by Eric Martin
Matt Duss makes some excellent points (complete with useful links) regarding the growing religious opposition in Iran. The main takeaway: Islamist mullahs of high standing are attacking the Ahmadinejad/Khamenei regime on Islamic grounds, and the varying attitudes that Islamists take toward democratic principles should inform our understanding of the different strains of Islamism.
Part of the ire of of the opposition mullahs, as Duss points out, has to do with the rising power of the increasingly secular, only opportunistically religious Revolutionary Guard Corps, but also, importantly, the weakening of democratic principles in general:
Here’s an easy way to tell where someone stands on the Iran question: If they constantly refer to “the mullahs” (religious leaders) who rule Iran, then you’re most likely dealing with someone who is disdainful of U.S.-Iran engagement, who thinks that the only problem with the Bush administration’s 2003-06 hardline approach was that it wasn’t hard enough, and who buys the nonsensical “Islamofascist” construct that powered the “Global War on Terror.” You’re probably also dealing with someone who either hasn’t been following, or would like to ignore, the way that the Iranian system has been changing, especially in the wake of the June 12 elections, from one controlled primarily by “the mullahs” into one that, though still presided over by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei and furnished with a fading veneer of religious legitimacy by a cadre of extremist clerics, is increasingly a military dictatorship controlled by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps.
While using “the mullahs” in such a pejorative fashion may allow certain commentators to communicate their prejudices in a marginally acceptable way and stoke fear of scary guys in robes and turbans, it also elides one of the most important aspects of the current situation in Iran: The role of the mullahs in confronting “the mullahs.”
Duss continues, discussing the recent death of the most formidable opposition religious voice:
Flipping through the TV channels late last night, I landed on the 700 Club just as Pat Robertson was offering his, err, “analysis” of Iran. Suppressing with great difficulty the urge to turn away from the stupid, I watched as Pat assured his viewers that the Iranian people “hate those mullahs,” but then noted that the latest anti-government demonstrations had occurred at the funeral of the dissident Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Montazeri, “one of the better-liked mullahs.” I could see on Pat’s face that he realized that he’d just kind of clowned himself, but this is the situation that a lot of conservatives find themselves in now. Having fulminated for years against “the mullahs,” they’re unsure how to react to an Iranian opposition movement powered in considerable part by mullahs.
And not just mullahs, but Islamist mullahs, such as Montazeri himself, who even though he had turned against what the Iranian Islamic Republic had become, remained a firm believer in the principles of the Iranian revolution, in the idea of an Islamic Republic, and in the appropriateness of Islam as the organizing force in society.
The religious/democratic based critique is being echoed by leading opposition political figures as well, such as Mehdi Karroubi:
President Ahmadinejad has betrayed the Iranian Revolution, violated the country’s Constitution and may be unable to serve his full term, his most vocal opposition rival has told The Times. […]
Responding to written questions, Mr Karroubi mocked the regime’s charge that the opposition was guilty of sedition. He said that it was the regime that was hijacking the revolution. Mr Karroubi declared: “In today’s Iran, republicanism and Islamism are severely damaged and a lot of the revolution’s principles and the Imam’s \ have been undermined.”
The people had lost the right to make their own decisions. The military now controlled politics, the economy and even cultural affairs. The rape and torture of detainees were shameful spots on Iranian and Islamic culture. “If the Imam were alive, without doubt this would not have happened,” he said. “As one of the Imam’s students and close friends I frankly say that those who claim to act on his thoughts had the least personal, emotional and intellectual closeness to him.”
However, it is important to understand the likely parameters of this burgeoning opposition as well as the potential. The opposition religious and political leaders are mostly of revolutionary pedigree, relying on closeness to Khomeini to shield their boldness of action and word. Further, the vast majority of these leaders prefer to maintain the Islamic framework for organizing social and political structures, and most also strongly favor continuing the nuclear program.
