tag:onfaith.washingtonpost.com,2010:/postglobal/367 2009-06-24T15:37:46Z Movable Type 4.2-en tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/sami_moubayed//381.45524 2009-06-24T18:20:21Z 2009-06-24T18:24:25Z

I think that the Iranian elections should make everybody sit back, take a deep breath, and try to see whether they really understand the dynamics of Iranian politics.

Sami Moubayed I think that the Iranian elections should make everybody sit back, take a deep breath, and try to see whether they really understand the dynamics of Iranian politics. Some are covering the "developing Iranian story" from the luxury of faraway places like Washington, D.C., London, and Paris. From their air conditioned offices, they write story after story on Iran, typing away on their laptops, frantic either to meet publication deadlines, make an extra buck (if they are freelancers), or simply, add spice to an event that is seen by everybody as "a hot topic." Most of those who are writing on Iran have never been to Tehran, and never met a post-1979 Iranian politician in their lives. They fall in the trap of getting "taken away" by what Western audiences want to hear and see, basically, that the Iranian regime is about to collapse, because of fraud and corruption, any minute now. Reading stories in the Western press reminded me of a cartoon showing ten U.S. presidents, from Dwight Eisenhower to George W. Bush, saying: "Any minute now, Fidel Castro will fall!" Castro actually survived all of them, and stepped down at will because of illness and old age, bequeathing power to his brother, and neither the cunning of Kennedy nor the might of Reagan or the diplomacy of Clinton, were able to bring down America's cigar-chomping nemesis. Cuba was simply too strong to fall that easily. And the same applies to Iran, which has survived every US administration since Jimmy Carter. It has outlived two Reagan presidencies, Bush Senior, two Clinton administrations, two Bush administrations, and is likely to survive, Barack Obama as well. Simply put, Iran--like Cuba--is too strong to fall that easily. tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/anwer_sher//539.45523 2009-06-24T14:42:42Z 2009-06-24T17:51:48Z

Moussavi is not the charismatic leader who can lead a revolution.

Anwer Sher Current Discussion: What do your heart and head tell you as you look at pictures, videos, and other kinds of stories from Iran? Should the world help the protesters--and how? Iran is passing through a defining moment, a moment where either the desire for change will triumph or the conservative forces that have shackled progress will win yet again. Iran has had two reformist presidents in the past; while their impact may have been limited, both Rafsanjani and Khatami laid the foundation for Mir Hussein Moussavi to be able to appeal to Iran's youth on a platform of change. Images from the demonstrations powerfully convey Iran's agony, but there is a bigger issue here. Moussavi is not the charismatic leader who can lead a revolution. His message and appeal has been widespread, but the fire that is needed for the reformists to make that change is simply not there. Rafsanjani's voice, while many see it as powerful considering that he heads the Assembly of Experts, is a liability for Moussavi: Rafsanjani represents huge business interests and sees the Moussavi movement as a means to protect those interests. Ayatollah Khameni, too, has a large business and political base that he wishes to protect. This battle is not just Ahmadinajed versus Moussavi, but more a bigger battle for spiritual control of Iran. I believe the most important voice in all this is that of Ayatollah Montazeri. He is highly revered as a spiritual leader, perhaps with the best standing to be the Grand Spiritual Leader of Iran, and he has already spoken out against the arrests of people who are expressing dissent. He has criticized the government in its handling of the elections and has questioned whether Ayatollah Khameni is taking sides. The most powerful impetus for the movement for change would be for Ayatollah Montazeri to come out onto the streets of Tehran in support of the people asking for fairness and justice. I believe this is would be the most defining moment for Iran and the Iranian people. Most importantly, the Qom Clergy will follow Montazeri more willingly than Ayatollah Khameni; while Montazeri may agree to moving more power to the elected representatives, he will bring back the clergy into a more spiritual role. The world has been relatively silent about Iranian affairs over the last few months. The Arab world is somehow suggesting that it will be unaffected by change in Iran, or lack thereof, forgetting that Iranian influence in the Gulf region is of paramount importance. An imploding Iran dragged into chaos will not benefit anyone, and clearly a massive change on the back of the Moussavi movement will also mean that a push towards more democratic reforms will be the order of the day. We all forget that Iran is the only Muslim country in the Middle East where "one man, one vote" results in an elected parliament. No matter how the Guardian Council and the Supreme Leaders roles plays into the structure of government, it is nevertheless a power of the people and it is the frustration of that rigged election that has sent people into the streets. The United States not saying too much about the election is good, because the last thing that the Moussavi camp needs is to be accused of working for the United States. President Obama's statements were spot on: his wish for the Iranian people to make their OWN choices is important. The test is whether this choice be expressed. World leaders can press upon Iran the need for restraint and calm and to allow the peaceful expression of opinion to continue. However the lines are being drawn hard and even peaceful marches will be met by government forces. The world community will have to decide whether silence or condemnation is the answer. Will we continue to say that this is an internal matter for Iran? Whatever happens, my belief is that the Iranian people are very strong and very politically motivated and I am sure they will have the final say. ]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/carlos_alberto_montaner//544.45521 2009-06-24T15:13:33Z 2009-06-24T15:38:53Z

It is not a question of artificially feeding a conflict, but of supporting those in Iran who are ethically attuned to the West. Not to do so would be a shameful moral abdication.

