Adrian Hamilton: How can Iranians mend their broken Islamic Republic?
Ahmadinejad may have been declared the victor, but he lacks legitimacy
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, ought to be pleased with Iran. There is no one else left in the world who would categorise Britain as uniquely evil or threatening, let alone important enough to go for full-scale diplomatic confrontation. If only we did have the power or means to destabilise other countries, as we have been accused of. But, on the whole, we huff and we puff, as we have over Georgia, Zimbabwe and Burma, and no one takes a blind bit of notice, regarding us as a power from the past whose only role has been as a "loyal ally" of the US.
Indeed, you could put the same interpretation on the current spat with Tehran. Very few people, even in the remoter parts of Iran, still believe in Britain as an imperial manipulator behind every plot. The Foreign Office gave up its expertise on Iran (and it had considerable knowledge) when it wilfully marginalised nation expertise in favour of concentration on "issues" such as climate change and nuclear proliferation. If anyone poses a threat from here, it is not the Government but the BBC and its Persian language service, the part of the organisation which is always cut.
No, Preisdent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has struck out against London not because he fears it but because he wants the cover of outside interference to explain away an essentially home-grown revolt and justify its suppression. Britain is a useful bogey to conjure up because it is a way of attacking the Americans without naming them.
It is a sad reflection of our fading authority that the only response that seems to be causing any nervousness in Iran is the threat of combined action by the whole of the European Union over the seizure of British embassy staff. The Americans have chosen to keep well out of this quarrel, and who can blame them? There is nothing in it for a new administration that wants to open up a dialogue with Iran, however put-upon its "loyal ally" might be. Their support would only make matters worse.
Which remains the dilemma for the outside world in reacting to events within Iran. We may have dearly wished that this election would succeed in changing the face of Iran. But our wish became father to the belief that the demonstrations against the disputed result would succeed in doing precisely that. They haven't. The reality for the moment is that the reformist cause has gone into retreat. Lacking effective leadership and a cohesive plan, failing to gather through the provincial cities outside, many of its leaders arrested and crowds violently suppressed, it has pulled back.
The pronouncement by Iran's Guardian Council this week that the vote was fair and Ahmadinejad has been duly re-elected has been the signal for a gathering of clerical ranks behind the decision. And yet the waters are clearly not going to close over this event. Forget all the western commentary talking about the irreconcilable splits in the establishment and genies let out of the bottle. Iran has always had splits and occasional revolts and returned to a period of uneasy, conservative suppression. It may well do so again now.
What is different on this occasion is that there is now an open stand-off between two opposing dynamics. On the one side has been the radical technocrat and militia forces led by Ahmadinejad, formed by the Iran-Iraq war and hostile to the old clerical establishment. On the other side is the new, educated generation with no recollection of that war, who seek a more open society, especially the women who make up 60 per cent of those in higher education.
Formally, the Supreme Ruler is supposed to act as the neutral umpire on internal division. In this case he didn't, coming out publicly and early in favour of Ahmadinejad, but that has only made the stand-off more difficult to solve. Because the demonstrations never made it to full revolt, they remain unresolved. Ahmadinejad may have been declared victor on a partial recount, but he lacks legitimacy because he lacks the assent that should have come from a democratic election.
That matters in Iran's dealings abroad, not just with the West but in the region, but it also matters internally. The Islamic Republic was set up to ensure clerical rule with popular backing. That system has broken down, at least for the time being. With two different forces pulling in opposite directions, it is difficult to see how it can be put back together.
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
And remember too that Brown and most of his cabinet, Cameron and most of the shadow cabinet are all respective members of either Labour Friends of Israel or the Tory version.
Mark Thompson at the BBC is married to a rabid Zionist and there has been secret media deals done with Israel in the last year or so in order to allow the BBC to gain a market share of Israeli broadcasting in return for "blind eye" reporting with the occasional "token" complaint from the Israeli's against the BBC to stop suspicions being aroused.
So no, I do not accept the view in this article that Britain is toothless and its fangs lack venom, rather the reverse.
In fact Britain has the capability to fulfill every one of the Iranian President's charges, as has America and Israel. All three have the desire and from their viewpoint too, the need which if looked at logically makes for a poor defence from the Iranian charges especially when loud mouthed agents in the US shout it out that the US at least is doing bad things in Iran.
