Ahmadinejad wins re-election

[a_unique_person]

It should be remembered that Mousavi supports the theocratical system. He also favours nuclear energy. His main disagreement with Ahmadinejad is about internal social en economical reform.

In other words, even if the opposition gets everything they ask for and then some, it won't constitute a political revolution.

Irans political system allows Ahmadinejad's head to be put on the chopping block, and even Khamenei can be removed through constitutional means, without threatening the theocracy.

Imposing the authority of the democratic vote means the thoecracy of the mullahs has been overturned.

 

[Policenaut]

I don't think the people really care about Mousavi (though women might care about his wife). They just wanted someone else besides Mahmoud in power as far as the election is concerned. But when the seemingly ridiculous results came in I think the protesters saw this as their best opportunity to rebel against their regime. The ayatollah fanned the flames instead of calming them giving the protesters more legs to stand on. Arresting Mousavi would be their last great mistake. Then all bets are off. Mousavi and the election are just red herrings. At least that's how I like to think it's going. I could be totally wrong.

 

[CapelDodger]

I've heard this being called the Lipstick Revolution due to the amount of women involved in the protests, but I think it will go down as the first Internet/Twitter Revolution as that is the main way in which information is getting out.

The Ukrainian Orange Revolution was described as the first internet revolution, as I recall. It's amazing how quickly open communications are developing. The old repressive methods are completely outdated.

It was ever thus, but not at this pace.

 

[CapelDodger]

It should be remembered that Mousavi supports the theocratical system. He also favours nuclear energy. His main disagreement with Ahmadinejad is about internal social en economical reform.

He also advocates a less confrontational approach to the outside world, a normalisation of Iran in the international community. This is a message that appeals to a lot of Iranians, especially the young and urban.

The Old Guard need that confrontation to justify themselves as defenders of the Revolution. They have to present it as constantly threatened - as if the old imperial wolves are circling the camp. The post-Revolutionary, post-war generations don't believe it, and for good reasons. They have only to look to Iraq to see the limitations of US power, and to the Wall Street fiasco to see the limits of US money. Those days are gone.

In other words, even if the opposition gets everything they ask for and then some, it won't constitute a political revolution.

No, but it will be evolution in what I regard as a positive direction.

Irans political system allows Ahmadinejad's head to be put on the chopping block, and even Khamenei can be removed through constitutional means, without threatening the theocracy.

Theocracy is a loaded word. There are non-religious equivalents of the Iranian system, such as the Stuart Parliaments in Britain or the Russian Duma 1905-17. Non-sovereign democracies but with significant leverage. They're not sustainable in the long term, of course, but they can evolve.

 

[CapelDodger]

It should also be remembered that Mousavi, when he was prime minister, was co-responsible for detaining and then killing thousands of oppositional Iranians. By comparison, repression under Ahmadinejad has been very mild.

Mousavi was Prime Minister just after the Revolution and in the throes of a murderous war of national defense encouraged (if not instigated) by the US, the very power overthrown in 1979. The killing of thousands of perceived enemies of the state at such times is sadly to be expected. It doesn't make Mousavi a bad person who lusts for the blood of his political opponents. As Prime Minister of Iran he was hardly that culpable in the first place.

Thiis was over twenty years ago, in very different times. The Mousavi that matters is the Mousavi of today.

I do not doubt that most of the street protestors want greater freedom, and they have my sympathies in this of course. But it seems to me that they have rallied behind an unlikely leader for their cause.

You have to go with what you've got. And Mousavi is good enough for their cause.

Now, it is true that they are also demanding for Ayatollah Montazeri to replace Khamenei. He's a much more credible advocate for human rights and improved freedoms, and at least in theory the post of Supreme Leader is more important than who becomes president.

Are they demanding that? To me they seem to be keeping to their simple original demand - give me back my vote. That's all. They're aiming at Ahmedinejad, not Khameini.

So in the end, the protestors have my full support in ousting the non-elected Khamenei. If that is realistic, I don't know. But I'm not sure that replacing Ahmadinejad with Mousavi is either legitimate or that much of an improvement.

