Iran at the Cross Roads – What should the US Do
By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009
Part I -The Tuscaloosa News, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090625/NEWS/906249887
Part II -The Tuscaloosa News, Friday, June 26, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090626/NEWS/906259938
Media Monitors. Network, Thursday, June 25, 2009
http://world.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/63766
Part – I, The American Muslim, June 25, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_1/0017427
Part – II, The American Muslim , June 25, 2009 http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/iran_at_the_cross_roads_what_should_the_us_do_part_2/0017428
Part I – Iran at the Cross Roads
The tenth presidential election in Iran was on the 12th of June. A few months ago, it was widely thought to be an easy win for President Ahmadinijad. Though his popularity had some what declined, because of the economic pressures on an average Iranian, but his very simple unostentatious life style and his strong stand against the tirade of the Bush administration were very popular. It was a matter of national pride. The very fact that Iran was able to withstand the massive American pressure, made Iran look strong and the US appear weak.
The most popular person to challenge President Ahmadinijad was the former two-term President Khatami, who was very popular when first-elected in 1997. Considered a reformer, but by the end of his second term his followers were disappointed. On the domestic front he failed to loosen the grip of the clergy on the levers of power. On the international front his friendly overtures to United States, including his offer of support against the Talibans in Afghanistan were rebuffed by the Bush administration. Instead of taking the hand of friendship, the Bush administration inanely branded Iran to be a part of the Axis of Evil. Mr. Ahmadinejad won the presidential elections of 2005, by painting the reformers as ineffective appeasers of the United States.
The dynamics of the presidential election changed when in March 2009 the former President Khatami, having problems even getting the approval of the Guardian Council to run, withdrew and threw his support to Mr Moussavi.
The other important factor was the end of the Bush era and the election of President Obama, along with the change in the US foreign policy from belligerency to diplomacy. Mr. Obama’s overtures for a civil dialogue with Iran left President Ahmadinejad without an easy mark to rail against. Mr. Moussavi, a loyal supporter of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, was approved by the clerical establishment. He started gathering the support of all who were dissatisfied with the status-quo. It included the intellectuals, liberals, young people asking for the easing of what they considered onerous regulations, but most of all, many average Iranians suffering the economic hardship because of the western embargo on Iran and fall in oil prices since last November.
In this contentious election, almost 40 million Iranians, eighty percent of the electorate voted. The pre-election polls indicated a very close race, with a chance of Mr. Moussavi winning. The election results started trickling in even before the polls closed. Surprisingly, President Ahmadinejad won by a thumping majority of 62% to Mr. Moussavi 33%. To the shock of many, Mr. Moussavi, as well as the other candidates lost by big margins even in their hometowns.
Those who had voted for Mr Moussavi, felt strongly that the election had been rigged. In Iran the system did not allow observers from the campaigns to monitor the voting and tabulation. It fed the dissatisfaction. The authorities refused to entertain any doubts. Within a week the dissatisfaction burgeoned to wide scale protests and civil demonstrations. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenie first rejected the demand for recount, then accepted a partial recount, again without the monitors.
In the mean time, the government arrested an untold number of people. Many well known names from the 1979 revolution, such as the daughter and some family members of Ayatollah Rafsanjani, and many others former ministers have been detained.
The strong arm suppression of hundreds of thousands of peaceful protesters was beamed the world over, including the beating and killing of silent marchers. According to the Iranian government 17 people have been killed, the opposition and other sources claim hundreds killed.
In this budding revolution, many supporters of the Iranian regime see the hand of the CIA, as it had overthrown Prime Minister Mosaaddeq in 1953 to restore the Shah to the throne. There concerns are legitimate, as the Bush administration had left no doubt that it would use any means to change the regime in Iran. It is quite possible that the Bush policies and spies in place in Iran may have a hand in stirring up the pot.
It is also possible that the election was very close and President Ahmadinejad may have won the election by a small margin, but it is becoming clearer by the day that there was wide scale rigging to ensure the results. On the 22nd of June, the 12 member Guardian Council, that oversees the election, accepted that three million votes may have been miscounted and there were 50 places, where the number of votes cast exceeded the eligible voters. Yet it declared the elections to be fair, allowing only a limited recount. Once people loose faith in the honesty of the process, they can not be satisfied by the promises of unsupervised rectification by the same people.
