Iranian Election Protests Erupting

Mousavi didn't blink.

Parisa Hafezi at Reuters reports that Mousavi has said that he is "ready for martyrdom" and called for a national strike if he is arrested. He reiterated his demand that the elections be annulled and new elections carried out in a letter to the Guardian Council:

"These disgusting measures (election rigging) were planned months ahead of the vote ... considering all the violations ... the election should be annulled.,"

Further, it is reported that neither he nor Karrubi decided to attend the meeting with the Guardian Council today to discuss their disputes, per PressTV. That seems to leave little room for compromise--either the elections are nullified or conflict has been chosen.

Whether or not Mousavi endorsed the rallies today, they took place. The security forces were out in force, though it is reported that neither the Revolutionary Guards nor the Army have been committed, only the Basij and the Law Enforcement Forces. From the Tazahorate Ma blog:



More images can be found there.

70% of the population is in urban areas in Iran ... and the urban areas appear to have erupted in some violent clashes with the security forces:









Possible images of protests today in Tehran, though the date of the footage has not been confirmed.



Powerful footage of clashes in Shiraz can be found here.

Very graphic and extremely upsetting footage of a woman shot down in the streets of Tehran:



Footage and coverage from CNN:



Reuters reports that a suicide bomber blew up the shrine of Ayatollah Khomenei.

CNN reports that security forces used tear gas, helicopters sprayed acid on protesters, and that efforts were made to prevent people from congregating. So it is to be conflict. Everyone in Iran knows they have the right to peaceful assembly per the Constitution.

"Article 27
Unarmed assemblies and marches may be freely organized, provided that no violation of the foundations of Islam is involved."

Also, the right to a representative form of government is guaranteed:

"Article 6
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the affairs of the country must be administered on the basis of public opinion expressed by the means of elections, including the election of the President, the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and the members of councils, or by means of referenda in matters specified in other articles of this Constitution."

It appears that the contest is open, will be violent, and is about those who believe that the representative elements of the government serve their interests best and those who want to eliminate whatever vestiges of representation remain.

An Iranian rap video of unknown provenance calling on the soldiers to back to protesters:



Translation at the youtube hosted site.

The President's statement:

"Statement from the President on Iran

The Iranian government must understand that the world is watching. We mourn each and every innocent life that is lost. We call on the Iranian government to stop all violent and unjust actions against its own people. The universal rights to assembly and free speech must be respected, and the United States stands with all who seek to exercise those rights.

As I said in Cairo, suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. The Iranian people will ultimately judge the actions of their own government. If the Iranian government seeks the respect of the international community, it must respect the dignity of its own people and govern through consent, not coercion.

Martin Luther King once said - 'The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.' I believe that. The international community believes that. And right now, we are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness."

His statements calling for people to respect the rule of law notwithstanding, it seems that the LOTR has given up whatever legitimacy he had under the Constitution.

I have no idea how things will unfold, but just now it looks very ugly. If various elements of the armed forces take the side of the protesters, the government of Khamenei and Amahdinejad is probably done for--like I said, 70% of the people in Iran live in the cities.

Still no sign of Rafsanjani.

Iran -- Constitutional Crisis?

I was wrong in thinking that the Leader of the Revolution [LOTR], Ayatollah Khamenei, would make some concessions in his sermon yesterday, and only wondering whether they would be enough or too much to put the genie back in the bottle. It does appear from the speech that he clearly sees the opposition's claims as a direct attack on the legitimacy of the government--a means of undermining it.

"This is what they want. They want to undermine trust to weaken participation to deprive the Islamic Republic of legitimacy. The harm inflicted by this is far worse than setting fire to buses and banks. This cannot be compared with any other loss. The enemy wants to see the people come forward in such a move and participate so enthusiastically in elections and then get told that they have made a mistake in trusting the system, the system is not trustworthy. This is what the enemy wants. They started this line (of attack) before the elections."

I suspect that Khamenei saw the question of concessions in the light of what happened after Louis XVI's concessions to the Estates-General. (Some might think this a stretch, but Khamenei was a key participant in the 1979 Revolution and the Constitution which came out of that was strongly influenced by the French Constitution for the Fifth Republic. The revolutionary leaders of the Iranian Revolution were and are students of revolutions past.)

In any case, it seems that he has calculated that he is both in the position not to make any concessions and that it is not in his interests to do so. This is interesting to me, because he seems to be doing precisely what it is he says in the quote above he fears--undermining trust in the system. Insofar as the opposition has been marching, they have been marching to have a new vote, not to change the system. Now they will be marching, it seems, to, at the very least, overturn this last directive, have a new vote, perhaps to replace the LOTR, and perhaps even to eliminate the role established for the LOTR in the Constitution.

Now Mousavi's call for a nullification of the election results altogether and a new election have been seconded by opposition candidate, Mehdi Karrubi, per Press TV. Both are scheduled to meet with the Guardian Council to present their evidence of vote tampering today. Earlier there were reports that Mousavi supporters were arranging for another rally today, but Parisa Hafezi at Reuters reports that an ally of Mousavi's said yesterday,

"Mousavi has no plans to hold a rally tomorrow or the day after tomorrow and if he decides to hold a rally it will be announced on his website."

However, folks might decide to march without official approval.

Which leads to the question of what forces are available to the LOTR should he decide to use force, as he appears to threaten in his speech. To wit:

"If after every election, those who do not win start street rallies and mobilize their supporters in the streets, then those who have won start street rallies in response, then, what is the purpose of holding elections? What is the fault of the people? The people, who have businesses on the street, commute on the streets and live there. What is their sin to witness you wanting to show off your supporters, one side like this and the other side like that. For the infiltrated terrorist, the individual who intends to deal a terrorist blow, the issue is not the political aspect of the matter. What is better for him than to hide among the people, who want to hold gatherings and rallies? If such gatherings provide a cover for him, then who is responsible? Who is accountable for the death of the few people from the public and the Basij in these incidents? There will be reactions and sentiments after they (agitators) exploit the chaos and assassinate members of the Basij or the Law Enforcement Force. Who is accountable for these reactions? One's heart is torn apart when one sees such events, when one sees that they raid university dormitories and harm young students, not rioting students but the pious students, and then chant slogans in support of the leader too. One's heart is torn apart by such events. (Crowd chanting)

Street challenges after the elections are not the right thing to do. This is, in fact, challenging the principle of elections and democracy. I want everyone to end this sort of action. If they do not end it then the consequences of this lie with them (street protesters).

It is a wrong perception, please note, a wrong impression that through their street presence they will be creating a lever of pressure against the system. It is wrong to think that the officials of the system will concede out of expediency."

Also, PressTV reports that the Supreme National Security Council has warned Mousavi against rallies in a statement which reads in part:

"It is your responsibility to prevent the public from attending such rallies instead of making accusations against the law enforcement. [Mousavi wrote a letter to the council complaining of abuses by law enforcement. All of the candidates have submitted hundreds of complaints to the Guardian Council.] We believe this is an organized network which is most probably affiliated to foreign-related groups and deliberately disturbs the peace and security of the public. Of course we have already ordered the law enforcement forces to deal with the issue."

On Friday, the spokesman for the Guardian Council, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, warned opposition candidate Mohsen Rezai against agitating public opinion. (Rezai was the chief commander of the Revolutionary Guards for 16 years and serves as the Secretary of the Expediency Discernment Council--which resolves disputes between the Guardian Council and the Majlis, or Iranian Parliament.)

Michael Eisenstadt at the Washington Institute has an extremely useful analysis of the various military forces involved. Key excerpt:

"Film and television footage of the protests show that this time the Basij are in the lead in dealing with the unrest, with the Law Enforcement Forces [LEF] playing a supporting role. Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps [IRGC] units have not yet been committed. This is consistent with the growing role assigned the Basij since 2003 as the first line of defense against possible US regime-change attempts--whether through an invasion or a color revolution. It is not clear, however, that this apparent confidence in the Basij is justified.

While the recruitment base of the Basij is much narrower than that of the IRGC (which draws on conscripts from all sectors of Iranian society), it is a volunteer force that many join for opportunistic reasons--for a paycheck, a scholarship, or a bit of authority. And while the Basij is probably more thoroughly vetted than other mass organizations (due to the role of local clerics and mosques in the recruitment process), it is hard to believe that its membership is insulated from the broader political forces at work in Iranian society today. Accordingly, some units might experience significant desertions if employed to violently suppress the protests."

Well worth reading in full. As I have noted before, if there are millions in the streets, orders to shoot protesters may not be obeyed ... in part because there is a high likelihood of there being relatives in the crowd.

Perhaps the Guardian Council will decide enough votes are questionable so that a second round could be arranged. If not, my guess is that the protests will be continue, in defense of the Constitutional right to having their vote count. Where Rafsanjani happens to be and whether an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts in Qom has been assembled remains an open question. If it is, and if the LOTR is ordered to stand down and he resists there will be a full blown Constitutional crisis in Iran ... likely followed by shows of force. We shall see.

Photos of signs in the protest in Tehran yesterday, with helpful translations, by Syma Sayyah at Payvand Iran News, one sample:

Translation: "Why would I want to die? Seeking truth has forced me to. I'm going into the grave happily, to bring out the corpse of freedom from the depth of darkness."

Another set of photos of the protest in Tehran yesterday by Syma Sayyah at Payvand Iran News. One sample:



And yet more images of the Tehran protest yesterday from Syma Sayyah at Payvand Iran News:



Very much worth looking through.

Khamene'i's Friday Sermon -- Few if any Concessions

I thought that the Leader of the Revolution [LOTR], Ayatollah Khamenei would use the highly anticipated sermon today to make some concessions to the opposition campaigns.

I was wrong.

A concession by the LOTR was to go out of his way to praise Ayatollah Rafsajani and to say that he was not corrupt, explicitly rejecting Ahmadinejad's accusation which led to the unprecedented public epistolatory complaint to the LOTR. Rafsanjani is an old colleague of the LOTR whose relationship dates back from the 1979 Revolution. Rafsanjani was, IIRC, a member of the Assembly of Experts which elected him LOTR. Rafsanjani was not at the sermon, which is widely regarded as an ominous sign (of some sort). Nor was Mousavi, Karrubi, or Ayatollah Khatami (former President and reformist cleric).

I have no confirmation of the rumor that Ayatollah Rafsanjani convened an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts in Qom ... which could, possibly, explain his absence ... but then so could his arrest ... or his decision to back down ... or to boycott the sermon ... or his death. The Assembly of Experts has the power under the IRI's Constitution to remove the LOTR (Article 111).

Also, a small concession might be here:

"I have told the esteemed Guardian Council that if they need to recount the ballot boxes, they should do so in the presence of the representatives of candidates. They (representatives) should be present to register and sign. Therefore there are no problems in this respect. That was my point regarding the election that I wanted to tell the nation."

I am of the understanding that there were not enough representatives at ballot boxes--and none at mobile ballot boxes--for there to be sufficient evidence to present the Guardian Council to plausibly overturn the election, or even force a second round. But a second round could be a possible route out of the dilemma facing the LOTR.

Here is the full translation of the Friday sermon by Leader of the Revolution Ayatollah Khamenei, provided by the Open Source Center (a US Government organization) via Juan Cole.