Westerners should understand that for many Iranians, the nuclear program (and the West's attempts to contain it) is a proxy for a familiar colonial dynamic whose scars run deep. Iranians believe that as a sovereign, signatory to the NPT, they are well within their rights to develop a nuclear program, and the interference from the West is yet another attempt by foreign powers to usurp their sovereignty and independence. In other words, even if the "green" revolution swept to power, the pursuit of the nuclear program would continue apace.
Interestingly, the opposition leader in the last election, Mousavi, is a strong proponent of the nuclear power, and even recently attacked Ahmadinejad from the hawkish flank by critiquing the President's willingness to even consider compromises proposed by the West. Karroubi, too, sounds a familiar note:
In a surprising twist, however, Mehdi Karroubi warned the West against exploiting the regime’s weakness to strike a deal to halt a nuclear programme that was, he insisted, for peaceful purposes.
“Nuclear science and achieving peaceful nuclear technology is a right reserved for all NPT [Nuclear Proliferation Treaty] members,” he said. “We ask Western governments not to use this internal situation as a bargaining chip with the present Iranian Government to reach agreements which would undermine the rights of the Iranian people.”
He also urged the West against trying to help the opposition in its battle against the regime, saying that such efforts would “pave the way for suppression and accusations of dependency on foreigners”. He added: “The challenges in this country should be solved by its own people.”
Regarding that last point, it is easy to appreciate President Obama's decision to keep a low profile during the election-related protests. It was the best way to help the opposition. A deeper understanding of the religious landscape also helps to dispel a lot of the fearmongering ginned up around the dread mullahs.
[UPDATE: Via the always interesting Doug Saunders, the regime is looking twitchy:
In what appear to be reprisals for new anti-regime protests, the Iranian government yesterday fired opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi from his government post and its supporters ransacked the office of an opposition cleric.
Something to keep an eye on for sure.]
Interesting, take a while to get through all of the links. However, my takeaway is that the green revolution is really not so great for the US as one might have been assuming, and that that isn’t really surprising.
And the Viking used to be the Minnesota Mullahs.
Whoops wrong thread! 😉
However, my takeaway is that the green revolution is really not so great for the US as one might have been assuming, and that that isn’t really surprising.
Yeah, that’s basically it.
I think that too many Americans think that any successful democratic movement is going to result in a regime that sees eye to eye with the US on all matters. And they tend to graft their own personal preferences on to groups that aren’t necessarily good fits. There are true western-style reformers, but they weren’t the majority or leadership.
Like Iran, democracy in places like Gaza, Iraq and Egypt likely doesn’t lead to reflexively pro-American regimes.
There are competing national and cultural interests that trump.
Frex: a truly democratic Iranian election would be unlikely to yield a regime that did not feel compelled to defend the Palestinians/oppose the Israeli regime (the same way the Iraqi government is hostile to Israel). That might manifest in different ways, but there’s a good chance not.
Similarly with the nuke program. It’s a matter of national pride for a people that are self conscious about past domination by outside forces. For good reason, really!
But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support human rights and liberalism in Iran – in the ways and to the extent that such support will not undermine the intended beneficiaries of course.
“But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support human rights and liberalism in Iran – in the ways and to the extent that such support will not undermine the intended beneficiaries of course.”
I don’t really disagree. A question though, is there any democratic leadership that could be established in Iran that would allow us to look the otherway while they became a nuclear power?
If not, and I think not, then we will destroy any gains that are being made eventually.
A question though, is there any democratic leadership that could be established in Iran that would allow us to look the otherway while they became a nuclear power?
Well, I’m of the opinion that we can probably look the other way regardless.
But a couple of thoughts:
1. It is unclear if Iran actually wants a weapon, or just the ability to weaponize.
2. Khamenei has stated, repeatedly, that nuclear weapons violate Islam. No he can probably contradict himself if need be, but it is odd to erect such rhetorical obstacles for no good reason.
