Iran
Long one, you have been warned.
When the Iranian post-election crisis was erupting, there were many candle light vigils here supporting the demonstrators. "Why?" I asked a friend going to one of the vigils, and got the usual yarn on supporting democracy, coming out against theocratic dictatorship and how Moussavi is the hope. This was right before the Friday sermon by Ayatollah Khameni, and I told her not to bother, Moussavi would dissapear post speech. See why I dont have many friends....
A few important things were that the protestors weren't for anti-theocracy - most of the candidates were clerics themselves, including Moussavi, and they would not challenge to bring down the system that had brought them power. The Ayatollah wasn't being viled, the slogans were yet "Allah is great". No, this wasn't a anti-theocracy movement atall.
The demonstrations were anti-Ahmedinejad. The reason the whole thing blew out of hand was because the Ayatollah openly supported Ahmedinejad before he was actually elected. Had he kept his mum, he could have sacrificed Ahmedinejad and let the whole thing blow over. As the things stood, his hand was forced, and really the friday speech couldnt have been any different than what it was, and Moussavi's subesquent dissapearance too was expected.
One thing to remember is that Moussavi was a president once, and a pretty conservative one at that. So, he was an insider as one could be. And hence, I also always refuted the idea that 'foreign powers' had a direct hand in the affair. They certainly would have done some background check to pick someone outside the system - not Moussavi. And also the liberalist hopes that Moussavi's government would bring down the theocracy.
Iran has a very large young population and a weak economy. Unemployment is high. Oil is their biggest export, and oil prices have been very low recently adding to the stress. Adding to it was Ahmedinejad's fiery all guns out diplomacy, which was alienating the country from the economic world. Yes, Iran has nuclear ambitions, but then so have other countries without being such international pariahs. (Btw. did you know this was a Tamil word?) So there was much anger in the urban sectors, and almost none in the rural areas. The demonstrations were mostly urban too. The issues and anger haven't gone away, but yet is confined to cities. And a crudely crushed demostration has added insult to injury. However, that rural support is the hope of the clerical establishment. Rafasanjani has tried to use the unrest to present the Ayatollah with a check, but that is mostly for personal ambitions. He too, is not looking for a systematic change.
I think Ahmedinejad yet has a chance, and this time, the Ayatollah's future will depend on it, so he (Amedinejad) will be kept on a tighter leash. Unless there is another eruption based on a largely popular issue (like religion or economy), and if the Ayatolla is smart enough to leave a little flexibility and allows leeway to the dissenters, I dont see a systematic upheveal.
An important point is that there are considerable US troops mired in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran shares long boundaries with both these countries, and can cause a significant mischief in both places. Obama has staked a lot on Afghanistan. This allows a freer reign to Iran's nuclear program. For technology, there is China, eager to assert itself in the oil rich regions. So, US will make a lot of noise with both hands tied behind it's back. It will present diplomacy, threats, and a lot. But with it's decreased international clout in the post-Iraq world, and the geographical realities, it is severely bound. It will also keep Israel tied down, unless Iranians do something really stupid. Ofcourse, it will be a boon for the United States to engineer a power change and install a puppet, but there is a lot of public ill-will that will destroy any candidate if he is seen to have US backing. And while US is busy polarising the Muslim world against itself, it doesnt stand much chance to do this.
So, there is the opportunity to do some real work beyond the rhetoric, and there is the necessity too. Theocracy is not necessarily disfunctional just because its a theocracy. People in power do get carried away, but this can serve as a wakeup call. If heeded carefully, Iranian government can make a lot good for it's people and itself. Iran has huge regional ambitions, and capacity too. But the clerics need to put their own house in order before venturing out. Else, the house will collapse on their heads.
Whether I like the outcome, well, I wish the world cared for my wishes...
When the Iranian post-election crisis was erupting, there were many candle light vigils here supporting the demonstrators. "Why?" I asked a friend going to one of the vigils, and got the usual yarn on supporting democracy, coming out against theocratic dictatorship and how Moussavi is the hope. This was right before the Friday sermon by Ayatollah Khameni, and I told her not to bother, Moussavi would dissapear post speech. See why I dont have many friends....