Islamic Republic of Iran News Network Television (IRINN)
Friday, June 19, 2009
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

"In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate. (Introductory prayers in Arabic) In this sermon I call on all dear brothers and sisters who are participating in the prayers to observe piety.

The issue which I would like to raise in this sermon concerns the (presidential) election which is currently the issue of the day in our country. I will mention three points to three groups. I am going to address our dear people. I would like to mention a few points to our dear nation wherever they may be. Another point concerns the political elite, presidential candidates, and the election officials. I will also mention a point to the leaders of the arrogant powers, a number of Western governments and the media that they control.

The first point that concerns you dear people is a world of praise, admiration and appreciation. In my speeches, I do not like to address my audience using flattery (tamaloq), however in the issue of election I will tell you dear people that whatever I say, even if it sounds like flattery it is fine because you have accomplished a great deal.

The 22 Khordad (12 June) election was a massive display of our nation's responsibility in determining the country's destiny. It was a huge display of the spirit of cooperation among the people in managing their country. It was a great display of the people's fondness for their system.

Indeed, a similar event to what happened in this country I have not seen in the world, in various democracies, be they pretend, false democracies or democracies based on people's votes.

(Chants of: "God is great, Khamene'i is the leader, other indistinct slogans)

Last Friday's elections were unprecedented in the Islamic Republic apart from the referendum which was held in Farvardin 1358 (March 1980) [on having an Islamic Republic]. Around 85 percent (of eligible voters), around 40 million people, (took part in election). One can see the auspicious hand of the Lord of the Age (12th imam) behind such great events. That is a sign of the blessing of God.

I deem it necessary to pay my respect and tell you of my humbleness towards you dear people in the entire country from the bottom of my heart. That is indeed befitting.

Our young generation particularly showed that it still possesses the same political enthusiasm, awareness, and commitment that we saw in the first generation of the revolution. However, with one difference, that the hot furnace of the revolution created emotions in the hearts of people, later during the war in a different manner, but today those (emotions) do not exist and we still see such commitment, feeling of responsibility, and enthusiasm in our present generation. Those are not small things.

Of course people have differences of opinion and tastes. Some accept a certain person, a theory, others accept someone else and have a different theory. Such things exist and it is natural for them to exist. However, one feels a collective commitment among all these individuals despite their differences of opinion. A collective commitment aimed at protecting their country and to protect their system.

Everyone participated in cities, in villages, in small towns, in big towns, from different ethnic groups, different religions, men, women, old, young all entered the arena. All took part in this massive move.

This election, my dear ones, was as a political earthquake for your enemies and a real and historic celebration for your friends in different parts of the world.
As the revolution is experiencing its 30 years of age, the manner in which the people expressed their commitment towards the system, the revolution and the honorable imam (Khomeyni) was a general and popular movement aimed at repeating their allegiance with the imam and the martyrs. It was a breath of fresh air for the Islamic Republic, a fresh movement, a great opportunity.

These elections showed our religious democracy to the entire world. All those people who are ill-wishers towards the system witnessed what religious democracy really is.

This is a third way different from dictatorships and tyrannical systems on the one hand and democracies removed from spirituality and religion on the other. This is religious democracy. This is what attracts the hearts of people and brings them to the center of the arena, and it just passed its test. That was one point about the election.

The second point about the elections is that the 22 Khordad elections showed that the people live in an atmosphere of trust, hope, and enthusiasm in this country.

This was a response to many of your enemies' remarks expressed in their biased propaganda. If the people have no hope for the future they would not take part in elections. If they do not trust their own system they would not take part in elections. If they do not feel free, they would not welcome the elections. Trust in the Islamic Republic became evident in these elections. I will tell you later that the enemies have targeted this very trust. The enemies of the Iranian nation intend to undermine this trust. This trust is the biggest asset of the Islamic Republic and they want to take it away. They want to create doubt about elections. They want to cast doubt on the trust of the people.

The enemies of the Iranian nation know that when trust is gone, participation will weaken. When participation and presence on the scene is weakened, the legitimacy of the system will be questioned. This is what they want. They want to undermine trust to weaken participation to deprive the Islamic Republic of legitimacy. The harm inflicted by this is far worse than setting fire to buses and banks. This cannot be compared with any other loss. The enemy wants to see the people come forward in such a move and participate so enthusiastically in elections and then get told that they have made a mistake in trusting the system, the system is not trustworthy. This is what the enemy wants. They started this line (of attack) before the elections. Two to three months ago, I said in Mashhad in early Farvardin (month beginning 23 March 2009) that they (the enemy) kept repeating and drumming it in that the elections were going to be rigged. They were preparing the ground. I cautioned our good friends inside the country not to repeat the enemies' propaganda.

People trust the Islamic Republic system. This trust has not been achieved easily. The Islamic Republic, by its officials, performance and immense efforts has been able to deepen this trust in the hearts of people over the past 30 years. The enemy wants to take the trust away and dishearten people. That was another point.

The third point is about the (election) race. The race between the candidates was completely free, serious, and transparent. Everyone has witnessed that. The race, dialogues, and debates were so transparent and open that some individuals complained against that. As I will mention, they were somehow right to do so. It created some anxiety whose outcome we are witnessing.

Let me tell you something. My assumption was and is that the race between the four candidates was the race between the individuals and trends affiliated to the Islamic system. The enemies in various media, which mostly belong to the malicious and evil Zionists, tried to portray that the disputes were between the advocates and opponents of the system. No, that was not the case. How dare they say such things. It is not true. The four candidates who stepped in the field of the serious election were and are all members of the system and affiliated to it.

One of them was the president (Mahmud Ahmadinezhad) of our country, who is assiduous, deserving, and trustworthy. Another one was the prime minister for eight years (Mir-Hoseyn Musavi) during my tenure as the president. He was my prime minister for eight years. Another one was the commander of the Guards Corps (Mohsen Reza'i) for many years, and was one of the main commanders during the Holy Defense (Iran-Iraq war, 1981-1988). Another one has served as the head of the legislative pillar and the Islamic Consultative Majles (Mehdi Karrubi) for two terms. They are the members of the system. All of them belong to the system.

Of course, they have different opinions. They have different plans. They have a range of differences in their various political stances. But all of them belong to the system. All of these four people are members of the system. This race took place within the system. Despite what the Zionist radio and the radio of America and the evil Britain and others are trying to portray, it was not a race between the insiders and outsiders of the system. It was a race inside the system between the members affiliated to the system, who have such records. I know all of them closely. I am familiar with their thoughts, ideas, and traits. I have worked with them closely. I know all of them.

However, I do not accept all of the viewpoints of these gentlemen. In my view, some of their viewpoints and performances can be undoubtedly criticized. I believe that some of them can serve the country better than others. However, the people are those who should make the choice. The people have opted so (by electing Ahmadinezhad). My wish and understanding was not told to the people and it was not necessary for the people to observe it. People, based on their own criteria, have decided, moved and acted in millions here and there. Therefore, it is a domestic issue. It will be a biased and malicious move if some want to change the appearance of the issue. The dispute is not between the system and outside the system. The dispute is not between the revolution and counter-revolution. The dispute and difference is between the members who are within the framework of the system. The people who have voted for these individuals, believed in the system. The people voted for him (Ahmadinezhad) since they recognized that it would be better for the country and he is more committed to the system. They voted for the person who they thought is more capable to serve the system. People have acted within the framework of the system.

Well. The campaigns and debates were good and interesting initiatives. The debates were very open, transparent and serious. The debates were a slap in the face of those who had tried to insinuate from outside that the campaign was a trumped-up show and unreal. They realized that the debates were real and serious. The candidates came face to face and debating with each other. The debates were positive from this respect. It had positive points as well as shortcomings. I will mention both of them.

The positive side was that during these televised debates and dialogues all of them (candidates) spoke their minds transparently. A flood of criticism started and everyone had to respond. Criticism was leveled against them and they had to respond and defend themselves. Without any vagueness and complication, the stances of individuals and groups were exposed before the eyes of people. They (the candidates) expressed their policies, plans, and commitments. These were exposed before the people and the people have been able to judge. The people felt that they are not considered as aliens in the Islamic system. The country's system does not have us and them. Everything is clear for the people. All ideas were expressed to the people. It was clarified that the people's vote results from such considerations and contemplations. People's votes are not for decorative (formality) purposes. People have certainly the right to choose. People want to elect vigilantly and prudently.

The debates revealed such things. Certainly, one of the reasons that ten million more votes were cast - as compared with the previous records during the past elections - was that the people and their ideas participated on the scene. They realized the reality and stepped forward. These debates were spread to street level and houses. Such things increase people's power of choice. These kinds of debates strengthen the minds of people and increase their ability to elect. It is an appropriate thins from the viewpoint of the Islamic Republic.

Of course, I would like to make a point from here. Such debates should not lead to hostility and grudges. If it happens, it will have an opposite impact. If they remain at that stage (during the election campaign), it would be good. But if such debates are extended afterward and turn into squabbles, it will lead to grudges.

It would of course be very good to continue such debates at managerial levels. However their deficiencies - that I will refer to - should be removed. Individuals should be exposed to criticism. They should be accountable and should respond to criticism. They should clarify issues.

In many instances, criticism provides an opportunity for an individual to clarify issues and facts. But the deficiencies that I will refer to should be removed. If such debates would continue in the course of four years, then at the time of elections, debates will not create such an explosive milieu.

All what is to be said has already been said and heard during the year. Criticisms, responses are all then heard. These were the positive aspects of the debates. There were some flaws in the debates too which need to be removed.

One sometimes could see that the logical aspect of the debates became weak. Emotions sometimes prevailed and ruined things. During the debates, some tried to portray the situation as worse than it is. They even tried to question the situation during previous governments. Both were unacceptable.

Certain accusations were leveled against individuals that have never been proved anywhere. They relied on rumors. There were certain unfair statements made both against the present government with the huge volume of its service, as well as against previous governments of the past 30 years.

The gentlemen became emotional during their statements. While they raised good things, they also mentioned issues that were not acceptable.

Similar to other people in the country, I watched the debates on the TV. I enjoyed the freedom of speech. I enjoyed seeing that the Islamic Republic state has come to the assistance of the people to make a better choice.

But the negative aspect of the debates depressed me. The negative aspects of the debates and the accusations leveled were distressful. Both sides made such accusations.

During the Friday prayer sermons and the sermons which are part of the prayers I should say the truth. Both sides unfortunately made similar mistake. On the one hand, the official president of the country was insulted in the worst manner. I was receiving copies of the speeches even two to three months before the debates. I used to see the text of the speeches and hear things. Sometimes, certain accusations were leveled and statements were made against the official president of the country - the individual who relies on the votes of the people.

They wrongly accused him. They accused the president of the country - who is being trusted by the people - of being a liar. Are these good things to do? They made fake records for the government and distributed them here and there. We - who are aware of issues - see and know that they are against the truth. They insulted the president and said that he was superstitious and a fortune-teller. They accused him of such shameless attributes. They trampled on ethics, law and fairness. This was done by one side.

On this (Ahmadinezhad) side similar things were done in another manner. The 30-year outstanding record of the revolution was questioned. The names of some individuals were mentioned.

