Iran - The Existential Race Between Nukes & A Revolution

Iran has been our greatest foreign policy challenge for the past five years. Obama has been singularly ineffective in dealing with the threat posed by the mad mullahs and their push towards a nuclear arsenal. That said, Iran is a country gripped in a slow motion revolution. It is a race to see which will come first, a successful revolution or the mad mullah's coming close enough to deploying its own nuclear weapons that we either attack or cede to them their arsenal. That latter comes with incredibly destabilizing ramifications for the Middle East and the entire free world.

Ex-CIA Director Michael Hayden, appearing on CNN the other day, stated what has been obvious now for years - that Iran is determined to achieve a nuclear arsenal, that they are not going to be deterred by negotiations or diplomacy, and that a military strike is fast becoming one of our few remaining options. This from the Daily Caller:

A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.

Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, said that during his tenure “a strike was way down the list of options.” But he tells CNN’s State of the Union that such action now “seems inexorable.”

“In my personal thinking,” Hayden said, “I have begun to consider that that may not be the worst of all possible outcomes.”

Hayden said that the likelihood of a U.S. strike on Iran has risen in the face of Tehran’s defiance to halt its contentions nuclear program, saying “We engage. They continue to move forward.”

“We vote for sanctions. They continue to move forward. We try to deter, to dissuade. They continue to move forward,” he added.

The former CIA chief predicted Iran, in defiance of the international community, planned to “get itself to that step right below a nuclear weapon, that permanent breakout stage, so the needle isn’t quite in the red for the international community.”

Hayden said that reaching even that level would be “as destabilizing to the region as actually having a weapon.”

As to the internal news out of Iran, perhaps the best source is Michael Ledeen and his blog at PJM. He paints a picture of an Iranian regime that has lost all legitimacy and now governs with pure brute force. He further tells us of a revolution percolating under the surface, with the merchant class now having joined. This is the latest from Michael Ledeen:

. . . –first of all, there is still no end to the bazaar strike, even though the regime has taken very violent action against the strikers. A large part of the beautiful bazaar in Kerman has been torched . . .;

– the major natural gas pipeline between Iran and Turkey was sabotaged. Enormous damage was done, and the authorities have no estimate as to how long it will be until repair work is finished. . . ;

– Saturday – Sunday night there was a serious fire at the old petrochemical plant on Kharq island. That island is very important to Iran, because it is at once the central point from which Iranian crude oil is exported, and one end of the major pipeline that carries crude and refined products to the mainland. So anything that goes wrong there has immediate consequences both for the national economy and for daily life;

– you may recall that a bit over a week ago, amidst the continuing strikes at major bazaars around the country, there was a double suicide terrorist attack against the mosque in Zahedan, killing nearly 30 revolutionary guards. That unhappy city is still in a state of virtual military occupation, of the most brutal variety. Innocent civilians have been gunned down for the crime of walking at night, and plainclothes killers have gone door to door among the homes of bazaar shopkeepers, and killing anyone who answers the bell. . . .

– It has been a very hot summer, and the electrical grid in and around Tehran has given up the ghost many times, especially in recent weeks. Not only have citizens suddenly found their lights and air conditioning out-sometimes for half the day or night–but the two big automobile factories have already reduced production by one full shift a day. The president has publicly blamed the problem on foreigners, as is his wont, but his problems are local;

– as the regime increasingly wages war against itself, the comings and goings of seemingly powerful people have become almost impossible to sort out. There have been repeated purges in the ranks of the Revolutionary Guards, and the supreme commander, Gen. Jafari, has now publicly stated that many senior officers had actively sided with the opposition. . . .

. . . [T]he regime is afraid to move decisively against their opponents. Khamenei & Co. are real tough guys when it comes to torturing and killing students, political activists, homosexuals, Bahais, Christians and women. But even when it comes to their favorite targets — the women — they retreat in the face of strong protests, as in the recent case when they suspended the stoning of a poor woman unfairly accused of adultery. Her plight has attracted international attention, and the regime backed off.

. . . Ahmadinejad seems to have lost his official theologian.

Hojattoleslam Mohammad Nasser Saghay Biria, President Ahmadinejad’s Advisor on Religious Affairs, has resigned his post in what his close associates are describing as a protest against Ahmadinejad’s alleged un-Islamic views on requirements for women to wear veil and conform to strict Islamic dress code. Ahmadinejad has not yet accepted Saghay’s resignation.

Saghay Biria is a disciple of Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi.

That last line should get your attention, because the Ayatollah in question is generally considered to be the leading light in the cult of the 12th Imam, the little boy who had been destined become the leader of Islam, but have to hide from his would-be killers some 900 years ago, and whose return would mark the End of Days. Mesbah Yazdi is said to be Ahmadinejad’s guru, so why is his disciple walking out on the president? Your guess is as good as mine, but whatever it means, it is another signpost along the death spiral of the Islamic Republic.

Rulers of the Islamic Republic are looking more and more like the gang that couldn’t shoot straight, and Banafsheh uncovered a document that should cause them considerable embarrassment. It’s a flyer, recruiting virgin women for prostitution in a brothel located in the holiest site of one of the two holiest cities in Iran: the Imam Reza Shrine in Mashad. You might wish to read the whole thing—it includes going rates—but here’s the essence of it:

In order to elevate the spiritual atmosphere, create proper psychological conditions and tranquility of mind, the Province of the Quds’eh-Razavi of Khorassan has created centers for temporary marriage (just next door to the shrine) for those brothers who are on pilgrimage to the shrine of our eighth Imam, Imam Reza, and who are far away from their spouses.

To that end, we call on all our sisters who are virgins, who are between the ages of 12 and 35 to cooperate with us.

It’s a religious thing, you see.

To me, this is a perfect symbol of the Islamic Republic: even the holiest places have been corrupted and turned into brothels and charnel houses. Degradation is the common denominator of Iranian life, and the women, starting at age 12, are its most common victims.

If and when this regime dies, rivers of blood will be spilled. This regime's hands are awash in the blood of Americans, Israelies, Lebanese, Palestinians, Iraqis and more. But the most blood the mad mullahs have spilled has been that of their own citizens. I would not want to be an IRGC member, a regime functionary or a mullah when this regime falls. I suspect it will look very much like the French Revolution, sans guillotines.

But can we wait for the regime's downfall? If the mad mullahs gets a nuclear arsenal, then they will in essence be able to insure their borders with a nuclear deterrent. The bloody history of this regime suggests that they would then beome an incredibly destabilizing and destructive force.

That said, if I we could be assured that Obama is doing all he can, covertly and overtly, to bring down the regime of the mad mullahs, then it would probably be wise to follow that course. As to covert operations, it is impossible to say (at least until something gets handed to Wikileaks or the NYT in the near future) if Obama is doing anything in that regard. But if Obama's overt actions are any indication, then the answer is that he is doing nothing.

Obama has done nothing overtly to support the Iranian Revolution for months. When is the last time you heard him even mention Iran, let alone focus world's attention on the atrocities going on inside that country on a daily basis?