From the fast changing scene in the past twelve days, it is evident that the CIA may have had its designs, but this wide spread movement was neither planned, nor controlled by anyone including its reluctant leader Mr. Moussavi. The wide spread pent up frustration of a large populace has found an avenue to express itself. Mr. Moussavi finds himself at the head of a budding revolution that he did not plan. He is in no position to contain it without loosing face and his leadership.
Ayatollah Khamenie is in a precarious position. By taking a strong stand against a total and open recount, he missed a great opportunity to control the events peacefully and to co-opt the opposition. One great advantage of democracy is that it allows change to take place without tearing up the fabric of the society. It tolerates a certain level of corruption, nepotism, even small irregularities in vote counting. By taking a strong stand Ayatollah Khamenie is in danger of loosing control or suppressing and closing the country, harming Iran and the people of Iran, to retain power by the force of arms. Iran may lurch from a theocratic democracy to a dictatorship.
Iran is finding it difficult to run a system as part democracy. Half free responding to the will of the people, such as popularly elected president and the Assembly (Majlis) albeit allowing only the candidates approved by the Guardian Council, and half controlled by the Supreme leader, indirectly elected for life, by an elected Assembly of Experts.
When the fog of the fast moving events clears, Iran would have changed, no matter who wins. If the present structure of the government survives by closing the doors shut to the outside world, it would be detrimental to the Iranian people. If it incorporates the opposition, it will be a desirable change; otherwise it may turn out to be a bloody revolution that no Iranian wants.
The Iranian regime is trying to shut the news of demonstrations and repression, but inter-connective technology of the 21st century is proving to be an impediment. The cell phones are ubiquitous, more than 80 percent of the people, especially the young have it and can twitter the information and pictures world wide. The government cannot shut the technology portal to the rest of the world without severely wounding its own economy and communications.
One hopes that the rulers in Iran will remember that violent repression of the voice of the people exposes the bankruptcy of the government. The US may dislike and may have been helping elements opposed to the government within Iran, but the enormous uprising and peaceful demonstrations in support of the opposition is the voice of Iran and its future.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com
Iran at the Cross Roads – What Should the US Do
By
Mirza A. Beg
Written Monday, June 22, 2009
Part II - What should the United States do
Iran has been in turmoil since the election on June 12th. For the rest of the world, especially for the US, it is important to understand, it is about Iran and not about the United States. It is the 21st Century, not the 20th, when the super powers manipulated the events in the world with impunity.
Events in Iran are moving fast. Most of the popular punditry in the United States was initially flummoxed, interpreting events with the US-centric biases; particularly the Neo-Con infected Republican Party. In spite of all the horrible mistakes of the eight Bush years, miring the country in un-necessary and terribly mismanaged wars and driving the country to near bankruptcy, they have learned no lessons, certainly not humility. They are taking pot shots at President Obama to be more belligerent towards the Iranian government.
They do not understand that the history of US orchestration of the overthrow of the first democratically elected Iranian regime in 1953 is as fresh in the Iranian psyche as the hostage taking of Americans by Iran in 1979 is for the American mind. The US supported brutal war waged on Iran by Saddam Hussain during the Reagan administration in the1980s has not faded from Iranian memory. Iran lost about a million of its youth affecting most families in Iran. The countries that the Iranians mistrust the most are Great Britain and the United States.
The Neo-Con mindset argues, “The Mullahs in Iran accuse the US anyway, so why not support the opposition”. They do not understand an important distinction. It matters less what the government propaganda machine puts out, it matters enormously what the people believe. So far it appears that because of the election of President Obama and the change in course of the US foreign policy, the Iranian public opinion towards the US has changed from completely negative to largely favorable or ambivalent.
Obviously the killing of peaceful protestors and bystanders in Iran is of concern to all decent human beings. But it is in the interest of the Iranians, the US and the world, that the events in Iran should be handled by Iranians peacefully. If the situation deteriorates in chaos, it is the Iranians who will suffer the brunt. The Iranian opposition has asked for moral support not belligerency towards the Iranian regime.
The United States is, and has been a super power for the last seventy years with world wide interests. It has often supported corrupt dictatorships over democracy in Asia, Africa and Latin America, while paying lip service to the idea of democracy. Mr. Reagan’s opposition of the Soviets is often highlighted by the Neo-Cons, but they never acknowledge his support of the South African apartheid regime while branding Nelson Mandela a terrorist, the support of the murderous Contras in Nicaragua and a deafening silence after the rape and murder of five US nuns and the murder of the Archbishop by the government death squads in El Salvador.
