Robert Fisk: Fear has gone in a land that has tasted freedom
In defiance of the ban on foreign reporters, The Independent's Middle East correspondent ventures out to witness an extraordinary stand-off on the streets of Tehran
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
More pictures
The fate of Iran rested last night in a grubby north Tehran highway interchange called Vanak Square where – after days of violence – supporters of the official President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at last confronted the screaming, angry Iranians who have decided that Mirhossein Mousavi should be the president of their country. Unbelievably – and I am a witness because I stood beside them – just 400 Iranian special forces police were keeping these two armies apart. There were stones and tear gas but for the first time in this epic crisis the cops promised to protect both sides.
"Please, please, keep the Basiji from us," one middle-aged lady pleaded with a special forces officer in flak jacket and helmet as the Islamic Republic's thug-like militia appeared in their camouflage trousers and purity-white shirts only a few metres away. The cop smiled at her. "With God's help," he said. Two other policemen were lifted shoulder-high. "Tashakor, tashakor," – "thank you, thank you" – the crowd roared at them.
This was phenomenal. The armed special forces of the Islamic Republic, hitherto always allies of the Basiji, were prepared for once, it seemed, to protect all Iranians, not just Ahmadinejad's henchmen. The precedent for this sudden neutrality is known to everyone – it was when the Shah's army refused to fire on the millions of demonstrators demanding his overthrow in 1979.
Yet this is not a revolution to overthrow the Islamic Republic. Both sets of demonstrators were shouting "Allahu Akbar" – "God is Great" – at Vanak Square last night. But if the Iranian security forces are now taking the middle ground, then Ahmadinejad is truly in trouble.
As the fume-filled dusk fell over the north Tehran streets, the crowds grew wilder. I listened to a heavily bearded Basiji officer exorting his men to assault the 10,000 Mousavi men and women on the other side of the police line. "We must defend our country now, just as we did in the Iran-Iraq war," he shouted above the uproar. But the Ahmadinejad man trying to calm him down, shouted back: "We are all fellow citizens! Let's not have a tragedy. We must have unity."
Clearly the decision of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to instruct the Council of Guardians to recount Friday's election vote had done nothing to dispel the suspicion and anger of the reformist opposition in Iran.
First it appeared that the council would examine every election result. Then only a few. Then Iranians were told that it might take 10 days to learn their decision. It was as well, perhaps, that Ahmadinejad had flown to Yekaterinburg for the Shanghai summit to bore conference delegates with his speeches instead of the Iranian people whom he believes he represents. But on Vanak Square last night, all this meant nothing.
Plain-clothes cops – perhaps at last realising the gravity of a situation which their own obedience to Ahmadinejad's men had brought about – persuaded middle-aged men from both sides to meet in the centre of the road in the middle of Vanak Square's narrow no-man's-land. The Mousavi man, in a brown shirt, placed his hands around the arms of the bearded Iranian official from the Ahmadinejad side. "We cannot allow this to happen," he told him. And he tried, as any Muslim does when he wants to show his desire for trust and peace, to kiss the side of his opponent's face. The bearded man physically shook him off, screaming abuse at him.
The two rows of police were now standing shoulder to shoulder, their linked arms holding both mobs back, as they stared at their own comrades opposite with ever increasing concern. An American-Iranian a few metres away, shouted at me in English that "we've got to prove they can't do this anymore. They can't rule us. We need a new president. Either they get their way or we get ours".
It was frightening, the absolute conviction of these men, the total refusal to accept any compromise, one side demanding obedience to the words of Ayatollah Khomeini and loyalty to the ghosts of the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the other – emboldened by their million-strong march on Monday – demanding freedoms, albeit within an Islamic Republic, which they had never had before. Maybe they now have the police on their side; if last night's example was anything to go by, either some senior officer – or perhaps the cops themselves, appalled at their behaviour over the past four days – decided that the special forces would no longer be patsies to the frightening power of Ahmadinejad's ever-loyal bullies.
Only hours earlier, seven men killed by the Basiji at the end of Monday's march, were secretly buried by police in Cemetery 257, a large graveyard close to the Khomeini shrine, where the founder of the Islamic Revolution lies beneath a mosque of golden cupolas and blue-tiled walls. No such honours for the seven victims of the Basiji. They lay beneath a covering of earth, no markers on their graves, no word sent to their families of their fate.
