Khamenei, from a Position of Weakness, Threatens a War on Youth
By Al Giordano
In the first stanzas of his 90 minute public speech today, an event usually reserved only for the anniversary of the revolution or high holy days, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, offered up the scapegoat for his nation’s tumult:
Our youth are in a materialistic world
In a time of turmoil
They don't know what to do,
They need to understand spirituality,
They need to get back to spirituality,
But they don't know how…
I would like to speak about the issue of the election which is the important issue in our country…
The youngsters in our country showed especially,
that they are partaking in the political process since the beginning of the revolution.
Now we'll see the same responsibilities from them that we saw during the Iraqi Aggression War...
Okay. Take a step back and ponder that reference to the Iran-Iraq war of 1980 to 1988, during which Iran utilized a tactic of “child soldiers” sent into certain martyrdom. From Wikipedia:
A tactic used in this advance noted throughout the world was the encouragment of heroism among young Iranian basij volunteers who sought martyrdom in human wave attacks on Iraqi positions. The volunteers were inspired before battle by tales of Ashura, the Battle of Karbala, and the supreme glory of martyrdom, and sometimes by an actor (usually a more mature soldier), playing the part of Imam Hossein himself riding a white horse, galloping along the lines, providing the child soldiers a vision of "the hero who would lead them into their fateful battle before they met their God."…
In the Basra offensive, or Operation Ramadan five human-wave attacks were met with withering fire from the Iraqis. The boy-soldiers of Iran were particularly hard-hit, especially since they volunteered to run intominefields, in order to clear the way for the Iranian soldiers behind them. The Iranians were also hard-hit by the employment of chemical weapons and mustard gas by the Iraqis.”…
It cost Iran an estimated 1 million casualties, killed or wounded, and Iranians continue to suffer and die as a consequence of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. Iraqi casualties are estimated at 250,000-500,000 killed or wounded.
The Supreme Leader didn’t say it outright (and therefore what he really meant is subject to interpretation and much disagreement), but from a psychohistorical perspective, his call upon the youth to assume “the same responsibilities” of that 1980s adventure in ritual human sacrifice of the nation’s own young men came pretty close to saying: Oh, youth of Iran. Get ‘spiritual’ (read: off the streets of protest) or be sacrificed as you were two decades ago.
But then, the Supreme Leader blinked, and started to backpedal, praising endearing qualities among these youth that, just a minute ago, had been portrayed as lost, materialist and without spirituality:
If our young didn't have any hope,
They wouldn't partake in the election
If they didn't feel freedom, they wouldn't vote.
Faith in the system has been shown by the massive participation.
So, the speech began with a veiled threat to the nation’s youth, but followed with some hedging. Okay, everybody be good little boys so we don’t have to send you out to test the land mines.
The next section of the speech contained less veiled threats against opposition political leaders:
...political party leaders should be very careful about what they say and do
if they do anything extremist, their radical moves will moves will take them to where it won't be solvable
if political elite want to fix someone at the cost of another thing
to BREAK the law
they would be responsible for the bloodshed
In other words, “bloodshed” is the only response this old man can think of when it comes to peaceful street protests. The question for him seems not to be “to repress or not to repress.” Repression is all he knows in this kind of a situation. Rather, he is obsessed upon who gets blamed for it, both in the immediate news cycles, and by history.
For a man who claims to be against the West, he certainly showed today that his instincts in a moment of crisis are nearly identical to those of George W. Bush and his doctrine of a "war on terror" than of any Eastern or original alternative. Here, Khamenei essentially says that there are “terrorists” who use demonstrations as a “cover” for their activities, and therefore anybody who calls a demonstration is “responsible” for such terrorism:
if after every election those who haven't gotten votes start to have street camps and invite their followers to come to the streets,
And the winners' followers take their followers to the streets,
Then why did we hold elections to begin with?...
For terrorists it is different
infiltrating terrorist will hide behind these people.
if you make covers for them, then who's responsible?
people have been killed from ordinary people and the Baseej
Who's responsible?
But then, for the second time in the speech, he steps back from the brink, acknowledging that innocents have been caught in the repression:
attack at universities,
Good students were beaten up
not the ones who were involved in riots.
