Iran

Islamic Republic of Iran

جمهوری اسلامی ايران
Jomhuri-ye Islāmi-ye Irān

Official language: Farsi (Persian)

As anyone who has managed to reach this blog will already know, things are shaking up in Iran right now. For background, check Andrew Sullivan; he's done a sterling job of covering the whole thing since the initial results were announced on Friday.

I've been watching the situation unfold with a mixture of joy, hope, and worry. On the one hand, it's always wonderful to see people, the people, standing up for themselves and their rights in the face of oppression, no matter what country. Iran's critical position in the Middle East vis a vis our own further appeals to my inner von Bismarck. Most powerful of all, however, is seeing this through the lens of our tortured history with Iran and its people.

***** (background follows)
The linked Wikipedia article will have more details, but to summarize, the Islamic Republic in its current incarnation is a result of Cold War meddling on our part during the early 1950s. At that time, Iran was a more or less healthy secular democracy, headed by Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh (also spelled Mossadeq). Unfortunately for him, Prime Minister Mossadegh got it into his head that the wealth flowing from Iran's rich oil fields, then exclusively controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, should instead go to the state and people of Iran. So he nationalized the oil fields (boo! hiss! dirty marxist!). Unhappy with this development, Britain and the United States colluded in Operation Ajax to correct Mossadegh's little misstep and replace him with someone more pliable. National security, can't let the Reds worm their way in, that sort of thing. It went off without a hitch and we installed the Shah, a nice (to non-Iranians, anyway) man named Reza Pahlavi who cut a dashing figure in uniform and did exactly as we said.

Right: the Shah on a particularly dashing day

Unfortunately, the bothersome Iranian people weren't altogether happy with their new Shah--some silly rot about being ruled by an unaccountable dictator installed by foreigners--and in all honesty he didn't really help matters, setting up a secret police complete with cool acronym (SAVAK) to properly crush dissent. Add in the fact that he was completely tone-deaf to his own country's culture--he constantly played up the pre-Islamic Persian aspects while the Iranian people were and remain pretty solidly Shi'ite Muslim--and after 25 years of Shah Pahlavi, the Iranian people had had enough.

The Shah was overthrown and exiled in 1979, and the Islamic Republic of Iran was born, headed by the stern Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Unfortunately (see how often that word seems to pop up in this post?) for the Iranian people, the good Ayatollah decided that Western corruption was entirely to blame for that nasty business with Pahlavi, so why not ban it all straightaway and stick with [Khomeini's interpretation of] the Koran. What was good enough for the Prophet is good enough for us, and so forth. Right, Imam Khomeini?

"Absolutely! Oh, and while the Shah, cursed be his name, truly was a royal jerk, he had the right idea not to trust the people, though for the wrong reasons. He wanted to enrich himself and impose his personal vision of 'Persia' on all of us, dastardly fellow. We're merely concerned with moral purity, as laid out by the Prophet and, naturally, interpreted by us. Allah knows the common folk will fall into decadence at the first opportunity; they simply cry out for moral guidance--I can almost hear them now, poor things! Who to rule, then...well, since the Koran is the final word on everything, why not give power to those most familiar with it? That's right, the clerics! Headed by wise old me, of course, Grand Ayatollah Khomeini. Oh FINE, quit whining, we'll give them a directly elected president and some other trappings of democracy, all candidates pre-approved by our learned selves, of course. Someone's got to lay down the law around here--remember, 'Allah did not create man so that he could have fun.'*"

So there you have it. Straight from authoritarian dictatorship to authoritarian theocracy with some democratic aspects. Since then we've had one hostage crisis, the good Iranians not forgetting our role in installing and propping up the Shah; funded one war against those ungrateful bastards, prosecuted by the ever so helpful and secular Saddam Hussein; and, more recently, we've been trading mean words and threats, interspersed every so often by that wonderful international expletive nuclear. Hmm, I suppose that was a hell of a lot more than a summary, but no matter.
*****