From your point of view it might not be. But that isn't necessarily the point of view of the reformists.

Whatever happens, Khamenei's authority has been seriously weakened, and by extension so has the position of Supreme Authority. This is how things change, by increments.

 

[MattusMaximus]

Whatever happens, Khamenei's authority has been seriously weakened, and by extension so has the position of Supreme Authority. This is how things change, by increments.

Yup, that's the key thing now. It has gotten much bigger than Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejad.

 

[CapelDodger]

Yup, that's the key thing now. It has gotten much bigger than Mousavi vs. Ahmadinejad.

It has, and the remarkable thing is that Khamenei has brought it on. His endorsement of Ahmedinejad before the election (which was unbefitting his constitutional role) was a calculated act. The question is : why? Why did he feel the need to assert himself now? What's he worried about? Does he (and by extension those like him) feel that things are slipping away? That something needed to be done?

Whatever, his bluff has been called. He's got up there and ordered the crowd to be still, and they've ignored him.

 

[Darth Rotor]

I guess the protesters are fed up and want change in general, but do not have a coherent plan for the result.

But they won't get fooled again, will they? No, no, won't get fooled again ...




(Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. )


DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

It has, and the remarkable thing is that Khamenei has brought it on. His endorsement of Ahmedinejad before the election (which was unbefitting his constitutional role) was a calculated act. The question is : why? Why did he feel the need to assert himself now? What's he worried about?

Hubris, perhaps?

 

[Damien Evans]

And we can't even get past 70% turn out here in Canada.

We get 99%, but only cause we get a fine if we don't rock up.

 

[geni]

It has, and the remarkable thing is that Khamenei has brought it on. His endorsement of Ahmedinejad before the election (which was unbefitting his constitutional role) was a calculated act. The question is : why? Why did he feel the need to assert himself now? What's he worried about?

The loss of Ahmedinejad would not greatly please the revolutionary guard who might decide that they should take a more dirrect role.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Well, at least the Guardian Council now admits to "some" irregularities in the voting process. PressTV: | Guardian Council: Over 100% voted in 50 cities |

 

[marksman]

Well, at least the Guardian Council now admits to "some" irregularities in the voting process.

No they don't. From the article:

Kadkhodaei further explained that the voter turnout of above 100% in some cities is a normal phenomenon because there is no legal limitation for people to vote for the presidential elections in another city or province to which people often travel or commute.​

What they said was that the opposition's claims that there was 100%+ turnout in 80-160 cities was wrong. it happened only in 50 cities, and that's okay because that's probably people voting where they work or have summer homes, rather than where they live.

They offered to recount the 100%+ ballot boxes, but clearly they contend that the results are fine.

 

[egslim]

Imposing the authority of the democratic vote means the thoecracy of the mullahs has been overturned.

Replacing Ahmadinejad with Mousavi doesn't overtun the theocracy of the mullahs, since they approved them both.

He also advocates a less confrontational approach to the outside world, a normalisation of Iran in the international community. This is a message that appeals to a lot of Iranians, especially the young and urban.

True, but with his support for development of nuclear power he'll have a very hard time normalizing Irans relations with much of the rest of the world.

No, but it will be evolution in what I regard as a positive direction.

Certainly. I was just trying to prepare some of those who see this as a real revolution against disappointment.

 

[marksman]

Not only doesn't replacing Mousavi with Ahmadinejad replace the mullahs -- it may even entrench them. According to the India Times article posted earlier in this thread, the Supreme Leader is not necessarily the preferred "kingmaker" in Iran. Ayatollah Khameini's mainstay of support (and Khameini is Ahmadinejad's backer) is amongst the rural areas and, most importantly, the Revolutionary Guard and the armed forces.

The mullahs prefer Rafasnjani (who backs Mousavi). Rafsanjani leads a coalition of, primarily, the religious establishment and the business leaders.

What this election really represented was a fight between the army and the civilian elites. Khameini may be Ayatollah, but that doesn't make him pope of Iran. A more apt analogy may be Emperor Claudius of Rome, who was unpopular with the nobles of which he was nominally the highest, and kept power through common touch and a close relationship with the Praetorian Guard. After Claudius passed, however, the Praetorian Guard basically ran Rome for 15 years until Vespasian finally neutered them.

