by Phil Wilayto, June 13, 2009
As this is being written, official announcements in Iran today of a landslide victory by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are being met with cries of “fraud” by supporters of his principal challenger, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi.
The New York Times is reporting that “at least one person had been shot dead in clashes with the police in Vanak Square in Tehran. Smoke from burning vehicles and tires hung over the city late Saturday.”
It seems clear which side has started the violence. From today's Times:
“'Death to the coup d’état!' chanted a surging crowd of several thousand protesters, many of whom wore Mr. Moussavi’s [sic] signature bright green campaign colors, as they marched in central Tehran on Saturday afternoon. 'Death to the dictator!' Farther down the street, clusters of young men hurled rocks at a phalanx of riot police officers, and the police used their batons to beat back protesters. There were reports of demonstrations in other major Iranian cities as well. ... As night settled in, the streets in northern Tehran that recently had been the scene of pre-election euphoria were lit by the flames of trash fires and blocked by tipped trash bins and at least one charred bus. Young men ran through the streets throwing paving stones at shop windows, and the police pursued them.”
(Note: Northern Tehran is the more affluent part of the city. There were no reports of protest in the much poorer southern part of the capital.)
While there's still time to rationally look at the elections, I'd like to offer a few observations.
The dominant view among Western commentators, as well as some progressive members of the Iranian diaspora, is that Mousavi is a “reformer” who favors loosening restrictions on civil liberties within Iran, while being more open to a less hostile relationship with the West. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is described as a “hardliner” who demagogically appeals to the poor, while making deliberately provocative statements about the United States and Israel in order to bolster his standing in the Islamic world.
In my opinion, both of the above characterizations are superficial. The fundamental contradiction between the two leading candidates has to do with their respective bases of support and, more importantly, their different approaches to the economy.
Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?
Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi's supporters, and so instinctively identify with them? Myself, I'm a worker, and a former union organizer. When I watched the videos and viewed the photos of the pro-Mousavi rallies in Tehran and other cities, I didn't feel elated – I felt a chill. To me, this didn't look like a liberal reform movement, it felt like a movement whose real target is a government that exercises a “preferential option for the poor,” to use the words of Christian liberation theology.
How about the economy?
A big issue in Iran – virtually never discussed in the U.S. media – is how to interpret Article 44 of the country's constitution. That article states that the economy must consist of three sectors: state-owned, cooperative and private, and that “all large-scale and mother industries” are to be entirely owned by the state. This includes the oil and gas industries, which provide the government with the majority of its revenue. This is what enables the government, in partnership with the large charity foundations, to fund the vast social safety net that allows the country's poor to live much better lives than they did under the U.S.-installed Shah.
In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow for some privatization. Just how much, and how swiftly that process should proceed, is a fundamental dividing line in Iranian politics. Mousavi has promised to speed up the privatization process. And when he first announced he would run for the presidency, he called for moving away from an “alms-based “ economy (PressTV, 4/13/09), an obvious reference to Ahmadinejad's policies of providing services and benefits to the poor.
In addition to their different class bases and approaches to the economy, Ahmadinejad presents an uncompromising front against the West, and especially against the U.S. government. This is a source of great national pride, and has produced some positive results. For example, President Obama has now actually admitted, at least in part, that it was the U.S. that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh.
The whole idea that tossing Ahmadinejad out of office would make it easier to change U.S. policy toward Iran is, in my opinion, very naive. Was Dr. Mossadegh a crazy demagogue? No, but he did lead the movement to nationalize Iran's oil industry. If Mousavi, as president, were to strongly state that he would refuse to consider any surrender of Iran's sovereign right to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, that he would continue to support the resistance organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, that he would continue to try and increase Iran's political role in the Middle East, and that he would defend state ownership of the oil and gas industries, would the Western media portray him as a reasonable man?
Further, there's the nature of Mousavi's election campaign. Obama called it a “robust” debate, which it certainly was, and a good refutation of the lie that Iran has no democracy. But it is also a political movement, one capable of drawing large crowds out into the streets, ready to engage in street battles with the president's supporters and now the police.