Some days ago, I noted that the regime seemed caught between two conflicting options on how to deal with the unrest and that by trying to do both it was doing neither very well. By calling for a partial recount of last Friday's vote, it adopted toward the Mexican model of 2006, which successfully tired out a post-electoral movement against a mammoth electoral fraud with legalistic gymnastics, suckering the opposition into playing by a fixed set of rules. But the Supreme Leader's words today, hinting at violence and repression – more arrests, beatings, killings, torture and censorship, which is itself a form of violence – tilted more toward the Chinese model Tienanmen Square of 1989.
Although the censorship part of the Chinese model has utterly failed in Iran, thanks to the citizen media from below, it seems in this speech that the regime has now rejected the Mexican model - he didn't mention the partial recount at all - and has opted for threats of repression and ritual sacrifice in the hope it will cause the leaders to back down and cancel the protests. (In fact, one of the best things that could happen would be if the “leaders” – Mousavi et al – chickened out; a vacuum would be created for new, non-electoral, leadership to emerge, but Khamenei is in such an obvious position of weakness that that’s not going to happen, at least not right away: Mousavi will, instead of hiding, pounce.)
Toward the end of the speech, the Supreme Leader reiterated:
I want both sides to put an end to this
then the responsibility of the consequences should be shouldered by those who aren't putting an end to it.
by thinking that by turning out onto the streets that you can pressure the officials your demands is wrong.
In sum: To the opposition political leaders, back down, or I’ll kill many of our youths, and our propaganda machine will blame you for it.
I'll repeat. The speech today makes evident that the Supreme Leader is speaking from a profound position of weakness. He can’t control the latter part of his threat: the blame and infamy for a massacre will fall on him and his regime alone. No opposition leader is going to swallow in fear thinking that he would be blamed by the people and by history for state repression against peaceful marchers. And the former part – to engage in more brutal and widespread violent repression than before – depends upon his being able to mobilize the Iranian Armed Forces, who have so far chosen to decline such disgrace upon them (if anything, the Army has protected demonstrators from the Basij militias in a few instances already reported).
I don’t know how the Supreme Leader wiggles out of the corner he has just painted himself into. The demonstrations aren't going to stop. Tomorrow may see the largest yet. He either has to convince the Armed Forces to send young soldiers to massacre the youth of a young nation, or he can’t carry out the threats he has just made. More “low intensity warfare” of the kind waged so far is only going to increase the ranks of the resistance and lose him the population in the middle. And I think it’s a safe bet that Mousavi and Rafsanjani and the others he was trying to convince to back down also see that he is speaking from a position of weakness, and aren't going to be cowed.
I frankly expected to hear a more savvy Supreme Leader than the doddering fool we heard from today, caught in a world that has already passed him by, without a clue of what to do next.
Many people’s reactions to his speech were along the lines of “oh no, this doesn’t look good, here comes trouble.” But it is not at all clear that this man has the power any more to deploy sufficient force to quell a revolt of millions.
Who holds the cards right now in the correlation of forces? The Irani Armed Forces, which has so far not signed up for repressive duty against its own people. Unless the Supreme Leader has them up his sleeve – and I doubt very much that he does – look for Saturday’s marches to be larger than any before in this great game of chicken. Does the Supreme Leader then try to carry out his veiled threats with only those Revolutionary Guards and militia members that are loyal to him? Their numbers aren’t sufficient to do anything but cause enough blood to shock the world yet without scaring off the resistance. Or does he blink, keep the batons and guns in the holsters, and prove, 24 hours later, that all his veiled threats were more veil than threat?
Saturday is going to be another big important date in history. My guess is that Khamenei's blundering all-turban-no-cattle (in the comments section, Erik Siegrist corrects; "all-turban-no-camel") attempt to defuse the mega-marches planned for tomorrow only succeeded in making them larger.
Update: The mega-march in Tehran is now CONFIRMED for 4 p.m. (7:30 a.m. ET) at Enghelab Square.
Update II: Mousavi has been silenced. His spokesman, Mohsen Makhmalbaf writes:
I have been given the responsibility of telling the world what is happening in Iran. The office of Mir Hossein Mousavi, who the Iranian people truly want as their leader, has asked me to do so. They have asked me to tell how Mousavi's headquarters was wrecked by plainclothes police officers. To tell how the commanders of the revolutionary guard ordered him to stay silent. To urge people to take to the streets because Mousavi could not do so directly...