But the pro-government newspapers in Tehran did report their deaths and one even gave its front page to the outraged condemnation of Tehran University's Chancellor at the Basiji intrusion onto the campus on Sunday night, when the security forces killed seven young men, wounded several others and smashed and looted the university dormitories. Farhad Rabar said he would pursue the killers through the courts, adding that "the invasion of the University of Tehran, which is the symbol of higher education... has caused a wave of sorrow and anger in me".
Is it too late to end this fratricidal violence now? For each side, the integrity of their cause is fast becoming more powerful than rational dialogue. The freedom which Mousavi's supporters have tasted – to ignore and disregard and despise the clerical autocracy which has so humiliated them – is now so intoxicating that they are confronting their political enemies in the street with a strange, unnerving, but genuine humour.
At one point last night, men and women wearing the green ribbons of Mousavi's election stood on the pavement beside that chilling 100 metres of no-man's-land next to chadored ladies clutching the Iranian flag – Ahmadinejad's patriotic symbol. They even chatted about the outcome of this fearful confrontation between their two sides.
It was a different narrative three hours earlier when Ahmadinejad's men and women held their own demonstration in Val-y-Asr Square. No word was said of Monday's opposition mass rally, nor of the street demonstrations in the cities of Shiraz, Mashad, Babol and Tabriz. Indeed, most Iranians have no knowledge of these events; Ahmadinejad's censors have seen to that. The banners were predictable. "Death to the Traitor" – Mousavi, of course, was the "betrayer" of the Republic. "Death to anyone who is against the Supreme Leader" – which was a bit odd because neither Mousavi nor his millions of supporters are against Ayatollah Khamenei (albeit that the two men dislike each other); it is Ahmadinejad for whom they have a visceral hatred and whom they are trying to depose.
The former parliamentary speaker, Gholamali Haddadadel, spotted Mousavi's weakest argument when he addressed a crowd that could not have been more than 5,000 strong. "Does Mousavi know how many people voted for Ahmadinejad in the rural areas and in the villages?" he asked. "Iran is not just Tehran. We know that Mr Mousavi got 13 million votes, but Mr Ahmadinejad got 24 million." But of course, those are the very statistics which Mousavi and his allies dispute. Preachers and Sayads lectured the little multitude, their bodyguards – even paramedics – keeping careful watch over them. There was a famous Iranian religious singer to preach to this banner-shrouded audience.
It was on my way out of Val-y-Asr that I noticed a truckload of men, all dressed in camouflage trousers and white shirts, many carrying police clubs, setting off to north Tehran. They were followed by the newly energised Islamist demonstrators, off on the four-mile trek up to Vanak. Two conscript soldiers were standing amid the Mousavi supporters there when an old man asked their advice. Should he stay if the Basijis break through the cordon? "The Basijis beat people hard – very hard," one of the soldiers said. And he patted the old man on the shoulder and shook his head.
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
The crazy coot thinks that the army preventing a street war is the same thing as the army joining the anti-Shah revolt.
Ahmadinejad is so unconcerned about Mousavi's crappy little "green revolution" that he's in Russia.
Something is fishy, and history is there for a reason. To learn from places like: Iran (Mossadegh removed from power by Op. Ajax), Iraq (democracy ended by support of Saddam), Venezuela (democracy almost ended by similar revolution backed by covert ops), Nicaragua (support of dictator by who else?), Saudi Arabia (many revolutions crushed and unreported), etc. etc. etc.
A few years ago in Uzbekistan, an uprising was crushed by a real dictator, which went unreported on the news (many people were killed). I think an Iranian Civil War or another puppet government that would allow a military base like the ones in Iraq and Afghanistan would be in Israel's best interest to stop Iran's nuclear program and to remain the only power in the Middle East.
By the way, just because they shout "allah akbar!" doesnt mean that they dnt want the whole system gone.
Violence is not a beautiful thing as you would know if you were on the recieving end of it instead of sitting safely thousands of miles away - and its not a beautiful thing for the eight people killed so far. If democratic reforms can be gained without huge numbers of deaths it will be a lot better than the massacres of hundreds of thousands (possibly millions) by both sides in Iraq.
I've never seen a writer who speaks about the middle east as often as Robert Fisk does seemingly go out of his way to never utter a strong negative word towards Ahmadinejad.
"It was frightening, the absolute conviction of these men, the total refusal to accept any compromise"
"For each side, the integrity of their cause is fast becoming more powerful than rational dialogue."
Also its not true that the protestors dont want revolution - i have heard it said myself a million time that thats what they want.
And lastly; i have experienced these rare occasions when people start to rise up - and believe you me - its a beautiful thing!