Is it possible that the U.S. government, its military and its 16 intelligence agencies are piously standing on the sidelines of this developing conflict, respecting Iran's right to work out its internal differences on its own? Could we expect that approach from the same government that still maintains its own 30-year sanctions against Iran, is responsible for three sets of U.N.-imposed sanctions, annually spends $70-90 million to fund “dissident” organizations within Iran and, according to the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, actually has U.S. military personnel on the ground within Iran, supporting terrorist organizations like the Jundallah and trying to foment armed rebellions against the government?
The point has been made that U.S. neocons were hoping for an Ahmadinejad victory, on the theory that he makes a convenient target for Iran-bashers. But the neocons are no longer in power in Washington. They got voted out of office and are back to writing position papers for right-wing think tanks. We now have a “pragmatic” administration, one that would like to first dialog with the countries it seeks to control.
I think what is important to realize is that Washington wasn't just hoping for a “reform” candidate to win the election – it's been hoping for an anti-government movement that looks to the West for its political and economic inspiration. Mousavi backer and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a free-market advocate and businessman whom Forbes magazine includes in its list of the world's richest people. Does Rafsanjani identify with or seek to speak for the poor? Does Mousavi?
What kind of Iran are the Mousavi forces really hoping to create? And why is Washington – whose preference for “democracy” is trumped every time by its insatiable appetite for raw materials, cheap labor, new markets and endless profits – so sympathetic to the “reform” movements in Iran and in every other country whose people have nationalized its own resources?
Would Iran be better off with a president who, instead of qualifying everything he says about the Holocaust, just came out directly and said, “Look, there's no question that millions of Jewish people were murdered in a campaign of genocide, but how does that justify creating a Jewish state on land that is the ancestral home of the Palestinians?” That would certainly make the job of anti-war activists much easier - and if you look hard enough, you can find something close to those words in Ahmadinejad's statements.
But it wouldn't be enough. The U.S. government and its complementary news media would just find another hook on which to hang their demonization of Iran and its government.
The days ahead promise to be challenging ones for all those who oppose war, sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As we pursue that work, it would be good not to get caught up in what is sure to be a tsunami of criticism of a government trying to resolve a crisis that in all likelihood is not entirely homegrown.
* Phil Wilayto is the editor of The Virginia Defender newspaper and author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation's Journey through the Islamic Republic.” He can be reached:
![](/img/maillink.gif)
Comments
Hide the following 22 comments
Presidential election in Iran: selected items from the British press
14.06.2009 11:23
Times, 13 June 2009
Lifting the veil
A generation of young women voters is rejecting Iran’s repressive regime and challenging the patriarchal orthodoxy of the Muslim world
leading article, Times, 13 June 2009
_________________
Iran’s old guard are poised to crush any hope of revolution
by Robert Fisk, Independent, 12 June 2009
_________________
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad faces defeat if election not rigged, say Iranian experts
by Ian Black, Guardian, 12 June 2009
_________________
Election ‘will end in riots if Ahmadinejad cheats again’ (*)
Analysts fear that victory for Iran’s President will spark violence – and a Tiananmen-style response
by Martin Fletcher, Times, 12 June 2009
________________
Theo-democracy (*)
Mousavi has to defeat the bought vote and the bloc vote
leading article, Financial Times, 11 June 2009
________________
Yes they can – fired-up Iranians dare to dream of a presidential job loss (*)
by Ian Black, Guardian, 11 June 2009
________________
Iran’s bold new face of rebellion hopes to see off ‘empire of lies’ (*)
by Martin Fletcher, The Times, 10 June 2009
________________
Woman who dares to defy Ahmadinejad (*)
by Martin Fletcher, The Times, 8 June 2009
________________
(*) title of the print edition
dandelion salad
Homepage:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/06/14/presidential-election-in-iran-selected-items-from-the-british-press/
Clinton: We hope the outcome reflects the genuine will of the Iranian people
14.06.2009 13:59
1) Clinton: We hope the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people (13 June 2009)
2) Clinton Threatens to Attack Iran ‘The Way That We Did’ Iraq (7 June 2009)
_________________
excerpt from: Remarks With Canadian Foreign Minister Cannon
(joint press conference by US Foreign Minister Clinton and her Canadian counterpart Cannon, Niagara Falls, Ontario, Canada, 13 June 2009)
SECRETARY CLINTON: We watched closely the enthusiasm and the very vigorous debate and dialogue that occurred in the lead-up to the Iranian elections. We are monitoring the situation as it unfolds in Iran.
