Moussavi: "It is our historical responsibility to continue our protests"

[Cleon]

Although you may have missed it thanks to the round-the-clock coverage of Michael Jackson's corpse, the Iranian rebellion (I don't think you can call it any less) is ongoing, and seems to be heating up.

Iran has started seriously cracking down on protestors; people are reporting everything from harrassment to arrests to executions. Students are being carried away in the middle of the night by police. If that weren't enough, the Iranian government has started clamping down on opposition newspapers.

However, the Iranians are not taking it lying down. Moussavi today risked arrest by declaring the Ahmadinejad government "illegitimate" and said it was their duty to continue to protest.

It doesn't look like this has yet grown into a revolution against the Islamic government itself, but I think it's growing into one. As long as Khamenei and the Guardian Council stand with Ahmadinejad, they draw a line in the sand between the popular protests and the Islamic government. Moussavi is almost saying this outright; earlier today he said "Unless we succeed in this, this government will not have legitimacy. The system and the heritage of the Islamic revolution are the fruits of our 200-year-old struggle against oppression."

If Kahmenei doesn't throw the protestors a very, very big bone, there is no way the current regime can continue. Suppressing the rebellion completely would make Tienanmen look like a holiday in Rio, and even if they managed to pull it off they'd create a permanent hostility between the populace and the government; I seriously doubt that's sustainable in the long term, or even in the medium term.

The funny thing is, had Khamenei simply ordered a new election, the protesters would have been somewhat mollified (for now), and the regime could've continued. There was no need for him to stay married to Ahmadinejad; the president is, after all, if not a figurehead certainly of secondary importance. In standing by his man, Khamenei could very well have been instrumental in the downfall of the Islamic Republic. Ah, irony.

Of course, I may be overly optimistic, and this may all die down. I really don't think so, though; the Iranians are pissed, and it seems like they're in this for the long haul.

There isn't much we in the West can do to help substantially, and anything the US government does will undoubtedly hurt more than help. However, to stay informed, I recommend the following:

TehranBureau.com is trying to get out as much information as possible about what's going on in Iran, and they operate a Twitter feed as well.

Reza Aslan's Twitter feed is also a source of excellent information and analysis as events unfold.

This thread has some good information about running anonymizing Tor servers and other ways to help the Iranian protesters connect with the rest of the world.

 

[DC]

Thank you for the many usefull links you provided.

 

[Marc39]

It's not as though Moussavi is the White Knight. He's a marginal improvement of Ajad, which is not saying much.

 

[Pardalis]

He's a marginal improvement of Ajad, which is not saying much.

We'll take any improvement.

 

[Marc39]

We'll take any improvement.

Point taken.

 

[GreNME]

The good thing about Mousavi is not that he'll be friendly to the US or the West-- that's not a huge likelihood-- but he's a political pragmatist and he's a good administrator for economic stability. An economically stable Iran provides a better chance for coming to some agreement of normalized relations with the US, and Mousavi's pragmatism would be an opportunity to appeal to the well-being of the nation of Iran in dealing with him, as opposed to the almost pure hyperbole that Ahmadinejad deals in-- though with either the deal-breaker is going to be the Supreme Leader, who is the one that appoints foreign policy in the country.

Mousavi in the office of President would mostly be good for Iran, not the US or the West, but his pragmatic and moderate administration of government would offer the chance for the world to deal with Iran in a non-hostile manner for a change, which would be a big deal for the US and the rest of the world.

 

[Cleon]

The thing is, Moussavi is almost a side issue. By happenstance, really, he finds himself at the head of a movement of people increasingly pissed off with the Iranian regime. I seriously doubt that he intended to be in this position when he launched his presidential campaign.

Really, the shining stars here are the people in the streets, who aren't taking this lying down. Yeah, Moussavi's the leader of the movement for now, but their anger is not really a reflection of their support for him as it is anger and frustration with the government.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

The thing is, Moussavi is almost a side issue.

I respectfully disagree. At least so far, without Mousavi and the perception of a stolen election, these opposition protests wouldn't be happening.

