Moaddel Guest Op-Ed: Iran’s Crisis and the U.S. Option: Support Mousavi now or fight Ahmadinejad tomorrow
Mansoor Moaddel writes in a guest editorial for IC:
The current civil uprising in Iran reflects not just a protest against a rigged election. Nor is it primarily a symptom of contentions for power or clashes between opposing perspectives on the nature of the Islamic regime. It is, rather, resistance against a political coup, whose engineers plan to impose a Taliban-style Islamic government on Iran. The coup has been organized by an alliance between the supreme leader and the most militant and fundamentalist faction within the ruling establishment, backed by the Revolutionary Guard.
The political attitudes of one of its most notorious ideologues, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi, demonstrates the danger Iranians and the world would be facing should this militant faction get its way. Mesbah Yazdi does not believe in the republican aspects of the Islamic regime, but rather views Islamic law as supreme and must be unquestionably followed. The supreme leader, he says, is not elected but rather discovered by the clerics. For him, Ayatollah Khamenei is the exemplar of such a leader. He has characterized the ideas of representative government and legislative functions as belong to the decadent system of Western liberalism. He has likened reformist ideas to the AIDS virus. He has publically endorsed the construction of a nuclear bomb.
These ideas have much appeal for Ahmadinejad, who claims that the past governments were corrupt and deviated from the Islamic path. Some of the former leaders, people like Rafsanjani and Natiq Nouri, have abandoned the ideals of the revolution. Ahmadinejad argues that for the sake of Islam, such individuals must be sacrificed and the society must be restored to the principles of the Islamic revolution. Under his presidency, be claims, this restoration has been launched, ushering a new beginning for a truly Islamic state in Iran.
Ahmadinejad’s deeds are Islamic extremism in action. He has already restricted the freedom of Iranian citizens, expanded men’s authority over women, increased political persecution, undermined the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, and supported terrorism and political adventurism abroad. He has also recruited members of the Revolutionary Guard to fill key governmental positions and awarded them lucrative government-sponsored projects. These actions, and his administration’s economic mismanagement, promoted the formation of a broad coalition in Iran comprised of reformist politicians, conservative pragmatists, and ordinary citizens representing the majority of the Iranian public.
Realizing the growing strength of this coalition in the run up to the election, the Revolutionary Guard acted to stifle the movement and the ruling party awarded itself a landslide victory – an uncontestable mandate for four more years of growing religious extremism and global isolationism.
The outcome of the current civil uprising is certainly consequential for the development of democracy in Iran. It has also far reaching implications for regional stability, international peace efforts, and the security of the United States. At this point, the regime cannot secure its rule without unleashing a reign of terror. And if this coup succeeds, the regime will forge ahead with its expressed plans for nuclear development and support for religious extremism abroad.
It would be a mistake to think that people like Ahmadinejad are reasonable. It is counter productive to base policy on the untenable premise that he would be amenable to a cost-benefit analysis on the nuclear issue. Time and again he has announced that the nuclear issue is off the table. To believe or hope otherwise would be a profound and resonant error.
The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow.
Mansoor Moaddel, Professor of Sociology, Eastern Michigan University
Research Affiliate, Population Studies Center, Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan
End/ (Not Continued)
posted by Juan Cole @ 6/29/2009 12:05:00 AM
|
Facebook
21 Comments:
Congrs, prof. Cole started to give place in his blog to neocons. Before it was usually liberal imperialists. On the other hand, one has to look really hard to tell any difference between the left and right boots of USA imperialist propagandists.
What is next? A call to bomb Iran? (why not, the same person who joked about it was then supporting green coup. Why not the other way around? Iraqis and Afghans are bombed to bring them freedom a la USA, why not Iran)
Oh please. What a hyperbolic and hysterical opinion piece!! No, sir, I will NOT support you. I will fight every attempt people like you make to spill more American blood to save you from yourselves. I am not frightened of the Iranian leader or his non-existent nuclear weapons program. I am more frightened of people like you and, as an American, I will work to stop you.
The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow.
Please, oh please tell us how we are to "effectively support Mousavi's camp today" without the military confrontation today!
I can not but agree with the first two commenters.
This is a saddening poor piece of neocon propaganda. Not least of all because of the greedy fingers of the USA in those parts of the world. Democratic fingers hah.
I cannot believe that such rubbish is allowed to pollute people's minds! Maybe the US population might 'buy' it - but judging by the posts above I see that there ARE thinking people in America. If war is waged on Iran, the gates of hell will open here in London and elsewhere in Britain. We stood strong against the merciless killing that went on in Gaza this year (1 million turned up on the streets on London). If this was ever to happen (God forbid) the rage and anger of the people will be heard all over the world. We shall not tolerate another war done to an innocent country in our name!
Dr. Cole,
A rather alarming and alarmist op-ed - I hope the fact that you publish it doesn't mean that you endorse it. No matter how the situation in Iran evolves, no matter whether it acquires nuclear weapons, and no matter what happens to the protest movement a pre-emptive war should never, ever be an option on the table for the US or any other state.