In the end, what would you rather have - this first-hand account of what he sees on the streets in Teheran, or compliance with the authorities who banned journalists like Fisk to go out and report what is going on? He's still out there, making it possible for us to know that these protests are going on, and I think you should give him credit for that.
pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL365/10120366/2
pic40.picturetrail.com/VOL365/10120366/2
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
Q: What is the only way to keep your money from the casinos in Las Vegas?
A: When you get off the plane, walk into the propellers
I thank you
Firozali A. Mulla
The latest news (in the Telegraph but not in the Independent) is that Obama has stated that dictatorship in Iran is quite OK because the foreign policy of the dictatorship is very similar to that of the actually-elected leadership. What kind of idealism is this, Obama?
Human rights, democracy, development, freedom and justice are for Americans only. We have been told so by the Uncle Tom who inhabits the White House and who uses his non-white and international credentials when it suits him and discards them when it pleases his Israeli Masters.
The world is going to hell in a bucket. Surely a world ruled by Osama Bin Laden cannot be worse than a world ruled by America, Israel, France and Britain? (Yes it can - but not by much).
Mr Alex Weir, Harare and Gaborone
He has rubber-stamped the stupid n' silly 9/11 commission report, and the resulting war on terror!
Don't expect much from him; he's a salesman, thats all, a really talented salesman, and a very good selection by the oligarchy. He's going to sell whatever the people who braught him to the power and the people who pull his strings want!
Anyway, America has lost its credibility since its 1953 coup in Iran, and its many coups in Latin America! What people want from America is to refrain, publicly n' covertly, n' stop sticking its nose in other people's affairs, and deal with the unemployed n' the homeless in their country instead!
And hey, Osama bin Laden is a myth; he was created by the CIA, and he'll continue to serve his role as long as he's needed!
Yes, Iranians are much oppressed than western civilians. But the most important is to have stability to the country, to not have one more dissentigrated country with scores of more refuggees running to Europe for protection.
Nobody did anything when American cities were burned down and scores of black african-americans were killed in mass demonstration against the racism they are put through, Nobody did anything when hudrends of thousands of Americans got out in the street at the Presidential Ceremony of 2nd Term of George Bush.
Let Iran Allow, foreign intervention is much hypocritical and has done nothing but dissmantline countries.
There are also reports that Mousavi had already pre-planned such demonstrations and protests should Ahmedinijad wins. Mobilizing one million people is not possible without prior planning!
Mousavi's supporters:
1- The elite clergy (Rafsenjani, Khatami n' others) and the political base in Tehran who lost some of their power and many positions during Najad's reign; and Najad has attacked Rafsenjani, who holds two head offices, the Experts' Counsel that has the ability to elect and overthrow the supreme leader, and the System Assessment counsel that has a supervisory role); Najad also accused him of corruption just prior to the elections.
2- The privileged and elite of Northern Tahran and the upper middle class who lost some of their support to the poorer areas during Najad's days.
3- The less religious and liberal people of Tahran who'd like to see more freedom, and more reforms.
4- People who just dislike Najad's approach with the west, and some other people who'd like to see an end to the Islamic republic.
5- There's also violent factions, who might've infiltrated to cause more strife and more division.
Najad's supporters:
1- The poorer factions of Iran, in which most of his base is in the villages and smaller towns, who constitute the bulk of Najad's supporters. Their lives had improved and they have benefited from Najad's reign the most; and those people are tens of millions.
2- The conservative factions of the system and the conservative clergy who are afraid of change and are always suspicious towards western influence and interference (And looking at Iran's history, they have a right to be suspicious).
3- The besige who report to the revolutionary guards, see in Najad a protector and a strong uncompromising leader; those people, who died in their hundreds of thousands in the Iraqi-Iranian war, are also suspicious of foreign interference.
Now, Fisk forgot to mention that the head of the parliament, who's also a conservative, has condemned the interior ministry for how the police have dealt with the demonstrators. Not all demonstrators were peaceful; many were rioting from day one. The fact that Mousavi has screamed "foul play" even before the elections begin, and the fact that he asked the people to go out in numbers and not be afraid to die shows that this a really fierce power and class struggle. Now, the supreme leader, who probably favors Najad, has shown some impartiality when he met with Mousavi and asked him to demonstrate peacefully, and has asked for a recount in the areas the opposition feel there was foul play. Although many demonstrations weren't licensed, they were allowed. (Let's remember how the people in florida were crushed when Bush won in 2000, and the whole world forgot about it a day later). At the end of the day, Mousavi represents 13 million (let's say 18 million if he was ripped off 5 million votes which I doubt), and the bad, the evil, the democrater, the cunning, the smiley Najad, whether Fisk and the west like it or not, represents 24 million (let's say 18 million if that was an exaggeration); there's no dictatorship in Iran, as there's no dictatorship in the UK; there are powers who choose their delegates, who are prestented to the people to choose from. The reformists hold strong positions and the conservatives hold stronger positions now; it's a power struggle; and if Mousavi was afraid of the supreme leader or the revolutionary guard, he would've acted like Al Gore and swallowed it.