It has never been my tradition that I name names in the course of Friday Prayers. But as names have been named (during the televised debate between Musavi and Ahmadinezhad) I am compelled to give names. Especially, I have to name Mr Rafsanjani and Mr Nateq-Nuri; I have to name names. Of course, nobody has accused these gentlemen of financial corruption. As for the next of kin, anyone who is making an accusation, he has to prove it through legal channels.

Before proof, one cannot publicize these issues. If it is proved, then there are no differences between individuals in society (before the law), but before it is proven one cannot air these and make a definite charge against anyone.
When such statements are made, wrong impressions are given to the people. The youngsters believe something else and have a different take on issues.
Everyone knows Mr Hashemi (Rafsanjani). My understanding of this gentleman is not limited to after the Revolution and the responsibilities after the revolution. I've known him personally since 1957, in other words, 52 years.

Mr Hashemi was one of key figures of the movement during our struggles. He was one of the most serious militants before the revolution and after the victory of the revolution; he was one of the most effective figures of the Islamic Republic next to Imam (Khomeyni). And after the Imam passed away, he continued to be by the side of the leadership up until today. He was almost martyred on many occasions. Before the revolution, he spent his belongings and properties for the revolution and militants. Our youth should know that. He has held many positions after the revolution. He was the president for eight years and was the Speaker before that. After his presidency, he held even more positions and during all those times, we have not seen even one instance of him amassing wealth for himself from the revolution.

These are the truths which should be known. In the most sensitive time, he has always been at the service of the revolution and the system.

Of course, Mr Hashemi and I have differences of opinion on various issues, which is natural. There are different issues (over which there are differences). However, people should not harbor any illusions and think otherwise.

Of course, since the 1384 (2005) elections, there have been differences between Mr Hashemi and Mr President. The differences still continue. They have differences of opinion on foreign issues, on how to implement social justice and on certain cultural issues. The viewpoints of the President are closer to those of mine.

(Chants of slogan, God is great).

The same goes for Mr Nateq-Nuri. He is one of the sincere servants of the revolution. He, too, has rendered a great deal of services and there is no doubting his love for this system and the revolution.

Well, live TV debates are good but such damages should be avoided. At that time, after the debate, I gave a notice to the president because I knew he would listen.

As for financial corruption, the system's position is clear. Similarly, the position of the state is clear regarding social justice. We should fight corruption wherever it is. (Chants of slogan, God is great)

I want to say that we do not claim that financial corruption does not exist in our system. Yes, it does, otherwise I would have never written that 8-article guideline to the heads of the branches of power a few years ago. I would never have insisted on the guideline otherwise. Yes there is corruption. But I want to say that the Islamic Republic system is one of the healthiest political and social systems in the world today.

It will not be right if we cite a report by some Zionist centers and accuse the system of corruption. This is not right at all. Accusing officials and figures of corruption unreasonably is not right either. Financial corruption is an important issue in the Islamic Republic system and we should seriously fight it at all levels of executive, legislative and judicial branches of powers. We are all duty-bound to fight it and if it is not contained, it will spread. Many countries of the world, including Western countries, that claim to fight corruption and money-laundering, are corrupt to their core. You have all heard about the (expenses scandals in the) British government and the parliament. The whole world heard the story and those were just parts of the story, it was a lot bigger (than what you have heard).

Well now I'd like to finish my address to the Iranian nation. My dear ones, the Iranian nation, 22 Khordad was an epic election and it was registered in history, although some enemies in the world tried to undermine this definite victory lower it to a dubious and doubtable victory.

Some of them even tried to portray it as a national defeat. They wanted to sour the sweet taste in your mouth. They wanted to stop the world from registering the biggest turnout in the world in your name. They wanted to do all that, but they failed. It was registered in your name. They cannot manipulate (the result). (Chants of slogan, God is great).

The rivalry has ended. All those who voted for the four candidates are rewarded by God, God-willing. They are all part of the revolution front and belong to the system. They have even worshipped God if they voted with sincerity. The path of revolution has 40 million votes, not 24.5 million who voted for the president-elect. Some 40 million voted for the path of revolution.

People know it and some supporters of some candidates should rest assured that the Islamic Republic does not betray votes of the people. (Chants of slogan, God is great)

The legal structures for elections in our country do not leave us room for vote-rigging. Anyone who is involved in elections will know this. And they talk about a difference of 11 million votes?

Sometimes the difference is 100,000, 500,000 or even 1 million. In that case, one could say that there might have been vote-rigging, but how can they rig 11 million votes? (Chants of slogan, God is great)

At the same time, I said - and the Guardian Council agrees with me - that if there are some people who have doubts and have documents, those doubts should be investigated, of course through legal channels.

Investigations should be carried out only through legal channels. I do not submit to illegal precedents. (Chants of slogan, God is great)

Today, if legal frameworks are ignored today, there will be no guarantees for the health of the elections in the future. In every election there will be some who win and some who lose. No elections will be safe or trusted any longer (if the law is ignored). Therefore, everything should be processed and carried out based on the law. If there are really doubts, there are legal ways. The law is perfect in this respect and there are no flaws in the law, just as it has allowed the right for the candidates to supervise, complain and call for investigation. I have told the esteemed Guardian Council that if they need to recount the ballot boxes, they should do so in the presence of the representatives of candidates. They (representatives) should be present to register and sign. Therefore there are no problems in this respect. That was my point regarding the election that I wanted to tell the nation.

And now I would like to address politicians, candidates, and party leaders. I want to tell them that today marks a sensitive historic moment for the country. Take a look at the situation of the world, the Middle East, the economic situation and our neighboring countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

We are at a sensitive juncture. We are all duty-bound to be vigilant and careful at this historic juncture and make no mistakes.

In these elections the people truly performed their duty. Their duty was to come to the polls and this duty was performed in the best possible way. However, we and you have more serious duties to attend to. Those -- from politicians, heads of parties and directors of political currents -- who can exert some influence on the public and are listened to by some groups, should be very careful of their conduct. They should be very careful of what they say. If they show the slightest extremism, the repercussions will be felt by the body of the people and can lead to a very sensitive and dangerous situation which even they cannot control. We have seen examples of it. When extremism starts in a society, any extremist move can fuel other's extremism. If the political elite ignore the law, or cut off their noses to spite the face, whether they want or not, they will be responsible for the bloodshed, violence, and chaos (that will follow).

I urge old friends and brothers to be patient and keep control of yourselves. Please see the hands of the enemy. Please see the hungry wolves in ambush, who are gradually removing their mask of diplomacy and showing their true faces. Be aware of them. Today, senior diplomats of some Western countries, who addressed us diplomatically up until today, have now removed their masks. They are showing their true faces.

They are showing their enmity against the Islamic Republic system and the most evil of them is the British government. (Crowd chants "death to Britain")

I advise our brothers to think about their responsibilities before God. You are responsible before God. You will be questioned. Remember the last will and testament of the late Imam, law is the last word. We should consider law as the last word. What are the elections for? Elections are for resolving all differences at ballot boxes. It should be at the ballot boxes that it is determined what the people want and what they do not want -- not on the streets.

(Crowd chanting, God is great, Khamene'i is the leader, death to hypocrites, death to Israel).

If after every election, those who do not win start street rallies and mobilize their supporters in the streets, then those who have won start street rallies in response, then, what is the purpose of holding elections? What is the fault of the people? The people, who have businesses on the street, commute on the streets and live there. What is their sin to witness you wanting to show off your supporters, one side like this and the other side like that. For the infiltrated terrorist, the individual who intends to deal a terrorist blow, the issue is not the political aspect of the matter. What is better for him than to hide among the people, who want to hold gatherings and rallies? If such gatherings provide a cover for him, then who is responsible? Who is accountable for the death of the few people from the public and the Basij in these incidents? There will be reactions and sentiments after they (agitators) exploit the chaos and assassinate members of the Basij or the Law Enforcement Force. Who is accountable for these reactions? One's heart is torn apart when one sees such events, when one sees that they raid university dormitories and harm young students, not rioting students but the pious students, and then chant slogans in support of the leader too. One's heart is torn apart by such events. (Crowd chanting)

Street challenges after the elections are not the right thing to do. This is, in fact, challenging the principle of elections and democracy. I want everyone to end this sort of action. If they do not end it then the consequences of this lie with them (street protestors).

It is a wrong perception, please note, a wrong impression that through their street presence they will be creating a lever of pressure against the system. It is wrong to think that the officials of the system will concede out of expediency. (Chants in support from the congregants)

Giving in to demands under pressure is itself tantamount to the start of dictatorship. This calculation is wrong and if a precedent is set in this way, the behind-the-scenes commanders will also be affected. The people will come to recognize them when the opportunity presents itself. (Chants of support)

I am asking my friends and brothers to respect brotherhood, law and togetherness. The legal channels are open. The channels of love and friendship are open. You should use legal and friendly methods. I hope God helps them. They (all candidates) want the country to make progress. The 40 million-strong victory should be appreciated. Do not let the enemy come and spoil the party as indeed it is wont to do. Of course, if there are those who wish to choose a different path, then I will come and speak again to the nation but in a more explicit way.

(Crowd chanting: Dear leader, we are ready for your commands)

I am now addressing the heads of (global) arrogance and their media. In the past few weeks I have observed the behavior of the American and some European officials. I have studied their behavior before and after the election. Before the election they were questioning the election itself in order to reduce participation. However, both Europeans and Americans were able to predict the results. They still could not believe the magnitude of the turnout. They could not believe 85 percent turnout signifying some 40 million people. They were shocked. They realized what a big incident happened in Iran. They knew they had to adapt to this new situation. They were shocked at every instance, in international developments, in the Muslim world, in the nuclear issue. They knew that tables have turned. They have to accept the new realities. From here, through their agents, they continuously communicated and expressed their surprise. Those comments started from Friday (12 June) morning and we could see the feedback in the West.

But when they saw the complaints of some candidates, they realized that it could be an opportunity for them and used the opportunity to get a ride on the wave of the people. Their tone changed on Saturday and Sunday. Gradually, they saw a few popular protests, which were reportedly called by certain candidates. They started to remove their masks gradually and showed their true faces. Some foreign ministers and leaders of European states and America made some comments which revealed their true colors. The American president was quoted as saying that he expected the people of Iran to take to the streets. On the one hand, they write a letter to us to express their respect for the Islamic Republic and for re-establishment of ties and on the other hand they make these remarks. Which one of these remarks are we supposed to believe?

Inside the country, their agents were activated. Vandalism started. Sabotaging and setting fires on the streets started. Some shops were looted. They wanted to create chaos. Public security was violated. The violators are not the public or the supporters of the candidates. They are the ill-wishers, mercenaries and agents of the Western intelligence services and the Zionists.

(Crowd chanting death to America, death to Israel)

The amateurish behavior of some people inside the country made them (the West) greedy. They have mistaken Iran with Georgia. (Crowd laughing)

A Zionist-American millionaire claimed that he spent $10 million to change the regime in Georgia through a velvet revolution. This claim was published in the papers. Those fools thought the Islamic Republic is like Georgia. To which countries do you compare Iran to? The enemy's problem is that they do not yet understand the Iranian nation.

