For now many years, Iran and and the notion of fear have been considered to be two sides of the same coin. The West fears it because of its progressing uranium enrichment, its overt threats to Israel, and general refusal to cooperate on these matters. Within the nation itself, a dynamic of terror has established itself between government and governed. Iranians live in in terror and oppression, under the dogma of archaic religious laws, brutal breaches of basic human rights, and an atmosphere of severe censorship. The government, in turn, whose backbone is a clerical council and appointed by the figure of Supreme leader- currently Ayatollah Khamenei- stands weakened by the ever-increasing protests in Tehran and across Iran.
Western countries have, for many years, hesitated as to how to approach the Iran ‘case’. Should economic sanctions be imposed? It has often been indicated, through popular examples, that these are far from effective; take the example of Cuba, for instance whom, nearing fifty years onwards, still stands relatively untouched. Despite this, Cuba has undoubtedly been economically stunted by this measure, and this has reduced its diplomatic weight.
Economic sanctions harm the poorer segments of the population, argues Shrin Ebadi, Nobel Peace Prize laureate whom has in November 2009 been confiscated her medal by the Iranian government. Yet it is an convenient midway amongst fruitless negotiations and a conflict outbreak. Through economic sanctions, the West is attempting to create is a shift within Iranian mentality, from a distaste of foreign power to a distaste of their own government.
And since the last presidential election, marks of such a dissatisfaction have been all the more obvious. Challenges to the outcome have emerged from all sides, including Ayatollah Hoseyn Ali Montazeri, at the time condemned to house arrest, but previously a prominent figure amongst the ruling clerics. Montazeri was a well-known critic of the Iranian government. His high religious status made his claims difficult to ward off by the regime. His death and the repression which followed against mourners, created a fresh upsurge of protests. Aides, family members and close friends of prominent opposition members have been arrested and the death toll has continued to rise – showing that the government is still ready to use violence against its own citizens.
The establishment itself, however, stands poised in hesitation; a rift has opened among the clerics. The brutal reappraisals are a clear sign that its own precariousness is felt.
The question inevitably follows; what now?
It has been reported that neither side, so far, has designed a clear ‘game plan’ of upcoming events. As is often pointed out, the opposition lacks a clear leader. Many question the possibility of a change in government from the grassroots. Authoritarian regimes which are ready to use violence on their own citizens cannot be defeated, argues, for instance, radio correspondent Bridget Kendall; rather, the Soviet Union is held up as an example of a ‘top-down’ transformation.
As long as Mr. Khamenei remains Supreme Leader and holds the power of approval of the president, as well as the power to appoint leaders of the media, judiciary, and army, the possibility of a gradual change, or him simply stepping down, appears limited. Perhaps the continuing signs of dissatisfaction might intensify the disagreements among the government itself and push for such a change, or generate a modification of its tone in foreign policy. Protesters have shown that they are not, at least not yet, intimated.
Despite Western criticism, it must however be reminded that Iran is at its basis, a ‘part’ democracy, and that during his first term, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was ‘popularly elected’. Undoubtedly, its authoritarian branch has corrupted this legitimacy, and hence provoked the present crisis. It was, after all, the Supreme Leader who approved of Ahmadinejad’s supposed re-election.
It is said that the West cannot allow itself to show anything but discreet support of these events. To do otherwise might compromise both the authenticity of the movement itself (it would be claimed, as it already is, this was very simply ‘planted’ by foreigners) and the discussions on nuclear development, towards which the government has potentially shown signs of becoming more lenient.
However, what is more important is to ensure the continuation of the opposition; the clear support of other nations, added to international attention is a clear encouragement of this. Thus, Obama and other leaders have thankfully been outspoken in their protests.
The moving autobiographical film Persepolis (2007), by Marjane Satrapi, is one of many cries of disillusionment of Iranian nationals since the events of the Islamic Revolution of 1979. One can only look forward to a time at which the fate of Iran is not determined by fear.
Related posts: