Rafsanjani Blasts Ahmadinejad as a Counter-Revolutionary ;
Charismatic Rahnevard Attracts Crowds for her Husband Mousavi
The political head of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards,Yadollah Javani clearly had a scare thrown into him by Monday's enormous demonstration in Tehran in favor of reformist presidential candidate Mir-Hosain Mousavi. He issued a statement Wednesday warning that there would be no "velvet revolution" in Iran and that attempts to foment one would be nipped in the bud.
Still, Mir-Hosain Mousavi and his wife Zahra Rahnevard are attracting huge campaign crowds.
The pro-Ahmadinejad forces are facing a public relations debacle. In his debates with other candidates, Ahmadinejad cited glowing economic statistics that ill accorded with the lived reality of most Iranians. As Gary Sick notes, he also lashed out at Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former two-term president and current head of the Expediency Council, which adjudicates disputes between the elected parliament and the clerical senate, the Guardianship Council. The Expediency Council also determines the competency of Iran's Supreme Leader and appoints his successor.
Ahmadinejad claimed that in all the history of the republic since 1979 only his presidential administration had been free of corruption and nepotism. Since, as Muhammad Sahimi points out, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei was president in the 1980s, that was a slam against even him. Ahmadinejad charged that Rafsanjani was personally corrupt, but since Rafsanjani has been at the center of the key institutions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ahmadinejad could not indict him for corruption and incompetence without implying that the whole history of the IRI since 1979 has been a den of iniquity. Perhaps such an implication was always there in the populist Ahmadinejad's championing of the little people against clerical fat cats. But to state the case so baldly surely must have raised questions in the minds of his audience about why he wanted to be president of such an abased government.
Rafsanjani, who backs Ahmadinejad's rival, Mousavi, fired off a trenchant letter to Khamenei complaining about Ahmadinejad. He compared him to the renegade cult, the Mojahedin-e Khalq (Holy Warriors of the People or MEK), which committed horrific terrorism against clerical leaders in the 1980s, and to other counter-revolutionary forces. Oooh, that had to leave a mark.
Ahmadinejad also slammed the wife of Mousavi, Zahra Rahnevard, whom he accuses of irregularity in how she obtained her academic doctorate. She has been actively campaigning for her husband in a way unprecedented in Iran. She is not exactly a liberal on women's issues, but has been characterized as an Islamic feminist, i.e. seeking some sources of power for women in Islamic texts and practices. Borzou Daragahi reports that she is extremely popular with the public on the campaign trail. Some 60% of Iranian college students are now women, and many women are in the work force. I don't know if Ahmadinejad will get many of their votes (anecdotal accounts suggest he is more popular with rural women).
Ahmadinejad went on television Wednesday to defend himself from charges that he had smeared his opponents, and the whole revolutionary tradition, and had hyped the economic numbers. He repeated his smear of Rahnevard, which did not add credibility to his assurances that he had been polite and a gentleman and had not smeared anyone. He assured his audience, taking a leaf from Karl Rove's playbook, that his private polling shows him ahead.
An overview of the debates in Persian is here.
Another issue is that Ahmadinejad attacked the 2003 suspension of nuclear enrichment research by the Khatami government. A Centre of Strategic Research at the Expediency Council (i.e. Rafsanjani's shop) report defended the suspension as prudent at the time. You wonder if this report, which was referenced in the newspaper E'temad on May 31, suggests that Rafsanjani would urge Mousavi to offer another period of suspension to the Europeans in return for lifting of sanctions and good faith negotiations on Iran's right to peaceful civilian nuclear power.
Lauren Rozen points out that the Obama administration has avoided commenting on the Iranian election. She interviews observers who point out that critics of Ahmadinejad may be successful in tagging him as an adventurist both with regard to the domestic economy and to international relations.
Mahmoud Sadri makes the important point that Mir-Hosain Mousavi is not so much himself a member of the reformist bloc, but simply is willing to accept the support of the reformist faction.
When we think about elections here in the US, we focus on economic and local cultural discontents and are suspcious of claims that foreign policy determines all that many votes. But when it comes to Iran's election, American and European commentators tend to focus on foreign policy issues. Azadeh Moaveni suggests that the inability of young people to get married because moving into an apartment of their own is so expensive compared to their incomes has helped fuel discontent with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad's populist economic policies, whereby he pumped a lot of oil money into the economy, expanded the money supply without producing increased productivity. As a result, inflation climbed to nearly 30% last fall. It has come down to 15% now, but that is still high for anyone on a fixed income or who does not get a lot of raises.
Anyone who wants the full 11-page explanation of the political forces at work in the Iranian revolution rather than just Cliff Notes should check out the essay of Walter Posch a the Middle East Institute. (It is the pdf file). Posch's detailed analysis reminds us that all the factions viably jockeying for position are elements of the Khomeinist coalition, whether radical internationalists turned domestic reformists, pragmatic conservatives, populists, and fundamentalist isolationists.
You always thought it was so, but some Neocons, at least, are willing to admit it-- they are rooting for Ahmadinejad to win the election. They are also openly rooting for Obama's peace plan for the Middle East to fail. Just tell me one thing. Why do they so lack any patriotism and why do they hate America so?
(It is a joke. These are the characters that put up a dossier on me in 2002 and urged people to spy on me for them on the grounds that I was unpatriotic for not supporting Bush or their Islamophobia. Turn about should be fair play, but two wrongs don't make a right. Their problem is not that they are unpatriotic, but that they don't understand the American Constitution and confuse support of rightwing governments with support of the United States. It is enough to see them in the political wilderness. But I will allow myself a little imprecation on them. I hope they and their backers invested heavily with Bernie Madoff.)