It is important to understand the present crisis in Iran and the role of major players in historical context. The Islamic Republic of Iran was born thirty years ago in a people’s revolution against the corrupt and brutal regime of the Shah wedded solely to aggrandizement of his personal power helped by the western interests. Iran is not a dictatorship as some exaggerate, but a theocratic democracy, not to our liking.
Since the revolution in 1979, Iran has had ten presidential elections, and six presidents. Three of the presidents were elected for two terms each. All the previous elections were largely considered to be fair. The office of the President in Iran is not the highest office. It is more like the office of the chief executive officer, under the ultimate authority of the Supreme Leader (literally, the leader of the revolution).
The Supreme Leader is elected for a life time by the 86 members, Assembly of Experts. The Assembly of Experts is elected from a list of screened candidates by a direct election for an eight year term. That is how the theocracy controls the democracy. The former president Ayatollah Rafsanjani is the current chairman. He along with many in the religious establishment are supporting Mr. Moussavi.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini who led the1979 revolution was unanimously elected as the first Supreme Leader. He held the office until his death in June 1989. The Assembly of Experts filled the vacancy by electing Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the president at the time) as the Supreme Leader by a two thirds majority. After twenty years he is still in power. He can only be replaced by impeachment. The reformers have unsucessfully tried to limit the term of the Supreme Leader.
The candidates for presidential election in contention are the children of the revolution and were strong supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini. Mr. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the current president was seeking a second term. The challenger Mr. Mir Hossein Moussavi is a former foreign minister who became the prime minister, during the presidency of, no other than the present Supreme Leader Seyyed Ali Khameini from 1981 to 1989.
Many in the US, particularly in the Neo-Con circles are making the mistake of grouping the Moussavi followers to be an anti Islamic revolution. One of the most potent symbols used by the Moussavi supporters is the green color, popularly considered to be the color of Islam. This is an internal Iranian struggle for power in the Iranian context of freedom; the limit on the power of the state and for the bread and butter issues. Both the candidates are Iranian patriots who support the 1979 revolution and do not disagree with the ideas of constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran; though gradually it is evolving as a struggle for the check on the near absolute power of the Supreme Leader.
Their foreign policy is not likely to be substantially different. While Mr. Ahmadinijad was reactive to the belligerency of President Bush and finds it difficult to change, Mr. Moussavi will perhaps be more nuanced and soft spoken in the Obama mode, but will not yield Iranian interests to the Western pressure. President Obama is appropriately using the soft power words, rather than the bluster and empty threats of the Bush era.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.com and at mirzasmusings@blogspot.com
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Obama to Muslims 09-06-04
A Critique of President Obama’s Speech in Cairo
Mirza A. Beg
Friday, June 5, 2009
Media Monitor Network, Friday June 5, 2009
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62997
Counter Currents, Saturday June 6, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg060609.htm
The American Muslim, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_critique_of_president_obamas_speech_in_cairo/0017369
Pine Magazine, Atlanta, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/2036
The Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099997/1004/SPORTS?Title=Give-Obama-time-to-prove-himself
Al Jazeerah, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/June/9%20o/A%20Critique%20of%20President%20Obama's%20Speech%20in%20Cairo%20By%20Mirza%20A.htm
The speech by President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, on the 4th of June billed as, “An Address to the Muslim World” is indeed historic. It appears that the speech has been largely well received by his intended audience.
There are many critics of the speech. As usual the right wing critics in the US lament that he should not have accepted any mistakes in the past US policies. Most of the thoughtful criticism from the Muslims, his intended audience is about some of the things he said, but mostly what he did not say or did not say with more emphasis.
That includes me as well. While talking of violence by Palestinians, I wish he would have also commented on much worse violence inflicted on the Palestinians by Israelis, as is obvious by the death toll in many of the Israeli military operations. The toll of violence in Gaza last January was approximately1300 Palestinian killed, mostly civilians, to about 6 Israeli soldiers. How can one ignore it? Since it was billed as an address to the Muslim world and not only to the Arabs, I wish he would have also covered the conflicts in other parts of the world where Muslims are being persecuted.