(Crowd chanting death to America, death to Israel)

The ugliest of all were the so-called caring comments of the American officials. They talked about leniency towards people. The Americans said they are worried about the mistreatment of people. (To Americans) Do you even believe in human rights? Who is responsible for all the bloodshed in Afghanistan? Who has humiliated Iraq under the boots of its military forces? Who was supporting the tyrant Zionist regime in Palestine? It is astonishing.

In the US, in a Democrat administration, when the husband of this lady who is making comments (Khamene'i refers to Bill Clinton) was in charge, more than 80 people, members of the [Branch] Davidian sect were burned alive. They cannot deny it. Democrats did it. The Davidian sect angered the American government for some reason. The followers of the Davidian sect were staging a sit-in protest in a house. The authorities asked them to come out. The Davidians refused. More than 80 men, women and children were burned alive in this house. The Americans have no understanding of human rights.

I think the American officials should take it upon themselves feel ashamed. The Islamic Republic is the flag-bearer of human rights. The way we defend the suppressed people of Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and Afghanistan shows our commitment. It shows the human rights flag is flying high in Iran. We do not need the advice of others on human rights. That was my take on the election.Finally I want to pray for the hidden Imam.

(Crowd crying)

We will fulfil our duty. We said what had to be done and we would continue. All I have is my life. I am disabled also. I will sacrifice all I have for Islam and the revolution. Our master [Hidden Imam]! Please do pray for us . . . . You are the real owner of this country and the revolution. You are our true backer. We will continue this path strongly. Please do support us."

There is another translation, which I think likely less accurate, at Paste Bay, apparently made of the Press TV broadcast of the speech, and evidently in collaboration with the Pirate Party! It seems more literal, but has several ellipses, and leaves out parts. Still, worth checking out if you're of the mind to.

More on Iranian Elections Protests

I have refrained from saying much more about the election protests, simply because there is so much going on, and it is so hard to distinguish fact from fiction from this far remove, that it seems like it is mostly a question of watching to see what will happen. That said, a few points and some footage:

Meir Javedanfar makes the very important point that the clergy of the holy city of Qom--which could be described as the main locus of Shia thinking in Iran--have yet to congratulate Ahmadinejad on his victory.

"In 2009, the silence of some of the clergy in Qom against the current crisis is deafening to the supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In an article published on the 16th of June in the pro Ahmadinejad Borna News agency, it was asked why despite the fact that President Ahmadinejad had won 24 million votes, he has still not been congratulated by some of the clergy in Qom?. Even more importantly the article asks, why is it that some of the senior clergy have not condemned the recent violence? Although the article does not mention any names, it is not difficult to guess that one such clergy is Ayatollah Sanei, who has publicly lambasted Ahmadinejad after the elections.

The behavior of the clerics is certainly out of the ordinary. Usually, within a day of a president's election, majority if not all of the 14 senior Ayatollahs of Qom congratulate the new president. Not this time."

Note that the protesters the other day marched in silence. (This is important for the further reason that the Hidden Imam--the twelfth and last Imam and future savior of mankind--has been hidden by God, but in an unseen way, silently, so to speak, influences current events.)



That's a lot of people for such relative quietude. The numbers are also important--many analysts say that all the government needs to do is to ruthlessly use the military and various intelligence and security organizations to repress the demonstrations. But when you have such large numbers of people out in the street, there's a good chance that members of each of the security units have relatives in the crowds. That would make them unlikely to randomly attack the crowds. (Which could possibly be confirmed by the stories that at night key protesters are being targeted by the security forces--comfortable with targeting the leaders of the revolt, but not the masses.)

Pepe Escobar at Asia Times reports that Rafsanjani has called for an emergency meeting of the Council of Experts in Qom.

"Article 111
Whenever the Leader becomes incapable of fulfilling his constitutional duties, or lobs one of the qualifications mentioned in Articles 5 and 109, or it becomes known that he did not possess some of the qualifications initially, he will be dismissed. The authority of determination in this matter is vested with the experts specified in Article 108."

The 86 members of Council of Experts, led by Rafsanjani, are directly elected by the people of Iran.

This footage suggests there may be some truth to the rumors that some in the security forces are acting to protect some of the protesters.



If that perception is true, it is an essential data point. And Mousavi and Karrubi both are reported to have deep ties with the Revolutionary Guard.

Of course, a situation where the armed forces are uncomfortable with attacking the protesters would be very similar to the 1979 Revolution.

Ali Akbar Dareini at the Associated Press reports that the government, via state cable news station, Press TV, has accused the US of interference in the current situation.

Outside of the question of representation and the Islamic nature of the state, the Iranian Constitution is an anti-colonial document. I have counted no less than 12 articles and sections of the constitution which are designed to prevent foreign influence--see Law and Revolution in Iran. I understand that both sides claim foreign intervention. And this is the key point--that both sides argue that they stand for the true revolution. The most compelling argument the Ahmadinejad camp will make--whoever that contains--is that the opposition candidate forces are betraying the revolution to outsiders.

In Iran the government is especially opaque, so the effect claims of foreign influence has on the population will be larger than we might estimate. Opaque governments make for a larger "black helicopter" crowd than transparent ones. Beyond that, you cannot overstate the fierce nationalism--and general feeling of aggrievement at the hand of outsiders--felt by the Iranian population at large.

(In fact, the US government has interfered in terms of acting to persuade twitter to stay open ... and the regime is very focused on controlling, as far as it can, the flow of information. The fact that so many around the world and in the US are expressing their support for the opposition lends them ammunition, but at least the regime can no longer state that it is just the government of the US that is opposed it, and not the people.)

The notion that both sides are claiming to be the true inheritors of the revolution seems bolstered by the fact that the opposition's color is green ... traditionally considered the color of Islam. The news that the national soccer team wore green wristbands is basically a big deal. Soccer is a BFD in Iran.


(An image at the WSJ.)

The National Iranian American Council helpfully translates some of Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei's ... note he is a better regarded Islamic scholar than the Leader of the Revolution Khamenei ... letter to Mousavi:

"'I was hoping that your election, with your experience and devotion to and blessings of Imam [Khomeini] and his loyal friends, would please the people of Iran. Regretfully, this did not happen. Be certain that administration of justice and respect for people’s rights and votes, which are evident in your letter, are only possible through informing all the people.'

Sanei further explained 'I am obligated to pray for you and all the men and women of this country and for the continuation of the holy objectives of Imam Khomeini’s Islamic Republic.' Sanei concluded by wishing Mousavi success with the support of the people, universities, and esteemed clergies, as well as in protecting the people’s rights."

Given the fact that the opposition is made of Old Guard revolutionaries like Karrubi, Rafsanjani, and Mousavi--see Iranian Elections cont-Why the ideas matter--I still see this movement as establishment versus establishment. It is a battle between forces which see the Republican elements of the regime as critical, and those which want to switch it to an absolutist form of government. In that vein, it is more of a question of whether we are seeing the moment when Charles shuts down Parliament for eleven years, or the end of the Long Parliament--with the declaration of loyalty to the Parliament as opposed to the King sparking the English Civil War.

If the forces that back Ahmadinejad refuse to make concessions--and appear to institute an absolutist system, the promise of the Constitution will end up being a persistent problem for the government. As Ladane Nasseri and Ali Sheikholeslami at Bloomberg reported, the people are waiting for the next signal from Khamenei to be delivered in his Friday sermon. I think it likely that concessions will be made, but, either way, it will be a critical moment ... and we should know the results by midnight PST.

More footage:

Iranian Election cont. -- Why the ideas matter

"Man is by nature a political animal." - Aristotle, Politics
-- meaning, in part, that he is a social animal. What creates social cohesion?
"Evils draw men together." - Aristotle, Rhetoric

"The true mark of success in Iran will be an election that follows due process. Politicians come and go--but a healthy, functioning and fair legal system is the people's long-term guarantee for greater human rights." – Shirin Ebadi, Iran’s Human Rights Test Washington Post, 11 June 2009

Stratfor has a decent insta-analysis on the Leader of the Revolution's [LOTR] Ayatollah Khamenei's decision to call on the Guardian Council to investigate the complaints made by the opposition candidates that the election count was falsified.

"There is precedence for such intervention by the Supreme Leader. In 2004, when the Guardian Council rejected the applications of 3,600 out of nearly 8,200 people seeking candidacy in Iran’s upcoming parliamentary elections in a blow to Khatami’s presidency, Khatami used the same language as Mousavi and his supporters are using today, calling the move a 'silent coup d’etat' by the state. Khatami and then speaker of the Majlis (Iranian Parliament) Karroubi demanded a full review of the candidate screening, and the Supreme Leader responded by ordering the Council to look into the matter and reconsider some of its decisions."

Although this is the case, there may be another reason the Guardian Council has been chosen--additional legitimacy. I say this because Iran's constitution suggests that the proper venue of inquiry into such matters would be the Judiciary, led by Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi, who is appointed by the LOTR and has already ruled the election valid.

Article 156
The judiciary is an independent power, the protector of the rights of the individual and society, responsible for the implementation of justice, and entrusted with the following duties:
1. investigating and passing judgment on grievances, violations of rights, and complaints; the resolving of litigation; the settling of disputes; and the taking of all necessary decisions and measures in probate matters as the law may determine;
2. restoring public rights and promoting justice and legitimate freedoms;
3. supervising the proper enforcement of laws; ... †

Perhaps the most proper institution for examining the validity could be the National Inspectorate General, though I do not have access to the legislation which established its powers:

"Article 174
In accordance with the right of the judiciary to supervise the proper conducting of affairs and the correct implementation of laws by the administrative organs of the government, an organization will be constituted under the supervision of the head of the judiciary branch to be known as the National General Inspectorate. The powers and duties of this organization will be determined by law."

Either way, election fraud, or the perception of it, does much to undermine the regime--and just now entrusting the head of the Judiciary with the job would probably be viewed as stacking the deck. Although half of the Guardian Council is appointed directly by the LOTR, the other half is nominated by the Majlis and as such is at least somewhat representative.

And the importance of representation to the Islamic Republic of Iran can be understated. It is worth remembering that the broad participation of the population was heralded by none other than the head of the Judiciary himself, who said on the 13th per Tehran Times:

"[The people's] participation shows the unity between the people and the system, and the people’s belief in the revolution after 30 years."

The LOTR said,

"Thank God, the people’s enthusiasm to take part in the election is very great."

Speaker of the Majlis Ali Larijani said,

"The people’s participation is due to their awareness and shows the people’s strong loyalty to the revolution."

Interior Minister Sadeq Mahsouli said,

"The enemies of our nation sought to reduce the participation of the people by spreading rumors that the election would not be fair. However, through their enthusiastic participation in the election, the people showed that they have complete trust in the election (process)."

And, obviously, the opposition--members of the establishment themselves--were looking to the turnout as a mandate. Mir-Hossein Mousavi said

"The unity which has been created among the people provides a golden opportunity for us, and we should not regard it as a threat."

Ayatollah Rafsanjani himself said,

"In my opinion, this election is one of the country’s most fateful elections."

And the government is by law a Republic:

"Article 6
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the affairs of the country must be administered on the basis of public opinion expressed by the means of elections, including the election of the President, the representatives of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and the members of councils, or by means of referenda in matters specified in other articles of this Constitution."

If the LOTR allows the results to be honored without a thorough and convincing report demonstrating that the numbers were not, in fact, cooked, then the regime loses its Constitutional basis.

Why would the LOTR, basically given nearly total power by Constitution, allow himself to be seen as a party to stealing an election and thus throwing out the basis of his rule?

It's the same question I posed a few days ago. I don't know the answer, but I suspect that a real and thorough effort will be made to legitimize this election--and should that prove impossible, the Guardian Council will rule it invalid. If that does not take place, then I suspect that we have indeed seen a coup, where the establishment has been overturned by a coalition of hard right forces.

I would add that should that prove the case, the legitimacy of the government will likely continue to be challenged unless the powers that be can truly convince a sizable plurality of the security forces and people in general to murder their countrymen with impunity. There has been footage of security forces shooting into the crowds, but that does not mean that sufficient people have been convinced to act like jackboots in defense of a totally new government structure.

Some analysts believe that the Iranian Constitution is but a farce, a shadow play behind which the real maneuvering of the political elite hides. But I suspect that the promises made in the Constitution, though compromised by the political facts on the ground in some ways, may prove to be similar to the American Declaration of Independence, which has no true legal standing, but the ideas behind which--specifically that all men are created equal--ended up leading the country to civil war, and overturning some of those compromises.

Indeed, if this is, and I believe it is, a battle between competing members of the establishment, it may resemble a civil war more so than a revolution. After all, President Ahmadinejad has Constitutional responsibilities that inform his rhetoric against corruption:

"Article 49
The government has the responsibility of confiscating all wealth accumulated through usury, usurpation, bribery, embezzlement, theft, gambling, misuse of endowments, misuse of government contracts and transactions, the sale of uncultivated lands and other resources subject to public ownership, the operation of centers of corruption, and other illicit means and sources, and restoring it to its legitimate owner; and if no such owner can be identified, it must be entrusted to the public treasury. This rule must be executed by the government with due care, after investigation and furnishing necessary evidence in accordance with the law of Islam."

And the fact that the color of the protesters is green, though it is meant to allude to the color revolutions, also happens to be the color of Islam may indicate that what the people are out in the street demonstrating for is not for a revolution, but for the implementation of the revolution ... for realizing the promise of the Constitution. Indeed, that is the key message of Shirin Ebadi's piece in the Washington Post excerpted from above--that she believes that the Constitution properly executed provides for the human rights of the people. Peruse, for example, the following rights enumerated by Iran's Constitution:

"Article 19
All people of Iran, whatever the ethnic group or tribe to which they belong, enjoy equal rights; and color, race, language, and the like, do not bestow any privilege.

Article 23
The investigation of individuals' beliefs is forbidden, and no one may be molested or taken to task simply for holding a certain belief.

Article 26
Political parties, societies, political and craft associations, and Islamic or recognized minority religious associations may be freely brought into being, provided that no violation is involved of the principles of independence, freedom, national unity, Islamic standards, and the foundations of the Islamic Republic. No person may be prevented from joining, or compelled to join, one of the above.

Article 27
Unarmed assemblies and marches may be freely organized, provided that no violation of the foundations of Islam is involved.

Article 32
No person may be arrested except according to and in the manner laid down in the law. If someone is detained, the subject matter of the charge, with reasons (for bringing it), must immediately be communicated and explained in writing to the accused. Within at most 24 hours the file on the case and preliminary documentation must be referred to the competent legal authority. Legal procedures must be initiated as early as possible. Anyone infringing this principle will be punished in accordance with the law.

Article 34
To ask for justice is the unquestioned right of every individual Everyone may refer to the competent courts in search of justice. All members of the nation are entitled to have recourse to such courts within their reach. No one may be prevented from recourse to any court to which the law entitles him to refer

Article 35
In all courts, both parties to the claim are entitled to select a lawyer for themselves. If they do not have the capacity to do this, the means of a lawyer being appointed to act for them must be made available to them.

Article 36
A sentence to punishment and its execution must only be by the decision of a competent court, and by virtue of law

Article 37
Innocence is the basic principle No person is considered legally guilty, except in cases where his guilt is established in a competent court."

And as Borzou Daragahi at the Los Angeles Times reports a protester said: "Your rights are something you take,not something you're given." (The LA Times tends to have the best big paper reporting on Iran.)

That said, every revolutionary and military thinker knows that a key step in any revolution or establishing dominance an area is to hold broadcasting, TV and radio, as well as the key transportation hubs and any armories. Times have changed from the times when you could just occupy the broadcasting towers and train station ... information dissemination has become decentralized. It is not easy to control communications in the internet age.

Not that folks aren't trying. For example, try going to Tehranbureau.com ... note that it's running off a changed address and looks awful different. I am of the understanding that internet attacks have similarly taken place against government web pages. James Cowie at renesys blog has a breakdown on service disruptions in the communications infrastructure:

"There's no question that something large happened in the Iranian telecom space, and that the timing aligns with the close of voting and the emerging controversy. Iran typically has a fairly high baseline level of sporadic route instability, due to the country's highly centralized incumbent transit through DCI (Data Communications Iran, AS12880) and DCI's somewhat peripheral connectivity to the main east-west conduits for data. Even so, we started seeing spikes of route instability (changes in the paths to Iranian IP space) starting around 08:05 UTC on Saturday (just after noon in Tehran) that were significantly larger than normally expected. These bursts affected as many as 400 prefixes (blocks of IP addresses)--the majority of Iran's Internet presence."

So it does look like this political contest could spiral out of control. And you may think my quotes from Aristotle at the top are a tad precious, but Aristotle is well-known to all senior Islamic clerics, because he forms the basis of discussion of the most important Islamic philosophers in the history of that religion. Indeed, if I understand correctly, all must learn formal Aristotelean logic. And both sides know that the ideas incorporated in their Constitution are enough to spawn a revolution. It already has.

I would hypothesize that both sides would decide that allowing an all out confrontation to emerge would not be in their interests, as both have extensive interests in the prevailing system. Thus my suspicion that we will see a real investigation and real concessions regarding the election, perhaps a recall, but you never know--perhaps the genie has left the bottle.

More footage of protests:





From Twitpic:



Tehranbureau is live blogging from Iran here.

The National Iranian American Council is also hosting translations of twitter, email, facebook, etc. accounts from Iran.

Nico Pitney at the Huffington Post is live blogging about the events.

Andrew Sullivan is as well at the Atlantic.

† I am using the translation of the IRI's Constitution hosted by the Tehran law firm--Dr. Alexander Aghayan & Associates, Inc.--here.

UPDATE: More footage via Michael Totten's blog (h/t T. Greer at the Scholar's Stage, who also had some awful nice words to say about my own efforts.)





as Totten notes, folks so far appear to be facing down threats from the security forces ... & on that note:

Iranian Elections cont.

The National Iranian American Council is live-blogging the situation in Iran, and providing helpful translations of twitter accounts.

A photo from Shahram Sharif on flikr.



My two cents:

It is hard to tell from this remove, but clearly many in Iran believe that the election has been tampered with. There is talk of a coup ... but it would be in this sense: that the Constitution of Iran has been overturned, but the power structure that allegedly has replaced it remains an open question.

The Leader of the Revolution [LOTR] has endorsed the results, which is, at least on the surface odd, given that the LOTR derives his legitimacy from the Constitution. (In fact, he is supposed to derive it both from the process outlined in the Constitution and his impeccable Islamic credentials, but as a matter of fact Ayatollah Khamenei does not have particularly strong credentials as a world-class Shia cleric. So, in fact, he only derives his legitimacy from the process outlined in the Constitution ... the rest is just power politics.)

So, why would the LOTR endorse the results of an election which appears to contravene the provisions in the Constitution which call for democratic election of a President from a slate of candidates chosen by committees whose members themselves are mostly selected by the LOTR himself? It's a good question and I don't pretend to know the answer.

It may be that the folks in charge now are a loose coalition of hard right paramilitaries, essentially the Revolutionary Guard led, at least figuratively, by Ahmadinejad. But that seems too pat an answer for Iran ... cause if it was true of Russia, it is true of Iran, that it is an enigma, wrapped in a riddle, surrounded by mystery. The political process over there is opaque, and appears to have just become more so.

But folks over there are saying they haven't seen forces like this unleashed since the 1979 revolution. If that's true, the forces behind Ahmadinejad's selection may not be able to control the situation. (Iran is not Tehran; Tehran is to Iran as New York City is to the US. And a primary locus of the 1978-9 revolution was ... Tehran.) We shall see.

The BBC has footage of violent clashes in Tehran.

My 2¢ on the Iranian Election Tomorrow: thoroughly "Iranic"

Many commentators have noted that the way the Presidential contest in Iran is being portrayed is somewhat anachronistic--in terms of reformers versus conservatives or right versus left. (See, for example, Greg Scoblete's post at The Compass, Kevin Sullivan's post also at the Compass, Mahmoud Sadri's post at Iranian.com, Maziar Bahari's piece in Newsweek, and Borzou Daragahi's article in the Los Angeles Times.)

My two cents:

Both candidates are revanchist--in the sense that the Islamic Republic of Iran's Constitution itself is revanchist, meaning a "political policy, as of a nation or an ethnic group, intended to regain lost territory or standing." The Constitution is explicitly anti-colonialist, calling for self-reliance and attempting to ensure an absence of outside interference.

All candidates for the Presidency must be vetted by the Guardian Council. Half of the members of the Guardian Council itself are directly appointed by the Leader of the Revolution [LOTR], half are chosen by the Chief of the Judiciary (different from the Minister of Justice) who himself was appointed by the LOTR and confirmed by the Majlis (Iranian Parliament), candidacy for which is also approved by the Guardian Council. (For a long piece on Iran's Constitution, and why reformers see it as a potential means of providing for human rights in Iran, contra the establishment, see Law and Revolution in Iran.)

Iranian politics thus do not fit the mold of left versus right as in the West, or even really reformist versus conservative. There is the establishment, and then there is the slightly less establishment.

What Ahmadinejad is is a populist anti-establishmentarian--he is taking on the old guard of the Revolution. He has replaced senior officials in all branches of the Executive with his own guys--the people he replaced mostly got their jobs due to political connections with the Old Guard. One of his most radical moves was to completely replace the senior diplomatic staff of the government. His constant refrain is to argue against the "corruption" of the old Guard--indeed, the recent kerfuffle with Rafsanjani--see Daily Sources 6/10 #8--is mostly about his accusation that Mousavi is backed by the "corrupt" elements of the old Guard, personified by the "puppet master," Rafsanjani. He's a caudillo wanna-be, greatly limited by the Constitution's emphasis on the LOTR and various institutions designed to guarantee the Islamic nature of the government.

Mousavi is the old guard, a previous prime minister, tied in with the Revolutionary Guard, the bonyad system†, and backed by Rafsanjani--he is the establishment choice, which is why he might be the first presidential candidate to unseat the incumbent in the history of Iranian presidential elections.

Thus, it might be somewhat ironic that some in the West appear to be excited about Mousavi, when Ahmadinejad, awful and obnoxious as he is, is the candidate who threatens to overturn part of the power structure there. Mousavi will likely make less anti-Semitic comments in the press, seem more reasonable, return the Old Guard's picks to their places in government, and, as such, be resolutely less populist than Ahmadinejad--as Ahmadinejad's views, though horrific, do have currency throughout much of the Middle East.