The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow.
You quit just as it was starting to get interesting. Exactly how can the US be "effective" in Iran in the post-Mossadegh era? Do tell us what to do now so we can fix the problems caused decades ago by interventionists like you.
If I had turned in a paper like this piece in my undergraduate persuasive writing class, I would have received a grade of 'F'. The thesis that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad want to impose a Taliban-style Islamic government in Iran is an interesting one, and bears some scrutiny. The arguments Prof. Moaddel presents are on the weak side, consisting of mostly circumstantial evidence, but, given the infamously closed political process in Iran, that's probably the best anybody in the West can do. However, this piece would have earned a failing grade in the conclusion: It simply does not follow! Where is there any argument supporting the notion that the U.S. risks a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad?
I get it, though-- It's a politically correct (but fallacious) assumption we're supposed to make in U.S., that an authoritarian government in the Middle East is a de facto threat to our security. I don't buy it! There's plenty of positive evidence that Iran's nuclear program is for civil use only, and scant to no evidence that Ahmadinejad has hostile intentions outside Iran. (Besides, there's every indication that Mousavi would continue the nuclear program.)
If Prof. Moaddel wants to gin up the case for confrontation with Iran, he should provide some much better arguments.
anti-Saddam Iraqis played a huge role in convincing Americans that Iraqis would be welcoming them with flowers. now it is the turn of Iranian liberals. there would be absolutely no difference between Mousavi and Ahmedinejad as regards Iranian ambitions about nuclear power. as Juan Cole knows more than most people around, such decisions are above the level of Presidency. Iran is a complex system and the power of President is not really that much. Besides, Mousavi is hardly a liberal as he is portrayed in the Western media nowadays. he is the founder of Hezbollah. His major ally, Rafsanjani, is the deepest person in Iranian bureaucracy that you can find. President Obama is right that there would be little difference between them. I am totally amazed how Juan Cole allows such guest commentators in his blog.
The Intervention option has already been discredited because it will be counter-productive.
Why is Mousavi, one of the pillars of the Mullahs' regime, so nice all of a sudden that he is worth spilling Iranian and American blood for?
You said the US must "effectively support Mousavi's camp." Assuming, arguendo, that I believed your premise, how does the US effectively support him? US support for the 1999 uprising allowed Khamenei to believably characterize the revolt as mere interference by foreigners. How does the US support Mousavi and the Sea of Green without simply marking them as being "misled" by "Imperialist outsiders?" About the only tool Obama has would be public statements - we have no presence on the ground in the country and Russia's rabid support for Ahmadinejad forecloses any UN action.
This is one of those rare situations where less is more - the more the US stays out of it, the more effective the opposition will be, the more the Sea of Green is able to portray themselves as Iranians in support of a democratic and free Iranian sovereignty. Once there is a formalized and institutional Reformist power structure in Iran, the US could then use diplomatic carrot-and-stick to delegitimize the Khamenei and Pasdaran factions. But for now, even if we accepted your underlying premise as correct, I can't identify a form of US intervention that wouldn't backfire.
The outcome of the current civil uprising is certainly consequential for the development of democracy in Iran. It has also far reaching implications for regional stability, international peace efforts, and the security of the United States
How is Iran "threatening" to the United States, the greatest nuclear power in the world and the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs on a civilian population? Because it refuses to behave like a well trained colonial house pet? Iran has a right to not be a well trained colonial house pet, Professor Cole.
The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow
How about abiding by the principles set at Nuremberg and not waging another criminal war of aggression against another hapless punching bag of a country?
What a dreadful column.
"The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today or..."
Exactly what form do you propose this support should take?
Isn't Iran already run by Islamic extremists? How is it a coup? They overthrew themselves? Basically their sham-democracy became even more of a sham-democracy.
Even supposing everything here is an accurate description, how can you just vaguely say "we need to do something!" ?? How about proposing a more specific plan? Pardon my scepticism, but our last intervention into a middle eastern country that we don't understand didn't go all that well.
after watching the opposition movement gather momentum and exhibit such breathtaking courage these past few weeks, they've captured our imagination. it's hard to believe any PR effort could succeed in ginning up popular support to wage war on iran. americans have fell in love with the demonstrators and their spirit. they would not sanction bombing them. if organizations were to do a poll, i bet you would find popular opinion opposing taking action against iran has increased. after the debacle of iran and afghanistan, there is simply no appetite for yet another unwarranted military adventure.
nevermind this is obama we're talking about. someone known for his overriding caution and consideration of long term consequences. who thinks it plausible that obama would get it into his head on a whimsy that it would be a good idea to wage war on iran? especially when the economy is still on precarious footing and he's already burdened with managing two other wars?
-omen
or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow
hasn't this already happened in iraq via proxy forces?
-omen
Well I admit to being a historical ignoramus, but I don't recall anything positive arising the last time the US supported (i.e. pushed) regime change in Iran.
Or, for that matter, in any country.