So now we have, at a glance, challenger Mir-Hossein Mousavi in the reformist corner vs. everyone's favorite, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, in the...Ahmadinejad corner. Come to think of it, I have heard, note the emphasis, that Iranians seem to like Mousavi more by virtue of his not being Ahmadinejad than much else, so perhaps he's more in the...anti-Ahmadinejad corner? Mousavi served as Prime Minister from 1981-1987, and according to Wikipedia, "Mousavi refused to run for President in the 1997 elections, which caused the reformists to turn to his former Cabinet Minister, then a little-known cleric, Mohammad Khatami, who was elected by a landslide. During Khatami's administration, Mousavi served as the Senior Adviser to the President." Khatami served as a generally moderating force, softening restrictions and perhaps even some of the Great Satan rhetoric, though my memory is foggy on the particulars. Sane, intelligent people generally seemed to think he was a Good Guy, so I'll go with that. With that in mind, it's a fair bet that Mousavi probably wouldn't be too different, though I've heard things about his involvement in the founding of the Lebanese Islamist militia Hezbollah (apparently now deployed against Mousavi's own supporters in Iran; I'm sure Mousavi has some very choice words acknowledging this little irony) which might ordinarily give one pause, except, well, he's not Ahmadinejad.

I'm going to trample any remaining vestiges of impartiality here and side with Mousavi, just so you know where I stand. It's really not that hard, of course, especially after Ahmadinejad and his boss Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (who directly succeeded Khomeini when he died) pretty clearly rigged the election in Ahmadinejad's favor.** Having a base firmly planted in the traditionalists and the Revolutionary Guard, an elite wing of the Iranian military with its own ministry, army, air force, navy, etc. (think the Nazi SS, only bigger and more elaborate), doesn't really help, either. Ahmadinejad is himself a veteran of the Basij, a fanatical paramilitary force that reports straight to the Revolutionary Guard and which is believed to be largely responsible for attempts to crush the current unrest.

So now what? Well, it's a developing story, but again, although it's immensely uplifting to see the people of Iran protest en masse against this apparent coup d'etat, without the support or at least neutrality of the army, as occurred in the 1979 revolution, there's not much they can do to actually change things. And even if the army flips, the protestors' main man Mousavi is himself a member of the clerical establishment, a moderate only in comparison with Ahmadinejad. As such, I don't hold out much hope that he'd demand the truly fundamental changes that, from what I've heard, many of the Iranians want. True self-determination, at least, seems unlikely.

President Obama has rightly noted that any U.S. attempts to weigh in on things would help Ahmadinejad more than anyone else, though it's clear who's side he's on. Of course, the...alternate view is also readily available. If you want me to go into detail to refute these last, let me know, I'll not clutter this post up with back and forth arguments.

Speaking of musings and predictions, the NYT has an intriguing little op-ed which grimly describes the the coup as a virtual fait accompli (let's see how much French I can squeeze in here!). It despairs that we are now seeing "the consolidation of power by a ruthless regime and the transformation of a theocracy to an ideological military dictatorship." Sullivan blasts it as "outright hoping for the coup to succeed," and he has a point, as it's authored by a couple of neocon AEI drones and is especially transparent in its conclusion:

What does this mean for President Obama and the policy of engagement he hopes to pursue? Some will argue that Mr. Ahmadinejad may be in a conciliatory mood because he needs talks with the United States to underscore his own legitimacy, but that can only be read as a self-serving Washington perspective...[The new] Iran neither needs nor wants accommodation with the West.

However, the overall analysis nonetheless seems depressingly plausible, as far as I can be the judge of plausibility in a country I've only experienced through books and articles.

If only, if only...to think that we are ultimately responsible for this whole mess, all due to [simple greed masquerading as] early Cold War paranoia. It's maddening! One would hope we would have learned to appreciate a lighter touch, and thankfully Obama does, but the size, influence, and unholy persistence of the hawks is still chilling. Every problem a Gordian Knot, every tool a sword.

Anyway, here's hoping that by some miracle the Iranian protestors do prevail and implement some real reform. At the very least, Americans now have a vivid image of them as fellow human beings rather than simply targets on a map.