A few important things were that the protestors weren't for anti-theocracy - most of the candidates were clerics themselves, including Moussavi, and they would not challenge to bring down the system that had brought them power. The Ayatollah wasn't being viled, the slogans were yet "Allah is great". No, this wasn't a anti-theocracy movement atall.
The demonstrations were anti-Ahmedinejad. The reason the whole thing blew out of hand was because the Ayatollah openly supported Ahmedinejad before he was actually elected. Had he kept his mum, he could have sacrificed Ahmedinejad and let the whole thing blow over. As the things stood, his hand was forced, and really the friday speech couldnt have been any different than what it was, and Moussavi's subesquent dissapearance too was expected.
One thing to remember is that Moussavi was a president once, and a pretty conservative one at that. So, he was an insider as one could be. And hence, I also always refuted the idea that 'foreign powers' had a direct hand in the affair. They certainly would have done some background check to pick someone outside the system - not Moussavi. And also the liberalist hopes that Moussavi's government would bring down the theocracy.
Iran has a very large young population and a weak economy. Unemployment is high. Oil is their biggest export, and oil prices have been very low recently adding to the stress. Adding to it was Ahmedinejad's fiery all guns out diplomacy, which was alienating the country from the economic world. Yes, Iran has nuclear ambitions, but then so have other countries without being such international pariahs. (Btw. did you know this was a Tamil word?) So there was much anger in the urban sectors, and almost none in the rural areas. The demonstrations were mostly urban too. The issues and anger haven't gone away, but yet is confined to cities. And a crudely crushed demostration has added insult to injury. However, that rural support is the hope of the clerical establishment. Rafasanjani has tried to use the unrest to present the Ayatollah with a check, but that is mostly for personal ambitions. He too, is not looking for a systematic change.
I think Ahmedinejad yet has a chance, and this time, the Ayatollah's future will depend on it, so he (Amedinejad) will be kept on a tighter leash. Unless there is another eruption based on a largely popular issue (like religion or economy), and if the Ayatolla is smart enough to leave a little flexibility and allows leeway to the dissenters, I dont see a systematic upheveal.
An important point is that there are considerable US troops mired in Iraq and Afghanistan and Iran shares long boundaries with both these countries, and can cause a significant mischief in both places. Obama has staked a lot on Afghanistan. This allows a freer reign to Iran's nuclear program. For technology, there is China, eager to assert itself in the oil rich regions. So, US will make a lot of noise with both hands tied behind it's back. It will present diplomacy, threats, and a lot. But with it's decreased international clout in the post-Iraq world, and the geographical realities, it is severely bound. It will also keep Israel tied down, unless Iranians do something really stupid. Ofcourse, it will be a boon for the United States to engineer a power change and install a puppet, but there is a lot of public ill-will that will destroy any candidate if he is seen to have US backing. And while US is busy polarising the Muslim world against itself, it doesnt stand much chance to do this.
So, there is the opportunity to do some real work beyond the rhetoric, and there is the necessity too. Theocracy is not necessarily disfunctional just because its a theocracy. People in power do get carried away, but this can serve as a wakeup call. If heeded carefully, Iranian government can make a lot good for it's people and itself. Iran has huge regional ambitions, and capacity too. But the clerics need to put their own house in order before venturing out. Else, the house will collapse on their heads.
Whether I like the outcome, well, I wish the world cared for my wishes...
Comments
I thought Rafsanjani's speech was actually interesting in that he suggested (indirectly, but still) that the powers should resign if people don't want them.
Anyway. Just saying that I liked reading your post. Thanks!
About the young people part, I think what drew them out was the frustrations with the bad economy and unemployment and the previous government messing up macro economic-political scenarios...
Yes, Rafasanjani's speech was interesting. He is very powerful too, roumored to be the man behind getting the Ayatolla appointed. Maybe he was reminding the Ayatolla just that. :)