized that
He has lately realized that he looks like a monkey, as true muslims don't evolve like the human race, they devolve...
Long live the Iranian people.
Long live the Iranian people.
Demsci: A very thoughtful
Demsci: A very thoughtful comment and indeed let us all hope that the Umma will choose democracy over other forms of government.
As CHurchil said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others that have been tried."
However, I forsee two main problems with "democratising" the Dar-ul-Islam.
1. Traditional Muslims have to give up the "Islam has all the answers to everything" attitude, otherwise the only acceptable rule for them is the 'divinely mandated' Caliphate/Imamate.
2. Many parts of the Dar-ul-Islam have no tradition of democracy at all and so do not understand it. Therefore, as you say, a big effort will be needed to educate them as to what democracy is really about - the limitation of the powers of government and chioce of rulers.
Consider the recent election in Afghanistan: massive fraud, votes bought for cash, etc. It can be argued that the process of vote-buying by ALL major candidates was down to their corruption, but I wonder how much was down to the ignorance of the Afghanis.
If you don't realise that your vote gives you the collective power to decide who governs, then why not 'sell' it to the highest bidder?
If you don't believe that you actually require a genuine mandate from the people to rule, why not offer cash-for-votes?
If you look at those muslim countries that have 'democracy' (and in particular those that have Sharia law as the basis for their constitutions) then mostly there are various limits to the franchising of the populace or other limits on who may elect the government or who may stand for election (beyond the reasonable ones like being a citizen of the country in which you wish to stand).
At its worst you have Iran, where the elected government cannot pass any legislation unless it gets the nod from the "governing council", thus the real government is not the elected members of the parliament but this group of Mullahs etc.
Demsci, Nice to see you
Demsci,
Nice to see you again...very well said!
#4....LOL good one....not nice, perhaps...but funny! People said that about G. W. Bush, too!
Looks like the Iranians shook up the place a little...letting the government know they're tired of their bull s..t and they're a little scared now....way to go brave citizens of humanity.