So America, Britain and Israel have the capability to do 'bad things' in Iran. So what? That doesn't make them guilty as charged. Other we could all be charged as being guilty of murder (because if we have the physical capacity we would, following that logic be guilty).
Iran as the capability of fiddling the election. Would you use your logic to condemn them?
Israel wishes it could - but as Israel found out in Lebanon, the tide is turning...
Militarily, Iran is very strong weaponry wise and Russia has quietly been upgrading Iran's capability for some time now, this is what has halted the US movement towards military action because the Pentagon is very unsure if they can actually beat Iran in a ground/air war without taking massive losses.
And what if Israel did this, several things would happen... firstly missilery from Iran would rain down on every US base and installation within range, missiles would be on their way to Israel as well, not just from Iran but Syria too, Iranian submarines armed with SunBurn's would eradicate the US Navy presence in the gulf, Iran knows then that the response from the US would likely be nuclear but it would have given the US more than a bloodied nose before it was turned into glass.
Of course the Israeli's and Americans will feel safe under their Patriot umbrella, not realising that it's abysmal failure rate has been hidden from public view...
And what would the US be facing then or have people forgotten what China said three years ago... that anyone, anyone interfering with its oil supplies would be considered an act of war... and the Chinese mean business as it has submarines dotted all over the Persian gulf, it is highly likely that Russia and China would side with Iran in an unprovoked attack and suddenly America finds itself dropped into the crap by its so called "ally".
Thank God for death, the most democratic of all forces. Think how the world would be if the powerful lived for ever. Mind you with good health-care, in some African states, the leaders preside over three generations of their emacitated followers thus appearing "immortal" but in reality still fighting historical battles whilst the young die.
Am I the only one to find the vision of "religious" leaders profoundly boring and depressingly limited? No wonder the young of Iran hope for better.
The intriguing part is whether the British intelligence deliberately queered the pitch for Barack Obama's Middle East policy. After all, as the conceiver of the Balfour Declaration, Britain owes that much to its progeny.
Melkulangara Kumaran
I do not understand why you want to mend any external politics staying in the UK when you have a cycle without the pump; tires eaten by the dogs, no handbrakes, all tong the steering and the brakes parts.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Do you really feel sad about our supposed impotence? If we had the means to project our power you would probably be joining in with those who condemned Britain's interference in the affairs of others and post-imperialist meddling. You can't have it both ways.
i PERSONALLY THINK OUR LACK OF POWER IS A GOOD THING. TO OFTEN WE HAVE BEEN OVERLY ENTHUSIASTIC IN OUR APPROACH TO OTHER COUNTRIES PROBLEMS. UNTIL WE CAN SORT THE MESS IN OUR OWN COUNTRY WHAT HOPE CAN WE DELIVER TO THE IRANIANS.
So why would Iran give a stuff what Britain has to say?
There is no breakdown in the popular backing that the Iranian theocracy enjoys:
The riots in Tehran were the result of:
a) a campaign of Twitter and SMS disinformation that alleged massive electoral fraud and have Mousavi as the "real" winner when the man didn't even bother to campaign outside of Tehran and Isfahan while Ahamdinejad was greeted by 6-figure crowds wherever he went
b) Mujahedeen-e Khalq militants infiltrated in from their Yank-protected base in Iraq via the usual spy route in and out of Iran: the Shiite pilgrimages
c) the co-opting of Mousavi's sponsor Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, frustrated in his claim to Khomeini's succession as Iran's senior cleric. Eyeing his last chance to become Supreme Leader as Ahmadinejad's frail patron Khameney looks ready to party with the high-bosomed houris in the land of honey & wine, Montazeri was likely approached through intermediaries by Britain's new MI6 chief who had intimate contacts with the Iranian regime's representatives at the UN and is now exploiting his rolodex of diplomatic contacts for HM's cloak-and-dagger secret service.
I thank you
Firozali A.Mulla
Passengers to pay price for crisis on the railways To Iran only?? I wanna go to Austarlia I am told they have kangaroos Is THAT true..
Britain installed and removed Reza Shah (Reza Khan).
Britain installed Mohammed Reza Shah.
Britain removed Dr. Mossadegh
Britan was behind the removal of Mohammed Reza Shah after he refused to continue with the old oil deal imposed on Iran after 1953 coup.
