After reading about 25 Iran analysis articles over the past few days, I can only conclude what Churchill said about the Russians: Iran is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma. The “experts” are all over the place. Here’s a summary of what I’ve recently read about the big Iranian questions:
Q: Who really holds the cards in Iran?
>> Ahmadinejad
>> Rafsanjani
>> Mousavi
>> Khamenei
>> Khatami
>> Khomeini’s ghost
>> Nuri
>> Karrubi
>> Rezai
>> The Assembly of Experts
>> The Revolutionary Guard (these fellows certainly hold the guns!)
>> The Guardian Council
Q: How to explain the results of the election?
>> Ahmadinejad really won, despite the unsavory electoral practices involved.
>> It was a fraudulent, sham election, which Ahmadinejad probably lost.
>> Ahmadinejad couldn’t have won in Azeri and Tabriz, Mousavi’s home turf.
>> They loved Ahmadinejad in Azeri and Tabriz, he was a popular former governor there.
>> The polls showed Mousavi way ahead.
>> The most reliable nationwide poll showed Ahadinejad way ahead.
>> Iran’s population is now mostly urban, and the urban factions overwhelmingly like Mousavi.
>> Only a small portion of the urban population are educated pro-westerners; the majority are relatively poor, and have been well organized by Ahmadinejad’s political machine, akin to the good old American urban machines.
>> Iranians are sophisticated internationalists, and are tired of mullahs, sharia and rabid antisemitism.
>> Iranians are mostly poor and conservative, and thus want a strong nationalist leader, traditional Islamic ways, and a victim-based mythology directed against the USA and Israel.
Q: What about the Mullahs and the legacy of Ayatollah Khomeini?
>> The Mullahs are in charge of Iran and the whole election outcome.
>> The Mullahs are not in charge anymore, they’re just trying to keep up with the Revolutionary Guard and an even more pernicious version of religious-military nationalism.
>> The Mullahs are not really in charge anymore, they are trying to stay up with the forces of Shia reformation and modernization (per Reza Aslan).
Q: Does radical Islamic fundamentalism and mythology regarding the restoration of Islamic empire appeal to the average Iranian?
>> No, Iran is too educated and sophisticated for that; as per Reza Aslan, the Shia tradition is generally moving towards enlightened values, despite political diversions that have gained western attention. In time, Iran will become like India, China and Brazil: not necessarily pro-west, but a responsible player in the international scene. Western engagement with Iran will help speed that process.
>> Yes, Ayatollah Khomeini proved that radical Islam and the glories of historical Islamic conquest still appeal to the masses. Western engagement is just Neville Chamberlain redux.
>> Sort Of: Empire still appeals to Iran but perhaps more from their pre-Mohammad traditions, e.g. the great Persian empires of Cyrus, Darius, the Parthians, the Sassanids, etc. There is an ongoing cultural memory of that amidst the people of Iran, and that’s what we should be worried about. The defeat of the ancient Persians at Marathon and Thermopylae could yet be avenged, along with Persian subjugation to the (Sunni) Arab Caliphates.
Q: What about enriched uranium and the missile program?
>> Iran is planning to obliterate Israel in a pre-emptive nuclear missile strike, so as to vindicate the great empires of their past, and to fulfill the apocalyptic “hidden Imam” religious myths of Shia Islam. Bloody, suicidal jihad as practiced by radical Sunni groups is not unheard of amidst Shiite fanatics. This attack might well be carried out by Iran’s clients in Palestine and Lebanon using nuclear-tipped short-range rockets. Those would have a better chance to evade Israel’s missile defenses, versus high-altitude missiles launched from Iran’s soil. A large, well-orchestrated attack from close-in could thus knock out Israel’s ability to retaliate (at least with their nukes; a jihadist would hardly care if a few old Israel F-15s got through and dropped conventional bombs on Tehran). Iran could then arguably wash its hands before the world of the blood from such a holocaust.
No one would believe that Iran wasn’t behind such an attack, but a reserve of long-range nuclear missiles capable of hitting Rome, Berlin, Paris and London might cause Europe to lose its nerve. Iran does not currently have such missiles, but North Korea is getting close. By 2016, the last year of the Obama administration, Iran could have such capacity. The Iranian military planners are counting on Obama’s continuing disinterest in building up American missile defenses, his ambivalent support for Israel, his continuing desire to “engage” and compromise with their regime, his party’s ‘never again’ policy regarding what the Bush administration did in Iraq, and America’s continuing economic woes, in their plans to eliminate Israel without suffering nuclear retaliation.