The only scenario in which American blood does not get spilled ending the mad mullah's nuclear threat is if the revolution succeeds. And yet Obama seems to be treating Iran with studied disinterest.

As Gen. Hayden pointed out above, we are rapidly approaching the time when military force may become our last viable option. At one time, I used to be concerned that attacking Iran stood a real possibility of rallying the Iranian population in favor of the regime. I think that no more. That said, is there anyone who thinks that Obama has the intestinal fortitude to commit us to a war against Iran? I say that with but one caveat. I do not think that Obama will attack Iran even on the brink of them finally achieving a nuclear arsenal unless something occurs that convinces hime that he will benefit politicaly in the 2012 election. That, rather than America's best interest, will be Obama's penultimate deciding factor.

And if Obama does nothing, then, unless by the grace of God the revolution succeeds, it will fall to the next President to deal with Iran. By then, the potential cost to our nation in blood and gold to solve the problem of the mad mullahs may be very high indeed. This is an existential race. It would be nice if Obama engaged in it.

Read More...

Summary only...

The Fierce Urgency of Now: A CIA Covert Agent On Iran

Reza Kahlili, the pseudonym of an Iranian member of IRGC who, for over a decade, worked as an agent of the CIA, has some very stark warnings for America concerning Iran. He recently spoke in an interview at the Daily Beast. Here is the meat of the interview:

. . . DB: What were your thoughts being in the United States watching what was going on in the post-election turmoil in this past summer?

RK: Well I was very hopeful. I mean, hundreds of thousands of people were coming out on to the streets. This was unprecedented. But I think that the West lost a great opportunity. They should have been more vocal. They should have come out from the early days. This theory that if you say anything in support of the uprising it’s going to be interpreted by the Iranian government as interference by the West… I mean no matter what the West does, they will always be blamed. The uprising is not over, but Iranians need leadership and [Ahmadinejad’s main challenger] Mir Hossein Mousavi, so far, has not been capable of being a strong leader in guiding the people. So you know I’m still honestly hopeful. People are tired of this system. You never know. It could be coming to a point that we see major change.

DB: What do you see Iran looking like five years from now?

RK: Obviously no one can see into the future, but there’s one thing that I believe: If the West sticks with sanctions, and its mild approach to trying to change the behavior of the Iranian leadership, Iran will become a nuclear power. If Iran becomes a nuclear power, if it becomes a nuclear-armed country, the Iranian people are going to pay a very, very heavy price. And you could see major destruction in Iran. Now I hope to God that doesn’t happen.

DB: What do you mean? Be specific. What do you mean by major destruction?

RK: I think Iran accessing a nuclear bomb, it is going to cause major war with Iran. And I believe the West is moving toward that by just dragging this thing along. This is going to come to a head, and war could break out. And I hope that’s not going to be the case. But if they become nuclear-armed, I think the Iranian people are going to pay a very heavy price.

DB: What’s the option? I mean you keep saying that the West isn’t doing enough—what is the option? What should they be doing?

RK: Look, if you can’t deal with the Guards right now, how are you going to deal with them if they have a nuclear bomb? If they have nuclear-armed warheads and if they cover the whole world? What are you going to do? Study the clerics, the leadership behavior for the previous decades, they’ve taken the world hostage many times over, and they have won. Now just imagine that they have a nuclear bomb. The Saudi kingdom would be in jeopardy. Iraq… forget about it, it’s already under control of Iran. They’re helping the Taliban. In Lebanon, Hezbollah is ruling. Jordan could be in danger, Syria could be empowered, Israel could be threatened day and night, Hamas would be empowered. You could see nuclear proliferation moving into Venezuela. It is going to be unimaginable.

We just don’t know how dangerous the consequences would be. It’s serious. This is a serious situation, and the West is not dealing with it the way they should. One thing they could do very simply is cut off shipping lines—all airspace and shipping lines closed to everything coming into Iran and going out of Iran.

DB: You know that according to all international laws what you are describing—the cutting off of shipping lines—is an act of war.

RK: Well, let it be an act of war. You’ve got two choices: Either take out the Guard right now, or wait until they have a bomb. It’s a matter of who takes the more serious step. Let it be an act of war and let’s see what Iran does. Give them a deadline. No one has taken a serious stand to see if they will back down, and unless you do, they’re going to become a nuclear-armed state. If Iran shoots one bullet [at U.S. troops], we can control the Tehran skies. I mean, I believe people will bring this government down, once they know that the West is serious about it and they don’t have to fire a single bullet. So the decision comes to this, and this is the bottom line: Do we accept Iran as a nuclear-armed state or not? Anything else is just total hot air. It is just one question, do we accept it or not?

During the campaign, Obama used the phrase "the fierce urgency of now," to explain why America could not afford to wait for him to gain sufficient experience to justify his election to the Presidency. But the phrase more aptly applies to the problem of Iran. And Obama's complete lack of experience is showing.

Does anyone think that Obama is up to this fight? He talked the talk during the campaign, but he has wholly dropped the ball on this single most important issue of foreign policy since becoming President. This is history repeating itself, with Iran as Nazi Germany and Obama as Neville Chamberlain. Hitler could have been stopped in the late 1930's with minimal loss of life. Chamberlain, in his effort to avoid war, set the stage for a loss of life in the tens of millions during WWII. Let us hope beyond reason that Obama's folly is not as severe.

Read More...

Summary only...

Basij Taking A Beating

Iran's revolution entered a new phase with Ashura - the protestors, as I noted here, have become far more militant. The protesters are willing to stand and attack the IRGC and basij thugs attempting to brutally repress them. And here is a bit more anecdotal evidence - a video showing a crowd attacking a group of basij on their motorcycles.



(H/T Instapundit and Dr. X's Free Associations).

Read More...

Summary only...

Obama On Vacation While Iran Burns

There could be no more surreal a juxtaposition than Obama vacationing in Honolulu while people in Iran, seeking freedom, are beaten, fight and die in the streets.

Today is a critical day for the nascent Iranian revolution, as it will no doubt be the largest demonstration since June. The success of the revolution - and the end of this most evil of regimes - increasingly hangs in the balance. Obama should be giving "full throated" support to the Iranian protesters and excoriating the regime for their brutality and illegitimacy. Instead, at this critical juncture, he reclines silently in Honolulu.

Indeed, not only has Obama remained silent, he did not even take the opportunity to express condolonces upon the death last Sunday of the spiritual leader of Iran's nascent revolution, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. Obama's silence, his refusal to decisively stand with the protesters, and his continued treatment of the bloody regime of Khameini and Ahmedinejad as a legiitimate government constitute a failure of leadership and strategic thinking on a grand scale.

Demonstrations this week in Iran have been large and ongoing since the burial of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri on Monday. Those protests will culminate with today's celebration of Ashura, the day on which Muhammed's grandson, Husayn ibn Ali, was "martyred" during the Battle of Karbala in 680 A.D. It is one of the most important holy days in Shia Islam.

You can see the demonstrations that occurred with Grand Ayatollah Montazeri's burial here. Below is a clip of one of the demonstrations occurring yesterday outside of Tehran University and another from an unknown site in Tehran last night.





