In one of our posts surrounding our January 6, 2010 Op Ed in The New York Times we noted that “analytic views of Iranian politics since the June 12 presidential election have important implications for the debate about U.S. and Western policy toward Tehran”. In particular, buying into the proposition that the Islamic Republic is imploding has the effect of driving the policy argument toward support for “regime change” in Tehran. This was confirmed two days ago (on January 9) in a news story, “U.S. Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition”, published by Jay Solomon in The Wall Street Journal.
No fewer than six senior Obama Administration officials backgrounded Jay for the story; highlights include
The Obama administration is increasingly questioning the long-term stability of Tehran’s government and moving to find ways to support Iran’s opposition “Green Movement”, said senior U.S. officials. The White House is crafting new financial sanctions specifically designed to punish the Iranian entities and individuals most directly involved in the crackdown on Iran’s dissident forces, said the U.S. officials…
In recent weeks, senior Green Movement figures—who have been speaking at major Washington think tanks—have made up a list of [Revolutionary Guard]-related companies they suggest targeting, which has been forward to the Obama administration by third parties…
American diplomats, meanwhile, have begun drawing comparisons in public between Iran’s current political turmoil and the events that led up to the 1979 overthrow of Shah Reza Pahlavi. “In my opinion there are many similarities”, the State Department’s chief Iran specialist, John Limbert, told Iran-based listeners this week over U.S. government-run Radio Farda.
Jay goes on to note that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is exploring whether the United States could strike a deal on the nuclear issue “without crippling prospects for the Green Movement”. He also quotes a “senior U.S. official” as saying that “the Green Movement has demonstrated more staying power than perhaps some have anticipated. The regime is internally losing its legitimacy which is of its own doing”. For what it’s worth, Senator Joseph Lieberman (pictured above with the self-styled leader of a democratic Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi, when Lieberman was vigorously supporting regime change in Iraq) said yesterday from Jerusalem that we are seeing “the beginning of the end of the repressive, extremist regime in Tehran” and that Washington should support opposition protesters in Iran.
As a responsible journalist, Jay dutifully notes that the senior officials he interviewed stressed that President Obama “isn’t moving toward seeking a regime change as its policy for Iran”. But, whether President Obama and his advisers want to call their policy “regime change”, that is precisely the direction in which they are moving. Their efforts, in this regard, will not only fail to produce regime change in Tehran—they will further undermine the already tattered credibility of American diplomatic representations toward the Islamic Republic.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
“The Shah killed 744 people during that period. This is according to the Martyrs Foundation setup by the IRI. It’s still a far cry from 100, but things have just begun.”
Thank you for the information. Much appreciated.
Bobzee,
Yes, I totally agree with you, but the issue is a bit more subtle. From my observations, the IR Security (NAJA), or the anti-riot police wearing riot gear that we see most of the time on YouTube videos and other pictures do not carry firearms. These are the non-ideological recruits from regular police force. Behind them, are the ideological thugs like uniformed, or mostly plain clothes Bassijis who carry concealed firearms (sidearms). These are the thugs who confront the crowd with non-conventional methods, by mixing with the demonstrators, kidnapping individuals, stabbing, or shooting at close range. I have also seen videos and pictures of these plain clothes thugs facing the crowds on their motorbikes with their pistols aimed at them. They intend to kill! Of the 10-12 pictures/videos of the shooting victims that I have seen so far, all except 2, had received fatal head wounds. These are obviously Mafia style behavior used to intimidate and discourage demonstrators, but at the same time using, in comparison, the “soft-force” of NAJA for most part, so far.
This is in contrast to the aggressive posture of the government back in 1978 that brought out the solders, machine guns, tanks and helicopter gunships to confront demonstrators at the first hint of any trouble. This was utter idiocy for a supposedly progressive government that we lived under, back then. The demonstrating crowds in September 1978 were much much smaller than the millions who demonstrated in June 2009. The sheer idiocy of mowing down a small crowd in September 1978 and subsequent avalanche of outrage and anger following the initial massacre had more to do with the ending of monarchy than the subsequent 28 years. But this is all water under the bridge now.
Although I quite agree with you about the fanatical core of this murderous bunch itching to come out with their Russian and Chinese made hardware to mowdown the infidels in one last show of their Islamic faith, I can also hope that just like in 1979, the multiple armed organizations under control of these criminals will split and take sides, sooner than later, as a deterrent to the fanatical core.
