Getting Radical
Posted on June 26th, 2009
by Daniel Larison |
|
Moreover, Mousavi’s positions have changed, just as he has. He is far different today from the Mousavi who began this electoral campaign. ~Charles Krauthammer
Yes, the dramatic changes are overwhelming. Just consider this new statement from Mousavi:
I’d like to thank you again for your peaceful objections which have received widespread coverage across the world, and would like to ask you that by using all legal channels, and by remaining faithful to the sacred system of the Islamic Republic, to make sure that your objections are heard by the authorities in the country. I am fully aware that your justified demands have nothing to do with groups who do not believe in the sacred Islamic Republic of Iran’s system. It is up to you to distance yourself from them, and do not allow them to misuse the current situation.
Oddly enough, it is because Mousavi hasn’t changed very much that he can continue to be a credible opposition leader. Unlike Russian liberals, who have never missed an opportunity to alienate themselves from the majority of Russians, Mousavi hasn’t made any great display of willing subservience to Western interests, which is why Obama’s recognition of the policy similarities between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad remains one of the most appropriate, correct and potentially helpful things he has said in the last two weeks about Iran. Americanists believe that any statement from the President that fails to build up and anoint Mousavi as the preferred candidate is discouraging to Mousavi and his supporters, because they apparently cannot grasp that being our preferred candidate is to be tainted with suspicion of disloyalty to the nation. It is strange how nationalists often have the least awareness of the importance of the nationalism of another people. Many of the same silly people who couldn’t say enough about Hamas’ so-called “endorsement” of Obama as somehow indicative of his Israel policy views, as well as those who could not shut up about his warm reception in Europe, do not see how an American endorsement of a candidate in another country’s election might be viewed with similiar and perhaps even greater distaste by the people in that country. As Anatol Lieven explains here, Russian liberals destroyed their political chances by being and being seen as stooges for Western interests and allies of every anti-Russian policy that came down the pike. A perfect example of this is Garry Kasparov, whose call for more direct support for the protesters in Iran is as poorly judged as Kasparov’s own domestic political alliances with neo-fascists.
Krauthammer uses the word radicalize many times in the latest column, but what he misses is that even if Mousavi were being radicalized by recent events to take a more adamant stand against the current leadership he would be going back to his Khomeinist roots. As his latest remarks suggest, though, rumors of his radicalization are greatly exaggerated, and one thing we can be quite sure of is that Mousavi is the one leading figure in all of this who has changed the least. The pragmatists in government seem to have no problem with altering the constitution of the system as they see fit and as it suits their needs. Mousavi is the one being inflexible and resistant to accommodation, which is what you would expect from someone leading a mass protest against the government. What you have is an opposition leader who is demanding a return to the pre-June 12 status quo. Back then, the fiction of the “Islamic republic” remained at least somewhat credible. Mousavi has correctly observed that the current leadership has moved to scrap important parts of the republican element of the system, and it is against this that he has been protesting. The reformer has shown himself to be more of a “principalist” than the so-called principalists, which is, of course, what most reformers claim they are doing: restoring what has been corrupted, rather than overturning and destroying the system.
Filed under: foreign policy, politics
To give Mousavi some credit, even if he did wish to seriously change the Islamic Republic, he couldn’t possibly advocate this without opening himself to charges of treason and betrayal. And even though his political stance at this point is one of trying to restore the legitimacy of the Islamic Revolution (lost by the stolen election), it’s simply assumed that he also intends, once in power, to encourage a reform effort which would decrease clerical control (though not end it), such as by eliminating the singular role of the Supreme Leader, and instituting instead a council with less absolute powers.
The original Islamic Revolution and the Republic instituted in 1979-80 did not include a Supreme Leader. That was a much latter innovation of Khomeini’s, in 1988 I think, shortly before his death, to keep reformists from gaining power. So it stands to reason that if reformists regain power, one of the first things they will want to reform is the SP position. So when Mousavi is advocating a return to the original principles of the Islamic Revolution, he is arguing not for a return to the pre-election status quo, but to the pre-1988 status quo, even the general 1980 status quo. I think this is important to acknowledge when evaluating Mousavi’s rhetoric about affirming the original principles of the Islamic Republic.
conradg – You may be right that his ideal is a restoration of a pre-Supreme leader Republic but he has never said this. At best he has been meaningfully ambiguous. It is certainly possible that this is not his intention at all and that he merely wants votes to be counted and to be seen to be counted fairly.
“…which is why Obama’s recognition of the policy similarities between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad remains one of the most appropriate, correct and potentially helpful things he has said in the last two weeks about Iran.”
Thanks. I’ve been impressed by President Obama’s discernment in standing for the Iranian’s human and civil rights without endorsing either candidate. But I was flummoxed when he said there wasn’t much difference between the 2 candidates. For the reasons you describe, it probably is true, but to me, Obama’s statement seemed like a punch in the stomach to people marching in the streets. It sounded like he was saying that their cause is meaningless. He is so precise in his statements that I thought he must have been tired & made a mistake, meaning that it would make no difference to our foreign policy. Still it seemed extremely out of character. Even knowing he’s wily, I didn’t catch the reasoning. Now it makes much more sense. It surprises me how willing he is to take political hits when he decides to take a stand.
Amy,
I’m not sure why Obama’s statement discredits the protesters, or even Mousavi. What Obama said is that, in relation to American international interests, such as Iran’s nuclear program and support of international terror groups like Hizbollah, the two candidates aren’t much different, and the US would have to pursue the same policies and negotiations towards either. It seems perfectly sound and true. It also puts pressure on Mousavi to clearly differentiate himself from Ahmadinejad on these kinds of issues, if he really does want to say that he will pursue different international policies. It’s quite possible that a more democratic and just Iran will still continue to pursue policies that are against American interests and international stability. In which case, what have the protesters accomplished that actually helps America, or the world?
conradg,
Thanks… It was an instance of my head hearing it one way & my gut feeling it another. I’m all in favor of the Iranians having the government they choose and us staying out of their way. Obama’s witness statements are some of strong and supportive words on the subject coming from outside of Iran.
Mousavi was running for the President’s position…Rafsanjani is the power broker in Qom. I suggest Krauthamer has no actual clue about what struggles are going on in Qom.
Qom is the gravity well of power in Iran.
The Assembly of Experts can remove Khameni.
Mousavi was running for the President’s position…Rafsanjani is the power broker in Qom. I suggest Krauthamer has no actual clue about what struggles are going on in Qom.
Qom is the gravity well of power in Iran.
The Assembly of Experts can remove Khameni.