Thursday, 18 June 2009

Iran - the Revolution in Waiting

Below is an interesting analysis, from the perspective of the Israeli secret service, into what is happening in Iran.

My own take on what is not dissimilar. The question is whether the present, youthful, student demonstrations can trigger a response in the Iranian working class and the poor. If that is the case then we could be beginning to see the end of the Islamic regime in Iran.

If the poor and downtrodden aren’t won over then the demonstrations of today are doomed to failure. What is clear though is that this is the biggest challenge to the corrupt clerical ruling class, with its ties to the bazaar, since 1979. Viciously reactionary it isn’t as of yet sure as to how to react though that section led by Ahmedinajad and the semi-fascist revolutionary guards will want to use the utmost violence to prevent the demonstrations getting out of hand.

To the Zionists there would be no bigger regret than the disappearance of Ahmedinajad, the bloody fool who is President. The article below quotes the head of Mossad as dismissing the elections results. Whether he is right or not may become irrelevant as the anti-regime protests gain their own momentum.

Tony Greenstein

Don't write off Iran regime just yet

By Yossi Melman,
Haaretz Correspondent 17/06/2009

The scenes from Tehran are beginning to remind us of the tumultuous period leading to the fall of the Shah over three decades ago. Yet it is still too early to eulogize the Ayatollah's regime. Who better than clergymen to understand the structure and the history of revolutions in Iran.

Street protests, marches, and strikes make up the formula that has twice brought about regime change. It happened the first time in 1953, when a large-scale strike of workers in the oil industry led by Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddeq, who was swept into power and who forced the young Shah Reza Pahlavi to flee the country.

That same year, Mosaddeq was overthrown following riots that were organized by the CIA and British intelligence (MI6), and the Shah was restored to the throne. Mossadeq was placed on trial for treason and sentenced to three years in prison.

In 1979, the Shah was removed from power, thus marking the end of the Pahlavi dynasty. The Iranian revolution was characterized by massive demonstrations initiated by the exiled Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers.

If Mossad chief Meir Dagan is correct, and the alleged voting irregularities in Iran are no different than the mishaps which occur in democratic countries, then the latest developments further highlight the notion that the current tensions have less to do with the election results per se. At the most, allegations of voter fraud are just an excuse, or a pretext.

The power struggle behind the scenes, which is important in and of itself, between Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and former president Hashemi Rafsanjani does not lie at the heart of the matter. Khamenei and Rafsanjani are in a tug-of-war for influence, control, and power within the regime.

Indeed, Rafsanjani is perceived by Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as the individual backing Mousavi and the reformist camp. But Rafsanjani, Khamenei, and Mousavi are all products of the Islamic Revolution. They are proteges of the founder of the Islamic Republic, Khomeini. Their goal is not to change the character of the Islamic regime.

But the supporters that have rallied around Mousavi have other goals in mind. This is a coalition of students and young people whose future holds limited opportunities for meaningful employment, women who have been marginalized from the public landscape, and a middle class that has taken up the cause of human rights. They are not willing to settle for the crumbs that have been sent their way by Khamenei, who is now proposing a partial recount of the votes, perhaps even new elections. They want freedom and democracy. Some of them wish to go further, demanding that Iran become a full-fledged democracy.

Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, and the Revolutionary Guards, the pillar on which the regime's power rests, all understand the dilemma with which they have to deal: if they give the order to brutally crack down on the riots, which have already spread to other cities, they are liable to ignite an even bigger conflagration.

If they do not suppress the demonstrations, they will be perceived as weaklings who blinked first. In turn, this could whet the appetites of the demonstrators, perhaps moving them to issue more demands.

Iran has reached its fork in the road. The direction in which it turns depends only on the working class. The demonstrators today are those from the middle class, those who are not deprived and who are now working towards attaining freedom and liberty. If they gain the support of the working class, the weaker sectors of the society, the poor, the texture of the campaign will take on a completely new dimension. The demand for freedom will be coupled with the demand for bread. In this case, it is difficult to assess whether the regime can withstand such a development.


  1. Such Zionist propagandist wishfull thinking is not worth a reply, but shame on you Mr.Tony Greenstein that your stance is similar.

  2. Nadia, it would be helpful if you had actually said why you think it is Zionist propaganda. Interestingly enough, Moshe Machover, the veteran Israeli socialist and anti-Zionist posted the very same article from Haaretz shortly after me.

    The point about the article is it's not the same 'Ahmedinajad is the new Hitler' Zionist propaganda but that it reflects what the Zionist security establishment actually thinks. That is what makes it interesting. E.g. the head of Mossad, Meir Dagan, says that in his view the election was not flawed. This is not the official western (or Israeli) line, although at the moment the West is also hesitant in saying that Ahmedinajad has rigged the vote.

    Indeed the analysis that the fate of the revolution depends on the working class and not middle-class students can't be faulted. It's quite correct albeit from the side of the oppressor!

    I have no doubt that there is nothing that the Zionists and the USA would rather have than Ahmedinajad re-elected as President. It enables them to continue with their threats of war. We should not assume that just because the source is our enemy that what they say is always wrong.

  3. An interesting point of view - thanks for the article. An interesting article in the Moscow Times posted by an ultra Neo-Con thinker Yulia Latynina gave me pause for thought. It is much more explicit than what many Neo Liberals in the West would dare to say and basically calls for democracy only for property owners. She was also famous for slamming the Spanish elections in 2004 saying that they were more worrying than the return of Putin. She is often quoted by right-wing critics of Putin in the West. Here is the link to the article to get a taste of her reasoning:
    I got a rather truncated letter of mine published the next day but my ideas were distorted because of the fact that they cut out important points of my letter and I regret implying in my letter that the elections represented the Popular Will (I would support any popular revolution with mass Working Class support in Iran as elsewehre). My letter is the fourth letter in this link under the title Let the People Speak. I went on to characterise Latynina's position as one of an openly Neo Liberal totalitarianism (but this part was not published). Latynina famously fell out with the murdered Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya who noone ever mentions in the West as being deeply critical of Western action in Iraq in an interview on Italian TV published after her death in the left wing Manifesto newspaper.

  4. Classic BBC propaganda -

    Of course it is all different in one way. These people are not protesting against an absolute monarch who has been trying to force Western-style modernisation on to a mostly conservative population.
    Iranian protest parallels with 1979
    John Simpson
    From Our Own Correspondent
    20 June

    A bloodthirsty brutal American Middle East dictatorship is described as some kind of civilising project - but unfortunately the natives were too backward to appreciate our concern for their welfare.

    Still, western 'modernity' marches on to its next inevitable success story, somewhere or other - occupied Iraq or occupied Afghanistan maybe, which are only next door to Iran, yet John Simpson seems oblivious to their recent history.


Please submit your comments below