BONUS: Those reserve missiles can also decimate Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, etc. The Arab Middle East would be subjugated to Iranian dominance in a post-Israel Middle East. Hezbollah and Hamas will establish a pro-Iranian client state in former Israeli territory once radioactive fallout levels settle down, as an “Iranian anchor” amist the Sunni Arab world.
>> Despite the rhetoric, Iran is not really interested in an Israeli nuclear holocaust; it’s leadership is not crazy, they wouldn’t take the risk of nuclear retaliation by Israel and the US. Many clerics are against nuclear weapons, some have even declared that the Quran forbids their use. Iran wants enriched uranium and missiles and anti-Israeli clients simply to gain respect from the international community, and will respond to western negotiations to avoid weaponization in return for open trade, development capital, and a say in regional politics. (Recall that this almost seemed to work with North Korea; almost.) No one in the 21st Century dreams of wide-spread dominance and empire-building as Hitler, Stalin, Queen Victoria, and other leaders once did.
Q: What about Ahmadinejad’s continuing denials of the Nazi Holocaust against the Jews?
>> It’s not taken seriously by most Iranians, given their education and cultural sophistication. It’s just a function of internal political friction between the more conservative and liberal theocrats, and will disappear once the growing forces favoring freedom and enlightenment finally sweep them aside.
>> It doesn’t play well amidst the university crowd in Tehran, but it is getting traction amidst the poor of Iran. Ahmadinejad and his military supporters are getting the average Iranian ready to predicate in a new Jewish holocaust, which will in turn lead to Iran’s subjugation of the Arab states surrounding it in the Middle East. The Persian Empire will be restored, clear to the shores of the Mediterranean.
Q: Do the protests signal the start of an Iranian revolution for freedom?
>>Yes. There is a generational shift at work in Iran. The conservative political activists whose formational experiences were the 1979 overthrow of the Shah and the rise of the Ayatollahs, along with the bloody war with Iraq in the early 1980s, are now being challenged by a younger generation that is more educated and open-min
ded. Time and demographics are on the side of the reformers.
>> Eventually. The demonstrations certainly do reflect the cries and struggles of a people yearning to be free. But the powerful Revolutionary Guard is cracking down, pushing the mullahs aside and imposing a military dictatorship, akin to what has happened in Burma and what was once quite common in South America (recall Argentina in the 1980s). This is basically what Reza Aslan tells us. But it won’t last, it’s only a matter of time and blood until the people emerge victorious over the despots. Shiism has historically been an intellectual and adaptive force in the Moslem world, and will ultimately support a “Persian spring”.
>> No. The demonstrations are not a nation-wide phenomenon. They only reflect the views and feelings of a small percentage of the Iranian population, i.e. the highly educated professional class centered in northern Tehran. The majority of the country is still poor, uneducated, traditional, and conservative. The faltering, mismanaged economy will insure that an educated, westernized middle class will not spread throughout the nation; the average Iranian does not and will not have access to Twitter. The majority of the people currently support a strong, despotic government, just as most Russians seem to. Despite some green shoots, democracy and freedom will not take root in Iran, just as they faltered over the past 20 years in the former empire across Iran’s northern border. Iran is moving from an Islamic theocracy to an Islamic military dictatorship (don’t forget that Mohammed was as much a military commander as a prophet). As in 1979, a brief flourishing of youthful idealism in the streets of Tehran is going to lead to something uglier than what preceded it.
YIKES! Given all this uncertainty, it might be prudent in the short term to remain non-committal, as Obama has done. We need more time to get better information. BUT, we also need to get ready for the worst, and not assume that a popular Iranian uprising is going to have a positive outcome, as Jimmy Carter mistakenly did back in 1979. Whatever this is or is not, it can not be seen as an extension of the “Obama Revolution” here in the USA.
Jim,
I certainly must give you credit for ferreting out the many views/opinions on the current situation in Iran. I'd say you have thoroughly covered the prevalent views on Iran.
A couple of comments:
1) It would seem to me that the various diverse opinions of "experts" in this situation (and in any situation where there are divergent and even contradictory views on a subject–often given in court cases) really just prove that intelligent people have their own biases too; but an "expert's" bias is called an "expert opinion". One may/may not take the "expert opinion" with a grain of salt.
2) It seems to me that the approach to non-democractic countries under the past administration (which was "of course, every nation in the world SHOULD want democracy so let's see to it that they 'get' it") is being proved wrong (once again).
Not every nation is ready for democracy–and for that matter may never be ready for it. Some countries will simply have their OWN kind of political administration.