Carlos Alberto Montaner Current Discussion: Are we witnessing a pro-regime coup in Iran? What should the world do in response? How will the election aftermath affect Iran's projection of power into the Middle East? Of course Democrats worldwide must support those in Iran who are trying to expand their freedoms. There are three very important reasons to give them that support: (1) If Iran evolves toward a political system that is more open and secular, the danger of international war is reduced. That can happen without the need for Iran to stop being an Islamic nation, as happens in Turkey, a country that does not threaten its neighbors and is an international factor whose behavior is consistently constructive. (2) If the non-fanatical sector triumphs in Iran, it will bring an end to Tehran's support to terrorist organizations such as Hezbollah, which not only acts against Israel but also has attacked innocent civilian objectives in Madrid and Buenos Aires. The United States estimates Iranian support for Hezbollah to be about $100 million a year. (3) The Iranians who have taken to the streets to protest expect solidarity from the free world. Failure to give them that solidarity, even if only on a moral plane, would be like telling the retrograde forces of the religious fanatics that they can do anything they wish against a people pleading for freedom because nobody really cares. It is important for the European Union, the United States, Canada, Australia, i.e., the world's great democracies, to emphatically support the Iranians who ask for freedoms, not only through their governments but also through the public pressure from political parties, labor unions and the rest of the organizations in their civil societies. It is not a question of artificially feeding a conflict but of supporting the sector that's ethically attune to the West. Not to do so would be a shameful moral abdication. ]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/ali_ettefagh//400.45520 2009-06-24T14:27:40Z 2009-06-24T15:37:09Z

It is time for the world to realize that the Iranian political system is maturing.

Ali Ettefagh Current Discussion: Are we witnessing a pro-regime coup in Iran? What should the world do in response? How will the election aftermath affect Iran's projection of power into the Middle East? This observer in Tehran can inform you that the (English-language) media frenzy and its sensationalism has breached the limits of reality and has hijacked the essence of debate in Iran. It is used as a diversion to eclipse a rejuvenation of a democratic process. The hyped protests, all within a square mile in west of Tehran, are simply a storm in a teacup and all of it must be framed in perspective. A civil war, a revolution or regime change, it is not. Let us first remember that Iran is a country of about 72 million people, a third of whom are under 25 years old. A turnout of some 50,000 angry mobs (or even one million people, something that has not happened) is not exemplary of the rest. The other 71+ million people also have rights, lives and a desire for quiet pursuit of happiness and peace. Isn’t democracy about the will and rule of the majority, as well as the rule of law and civil order? Or should it be narrowly interpreted (by foreign media) as the right of a select tech-savvy few with computers, email and foreign language skills to project a distorted scuffle and civil disorder? Are elections not about discipline and order, after all? Or should the rules be overturned at random by crying foul and burning down banks and shops, simply because losers dislike the results of the very same system in which they signed up and ran campaigns? Secondly, the blatant sudden turn of events after the election has not been properly explained to most Iranian youngsters and foreigners with a cursory knowledge of Iranian affairs. In fact, it has nothing to do with the election itself. The violence of June 20th marked the 28th anniversary and a rerun of a major street battle in Tehran between the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MKO-MEK) and their rivals during the early days of the Revolution. The rivals won 28 years ago and the MKO-MEK (a Stalinist, violent group that has no mind for the democratic process or even internal elections) was forced into exile. Many of their members were arrested and jailed when Mr. Mousavi was prime minister. The MKO-MEK can be best described as the Persian speaking wing of the degenerated Iraqi Baath Party and an earlier species of Al Qaeda back in early 1970s-- a contemporary of the Red Brigades and the Baadermeinhof terror organizations in Europe. For decades, it has been designated as a terrorist group by most countries. They murdered American military advisers in Iran prior to the 1979 Revolution. MKO was on Saddam’s payroll to kill Iraqi Shiites, in exchange for having a base in Iraq. The source of their budgets remains murky, but MKO maintains an underground system in most European and North American cities, with lobby networks and a few chameleon fronts and disguised names that mask the organization. MKO’s Camp Ashraf base was under protection of American forces and, despite the terrorist designation, they did “business” with Mr. Rumsfeld’s secret Task Force 20 for a few terror jabs at Iran in a hostile, ill-conceived regime change dream concocted by Mr. Cheney & Co. After the pullback of American forces in Iraq, the Iranian and Iraqi government have negotiated to close Camp Ashraf north of Iraq and extradite the key figures, the final round of which has been postponed until after elections in Iran. Hence the tsunami of one-way, ill-informed pressure on mostly English-speaking media by the MKO-MEK lobbies machine, an attempt to derail recent events beyond reality and divert attention away from formation of democracy. In other words, modern politics is snuffed out by a wave of violence, using uninformed young protesters as a shield—many of whom were not even born 28 years ago and are clueless about it all. Otherwise, why would a legitimate Iranian “protester” hold up a sign in English, a foreign language, and pose for cameras if the idea is to protest against the Iranian state in Persian? Recent developments in Iran are two distinct different matters, albeit foreign media have stitched it all up into one big bubble of insane hype. Somehow, all have forgotten about the purpose of an election. Simply put, the foreign mass media has been duped by a terrorist organization with modern (terror?) techniques of vilification in an abusive manipulation. Polluted prejudice and a lazy default on absurd vocabulary and zingers such as “regime change”, talk of “rogue behavior” or relapse to the perception of the 1953 coup has hijacked reality. It is time for the world to realize that the Iranian political system is maturing. It is futile and silly for foreigners to insist upon their perceived views of Iran, even if media outlets turn to full time bullhorns of hostile policies of their governments. In the real world, in a territory about the size of Western Europe, Iran conducted a peaceful and historical election without peer in the region and Iranians have embarked on a new course of democracy, not a violent revolution or a coup or a crackdown plan to serve divide-and-dominate games of hostile foreign governments. It is sad to see civil disorder in any place. But it must be framed in perspective and it is nothing short of a travesty to see the essence of a democratic process is summarily trampled in favor of sensationalist views of the relative few troublemakers with a questionable past and foul intentions. Democracy is a process, not a project. It must be encouraged with cool heads and it must even-handedly left to the indigenous people to find their own way over time. Within living memory, meddling by foreigners in Iranian politics bluntly delayed and damaged the century-old desire of Iranians for a democratic system. Iranians have not forgotten that and chances are that an absolute majority of Iranians are not going to let such meddling happen again. ]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/saul_singer//419.45519 2009-06-24T15:19:22Z 2009-06-24T17:59:05Z