This from the NYT on yesterday's demonstratons:

Police officers and militia forces clashed with demonstrators in central Tehran all day Saturday and then again in northern Tehran in the evening, where the government forces shut down a speech by former President Mohammad Khatami, a reformist leader.

The demonstrators, who defied an official ban and turned a Shiite ceremony into a protest, underlined the government’s inability to suppress the opposition despite the use of violence. Protests have continued since a disputed presidential election in June, . . .

Witnesses and an opposition Web site said the police and Basij militiamen beat and arrested protesters in central Tehran.

The police fired tear gas at protesters in three central squares — Imam Hussein, Enghelab and Ferdowsi — the opposition Web site Jaras reported.

The militia forces attacked protesters with batons and chains, the Web site said.

Government forces also attacked cars whose drivers had honked in support of the protesters, and smashed their windows. Many vehicles’ license plates were taken away.

“They beat up people relentlessly although many were in mourning groups for Imam Hussein,” said a witness, who spoke via Skype on the condition of anonymity. “I saw many people with bloody noses or limping away. It was clear that they particularly targeted women and savagely beat them.”

The clashes came during the Iranian observance of Tasooa, an important Shiite holiday that falls just a day before the culmination of the Ashura mourning observances marking the death of Imam Hussein, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad. . . .

This from WaPo on the larger demonstrations expected today:

Iran's opposition is gearing up for a potentially large demonstration against the government on Sunday to coincide with the climax of a major Shiite religious commemoration.

The Rah-e Sabz Web site, a mouthpiece of the grass-roots opposition movement, called for nationwide protests around noon in the capital, which on Saturday was the scene of several clashes between anti-government protesters and riot police.

"Today was only a test to show our readiness," read a statement on the Web site, which also denounced the government's use of violence during the present period of mourning for a Shiite saint. "Tomorrow we will come out following the invitations of the social network Green Path Of Hope movement." . . .

Everybody concerned with Iran should be paying attention to what happens today - not the least of whom is Obama. The government has tried once again to shut down all communications, but Twitter seems to still be working. There is a lot of traffic on #iranelection. More on what to expect comes from an exceptional article in the Guardian:

. . . The reported disturbances came amid evidence that Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered a crackdown on any challenges to his leadership during yesterday's Tasua ceremonies and Ashura, which is today.

The Observer has learned that the authorities have cancelled all leave for police and emergency services over the two days in anticipation of violence, while hospitals have been put on full alert to expect multiple casualties. The order is effective until midnight tonight.

"Cancelling leave means we are in for a very violent time," a paramedic said. "The authorities are very scared. They are prepared for everything and anything."

The move came after the opposition Green Movement had vowed to stage demonstrations during the ceremonies – held to mark the death more than 1,300 years ago of the Prophet Muhammad's grandson, Imam Hossein.

The continuing crackdown since President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's bitterly disputed re-election six months ago has limited the opposition to holding protests on state-sanctioned occasions that the government is unable to ban.

This year's Ashura has been given added piquancy because it coincides with ritual seventh-day mourning ceremonies for Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, the Green Movement's spiritual leader and one of Khamenei's fiercest critics, who died last Sunday aged 87.

Government fears have been further raised by the opposition's depiction of Montazeri as the modern incarnation of Hossein, who is revered in Shia Islam as a symbol of resistance against oppressive rulers. Montazeri spent the last 20 years ostracised by the theocratic hierarchy but re-emerged as a significant opposition figure after denouncing Ahmadinejad's victory as fraudulent and the subsequent suppression as "un-Islamic". The potent symbolism of his death was displayed last Monday when hundreds of thousands of mourners turned his funeral into the biggest opposition rally in months, despite stringent security.

An attempted mourning event by Montazeri supporters last Wednesday was broken up by riot police and plain-clothed agents using batons, teargas and pepper spray.

The cancellation of leave for emergency workers raises the chilling possibility of more lethal methods being used today. Leave was also cancelled in the weeks after the election, when scores of protesters were killed and hundreds more were injured after security forces were ordered to use extreme force.

The orders included permission for some members of the hardline basiji volunteer militia to shoot protesters, according to the paramedic.

On 20 June – a day after Khamenei had warned of a brutal reaction if unrest continued – the Tehran ambulance service's internal radio system confirmed that at least 47 people had died, many from gunshot wounds.

Among that day's dead was Neda Agha Soltan, a female protester who became a symbol of the demonstrations when her dying moments were caught on film after she had been shot by a sniper.

The government put the death toll on 20 June at around a dozen and says about 30 people died overall during the post-election unrest. It has denied giving orders to open fire on demonstrators.

But the paramedic said: "Out of every 100 basijis, 10 of them would have permission to shoot. We knew this because we were based alongside them. As eyewitnesses, we could see two or three of them shooting. I saw a basiji on the roof of a five-storey building shooting at people. He was ducking down and then coming up occasionally to shoot.

"The shooting was so severe that we ambulance workers were warned by the Revolutionary Guards to be careful we weren't shot. They would come to us for medical help, bandages and so on, and as a sign of appreciation they would say: 'If you're going to such-and-such street, be careful because they are going to be shooting from the roofs.' The city was like a war zone."

Some analysts have warned that increasing violence and mounting casualty figures are inevitable as Khamenei seeks to quash a revolt that has swollen beyond anger over the election into a revolt against his leadership.

In a graphic indication of the personal nature of the protests, demonstrators have begun to compare him to the Umayyad Caliph, Yazid, who was responsible for Hossein's death in AD680 and is a symbol of cruelty and moral corruption in Shia Islam.

Protesters in Tehran were yesterday heard chanting: "Khamenei has become Yazid and Yazid is now rehabilitated." The slogan was a new variant on existing anti-Khamenei chants, which include: "This month is the month of blood, Seiyed Ali [Khamenei] will be overthrown."

"Yazid was affected by drunkenness caused by wine and Khamenei is today ignoring the role of people in religion because he is drunk on power," Ebrahim Mehtari, an opposition activist who fled to Turkey after being raped and tortured, told the Observer. "If he carries on trampling on people's rights, he will be classified in the same category as other blood-spilling tyrants."

Mehdi Khalaji, an Iranian analyst at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, warned that Khamenei would resort to ever more brutal methods to preserve his leadership. "Mohammad Khatami [Iran's reformist former president] was asked during a visit to Washington last year why he hadn't done more to resist Khamenei," he said. "He replied that it was because Khamenei is determined to fight his enemies if they come to the streets and that he is ready to kill up to 200,000 people. There are many pieces of evidence that confirm Khatami's understanding that Khamenei is prepared to kill more people.

"But it is Khamenei who has radicalised the opposition movement. His statements and behaviour have become more and more provocative and this has hurt the emotions of the people."

Montazeri's death removed one of the last sources of vocal clerical opposition to Khamenei. Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, another pro-reformist critic of the regime and a putative successor to Montazeri, is seen as less substantial.

"The Shia clerical establishment is under the thumb of Khamenei," said Khalaji, a former Qom seminary student. "Even those who don't like him don't dare criticise him because they want to preserve their economic interests. What they think isn't important."

