 The temptation in the West (particularly in the media,) is to assume that the Iran situation is a straightforward clash between an incumbent regime and "the people." That's clearly true on a basic level. But as in all complex things, there is always more than one level.
The day before the Friday prayers by Ayatollah Ali-Khameini, a column appeared on Al Jazeera English that offers some tantalizing tidbits about the Ayatollah Khameini (not to be confused with the Ayatollah Khomeini who died in 1989 and whose authority one must assume would never have been questioned, particularly in the streets.) The current Ayatollah is another guy entirely, who was put in place after the previous "SL"'s demise, by a council of men who theoretically, can remove him from power ... read on ... [at left: you say Khameini, I say Khomeini. The current Iran "supreme leader" is pictured on the left, and the 1979 revolution leader on the right]
Not since the 1979 Islamic Revolution when Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini overthrew the shah has Iranian society been so rattled and divided. According to the Iranian constitution, the Guardians of the Constitution are supposed to monitor and sign off on election results. After the votes have been counted and the winner announced by the interior ministry, the Guardians have the responsibility to endorse the result within 10 days if there are no complaints from the defeated candidates. The president-elect is then confirmed and later sworn in by Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But last week's election did not follow these procedures. Despite complaints by Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaei, the opposition candidates, Ayatollah Khamaenei congratulated Ahmadinejad in a public speech and pointed out that he had got 14 million votes more than the first time he was elected president four years ago.
What comes next, is an explanation of how Iran's governmental system works, which suggests that a truism of Western understanding about Iran: that the "supreme leader" is the top man in Iran, is not entirely true...
Many moderate clerics, some of whom are believed to be members of the powerful Assembly of Experts, have questioned the wisdom of Khamenei in hastily endorsing Ahmadinejad's "victory". The Assembly, which selects the country's supreme leader, is chaired by Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani who is considered by many as one of the pillars of the Islamic Revolution. He was the man behind the election of Khamenei as supreme leader soon after the death of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeni in 1989. In theory at least, the Assembly has the constitutional right to question and even replace the supreme leader.
Which brings to mind a couple of paragraphs from that MSNBC.com profile of the opposition leader, Mr. Mousavi:
Mousavi promised economic reform, freedom of expression and a campaign against economic corruption.He also pledged to review laws that discriminate against women, remove the ban on privately owned television stations and curb the power of the supreme leader by taking control of security forces. What? Could it be that Khameini, whose job description includes "commander in chief of the armed forces," and who served as president in the 1980s during the time Mousavi was prime minister (a position which afterward was eliminated) be fearful of his former colleague, and of being removed from power? That brings us back to the Al Jazeera article:
Some influential moderate clerics privately admit that Khamenei has not done "justice" to the presidential candidates and has not treated them with impartiality. This behaviour, they believe, could jeopardise his position as leader since one of the main qualities required of the supreme leader is "justice". Rafsanjani is also the chairman of the Expediency Council which is a body charged with the power to resolve differences or conflicts between parliament and the Guardians of the Constitution, but its true power lies more in its power to oversee the supreme leader. It is a well-known fact that there is a lot of bad blood between Ahmadinejad and Rafsanjani whom the president accuses of corruption and aristocratic behaviour. Ahmadinejad angered Rafsanjani when in his presidential television debate with Mousavi, he alleged that all the three opposition candidates had been put forward by Rafsanjani to defeat him. He further accused Rafsanjani of unlawfully accumulating massive wealth over many years and putting his cronies in the way of the president. The allegations prompted Rafsanjani to write a highly critical open letter to Khamenei, which the supreme leader ignored.