In this case the U.S. would not be supporting terrorist proxies, as Iran does, but supporting a truly popular mass movement. This would be more than legitimate.

Saul Singer Current Discussion: Are we witnessing a pro-regime coup in Iran? What should the world do in response? How will the election aftermath affect Iran's projection of power into the Middle East? The best and only serious way to help the protesters is for the United States and Europe to refuse to recognize a new Ahmadinejad-led government in Iran. Read Bret Stephen's column on his interview with Mohsen Kadivar, a prominent Shiite cleric in exile. Kadivar was a university colleague of the opposition candidate Hossein Mousavi. With Mousavi's help, Kadivar was released after 18 months in prison in 1999. "There are two interpretations of Islam. The aggressive Islam of Ahmadinejad, or the mercy Islam of Mousavi," Kadivar says. Stephens writes that, "Mr. Kadivar praises President Obama's 'no meddling' stance so far, but insists the president not recognize Mr. Ahmadinejad's government once its second term officially begins in August." Obama should start saying now that the U.S. will not recognize a government that has stolen an election with brute force. This is the approach that was successfully taken by the West in the case of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004. While it is true that the U.S. does not consistently refuse to recognize dictatorships, the question is which precedent to follow: the many cases where the democracies have sided with popular opposition to illegitimate governments (Ukraine, South Africa, Philippines, Nicaragua, etc), or the other times when they have turned a blind eye toward oppressive rulers. ]]> tag:newsweek.washingtonpost.com,2009:/postglobal/endy_bayuni//458.45518 2009-06-24T15:13:08Z 2009-06-24T15:18:53Z

At the end of the day, this is a battle that Iranians themselves have to wage. But the world must stand with them and let them know they don't fight alone.

Endy Bayuni Current Discussion: What do your heart and head tell you as you look at pictures, videos, and other kinds of stories from Iran? Should the world help the protesters -- and how? The street protests in Tehran again confirm the belief that freedom is a universal basic human need. No one and no people can live with their freedom suppressed for a long time. Sooner or later, they will revolt and press for their rights to freedom. We saw this in the streets of Rangoon last year, and in Beijing in 1989. We have seen it in Eastern European capital cities, in Jakarta and in Manila and in many other places around the world at different times. In some countries, these movements led to a change in regime. In others it led to the brutal suppression of the demonstrators. In Iran, it could still go either way. Of course we all wish for a happy ending. The question we ask about Iran is whether this desire for freedom among the people has reached a critical mass to tip the balance in their favor, to the point where a brutal suppression would be so horrific even the rulers could not stomach. ]]>