No-to-IRI,
They do carry firearms. There is video and photo evidence. They have shot and killed people. But it’s not to the extent of ‘78-’79 yet, in which the military was out using heavy guns. But I assure you, they will come out when they see the basij/police can not control the situation. And unlike the Shah, they won’t hesitate to kill thousands because they have nowhere to go and everything to lose.
Lysander,
The Shah killed 744 people during that period. This is according to the Martyrs Foundation setup by the IRI. It’s still a far cry from 100, but things have just begun.
In response to Lysander’s first and second points regarding the state of affairs 7 months into the Islamic revolution; the main difference is the level of brutality displayed in the initial encounters with the street crowds. In 1978, the initial encounter between security forces and demonstrators were brutal and bloody. What was later called the “black Friday” in Tehran, was the first and the bloodiest of all street demonstrations throughout the so called revolution. Everything else unravelled from that point on, with greatly exaggerated casualty figures coming from the opposition.
The current security thugs in charge now are the veteran organizers of the 1978-79 demonstrations and are acutely aware of the mistakes made by the security officials in 1978. Hence today’s crowd control thugs of the Islamic republic do not carry firearms, for now. And this may another reason for the slow start.
What is happening now in Iran is a real grass roots uprising and cannot be compared to the pre invasion situation in Iraq. Unfortunately the American left is so opposed to its own government that it will gladly cheer on the Mullahs or the Taliban just to stick it to their own government.
As for some of the questions by Lysander:
1) It is not logical to expect two revolutions to follow identical paths.
2) Again there is no reason why revolutions should take identical paths.
3) Khomeini was not the “architect” of the revolution. The real force behind it was Jimmy Carter in his ill concived notion of bringing “human rights” to the world. He did great in both Nicaragua and Iran.
4) 1n 79 much of the west including UK; France and USA actively supported Khomeini. Right now Russia; China and leftists in the US openly support the Islamic Republic while UK does so behind the scenes.
That’s why it is going to be more difficult but not impossible to get rid of the Mullahs in Iran.
There were both internal and external factors. Internally there were Marxists; Nationalists and Islamic groups. On the outside the British and Jimmy Carter were strongly supportive of Khomeini. Th
7 Months into the post election Green Movement, it is still not clear what it wants. It seems the election is no longer an issue, quite possibly as there is no longer controversy that Ahmadinejad truly won. That does not mean the Green Movement can’t demand other things. Rule of law, civil rights, personal freedom. Everyone can support that. And if most Iranians decide to overthrow the government, that is up to them.
Still, one can’t help but notice a few key differences between now and 1979.
1) By 7 months into the Islamic revolution, the situation was well out of the Shah’s hands. Now, while there could easily be more protests, I really don’t see even a slim chance of the IRI collapsing.
2) 7 months into the 1979 revolution, the security services seem to have killed several thousand and still the protests continued. As of now, even the opposition does not claim more than 100 dead. That is not to minimize the value of those lives at all, but the difference is clear.
3) It seemed rather clear in 1979 Khomeini was the architect of the revolution and Musavi simply can’t compare to his stature or the passion he inspired. It also seemed clear that the Islamists were the driving force and other parties, Leftists, etc were the hangers on.
4) Crucially, while the world cheered and rooted for the Shah to survive, they now cheer for the IRI’s demise. That means while earlier protesters could accuse the government of being a puppet in foreign hands, now the protesters have to protect themselves from such a charge.
Any Iranian present during 1979, I would greatly appreciate his/her input and constructive criticism.
Simply put, the current government of Iran has grossly violated the Iranian constitution. The Green Movement seeks to re-implement the rights stated in the constitution; thus, they are acting within the laws of the land. Targeted sanctions aim to stifle the current government’s illegitimate grip on the nation in an effort to help the Green Movement. Is this really regime change? Are criminals allowed to act freely just because they hold positions of power – let alone power gained illegitimately?
You should probably spend a little less time with Mohammad Marandi, who, working on behalf of the current illegitimate government, seeks to label the Green Movement as counter-revolutionary. You should also consider broadening your horizons when it comes to Iran – may be start by actually reading the Iranian constitution?
An example of your lack of understanding of the Iranian constitution:
On June 24th 2009 you wrote,
“Similarly, the Iranian government responded to the post-June 12 protests in a manner consistent with its own constitutional procedures — and with far less bloodshed than when the Chinese government suppressed the Tiananmen Square protesters in 1989″
Article 27 – the freedom of assembly. Therefore, the government did not respond in a “manner consistent with its own constitutional procedures” because they denied the assembly of peaceful protests. I also like how you justify the bloodshed (34 dead according to the government) because it was “far less” than the Tiananmen Square incident.