Thus, strange as it is to say, Ahmadinejad is the candidate of change, though much of that change would be expressed in ways that we are uncomfortable with. But it is change that could weaken the existing power structure. If he were able to grab more power, he would certainly continue to make efforts to undermine the existing power structure, unlike Mousavi--and likely make the Iranian system weaker and more malleable in the future.

(Of course, enthusiasm in the West for Mousavi might undermine his candidacy, because it could be interpreted as a sign that he the West's choice, and potential tool.)

Iranic ... if you will ... ain't it?

† One key element of the Old Guard is the "bonyad system"--charitable trusts which represent as much as 20% of Iranian non-petroleum GDP, and which are all directly answerable to the LOTR.

UPDATES:

Juan Cole at Informed Comment notes that some neo-cons are openly rooting for a Ahmadinejad win. I just want to make it plain that though I think that Ahmadinejad would do more to weaken the regime than Mousavi, I do not truck with the neocons.

Cole also links to an interesting and detailed analysis by Walter Posch via the Middle East Institute.

Gary Sick--one of our country's most insightful Iran analysts--notes that Rafsanjani's letter is unprecedented and asks if the LOTR, and the rest of the establishment has found that it has lost control of events on the ground:

"Thus far, Khamene`i has remained utterly silent in the face of Rafsanjani’s direct challenge to him to act or else risk the future of the Islamic system. Whatever Khamene`i decides to do – facilitate a possibly unfair election of Ahmadinejad, encourage the more liberal opposition, or simply do nothing – he is at risk of being unveiled as quite an ordinary man whose powers are anything but magical and who has no answers to the tumultuous uncertainties generated by an election that is assuming historic importance.

No one in Iran appears to be fully in control of events that have a potential to mark a turning point in the history of the Islamic revolution."

Al Jazeera reports that the head of the Revolutionary Guards has reacted to the large number of people on the street by issuing a statment warning that a velvet/color revolution will be put down:

"'There are many indications that some extremist [reformist] groups, have designed a colorful revolution ... using a specific color for the first time in an election,' the statement said.

Calling that a 'sign of kicking off a velvet revolution project in the presidential elections', Javani vowed that any 'attempt for velvet revolution will be nipped in the bud'."

The text of Rafsanjani's open letter to the LOTR via TehranBureau.

Shirin Ebadi's op ed in the Washington Post where she says:

"I am often asked about the elections, but what I think about who should win doesn't really matter. As a lawyer and as someone who has spent my career fighting for and within the Iranian legal system, I am more concerned with the legality of the protection of human rights within Iran. The true mark of success in Iran will be an election that follows due process. Politicians come and go -- but a healthy, functioning and fair legal system is the people's long-term guarantee for greater human rights. "

Law and Revolution in Iran

Following up on my last blog on the lawyers revolt in Pakistan, I thought it might be interesting to take a look at the theocracy in Iran. Lawyers in that country are using the legal framework of that country to challenge the government's abuses of authority. Why? Given that it is a totalitarian state, what would be the point? I conclude that by taking seriously the rights established by the Constitution in Iran the lawyers are pursuing a threat that could eventually establish a more open and amicable state. And that conclusion suggests an entirely different approach to dealing with Iran than any I have encountered before.

"The law is the will of he who the sherriff will obey." -- Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

"In Islam, the legislative power and competence to establish laws belong exclusively to God Almighty." -- Leader of the Revolution Ruhollah Musawi Khomeini

SHIRIN EBADI

Last week, Shirin Ebadi, nobel laureate, prominent human rights activist and constitutional lawyer in Iran complained that the death threats against her and her family had recently increased in volume and intensity.(1) The very next day the President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, ordered the police to ensure the security of Mrs. Ebadi and get to the bottom of who was behind the trouble.(2) On the same day, the chief of police of Tehran was arrested after being caught at a brothel--this was a man who instigated a crackdown on immodestly dressed women just last year.(3)

Mrs. Ebadi is no friend to the current regime in Iran. She was one of the first female judges in that country and was forced to step down when the revolution took place. She is a prominent activist who has pushed for women's rights in that country as well as taken the cases of many dissidents--and as a result has been imprisoned many times. She is a reformer, who believes that the general principles of universal human rights are compatible with Islamic doctrine. She believes that the current regime has perverted the message of Islam for their own ends.(4)

Why, you might ask, would the revanchiste administration of Iran expend valuable manpower and cash on protecting one of their most prominent opponents? Part of the answer is that it would be extremely embarrassing if one of the most celebrated children of Iran were assassinated. Probably best not to let that happen. But I believe there is something else going on here, a process which has similarities to the ongoing lawyers revolt in Pakistan that I wrote about in my last blog.

LAW AND THE SHIA STATE

The Iranian government is probably unique in that it has so many institutions responsible for the making and interpretation of laws. It is almost certainly unique in that the Constitution provides for a legal authority superior to itself, the Koran--and thereby extends legal authority to people outside the government and even outside the country itself!

As I pointed out in my previous blog, one of the key preoccupations of Islam is the establishment of a rules-based society. The Koran and various other texts are consulted by clerics in order to determine what is permissable in just about every facet of life. Legal decision-making, interpretation, and argument is central to the life of a Muslim cleric.

One of the contentious doctrines of Shi'a jurisprudence is the guardianship of the Islamic Jurists or Velayat-e Faqih.(5) There are various takes on the doctrine, but it dates back to the 19th century and has as one of its doctrinal premises a hadith(6)--a recorded saying of prophet Muhammad which is not in the Koran--which states "the fuqaha [experts in Islamic jurisprudence](7) are the trustees of the prophets."(8)

This doctrine is the very bedrock of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In 1970, Ruhollah Khomenei's book Islamic Government: Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist (Hokumat-e Islami: Velayat-e faqih) was published arguing that the country's ruler should be someone who "surpasses all others in knowledge" of Islamic law and justice.(9)

And that is what was the revolution established in Iran. Chapter VIII, Article 110, of the Constitution ordained that the Leader of the Revolution (aka Supreme Leader)(10) would have very broad powers over pretty much every element of the government.(11)

This sounds totalitarian. And indeed it is.

The Iranian Constitution is modeled in many ways on the constitution of the Fifth Republic of France, which was created under de Gaulle in order to give more power to the executive.(12) It gives some lip service to rights generally established in Western Democracies, but nearly all of these rights are limited by whether or not they are in accordance with Islamic principles. Chapter III, article 40, provides that:

No one is entitled to exercise his rights in a way injurious to others or detrimental to public interests.(13)

Of course, the government decides what is in the public interest and so decides when it is OK to exercise your Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

However, there are some meaningful checks and balances written into the Iranian Constitution--and they all have to do with who gets to decide what is in accordance with Islamic law and custom.

There are no fewer than five institutions within the Iranian government that are charged with determining the law.

One: The Legislature, also known as the Majlis or the Islamic Consultative Assembly, which is democratically-elected and charged with writing the laws of the land.

Two: The "head of the Judiciary," who must be a Mujtahid--or Islamic scholar competent to interpret divine law in practical situations(14)--and is appointed by the Leader of the Revolution for a five year term. He is charged with the appointment of judges, their promotion or demotion, the drafting of judiciary bills, and the organizational structure of the judiciary as a whole. It should be noted that the judiciary is also charged with investigating as well as prosecuting criminal behavior, in conjunction with the Executive. The head of the judiciary also runs the National General Inspectorate, which is charged with ensuring the "correct implementation of laws" by the Administration.(15)

Three: the Supreme Court, which is responsible for overseeing "the correct implementation of the laws by the courts" and "ensuring uniformity of judicial procedure." The Chief Justice of the Iranian Supreme Court is chosen by the head of the judiciary in consultation with the members of the court.(16) One is appointed a member of the Supreme Court by the head of the judiciary--not by the Leader nor the President.

Four: the Guardian Council, which is charged with determining whether any bill passed by the Majlis is compatible "with the criteria of Islam and the Constitution."(17) There are 12 members of the Guardian Council. Six fuqaha, or experts in Islamic jurisprudence, are selected by the Leader of the Revolution. Six are jurists, experts in various spheres of the law, elected by the Majlis, subject to approval by the Head of the Judiciary. Members serve six year terms.

A bill submitted by the Majlis must pass by majority vote of the six religious jurisprudential experts (fuqaha) in the Guardian Council if it is to be deemed compatible with Islam and thus enacted into law. For a bill to be deemed compatible with the Constitution, a majority of all members of the Council is required.(18) Furthermore, all "interpretation" of the Constitution is the sole province of the Guardian Council, where a three-fourths majority is required in order to pass as authoritative.(19) (Moreover, the Guardian Council supervises all elections and referenda, and determines the eligibility of all candidates for elective office.)(20)

Five: the Exigency Council (aka Expediency Discernment Council), which is responsible for resolving any situation where the Guardian Council and Majlis disagree and the Leader of the Revolution feels it necessary to call them in to decide the dispute. The Exigency Council is wholly appointed by the Leader of the Revolution.(21)

There are two other governmental institutions which, I think, must also be considered important authorities determining the law of the land in Iran.

The Leader of the Revolution is responsible for "deliniating the general policies of the government and has the power to summarily dismiss the Head of the Judiciary and the six fuqaha members of the Guardian Council.

The Assembly of Experts is responsible for determining who will be the next Leader of the Revolution and may, given the right circumstances, dismiss him.(22) Theoretically, this could mean that the Assembly oversees the Leader in some way, but there is no evidence of such oversight on public record. Its 86 members are democratically elected to eight year terms, after candidates have been vetted by the Guardian Council.(23)

Depending on how you see it, then, in Iran there are five to seven different governmental authorities empowered to determine the law. None is truly independent of all the others, though the Leader and the Assembly of Experts are nearly completely autonomous.

Although the Leader has a great amount of indirect influence over official legal interpretation, he is not, in fact, directly involved in law making or even its interpretations. All of this work is delegated or in the hands of elected officials. This might seem strange, given the character of the revolutionary constitution.

But in practical terms, at the time of the Revolution, it made no difference. Ayatolla Ruholla Khomeini had pretty much unchallenged authority to interpret the Koran inside Iran itself.

Indeed, Khomeini is the only person in the history of Iran to be referred as an Imam outside of what have been traditionally considered the twelve rightful successors to Muhammad.

Imams in Shi'a belief "are possessed of supernatural knowledge, authority, and freedom from any error and sin."(24)

And this, I think, is the key to the puzzle: the reason Khomeini was comfortable delegating the power to interpret these laws is because he had reason to believe he would remain in complete control of the situation.

His power was safeguarded by the Constitution, and especially in Article 2:

The Islamic Republic is a system based on belief in:
1.the One God (as stated in the phrase "There is no god except Allah"), His exclusive sovereignty and the right to legislate, and the necessity of submission to His commands;
2.Divine revelation and its fundamental role in setting forth the laws;(25)

Khomeini said it all in 1979: "`since I have appointed [the Prime Minister], he must be obeyed.` It was `God's government,` he warned, disobedience against which was a `revolt against God.`"(26)

But the current Leader of the Revolution Ali Khamenei does not weild this religious authority. Far from it. And thus the Constitutional structure does not support his overweening influence over the affairs of the country in the way it did Khomeini.

