MaroonBlog

Monday The Economist published a piece similar to my own which agrees with me in a large part on the possible outcomes of a confrontation in Iran.

An interesting part of The Economist's article concerning the possible motivations of the conservatives reads:

"The last time Iranians had a chance to vote, in local-council elections a year ago, they expressed their frustration at the continuing impasse by largely staying at home. But the low turnouts (only 10-15% in some cities) favored the religious conservatives. Voter apathy would probably have handed them victory again in this monthÂ’s parliamentary elections, but it seems that the Guardians did not want to risk failure. Next year, when President KhatamiÂ’s mandate ends, the conservatives hope to replace him with one of their own. The Council of Guardians is expected to try to ensure this by, once again, banning reformist candidates.

In the meantime, having hitherto stymied the Khatami government’s attempts at a reconciliation with America, the conservatives now seem interested in striking a deal with the “Great Satan”. It was Hassan Rohani—a leading hardliner close to Ayatollah Khamenei—who led Iran’s recent negotiations with the International Atomic Energy Agency over confessing to its nuclear dabblings and accepting tougher inspections by the agency. Since concluding a deal last October, Mr Rohani has been respectfully received in Brussels and Moscow. His globetrotting at the supreme leader’s behest is making Mr Khatami’s government look ever more irrelevant. Indeed, Mr Rohani is beginning to look like the foreign minister-in-waiting of a future government of pragmatic conservatives."

It seems that the conservatives are proceeding very craftily in an attempt to outposition their moderate rivals... Well, they were. The chutzpah (the irony, I know) that has been shown by the moderates as of late has demonstrated that they refuse to be pushed out of power by the clerics, and that the conservatives have miscalculated and moved too quickly. The determination of both sides not to back down is something that in my opinion marks this confrontation as more than mere brinksmanship. As I wrote earlier, as each day passes and more is committed to this political struggle, the ability for each side to back down without suffering irreparable political damage (and perhaps destruction) decreases.

What also marks this conflict is the way in which the conservative leadership is erratically responding; the supreme leader Khincommunicadoommunicato for two days, according to his office, and "Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri , the highest ranking Iranian cleric, who led the Islamic Revolution along with Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini 25 years ago", according to an interview conducted by MEMRI and published just yesterday, is siding against the Council of Guardians, the body that is booting the moderates from the elections and stirring up this mess. Part of the interview reads:

Question: " What do you think of the current conflict between the political and religious institutions in Iran?"

Ayatollah Montazeri: "At the beginning of the Islamic Revolution, we said regarding the elections: the Minister of the Interior and the Shah used to pick candidates to be voted, [but] now the election must be really free. We thought of a Council of Guardians to oversee the Ministry of the Interior, to make sure it did its work correctly, not to select the candidatesÂ… Then there was a revision of the Constitution, and I opposed it. They have manipulated it and put things upside down Â… all against our original intentions. Thus today, instead of free elections, we have a selection made by one faction of the electoral contest. All of this is illegal and anti-constitutional."

Question: " So the spirit of the Islamic Revolution has been betrayed?"

Montazeri: "[Acting] this way wounds the image of Iran, creating international qualms - and all this as a result of the illegal actions of a few. It is local experts from the cities that should evaluate the candidates; they are better informed of personalities and situations."

The interview continues with the Ayatollah quesconstitutionalitytutionallity of various types of tribunals reinstated after the death of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini:

Question: " You have contested the various special tribunals that proliferate and suffocate the Iranian justice system."

Montazeri: "They do not exist in the Constitution, which delegates judicial affairs to the Ministry of Justice. All of this disappoints the people, who become disgusted with the system. Khomeini wanted the special tribunals for a short time. They were supposed to disappear. After his death, they were re-instituted. The sentences of these tribunals are illegal. Such abuses happened before the Revolution, which in fact took place in order to prevent their occurrence. Instead, the same things are going on. And the people are not free."

The Ayatollah questions repressive actions by the government against newspapers and students:

Question: "How do you judge the repression of the student protests?"

