Would Iran change if the opposition leader, Mir Hossein Mousavi, who seems very popular in the Western world, takes power?
Daniel Byman, the director of the Center for Peace and Security Studies at Georgetown University, writes in Slate that he does not think so.
"Mousavi is likely to disappoint. A prime minister in the 1980s, when the regime was far more revolutionary than it is today, he is a creature of the Iranian system. Indeed, in order to win approval to run for president in the first place, he had to pass an ideological and political litmus test that rejected more than 400 other candidates, leaving only Mousavi, Ahmadinejad, and two other establishment types.
"As prime minister, he approved Iran's effort to purchase nuclear technology from Pakistan, and during the 2009 campaign he defended Iran's nuclear program. Clearly he is an improvement over Ahmadinejad, but that is damning with the faintest praise.
"It is possible that if he somehow won a new election Mousavi might prove to be a reformer in the Mikhail Gorbachev mode, pushing the dilapidated system so hard that it breaks. More likely, however, he will move away from some of Ahmadinejad's most obnoxious policies but not fundamentally change the nature of the regime."
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 14
sadly, that's probably true, Savo. Republican politicians in the USA, who line up to sing his praises, take note. He's not an American style liberty boy.
Having just listened to the tripe that their supreme leader (or whatever title he goes by) blatantly LIE and say that the elections were fair... oh, and it was all Britain's fault, too...
WORDS FAIL ME!
And him a so-called man of God? Liar.
yes Ishbel, I am indignant about that crap too. I am going to need to vent fully in a Post.
Iran will change but not in the ways either of the two main parties in Iran would like. It's stance with respect to the U.S. would change only slightly. Iran cannot modernize its economy and retain an 8th century way of governing itself. It will suffer quite a lot while it adjusts.
This election is only the beginning of awareness that the Iranians are going to see, and the future may be a bit more open, but then again maybe not. However, as the old die off the younger will need to take charge then over time maybe this awareness may stick
This whole thing is FAR from over.
Spartan, you said it!
I think the fact that at least 65 per cent of their population is considered 'young' (think it was under 25, but not sure) may be the wake up call that these old men need.
In my opinion there is too much speculation on this and many other issues foreign and domestic. No one knows for sure the outcome of these thing and to indulge in speculation, which has become a national sport, mankes as much sense as children telling each other scary stories.
It seems like this event might actually be a planned thing. There's nowhere for the revolutionaries to go with it, they will either keep rioting and be mowed down in the streets or go home defeated. Both scenarios would be victories for the ruling elite. It might just be an effort to let a little steam off the pot until they can figure out what to do next. Personally, I feel that the events in Iran and North Korea both were projected when Obama was elected. It's all part of feeling out your opponent, they just do it differently in dictatorial regimes... Iran seems to be trying to provoke Obama into decrying their repression so they can label opposition as pro-US/anti-Iran troublemakers.
All things considered, the "revolution" is being maintained by the government there. They have absolutely no fear of it turning into anything major. The opposition lacks support in the military and the middle class so they really have nothing to go on. It will peter out and life will go back to normal in Tehran.
Byman misreads the situation in Iran. The people are demanding their rights.
Qom's Grand Ayatollah Husayn Montazeri's call for three days of mourning for the dead, from Wednesday to Friday is perahps the most important devolopment to watch. The progressive view in Tehran and among the exiled Iranian intelligentsia - is that this is a call for civil disobedience code, suggesting citizens should go indefinitely on strike.
Mousavi, Khatami, Montazeri are not revolutionaries. They accept the principles and institutions of the Iranian Islamic Republic , while criticizing "deviations and deceptions" They seek a "return of the pure principles of the Islamic Revolution". They stress this implies every single form of freedom of expression.
People in Iran seek an open, ongoing dialogue within civil society. They do not seek "Western liberal democracy." Persians are very sophisticated. What we may see in process is Iran's post-modern revision of its Revolution : a Reformation. Perhaps it will approach a contemporary form compatible with the "Mandate of Heaven" for our time - and also compatible with the Orthodox Russian' ideal of the New Man and Holy City that its people seek in its government ... while the West may divide and wander aimlessly in confusion and discord.
Thank you, Savo Heleta, for this article, and for commenting on mine.
Two articles to checx out: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF25Ak02.html
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/cia-has-distributed-400-million-dollars-inside-iran-to-evoke-a-revolution/
I commented to an intelligence officer in the Pentagon who posts on Gather:
Since the end of WWII, America has followed a traditional imperial formula: acquire capital through warfare and crime. Nixon's "War on Drugs" was to increase profits from narcotics and warfare. Bush's "War on Terror" is the "War on Drugs" by another name. The decision was made at the end of the Cold War to transfer capital and investment to developing countries and allow the American economy to decline along with the middle class. The dominance of the financial sector that Bush increased has been increased further by Obama.
The ongoing global economic collapse may result in rapid changes, even here in the US. It may drag on as the status quo is maintained . The financial interests are feeding on the people to raise capital to fight wars and deal in drugs to raise more capital, while they can.
Americans can change things if they wake up and work to get a government that serves their interests.
I read medieval Arabic texts in London with Bernard Levis. who later becane the sacred oracle of the DC elite while ensconsed at Princeton's Institute for Advanced Studies. A fine scholar. yet in his 90's singing "Rule the Bank of England" and "hip, hip hooray for Eretz Israel" - except he kind of expanded things to include Americans in the game in Afghanistan and points North , East and South. This had the Pentagon having orgasms - not the kind common in Pentagon bathrooms among their gai community.