I'm not saying there aren't Iranians who yearn for true freedom, but last time I saw, the protesters were still wearing green (chosen by Mousavi as a symbol of Islam) and waving pictures of Mousavi.

Mousavi is only a moderate or a reformer when compared to Khameini and Ahmadinejad.

 

[Cleon]

I respectfully disagree. At least so far, without Mousavi and the perception of a stolen election, these opposition protests wouldn't be happening.

Yeah, but I generally see the election as sort of the "spark that lit the fire." These people aren't risking their freedom and lives because they like Moussavi - they're putting their lives on the line because they're pissed at the government. It really takes more than one questionable election to bring out the sort of anger we're seeing, and I think this anger has been building for a good long time now.

The protests aren't about Moussavi; they're about Iran. Which is why I see him as almost a side issue.

I'm not saying there aren't Iranians who yearn for true freedom, but last time I saw, the protesters were still wearing green (chosen by Mousavi as a symbol of Islam) and waving pictures of Mousavi.

The pictures are because he's the de-facto leader of the movement, not out of some personal loyalty to him. As for green, well, the people of Iran are Muslims. Islam isn't the issue here - the issue here is the political regime. Whichever way this pans out, Iran will likely continue to be a Muslim state; the question is whether it will continue to be a theocratic Muslim state.

Mousavi is only a moderate or a reformer when compared to Khameini and Ahmadinejad.

Given his history in the Iranian government, yeah, that's a reasonable conclusion. But again, I think only so much of the current rebellion has to do with him personally; it's really the protesters who are in the driver's seat.

Just as an example, I don't think Moussavi has a single thing to do with the fact that women are out there in the streets demanding their rights.

 

[Pardalis]

the protesters were still wearing green (chosen by Mousavi as a symbol of Islam)

Ah, now it all makes sense. I always wondered why the more "green" a person gets, the more sympathetic it becomes to Islamists.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Ah, now it all makes sense. I always wondered why the more "green" a person gets, the more sympathetic it becomes to Islamists.

Green also symbolizes Islam on the flag of Iran.

You don't really see any correlation between "green" as in The Green Party with sympathy to "Islamists", do you?

 

[Cleon]

It also symbolizes Islam on the flag of Iran.

Yeah, the color green has always sort of been a traditional Muslim color, both Sunni and Shi'ite, kind of the way blue is a traditional Jewish thing.

You don't really see any correlation between "green" as in The Green Party with sympathy to "Islamists", do you?

I was wondering the same thing. If that's the case, I will laugh a deep, loud, hearty laugh. And then shake my head sadly.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Btw folks, the Georgians are still on the streets against Sackarschwilli, for next to three months now. Some twitters wouldn't really strengthen their position but anyway, there's a thread for them on JREF!

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yeah, the color green has always sort of been a traditional Muslim color, both Sunni and Shi'ite, kind of the way blue is a traditional Jewish thing.

However, green is clearly associated with Mousavi in these protests. The soccer team even got in trouble for wearing green armbands.

 

[FireGarden]

You don't really see any correlation between "green" as in The Green Party with sympathy to "Islamists", do you?

I thought Pardalis was using "green" as in the sense of naive. Or maybe he knows something about Kermit I haven't heard.



As for the OP,
Mousavi is trying to position himself as the real heir to Khomeini.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/01/mousavi-iran-presidential-elections-protest

Mousavi's language seemed chosen to suggest that the Islamic regime, which in the last two weeks has seen the worst unrest in 30 years, was betraying the basic principles of the 1979 revolution.

Alongside that, his suggestion of chanting "God is Great" from the rooftops was a Khomeini tactic against the Shah.

So, either Mousavi has badly misinterpreted his supporters, or the issue is about protesting the abuse of rights already granted to Iranians.

Khatami also seems to be of a similar opinion. Or why would he say this:

Mousavi quickly won heavyweight support from Iran's former reformist president, Mohammed Khatami, who decried what he called a "velvet coup against democracy" – a mirror image of the charge by the regime that foreign powers such as Britain and the US are pushing for a "velvet revolution" in the country. "People's protests were suppressed, those who were required to protect people's rights humiliated the people … yet it [the government] speaks of national reconciliation and peace," said Khatami.