Another historical analogy could be the movement from Lenin's Soviet Russia to Stalin's. Lenin's USSR was run by men who were with him during the Russian Revolution, including Stalin. Stalin consolidated true power during World War II, and for the next fifty years, only WW II vets could control the State. Khomeini surrounded himself with men from the Iranian Revolution, and ultimately chose Khameini as his successor. But Khameini basically surrounds himself with people whose political maturity occurred during the Iraq/Iran War, marginalizing the original revolutionaries (like Rafsanjani and Mousavi). Stalin managed to exile or purge his Leninist comrades. Khameini wasn't so able.

What does this mean? First, this isn't about democracy, except insofar as neither side wants another popular uprising, and the election was supposed to mollify the masses, not empower them. Second, the fight is really a struggle between the military and clericy/bazaar. The military currently has the upper hand.

What does this mean for the West? Well, nothing good. It is often said that you're always fighting the last war. Khamieini/Ahmadinejad are fighting the Iran-Iraq War. They see themselves threatened by military invasions and strikes from the US (which has occupied two of its neighbors), Saudi Arabia and Israel. Rafasnjani/Mousavi are sill fighting the revolution, and see themselves threatened by Imperial design and philosophical disaster. They're the faction in the government pushing Hezbollah funding (created by one of Mousavi's proteges).

So which Iran do you want? A paranoid xenophobic military dictatorship yearning for a nuclear deterrent and willing to oppress its people with overwhelming brutal force, or a terror-sponsoring fundamentalist regime that wants to expand its revolution into Afghanistan and Iraq (and likely willing to oppress its people with overwhelming brutal force)?

 

[Pardalis]

I'll take the second. If they want to Islamize countries that are already Islamic, then I guess there's nothing we can do about it.

Nuclear weapons are everybody's business.

 

[Ziggurat]

Not only doesn't replacing Mousavi with Ahmadinejad replace the mullahs -- it may even entrench them. According to the India Times article posted earlier in this thread, the Supreme Leader is not necessarily the preferred "kingmaker" in Iran. Ayatollah Khameini's mainstay of support (and Khameini is Ahmadinejad's backer) is amongst the rural areas and, most importantly, the Revolutionary Guard and the armed forces.

The mullahs prefer Rafasnjani (who backs Mousavi). Rafsanjani leads a coalition of, primarily, the religious establishment and the business leaders.

If Rafsanjani wins this fight, though, we could be looking at considerably more than just a change in names:
http://threatswatch.org/rapidrecon/2009/06/regime-change-iran-movement-se/
The involvement of Sistani suggests that Rafsanjani may be aiming for a significantly altered role for the mullahs in Iran, where they do NOT wield so much direct political influence. And that would be a very good thing.

 

[a_unique_person]

Replacing Ahmadinejad with Mousavi doesn't overtun the theocracy of the mullahs, since they approved them both.

They approved them both, and ensured that Ahmadinejad won. The Iranians are demonstrating that demonstrating that democracy is more powerful than the mullahs.

True, but with his support for development of nuclear power he'll have a very hard time normalizing Irans relations with much of the rest of the world.


Certainly. I was just trying to prepare some of those who see this as a real revolution against disappointment.

It's not going to change overnight, but breaking the mullahs means that real change can now happen.

 

[brumsen]

So which Iran do you want? A paranoid xenophobic military dictatorship yearning for a nuclear deterrent and willing to oppress its people with overwhelming brutal force, or a terror-sponsoring fundamentalist regime that wants to expand its revolution into Afghanistan and Iraq (and likely willing to oppress its people with overwhelming brutal force)?

An interesting analysis, marksman, which may well be right. But if the choice between those two is the only thing we have, would you not in any case rather have the option which has come about by at least some semblance of democracy, rather than obvious massive election fraud?

 

[egslim]

They approved them both, and ensured that Ahmadinejad won.

We don't know who was responsible for election fraud. It could have been the mullahs, it could have been another faction, or some subfaction.