Giants and Giant Killers

It is said that in 1722 A.D., while the last Safavid king spent his time in the Harem courting his many wives and concubines, Afghans orchestrated an attack on Iran led by an afghan commander called Mahmoud. It took almost 16 years for an Iranian hero, Nader, to rise and defeat Afghans. Even though the rise of so-called Napoleon of Persia was promising, with his various invasions of Indian territories bringing some invaluable treasures to Iran, his last years was an absolute catastrophe. Nader, who was once admired as a giant-killer, became a cruel giant himself. A new giant killer was needed to remove him from power.

In Iran’s history, the story of giants and giant-killers is not limited to the old times. This pattern is of a fractal nature, extending across many inter- and intra-regime changes. Despite a few exceptions, almost all regime changes in Iran might be considered examples of this pattern.

In terms of intra-regime changes, Rafsanjani-Ahmadinejad struggle is an interesting chapter of today Iran’s politics. Rafsanjani, pragmatic post-war president of Iran whose main motto was ‘reconstruction,’ believed in a capitalist philosophy. As expected, his semi-capitalist reconstruction was not pain-free. Consequences of that period, including increasing gap between haves and have-nots, made people feel as if a giant was formed. To some of the supporters of the Miracle of Third Millennium [1], Ahmadinejad is the new giant killer and he has been successful so far in defeating Rafsanjani in public performance and attracting masses, even though Rafsanjani’s team is still of a considerable influence in Iran’s politics. (You may skip following three paragraphs which describe one of the fronts of Rafsanjani-Ahmadinejad war and read the concluding paragraph.)

The recent struggle over controlling Islamic Azad University (IAU), which is perhaps one of the most important privately-run enterprises in today Iran, is a front of proxy war of power between Ahmadinejad, represented by High Council of Cultural Revolution (HCCR), and Rafsanjani, represented by IAU Board of Founders.

IAU was first founded by a group of revolutionary figures including Ayatollah Khamenei (then president of Iran who later resigned from his position in IAU), Ayatollah Rafsanjani (then parliament spokesman), Mir Hosein Mousavi (then premier of Khamenei administration), etc. Due to limited capacity of public university, its mission as a private enterprise was to provide higher education for those talents which could not ‘conquer’ difficult entrance exam of public universities. By opening many branches in almost every province and major metropolitan area of Iran, it turned into a prosperous institute with a huge amount of working capital and assets. IAU currently serves around 1,350,000 students and offers undergraduate and graduate programs. With a stable management, IAU turned into a camp for moderate politicians and Rafsanjani supporters. As expected, conservatives couldn’t tolerate it and tried to contain it. Ahamdinejad’s election was a suitable time, so they resorted to HCCR which is supposed to manage higher education institutes to achieve their goal.

10 months ago, in a preemptive act, AIU Board approved a bill which earmarked IAU as a devoted public charity, which, according to current laws, implied that the government could exercise no control over it. Six months ago, HCCR passed a bill aimed at changing statute of IAU and bringing it under the control of the government. HCCR bill replaced some of the IAU Board members, most notably Mir Hossein Mousavi, and set new guidelines for its management. IAU refused to subscribe to new statute. The debate got so hot that the Supreme Leader had to intervene and suspend both bills temporarily so that a ‘close examination of legal issues’ lead to final decision.

AIU-HCCR struggle is just an example of Rafsanjani-Ahmadinejad war. Whether or not the new hero can defeat the old giant is not an issue. The most important concern is that how this cursed circle of ‘Giant Killer-Becomes-Giant’ may come to an end.

[1] “Ahmadinejad: The Miracle of Third Millennium,” Fatemeh Rajabi

Age of Ahmadinejad

Few days before the election, I met an old friend. As an educated man with a sense of humor, and as a father of two young babies, he made a nice point regarding Ahmadinejad: “when your boy is peeing, don’t stop him. Let him complete his task.”