End/ (Not Continued)

|
Facebook





10 Comments:
Professor Cole,
Thank you for your "cliff notes" and the link to Walter Posch's analysis. I had a little problem to understand this: "Larijani tries a more sophisticated argument. He wants to equate fundamentalism with [... ] accepting Islamic Rule and the velayat-e faqih;" Since the doctrine of velayat-e faqih was incorporated into the 1979 constitution Larjani's argument sounds to me rather blunt and almost an accusation of treason. I also missed in the analysis a word about the role of the bazar i.e. the class of merchants and businessmen that used to be the backbone of support for the clerics. Has their influence been eclipsed by the corporations of the Revolutionary Guards?
Based on Iran's central bank, inflation is around 23-25% not 15%. Ahmadinejad mentioned th 15% and he got lambasted for it.
Nice you're catching up Juan, but some of your selected items are sub-par and miss what's really happening. Posch's MEI article is a pleasant backgrounder, but not his best -- gets bogged down in wildly convoluted sub-factional terms (some of which he made up -- and he insists on using term "fundamentalist" -- which is wildly misleading). Worse, he barely mentions the foreign policy factor in the race -- perhaps because to do so would make reveal how useless the over emphasis on factionalism is.... A/N is widely criticized across the factions....
Posch on p. 7 also makes the silly claim that A/N has challenged Khamenei's authority.
Sadri's essay is equally unhelpful -- like so many other grudging analysts, he focuses only on the problems, vaguely brings up Musavi's past -- and utterly ignores the stunning actual quotes of Musavi over the past two months. Yes, he's changed -- and yes he also has credibility both among the old guard and those hopeful for major change. So why is that so hard to grasp?
Most of Iran's leading reformists today were early revolutionary leading lights -- even hostage holders.
Musavi will win first round.
I'm not rooting for Ahmadinejad, because he seems to be a fear monger, a hate monger and a lie monger. But I'm not thrilled, at the same time, by the prospect of a candidate who cares about the poor being defeated by the darling of the upper middle class, nor am I thrilled by the prospect of a candidate who proposes to knuckle under to US threats winning. I don't think that's good for Iran, for the world or for us, even. I don't think a world where, increasingly, no nation dares to challenge US hegemony is a good thing.
So what we see is a far more complex picture than the media would like us to think, and - I think - another case where the electorate is forced to LeastWorst. Gee, you can have the guy who hates non-muslims or the guy who hates the poor. What a choice.
The above-cited analysis by Posch is fascinating, for example this passage makes Moussavi sound like the Iranian Obama, ceteris paribus:
Thus Moussavi has the challenging task to satisfy totally different constituencies: on one hand he has to link his social populist credentials (an important vote getter) with a pro-enterprise stance (his main financial support) and he has to reconcile his reformist credentials (his main vote getter) with his fundamentalist ones (which are important for some in the elites). He does so by stressing social justice ('adalat), which he notes does not have anything to do with the simple (re-)distribution of wealth. [FN] Beyond that clarification, he wisely lets the oxymoron of a "Reformist that goes back to the fundamentals" remain unexplained, but when asked to by a liberal, reformist audience he would even reach out to the liberal Islamists, the melli-mazhabiha.
"Just tell me one thing. Why do they so lack any patriotism and why do they hate America so? "
Arrested development. Using the language of Lawrence Kohlberg, they're stuck at stage three. They may speak the language of stage four, but it's merely lip service.
Their thinking is purely tribal. "If you're not for us, you're against us." Famous words from Bush the lesser, Cheney, Rumsfeld et al.
These people are too immature to be allowed to affect foreign policy. For their own good, we must surround them with guards, and perhaps guard dogs, to prevent them from hurting anyone else.
Oh dear, I hope thinking that an Ahmadinejad win would do more to weaken the regime than a Mousavi win doesn't make me a neo-con!!!!
Highly unlikely there will be regime change - without blood - and LOTS of it.
I would be delighted IF the winner was at least willing to "talk" and "think." I EXPECT a reform candidate to win - the Iranian people DO NOT want "four more years" of what they've had. I sense a real desire from the "Iranian masses" to rejoin the REAL world - the clerics will have to handle this with care - interestingly - I think they will bend - they know what happens when you break.
I'm one of those "deluded" fools who thinks that Iran knows that IF it gets nukes then they start off a middle eastern "bomb race" which in the long run their "sunni" not so friends in Saudi Arabia will win - bigger bucks buys bigger nukes.
SO - I believe the way forward is for the US to HELP Iran get a top of the line Nuclear Power program - maybe by helping them buy French reactors (arguably the world's best at this time), letting them back into the "world of trade" and as a quid pro quo Iran agrees to to be monitored super vigilantly.
How nice of Mylegacy - to grant to Iran the right it HAS under law. And, while me are here, what about Israel's nukes? Should they be monitored AT ALL? Or Israel is OK, no matter what crimes it commits?
And, by the way, Saudi Aravia's rulers are against Iran NOT because they are "Sunni", but because they are USA lackeys. Of course, USA ALWAYS backs democracy - just look at Saudi's one, a nice thing, really, very unlike Iran.
You know what? It is time for Americans to stop see USA as a master of the unvirse. USA is a big criminal, sure, but is not almightly, esp. now.
Both of the clowns are just two sides of same coin, one a professional thug, the other one a reformed veteran thug, with having the honor 30 000 political executions in his duration of rule!
Iranian are looking for freedom, and an escape from dejection, frustration, hopelessness from the Medieval Islamic Quagmire.
Post a Comment
<< Home