Among the opposition – still nominally led by the defeated reformist presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi – the initial aim of reversing the election has been replaced by the more far-reaching goal of reforming the Islamic system to eliminate the supreme leader's role, which gives Khamenei the final say on all matters.

"The Green Movement is not after unseating or deposing anybody from power," said Mehtari. "It wants the elimination of those currents that stand against people's rights. This includes Mr Khamenei, who determines his own right.

"I don't know if the state is still prepared to cover its hands in blood or not. But the more blood that is spilled, the more people will come out. This movement involves people from all spectrums of society. Those who shout in the streets range from labourers to the rich. They don't share a social class but they share a trampled right."

It took a year for the Shah's regime to fall. It did so three weeks after Iran's military declared for the protesters. Since the stolen election in June the mad mullah's brutal repression of protests, the penultimate question has been what will the military do and when will they do it?

In the past, the military has refused orders to suppress protests. Thus the IRGC and the mad mullah's brown shirts, the basij, have been carrying out the brutal suppression. Khameini has not called on a single regular military unit to help suppress this nascent revolution, and the military has remained silent. That changed two weeks ago, when many important military figures warned Khameini that they would not sit idly by if the brutal repression continues or gets worse.

It is doubtful that demonstrations today will prove decisive, but they will surely ratchet up the intensity, moving Iran ever closer to a decisive act by the military and the fall of this most evil of regimes. Such an event is hardly assured, and the revolution can still fail, which makes it all the more imperative that Obama lend decisive support to the protesters, as discussed in the post here. His failure to do so is on par with the failure of Britain and France to stand down Hitler in 1936-37, when Worl War II could have been averted.

Lastly, here is a video of Iranians braving bullets and tear gas to stop a hanging. According to the write-up on the video:

Sirjan, Iran Dec 22, public hanging of two men in the southern Iranian city of Sirjan in Kerman province, the semi-official news agency Fars reported on Tuesday. The crowd braved tear gas and bullets fired in the air by security forces and dragged the men down from the gallows. One seemed to be still alive when his body was removed, Fars said. The men were identified as Esmaeil Fathi More..zadeh and Mohammad Esfandiarpour and had both been convicted of armed robbery. The crowd, which included many relatives of the two men, chanted slogans against the Iranian authorities and threw stones at the security forces.

Welcome Larwyn's Linx readers

Read More...

Summary only...

Ringside Seat To A Revolution [Updated]

Amateur video posted to the Internet showed thousands of anti-government students chanting slogans and gathering on various campuses. Credible reports of protests emerged from campuses in the central Iranian cities of Esfahan, Shiraz and Kerman, in the eastern city of Mashhad and in the western cities of Tabriz, Kermanshah, Hamedan and Ilam as well as in Rasht and Gilan along the Caspian Sea

- Report of 7 Dec. National Student's Day Demonstratons, San Francisco Chronicle

The army is a haven for the nation and will never want to suppress the people at the request of politicians. We shall remain true to our promise not to intervene in politics. But we cannot remain silent when our fellow citizens are oppressed by tyranny.

. . . Therefore, we warn the Guards who have betrayed the martyrs (from the war between Iran and Iraq) and who decided to attack the lives, the property and the honor of the citizens. We seriously warn them that if they do not leave their chosen path, they will be confronted with our tough response. The military is a haven for the nation. And we will defend the peace-loving Iranian nation against any aggression.”

Signatories:

•Pilots and personnel of the aviation division of the regular army (Havanirooz)
•Commanders and personnel of the 31th artillery division of Isfahan of the regular army
•Pilots and airmen of the regular army
•Teachers of the Shaid Satari University of the regular air force
•Officers and staff of the logistics training unit the regular army
•Professors and lecturers of the Imam Ali University for officers of the regular army
•Officers, staff, and commanders of the chief of staff of the regular army

- Statement Released To Iranian News Outlets, 10 Dec. 2009

. . . for all the cruelty and hardship of our world, we are not mere prisoners of fate. Our actions matter, and can bend history in the direction of justice.

- President Obama, Speech To The Nobel Committee, 2009

____________________________________________________________

The fuse for a revolution in Iran was lit in June, when the final trappings of democracy in Iran were torn asunder. The latest major events were protests on 7 Dec., Iran's National Student's Day, and a statement released shortly thereafter by members of Iran's military.

The statement from Iran's military is a major event, but by no means surprising. From day one of this nascent revolution, the single most important question has been what will the military do? When I say military, I am not referring to the mad mullah's 100.000 plus praetorian guard, the IRGC, but rather to the regular military which forms the bulk of Iran's forces.

The regime has for years known that they could not count on regular military units to crush internal dissent. Likewise they are keenly aware that it was when the military came out in support of Khomeini in 1979 that the revolution entered its final phase. The Shah's regime fell three weeks afterwards. The letter above does not confirm that Iran's revolution is anywhere near its final phase - particularly given that, unlike 1979, there is also a heavily armed IRGC which, although small in comparison to Iran's regular military, is very potent. The IRGC is so deeply insinuated in the graft and corruption of Iran that the fall of the regime would mean the fall of many of the IRGC heads - literally. Thus the IRGC will fight to the death to keep the mad mullahs in power. That said, the letter does mean that the ever rising brutality of the regime is bringing things to the tipping point. The mad mullahs are stuck now in the vortex between not being able to go too far for fear of bringing out the military against the regime, yet having no other recourse but brute force to keep the regime afloat. In the words of Yeats, "Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold . . ."

Well, perhaps there is one trick the regime has up their sleeve. During the Dec. 7 protests in Iran, several individuals, perhaps protesters, perhaps IRGC/basij plants, were filmed desecrating a picture of the revolution's father, the late Ayatollah Khomeini. Their faces were never clearly shown. The tape was broadcast repeatedly on state run television in an effort to raise a public backlash against the protesters. It immediately drew denials from the Green movement's leader, Mousavi, and a rebuke to the government issued by Khomeini's grandson who indicated that he thought it quite possible that this was deliberately done by the regime and blamed on protesters.

What started as a simple protest over a stolen election in June has grown to threaten the entire mullah led political system. Protests are occurring with regularity throughout Iran, but their nature has changed. As Amir Taheri noted in the WSJ:

The crowds' initial slogan was "Where Is My Vote?" and the movement's accidental leaders, including former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, tried hard to keep the protest confined to demands such as a recount of the votes and, ultimately, a runoff in accordance with the law.

The slogans of the protestors are no longer about election fraud. Today they include "Death to the Dictator," "Freedom Now," and "Iranian Republic, Not Islamic Republic!" One slogan is a direct message to President Barack Obama: "Obama, Are You With Us or With Them?"

This "radicalization" of the protesters in response to the brutal attempts at crackdown is also noted by the NYT.

Further, according to Taheri, the protesters are "deepening and growing" their movement, reaching out to other elements, such as trade unions, that have their own deep animus towards the regime. Meanwhile, clerics in Qom are fuming at the acts of Khameini and the ever-growing bellicosity and wild claims of Ahmedinejad. He has recently claimed that the return of the Hidden Imam is near, that he is a tool of the Imam, and that only the U.S. is standing in the way of his return. As one mid-level cleric in Qom told Taheri, "by backing such a man, Khamenei has doomed the regime."