Some suggest the protests will fade because nobody is leading them. All those close to Mousavi have been arrested, and his contact with the outside world has been restricted. People rely on word of mouth, because their mobile phones and the internet have been closed down. That they continue to gather shows they want something more than an election. They want freedom, and if they are not granted it we will be faced with another revolution.
Thirty years ago we supported each other. When police used tear gas, fires would be lit to neutralise its effects. People would set their own cars on fire to save others. Since then, the government has tried to separate people from one other. What we lost was our togetherness, and in the past month we have found that again.
I'll repeat that the State's removal of Mousavi, if it continues, will likely have the effect of strengthening the protests, because it will clarify that this is not about one man, but about one people. Remove Mousavi, and you remove his negatives from the equation, too. Then the big picture becomes much clearer: the people against an illegitimate regime.
Email this page
Digg
Delicious
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Comments
Martyrdom
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 9:47 am by Tien Le (not verified)Doesn't seem to have occurred to him that there might be young people willing to become martyrs for freedom against oppression in those crowds who will volunteer to take the hits up front to protect the others.
Hmm
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:04 am by Bob Estes (not verified)According to wikipedia, the Revolutionary Guard controls around 125,000 soldiers. That's not enough to put down street protests? Brutal, yes; doable, certainly.
My personal opinion is that the Revolutionary Guard more or less has Khameini in a box over the results of this election. They are the ones who don't want Mousavi, he's fronting their coup. One could argue that they're more than willing to do his bloodletting.
The army itself might not join in, but I fear the Revolutionary Guard has the will and the capabilities to crack heads, big time.
Al - I have found your
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:04 am by Trinity (not verified)Al - I have found your thoughtful posts on what is happening in Iran to be illuminating. I hope your guess for the marches tomorrow is correct and Khamenei finds himself ultimately swept out of power by a green colored sea of humanity.
All Turban No Cattle
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:08 am by James HaygoodLove that line. And it's great to have Al's take on the Iranian situation from a historical organizing POV. Facsinating.
We're watching history. Again!
Could you elaborate on "best thing"?
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:17 am by Stuart Ballard (not verified)Al, excellent analysis as always.
I was wondering if you would care to elaborate on one throwaway line in your piece, because it isn't clear to me what you're getting at, but it feels like there's something important behind your words that I'm missing.
"In fact, one of the best things that could happen would be if the “leaders” – Mousavi et al – chickened out; a vacuum would be created for new, non-electoral, leadership to emerge"
The thing I'm not understanding is the context in which that would be "best". From the usual background of your work I can speculate that you're proposing that a non-electoral leader could be a better organizer for what's happening. As a general rule that seems to make sense, but in the particular context of today's Iran, I'm not sure that the range of actual ultimate outcomes that would be possible under new leadership are preferable to the range of actual ultimate outcomes under the pseudo-leadership being provided today by Mousavi and Karroubi and their allies.
Specifically, (and of course I'm wildly speculating) it seems to me that non-electoral leadership would be more likely in the short term to push for a complete overthrow of the entirety of the current power structure; that may be a good thing in the long term but I also worry it could lead to a power vacuum and the destruction of the necessary functions of government. And that in turn seems likely to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people with no guarantee that whatever power structure arose from the fallout would be any better, as lots of factions would inevitably be vying to take over and not all of them would be "good guys" or even "less bad guys" (yeah I realize that's an appalling choice of words but you get my gist I hope).
The current 'electoral' leadership are of course more conservative, with a place inside the current power structure and with a vested interest in aspects of it. That's worrying, of course, but it's hard to see how an awakened and angry and hopeful population would allow them to just fiddle round the edges and use this event as a pure power grab for themselves. But it seems to me they're more likely to be able to "transition" the current government into something (relatively) more liberal, as opposed to having to trash it and start from scratch, and that seems like a better outcome for the people who have to actually live under that government.
Your thoughts?
Praise for Rasfanjani
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:18 am by Russell GloberShouldn't that have been...
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:36 am by Erik Siegrist'all turban no camel'? ;)
Khamenei is done, one way or the other. Even if his threatened crackdown does come off and is successful, he'll just be a figurehead and the country will be under the control of Ahmadi and the security apparatus. And if it doesn't, he'll be deposed completely.
To me the (translated) speech read like he knew his days were numbered, and couldn't find that third way forward between repression and concession.
http://singcitychronicles.blogspot.com
Rafsanjani
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:39 am by Al GiordanoRussell - During the presidential debates, Ahmadinejad leveled charges against Rafsanjani that he was corrupt, citing alleged corruption among his family members. It's been reported that Rafsanjani was deeply offended by that charge and brought his complaint directly to Khamenei. My guess is that by mentioning it, Khamenei was trying to smooth over that wound in the hopes it would calm down Rafsanjani, who has an outside shot at getting Khamenei sacked by the theocracy of which they are both members. At very least, it helps him demonstrate a certain reasonableness to other Ayatollahs and clerics on the body that can unseat him at will that he is at least trying to correct the attacks by his lap dog Ahmadinejad upon a member of the high clergy.
@ Erik
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:43 am by Al GiordanoErik - You've beat me at my own game! Congrats.
(I've added "all turban no camel" to the post above and credited you.)
Awesome thinking on your feet!
How many ways can we say Thank you, Al?
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 10:44 am by Pamela Hilliard OwensWonderful, thoughtful and complete analysis, Al.
@ James Haygood--I too loved that "All turban--no cattle" line...classic Al!
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
Two Things...
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 11:29 am by Travis (not verified)@Stuart:
The protests carry a level of legitimacy while Mousavi is seen as the leader, since he was on the ballot and is fighting against a tainted loss. If he were to back out and some random guy stepped in, that electoral-legitimacy would be gone. Mousavi, in perception, is the leader because he "should" be President...if he backs out, whoever took his place loses that meme - which was the spark that ignited this whole thing (and to a great deal, keeps it going..."every day he's not President is an injustice...etc etc.")
I believe that Al (and he correct me) was not saying it would be the "best thing" for the revolution, but rather the best thing for Khamenei if the current leaders of the opposition stepped down.
@All
One of the biggest hurdles for a movement like this is the workweek. It's so much more difficult to get people out when they have to work. I think one big reason this has kept momentum over the week is the uber-high unemployment (also one of the reasons they are protesting, to be sure). But now you've had deaths, you've had a growing wave, and tomorrow you'll have everyone on a weekend.
I totally agree with Al...Saturday should be huge. I just wish we had more ways to get pictures and video out of the country.
"Doddering old fool"
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 11:35 am by J - NC (not verified)Al, the Iranians seem to have a similar take on Khamenei to yours, judging from their tweets.
Some of my favorites:
To sum up Khamenei's speech for those who don't have patience 2 hear blathering nonsense "you're either with us or against us"
Khamenei cries for death of 1 Basij, ignores dozens murdered, thousands beaten, hundreds arrested by Basijs. What hypocrisy.
I see pure evil in khamenei, threatening peaceful demonstrations with even greater violence...
If by some miracle this movement is successful, the first thing that needs 2 be done is admit Mr. Khamenei into a mental inst.
the only enemy Iran has, is its government
These were some of the nicer ones. This speech didn't go down too well.
just saw this report which
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 11:40 am by valdivia (not verified)just saw this report which seems importantwanted to pass it along.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6531648.e...
war of position more likely
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 11:43 am by FreddyMoraca (not verified)mostly agreed. the patronising and unintendedly nixonian tone of khamenei's ex-cathedra today ("back to spirituality", "calling the president a liar is that good?") confirms that the protests are only formally about stolen votes, but substantively about legitimacy (as noted on this site). today's clear attempt is (adopting northamerican political jargon) to divide liberals from radicals, having calculated the risk as low that this threat itself will radicalise people more. but the calculus is opaque on all sides. who knows what the regime considers an 'unacceptable' scale of bloodshed? (the precedent of the 1980's is frankly terrifying in this respect.) it also depends on how much clout the hashemi faction has, both within the regime and on the streets.
i doubt the latinamerican analogy -- with the army circled round the presidential palace as the proximate arbiter, deciding whether the tanks point inwards or outwards -- because of recent history: iran is not only very militarized but also para-militarized, in response to saddam's reagan-backed war with iran. this stacks the deck against insurrection and makes a prolonged 'war of position' more likely than a catharsis. this will be decided by the activists themselves, because they're now the leading actor in iranian history.
Communications
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 12:40 pm by Mark Boldi (not verified)Beyond the indisputable and inspiring courage demonstrated by the Iranian people over this last week, there are still practical matters. One practical matter is the determination of just what mechanisms can a mass popular movement employ to seize power. The subject is fascinating and well commented upon but all decisions are rightly in the hands of the participants.