REVOLUTION AND COMPROMISE

Khomeini's notion of the guardianship of the Islamic jurist is actually fairly controversial in the Shia community. At the time of the Revolution only one other Grand Ayatolla in Iran (out of about 12) held it to be compatible with scripture: Grand Ayatolla Hossein Ali Montazeri.(27)

And Montazeri was Khomeini's original choice as successor to the post of the Leader of the Revolution. In 1983, the Assembly of Experts designated him the official successor. But Montazeri fell out with Khomeini, and in particular criticized the government for the executions carried out after the Revolution as well as Khomeini's death warrant for Salman Rushdie. In 1989, Khomeini denounced Montazeri who thus lost his position as designated successor.(28)

The current Leader of the Revolution--Ayatolla Seyyed Hosseini Khamenei--did not have the religious credentials originally required by the Iranian Constitution for the highest post.(29) He only attained the title of Ayatolla--not Grand Ayatolla--by virtue of being elected Leader.(30) In fact, the Constitution was amended three months before Grand Ayatolla Ruhollah Khomeini's death to no longer require a candidate for the post of Leader of the Revolution be a supreme theological authority.(31) And Khamenei's selection caused some dissention amongst senior clerics who were better qualified from a religious perspective, including, unsurprisingly, Montazeri.(32)

Khamenei was a compromise candidate and his ascention was due to his political perspicacity and not his religious authority. This has created a situation where, at least theoretically, there are many authorities on the Koran who could make actions by the government unconstitutional, merely by ruling them contrary to the Koran. A strange situation to be in indeed.

At this moment, such a ruling from inside the country would likely be met with immediate arrest and character assassination in the state press. Any Ayatolla who in the sanctum of his conscience believes that the state has overstepped the bounds of Islamic Law must, perforce, walk quietly. Khamenei is firmly in charge there.

But there are Grand Ayatollas that live outside of Iran--beyond the long arm of the law, so to speak.

IRAN AND THE OTHER

It bears repeating that Iranians hold the United States responsible for the installation of the Shah and the overthrow of the democratically-elected government of Mohammad Mossadeq in 1953. The Revolution in 1979 was in a way a revolution against the American colonizer, the Shah being seen as a mere proxy for the US.

Moreover, many Iranians believe that the United States was a strong supporter an instigator of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88, where the Iranians lost an estimated one million people.(33) In any case, although I can only offer anecdotal evidence of this, to a great extent Iranians blame their historical woes on the pernicious efforts of outsiders--from the Arab invasion of the 7th century to the colonizing efforts of Britain, Russia, and ultimately, in their view, of the United States.

It was an explicit goal of the Revolution in 1979 to rid Iran of just such outside influences. For example, Article 3 of the Iranian Constitution stipulates that "the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran has the duty of directing all its resources to the following goals," goal five is "the complete elimination of imperialism and the prevention of foreign influence" and goal 13 is "the attainment of self-sufficiency in scientific, technological, industrial, agricultural, and military domains, and other similar spheres."(34)

The first two sentences of Article 9 hold that:

"In the Islamic Republic of Iran, the freedom, independence, unity, and territorial integrity of the country are inseparable from one another, and their preservation is the duty of the government and all individual citizens. No individual, group, or authority, has the right to infringe in the slightest way upon the political, cultural, economic, and military independence or the territorial integrity of Iran under the pretext of exercising freedom."(35)

There are no less than 12 articles and sections of the Constitution concerned with eliminating and preventing outside influence.(36) This indicates to me a certain preoccupation with the issue.

I think it is clear that currently Iranians feel that they are in the crosshairs of a powerful outside influence--the United States.
A recent survey by WorldPublicOpinion.org which polled Iranian citizens on a variety of subjects found that 64% of Iranian respondents thought the United States was purposefully trying "to humiliate" the Islamic world. 55% believe that US bases in the Middle East are a threat to Iran. (This number is down from December 2006, when 73% had that perception--perhaps because it is widely perceived that American power has been depleted by our involvement in Iraq.)(37) 71% think it is "definitely" America's goal "to maintain control over the oil resources of the Middle East."(38) 65% of Iranians believe that the United States controls "most" or "nearly all" of the world.(39)

In other words, "the Great Satan" controls most or nearly all of the world. Not an ideal situation.

This might explain the rather high levels of support for the government the survey found in Iran. When asked whether they were satisfied with the direction the country was going in, 65% of Iranians were.(40) 74% of Iranians apparently trust the national government to do "what is right." 64% of Iranians are satisfied with Iran's foreign relations. 63% responded that they thought President Amadinejad had improved Iran's overall national security!(41)

One would be forgiven for having some misgivings about the responses to such highly charged questions in a poll conducted in a country where frank opposition to the government is unsafe. Nonetheless, this is the data we have, and even if you discount a portion of the responses, it does seem that there is widespread support for the government and its policies--much more than any government is likely to require to perpetuate itself.

So while it may be that the Iranian Revolution has betrayed most of its promises, the Iranians may well feel inclined to express strong support for their government as the most capable of resisting foreign domination--and when the meddling of foreigners needs to be dealt with immediately. That would be my guess, in any case.

IRAQ

There has been a lot of ink spilled on how the invasion of Iraq has created a "shi'ite crescent," increasing Iran's influence via their solidarity and credibility with the Shia's of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and the Gulf nations.(42) Perhaps this is so, but the influence can potentially go in both directions.

Grand Ayatolla Ali Sistani is the most prominent Shia cleric in Iraq, based in Najaf.(43) Najaf is a particularly important city in terms of Iran for two reasons: it is the home of the Imam Ali Mosque, the third holiest site in Shia Islam, and it is where Ruholla Khomeini spent most of his time in exile from the Shah's regime. It is where he wrote Islamic Government: Authority of the Jurist.(44)

There is a long tradition of dissent in Shi'a Islam, and, Najaf has been at points in its history one of its foci. In fact, Ali Sistani is a much more highly regarded religious authority than the current Leader of the Revolution in Iran, Ali Khamenei. And Grand Ayatolla Ali Sistani is on the record as ruling that the concept of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist as it is expressed in Iran is contrary to his understanding of Islam.(45)

Ali Sistani--like most Iraqi clerics--is extremely uncomfortable with the US presence in Iraq and does not want to be associated with the United States in any way.(46) I think it is fair to say that any association with the United States would taint his reputation. Also, as long as the United States is in Iraq, Iran remains a powerful counterbalance to our influence there--something that Sistani likely considers useful.

But this is also tricky business for the Iranians. For example, in the recent fighting between the Mahdi Army and US (and Iraqi government) forces, the Iranians backed the Iraqi government--and by extension the US.(47) The Mahdi Army is led by Muqtada al-Sadr, who is also on record as being against the Iranian expression of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. His version of an Islamic government would to all intents and purposes gut the role of the supreme religious authority.(48) Sadr is the head of an effective military force in Iraq--unlike Sistani--and studying to be an Ayatollah (he is currently just an Hojatoleslam(49), or what the Ali Khamenei's religious rank was just prior to his elevation to Leader.) And though it is much more complicated than that, I see why Iran would be uncomfortable with the rise of another religious authority next door who happened to be in charge of a military organization and explicitly against their form of government.

Ali Sistani would in some ways be more of a concern to me were I in charge of Iran. If Iraq were to stabilize and his influence grew, his interpretations could be seen as a challenge to the constitutionality of the Iranian Constitution itself. There have been unsubstantiated rumors of assassination attempts on Sistani's life. If one were to ask who benefits from such a deed, there are a number of answers, but it ain't the US, and Iran potentially would.

Either way, there are plenty of religious authorities in Iraq, and the view generally held in Najaf is contrary to the Khomeini interpretation of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist. They have credibility in Iran. And if the US were to leave Iraq, this credibility could grow. And if the guy the sherriff in Iran will obey ends up being a cleric in Iraq--as in 1979--then the government in Iran has a real problem. After all, there are already significant religious authorities in Iran, like Montazeri, who are against Khomeini's interpretation of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist.

REVOLUTION COMPROMISED

And the fact of the credibility of religious authorities in Iraq is a problem for Iran, not just because the Leader of the Revolution has less, but because the Iranian Revolution, like most, cannot make good on its many and various promises.

It promises a lot.

It promises equal rights, regardless of color or sex.(50) The investigation into a person's personal beliefs is forbidden.(51) Freedom of expression is guaranteed.(52) Freedom of association is as well.(53) Social security, free education, and housing are all guaranteed.(54) Innocence is presumed, the right to a fair trial and counsel affirmed, and torture is prohibited by the Iranian Constitution.(55)

There are many more. And as I pointed out above, most of these rights are qualified with exceptions which provide for instances where the law can curtail these privleges. The Iranian government has made good use of those qualifiers. But, there is another important protection in sentence three, Article 9 of the Constitution:

"no authority has the right to abrogate legitimate freedoms, not even by enacting laws and regulations for that purpose, under the pretext of preserving the independence and territorial integrity of the country. "(56)

The Iranian government has arguably done that ... more than once. And this particular article is unalterable under the current Constitution.

PROMISES MATTER

Why would the Byzantine intricacies of Shi'a theology and law make any difference on the ground in Iran?

The history of the US might be a useful guide. Our own revolution declared as self-evident that all men are created equal. Of course, the US Constitution was a compromise which allowed for the slavery of a portion of the human race. And the movement which cried out most bitterly about the contraditions therein was originally and primarily a religious movement, led by Quakers and refreshed by the Great Awakening in the 1830s.(57)

William Garrison, the most celebrated abolitionist of his time, is said to have called the Constitution a "covenant with death and an agreement with hell." Here was his argument in his own words:

"No body of men ever had the right to guarantee the holding of human beings in bondage. Who or what were the framers of our government, that they should dare confirm and authorize such high-handed villany – such a flagrant violation of all the precepts and injunctions of the gospel — such a savage war upon a sixth of our whole population? —They were men, like ourselves – as fallible, as sinful, as weak, as ourselves. By the infamous bargain which they made between themselves, they virtually dethroned the Most High God, and trampled beneath their feet their own solemn and heaven-attested Declaration, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights ...."(58)

It is clear that it was a powerfully effective argument. And, after all, that was a great part of the justification of the Iranian Revolution in the first place, the Shah's compact with us--"the Great Satan." I think they ignore such contradictions at their own risk.

From my distant remove, that is what I think Mrs. Shirin Ebadi and her ilk are up to. They may provide some credibility to the regime by taking their promises seriously, but it is by seriously exploring the contradictions within the Constitution and its application by the government, that dissenters are able to undermine the credibility of the regime itself. Efforts by the regime to reconcile the Constitution with the needs of the day will make for more and more convoluted compromises. It is a slow process. But it is a likely one, and likely inevitable as well.

Just as our Constitution had contradictions that required an eventual shaking out, so does the Constitution of Iran.

WHAT CAN THE US DO?