Michael Ledeen for his part, covers the same topics in his latest post at PJM, adding that the Iranian economy is in serious disarray, with manufacturing running at 40% of capacity. As he calls it, this is "Code Red" for Iran.

I am convinced that the Iranian regime is, while not the font of all evil, not that far removed from it. I have detailed why many times. As Robert Gates so famously said two years ago, "[e]verywhere you turn, it is the policy of Iran to foment instability and chaos, no matter the strategic value or cost in the blood of innocents - Christians, Jews and Muslims alike." They are the primary source of funds, arms and training for Hamas and Hezbollah and they are the single greatest impediment to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. They have supported coups in Bahrain and Azerbaijan. They are currently supporting a rebellion in Yemen and threatening to destabilize Saudi Arabia. They are occupying land that belongs to the UAE and land that belongs to Iraq. As the U.S. moves out of Iraq, the mad mullahs are once again extending their deadly talons inside that country. They have been responsible for terrorist attacks world wide and are the world's "central banker of terrorism." They near daily threaten to destroy Israel. Their push towards a nuclear arsenal is causing nuclear proliferation throughout the Middle East - the penultimate nightmare scenario. Destroying the regime of the mad mullahs and seeing to the establishment of a secular democracy would, one, remove from the world a threat every bit as great as Nazi Germany was circa 1938, and two, would go a long way to stabilizing the Middle East.

What is President Obama doing to promote such a turn of events? The short answer appears to be nothing, covertly or publicly. This makes an utter mockery of Obama's West Point speech, wherein he said "we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights . . ." With the bully pulpit, Obama could be drawing attention to the horrible human rights abuses of the illegitimate government of the mullahs. Yet all we hear is deafening silence.

It seems reasonably certain that Obama thinks that if he speaks with honesty, then the mad mullahs will not cooperate with his attempts to negotiate a resolution to Iran's nuclear program. The reality is that, as the history of Iran since 1979 teaches, the regime is not going to cooperate absent a credible threat of force. Without that, Obama could kiss Khameini's bared rump 100 times on Iranian national television or he could do the morally correct thing and bring pressure upon the regime, showing support for the human rights of the Iranian rank and file. Neither standing alone will change the regime's nuclear trajectory. At least doing the latter would give moral support to the protestors and further the cause of those who are fighting and dying for freedom.

Lastly, as to a credible threat of force, Obama, who spoke so eloquently of the Just War theory in Olso, should understand that, under that theory, not only would force against the mad mullahs be moral, the theory places him under an affirmative moral duty to act against the regime to protect America. But under the current circumstance, that creates a conundrum.

Making a credible threat of force against the mad mullahs - one that could stop their nuclear trajectory in its tracks - could ignite nationalism in an Iranian populace on the brink of revolution. Under these circumstances, it is the duty of Obama to use the bully pulpit - and covert action - to assist and fan the flames of revolution until they succeed. There are a host of things that Obama could be doing in this regard. He could publicly excoriate the Iranian regime for their human rights abuses and the stolen election. He could restore funding to Radio Iran. He could "remove his opposition to various bills in Congress, sponsored by Independent Democrat Joe Lieberman and others, that sanction companies that sell gasoline to Iran." He could direct our covert operaters to counter the regime's attempts to shut down communications throughout Iran before and during demonstrations. He has, in short, a range of options to bring pressure on the regime and to support the nascent revolution. As Obama said in his acceptance speech to the Nobel Committee, "our actions matter and can bend history . . ." If those are not mere pretty words, then why is Obama sitting in a ringside seat to the revolution rather than entering the ring? Indeed, to do so would seem a moral obligation for our most moralistic of Presidents.

Read More...

Summary only...

Did Obama Do A Quid Pro Quo With Iran?

Iran is still supporting, funding, training surrogates who operate inside of Iraq — flat out. They have not stopped. And I don’t think they will stop. I think they will continue to do that because they are also concerned, in my opinion, of where Iraq is headed. They want to try to gain influence here, and they will continue to do that. I think many of the attacks in Baghdad are from individuals that have been, in fact, funded or trained by the Iranians.

Gen. Raymond T. Odierno, Cdr, Multi-National Forces-Iraq, quoted in Americans Release Iranian Detainees to Iraq, NYT, 9 July 2009

The NYT reports that, today, the U.S. military in Iraq released five senior operatives of Iran's Qods Force / IRGC. The question is why?

Iran cannot coexist with a secular, Shia democracy on their border. It stands for everything that Iran's theocracy is not. Thus, the mad mullahs of the theocracy have shown every willingness to kill and cause mayhem inside Iraq in an effort to turn that country into another Lebanon, ruled by a Shia militia whose loyalty is to Iran's Supreme Guide. The U.S. has been capturing Qods Force / IRGC soldiers in Iraq since 2006. The IRGC members the U.S. captured in Iraq were the men on the ground leading and funding Iran's effort. Iran's theocracy has not, will not, and indeed, cannot stop its efforts in Iraq. So what could possibly justify the U.S. releasing five senior Qods Force/IRGC members to return to Iran. And today, such a policy is thrown into stark relief as the people of Iran are marching in the streets, braving brutal repression at the IRGC.

The NYT claims the release is "unexpected" and difficult to comprehend. The official line is that it was done per a request from the Maliki government, though "senior Iraqi officials seemed to know little about the release." So what gives? Michael Ledeen ties it to the release of Roxana Saberi, and it seems the only explanation that makes sense.

Several weeks ago, Roxana Saberi, a U.S. citizen of Iranian decent, moved to Iran as a reporter where she was eventually made a pawn of Iranian regime. Arrested for espionage, she was subject to a kangaroo trial and ordered jailed for eight years. Days after she was jailed, Ahmedinejad intervened and she was, as the WSJ noted at the time, "unexpectedly released". That was the "quid" - the unanwered question being what was the "pro quo." Today we may well have an answer with the first of what may be numerous releases of Iranian IRGC members in Iraq who orchestrated "deadly attacks" as part of the effort to Lebanize that country.

This from Michael Ledeen:

. . . [I]n an appalling act of appeasement, we released five Revolutionary Guards officers in Iraq, so that they could go to Tehran (and I doubt they will join the nocturnal chanters). . . .

The timing could hardly have been worse, and I’m sure the White House is roundly annoyed that this happened just on a day when the regime’s claws and fangs were so publicly exposed. The White House had set the release up for several days ago, but then the Almighty–in the form of intense sandstorms that made it impossible to fly in and out of Tehran–intervened.

If my information is correct – and I must say I have rarely had a story so vigorously denied by my own government – this is part of the deal for Roxana Saberi, who, you’ll remember, was miraculously released from an Iranian prison a couple of months ago. These IRGC commanders – with, I am told, hundreds of lower-level Iranian terror facilitators to come in the next days and weeks – were Iran’s price for freeing the American hostage.