3. Public support is not explicitly for a weapon, but for the ability to pursue a nuclear program for domestic purposes.
4. Either way, they are years away from a weapon.
5. Even if they get a nuclear weapon, we’ll deal the same way we’ve dealt with other adversarial regimes with nukes. There is nothing unique about the Iranian regime that makes the threat unbearable.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d prefer they not develop nuclear weapons. However, neither sanctions nor military strikes will change that.
The best way to prevent them from getting a weapon is also a good way to ensure that if they do, it will be as tolerable as possible: normalize US/Iranian relations. Make them less nervous of our intentions, realign our respective stances toward each other.
I don’t see that happening (there are enough factions in each country and in Israel that wouldn’t want to lose the convenient enemy or make the necessary compromises), hence I’m resigned to live with a nuclear armed Iran if it comes to that.
This may be a ridiculously small quibble, but:
“If they constantly refer to “the mullahs” (religious leaders) who rule Iran…”
Isn’t that term often used in discourse just to clarify that’s it’s not really Ahmadinejad ruling the country?
“Even if they get a nuclear weapon, we’ll deal the same way we’ve dealt with other adversarial regimes with nukes. There is nothing unique about the Iranian regime that makes the threat unbearable.”
Well, “adversarial” regimes that do have nukes haven’t exactly proved a cakewalk; Iran has the added complication of being in a region that could provoke an arms race.
Then there’s the question of whether Israel would be endangered (though there’s plenty a strong case that it’s just Ahmadinejad’s bluster, and that Iran has no incentive to threaten our ally with a nuclear weapon).
The split in the religious establishment has, if I am informed correctly, as another root the fact that Khamenei was not actually qualified for the job of Supreme Leader and elevated by Khomeini from a comparatively lowly position over the ‘natural’ line of succession after Montazeri fell out with him.
Another important thing is also that the ruling clerical class has become as corrupted as most oligarchies tend to over time (even if started with benign motives). The opposition gathers around clerics that are seen as not (or at least less) tainted. Quite similar to Latin Ameica, I’d say.
I think that too many Americans think that any successful democratic movement is going to result in a regime that sees eye to eye with the US on all matters.
I think too many Americans take an even simpler view – that anyone trying to overthrow a regime hostile to America is America’s BFF.
Point: “Isn’t that term often used in discourse just to clarify that’s it’s not really Ahmadinejad ruling the country?”
In usage, mullah has become a pejorative term. In Iran, a mullah is the least educated and lowest ranking cleric — someone not qualified to interpret religious law.
Referring to the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader — pompous titles to be sure, but maybe less so in Farsi — as mullahs is an insult to their title. All clerics on the Guardian Council hold the title/rank of Ayatollah.
If I referred to the Pope and College of Cardinals as preachers then my intent would be obvious — to insult them or show disrespect.
On another topic, there was never any good reason to believe that a new Iranian government would act in the interests of the U.S. Any conceivable Iranian government will attempt to maintain Iran’s regional influence, which includes: political influence in Iraq, influence with Hezbollah, development of nuclear power, and whatever it takes to discourage a U.S. invasion or bombing its facilities. As long as both the U.S. and Iran desire regional influence in the middle-east a conflict of interests is inevitable.
That’s true even if you ignore the history of conflict between the U.S. and Iran, which includes: U.S. support for the Shah in the 1953 coup, Iranian hostage taking in 1979-1981, U.S. support for Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war, Iran Air 655, Iranian influence in Iraq, U.S. support for Israel, the fact that the U.S. now occupies two countries that border Iran, and U.S. statements that “all options”* are on the table in regards to Iran.
* Would it be so terrible to exclude firebombing, a nuclear first-strike, assassination, poisoning of wells, or supporting a murderous dictator in his 8 year war to invade them?
“Referring to the Guardian Council and Supreme Leader — pompous titles to be sure, but maybe less so in Farsi — as mullahs is an insult to their title.”
Well yeah, but it’s also shorter; like I said, a small quibble.