Iran Government Becoming What it Claimed to Stand Against

Rewind Iran. During the Second World War, the Shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, came to power when a British-Soviet invasion overthrew his father. After a brief period of trying to cater to both the Shia clergy and nationalist reformers with a moderate prime minister, he decided with US backing to boot the moderate, abandon the clergy, and modernize and secularize the country. Anyone who dissented--clergy, students, journalists, and radicals--could be subject to arrest, detention, torture, or disappearance.

The Shia clergy, backed by conservatives and in temporary alliance with socialist and democratic student groups, overthrew the Shah in 1979 partly to cast off a regime which had crushed freedom of political and religious expression. But over time, the Clergy turned its back on many of the groups which helped it gain power, repressing them time and again. Today, the Clergy is clinging to its centerpost. As Hannah Arendt wrote in her book, On Violence, it is when a group feels power slipping from its hands when it is most likely to strike out. Or perhaps more appropriate is a quote from the Shah-era surrealist, Sadegh Hedayat who wrote in his work, Haji Aqa:

"In order for the people to be kept in line, they must be kept hungry, needy, illiterate, and superstitious. If the grocer's child becomes literate, he not only will criticise my speech, but he will also utter words that neither you nor I will understand... What would happen if the foreage seller's child turns out intelligent and capable--and mine, the son of a Haji [someone who makes the religious pilgramage], turns out lazy and foolish?"

Beyond Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the Supreme Council ruling Iran. There is overwhelming public evidence showing that they are falsifying elections, arresting and torturing journalists and students (including two grad school mates of this writer), arresting or harassing the mother's of youth injured or arrested by riot police, humiliating the Nobel Prize winner, Shirin Ebadi, and announcing they will enrich uranium at numerous sites too small for public power production against the will of the international community.

If the Supreme Council wanted to sustain the power they rode in on, even perhaps sustain the religious conservatism they hold dear, they would probably be more successful by doing exactly the opposite of what they are doing now. Or perhaps they modeled their governing style on the one they grew up with.

Perhaps the question on the peace activist community's mind is, Can the nonviolent democratic movement in Iran succeed in getting the government to be more participatory, progressive, and human rights-sensitive? Is it better to surge against the crack downs and force the government into a defensive posture or patiently pressure moderates friendly to the government to seek small steps in reform over the longer run?

[Photo by Farhad Rajabali, posted by Faramarz]