Are Mousavi and Khatami positioning themselves to be marginalised/ignored by the protesters?


("Velvet coup" -- I think "velvet" must have become an all purpose pejorative in Iran. Is it okay if I describe JREF members as "Velvet"?)

 

[Merko]

Sorry, I don't see how these protests are growing, or how they would seriously threaten Ahmadinejad/Khomeini in any way.

What I see is a few thousand people in Iran still willing to take any active part in protests, supported by many more Iranians in exile, who are not taking any risks themselves.

The suggestion that these Twitter and Facebook protests would somehow be significant is ridiculous I think. How many Iranians have even heard about Twitter or Facebook? 1% perhaps?

I think that commentators in the West need to get their heads straight on this. It is neither honourable nor responsible to keep hyping a protest movement like this. It feels like a lot of these commentators think that by overreporting and magnifying the power of the protests, they are somehow contributing to Iranian democracy. They are not. Iranians who are risking their lives on the street deserve honest analysis, not propaganda.

 

[Ryokan]

Btw folks, the Georgians are still on the streets against Sackarschwilli, for next to three months now. Some twitters wouldn't really strengthen their position but anyway, there's a thread for them on JREF!

And everyone has forgotten the Burmese. That was so last year.

 

[Pardalis]

Green also symbolizes Islam on the flag of Iran.

You don't really see any correlation between "green" as in The Green Party with sympathy to "Islamists", do you?

I was making a joke, of course.

 

[Skeptic]

If the Iranians had FREE choice about who could run, and of all Iranians declared either Moussavi or Ahmadinejad are the best people should be it, I would agree it is not much of an improvement and not much of a choice.

But that is not the point: the mullahs had, from the start, only allowed a few figurehead candidates considered politically safe to run -- as a prelude for the inevitable victor of the chosen puppet (Ahmadenijad). It is no surprise that the other puppets are politically similar to the designated winning puppet. That's what happens in puppet, fake elections.

To their chagrin, one of the puppets actually dares to say he doesn't like being a puppet, and what's more, his supporters say they don't like it either.

THAT is the issue, not Moussavi personally.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah, but I generally see the election as sort of the "spark that lit the fire." These people aren't risking their freedom and lives because they like Moussavi - they're putting their lives on the line because they're pissed at the government. It really takes more than one questionable election to bring out the sort of anger we're seeing, and I think this anger has been building for a good long time now.

The protests aren't about Moussavi; they're about Iran. Which is why I see him as almost a side issue.

The pictures are because he's the de-facto leader of the movement, not out of some personal loyalty to him. As for green, well, the people of Iran are Muslims. Islam isn't the issue here - the issue here is the political regime. Whichever way this pans out, Iran will likely continue to be a Muslim state; the question is whether it will continue to be a theocratic Muslim state.

Given his history in the Iranian government, yeah, that's a reasonable conclusion. But again, I think only so much of the current rebellion has to do with him personally; it's really the protesters who are in the driver's seat.

Just as an example, I don't think Moussavi has a single thing to do with the fact that women are out there in the streets demanding their rights.

Cleon, what about the people in Iran who voted for Mahmoud? Don't you think they might get pissed as well, with this group who are causing unrest?

Civil war, with the big weapons on the side of Khameni and Mahmoud, and plenty of reactionary Iranians in support.

I am of the opinion that your assessment of the momentum this "revolution" can sustain is wishful thinking. Each revolution has a reaction, a counter revolution. I am of the mind that the impression we get, in the West, bolstered by a wishful groupthink approach, is that the number of people in Iran who are mad as hell, and not willing to take it anymore, is larger than it actually is.

I would that such were so, as I'd love to see a Civil War in Iran that led to a change from the theocracy. What I think is more likely to happen is civil strife that is bloodily and brutally put down.

If the theocracy is to be cast off, a junta will most likely take over. My take on how the RGC is playing this one, with some Basij support.

Think tin pot Latin American dictator, circa 1950, for what I see. Add death squads, a la El Salvador. Toss in Persian sensibilities and cleverness.

Not a pretty sight.