Tens of Thousands Rally for Mousavi in Tehran
The damnedest thing happened in Tehran on Monday.
A massive rally estimated by Farnaz Fassihi of the WSJ at tens of thousands sprang up all along Vali Asr Street, the capital's longest thoroughfare, stretching 12 miles across the city.
The scene reminded Fassihi of the enormous crowds that came out to protest the shah in 1978! They chanted angry slogans and adapted old, banned, nationalist and communist anthems. They attacked Ahmadinejad as a dictator and a tyrant.
They were encouraged to do that by Mousavi himself: 'Returning to the question why he calls Ahmadinejad a dictator, Moussavi said, “I say so because he does not abide by the laws, so why should we not call him a dictator?” '
The Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps declined to intervene, as it often has in the past in the face of student demonstrations.
Mazier Bahari of Newsweek suggests that the IRGC itself has largely decided to back Mr. Mousavi, whom many remember as a skilled leader when he was prime minister during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988. The Revolutionary Guards' special loyalty to him had earlier been one of Ahmadinejad's prized assets, setting him apart from his toothless predecessor, reformer Mohammad Khatami (a smart, nice man whom Iranians called a 'dagger without a haft.') If Ahmadinejad has lost the IRGC, he has become ineffectual whether he wins the election or not. Bahari says that a secret Iranian government poll suggests that there will be a landslide for Mousavi on Friday. (NB: Iranian polling generally not reliable.)
The presidential election in Iran this coming Friday is stirring passions in that country on a scale not seen for some time. The campaigning has been seen several personal attacks, and the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has replied to severe criticism by starting such vigorous food fights that they are generating libel suits. Rumors fly about hardliner clerics issuing legal opinions or fatwas authorizing ballot stuffing in favor of rightwing candidates.
Just as the US presidential campaigns of 2000 and 2004 ranged the rural red states against the urban blue states, so Iran's red rural districts are lining up behind Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whereas the blue districts with the big cities-- Tabriz, Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz-- are backing former prime minister Mir Hosain Mousavi.
For the past several nights, urban crowds rallying for their candidates in the evening have created an almost carnival atmosphere.
A very large crowd gathered at a stadium to cheer on Ahmadinejad on Monday, as well. Indeed, the street rally for Mousavi probably came in response to the event at the stadium, which Mousavi supporters charged was intended to conflict with a Mousavi campaign event.
Iran's new generation of educated women, including teenagers (the voting age is now 18) appear to have swung behind Mousavi, and can be seen pamphleteering for him. As in 1978, when crowds grew on a monthly then weekly then daily basis, so these rallies last weekend blossomed into Monday's behemoth.
It is not just crowds in the street. The intrepid Borzou Daragahi of the LAT revealed that key elements of the Islamic Republic's elite have swung behind the pragmatic Mousavi. Most important, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, the former president and multi-billionaire head of the Expediency Council (which settles disputes between Iran's parliament and its clerical 'senate,' the Guardianship Council). Rafsanjani has established a string of universities, which he threw open to campaigning by Mousavi, and has developed a sophisticated network of electronic communications, which he also put at Mousavi's disposal. Presumably this is one reason Ahmadinejad attempted to block Facebook in Iran until after the election was over.
One desperate clerical supporter of Ahmadinejad, Misbah-Yazdi, is alleged to have given a legal opinion or fatwa authorizing ballot fraud if it is necessary to safeguard the Muslim community. Mousavi's people vow they will be especially vigilant about voting fraud.
During the heated debate between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi last Wednesday, the president charged the Rafsanjani family with financial corruption. The family says it is replying with a libel lawsuit. During the same debate, Mousavi frankly accused Ahmadinejad to his face of making Iran a laughingstock with his quirky pronouncements on the world stage and his intransigence on the nuclear issue. Mousavi is particularly ticked off by Ahmadinejad's monstrous tendency to downplay the number of Jews killed in the Holocaust.
Ahmadinejad also claimed in the debate that Mousavi's wife, Zahra Rahnavard, a well-known "Islamic feminist," had forged her academic credentials. That allegation brought threats of another libel suit from the outraged reformer, who Iranian journalists say wants to be Iran's Michelle Obama. (She campaigns for her husband in public, which is unusual in Iran).