Britain has joined the US in illegal sanctions against Iran.
Britain, the US, and Israel are actively engaged in covert action against Iran. She secretly funds and supports the Baluchi, Kurd, and MKO terrorists against Iran.
Now, about the Islamic Repulic, it is broken and cannot be put together.
If you mean the fact that certain areas had more than the registered number of votes cast, I found that difficult to describe as anything other than fraud, until I recently found out that you don't have to vote in a specific constituency in the presidential elections. This puts into context some of the issues highlighted. In fact, it makes it more likely that Moussavi received less votes in his home constituency, as many of his supporters would have been commuters, surely?
If you're talking about the speed of the results being given, I'm more inclined to agree, but I'm not sure that these were fraudulent as such; just that extrapolation was used for a quick declarations. Not correct procedure, but strictly speaking not fraud either...
The GC of Iran, the only legal authority responsible for declaring the new president has announce Mr. Ahmadinejad as the winner in this election. We should rather congratulate Mr. Ahmadinejad as the new president of Iran. I am surprised that the UK government has not taken the steps to do this. The reason could be that there are weaknesses inside the UK government itself. Remember the rifts between the present Prime Minister and the last one? Don't forget that, the Blarites and Brownites have been digging into each others foundation in the British corridors of power for a long time. And the British moan, every often that the Prime Minister is not elected directly by them.
The point about the UK is that it wants to exert authority over something which is in itself not for a just cause: First of all, Iran has its own legal procedures to follow in the election. They also have the GC to oversee the running of the election and its results. The candidates accepted its authority before the election and must accept its decision afterwards. Any cries of illegality and criminality must be addressed to the Iranian courts not to the British Embassy, The UN, the Hague, to Messrs Milliband , Sarcozy or the bbisi. Why is that any Iranian would not understand this?
Mr, Galloway and his previous history with the ME is a bad news. With a friend like him who needs an enemy? If I were Mr. Ahmadinejad I brush Galloway away like a bad rash. Galloway's name equals war. Always remember the history.
Jeremy Paxman did a good job by the last nights News Night by exposing that often various media corporations are owned by the individuals, their identity is not often known or noticed by the public. As one of the executives said " we can work for you, if you could afford our bill."
As regards Mr. Mosavie, I don't understand the reasons behind the supports for him, amongst the Iranians and the Western governments. Who is he? He is the very same person who put his signature on the execution papers of many Iranian writers, journalists and intellectuals in the eighties. The Iranians know this. How this very gruesome fact can generate truly the overwhelming support and popularity amongst the people for this man? On the other hand, I could see why the outside world would want to portray him as the popular contender amongst the youth of Iran: For the West, anybody is better than Ahmadinejad, vis a vis in dealings with the nuclear issue. As the case is, in some quarters having already conveniently concluded that Mosavie is the winner, and have soon dragged the nuclear issue into today's argument.
There is the little matter of the "Uncle Napoleon" a little satire that ridicules the culpability of the Iranian nation. The fall out from the satire is that the irresponsible, unintelligent and inexperienced youth no longer see themselves as culpable. They may believe truly in what they are doing; but do they know about Mr.Mosavie's little history ? are we supposed to swallow the little history because the pathetic youth of Iran are saying so
Regards,
Tizab
Just like Western media should have kept silent during the Velvet Revolution that overthrew Communism! Why didn't those citizens in Eastern Europe just do as they are told? After all they were told that they lived in a socialist utopia!
AndI suppose it makes no odds to you that Ahmadinejad may have stolen the election? And that we are still to congratulate him if he did? In other words, as far as you appear to be concerned it doesn't matter what actually happened - it was what was seen to happen that counts.
On the basis of discussions with several Iranians over a number of years I have acquired this general impression.
Just who is provoking who? The Iranian president wants Israel wiped off the map, held a holocaust denial convention, used vituperative and confrontational language in dealing with the West, holds staged mass rallies reminiscent of those helf in totalitarian regimes, defends the use of violence to crush demonstrations against the 'stolen election' has taken no steps to prevent the execution of minors or the oppression of women.
Yeah, the West should cut the regime some slack and let it carry on its usual bellicose way. By the way, if Iran is against the principal of meddling in the internal affairs of other nations it might put its own house in order and practise what it preaches - starting with Israel.
What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander!