Former Iranian Revolutionary Guard Speaks Out

Foreign Affairs is a very well respected professional journal on US foreign policy. It is widely read in Washington DC.

Suzanne Maloney has recently written an excellent piece on the situation in Iran, with which I was very impressed. She also gives this list of required reading on Iran.

She also recommends an author named Akbar Ganji. She writes:

Akbar Ganji’s biography itself offers a trenchant commentary on the ebb and flow of ideological orthodoxy in the Islamic Republic. Having served during the regime’s early years in the Revolutionary Guards and the fearsome Intelligence Ministry, Ganji progressively became disenchanted. By the mid-1990s, he had transformed himself into an influential political journalist, assailing Iran’s senior leadership in newspaper columns on the regime’s excesses. Arrested in 2000, he later spent nearly six years in prison, where his fate attracted worldwide attention. Today, Ganji remains passionate about realizing a genuine representative state in Iran, although he effectively lives in exile. These writings present his erudite denunciation of Iran’s current system and his effort to chart a path forward.

Quite an endorsement. He has also written an article recently for Foreign Affairs. It's a very good read, and brief. He writes:

This is nothing less than an electoral coup, and its aim goes far beyond bringing victory to Ahmadinejad; it is a full-fledged takeover of the state...one of Khamenei's central goals is to create a new unified ruling elite with vast political and economic power. Khamenei and his supporters have been snuffing out dissent among intellectuals, political parties, labor unions, clerical seminaries, and civil society groups. They have been enhancing ideological uniformity at the senior level of government by defaming previously high-ranking officials, such as former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. They have also been extending their control over state corporations, large industries, and banks in a bid to create a state-run form of capitalism that would benefit them.

Wow. That's much the same thing that Reza Aslan is saying. Our gut reaction to things like this is to smile and say, "Ah, you're just a conspiracy theorist." But this is being said by a lot of people who have a LOT of credibility, lots of credentials - people who know what they're talking about. We in the West need to open our eyes.

Of course, once we realize the truth, then usually people in the US say, "Yes, let's topple their government just like we did to Iraq!" That's not the right reaction. Toppling Iran, believe it or not, would be VASTLY more difficult than toppling Iraq. It would take much, much longer. It would be a lot of urban warfare. A lot of American troops would die. It took Americans about a month to grow weary of the war in Iraq. Americans have a very weak stomach. This is not the 1940's anymore, when everyone pitched in for the war effort. We live in a different world. Many, many people in the US are squeamish about warfare, and as soon as someone dies they'll be screaming for it all to be over, for it all to end. They will stop caring about what's at stake, choosing instead to just be offended at the shedding of blood. Our country has forgotten that there are some things worth dying for.

We can't go to war with Iran. We don't have the stomach for it. We don't have the troops for it. We're not willing to pay for it. If we go to war with Iran, they'll win. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't understand what's taking place there.

.

Ahmadinejad: Snubbed Politically, Diplomatically in Iran, Around the World

This is a great article from the BBC. It's one of those articles that helpfully summarizes recent events in Iran, putting lots of information into one easy to read article. I highly recommend it. Here are some points:

Ahmadinejad snubbed by the majority of Iranian Parliament: There are 290 members of Iran's Parliament (think Congress; they are elected). Ahmadinejad invited them all to a party to celebrate his re-election. Only 105 showed up. Apparently there are about 50 reformist MP's (members of Parliament), who we shouldn't be surprised about their absence. But the other 135 who didn't show up, why is that?

Well, these are popularly elected representatives, just like our Congress. If they were Congressmen, I'd say they were ditching the party for political reasons, that they were worried about alienating voters by siding with Ahmadinejad. I'd say they thought that their voter base would have wanted them to stay home. But the strange thing is, for 135 of these guys who didn't show up, their voter base is not reformist. Looks like more evidence that Stratfor is wrong to me. Looks like it's more than just a few educated youths who are against Ahmadinejad now-a-days. At least, that's what the country's MP's think, and they're in a far better position to gauge the political mood of the Iranian public than we are.

US snubs Iran diplomatically: apparently, President Obama, in an attempt to reach out to Iran, had invited Iranian diplomats to our embassies all over the world to celebrate the 4th of July. Now, some have said that this is a horrible thing for him to do. Iranians don't believe in liberty, which is what the 4th of July is supposed to celebrate. Of course, Obama has 2-3 active brain cells, so it's a safe assumption that he understands this. Rather, he was trying to put Iran in a difficult situation diplomatically. What would it have meant for Iranian diplomats to toast the founding of the US by celebrating the 4th of July with us? They'd be making a statement that they appreciate our values. Of course, he knew they wouldn't show up. But that gives the US the upper hand diplomatically down the line. "We've reached out to you...and you've rejected us."

Well, however we want to analyze what Obama had in mind, which is never easy when it comes to diplomacy, enough people cried out against the notion, and the invitation has been rescinded. Now Iran really has egg on their face. That's a very serious diplomatic slap in the face. Here's the US, trying to reach out to Iran, inviting their diplomats over for BBQ's all over the world, and then suddenly, nope, you can't come over after all. That's like severing diplomatic ties all over again. It's a very serious statement. (And one that Obama was reluctant to make.)

[Ahmadinejad responded to Obama]: "I hope you will avoid interfering in Iran's affairs and express regret in a way that the Iranian people are informed of it." [He said] Obama "made a mistake" with his comments about the crackdown in Iran. "Our question is why he fell into this trap and said things that previously Bush used to say," he was quoted by the semi-official Fars news agency as saying.

Iran expels 2 UK diplomats: and the UK responded by expelling 2 Iranian diplomats from England. This is another very big deal. Expelling diplomats usually happens when it is discovered that that particular diplomat has been spying. Sometimes, James Bond types disguise themselves as low level diplomats. When they get caught, usually they get expelled in this way (except in the cases where they get thrown into deep dark holes in the ground and get the firehose turned on them - but let's not talk about that.) So for Iran to expel 2 British diplomats is basically a proclamation of guilt: these 2 diplomats were spies trying to undermine the Iranian government. So the UK reciprocated. There are rumors that both countries are re-evaluating their diplomatic ties, that they're considering downgrading them. What this means is that they would both still maintain a diplomatic mission in the other country, but they would no longer have an ambassador. That's a very big deal. An ambassador can speak for their government. Ambassadors have authority to negotiate. When a country says that they're going to recall their ambassador, this means that they're not going to negotiate anymore. They'll still communicate, but no longer negotiate. Keep an eye out for this kind of thing in the future.

The BBC article has lots of other various tidbits of information, such as the arrest of 70 university professors after their meeting with Mousavi.

Understanding Shia Islam: Why Violence Won't End Protests

This is fascinating: "The Shia, as we collectively know them, began life as a political protest over who should succeed the Prophet Muhammad after his death."

If you can understand what that means, then you can understand why the government crackdown in Iran is not going to end the protests in Iran like it did in China in 1989 at Tiananman Square.

So what does it mean? Well, basically, Islam was founded by a guy named Muhammed. Everyone knows that, right? Well, he wasn't just a prophet, but he was kind of a king too of all Muslims. They called this the Caliph. When he died, there was a question of who should succeed him. This accounts for the difference between Shia Muslims and Sunni Muslims.

The Shia thought that only the descendants of Muhammed ought to succeed him as Caliph. The Sunni disagreed. That's an over simplification and a bit anachronistic though. At that time, there weren't Sunni and Shia, there were just Muslims, some of whom had very strong opinions about who should be Caliph.

Well, the Shia didn't get their way, and a usurper (in their opinion) became Caliph. During the turbulent 50 years or so following the death of Muhammed in 632, there was an important descendant of Muhammed who was killed, and the Shia have been exalting martyrs ever since.