A few interesting notes:
-[In]famous torrent site The Pirate Bay has changed their logo to reflect solidarity with the Iranian demonstrations
-As linked above, the State Department prevailed upon Twitter to postpone downtime originally scheduled for the middle of the day, Iran time (Iranian protestors have been making extensive use of the service, as the government has shut down most opposition websites and newspapers)
-Andy Samberg, gold as usual


*An actual quote. Longer form (source): "Allah did not create man so that he could have fun. The aim of creation was for mankind to be put to the test through hardship and prayer. An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humor in Islam. There is no fun in Islam. There can be no fun and joy in whatever is serious. Islam does not allow swimming in the sea and is opposed to radio and television serials. Islam, however, allows marksmanship, horseback riding and competition..." :(

** Proof (again, Sullivan is a good place for details and sources): Ahmadinejad won landslides in solid Mousavi and Karoubi (another reformer) strongholds, including ethnic Azerbaijani ones (Mousavi is Azeri); Ahmadinejad's lead remained perfectly consistent throughout the night the results were tallied; the Iranian government's own election commission declared the results suspect; Mousavi and Mousavi-allied newspapers were told by the government to prepare for victory shortly before the final results were out, and even admonished not to be too exuberant in the interests of national unity; Khamenei rushed to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory, rather than waiting the traditional 3 days; and so on. Just to clarify, the vaunted "2 to 1 Ahmadinejad lead" poll from the waning days of the campaign, which the Washington Post irresponsibly ran an op-ed on, actually showed the incumbent with ~30% support compared to Mousavi's ~15%, with a huge chunk of voters undecided. Some lead.

"Dammit, if that's the price we have to pay, let's pay it"

(via Andrew Sullivan via The American Conservative) Found an excellent and highly revealing post by Philip Weiss about the growing chasm in the Jewish-American political sphere on the Israel-Palestine issue between traditional AIPAC-style neocons and the more liberal J Street types. (For those of you less familiar with the battle lines here, the former see the conflict through a pretty hardcore pro-Israel lens, which they justify by noting that Israel is the sole liberal democracy in the region and far more worthy of support than Hamas-led Palestinians, while the latter are more evenhanded in their treatment of the two sides).

(General background of my views on the Israeli-Palestinian issue at the end of this post)

As Weiss notes, one of the great maxims of foreign policy is "that the strategic interests of two states inevitably will diverge." This is where my largest beef with Israel and its American boosters begins.

Ever since its turbulent founding in 1948, Israel has relied heavily upon U.S. government aid, generally in the form of weapons, for its continued security--well, for its continued existence, really. So heavily, in fact, that in 1973 the Israeli government chose to weather a massive Arab attack rather than risk losing U.S. aid by making preemptive strikes against the forces building up along their border.

It is less clear, though, exactly how much the United States benefits from its end of this relationship. Certainly our military and intelligence agencies cooperate extensively (though we are by no means completely trusting of one another), and without checking I'll assume we have some excellent trade deals worked out. Not to mention the general good will which has always prevailed between the populations of our two nations.

As anyone with a basic grasp of U.S.-Arab relations knows, however, our unwavering support for Israel is a major sore point among its neighbors and is one of the biggest, and, outside of Iran and prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom, was arguably the biggest reason* for Arab popular hostility toward the United States.

You can see where this is heading. But I discovered in Weiss's post, though...well, I'll post my reaction after the quote.

Eric Alterman is a well known, fairly mainstream columnist for The Nation, one of the most influential left-leaning magazines in the United States. I have agreed and disagreed with him at various points in the past, but in general he has struck me as a serious, thoughtful writer. He took part in the panel discussion described in the linked post as one of "'the left,'" as Weiss puts it.

Alterman cited the maxim of foreign policy that the strategic interests of two states inevitably will diverge and said, "Sometimes I'm going to go with Israel" when its interests and the U.S.'s interests diverge. Because the US can take a lot of hits, but Israel can't.

You heard that right, boss. To her credit, Eisner asked Alterman to name a situation in which the two countries' interests diverge. Alterman offered: that bin Laden and the 9/11 terrorists were "to some degree inspired" by the U.S. relationship to Israel. The general environment of "terrorist attacks" and their "pool" of supporters in the Arab/Muslim world obviously draws on the the U.S.-Israel relationship.