Ahmadinejad, Miracle of the Third Millennium [1], was a new phenomenon in Iran’s modern politics. As a demagogue, he is capable of convincing ordinary people not linked to intellectuals. This point could be easily observed in the results of the presidential election. Ahmadinejad barely had the support of intelligentsia, the educated people and experts. Rather, his main constituency was composed of rural, suburban and less-educated voters to whose tables were brought some of the oil revenues. Frequent visits he paid to provinces and the huge amount of cash his administration distributed among people were more than enough to convince ordinary people that he would be the one.

Considering pre-election events and official results, one can easily find out that there is a wide gap between experts and masses in today Iran. Lots of voters didn’t pay a minimum attention to the expert’s ideas and this led to the overwhelming victory of Ahmadinejad [2]. This might be a classic example of populist figures winning an election.

Let’s consider some of the examples of the gap between experts’ ideas and those of ordinary people.

In the term of economy, a better part of his supporters fail to understand that Ahmadinejad “is robbing our future to pay us.” With regards to oil income, most of the economists believed that we should follow the example set by Norway, i.e. turning oil revenues into a sustainable capital. (Many Arab countries followed that path.) Ahmadinejad, however, decided to share the cash with the people. It should be noted that, for instance, 50$ donated by the government means a lot to a simple farmer in a far-located village of Iran. However, this farmer can’t understand that deferring his gratification can lead to a more stable (and perhaps larger) source of income. (This is, again, a classic example of a traditional society compared to a modern one. [3])

In the term of politics, his fans can hardly realize long-term consequences of his policies. For example, many political analysts believe that “Ahmadinejad is the kind of enemy Israel likes to hate” [4] for he makes it possible for Israeli officials to justify some of their extreme acts. (As an instance, Israel publicly confessed to having nukes just few years ago for she thought she could justify it, at least partly, referring to Ahmadinejad’s policies and positions he publicly made.) However, many of the hardliners only support him as a symbol of resistance against Zionist regime and international imperialism.

In my opinion, Iran is experiencing populism, full scale. An important feature of this atmosphere reveals itself in paying no attention to the experts and intelligentsia. However, after a while, long-term consequences of populism will be made clear to masses and they will turn again to elites.

Societies usually need to experience populism. This is an almost inevitable part of democratization enterprise. And Iran is no exception to the rule.

Before the election, I used to think that the people were not still ready to swear by expert bodies for they were yet to realize long-term consequences of populism. I’m personally happy that Ahmadinejad won the election. It costs us a lot, true. In my opinion, however, better to experience it once and forever. Better to let Ahmadinejad complete his task.

Footnotes:
[1] A term used by a hardliner fan of Ahmadinejad, wife of his spokesman.
[2] In my opinion, even though there are some indications of limited fraud, Ahmadinejad won the election.
[3] Communication for Development in the Third World, chapter 3.
[4] A France24 commentator once used this phrase.

A Failed Velvet Revolution or a Political Coup?

Official results of the presidential election in Iran were more of a shock to both parties, i.e. reformists and hardliners. Regardless of the massive turnout that set a record in the age of Islamic Republic, Mousavi, the most hopeful reformist candidate, only gathered around 13 million votes which were almost half the votes of Ahmadinejad. Karroubi, other reformist candidate, won the support of less than a percent of voters.

Reformists believe that the results were ‘engineered’, and their supporters have waged limited rebellion against the ruling administration in some metropolitan areas. Referring to several cases of intervention, misconduct and paradoxical results as well as reports of reformist observers, they believe that Mousavi was the real winner and ruling party fabricated the results. The day after the election, several reformist figures, including the brother of former reformist president Khatami, got arrested. Moreover, some other prominent people, including Mousavi himself, are taken into home custody. Since few days ago, there has been a massive blackout on information resources. SMS service of two main operators has been completely cut since the night before election. Several reformist sites, even moderate ones such as aftabnews.ir, are blocked. Ministry of Interior Affairs permits no demonstration. Riot police is present everywhere and senior officials such as Rafsanjani who were expected to intervene are nothing but silent. From this perspective, putting together puzzle pieces, one might come to the conclusion that the whole event resembles a political coup.