Having said that, critics should keep in mind that President Obama has been in office for barely five months; he has inherited from his predecessor two wars, and an economy that was teetering on the precipice of depression. Deregulation by the successive US governments starting in 1980, become completely irresponsible in the last administration. It encouraged and lauded unbridled greed on Wall Street that left the American economy in shambles with the fear of possible depression, rippling through the world markets.
One should keep in mind that President Obama is a president of a Democratic Republic and not a dictator with unlimited powers. The American President is perceived to be the most powerful man in the world, but his power in the US is circumscribed and checked by the other two branches of the government. He can be powerful domestically only if he can convince the American electorate that his policies are in their self interest.
There is a difference in being an idealistic critic and an idealistic politician or even a statesman. As President Lincoln once equated the navigation of the ship of State to navigation through the Mississippi River; by necessity one has to follow the path of the river. Even though one may be traveling south, but when the river meanders to the north, one has to go along that short distance. It takes time and sustained effort by a visionary leader to gradually institute new policies while educating and carrying the people along. It is not easy to challenge wrong policies and the propaganda of decades. Those idealistic politicians who get too far ahead and do not take appropriate time to educate the people are overwhelmed by the entrenched opposition and court failure. The good policies and noble intents find a place on the dust heap of history.
It is unrealistic to expect that in a fifty-five minute speech President Obama could have covered all the nuances and details of the accumulated problems of many decades. As he acknowledged, “I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point.” He added, “Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all. “
Of course if he does not follow up with concrete policies, these lofty words and ideas, the critics would have been proven right, but one needs to give him some time.
Generally speaking, it appears from the myriad polls over the years that about 25 to 30 percent of Americans, (as voters in most other countries) belong to “my country right or wrong” group. They abhor the idea of acknowledging any mistakes. Mr. Bush’s intransigence was mistaken for strength. Their idea of patriotism is rooted in the supremacy of their religion and blind nationalism. They are adept at ignoring reality and confuse their interest with the universal morality.
Another 20 to 30 percent understand universal morality and do think of right and wrong in terms of “Do unto others, what one wants for himself”. The struggle is to convince the 40 percent or so apathetic voters who do not follow the news of international events closely. They are essentially concerned with the pocket book issues. They tend to follow the leader who can convincingly promise a better economy and hopefully deliver it.
One should keep these political realities in mind and that President Obama has inherited the most ominous problems from his predecessor, an economy that was in a free fall from October 2008 to March 2009, two wars spiraling towards endless quagmires and rotting infrastructure. He has not only made bold efforts to tackle them, it is remarkable that against the conventional wisdom that the president should not tackle more than one or two problems at a time, he considered the dialogue with the Muslim world and tackling the Palestine-Israel problem of such paramount importance that he made such a bold speech and has raised expectations.
Critics who find no difference between President George W. Bush’s rhetoric and President Obama’s speech have a very short memory. President Bush appointed right wing ideologues and known enemies of Islam, such as Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes and General Boykin to name just a few, to important positions and their rhetoric were incendiary. President Obama has shown by his action and many speeches that he does not skirt contentious issues, but speaks clearly and cogently to make people understand his thoughts and actions.
Thoughtful criticism of leaders is very important. That is how the leaders learn and try to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people, but one should temper it with an understanding of the leader’s character and consideration of the facts on the ground.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.comOr read this at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Mirza A. Beg
Friday, June 5, 2009
Media Monitor Network, Friday June 5, 2009
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/62997
Counter Currents, Saturday June 6, 2009
http://www.countercurrents.org/beg060609.htm
The American Muslim, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/a_critique_of_president_obamas_speech_in_cairo/0017369
Pine Magazine, Atlanta, Saturday, June 6, 2009
http://www.pinemagazine.com/site/article/2036
The Tuscaloosa News, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://www.tuscaloosanews.com/article/20090609/NEWS/906099997/1004/SPORTS?Title=Give-Obama-time-to-prove-himself
Al Jazeerah, Tuesday, June 9, 2009
http://ccun.org/Opinion%20Editorials/2009/June/9%20o/A%20Critique%20of%20President%20Obama's%20Speech%20in%20Cairo%20By%20Mirza%20A.htm
The speech by President Obama in Cairo, Egypt, on the 4th of June billed as, “An Address to the Muslim World” is indeed historic. It appears that the speech has been largely well received by his intended audience.