How does this fit in to what's going on in Iran? Well, Ahmadinejad has now found himself in the unfortunate position of being seen as an illegitimate usurper in a religious context where that is paradigmatic for everything that defines the Shia as a division of Islam. The reason why they are Shia is because they are standing against someone who usurped the rightful Caliph over a millennium and a half ago. This political/religious protest runs very, very deep in the blood of the Shia.

Furthermore, Shia glorifies martyrdom, because the rightful heir to the Caliphate was martyred. They pray to him as Roman Catholics pray to Mary. In fact, Khamenei in his sermon last Friday prayed to him. To invoke the martyr is to glorify martyrdom. Shia regularly practice self flagellation. Read this quote:

Those adults who engage in self-flagellation with knives, chains or blades, do so with a consciousness of the ceremonial nature of the act, keenly watched by onlookers, children and adults alike, who, though they have seen it all before, continue to be mesmerised by the sheer spectacle of it – the display. This excitement is, for most, mixed with an actual sense of profound identification with the suffering of Imam Hussain, grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. Islamic history tells us that Hussain, a venerated saint in Shism, stood up to the tyrant of the day, Yazid, 14 centuries ago in order to save Islam and humanity from despotism and oppression, and to make the ultimate point about justice. During the 10-day siege, Hussain's camp suffered unimaginable trials and tribulations, which, to many Muslims, not just Shias, has no equal.

As you can see, martyrdom is more than just important in Shia Islam. They idealize martyrdom and even flagellate themselves as a matter of religious devotion. Furthermore, for Shia Muslims, there is no line separating church and state. Politics is religion is politics. Ahmadinejad is a heretic because he is a usurper to the rightfully elected President. Khamenei is a heretic as well because he is the one who allowed the election to be rigged and endorsed the usurper, making him a usurper himself. Thus the crowds have been chanting "Death to Khamenei".

The government can crack down all it wants, it can shed blood in the streets of Tehran all it wants, but the Shia Muslims of Iran will keep coming back for more, crying out, "Allah-o Akbar!" (God is great) the whole time.

The other day I was watching a video of the protesters, and it occurred to me that they looked like worshipers. It seemed just by watching them that what they were doing was a matter of religious devotion. Turns out that's very, very true.

When they cry out "Ya Hussein!" this is what they are referring to; all of it. Hussein is the name of the martyr, the grandson of Muhammed.

.

Parallels Between Iran and the Medieval Church?

There are some very interesting parallels between what's happening in Iran and what happened in the Medieval Church in the centuries leading up to the Reformation. There is an analogy that can be drawn between the Supreme Leader and the Pope on the one hand, and the President and the Emperor of the Roman Empire on the other. I think it's a fair analogy. The Pope, at least at points, had authority over the Emperor (and constantly lusted for more). The Emperor eventually became, in large part, a figurehead. You can read the papal bull "Unam Sanctum" of 1302 in which the Pope claimed absolute authority over every human being on earth here:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pgc.asp?page=source/b8-unam.html
The last sentence of Unam Sanctum reads: "Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff [Pope]." Crazy huh?

In my previous post, I presented evidence that this election had been stolen. Some have suggested, and many in Iran protested, that the election in 2005, in which Ahmadinejad was (supposedly) elected for the first time was also a sham. Who, if not the Supreme Leader, could be behind such a massive fraud?

What if Ahmadinejad is, for lack of a better word, a bit of a puppet of the Supreme Leader, his front man whom the Supreme Leader ensured would get elected in two stolen elections? Then the Supreme Leader would be making a similar power grab as the Pope once did, just not as blatantly. At the very least, we have to admit that if these two elections were stolen, and it is clear that the current election has been, Ahmadinejad is indebtted to Khameini, the Supreme Leader.