On the other hand, hardliners could hardly expect to beat reformists and their ‘Green Wave’ in such a humiliating manner – Mousavi and his supporters chose Green as their symbolic color. Conservative analysts maintain that Mousavi and his companions were arranging for a Colored (Velvet) Revolution. Before the election, reformist resources and media orchestrated a massive propaganda to make people and observers believe that “the Green Wave should win if the original voice of the people is to be heard.” Finding out that Ahmadinejad is bound to win, according to hardliner analysts, reformist camp decided to run away forward. Few days before the election, Mousavi declared that he would be the winner if the people are not cheated on. And on the day of election, while people were still casting their ballots, Mousavi participated in a press conference and declared that he is the winner for sure. When the official results got published, public opinion was ready to accept that “it’s a fraud.” Then, Mousavi stated that he would not subscribe to the results. Later on, some resources informed people that Mousavi is pressed to accept the results. Mousavi and Karroubi asked people to wage a wave of civil unrest. Encountered with somehow heavy-handed response, demonstrations went violent. From this perspective, reformists are trying to direct a Colored Revolution.

In my opinion, Colored Revolution in Iran is set to fail for Revolutionary Guards and some hardliners are ready to take every possible measure to crack down demonstrations. However, they are yet to act. It might be due to two possible, yet completely opposite reasons. From one point, they may believe that the current unrest is not that serious. From another point, they may find it so unstable a situation that even one hasty move could cause serious problems. The truth will probably reveal itself within few days. Just wait.

Just Ahmadinejad can do it

by: Sadegh Zibakalam

I do firmly believe that Iran-US relations' most significant transition which is to emerge is due to the presidency of Mr. Ahmadinejad. Truth is that having diplomatic relations with US is more of a taboo in Iran which may only get broken by a tradition-minded, conservative figure. No one may come to bring about a state of détente, negotiate with US and normalize Iran-US relations, save Ahmadinejad himself. We have not yet forgotten McFarlane event (when Imam was alive) and Mr. Hashemi's efforts to revive Iran-US relations; however, conservatives' powerful hands impeded those efforts and McFarlane event came to standstill. In the period of Mr. Hashemi's presidency, Mohajerani (then advisor to Mr. Hashemi) published a column in Ettela'at daily regarding Iran-US relations, which was much more diluted compare to current expressions of Mr. Ahmadinejad; but conservatives' reaction was so tough that he got forced to publicly apologize. Even when Mr. Khatami, in an interview with Christian Amanpour (CNN correspondent), said some relatively fine things about US, psychological pressures of conservatives forced him to utter some harsh words regarding US just few days later in Imam Khomeini's mausoleum. I think that Ahmadinejad is the only person who may bring about a state of détente. During his presidency, this potential vision has evolved into a practical one. He easily speaks of taking photos with an American commander and his deputy in Iraq, and more easily states that 'if we receive any formal request regarding opening US consulate in Tehran, we will consider it seriously', and such stances do not lead to any reaction from either media or others. I believe that Mr. Ahmadinejad's powerful proponents in the regime make him bold enough to freely speak of having relations with US and even march toward bringing about a state of détente and normalizing the relations. Other side of the coin is US. Current evidences suggest that Barack Obama may win presidential elections. However, I doubt it, for I think that 'Silent Majority' of US voters, who constitute 20-30 percent of voters, have not decided to vote for whom and will decide just few nights before final elections, and they are more likely to vote for McCain only to avoid an African-American finding his way to White House. I hope this is not going to happen. After all, if Obama is to become next US president, vision of normalizing relations with US will be much brighter than ever.

*****

Sadegh Zibakalam is a leading reformist author and professor of political sciences in Tehran University. This paper was published last week in Shahrvande Emrooz (today citizen), leading reformist weekly.

Art of Simplicity

Back from a 2 day conference on Media & Communication in Tehran (below photo), on our way to train station, I and some of my friends were speaking about the topics of conference. The discussion led to a debate on different philosophies of communication. Right at this point, hearing the terms 'philosophy' and 'media', taxi driver asked us: "so, from your view, what is the philosophy of Nancy Ajram?" He was apparently a fan of the Arab singer.

This interruption, though seemingly naïve in the first glance, was deep enough to make me think about it for a while. All the professors we meet in such conferences, with all the tribunes they have, can hardly communicate their message(s) to public audience as effectively as Nancy Ajram does. More surprising is that Nancy speaks a different language, and her success in Iran is mostly due to her well-directed, story-telling video clips.

What is the secret to effectively speaking to public audience? I recall Hanibal Lecter in 'the Silence of the Lambs', saying: "first principle is, Claris, simplicity." Be simple and easily understandable, and people will follow you and sympathize with you as a real element; be complicated, and you will become the make-believe part of the story.

One may claim that 'simplicity' is the exclusive profession of Art. I, however, think that Simplicity is itself an Art; an art that many enlightened figures and thinkers unfortunately lack. People's day-to-day problems are simple, and they expect simple answers for their problems. But enlightened thinkers, who may know the solution much better than others, use complicated words to communicate an even more complicated thought. Here appears a gap between people's demand and thinkers' supply. And in Iran, Ahmadinejad is an example of those who take advantage of this gap. He speaks in a simple manner, and is easily understandable. He offers simple solutions (though his solutions may practically turn into nightmares). And in this sense, Ahmadinejad is an artist. This is why that taxi driver, that fan of Nancy Ajram, had hung a picture of Ahmadinejad in his car.

*****

Conference, under the auspices of Youth National Organization

Ayatollah Haj-Ali Akbari, Head of Youth National Organization

President Ahmadinejad and smoking revival

Last winter, Iran’s Health Ministry in cooperation with Police Forces tried to stop all traditional cafés from serving Qalyan (water pipe) to the customers. It should be noted that two general type of Qalyan have been available in such places: Traditional Qalyan which contains pure tobacco and dates back to several centuries ago, and relatively newer Fruit Qalyan which contains fruit-flavored tobacco. Officials of Health Ministry were determined to at least stop Fruit Qalyan, claiming that its tobacco is of a lower quality and the chemicals used for flavoring the tobacco are highly hazardous. By the way, this act was somehow associated with a broader plan aiming at banning public smoking.

Police forces warned all of the café owners to stop serving Qalyan (or any other kind of smoke) or they would be prosecuted. Some café owners tried to resist, who were finally fined and their shops were closed.

Since Qalyan was the main source of income for such cafés (which used to serve tea, Qalyan and few traditional snacks and foods), most of them experienced a rapid decrease of revenues so that many of them decided to close the shops.

Few weeks later, President Ahmadinejad directly ordered Ministry of State (who is in charge of Police Forces) to abolish the crack down. Since then Qalyan is again available. Yeah, that day was “the re-birth of café owners of Iran” as the below poster states. This poster is available in many traditional cafés, expressing the very thanks of café owners to “beloved, popular president” of Iran. It reads: “thank you, thank you!”

Supreme Leader supports Parliament in dispute with Ahmadinejad over a bill

Iran's parliamentary procedure requires each bill passed by MPs to be submitted to Guardian Council, which consists of several Ayatollahs as well as lawyers, and its approval is a must for enacting the bill of interest. This council checks every bill to be consistent with both Constitution and Islamic Jurisprudence. Approved by Guardian Council, President is legally required to implement the bill.

Last week, in an unprecedented event, Ahmadinejad rejected the approved bill and sent a letter to Iran's Parliament Speaker, Gholamali Haddad Adel, informing the parliament that 'the bill passed by parliament is in conflict with Constitution', implying that he would refuse to implement it.

Therefore, Parliament Speaker sent a letter to Supreme Leader and asked of his opinion or decree in this case. Supreme Leader's office informed the parliament of His final say: The government must follow parliament's bills.

*****

Moral Result: Probably Iran's Supreme Leader is going to set a line between him and radical administration of Ahmadinejad.

Ahmadinejad made a new statement/mistake

In the second round of his provincial visits, Ahmadinejad met the people of Southern Khorasan, East of Iran, and as his usual manner, preached them about the advent of Imam Mahdi, Savior of Shiite tradition. This time, as his usual manner (again), he made a great mistake in choosing the proper words to elaborate what was in his mind. He said:
“The scene is fully set to greet that glorious event; a day in which all the prophets, martyrs and good men will come and help [the savior]. Some people might assume these things just a joke; that is because there is no [real] belief in their hearts: They are modern Satanists and idolaters. They pretend to be intellectuals, but their understanding of the world is less than that of a GOAT.”