"Dammit, if that's the price we have to pay [for the special relationship], let's pay it... But let's be honest about it."

I wonder: how many Americans would share that view? (And where's the dual?)[in 'dual loyalties' -- Peter]

I had to force my eyes back over this several times just to be sure I hadn't misread the post. The US can take a lot of hits, but Israel can't...if that's the price we have to pay, let's pay it.

I'm happy that Eric Alterman would prefer Israel's supporters be honest about the war into which he just admitted Israel has dragged the United States. However, I can't figure out what, apart from a Rorschach-level devotion to transparency, could be motivating this bizarre level of honesty. Perhaps he's only paying the lip service to the idea--he couldn't actually believe that's a majority opinion, surely...? I'll go Weiss one further on skepticism here and assert that a solid majority of the American public would favor leaving Israel twisting in the wind if they thought it would mean a substantially reduced risk of Arab terrorist attacks on Americans.

The reality is far more complicated, of course. At this point, we're in a bit too deep to simply drop everything and leave, and there remains the nagging issue of oil supplies from the Gulf States, though it's not as though OPEC is doing us any favors.

The sheer presumptuousness of Alterman's words, though...he would put the safety of 300 million of his (apparently ostensibly) fellow countrymen at risk for the sake of 5 million Israelis? And he is counted as one of the liberals! Does this mean AIPAC would rather see a terrorist nuke hit the United States than Israel? After all, "the U.S. can take a lot of hits, and Israel can't." People are entitled to their views, but remember, this is widely acknowledged to be the most influential lobby in Washington. If I didn't know better, I might conclude that he was purposely trying to confirm the worst of the anti-Semitic paranoia currently confined to the dregs of Stormfront and its ilk.

Regardless, the Israel lobby seems to be taking an awful lot for granted recently in terms of American support, even by its usual standards. That may have flown with the past Administration, but it looks to be changing. Even their technical victory in the Charles Freeman affair came at a cost of raising their public profile, something anathema to any effective lobby.





*Neoconservatives like to cite Sayyid Qutb as evidence of innate Muslim/Arab hostility to America independent of our support of Israel. I see this as at best a gross distortion of Qutb's influence based on wishful thinking and at worst a canard intended to exaggerate his influence. Even discounting our support for Israel, Western (and at points Soviet, which to Qutb is identical in its toxicity to true Islam) support for brutal, authoritarian regimes across the Arab world including Qutb's own Egypt gave him fertile ground in which to plant his ultra-orthodox, anti-modernist doctrine. Nutcases and fanatics exist in all human societies, and widespread support for them should be taken as evidence of deeper problems rather than proof of true popularity of their brand of extremism. Hitler, too, received broad adulation throughout Germany, but we rightly attribute this to the worldwide economic crash of the 1930s and lingering bitterness over World War I than innate Germanic anti-Semitism or megalomania.

******
BACKGROUND

A quick rundown on my previous thoughts on this issue may be in order here. Israel is an amazing country, and the progress it has made in the mere half-century since its founding is little short of miraculous. A liberal democracy with a robust economy, outsize contributions to science and technology, and a large cultural influence as well as fantastic music of which I count myself a fan--all that with less than 5 million people on a glorified beach on the Mediterranean. Imagine what we could do with a world of Israels!

I do not by any means believe Israel is blameless in its conflict with the Palestinians. On the land issue, particularly, I am inclined to side with the Palestinians--just because you happen have a book which claims that God promised your people this land a few thousand years ago does not, in my mind, give you the right to summarily seize it from its current occupants. I do, however, recognize that simple eviction of one or the other side from the area is an impossibility, and in a nutshell I'd favor a complete withdrawal to the 1967 borders, but Israeli-Palestinian relations are for another post.

One final word, however. Regardless of whether one wishes Israel good or ill, it cannot continue the status quo if it wishes to survive as a liberal democracy. Absent a massive deportation effort that would likely turn Israel into a true international pariah, demographics project that in a few short decades it will be a majority Arab state. The IDF can shell Gaza into the Stone Age and AIPAC can dump as much money as it likes into our political process, as is its right, but this fact remains.

BACKGROUND ENDS
******