More than likely, what happened in 2005 was that Khameini learned that it was bad to have a President he could not really control, namely Khatami, who was a reformist President for two terms prior to Ahmadinejad. I don't think it's far fetched at all to think that Khameini, the Supreme Leader, would have wanted to ensure that someone friendly to his own ideas was elected. Perhaps the words "puppet" or "front man" are too strong, but it sure looks that way to me.

At any rate, the papal claims to supreme authority of the Middle Ages were the seeds of the fall of the papacy and ultimately of the Reformation. While the Pope enjoyed quite a lot of power in those days, it quickly became obvious to everyone that it was evil. Dante, writing his famous work, "The Divine Comedy" about 10 years after Unam Sanctum, depicted Pope Boniface VIII, the author of the bull, in hell. The corruption of the church was widely known, and people began to speak of the need for moral reform everywhere. People began to say that Councils, not Popes, should hold the authority.

At one point, the College of Cardinals elected a Pope, Urban VI, who wanted to reform the corruption of the cardinals, namely their lavish lifestyle. Well, obviously the cardinals didn't like that too much, so they simply moved to France and elected another Pope. Now there were two Popes, and they each excommunicated the followers of the other Pope. Every Christian in the world was excommunicated by someone at that point.

Suddenly the Pope's claims of absolute authority and infallibility looked ridiculous. Suddenly you're forced to the conclusion that he can err. It wasn't long before the little monk from Wittenburg, Martin Luther, began to speak, and the Reformation was born. While I have oversimplified the story greatly, I don't think I've distorted it.

The parallels with what's going on in Iran are unmistakeable. Ahmadinejad sees the clerics as corrupt and living lavish lifestyles. He wants to see moral reform, or at least that's what he's preaching. He thinks the religious elite are fat while the common man is poor and needy, and he wants to do something about it. At least, that's what he says.

Anyway, like Rome in the Middle Ages, people are calling for reform on both sides. Ahmadinejad wants to do away with the corruption of the Ayatullahs, while Mousavi wants to make the state more pragmatic. But both sides are talking about reform.

Meanwhile, Mousavi has the backing of the reformers, but is himself a representative of the old guard. One article paints a picture of a battle behind the scenes that seems to be pulling the strings. You can read it here: http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/2009616184556951795.html
It's from Al Jazeera, an Arab run news organization that is anything but pro-West. If anything, they're anti-West. So their analysis isn't biased in the same ways as ours is (but it's still biased). Anyway, I think they're on to something here. If they're right, then what's happened is just like what happened in the Middle Ages. Ahmadinejad is trying to do away with the corruption at the top, and the people at the top don't like it. And just as the College of Cardinals went to Avignon, France and elected a rival Pope, so now the Assembly of Experts has been called for an emergency meeting, and public statements by Ayatullahs have hinted that the Supreme Leader might be removed. The only reason for such a meeting must be to discuss this very thing. If you've read the article from Al Jazeera, then you'll be interested to note that it was Rafsanjani who called the emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts.

And so, just as the Roman Pontiff eventually lost his strangle hold on the world, so too perhaps the Supreme Leader will lose his strangle hold on Iran. Perhaps we will see a Reformation in Islam analogous to the Reformation in Christianity. Perhaps the Muslim world will begin to change. Perhaps something very important is beginning in Iran that will spread to the rest of the Middle East.

But hear this, O Westerners! Notice that this is happening quite apart from any US or Western interference. The downfall of the Islamic Republic in Iran seems certain, inevitable. The worst possible thing we could do now is to stick our grubby, greasy, neo-conservative paws all over it. Ahmadinejad and Khameini want nothing more than to say that the evil West is behind these events in order to de-legitimize them. We must not give them that opportunity. The Iranian state is doomed! We need to step back and let it fall on its own.

Does my heart break for those who are suffering, bleeding and dying? Absolutely. But how can the West stop it? Seriously, how can the West do anything about it? Anything President Obama or members of Congress say about the current situation in Iran can be twisted to discredit the Green Revolution. They should just remain silent and hope that the government falls sooner rather than later.