Source (for exact words): Farsnews

The End.

Ahmadinejad in Columbia University

Breaking news: Iranian state TV is supposed to air the event tonight. I'm very eager to know how much of the program is going to be censored. if all the program is aired... I dont know what may happen!
*****
More to read:
Transcripts of the event (beginnig by Mr Ahmadinejad's Speech)
Another Transcript (containing Mr. Bollinger's Introduction)
Washingtonpost's remarks (makes a fun of Ahmadinejad)
Jerusalem Post ("Ahmadinejad grilled in Columbia Q&A)
NewyorkTimes' report (just read)
*****
As an example of his mistakes, Ahmadinejad infromed the audience in Columbia University: "In Iran, we don't have homosexuals like in your country". Provided that following videos are available to many westerners, what do you expect them to think about him?

Out of Iran
the persecution of homosexuals in the islamic republic of Iran (Broadcast on the CBC’s Sunday Night, Feb.18.2007)
part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FAzMuHyg8Eg
part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QMcfSuJkMo
part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUZiMCsNNcQ
*****
One sentence to Mr. Ahmadinejad:
Mr. President, if you dont know the way you should appear to westerners, don't insist on it, plz.

Zero-Degree-Turn and Ahmadinejad’s speeches; what they have in common?

It was about 4 months ago that I found this site which I hereafter call a kind of "collective effort in order to improve the situation in mideast, though not a very wide one".

At the very beginning, I was very eager to find a subject that might interest others and write about it as soon as possible.

Oh! Yes! I live in a country that makes enough hot news every second, especially when we consider the capability of our president, Ahmadinejad! Seismic effects of his every speech may be interesting enough for any reporter to write too many articles about them, analyze his attitude, predict the future, or even diagnose his mental health!

What about nuclear issue? Do we need or want it? What do ordinary people think about it?
Democracy? Women’s rights? Hijab crackdown? Fuel problem? Next parliamentary elections and its disputed date? Next round of sanctions? Would it solve the problem? A possible American invasion? Pre-emptive air attacks of Israel?

Why did I forget about Israel and wiping it off the map? Or our foreign minister's stance that "every elementary student knows a country can not be wiped off the map"?

Today, I was watching 9th installment of Zero Degree Turn; a new series aired by Iran's state TV and one of the most expensive series ever produced in my country. For a while, I felt that this movie is somehow similar to our president, Ahmadinjad. After a while, I found the similarity!

First read these articles about 0-Degree-Turn:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/866562.html

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/122651

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117966393.html?categoryId=14&cs=1

For those who may not be eager to read those articles:The story is about a romantic relationship between an Iranian Muslim (who lives in France & is an associate of Iran's embassy in Paris) and a Jew girl; and it happens nearly 60 years ago: right at the beginning of WWII.

Now, for all:This story may address several important issues about Jews, Holocaust, Israel, etc, either implicitly or explicitly, but its better not to overestimate its effect on public opinion. my relatives and friends pay attention to the romantic story, beautiful decoration, and depiction of somehow previously forbidden scenes (like an Iranian boy who flirts with some of his pretty classmates, obviously girls I mean!) much more than its semi-hidden political messages (if they even understand that there is a political sub-layer in this movie). The only political issue, to which ordinary people (may) pay attention, is that Iranians were not hostile to the Jews while they were suffering anti-Semitic attitudes in Europe.

Now, about Ahmadinejad: Ahmadinejad may speak about Israel every time he travels to a poor part of this country; and people may be so quiet while he threatens this and that or speaks about countdown to the destruction of Israel. But you should know that people (most of them) don’t either approve or even listen to first half of his speech. They wait for the 2nd half, in which he is supposed to bring the oil's revenue to their tables!

Conclusion: Ahmadinejad and his speeches may be compared to that movie; very few people (if any) in the depth of the society would pay attention to their political messages.

Ahmadinejad is just a movie which may not push any real action within (this) society in its political terms. I’m waiting for its happy end, God willing!