You knew that in private apartments behind the scenes the facade of a pious puritanical revolutionary society had long since been abandoned for other pursuits-- rock music, the internet, and less salubrious activities (the coke party with which the film Syriana begins was not a figment of Bob Baer's imagination). But this election, and the polarizing figure of Ahmadinejad, appears to be bringing the new private Iran into public for the first time.
UPI has a video profile of Mousavi:
Aljazeera English reports on the frustration of professional women at being marginalized in Iranian presidential politics.
End/ (Not Continued)

|
Facebook





15 Comments:
actually one thing which may work for mousavi in the rural areas is that he is a sayyid - it worked for khatami in 97 against all expectations
While it looks hopeful that the Iran election outcome will be a positive step for Iran and for US/Iran relations, it's discouraging to think that US and Israeli threats might swing the election. It's time for fearmongering to be removed from politics. We need to support candidates who refuse to threaten, refuse to hype 'enemies' and 'threats'. And that needs to start here in the US. The next time our 'leaders' go ballistic over some megahyped 'threat', we need to push back.
I don't think we have any solid basis for saying what segment of the population is lining up behind which candidate--whether it be the revolutionary guards or the people in rural areas.
We do not have a single scientific opinion poll. All we have are useless pseudo-polls and a great abundance of false rumors. Bozru Daragahi's LA Times piece had elements of truth; but it was also based largely on hearsay and rumor.
There were six TV debates between pairs of candidates. (Four candidates make a total of six pairs.) Of the candidates, Mohsen Rezaie proved to be the best spoken, best-informed, and most interesting candidate, but also the one least likely to engage in unfair attacks. He is not expected to do well, though. He is a conservative, a former commander of the revolutionary guards, and has a Ph.D. in economics.
What has stood out is the harshness and intensity of the exchanges. During his "debate" with the fellow-reformist Karrubi, Mousavi called Ahmadinejad a liar, a shameless liar, and a liar who lies so he can hold on to power. The man did not mince words.
Ahmadinejad did not accuse Mousavi's wife of having a forged degree. Rather, he alleged that she was admitted to the Ph.D. program without having followed proper procedures. He didn't provide any actual evidence.
Both Mousavi and Karrubi had a long list of accusations against Ahmadinejad, some fair and some not so. I'm sad to say, however, that Ahmadinejad was better informed, was the better debater, and generally made minced meat of them. Mousavi had even trouble speaking in his debate with Ahmadinejad. He started with a trembling voice, left many of his sentences unfinished, and repeated the words "chiz" and "be-estelah" ("you know").
The one candidate who was able to stand up to Ahmadinejad was Mohsen Rezaie. Despite his low-key style, Rezaie came out as the winner, making Ahmadinejad looks bad. This will probably help the reformists rather than Rezaie himself.
Elections--again--in Iran; what a dynamic festival. Now, when were elections last held in the "moderate" Middle Eastern states of Egypt, Jordan, or Saudi Arabia? If they don't hold elections, then how can they be described as Moderate? Oh, I know, they do as they're told by the USA.
Western press is missing one of the most amazing, unprecedented moments in Iranian history... there is currently a fight between Rafsanjani and the leader, Khamenei and its reflected in a new letter Rafsanjani sent to the leader:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/iran/2009/06/090609_bd_hashemi_letter_khamenei.shtml
this is very big news.
The IRGC does not vote as a bloc, between active and retired members, there is significant diversity along the conservative spectrum. Was this not the lesson of 1997/2001? The money available from senior members and the votes of junior officers, enlisted, and basijis can go in different directions.
karlof1: yeah, the US is to blame for the problems of those 'moderate' state - they're just following orders from Obama, and Bush before him, to continue being backward! That's exactly what it is!
Braindead leftist logic at its best.