While some American politicians may be attaching themselves to the extreme elements of the opposition in Iran, it’s needless to say who is attaching themselves to the extreme elements of the illegitimate government of Iran.
Why is there a picture of Lieberman and Chalabi? Is it to draw a connection between US involvement in Iraq to your claim that Obama is moving towards regime change? If so, can I point out a few things?
1. There are actual protests in Iran by students, human rights activists, civil society, religious students, high ranking clerics, and my grandma (retired, generally apolitical person). Regardless of whether you believe the regime is about to implode or not (I don’t, but I do believe that some kind of change is coming), your cavalier headline shows that you could care less about these people being given the tiananmen square treatment. If I were less polite I would call you names for such indifference.
2. Obama is not Bush. Iran is not Iraq. Moral support for opposition is not Shock and Awe. I could go into details regarding these comments, but I hope I don’t have to explain the difference between the two administrations, their strategies and options.
3. I’m not sure if you were part of that crowd, but I remember a great deal of hand wringing about whether to support the lawyers and rule of law movement in Pakistan by people who sounded just like you. That seems a much more apt comparison than Iraq. I remember thinking about the utter lack of morals or clear vision that accompanies such views. McCain lost my vote over that banal attitude he called a position.
4. Lieberman, whether in Jerusalem or not, is as great a punching bag as Chalabi. Good job!! Keep showing pictures of idiots and I’m sure your baseless assumptions with short quotes from one article will be much better reasoned.
Have you considered writing for Kayhan? There is a guy there named Shariatmadari who would love your work. Just throw in the words, Baha’is and/or Zionists (the subtlety of Lieberman in Jerusalem would be lost on him) and I think he will be happy to finance your whole operation.
More seriously though, I’d like to point out that you can advocate for a policy that does not include US military action or sanctions without being this cavalier about the ambitions of millions of people who wish to have a better government.
Kevin Althaus, I agree, This site is great
I also agree with Hillary and Flynt Leverett’s fair and balanced analysis that US government should engage with Iran rather than impose sanctions or use military action.
This is a great site – please keep up the reat work!
Perhaps the administration knows something we don’t, but I doubt it. I frankly don’t see this regime as any more endangered than China’s was in 1989. If push comes to shove, they’ll shoot, and that’ll be that, the regime will survive.
There’s no evidence that “targeted” sanctions will work. To me it seems likely the administration is grasping for something other than engagement (which will lead to a drumbeat of criticism from the neocons) and military action (which it doesn’t want to undertake). But this will only put off the day of reckoning. When sanctions fail, then what? Engagement? The Iranians may not be interested in engaging after we’ve tried to crush them economically. So then . . . military action? Seems to me we’re creating a scenario that’s just what the neocons want, i.e., a road to war.
Regime Change policy will weak the civil society and the reformist movement.
Interesting. JohnH – I think you’re right; there will certainly be traps set for Obama, he’s just got to avoid falling into them.
I’m trying to make sense of all this briefing and spin and so on going on, and Hillary Clinton’s quote about not wanting to undermine the opposition by doing a deal is interesting, because it is the opposition that most vehemently opposed the Geneva nuclear deal, so much so that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad dramatically backtracked. Clinton’s remarks could be an acknowledgement of that.
If so, it could either be a reason to move away from a nuclear accord, or it could be preparing the ground for a nuclear deal along the lines of what the opposition in Iran sought, which is the Iranian counteroffer currently on the table. There is a potential win-win here. The regime factions sort out their differences through reaching an accord over the nuclear negotiation, in the knowledge that the US will accept it and endorse their unified position, with various human rights caveats.
I think both the Iranian regime and the Obama White House equally fear a loss of control to the darker forces lurking in the background in Iran and the US.
It is not bad thing in itself, but it is up to the American people to get rid of their government themselves and install a true democratic system.
And supporting those who hope that a hideous regime disappears into the dustbin of history is bad because?
If Obama sincerely believes that war with Iran is not a desirable course, he must take some concrete steps toward reducing tensions. So far we have seen none. If this goes on much longer, the forces arrayed against Iran with set a trap for him, and he will be forced to make choices that will please the “defense” establishments in the US and Israel but be ultimately counter-productive, if not catastrophic.
Like Afghanistan, Obama seems all too happy to let himself be pushed into a corner. It’s hard to fathom why the man chooses to behave that way.