There are many critics of the speech. As usual the right wing critics in the US lament that he should not have accepted any mistakes in the past US policies. Most of the thoughtful criticism from the Muslims, his intended audience is about some of the things he said, but mostly what he did not say or did not say with more emphasis.
That includes me as well. While talking of violence by Palestinians, I wish he would have also commented on much worse violence inflicted on the Palestinians by Israelis, as is obvious by the death toll in many of the Israeli military operations. The toll of violence in Gaza last January was approximately1300 Palestinian killed, mostly civilians, to about 6 Israeli soldiers. How can one ignore it? Since it was billed as an address to the Muslim world and not only to the Arabs, I wish he would have also covered the conflicts in other parts of the world where Muslims are being persecuted.
Having said that, critics should keep in mind that President Obama has been in office for barely five months; he has inherited from his predecessor two wars, and an economy that was teetering on the precipice of depression. Deregulation by the successive US governments starting in 1980, become completely irresponsible in the last administration. It encouraged and lauded unbridled greed on Wall Street that left the American economy in shambles with the fear of possible depression, rippling through the world markets.
One should keep in mind that President Obama is a president of a Democratic Republic and not a dictator with unlimited powers. The American President is perceived to be the most powerful man in the world, but his power in the US is circumscribed and checked by the other two branches of the government. He can be powerful domestically only if he can convince the American electorate that his policies are in their self interest.
There is a difference in being an idealistic critic and an idealistic politician or even a statesman. As President Lincoln once equated the navigation of the ship of State to navigation through the Mississippi River; by necessity one has to follow the path of the river. Even though one may be traveling south, but when the river meanders to the north, one has to go along that short distance. It takes time and sustained effort by a visionary leader to gradually institute new policies while educating and carrying the people along. It is not easy to challenge wrong policies and the propaganda of decades. Those idealistic politicians who get too far ahead and do not take appropriate time to educate the people are overwhelmed by the entrenched opposition and court failure. The good policies and noble intents find a place on the dust heap of history.
It is unrealistic to expect that in a fifty-five minute speech President Obama could have covered all the nuances and details of the accumulated problems of many decades. As he acknowledged, “I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point.” He added, “Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all. “
Of course if he does not follow up with concrete policies, these lofty words and ideas, the critics would have been proven right, but one needs to give him some time.
Generally speaking, it appears from the myriad polls over the years that about 25 to 30 percent of Americans, (as voters in most other countries) belong to “my country right or wrong” group. They abhor the idea of acknowledging any mistakes. Mr. Bush’s intransigence was mistaken for strength. Their idea of patriotism is rooted in the supremacy of their religion and blind nationalism. They are adept at ignoring reality and confuse their interest with the universal morality.
Another 20 to 30 percent understand universal morality and do think of right and wrong in terms of “Do unto others, what one wants for himself”. The struggle is to convince the 40 percent or so apathetic voters who do not follow the news of international events closely. They are essentially concerned with the pocket book issues. They tend to follow the leader who can convincingly promise a better economy and hopefully deliver it.
One should keep these political realities in mind and that President Obama has inherited the most ominous problems from his predecessor, an economy that was in a free fall from October 2008 to March 2009, two wars spiraling towards endless quagmires and rotting infrastructure. He has not only made bold efforts to tackle them, it is remarkable that against the conventional wisdom that the president should not tackle more than one or two problems at a time, he considered the dialogue with the Muslim world and tackling the Palestine-Israel problem of such paramount importance that he made such a bold speech and has raised expectations.
Critics who find no difference between President George W. Bush’s rhetoric and President Obama’s speech have a very short memory. President Bush appointed right wing ideologues and known enemies of Islam, such as Elliot Abrams, Daniel Pipes and General Boykin to name just a few, to important positions and their rhetoric were incendiary. President Obama has shown by his action and many speeches that he does not skirt contentious issues, but speaks clearly and cogently to make people understand his thoughts and actions.
Thoughtful criticism of leaders is very important. That is how the leaders learn and try to meet the legitimate needs and aspirations of the people, but one should temper it with an understanding of the leader’s character and consideration of the facts on the ground.
Mirza A. Beg can be contacted at mab64@yahoo.comOr read this at http://mirzasmusings.blogspot.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)