So what is each of your most optimistic outcomes and how do you see this realistically getting there?
My best case is that elements of the religious council “find” enough evidence of miscounts to justify calling for a new election - which gives them their opportunity to save face - and then Moussavi wins in “a second round.” Khamenei is a bit diminished within the council and the council is a bit diminished compared to how many perceive their current status (BG’s source notwithstanding) but they are able to negotiate an understanding with Moussavi, keeping the country going mostly where they want it to go with only some concessions to Moussavi in terms of rhetoric and some mild backing off of moral code laws. Some of where they want to go is backing down from nuclear weapons in return for lots of economic concessions and influence.
Hey, it’s possible!
Alternatively the forces in power (headed by Ahmadinejad and Khamenei) agree to put this down hard in the name of the rule of law. Moussavi is arrested for sedition and killed by an unidentified attacker. From there it either fizzles or erupts into all out civil war which no one wants but the gamble seems worth it to the powers that be.
Careful what you wish for. Julius Caesar may have been a tyrant, but no good and much evil flowed from his murder. One of the lessons we should have learned from Iraq is that sometimes, dictatorship, however brutal, is better for a country than any likely alternative.
The problem is that in Iran there are several divisions, cutting across each other:
At the highest level, a (potential) split between Khamenei and the Guardians on one side and Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards on the other. (See above.)
At the grassroots level, the hardline religionists vs. the secular reformers. We can’t really know which has more popular support, but we can be sure each has significant popular support and they’re about evenly matched. Which is a formula for extremely bloody war-to-the-knife civil conflict.
The idea of “Iranian” (as distinct from Persian) national identity vs. Kurdish, Arab, and Balochi nationalists/secessionists (see here) – the latter being quiet at the moment, but if they sniff an opportunity we’ll be hearing a lot from them. Which is a formula for, etc. See Rwanda and Bosnia. And Iraq, for that matter.
The Sunni-Sh’ia split – not so important in Iran as in Iraq, as Iran is 89% Shi’a, but that doesn’t make it politically insignificant, and see above. War to the knife. Think, really think, about that phrase.
And, of course, economic-social-class divisions, as everywhere else.
So, as complicated as the situation is, we can’t really know what forces civil war will unleash.
But we can be sure it will be anything but pretty.
Iran is just as volatile as Iraq, and five times as big.
And there’s no way an Iranian civil war wouldn’t spill over into neighboring countries. Including Pakistan and Afghanistan, which we’re trying desperately to keep quiet and allied with the U.S., and which have large Balochi regions (see here) – so if the Iranian Balochis declare secession – who does the U.S. support? If the Iranian Kurds secede, they and the Iraqi Kurds will want to unite to form an independent Kurdistan, and then make overtures to the Turkish and Syrian Kurds – which complicates American relations with Turkey and Syria.
Things are seldom simple, and this is clearly not one that is.
It is in everybody’s best interest (including America’s, if we want gas prices stable) to keep the situation as quiet as reasonably possible.
BrainGlutton It is my understanding that your number 3 is a false dichotomy that there is no distinct identity of Persian vs Iranian, that Iranian is how they call themselves and Persian is how the West has called them.
Like I said, it’s impossible to know for sure – we can’t expect a regime like Iran’s to allow honest polling about such things. But if secular support were overwhelming compared to religionist, this election fraud would have been impossible even for such a regime as Iran’s to pull off so brazenly. After all, it is a country with some genuine democracy, more than most of the MENA.
That would be nice to believe, but there’s really no evidence that this is true. Tiananmen square was already mentioned. The Hungarian uprising in 1956 was utterly crushed by the Soviets, as was the Prague Spring in Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Soviets held on to power there for another 22 years, and held on to power in Hungary for much longer than that.
The reason the Soviet Union fell in the end was simply because the leadership lost the will to continue, not because they lacked the ability to crush dissent.
The problem with Iran is that the leadership is composed of religious zealots. It’s hard to imagine them saying, “Oh well… I guess this whole repressive Islamic thing didn’t work. Bring on Youtube and hot pants!” They’re only going to quit when they can’t see a way out, and maybe not even then.
It’s like the distinction between “Burmans” and “Burmese.” Only 68% of Burmans (or Myanmarans, but for Og’s and Buddha’s sake let’s not go into that!) are Burmese, or Bamar (see here.)
Why? It’s quite easy to publish numbers supporting Ahmadinejad if you just make them up, and it’s quite likely that’s what happened. Also, it appears that they haven’t actually managed to pull it off, judging by the response.
It certainly changes the many discussions we’ve had here revolving around Iran, nuclear weapons, and who actually is in charge in Iran. The religious leaders or Ahmadinejad who pretty much wants to wipe Israel from the map.
Yes, it opens up a window into Iranian politics. I think we have had a very limited view of their politics around here. I am very curious as to what is going on.
NB: Tonne’s of this is unverifiable, a lot comes from people in Iran where the media is being very limited so, rumour and fact become very hard to disentangle.
It seems like many of the protesters have big demands, here’s the list that was apparently being distributed at marches. They have not really been endorsed or referred to by Mousavi at all.
Dismissal of Khamenei for not being a fair leader
Dismissal of Ahmadinejad for his illegal acts
Temporary appointment of Ayatollah Montazeri as the Supreme Leader
Recognition of Mousavi as the President
Forming the Cabinet by Mousavi to prepare for revising the Constitution
Unconditional and immediate release of all political prisoners
Dissolution of all organs of repression, public or secret.
It’s like a return to the pamphleteers!
And also I remembered/found what the moral police are called, its the Basij and they are a paramilitary group under the control of the revolutionary guard, basically doing their dirty work, bullying people, harassing lone protesters. Think brown shirts.
And apparently there are two different Hizbullah groups, the Ansar and the Lebanese. The Ansar are similar to the Basij but unofficial and more violent- they pledge allegiance to the Ayatollah and most people believe he has some sort of control over them. The Lebanese are more scary as they are not actually Iranian/Persian so a lot of people are worried that they will be more willing to kill if things turn violent (well thats what some people seem to think).
Some people are claiming that Der Spiegel and Voice of America have reported up to 5,000 Hizbullah members in Tehran but I haven’t been able to track down the report so it would be great if anyone can do that.
On top of that apparently the government failed at arresting an army General last night. Who knows what that means?
A lot of people are putting their faith in Ayatollah Hossein-Ali Montazeri who is in the council and has a record of supporting human rights and criticising those in power. Maybe he’s helping protect the protestors so far?
So it looks like the power struggles spread further then the elections and the street. Would any of these behind the scenes rumours affect your interpretation of what is occuring. I have to admit to a certain degree of confusion considering how much of the black box that was Iranian politics has come to light.
Anyone have anything to share regarding these rumours?
At some point you have to wonder who the “leadership” really is, don’t you?
Revolutions do happen, Sam. Authoritarian regimes do get overthrown, even when they haven’t “lost their will to live” or their ability to respond to dissent. That even happened in Iran itself when the Shah was overthrown.