3) Obama's approach of "let's talk" seems to me to be a pretty good one. If nations are "talking", they have to at least have a "cease fire" of sorts; they have at least a CHANCE to get to know each other. And the crucial pivotal point of any change in any kind of relationship (among individuals or nations) is to get to know each other. Then the parties involved are not "the other"; the parties involved become "people like us", which then tends to lead to a change in approach to others, a tendency to see the "other's" point of view. One may not necessarily agree with that point of view, but one (individual or nation) tends to take a different approach to someone one regards as like oneself. I say let Obama pursue his approach of “let’s talk.”
Then too, there is the lesson of “Obama and the fly”. I’ll let you make your own analogy, but I can see the need for the "Obama and the fly" approach as a necessary one in the case where a nation is lead by an out-and-out "crazy" person. But I say we have already tried the "other" approach in Iraq; let's see what Obama can do with his "let's talk" approach.
4) Then too there is the fact that in many of the Middle East countries (all of them?) politics and religion are very tightly bound together—much as politics and religion were intermixed in the early centuries of Christianity. Our own approach of separation of church and state is, at the core of Middle Eastern countries, an idea that they may perhaps understand intellectually but is one that has likely not taken hold of the unconscious of the nation.
(Continued in comment below)
MCS
Comment by MCS — June 19, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Jim,
I certainly must give you credit for ferreting out the many views/opinions on the current situation in Iran. I'd say you have thoroughly covered the prevalent views on Iran.
A couple of comments:
1) It would seem to me that the various diverse opinions of "experts" in this situation (and in any situation where there are divergent and even contradictory views on a subject–often given in court cases) really just prove that intelligent people have their own biases too; but an "expert's" bias is called an "expert opinion". One may/may not take the "expert opinion" with a grain of salt.
2) It seems to me that the approach to non-democractic countries under the past administration (which was "of course, every nation in the world SHOULD want democracy so let's see to it that they 'get' it") is being proved wrong (once again).
Not every nation is ready for democracy–and for that matter may never be ready for it. Some countries will simply have their OWN kind of political administration.
3) Obama's approach of "let's talk" seems to me to be a pretty good one. If nations are "talking", they have to at least have a "cease fire" of sorts; they have at least a CHANCE to get to know each other. And the crucial pivotal point of any change in any kind of relationship (among individuals or nations) is to get to know each other. Then the parties involved are not "the other"; the parties involved become "people like us", which then tends to lead to a change in approach to others, a tendency to see the "other's" point of view. One may not necessarily agree with that point of view, but one (individual or nation) tends to take a different approach to someone one regards as like oneself. I say let Obama pursue his approach of “let’s talk.”
Then too, there is the lesson of “Obama and the fly”. I’ll let you make your own analogy, but I can see the need for the "Obama and the fly" approach as a necessary one in the case where a nation is lead by an out-and-out "crazy" person. But I say we have already tried the "other" approach in Iraq; let's see what Obama can do with his "let's talk" approach.
4) Then too there is the fact that in many of the Middle East countries (all of them?) politics and religion are very tightly bound together—much as politics and religion were intermixed in the early centuries of Christianity. Our own approach of separation of church and state is, at the core of Middle Eastern countries, an idea that they may perhaps understand intellectually but is one that has likely not taken hold of the unconscious of the nation.
(Continued in comment below)
MCS
Comment by MCS — June 19, 2009 @ 5:26 pm
(MCS : Continued from above)
5) Lastly, I would bring to your attention a book I have just started reading and which I likely will refer to in the future. Phyllis Tickle (founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly) has written a small (172 pages) but packed-with-information-treatise called The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why. I have not proceeded very far in my reading of her book, yet I think she has a very intriguing thesis. She maintains that approximately every 500 years (give or take a score or two) Christianity undergoes a massive upheaval, which then leads to the emergence of a “new”, more wide-spread “form” of Christianity. She further notes that similar upheavals in religion have taken place in Judaism and Islam. (However, she concentrates on Christianity.)
Furthermore, she is not alone in her thinking as she cites scholars such as Karen Armstrong and Diana Butler Bass who have given different names to this “emergence”; these scholars note a “substantial dynamic in the progression from upheaval to renewed stability” in these “emergences” that take place in religions. (I would add she is making specific Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s thoughts written almost 100 years ago and others written in the years following his earliest writings.)
She further uses the analogy of a cable in describing any religion: She notes the interior of the cable is composed of intertwined ideas of spirituality, corporeality, and morality; the middle layer of the cable is a “mesh sleeve” of “common imagination”—all of which is encased in what she calls a “waterproof covering” of the “story of the community.” I think she may have something in this thought. This comparison to a cable holds for all religions. And this very description of religion tells us that there will be no simple “accept-democracy-and-all-your-troubles-will-be-over solution to the situation in Iran or any of the Middle Eastern countries.