I had inklings of this, and said so at the time. So I’ll take the opportunity to remind everyone who follows Iranian matters, that the mullahs’ hostages are never released for humanitarian motives. They are ransomed. The only question is the price.

When I asked some folks in the government, about a week ago, if we were preparing to release these people, they acted as if I’d asked if the Vice President were about to convert to Islam. But the releases have started. . . .

At the next briefing on Iraq from Gen. Odierno, he needs to be asked explicitly about this. I cannot see our militrary agreeing to repatriate these individuals who have been reponsible for the killing and maiming of hundreds of U.S. soldiers.

As to Ms. Saberi, her plight was sympathetic, but she had to know before she went there that the mad mullahs were always capable of acting like mad mullahs. Under no circumstances should we have agreed to release Qods Force members to secure her freedom. That said, it is an act I would not in the least put past the Obama administration.

Read More...

Summary only...

Iran 7/7 - The Pot Simmers (Updated)

(A great music video from Cyrus Mafia on Iran's uprising, with some English subtitles / Hat Tip Michael Ledeen)

A summary of the current situation in and about Iran:

1. Mousavi called for a 3-day strike leading up to a major rally planned on Thursday, 9 July.

2. Khameini ordered another crackdown, with hundreds more arrests and orders to confiscate all satellite dishes. He also has ordered most businesses closed, apparently in an effort to prevent a wide scale general strike being portrayed as a show of support for Mousavi

3. Money is flooding out of Iran as Iran's rich read the writing on the wall

4. The Commander of the IRGC has publicly announced that they have taken over all internal security missions since the election

5. A major development two days ago was the decision of Iran's most influential clerical body to condemn the election and the repression of protesters. Christopher Hitchens speculates that the hands of Rafsanjani and Grand Ayatollah Sistani were behind the move. He further ponders whether the example of Iraqi democracy played a substantive role in the current Iranian discontent.

6. The utterly spineless and wrongheaded Obama regime has come out against any international sanctions against the bloody theocrats for their repression, reasoning that any sanctions "might backfire." Fortunately, Congress is acting independently of Obama.

7. Biden has greenlighted Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities and Saudi Arabia apparently will do its role to assist Israel. That said, this should not be Israel's burden to carry alone. Unfortunately, with Obama at the helm, it will be.

Update: 8. Amir Taheri writes on the likelihood that Khameini is likely to be far more brutal than the shah in attempting to put down the current unrest. He also writes on the fact that Ahmedinejad is now unwelcome in most parts of Iran.

________________________________________________________________

1. Mousavi, facing calls from supporters of Ahmedinejad for his arrest and punishment for treason, has called for a 3 day general strike leading up to a major planned protest on Thursday, "the 10th anniversary of a 1999 attack by pro-government militiamen on the dormitories of Tehran University that led to weeks of political unrest." Mousavi is not backing down. While some rumblings are being heard about arresting Mousavi, there can be little doubt that this ham-handed regime would already have done so if they were fully confident of their ability to weather the unrest.

2. According to Michael Ledeen, Khameini has ordered another round of arrests, as well as the confiscation of all satellite dishes:

The Iranian tyrant, Ali Khamenei, told his cluster of top advisers two days ago that it was time to totally shut down the protests, and he ordered that any and all demonstrators, regardless of their status, be arrested (although there is no longer room for new prisoners in Tehran’s jails; they are now using sports arenas as holding areas). He further ordered that all satellite dishes be taken down (good luck with that one; there are probably millions of them in Tehran alone). He ordered that the crackdown be done at night, to avoid all those annoying videos. By Sunday night, hundreds of new arrests had been made, including the regime’s favorite targets: students, intellectuals, and journalists.

His deadline: July 11th. He told his minions that if that were accomplished, the rest of the world would come crawling to him.

He may be right about most of the rest of the world, which has distinguished itself by its fecklessness, but he is certainly not right about his own people . . .

The regime was apparently so worried that the general strike would show massive support for Mousavi that they took the step of ordering the businesses and offices to close for three days. The Telegraph is reporting that most businesses in Tehran's Central Bazaar are closed, though there is no word coming out on the rest of the country.

3. File this one under "rats deserting a sinking ship." Underscoring the continuing seriousness of the unrest in Iran, the Telegraph is reporting on the mass movement of money out of the country:

Millions of pounds in private wealth has begun flooding out of Iran in the wake of mass demonstrations which have paralysed commercial life after the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Fears of a new round of crippling sanctions are also thought to have fuelled the movement of money out of the country.

Western intelligence agencies have reported that prominent private businesses and wealthy families have moved tens of millions of dollars out of Iranian banks into overseas accounts. . . .

4. The IRGC is a corrupt organization whose leadership has a fully vested interest in seeing the theocracy propped up. The leadership of the IRGC is getting as rich from corruption, graft, and business interests as have many of the politicized members of Iran's clerical establishment. Thus it is no surprise to find that the IRGC is now running the internal security to brutally crush the protests. This from the LA Times:

The top leaders of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guard publicly acknowledged they had taken over the nation's security during the post-election unrest and warned late Sunday, in a threat against a reformist wave led by Mir-Hossein Mousavi, that there was no middle ground in the ongoing dispute over the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Maj. Gen. Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of the elite military branch, said the guard's takeover of the nation's security had led to "a revival of the revolution."

. . . "Today, no one is impartial," Gen. Yadollah Javani said at the Sunday news conference, according to the Islamic Republic News Agency. "There are two currents -- those who defend and support the revolution and the establishment, and those who are trying to topple it."

The uniformed Revolutionary Guard leaders, joined by the turbaned cleric Ali Saedi, Khamenei's representative, said they would play a more active role in defending the Islamic Republic's core values . . .

It should be noted that the basij, Iran's version of the Nazi brown-shirts, who have played a central and bloody role in repressing the protests, are under the command of the IRGC.

5. I blogged here on the recent major development of Iran's most respected clerical organization, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, who issued a statement that condemned the regime for their repression of the protests, called the regime illegitimate, and challenged the Guardian Council for certifying the election. Related to this, Abbas Milani has written an exceptional article at TNR giving the history of the split among Iran's clerics over the theocracy itself that we now see spilling out into the open.

Christopher Hitchens, writing at Slate, makes the point that the impetus for the Association's statement - a group that normally stays out of politics - was likely prompted by Mousavi's backer, Rafsanjani, and the most popular cleric in Iran, Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Sistani. Hitchens goes on to ask a salient question:

Did the overthrow of the Saddam Hussein regime, and the subsequent holding of competitive elections in which many rival Iraqi Shiite parties took part, have any germinal influence on the astonishing events in Iran? Certainly when I interviewed Sayeed Khomeini in Qum some years ago, where he spoke openly about "the liberation of Iraq," he seemed to hope and believe that the example would spread. One swallow does not make a summer. But consider this: Many Iranians go as religious pilgrims to the holy sites of Najaf and Kerbala in southern Iraq. They have seen the way in which national and local elections have been held, more or less fairly and openly, with different Iraqi Shiite parties having to bid for votes (and with those parties aligned with Iran's regime doing less and less well). They have seen an often turbulent Iraqi Parliament holding genuine debates that are reported with reasonable fairness in the Iraqi media. Meanwhile, an Iranian mullah caste that classifies its own people as children who are mere wards of the state puts on a "let's pretend" election and even then tries to fix the outcome. Iranians by no means like to take their tune from Arabs—perhaps least of all from Iraqis—but watching something like the real thing next door may well have increased the appetite for the genuine article in Iran itself.