The result has been serious public rift within the establishment and many observers believe Rafsanjani may be encouraging the ferment among supporters of the opposition presidential candidates. Mohammed Khatami, the former Iranian reformist president, has also been serving in the ranks of the "green movement" of Mousavi, who together with fellow candidate Karroubi, have been calling for the annulment of the election which they believe was rigged by Ahmadinejad supporters. All this leaves Khamenei in a very difficult situation. Difficult indeed... If Khamenei were to be removed, you know who would be the most likely next "supreme leader?" Why, Mr. Rafsanjani. I guess politics really is alive and well in Iran. From Bloomberg:
In 1989, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, then the most powerful figure in Iran, supported Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s appointment as supreme spiritual leader. Now, the two men are locked in conflict amid a wave of protests against the June 12 re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Khamenei ally. Rafsanjani supports Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says that he won the vote and has drawn hundreds of thousands of Iranians into the streets to rally behind him. Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are the public faces of a power struggle among Iran’s ruling clerics. As the country is swept up in protests not seen since the 1979 Islamic Revolution, the conflict risks undermining the regime’s existence, said Mohammad-Reza Djalili, an Iran expert at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. “The divisions within the ruling elite in Iran are making it very hard for the authorities to crack down decisively,” Djalili said. The regime “is going through its biggest crisis in 30 years. The divisions are getting deeper and deeper.” Speaking at Friday prayers in Tehran today, Khamenei said Ahmadinejad’s re-election was valid and warned of a crackdown on “political elites” if the unrest continues. “Street demonstrations should end,” Khamenei said. “If they don’t, leading politicians will be held accountable for the chaos.” Rafsanjani’s support legitimizes Mousavi’s fight against the regime, broadening his base and making it harder for the government to respond, said Cliff Kupchan, a senior analyst at New York-based Eurasia Group. “Rafsanjani is extremely influential,” he said. “That is providing a degree of protection to the opposition.” More intrigue: “The political contest playing out in the election is, in fact, among rival factions of the same regime,” said Trita Parsi, an Iran scholar and head of the Washington-based National Iranian American Council, the largest U.S.-Iranian association. Ahmadinejad represents a view that “the established political class has hijacked the revolution,” Parsi said. ... Rafsanjani, imprisoned and tortured by the shah’s secret police, was an associate of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, leader of the Islamic Revolution. Khomeini died in 1989 and Khamenei replaced him with the aid of an endorsement from Rafsanjani, who later that year became president. Rafsanjani remained the key figure in Iranian politics for at least four years because Khamenei lacked authority, Pedram said. After 1993, Khamenei built up his own power base in the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij and other security structures by cultivating younger politicians who had served in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war. Rafsanjani was defeated when he tried to return to office in 2005 presidential elections by Ahmadinejad, 52, a former mayor of Tehran who promised to redistribute oil wealth to the people. During this year’s presidential campaign, Khamenei and Rafsanjani took pot shots at each other, either directly or through Mousavi, 67, and Ahmadinejad. The president complained in a televised debate on June 3 that Rafsanjani was spearheading Mousavi’s campaign and accused the former president’s family of corruption. Rafsanjani sent back an open letter to the supreme leader denouncing Ahmadinejad’s “lies.” He called for a “fraudless” election. Khamenei endorsed Ahmadinejad’s re-election on June 13, calling it a “glittering event.” Amid escalating protests, Khamenei two days later ordered the top clerical body to investigate irregularities, and then requested a partial recount. Mousavi rejected those moves and is demanding new elections. Allies of Rafsanjani and Mousavi include former president Mohammed Khatami, 65, who sought to promote social and political freedoms during his 1997-2005 administration. Three senior religious figures in the holy city of Qom, the center of Islamic learning in Iran, have publicly supported Mousavi. They are Ayatollah Asadollah Bayat Zanjani, Ayatollah Yosuf Sanei and Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri. Rafsanjani is trying to rally support among the clerical establishment against the supreme leader, Pedram said.
Complexity doesn't make for good television copy, but it definitely gets you closer to the truth. Like most people watching this drama unfold, I fully support the Iranians who are rallying in the streets and I'm rooting for them. Hell, I'm even tempted to break out my own green armband. But I'm also cognizant of the fact that as a Westerner, and an outsider, I don't fully understand all that's going on in Iran, nor its complexities and nuances. So like Obama, I think its best to root for the green revolution from a healthy distance. We should pay attention to what's going on, and offer our full moral support. But we should not to demand that American leaders start meddling in the attempts by a people -- any people -- to find their own way to freedom. If they want our help, I'm sure they'll ask for it.
In a sense, I guess you could say I'm taking what should by all rights, be the conservative position.
Labels: Iran, Iran's green revolution |