But we, like the rest of the world, are waiting and watching to see what the Iranian people decide. The United States has refrained from commenting on the election in Iran. We obviously hope that the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people.
FOREIGN MINISTER CANNON: For Canada, on behalf of Canada, Canada is deeply concerned by reports of voting irregularities in the Iranian election. We’re troubled by reports of intimidation of opposition candidate’s offices by security forces. We’ve tasked our embassy officials to – in Tehran to closely monitor the situation, and Canada is calling on Iranian authorities to conduct fair and transparent counting of all ballots. [...]
_________________
FROM THE ARCHIVES:
excerpts from: Transcript: Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 'This Week'
(transcript of ABC-TV's ‘This Week with George Stephanopoulos’ programme on 7 June 2009)
ABC News website, 7 June 2009
CLINTON: […] I don't think there is any doubt in anyone's mind that, were Israel to suffer a nuclear attack by Iran, there would be retaliation.
ABC: By the United States?
CLINTON: Well, I think there would be retaliation. And I think part of what is clear is, we want to avoid a -- a Middle East arms race […] and we want to make clear that there are consequences and costs.
Now, let me just put it this way: If […] they [i.e. the Iranians] believe that the United States might attack them the way that we did attack Iraq, for example...
ABC: Before they attack, as a first strike?
CLINTON: That's right, as a first strike, or they might have some other enemy that would do that to them, part of what we have to make clear to the Iranians is that their pursuit of nuclear weapons will actually trigger greater insecurity, because […]
ABC: Because Israel will strike before they can finish?
CLINTON: Well, but not only that. I mean, other countries, other Arab countries are deeply concerned about Iran having nuclear weapons. […]
_________________
dandelion salad
victory to the tyrants
14.06.2009 14:52
more truth here i think:
ayatollah
Homepage:
http://www.hopoi.org/
To the security service troll:
14.06.2009 17:50
Yep, and I call you a fascist, the most obvious security services troll this week.
I wonder how much of that $70-90 million blood money goes to pay crap trolls and fake websites in the hope , and how much is accounted by the US and UK terrorists currently active in Iran killing innocents.
I don't know whether the Iranian election was as fraudulent as the Bush election, but I do know the Democrats never had the balls to criticise the latter.
I do know that the Iranian people have proved themselves capable of removing the most tyranical dictator, a sick little shit of a man called the Shah by the CIA.
Danny
Troll
14.06.2009 18:41
Simon
the voice of the secret services (according to Danny)
14.06.2009 18:45
Hands Off The People Of Iran fights against the threat of any imperialist intervention, war or sanctions against Iran. It looks to build active, practical solidarity with grass-roots radical secular forces in Iran, the militant women’s, workers and students movements. We want regime change, both in Iran and in the imperialist countries. But we know that change must come from below - from the struggles of the working class and social movements - if it is to lead to genuine liberation.
Our campaign demands:
No to imperialist war! For the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of US/UK troops from Iraq and all the Gulf region!
No to any imperialist intervention. The immediate and unconditional end to sanctions on Iran.
No to the theocratic regime!
Opposition to Israeli expansionism and aggression!
Support to all working class and progressive struggles in Iran against poverty and repression!
Support for socialism, democracy and workers' control in Iran!
For a nuclear-free Middle East as a step towards a nuclear-free world!
Hand Of People Of Iran
Homepage:
http://www.hopoi.org/
Hopoi = US troll
14.06.2009 21:19
Yes, and I've checked with the genuine Iranian dissidents that I know. Some of them agree with your arguments but all of them disagree with you veiled call-for-war. I get £120 a fortnight (sometimes) for arguing here. What are you getting paid?
Danny
Yeah sorry, apologies to the CIA
14.06.2009 21:42
You are working for a first strike on Iran. Any Israeli agent would do that in your place. I don't see the point in shaming you when you don't know what the word 'shame' means. I doubt I can explain it to you.
>the voice of the secret services (according to Danny)
dear danny
14.06.2009 21:53
if anyone is in doubt about what HOPOI stand for i suggest checking out their website and their supporters including amongst others; Noam Chomsky Chris Knight and Tony Benn- not saying that these people neccesarily have any political credibility other than an incredible unliklihood that they are all supporters of a fascist or cia funded troll group
shouting troll doesnt make it so - bit like shouting wolf eh?
if you can see a thinly disguised call for war in anything posted here then you must have some amazing spectacles
where do you stand then ? as a self declared anarchist? for the people of Iran or for the theocracy? can you see that this is a choice that can be made without being for the imperialists?
funny money - no one pays me for writing anything
simon
makes me wonder
14.06.2009 22:17
strange motivation
who do Danny and his mates actually support then?