To quote Dr. Cole in another posting on this very blog last week:
"American politicians should keep their hands off Iran and let the Iranians work this out. If the reformers have enough widespread public support, they will develop tactics that will change the situation. If they do not, then they will have to regroup and work toward future change. US covert operations and military interventions have caused enough bloodshed and chaos. If the US had left Mosaddegh alone in 1953, Iran might now be a flourishing democracy and no Green Movement would have been necessary."
The option that is left for the United States is either to effectively support Mousavi’s camp today
isn't this really an expression of your lack of faith in the iranian people? why have you so infantalized a proud, noble and capable people that you think the only answer is to run to the american daddy for help?
or risk a military confrontation with Ahmadinejad tomorrow.
this should be self evident. after eight long of bush, we are simply fed up with fear tactics. a worthy argument wouldn't need to be propped by this.
-omen
The comments so far have failed to understand where the writer is coming from. He is no neocon. He is an Iranian that sees clearly what is happening in Iran. Here is another academic that supports the above but with greater evidence:
http://payvand.com/news/09/jun/1279.html
Iran's Election Drama More Elaborate Than You Think
By Muhammad Sahimi
The world has been mesmerized by events in Iran over the past several weeks. First, there was a fierce presidential campaign that saw Mir Hossein Mousavi, the main reformist candidate, rise in the polls. Huge rallies were held around Iran to support his candidacy. For the first time since the 1979 Revolution, Iranians at home and abroad seemed to be united in their quest to oust President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
Khamenei appoints General Mohammad Ali Jafari as IRGC Chief Commander
September 2007
One hour after voting had ended on June 12, Iran's Interior Ministry had called Mousavi's headquarters to inform him that he was going to win, and that he should prepare his victory statement without boasting too much, in order not to upset Ahmadinejad's supporters. But suddenly everything changed. Several commanders of Iran's Revolutionary Guards (IRG) showed up at Mousavi's headquarters and told him that his campaign was tantamount to a "velvet revolution," which they would not allow to succeed. Then the results of the rigged election were announced, which started the protests that continue today.
But who is the real power behind Iran's rigged presidential election, which has been called an "election coup" by a Mousavi spokesman? It is widely believed that, as the commander in chief of Iran's armed forces, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is the coup leader. But the issue is more complex.
Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari
Ever since he was appointed as the IRG's top commander three years ago, Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari has been talking about the "internal threat" to the Islamic Revolution. He has even reorganized the Guards for them to be better prepared for any uprising. Moreover, a few days before the June 12 elections, the IRG's head of the political directorate, Brig. Gen. Yadollah Javani, accused Mousavi and other reformists of trying to start a color revolution (since Mousavi had used green as the symbol of its campaign), and warned that the Guards "will suffocate it before it is even born." So the coup leaders are, in fact, the IRG's top commanders. They represent the right wing of the second generation of Iranian revolutionaries.
The second-generation revolutionaries were in their twenties at the time of the Iranian revolution of 1978-1979. They joined the IRG almost immediately after the Revolution and fought two fierce wars in the 1980s: against Saddam Hussein's forces, which had invaded Iran in September 1980, and against the forces of Mujahideen-e Khalq organization (MEK), an armed Islamic leftist group that had opposed the shah. After the MEK began assassinating Iran's leaders in June 1981, the young revolutionaries waged a bloody battle against them, killing thousands, and forced the MEK into exile in Iraq, where it collaborated with Saddam Hussein. The MEK is now listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
Using the war with Iraq as the excuse, the young Islamic revolutionaries also helped their clerical leaders – Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani (who was elected Iran's president for two terms from 1989-1997 and is still a powerful politician), Ayatollah Khamenei (who was Iran's president in the 1980s), and others – to impose extreme political repression on Iran, one result of which was the effective elimination of all secular political groups from Iran's political scene, a terrible blow to Iran's political development.
(Read the rest via the link above. Comment feature has limited space.)
Neocons come from all nations, there are Iraqi ones, why not Iranian. The kernel of neoconism is to fear-monger about "threats' to USA from usually non-white states which do not obey USA's orders. Then a necon promices flowers and candies from gratful natives for USA impeiralist for meddling in their affairs. This op-ed is a classical example
By the way, for anyone who doubt that USA people would support bombing Iran now. Last time I checked USA rulers did NOT ask the people, did bombing anyway and the people usually let them.
lidia, you really think obama is just as unthinking & reckless as bush?
from nico pitney at huffpo:
11:30 AM ET -- 'American people smarter than the neocons.' Adam Blickstein from the National Security Network highlights a new poll by CNN:
A new national poll suggests that that nearly three out of four Americans don't want the U.S. directly intervene in the election crisis in Iran even though most Americans are upset by how the Iranian government has dealt with protests over controversial election results.
Most Americans approve of how President Obama's handled the situation. And 74 percent think the U.S. government should not directly intervene in the post-election crisis, with one out of four feeling that Washington should openly support the demonstrators who are protesting the election results.
Post a Comment
<< Home