Proactively? Not much, in my view. Any backing by the US of these efforts in Iran or clerical authorities in Iraq would only undermine the credibility of those we are trying to support. Calls for such efforts are misguided.(59) The US is the third rail of politics in Iran--and probably in Iraq as well. Our favorable ratings throughout the Middle East are--as I pointed out in an earlier blog--very very low. Though we should complain loudly when obvious human rights violations are taking place, we should do as much as possible to maintain a distance from those elements that we believe might produce positive change in Iran.

Furthermore, as long as we are in Iraq and have troops in the Middle East, we are providing the cover that the theocracy in Iran needs to continue as it has. We actually diminish the chances of an outcome of the debate in Iran which is in our interests--and the Middle East generally--by being so directly involved in the affairs of the region simply because we seem threatening.

Obviously, given the energy needs of the US, Europe, India, China, and Japan, American security guarantees are going to be an ongoing concern. But the notion of long-term bases in the region is likely a mistake, given the evolution of the debate there. Germany, Japan, and South Korea were one thing, this is quite another. We would best be served by limiting or getting rid altogether of our military presence in the region.

The exception to this is Afghanistan. We cannot afford to let Afghanistan slip back into chaos or under Taliban control. Interestingly, Iran would likely be a tactical ally in our efforts against the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Administration has denied that there has been any cooperation between Iranian and American special forces in Afghanistan, but members of the Iranian parliament have mentioned it(60), and Shias are not regarded as Muslim by the Taliban.(61) My suspicion is that such cooperation has in fact occured. I also suspect that it is difficult territory for the Iranian leadership, as cooperation with "the Great Satan" seems contrary to the whole meaning of the Revolution--and thus should be encouraged!

It has also been suggested that we ought to engage Iran, and try and bring about a "grand bargain."(62) Much as I respect and admire the various realist luminaries, such as Flynt Leverett, Tom Pickering, and others who support the idea, I suspect pursuing one is not likely to be productive. At each moment when the Iranians and the Americans have sat down to talk about this possibility, one side or the other has backed out. As I wrote above, I believe the Iranians need us as adversaries in order to perpetuate their regime ... and any attempted bargain with the United States exposes an Iranian politician to dangerous criticism in Iran itself. I believe it would make more sense to simply agree to talk to the Iranians when they want to, establish an embassy in Tehran should they ask for one, but pursue a wait and see policy where we would only agree to Iranian proposals if there existed clear advantages to us.

I believe that our embargo of Iran should be carefully reconsidered as well. It is likely that the embargo has a negative effect upon the development of the energy industry in Iran. I do not believe that this is in our best interests, as less oil in tight markets means exponentially higher oil prices. Lifting the embargo on Iranian oil wouldn't make much of a change, but allowing for financing may well end up making their industry more productive, which will bring down the price of oil and natural gas somewhat, over the long term.

Moreover, it is not clear to me that trying to weaken the economy in Iran is likely to produce change in the government there. There is the old example of Cuba, which, though it has been subject to an embargo much more effective than any possible with Iran, has safely perpetuated the communist regime for over 50 years.

I think that the J-curve theory of social revolutions is more likely. First proposed by James Davies in 1972, the J-curve theory of social revolutions argues that it is after first an increase in economic well-being which produces certain expectations, and then a political and economic drop in well-being, widening the gap between expectation and reality, that revolutions occur.(63) I expect that such economic well-being, combined with critical evaluation of the Revolution's promise and an absence of a outsider threat to cover the regime's broken promises is the twist of fate we are waiting on. I do not think that the embargo should just be abandoned unilaterally--we should wait on a good opportunity, where we can wrest some advantage from it. But I think it should be on the table.

(1) Iranian Nobel Laureate Complains of Death Threats, RFE/RL Newsline, Tuesday, April 15, 2008, Volume 12, Number 71
(2) Iran's Ahmadinejad orders police to protect Ebadi, AFP, Tue Apr 15, 9:55 AM ET
3) Chief of police for Tehran was arrested, Iran confirms, by Nazila Fathi, International Herald Tribune, April 16, 2008
(4) The Nobel Foundation's Nobel Peace Prize Biography of Shirin Ebadi
(5) Wikipedia: Ja'fari jurisprudence
(6) For a discussion of the Hadith, see Wikipedia: Hadith. Basically they are stories about Prophet Muhammad which were passed down orally until they were finally put to paper two or three hundred years after his death. In a way there are similar to the Apocrypha of Christianity, except that they are regularly and generally consulted as clarifications of the meaning of the Koran and what is therefore halaal, i.e. kosher or permitted, and haraam, that is, forbidden.
(7) Fuqaha is the plural of Faqih--an expert in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), see a discussion of the term at Wikipedia: Faqih and Wikipedia: Fiqh.
(8) Wikipedia: Guardianship of the Islamic Jurists
(9) Wikipedia: Hokumat-e Islami : Velayat-e faqih
(10) Actually in the Constitution the position of the Supreme Leader is referred to as "the Leader of the Revolution" or just plain "Leader." See Wikipedia: Supreme Leader of Iran
(11) from the translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran at International Constitutional Law database hosted by Bern University in Switzerland:

Article 110 [Leadership Duties and Powers]
(1) Following are the duties and powers of the Leadership:
1. Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation's Exigency Council.
2. Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system.
3. Issuing decrees for national referenda.
4. Assuming supreme command of the Armed Forces.
5. Declaration of war and peace and the mobilization of the Armed Forces.
6. Appointment, dismissal, and resignation of:
a. the religious men on the Guardian Council,
b. the supreme judicial authority of the country,
c. the head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
d. the chief of the joint staff,
e. the chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, and
f. the supreme commanders of the Armed Forces.
7. Resolving differences between the three wings of the Armed Forces and regulation of their relations.
8. Resolving the problems which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation's Exigency Council.
9. Signing the decree formalizing the election of the President of the Republic by the people. The suitability of candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, with respect to the qualifications specified in the Constitution, must be confirmed before elections take place by the Guardian Council, and, in the case of the first term of a President, by the Leadership.
10. Dismissal of the President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89.
11. Pardoning or reducing the sentences of convicts, within the framework of Islamic criteria, on a recommendation from the Head of judicial power.

(2) The Leader may delegate part of his duties and powers to another person.

(12) My previous piece on Venezuela points out that the party that first brought Chavez to power was known as the "Fifth Republic Movement"--the kinship between Venezuela and Iran is actually a bit deeper than people usually suspect. (Venezuela, of course, was the country behind the establishment of OPEC.)
(13) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, hosted by Iran online.
(14) Wikipedia: Ijtihad
(15) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter XI, Articles 156-8, and 174, hosted by Iran online.
(16) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter XI, Articles 161-4, at International Constitutional Law database hosted by Bern University in Switzerland. (Perhaps due to the amendment of the Constitution in 1989, Iran online's version of the document does not at the moment include Article 163.)
(17) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter VI, Section 2, Article 94, hosted by Iran online.
(18) Article 96
(19) Article 98 (I do not know how this operates in practice, but it is a tremendous amount of authority, theoretically speaking.)
(20) Article 99
(21) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter VIII, Article 112
(22) Article 111
(23) Wikipedia: Assembly of Experts
(24) Wikipedia: Imamah
(25) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter I, Article 1, hosted by Iran online.
(26) Wikipedia: Ruhollah Khomeini
(27) Wikipedia: Ruhollah Khomeini
(28) Wikipedia: Grand Ayatolla Hossein- Ali Montazeri
(29) Reading Khamenei: the World View of Iran's Most Powerful Leader, by Karim Sadjadpour, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, March 2008, p. 11
(30) Wikipedia: Ali Khamenei
(31) Iran Online: The Leadership
(32) Wikipedia: Ali Khamenei
(33) Wikipedia: Iran-Iraq War
(34) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter I (General Principles), Article 3, hosted by Iran online.
(35) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter I (General Principles), Article 9, hosted by Iran online.
(36) The 9 others are: Article 43, section 8, of the Iranian Constitution holds that insofar as the economy goes, it is the duty of the government to [prevent] "foreign economic domination over the country's economy." Cf: English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter IV.
Article 78 holds that "All changes in the boundaries of the country are forbidden;" Article 81: "The granting of concessions to foreigners for the formation of companies or institutions dealing with commerce, industry, agriculture, services or mineral extraction, is absolutely forbidden;" and Article 82 "The employment of foreign experts is forbidden, except in cases of necessity and with the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. Cf: (46) English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter VI, Part 2.
Article 145 stipulates that "No foreigner will be accepted into the Army or security forces of the country." Article 146 "The establishment of any kind of foreign military base in Iran, even for peaceful purposes, is forbidden." Cf: English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter 9, Part 3.
Article 152 states:

"The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is based upon the rejection of all forms of domination, both the exertion of it and submission to it, the preservation of the independence of the country in all respects and its territorial integrity, the defence of the rights of all Muslims, non-alignment with respect to the hegemonist superpowers ...."

Article 153 continues with "Any form of agreement resulting in foreign control over the natural resources, economy, army, or culture of the country, as well as other aspects of the national life, is forbidden." English translation of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Chapter X (Foreign Policy), hosted by Iran online.
(37) Public Opinion in Iran, with comparisons to American Public Opinion, A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll, p. 11, April 7, 2008. The poll was conducted in partnership with Search for Common Ground and Knowledge Networks as well as an unnamed polling firm in Iran. (WorldPublicOpinion.org is a program managed by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland.)
(38) p. 10
(39) p. 11
(40) p. 18
(41) p. 19
(42) see, for example, Vali Nasr's book: The Shia Revival: How Conflicts within Islam Will Shape the Future, W.W. Norton, April 9, 2007, which I have not read, but understand addresses this issue directly. A google search will yield many other examples.
(43) Wikipedia: Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani
(44) Wikipedia: Ruhollah Khomeini
(45) "'Shia Democracy': Myth or Reality?", by Sreeram Chaulia, February 16, 2007, Worldpress.org.
(46) "The Grand Ayatollah Behind the Curtain," by Colbert I. King, The Washington Post, Saturday, October 28, 2006; Page A15.
(47) Informed Comment: Iran Supported al-Maliki against Militias: OSC, by Juan Cole, Sunday, April 13, 2008.
(48) "The Shi‘a in the Arab World," Middle East Report Editorial, Volume 242, Spring 2007.
(49) Wikipedia: Muqtada al-Sadr
(50) Articles 19 and 20
(51) Article 23
(52) Article 24
(53) Articles 26 and 27
(54) Articles 29 - 31
(55) Articles 37, 34, 35 and 38, respectively
(56) Article 9
(57) Wikipedia: Abolitionism
(58) The Liberator Files: The Constitution and a Call for Disunion, a collection of items from Garrison's paper in Boston, The Liberator, the selection quoted was printed in 1832.
(59) See for example Michael McFaul and Abbas Milani's suggestions at a recent Hoover Institution event discussing Ahmadinejad and Iran's Nuclear Program.
(60) "Iran helped overthrow Taliban, candidate says," by Barbara Slavin, USA Today, June 9, 2005
(61) Wikipedia: Taliban
(62) "A grand bargain, or else," by Flynt Leverett, International Herald Tribune, Tuesday, June 20, 2006.
(63) Fragilecologies: Davies J-Curve Revisited, by Michael H. Glantz, 27 June 2003.