Simon
ps Is Yassamine Mather not a "genuine Iranian"?
simon
Homepage:
http://www.hopoi.org
Which parts, in particular , are crap ayatollah?
15.06.2009 07:39
The middle class are simply outnumbered and lost.
Accept it , most Iranians are not cafe mocca chocca blocca supping , shades on head , english speaking clones.
Besides how can the U.S. or U.K. preach democracy when they're lucky to get a 30% turn out voting for parties so similar , some may call it a one party dictatorship.
So come on , whats your problem?
Sue side
Is Nick Griffin.....
15.06.2009 08:03
Sue side
Anarchy Freedom and Peace
15.06.2009 08:48
those who accuse them of being fascists trolls and of being mossad/cia make me think the original article is the work of the Iranian state or at least its useful idiots-
Mousavi is the enemy
Ahmadinejad is enemy
western imperialism is the enemy -
people struggling for freedom against a theocracy and being beaten in the streets by riot police should be supported by anarchists
since when did anarchists stand by ANY state?
Are we Stalinists who support our enemies enemy
Ahmadinjad Khatamei and co would imprison us as surely as they would any supporter of Mousavi-
this is a power struggle between the Iranian elite- we must be with the Iranian people
anarchy freedom peace
NO GODS NO MASTERS
15.06.2009 12:03
DOWN WITH ISRAELI ZIONISM
DOWN WITH AYATOLLAH THEOCRACY
DWON WITH THE RULING CLASS WHATEVER THEIR NATIONALITY
UP WITH FREEDOM
UP WITH PEACE
UP WITH EQUALITY
UP WITH SOLIDARITY WITH PROTESTERS WITH WORKERS WITH WOMEN WITH THOSE FIGHTING AGAINST THE APPARATUS OF ANY STATE US ISRAEL IRAN UK PAKISTAN TALIBAN EGYPT ANY WHO WOULD RULE AND OPPRESS AND EXPLOIT US
NO PLATFORM FOR FASCISTS AND THEIR DEFENDERS WHETHER THEY BE IRANIAN AMERICAN BRITISH OR ISRAELI ...
it isnt that difficult
anarchy
FLASHBACK: Turkey would be the optimum route for a possible Israeli attack on Ir
15.06.2009 12:15
Sunday Times, 13 July 2008
CSIS report: Turkey would be the optimum route for a possible Israeli attack on Iran
excerpts from:
Study on a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear development facilities
by Abdullah Toukan, Anthony H.Cordesman and Arleigh A. Burke
Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), 16 March 2009
A military strike by Israel against Iranian Nuclear Facilities is possible and the optimum route would be along the Syrian-Turkish border then over a small portion of Iraq then into Iran, and back the same route. […]
If the Israeli aircraft do actually fly over Turkey that would constitute a clear Turkish – Israel and even U.S. conspiracy to attack Iran, so the Political risks could be high with Turkey.
Operationally, the risk from Syria would be low, whereas the risk from Turkey could be of medium level if Turkey deems it necessary to react militarily. […]
___________________
FROM THE ARCHIVES:
excerpt from: Turkish-Israeli Military Cooperation: An Assessment
by Michael Eisenstadt, Washington Institute, 24 July 1997
For Iran, Israeli-Turkish military cooperation has brought Israel to its border. Israel has reportedly established intelligence listening posts there, and Turkish cooperation would greatly facilitate Israeli air strikes on Iran's NON-CONVENTIONAL weapons infrastructure, much of which is located near Tehran. (Israeli aircraft could stage from and/or refuel over Turkey, greatly increasing their striking range.) [editorial note: emphasis added]
Turkey could make a significant contribution should Israel try to strike at Iran's nonconventional weapons infrastructure, or find itself involved in a war with Syria. While the extent of Israeli-Turkish military cooperation in the event of a war with Syria would be situation dependent, current political realities rule out Israeli aircraft and warships operating from Turkish territory in wartime. Turkey would gain little by openly supporting the Israeli war effort, which would make Turkey a target for Syrian retribution (i.e. more terrorism) and Arab political censure. Turkey is therefore more likely to quietly render assistance to the Israeli war effort, providing intelligence, missile early-warning data, and refuge for damaged Israeli aircraft or warships. In this way, it will help Israel punish a troublesome neighbor and gain the good will of Israeli political and military leaders, without incurring major risks. Most important, perhaps, is the psychological impact of the emerging Israel-Turkish axis, which introduces an element of uncertainty into the military calculations of Syria and Iran.