I will be amazed if, once all is said and done, we find out that Iraq's model did not play a significant role in promoting the discontent of Iran's rank and file. I have been saying for years that the greatest single threat to Iran was a border with Iraq's secular, Shia dominated democracy - and indeed, that the two could not possibly coexist. But don't expect Hitchen's question to get asked by our MSM. Instead, we have the MSM regurgitating the Obama administration's laughable claim of credit for being a cause of the uprising, pointing to the Cairo Speech. That would be the speech wherein Obama signalled a retreat from promoting democracy in the Middle East. And it would be the speech that was not broadcast in Iran. The theocracy actually jammed the signal to prevent people from picking it up on satellite dishes.

6. As I posted here, Obama has come out against any international sanctions against the theocrats for their bloody repression because of concern that any sanctions "might backfire." As Robert Averich cogently points out on his blog, such a move could not be more counterproductive, nor more useless.

Fortunately, Congress is acting independently of Obama. McCain and Lieberman announced two weeks ago that they were sponsoring a bill to require the U.S. to assist with the communications into and out of Iraq - perhaps the most critical area where we can assist the nascent revolution in Iran. Unfortunately, that also tells us that if we are having to legislate such actions, Obama must have our covert operators sitting on their thumbs, doing nothing to assist the protests. That, if true, is an atrocity. But it would comport with Obama's simply mystifying continued push to hold talks with this illegitimate and brutal theocracy. The Telegraph also reports on more legislation in the U.S. pipeline:

. . . Republican congressman Mark Kirk has claimed there is growing support for a bill he is sponsoring which would strip American support for foreign companies supplying refined petroleum to Iran.

Iran is a large oil producer but decades of financial isolation means it must import petrol and other end products from abroad.

Reliance, the Indian operator, provides one-third of Iran's daily needs while also enjoying a massive trade loan from the US.

Another bill that would exclude companies involved in the trade from doing business in the US was put on hold earlier this year as a gesture from President Barack Obama to improve relations.

Iran's economic problems are severe. Their per capita GDP is only slightly over $3,100, inflation is running almost 25%, and their unemployment rate is well into double digits. These are not transitory conditions that just came about as a result of the global economic meltdown, but are the result of years of misrule by clerics and now Ahmedinejad. Real sanctions, particularly ones that attack the theocracy's dependence on foreign refined fuel products, could prove very effective in furthering unrest in Iran. But with Obama seeking to derail international sanctions over Iran's brutal repression, it is unlikely he would ever sign such bills.

I recommend that you take a look at how Obama has long approached such issues to evaluate their effectiveness. We learned today that Obama was highly critical of Reagan in 1983 for going ahead with the deployment of new nuclear missiles in the face of Soviet opposition and opposition in Germany - the so-called nuclear freeze movement. Obama was very much on the wrong side of history there, and if his policies were then in place, we might still be facing the Soviet Union. Let us hope Obama does not manage to throw a lifeline to our own modern "evil empire," Iran's bloody theocracy.

7. VP Biden has greenlighted Israel to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, stating that Israel is a "sovereign nation" entitled to make its own decisions on security without U.S. interference. Given the current state of Iran, Israel would be foolish to pull the trigger yet. If they strike Iran, they may put back Iran's nuclear weapons program by a few years but unite a country on the verge of toppling. Conversely, if Iran's theocracy falls, the threat to Israel would likely vanish overnight.

That said, it is also being reported that Saudi Arabia has agreed to allow Israel to overfly Saudi airspace to attack Iran. It is now being denied, but I do not doubt that this is true. For all of the vile hatred Wahhabists preach against Israel and the Jews, the bottom line is that Israel is no threat to the House of Saud. Iran, however, is not only a religious enemy of the Wahhabis because they practice Shia'ism, but Iran also poses a major threat to the Sauds. Iran has long been reaching out to all Shia in the Middle East in an effort to expand their influence. The House of Saud rules over a substantial and strategically placed Shia minority. Anything that the Sauds and most of the other Sunni countries could do informally and covertly to assist Israel against Iran has probably already been considered and discussed.

To go one further, Daled Amos, blogging at Soccer Dad, ponders the question of whether it is time for there to be a Sunni-Israel alliance directed against Iran and what it would take to achieve such an alliance. I doubt that a formal alliance would ever coalesce until the Sword of Damocles visibly appears over the Arab Sunni world. But it is a sign of the times that such an issue is even being discussed with seriousness.

Iran's pursuit of a nuclear weapon was one issue that President Bush clearly wanted to deal with on his watch. It was only vociferous intervention led by Obama, Reid and Pelosi against even the threat of force, coupled with the release of a highly politicized NIE, that tied Bush's hands. Now Obama owns the Iranian problem and is responsible for countering the mad theocracy's rush for a nuclear arsenal that will threaten the U.S. every bit as much as Israel.

During his campaign, Obama said he would consider using force to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. That was then, this is now. In light of totality of Obama's approach to Iran, it is fair to assume that Biden's statement was, if not a public punting of the ball to Israel, then at least an acknowledgement that Israel is on its own in this.

The Obama administration has given us many things things already - a record debt, rising unemployment, a failing dollar to name but a few. What they haven't given us or the world is anything remotely approaching leadership. Apparently, that is now Israel's job. At least the House of Saud seems to recognize it.

8. Iranian columnist Amir Taheri has several recent articles on Iran. In "For Mousavi: Three Roads Ahead," Taheri points out that Khameini is no longer even making a pretense that Iran has a "republican" system of government and that Khameini will not shirk from using all of the violence necessary to stay in power:

Thanks to Mousavi’s decision to fight back, the current crisis has already produced at least one positive result. It has clarified the situation by exposing the composite noun Islamic Republic as an oxymoron. The space allocated to the "republic" has shrunk to its smallest since the start of the Khomeinist regime.

On Tuesday, the official Islamic News Agency (IRNA) published the text of a long sermon by the "Supreme Guide" in the province of Kurdistan and for the staff of the elite 27th Division, spelling out the nature of the regime.

This is what Khamenei says: "Islamic society is the society of the imamate. This means that the imam is at the head of the system. {The Imam is} a man who exercises power because the people follow him as their leader from their heart and because they have full faith in him."

Khamenei makes no mention of the presidency or any other organ of state because the system he is defending has a single, all-embracing institution: the imamate.

With pretensions about democracy and popular will gone, the current system in Iran is closer to models such as the imamate in Yemen and the "Islamic emirate" in Afghanistan under the Taliban, than to a republic in which Mousavi, or anybody else, could claim a mandate based on victory in an election.

Khamenei's sermon also contains a clear warning that the regime is prepared to provoke a bloodbath to maintain its hold on power. Khamenei says that had the Shah killed half a million people he would not have been overthrown.

