Iran 2009

AOG, Madrid

The past few days have shown the less friendly face of the Islamic Republic of Iran. I have read testimony after testimony of the protesters in Iran regarding their Government. Many of them, perhaps most, are amazed at the actions of their Government. Some say that they cannot believe that an Iranian would ever harm another Iranian. Disbelief seemed to permeate the early stages of the, in my opinion, soon to be aborted Iranian version of the Orange Revolution.

Certainly the people in charge will ensure that they remain in charge for a long time to come. As with China and Tiananmen Square 20 years ago last month, so with Iran.

It everything points towards that being the ultimate outcome of this national happening, if that is the word that can be allowed to describe the recent events in that country.



Today it surfaces that president elect Ahmadineyad is asking the US for a formal apology, all the while the G8 condemns and threatens to isolate Iran even further.

My question is, how much can one isolate a country already isolated? And what purpose will this solve?

I wonder what kind of brainwashing must go on in authoritarian regimes that its own population seems to believe time and time and again that it is somehow impervious to the greater evils of its Government?

Time after time History has shown that authoritarian, as well as pariah, states are the first to turn their might against their own citizens. True, democracies are known to do this as well, but never like these countries do. Never on that scale.

So I wonder what it is that people get told to make them think that their form of Government is benign, when the rest of the planet seems to think otherwise.

Where is the criteria that allows people to understand that any state which calls for the destruction of another (like Iran and Israel and, lately, North Korea and the US), is far from benign. Far from just. And far from sane.

Perhaps it is a sign of weakness the fact that the Ayatollahs endeavour to harm their citizens so freely. However, as with China, I’m sure that just as they can fool people into thinking they are a force for the greater good, they can also fool them into thinking that they are still powerful. And that Iran will not withstand, under any circumstances, any more revolutions other than the 1978 Islamic one.

Nevertheless, according to French philosopher and writer Bernard Henri-Levy, "Whatever happens, the people know, from this point on, that they are the people and that there is not a regime on earth that can remain in power against the people", as he wrote for the Huffington Post in reference to Iran's situation.

I wish he were right, but then I think of China, Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, and a host of authoritarian regimes intent of maintaining power no matter what, and I can't help but disagree.



PS: According to today's Guardian, Mousavi is defying the Government's crackdown and accuses his opponents of an "evil conspiracy". Is there hope yet for change, positive change, in Iran?

Iran

AOG, Madrid

Iran is on a knife-edge, with millions of voters taking to the streets in outrage as evidence mounts that the government may have massively rigged and stolen last Thursday's election.

The Islamic regime has cracked down brutally on the protesters and is imposing a blackout on Iranian society - shutting down domestic and international media, the internet and even text-messaging. For many, it the best thing that could have happened to Twitter.

The voice of Iranians may have been silenced at the polling booth, now the regime is attempting to silence them everywhere else.

Facing beatings and gunfire, the opposition, according to Western media, is organising mass demonstrations and a general strike.


This election is of international importance. Iran is a major regional power, and the international community is seeking diplomatic engagement that holds a key to peace in the Middle East.

The conservative Guardian Council, headed by a key Ahmadinejad ally, is reviewing the vote over the next 9 days.

According to some Western media, “There is a real possibility that democracy will prevail.”

However, just because a regime allows for elections, a voting booth, and an electoral list, this does not mean it is a democracy, nor that the elections are free.

Ultimate power in Iran lies with Ayatollah Khamenei, who may have backed the rigging - but he is hired and fired by the Assembly of Experts, chaired by ex-President Rafsanjani who has condemned vote-fixing.

If Rafsanjani and allies can get enough votes on the Assembly this week, they can press to re-open the results, even to remove Khamenei from power.

But will any of this happen?

The Islamic Revolution came into power back in the 1970s in a similar way, and the religious right took over the country.

Is the West not expecting too much in hoping that a recount, if it goes ahead, will show a true vote count?

Are we to think that the regime will welcome change peacefully?

Of course, it could also turn out that Ahmadineyad won the election fair and square.

But the current state of affairs in the country certainly points to a feeling of insatisfaction within the Iranian population.



Even if the election was not rigged, there is obviously a certain malaise in the country which the ruling oligarchy would do well to address. Sooner rather than later.

Here are some international sources:

1. The Guardian: "Iran's regime cracks down on opposition and media", 16 June 2009


2. Al-Jazeera: "Supreme Leader Under Pressure", 15 June 2009


3. "Evidence that the Iranian Presidential Election Was Stolen", Juan Cole, 13 June 2009


4. More detailed analysis by a polling expert of "fishy numbers" in the results announced by the interior ministry.


5. One of many active live-blogs.


6. #IranElections - live, unfiltered updates via Twitter from Iran and around the world