________________________
RELATED LINK:
Coming war against Iran: Increasing Anglo-American pressure on Turkey
by Cem Ertur, Global Research, 21 June 2008
________________________
dandelion salad
Homepage:
http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/csis-report-turkey-would-be-the-optimum-route-for-a-possible-israeli-attack-on-iran/
Small talk with a noone she's mistaken for a friend
15.06.2009 18:09
Ann Clywd, 'Labour Friend of Iraq', at the Iraq whitewash debate today, standing up proudly and saying how she supported the war on human rights issues after being involved with the Iraqi opposition for over 30 years, not a trace of regret for the millions she has helped kill. And now it's anti-Iranian propaganda, how evil their government is, which implies our states killing them to 'liberate' them. Funny how the US backed off the North Korean rhetoric as soon as they exploded their first nuke. Currently there are US soldiers in Iran destabilising the country - killing people, Israeli theats and US threats of air-strikes. US monitored Afghan opium destroying Irans economy. The Iranian people didn't need any outside help in getting rid of the Shah and his brutal secret police and they won't need any outside help getting rid of the mullahs. Swapping a working class leader under an ayatollah for a middle class leader under an ayatollah isn't worth dying for, but people are getting killed.
Danny
People getting killed
15.06.2009 18:50
And as to your comment about North Korea - you think it would be a good idea for the current regime in Iran to have a bomb?
abba
It's a rich mans world
16.06.2009 11:51
That never happens in the UK does it?
"And as to your comment about North Korea - you think it would be a good idea for the current regime in Iran to have a bomb? "
I don't think it is a good idea for anyone to have a bomb. I can see why the Iranian state may want one, but I also see the ayatollah has banned them on religious grounds and no evidence that they are pursuing anything other than nuclear power plants for when peak oil hits home. There are about 20 states, like Japan and Brasil, who are months away from being able to launch an nuclear ICBM, all the countries who have both nuclear power and space programs, and Iran is well behind them. ElBaradei said that Iran could take between 3 and 8 years to make a bomb if it went down that route, and you would know it as soon as the inspectors were ejected. The US recently did a nuclear deal with India, who along with Pakistan - but not Iran - have broken the Nuclear Proliferation Treay. So the real question is should Iran have the right to use nuclear power. Personally I think they should go solar, they have a lot of sun and a lot of space, but it's not worth starting a war over.
The nuclear canard doesn't change the fact that neither of the candidates has any real say over nuclear policy. the only relevant reason to mention nukes is if you believe this is being manipulated by the US to weaken the country.
Danny
Dandelion Salad's friends, hee hee hee
16.06.2009 21:54
har
CIA stooges
18.06.2009 07:18
Suicide Danny
CIA stooges
18.06.2009 08:08
CIA stooges keyed my car last week... CIA stooges vandalised by local shop... CIA stooges rendered my neighbours' cat... CIA stooges pervade my life because I am in the eye of epoch-making storm...
Effusive 6th Form College Trot Ranting at Parents
Rumours of my suicide...
19.06.2009 12:26
You are accusing me of a logical fallacy, like 'A true Scotsman always has salt on his porridge'. I was merely insulting the credentials of someone who had just swiped at someones credentials simply for opposing their interpretation of these events.
When Dandelion Salad was unfairly asked 'call yourself anarchist'? then I was happy to retort 'Yep, and you are a fascist', also unfairly. Dandelion Salad has been writing a lot of good posts and doesn't deserve the "I'm a better anarchist than you" routine, certainly not from an anonymous unknown.
Now, since both candidates support the 'religious dictatorship' then your point is void, your argument bereft, and your motivation suspect.
It hasn't been the riot police doing the killing there btw, the riot police have been trying to reign in the militia and protect the demonstrators. A minor but perhaps important distinction. It is not a country like the Ukraine was where power centres can be painted in two colours.
Danny