Montazeri: "They attacked these youths. They threw them to the ground and beat themÂ… They should not have done it! Regarding young people our religion tells us: 'We must be like fathers, good [and] merciful.' In prayer we say: 'Oh, Prophet, you are sweet and good to everyone, if you were cruel and aggressive everyone would abandon you.' It is a lesson for those who govern. However Â… the Guardians have rejected three times a Majlis law to abolish censorship. If they have rejected it, this means they prefer torture."

Question: " What do you think of the constant closure of reformist newspapers?"

Montazeri: "Today in Iran, there is no freedom of the press. They have closed more than a hundred publications; honest and knowledgeable people have been deprived of their jobs. They have reduced newspapers to self-censorship. For instance, they are forbidden to write about me. If they do, they [the editors] are immediately summoned. There is repression, as before the RevolutionÂ…"

What seems particularly telling is his rhetorical comparison of present Iran to 'before the revolution". This is a Grand Ayatollah speaking, someone whom one would think would be supporting other religious conservatives in their views.
Finally, Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri criticizes the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Khomeini himself:

Question: "You do not have a good opinion of Khatami. Why?"

Montazeri: "He talks a lot, but in practice he does little. Let's take [for example] the sit-in of the MP's to protest against the Guardian Council members' rejection of candidacies. Khatami should already have organized it three years ago, when the Guardians themselves rejected the electoral law. Khatami has adopted a tactic of quietism; he has avoided angering 'others.' But in fact what were these reforms? They were the implementation of the promises made at the beginning of the Revolution. Nothing special."

Question: "You have also questioned Ali Khamenei's roleÂ…"

Montazeri: "The [Supreme] Leader [Khamenei] should only give directions; basically guide. Instead, he puts himself above the law that is no longer in the hands of the Majlis. The new Article 110 of the Constitution gives him all the power, which is followed by the word 'absolute,' including control over the police and army, without being accountable to anyone. I opposed itÂ… This is also why they ousted me. On the other hand, the President has all of the responsibilities but no power. That is the problem."

Grand Ayatollah Montazeri seems to disagree with the current role that Khomeini is taking. He feels that he should have stepped in to stop the Guardians in the past, but he failed to then; this brings into question whether or not he will step in now.

Additionally, Montazeri also questions the constitutional structure of Iran, criticizing the way that all power is absolute. He seems to favore a more democratic Islamic state than the current form Iran is taking.

He has this to say about the stability of the country:

Question: " You said: If this leadership does not change, the Islamic state itself is in danger. Do you think that the system may fall apart?"

Montazeri: "The peoples' consensus is the basis for everything. The Islamic Republic means popular government. If the people are disappointed, they will stop believing in the Revolution or in Islam. There is a lot of aggressiveness from the system. Yet, the Qur'an speaks continuously of a God of love, clemency, and mercy. If there is rage and violence there will be rejectionÂ…"

He finds the country unstable because the people will reject a government that they do not view as legitimate. This seems already to be occuring, with the resignation of the MP's and the 10-15% voter turnout at elections.

The significance of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri's interview is that if such a high ranking cleric is in such vocal opposition to the conservatives, to such an extent that he was ousted from the country, than it must be indicative of a divide within the conservative faction. Unless they have been constantly testing and perging their ranks, it seems highly likely that some agree with Montazeri, if only quietly at this point.

I write Kto Kogo, Lenin's famous words of "Who will have whom?", because this situation is in incredible flux. The evidence, if a confrontation occurs and Khomeini does not step in to bring the conservatives and moderates together, seems to point to a fractioning in the conservative ranks that will lead to part of them splintering off during any conflict or civil war. Perhaps such a splinter would be significant, and include parts of the military (although there is evidence against this [thanks to Move Along for the link]) and lead to a moderate victory (or a military dicatorship, ick).

In considering all of this evidence, one point remains and another is revealed: the first is that the students are in control. It will take protest by them to move this towards war; if they remain innactive, the conservatives will have their victory. So, watch for any student movement.

The second point is that there is so much chaos in this situation that I feel that it is a much more charged, powderkeg scenario than most think, just as Petrograd was in the days leading up to when the proletariat took to the streets in Red October.

UPDATE: Mr. Katzman points out that this interview could blow the powderkeg if it was published by the moderate Iranian press. Let's see if they do.