There is no dictatorship in Iran.
The problem with the west and those who come from the culture or represent them, is that they can't see the world, I think, except within the framework which they think is correct and modern and free and all.
They can't think in the terms other than the establishment has made for them.
Iran has a different form of govt. It has to be seen in its perspective not from the viewpoint of the west, which in itself is not free from disorder and chaos.
And after a few articles that really smelled, this one seems a little more objective! Calling Najad all sort of names, and trying to paint a totally different picture of what's going on, like it was a simple people's revolution for freedom, really beats me, and definitely tarnishes Fisk's credibility although he sounds like a pigeon compared to what other journalists are writing! I used to have so much respect for him; I never saw him use such name calling, not even with Bush, Olmert or Sharon who proudly killed thousands of people. Somehow, when it comes to Lebanon and Iran, Fisk is totally losing ground. He seems convinced that Najad is a dictator who forged the elections and crushed a protest for freedom; and even when the police are nice, he takes that as a personal inclination, and not direction from their superiors! So, when they're violent to rioters or protesters, its Najad's fault, and when they're nice and they keep the peace, its their personal choice! He seems convinced that there was foul play, although he didn't see any evidence, n' no body did so far; and I didn't read a word about that in the Lebanese election, where evidence of bribery, extortion, blackmail and forgery was flying around, from tape recordings, to testimonies, to bank statements! Is it because Hizbollah and the opposition didn't march on the ground and protest (I bet that would've been called a coup), or is it because Fisk and the official west liked the results?
I wonder what his reasoning is?
He blamed Hezbollah for the violence unleashed by Israel against Lebanon but, later, modified his views.
I also wonder what his reasoning is ... much like the Vicar of Bray I think, so as to always coming up smelling of roses, no matter who he has denigrated previously.
Currently he slanders Ahmadinejad, but when it proves right that he stood up against US hegemony, Fisk will cozy round to admitting (too late) that Iranians have a point ... that the US and British Empire beloved by Fisk actually did some wrongs.
I used to admire Fisk, but I eventually realized that he drags his "British Imperialist" tail behind him like a dog.
It is almost certain that he believes the entire ME was 'better off' under British rule.
Congratulations and all good wishes to the Iranian people, and may they get justice.
Let's not be naive - we all know that foreign powers meddle in other states' affairs 'to protect their interests'; it's happened in the West, the East, the North & South - very few nations are exempt from either doing it themselves or through proxy.
Who is meddling in Iran? I don't know. Maybe we can find the answer if we ask ourselves: "Who has most to gain from an unstable Iran?"
Gee, attacking a military post and getting shot for it - how barbaric! Our nice Western militaries never shoot or bomb anyone unless it has a good reason, like driving too close to their convoys or holding a wedding party.
Some more of Fisk's colored-revolution "protesters:"
(AP photo/Vahid Salemi)
Just how big is Mousavi's "colored revolution," ever wonder? Is it as big as the Ahmadinejad crowds that poured out yesterday in Tehran?
(AP Photo/Fars News Agency, Hamed Malekpour)
Probably nowhere near, since the Wurlitzer media never publishes aerial wide shots of the Mousavi camp, just close-ups from ground level:
(Photo: AFP)
Everywhere in the world, from Latin America to China the West and its Wurlitzer media invariably side with the urban rich, who voted for Mousavi, against the working-class and urban poor, who support Nejad. That doesn't make Nejad less of a cretinous chauvinistic tool, it just makes Mousavi a recycled Khomeini-era-apparatchik-turned-Western-p
last paragraph: "working-class and urban poor" should be "working-class and rural poor"
Mir Hussein Mousavi has fllowed the same script as the CIA Shill, Manuel Rosales when he got trounced by the Anti-US Hugo Chavez in 2006.
Quo Bono?
Hands up who doesn't want Ahmadinejad in power? mmm... it's those pesky Zionist fellas that control the western governments again!
Let's see how does the Hegalian one, two, three work?
Select your opposition candidate to run against the guy that wont lick your backside and get the media to 'big him up'.