He criticizes the Algerian Front for Islamic Salvation (FIS) for not having called the masses onto the streets and provoked a bloodbath by confronting the army. "Had they brought the crowds onto the streets there would have been an Islamic government in Algeria today," he says. "But they were afraid and showed weakness."

With admiration, the "Supreme Guide" recalls the massacre of one million Communists in Indonesia under General Suharto that he claims saved the system in that country.

A reluctant hero, Mousavi has succeeded in drawing the true battle lines in Iran's politics. Whether he wishes to be present on those lines, for how long, and with how much determination remains to be seen.

This throws into stark relief the paucity and imprudence of the Obama administration's decision to minimize sanctions against the regime. Khamieini is set on his path and beliefs. Nothing Obama could possibly do will light a fire in the regime that was unlit before. To the contrary, the best hope of limiting the repression against those braving it in a fight for democracy would be to significantly increase the external pressure on the regime, making the regime's already noticable faultlines into crumbling chasms. As is becoming a regular pattern, Obama is doing the polar opposite.

Taheri also writes in a seperate article, A Suddenly Most Unwelcome Guest, that Ahmedinejad has been cancelling most of his travel plans inside Iran because of the likelihood of his presence leading to mass protests. Ahmedinejad is, writes Taheri, a very diminished figure whose "legitimacy is challenged at all levels of Iranian society, including every segment of the Khomeinist establishment." I don't see this ending well for Ahmedinejad.

Read More...

Summary only...

Faultlines Developing

Violent protests in Iran are now entering into their ninth day. The mid-level cleric cum Supreme Guide Khameini's decisions to approve of - if not initiate - massive election fraud in support of Ahmedinejad and then bet the legitimacy of the theocracy on the election results is now causing or exacerbating multiple faultlines. Those faultlines are spinning out from the center like the strands of spider's web.

Khameini's decision has pitted the regime against the Iranian populace and has horrified those with a vested interest in seeing the theocracy survive. And indeed, as those that took part in the 1979 revolution surely realize, if the regime does not survive, there is a good chance they will not survive long afterwards.

There are numerous reports that Khameini's decision has split the IRGC and members of Iran's security apparatus. Yesterday, Michael Ledeen wrote about "cracks in the regime’s instruments of repression," noting reports that "many [IRGC] commanders" have refused to carry out orders. Further, he reprints an extraordinary appeal from several former IRGC soldiers who, on their farsi blog, accuse the regime and the IRGC of having become wholly corrupt and "calling on their brethren to defect, and join the revolution." This is perhaps the most critical of all the faultlines, for if the security apparatus fails, there can be no doubt that the theocracy will be swept away soon after.

CNN is reporting this morning that Ali Larinjani, the Speaker of Iran's Parliament, has taken the extraordinary step of publicly criticizing, on Iran's official news stations, "some members" of the Guardian Council for "sid[ing] with a certain presidential candidate." He thus implies that there was in fact fraud in the election and corruption at the highest levels of government. This is no doubt the tip of the iceberg amongst the many senior officials who are feeling the stress from the threat to the viability of the regime that Khameini has created. It is not clear, though, what if anything the senior officials could do to effect this situation short of a coup, replacing Khameini and the majority of the Guardian Council, then allowing for another election with the hopes that, one, the protests die out and two, the regime survives. All of those events seem to have next to no chance of coming to fruition, but they do indicate a very serious split in the apparatus of government itself.

Another fault line that has today opened up considerably is that between the Khameini-Ahmedinejad axis and the Mousavi-Rafsanjani axis. Rafsanjani is a deeply corrupt Ayatollah, a former President, a member of the Guardian Council, an enemy of Khameini and the wealthiest person in Iran. Ahmedinejad has made of Rafsanjani the public symbol of corruption that he promised to clean up. Rafsanjani has followers throughout Iran, and it was likely he that bankrolled Mousavi's run for the Presidency, if for no other reason than out of survival instinct. You can read a detailed explanation of the byzantine maneuvering of these two axises from Reul Marc Gerecht. Although this fault line long existed, the stakes were upped considerably during the campaign. But today the were upped to existential levels when Rafsanjani's daughter, his grand daughter and two other relatives were arrested by Iranian police, ostensibly for protesting the election. Clearly this is a thug like move to neuter Rafsanjani.

And yet another faultline appears to be among the Shia clerical class whose spiritual home is in Qom. (I mention that because you will often hear the leadership of Iran's clerical class identified in shorthand by reference to Qom.) The very existence of a theocracy in Iran has been opposed by many Shia clerics, most notably Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, because it violates the ancient Shia tradition of keeping politics seperate from religion. Beyond that, there is clearly discontent brewing at Qom over Khameini's handling of this situation. This from Ali M Ansari, Head of Iranian Studies, University of St Andrews:

Indeed, five senior clerics have protested, with varying degrees of severity, at the manner in which the elections were conducted and the violence that followed. Ayatollah Montazeri, the former heir to Khomeini, who was pushed aside following political disputes, has been the most explicit in his condemnation of the elections. . . .

Neither Ayatollah Ali Khamenei nor Ahmadinejad are popular in Qom. The latter's unorthodox millenarian views are regarded with contempt by most senior clergy, while Khamenei has never been accepted as a scholar of note. The clerics may bide their time, but their intervention, which may come sooner rather than later - especially if violence spreads - could be decisive.

Also see Henry Newman, writing at the Guardian, covers this faultline in detail.

What do all these faultlines mean? There is a famous poem by Yeats, The Second Coming, apropos to that question. As Yeats wrote:

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned . . .

As we watch the faultlines in Iranian society become ever more pronounced, it is clear the center cannot hold. The only question is what will follow the anarchy. In 1979, Iranians revolted against the Shah, expecting freedom. What they got instead was a regime every bit as repressive and corrupt as the Shah's. Let us wish them better fortune this time, for everyone's sake.

Prior Posts:

21 June 2009: When The Regime Will Fall
20 June 2009: The Regime Turns On Its Own People (Updated)
20 June 2009: Life, Death & Terrorism On Iran's Streets - Neda
19 June 2009: Countdown To High Noon
19 June 2009: An Iranian Showdown Cometh - Liveblogging Khameini's Speech At Friday Prayers
18 June 2009: Iran Update
16 June 2009: Iran 6/16: The Fire Still Burning, An Incendiary Letter From Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, State Dept. Intercedes With Twitter & Obama Talks Softly
16 June 2009: Breaking News: Vote Recount In Iran, Too Little, Too Late
15 June 2009: Iran Buys Time, Obama Votes Present, Iraq's Status Is Recognized
15 June 2009: The Fog Of War - & Twitter
15 June 2009: Chants Of Death To Khameini
15 June 2009: Heating Up In Iran
14 June 2009: Heating Up In Iran
14 June 2009: Tehran Is Burning; What Will The Iranian Army Do? (Updated)
13 June 2009: The Mad Mullah's Man Wins Again - For Now
15 April 2008: The Next Moves In An Existential Chess Match (Background On Iran's Theocracy)

Read More...

Summary only...