Mr. Cole,
First, it was a bittersweet moment for me just now realizing that you've had a blog for several years. I have been a fan since you opposed Nazila Fathi's NY Times quotation publicly. When I read that mistranslation on the day it was published, I was confused. Why would Iran announce from the mountain tops its intent to attack Israel without provocation? So, I looked at the transcripts myself and discovered it was a lie. I was troubled. The very faction I hated was actually in the right this time. When I read your publication denouncing that translation, you gave me hope that I am not alone. PS - Hitchens can go to hell.
As for this election, I like to remain somewhat levelheaded. I think everyone is off-focus somewhat in their commentaries in this regard. That is, everyone is interested in seeing the President change rather than the Guardian Council's foreign and domestic policies as well as that of Ayatollah Khamenei. After all, who are we kidding? The President of Iran is no more than the White House spokesman in the US. Ahmadinejad's clamp down on social rights was a direct result of the Mullahs feeling threatened by their own intelligence and counter-intelligence alerts as well as the new focus on Iran as part of the Axis of Evil.
Realistically, to me, the President is but a representation of the Supreme Leader's visions. To fight off a saber-rattling Bush, they brought a bull-dog to power. Now that Obama is showing flexibility, ease, and perhaps, a change of direction in US policy, we are slowly, again, seeing the rise of a "moderate" view, or President.
Us Iranians know that we can lie to you about how we feel about a reformist President (change, yay!), but if you really want to know, we can't lie to each other. We know that Mousavi may not change anything for us.
Therefore, the focus should be changing the Mullahs and the Guardian Council, not the President of Iran.
It is bothersome when the Western media cite things like alcohol consumption and listening to rock music as token signs of political or social "advancement" in the Middle East; somehow vice in these instances is regarded as virtue. I am surprised to see Juan passing along that tired trope. Will it be possible for Muslims to progress in their own ways, and without falling victim to our own social idiocies?
GeneralOreo pretends not to understand that USA (no matter who is in WH) order "moderate" ME dictators and kings to support USA imperialism and Zionism, and they did it. For doing such against the will of their own peoples "moderates" get USA money, arms and actully almost any real base of their rule.
Or does GO not pretend? :)
It is funny that ONLY people saying that Ahmadinejad's support of anti-imperilaism and anti-Zionism was "making Iran a laughingstock with his quirky pronouncements on the world stage and his intransigence on the nuclear issue" were tha same Zionists and imperialists and their lackeys. Now prof. Cole repeat it without comments.
I suppose "reformists" in Iran hope USA will be nice to them, yeah, fat chance, unless they are willing to become Egypt-like (not much democracy in Egypt, thouhg, much less than in Iran).
And I am a Jew (anti-Zionist) and I am NOT bothered at all of what Ahmadinejad says about Holocoust.
PersianAdvocate, I think the focus should be on constitutional reform. Khamenei should be the last supreme leader and then reform there after.
lidia,
I live in Kuwait - I'm posting this from one - and you have no idea how wrong you are. Of course you don't want to believe anything other than the narrative that enforces your ideology/prejudices/etc...
Syria is worse than Egypt or Saudi Arabia, and it doesn't have US support.
Those regimes would be just the way they are with Russian weapons and w/o the paltry money they get from the US - only Egypt, btw. SA doesn't get a cent from the US, it's one of the leading oil exporters for heaven's sake.
Also I forgot to add,
The people in these gulf countries like the way things are. you've got the religous fanatics who want a Taliban state, and others are just comfortable with what they have and apathetic/indifferent to what they don't.
Like I said I live here in Kuwait and it's amazing how much support the monarchy has, especially the last one that passed away - can't drive w/o seeing pictures of him on cars. People here are just tribal like that. There are many other problems and that's just one of them.
I don't know about SA or egypt, especially with the latter being more fundamentalist I'd think they probably hate their rulers, but again the US is not responsible for those no matter how you spin it.
Sometimes when I read views of people talking of US 'puppet regimes' I get the image of conentration camps run by US-trained soldiers and people walking timidly in shame and fear dreaming of revenge on the US or something. It's hilarious. The world is more complicated than that, folks. But it's easy to construct your own black and white reality - one with this evil imperial US to blame for everything (and nobody else to even share a fraction of that blame, heh).
Post a Comment
<< Home