For the campaign, sell him as the one to save the Bourgeoisie and maybe get back some of the superiority complex that they had before the last revolution. Create polls that will convince the followers of your man that he will win by a landslide.
When your man loses, cry "FOUL", get the manipulated bourgeoisie out onto the streets to wave their flags and their (here's one I made earlier) placards. Infiltrate the internet with Israeli 'Twitter' accounts conveniently created last Saturday and get your media to promote these twitterings.
So when Netan-yahoo and Rahm Emanuels glove puppet, finally get round to bombing Iran, then the manipulated mugs over here will agree that is is necessary to keep the world 'peace'.
This is not a manipulated result but a manipulated reaction.
And please.... anyone wishing to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, please feel free to demontrate your ignorance... I could do with a laugh!
2. It's Hegelian, not Hegalian.
Regardless of whether the elections were to be fair, he has tried to release the elite class, under a false premise of fraudulent elections. He does not lose credibility, if the protests are prolonged--so he encourages them.
Maybe he can reach a tipping point, when the US will be "forced" to intervene--as in Pakistan--to protect the nuclear power programme from falling into the wrong hands.
I do believe Mousavi is very mischievous and has planned these events--why does he not wait for the results to be reviewed and cease demonstrations until then?
We also saw in 1998, when the Soviet Union started to break-up (into democratisation), how few very rich oligarchs were created and the rest of the Russians suffered grave deprivations. This happens when countries are suddenly confronted with a capitalist system, which is alien to their culture.
A struggle has broken out between a liberal and conservative party in the Islamic republic. The state apparatus tried to limit the scope of the liberals' agitation during the election campaign. Those mainly urban elements that want greater personal freedom, less religious tutelage in their lives are outraged.
Any decent person would support these protests. Anger appears to have been directed against the disgusting and violent 'morality' police and similar thug elements which prop up the state in Iran, a country which kills 'adulterers' and homosexuals for non-existent crimes. I suspect people want real political and intellectual freedom and the right to a private life, rather than an officially-binding interpretation of Islam imposed from above. Trade unionists are routinely persecuted on trumped up charges.
It is ridiculous to suggest that this rebellion is backed by the west. Obama and the EU are to some degree paralysed by these events - if this movement develops into a popular revolution, they may not be able to control it and may soon wishe Ahmedinajhad back. This was also the case in relation to Eastern Europe 1988-91. The west, with every justification fears that a struggle over a disputed election could radicalise quickly into general attacks on the state, a proper revolution, which could extend beyond the borders of Iran, and may not necessarily be sympathetic to US-EU interests. The crowds involved are huge - there is no hope of the police or even the armed forces controlling them.
Comparisons with previous UK intervention (re Mossadeq) are wrong-headed, utterly. On this occasion, a controversial point was natural resources: a leftist leader wanting to nationalise them. At the moment all major national resources are, I believe, already nationalised. A new regime prepared to privatise them might benefit the west, but at this stage, there is no reason for assuming that this will be the natural outcome of current events.
The opposition candidate Mossavi is of course frightened by the conflict stirred up by the election and really wants the protests to stop. However, he cannot stop them. Behind him, no doubt are many way to the left who were prepared to support him against Ahmedinejhad just as many Americans way to the left of Obama would support him against Bush. The aspirations of these people will not be realised by a recount (at which the opposition fellow will probably try to gracefully concede with the aim of demobilising the 'street'). However, a minority in the demonstrations probably realise that, in the event of such a demobilisation, the police could strengthen, regroup, and take bloody revenge. At the moment the police can do nothing: this does not automatically mean they want to do nothing.
This is why the struggle for fair election practices must be broadened into a general struggle for the democratisation of the Iranian state - abolition of special police units and state ideology, real intellectual freedom and so on are absolutely necessary. The entire state apparatus must be paralysed by a general strike - this will force Adj's hand. New elections must be organised not by the old corrupt crew but by new forces - the opposition must organise meetings to formulate its own demands in relation to free and fair elections, and demand its representatives oversee every aspect of a new process, as is their right.
It was only reported yesterday (not by RF) on the visit of Mr Jimmy Carter he was shocked and discussed in what he saw.
As for you bedebyes if you feel so oppressed by the Zionist conspiracy in the UK and you indeed live here, please feel free to go and live in one of the Islamic States where the right to make comments in Newspapers such as the Independent would be denied to you as would a wholeraft of other freedoms you have become accustomed to. All I can say is good luck when you get there you might be yearning to return to this so called 'Zionist controlled State' sooner than you think.