The mass communications aspect of these events is inspiring as well. The ‘many to many’ model is the future. In some ways a scary future but full of promise and far and away superior to any of the historical retreads that pose as alternatives. (and yes Al, I’ve begun studying your “The Medium is the Middleman” treatise).
The information / media battle of Iran is fully engaged. The forces of state power are doing all they can to pinch off the data routes, yet who knew aforehand just how useful this Twitter thing could be?. The state has yet to block the pipes entirely but in desperation, they might try.
Something that might help.
There exists in geosynchronous orbit, communications satellites of a certain vintage and provenance. They are the 70’s era US Navy’s Fleet Satellite Communication system, ‘FLTSATCOM’. These devices are being superceded by newer all digital technology but as of this moment, they are still in use by the Navy and interestingly, others, particularly in Brazil. My awareness of these satellites comes from this wired.com piece:
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2009/04/fleetcom?currentPage=all
My understanding of how these things work is that they receive a signal and rebroadcast it. That’s it. People in Iran might be sending bursts to these sats right now, is anyone listening?
gm_
your analysis resonates
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 1:25 pm by Bill R. (not verified)I haven't commentd in ages. Just wanted to express appreciation. I'm just an onlooker, but your analysis resonates with my perceptions and seems much better than the pablum that we get through the usual outlets. The key here to me is are the officers and soldiers of the armed forces. Are they prepared to massacre their own citizens, or not? That is always the tipping point in any uprising of this kind.
It's too foggy to see how this ends
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 3:36 pm by Randy (not verified)I have been reading reports that the "Allaho Akbar" is louder than ever in Tehran tonight. The kids are not backing down and may possibly be ready for martyrdom. Khamenei has the guns, but the opposition have the people, but how much longer can they maintain this intensity? I'm rambling but I have a lot of micxed emotions. I know they say that it's always darkest before the dawn, but it sure is dark now.
House vote on Iran Resolution - 405 -1 in favor
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 4:22 pm by nepat (not verified)Al -
Interested in your take on today's House vote on what I regard as neocon manipulation of the highest order: the Iran Resolution. All Dems voted in favor. Maybe I'm overreacting but this strikes me as more craven Dem capitulation to fears down the road of being labeled "soft on Iran." I've felt the President's measured response has been pitch perfect. Not the moment for political grandstanding, and clearly a vote that Khamenei can use against the opposition.
D-Day on the Hustings!
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 5:07 pm by berpin (not verified)Chinese Model; Mexican Model, American Model
Submitted June 19, 2009 - 7:49 pm by stevelaudig (not verified)Maybe the dark lords of Iran will use their version of the American model and run the election through a Supreme Court controlled by members of the Islamic analog of Opus Dei [Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and the unethical O'Connor plus fellow traveller Kennedy] Did I miss someone?
Khameini's Nauseating Speech,
Submitted June 20, 2009 - 5:36 am by bob h (not verified)with its weeping at the end, and implicit call for vengeance, just reminds one how much better the world would be without religion, a preoccupation of dirtbags whose real interest is temporal power.
@bobh
Submitted June 20, 2009 - 8:07 am by md (not verified)Bobh, I think your suggestion that the world would be better off without religion is not based on fact. Like everything in the world, there is good and bad that comes from religion. One could point to terrorists and theocracies and say that religion is bad. At the same time one could point to chemical weapons and nuclear bombs and say that science is bad. Both are blind to the truth. Also, its a fact that the biggest non-violent peace movement in history was led by a relgious man (Gandhi). There is a long history of ahimsa (non-violence) in both Hindu and Buddhist theology that has brought great good to the world. I think you could temper your thought and say, perhaps relgion isn't bad, but fundmentalists versions are. In that you would find common ground with believers and non-believers alike.
'Weekend' in Iran is Thurs-Fri
Submitted June 21, 2009 - 5:46 pm by Nell (not verified)Travis posted on Friday: tomorrow you'll have everyone on a weekend.
My understanding that the 'weekend' in Iran is Thursday and Friday, which makes sense since Friday is the day to attend the afternoon prayers at the mosque.
I'm open to correction from someone who has lived in Iran, if this is a misunderstanding, but I'm pretty sure that people are at work and in school on Saturday and Sunday.
Post new comment