If she is right, then the only approach I can see is that of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in his Hymn of the Universe (p. 29) where he speaks of what scientists today call “chaos theory.” He speaks of the “hurricane” of energies unleashed (p. 60) in such periods. PTdC speaks of the individual; however, I think that his ideas could equally be applied to periods of upheaval such as is going on in these times in so many areas—and specifically in the Middle Eastern countries and even more specifically in Iran.
So it may be that not only Christianity is undergoing a change from the collective unconscious “up”, so to say; it may be that the situation in Iran is one of these “hurricane-energies-unleashed” periods of time.
PTdC had every hope that the result of the chaos would be a “new” being. One can hope that after all the chaos is over, eventually, in the Middle Eastern countries a “new”—and appropriately specific—country(ies) will be the result.
And (back to the specific, hard realistic”) a “second” last point: It seems Obama’s point of a special country for the Palestinians is blatantly obvious: Would one wipe out the entire group of Palestinians? What to do with them if one says they cannot “be”? Even to pose the last point of saying that the Palestinians cannot “be” is nonsense, a thought not even worth thinking. Of course, the Palestinians must have a place to “be”! One would not deny a place to “be” to the humblest individual. And for those who follow Christianity, it seems to me that if Christ had respect for the humblest individual, how much more would Christ regard the right to “be” of an entire nation of individuals.
MCS
Comment by MCS — June 19, 2009 @ 6:16 pm
(MCS : Continued from above)
5) Lastly, I would bring to your attention a book I have just started reading and which I likely will refer to in the future. Phyllis Tickle (founding editor of the religion department of Publishers Weekly) has written a small (172 pages) but packed-with-information-treatise called The Great Emergence: How Christianity Is Changing and Why. I have not proceeded very far in my reading of her book, yet I think she has a very intriguing thesis. She maintains that approximately every 500 years (give or take a score or two) Christianity undergoes a massive upheaval, which then leads to the emergence of a “new”, more wide-spread “form” of Christianity. She further notes that similar upheavals in religion have taken place in Judaism and Islam. (However, she concentrates on Christianity.)
Furthermore, she is not alone in her thinking as she cites scholars such as Karen Armstrong and Diana Butler Bass who have given different names to this “emergence”; these scholars note a “substantial dynamic in the progression from upheaval to renewed stability” in these “emergences” that take place in religions. (I would add she is making specific Pierre Teilhard de Chardin’s thoughts written almost 100 years ago and others written in the years following his earliest writings.)
She further uses the analogy of a cable in describing any religion: She notes the interior of the cable is composed of intertwined ideas of spirituality, corporeality, and morality; the middle layer of the cable is a “mesh sleeve” of “common imagination”—all of which is encased in what she calls a “waterproof covering” of the “story of the community.” I think she may have something in this thought. This comparison to a cable holds for all religions. And this very description of religion tells us that there will be no simple “accept-democracy-and-all-your-troubles-will-be-over solution to the situation in Iran or any of the Middle Eastern countries.
If she is right, then the only approach I can see is that of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in his Hymn of the Universe (p. 29) where he speaks of what scientists today call “chaos theory.” He speaks of the “hurricane” of energies unleashed (p. 60) in such periods. PTdC speaks of the individual; however, I think that his ideas could equally be applied to periods of upheaval such as is going on in these times in so many areas—and specifically in the Middle Eastern countries and even more specifically in Iran.
So it may be that not only Christianity is undergoing a change from the collective unconscious “up”, so to say; it may be that the situation in Iran is one of these “hurricane-energies-unleashed” periods of time.
PTdC had every hope that the result of the chaos would be a “new” being. One can hope that after all the chaos is over, eventually, in the Middle Eastern countries a “new”—and appropriately specific—country(ies) will be the result.
And (back to the specific, hard realistic”) a “second” last point: It seems Obama’s point of a special country for the Palestinians is blatantly obvious: Would one wipe out the entire group of Palestinians? What to do with them if one says they cannot “be”? Even to pose the last point of saying that the Palestinians cannot “be” is nonsense, a thought not even worth thinking. Of course, the Palestinians must have a place to “be”! One would not deny a place to “be” to the humblest individual. And for those who follow Christianity, it seems to me that if Christ had respect for the humblest individual, how much more would Christ regard the right to “be” of an entire nation of individuals.
MCS
Comment by MCS — June 19, 2009 @ 6:16 pm