Lack of Kevin Rudd on the Syrian Human Tragedy

Kevin Rudd, our Foreign Minister in Australia, has the ability of seeing the international political scenery in details. He has been showing this quality soon after he became a shadow Foreign Ministry spokesperson long time ago. He showed it then; and he surely demonstrates it today as the Australian Foreign Minister.

He was very active in the Egyptian affairs during the demising days of Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. He occasionally met with the opposition activists back then, and he openly expressed his view and of the Australian Government on the need for transition to democracy in that country. He supports human rights and democracy for the Egyptian people.

He was also supporting, and perhaps more than Egyptian case, the freedom seeking people of Libya in their uprising against Gaddafi. Mr. Rudd stood with the innocents who were targeted by Gaddafi’s killing machine. He was a vocal advocate of a no-fly zone against the Gaddafi’s Air Force which was bombarding defenceless people in Libya. He played his role in the passing of the UN resolution 1973 against the Gaddafi’s regime.

These stands proved his quality and ability in playing the international political chess game which is being played in Africa and the Middle East.

However, he has been quite lately over the Syrian development. I wonder why. Syria is located in the Middle East. She also plays the terrorism card along with her Middle East renegade trouble maker and human rights violator, the Islamic Republic in Iran. She, with the Tehran's assistance, have been killing Syrian civilians for quite sometimes now. And one would have expected to hear more from Mr. Rudd on the issue of dealing with Bashar Al Assad. That would perhaps constitute hitting two or even more birds with one stone–or at least this is the way I see it.

Are they playing us?

Of all political news out of Iran recently, the conflict between president Ahmadi Nejad and Ali Khamenei, the leader, has been dominating the media, both inside Iran and abroad. The clash appeared to have been triggered over their constitutional powers. 

Consequences of such unprecedented clash, however, could not understandably be contained at the executive limb of government. They fast transcended to the other branches, the parliament and the judiciary, as well as unelected bodies such as the Guardian Council all of which are Ali Khamenei's toys--or have a mutual understandings and benefits to consider. One should not expect for Iran to have -yet- a system of government as we know it in the West. There is no such thing as independent branches of government--they run the country like mafia. Therefore in addition to these more official and purported independent political bodies; Ali Khamenei mobilised his top brass military personnel in the Revolutionary Guards, its paramilitary militia Basijis, pressure groups (say street thugs) to attack president Ahmadi Nejad and his supporters. It was an all-out verbal war. They even threatened the president with physical confrontation. One could then only assume that a bomb explosion at the Abadan Refinery--Abadan is an Iranian city at the southern point of Iran next to the Persian Gulf--during a visit by president Ahmadi Nejad recently was a very loud message directed at the president!

Political assassinations have been, and is, a routine business in Iran's politics since its birth. A group of, eight to ten, high ranking revolutionary guards officers believed to have been close to Hashemi Rafsanjani died when their plane crashed months before the last presidential election. Months prior to that another military plane crashed over Tehran with over 100 top brass military and revolutionary guards personnel on board, all dead-and it wouldn't be hard to guess which side of politics they would have associated with. A young 26 years old general practitioner died at his dormitory recently; he had treated two young protesters, they had been arrested after the presidential election unrest, for their injuries received under barbaric torture, and appeared before a parliamentary inquiry-both young died. An academic believed to had been associated with the Iran's Green Movement died in a bomb explosion when he was leaving home for work. There is no shortage of the stories of this kind, 32 years of political assassinations in the history of the Islamic Republic is an interesting subject for a research study; for a very brave person though!

The parliament also, on leader's signal, threatened the president with a possible impeachment. After all in the Islamic Republic; the parliament is "the leader's parliament", said the speaker, Ali Larijani.

In first glance, for an observer and of course the people of Iran, these unfolding events portrayed a different president than the one who kissed the leader's shoulder years back in his inaugural ceremony!  

Notwithstanding it now appears, strangely, that Ali Khamenei wants president Ahmadi Nejad to stay on for the remaining two years of his second four years term in office. Hence as much as the questioning of the leader's untouchable authorities by president Ahmadi Nejad was a new and an unprecedented move in the history of the regime in Tehran, the leader's move casts serious doubt over their noisy altercation. Basically in short and midterms, if president Ahmadi Nejad and his government stay on and the leader's overriding authorities, as his camp interprets it, remain intact; then nothing really happened after all! Except the implied message sent by the president challenge that the leader is not a sacred person who represents god on earth rather he is a human being like any other and his authorities can, and must, be questioned. Apart from this, all the noise meant nothing and a little group of people who calls themselves 'the Islamic Republic' remains happy!

If it actually happens and president Ahmadi Nejad stays on and things back to normality somewhat, we left with the question that, as I wrote here before, was the conflict real? The answer is either 'yes' or 'no'. Given president Ahmadi Nejad caved in and admitted to the leader's wish and authorities; a 'yes' answer does not really change anything and is not my real concern. However, a 'no' answer raises different questions. Why did they need to stage such a play? What factors did force them to do that? And what are they going to achieve from it?

Generally from the people's reaction to the rigged presidential election two years ago, both Ali Khamenei and president Ahmadi Nejad have learnt that they have no place among the majority of Iranians. They saw millions of them on streets chanting against them and the Islamic Republic. They also remember that they had to crackdown the peaceful opposition brutally and put its leadership under arrest. These daunting facts, they know, have transformed Iran into an explosive device awaiting a trigger. They are also aware of the fact that denying the people of Iran a domestic opposition force the people to search for an alternative opposition elsewhere. And when one adds this to the unhappiness of a Western world which is tired of irresponsible behaviour of Ali Khameni and president Ahmadi Nejad; it would be a dangerous mixture for them. 

Yet I still have not mentioned the wave of revolutions against tyrants of the Middle Eastern and African countries. Ali Khamenei and president Ahmadi Nejad know that it is only a matter of time before the people of Iran loudly demand their human and democratic rights as well! Perhaps, remember we are still talking about the 'no' answer to the question of their conflict being real or otherwise, Ali Khamenei and president Ahmadi Nejad felt the need for a domestic but controlled opposition to the tyrannic regime of Ali Khanmeni--if this speculation is right, I think they are desperate. In this way they might at least try to tackle some of their serious challenges ahead. But the question is that for how long more would they be able to deny the people of Iran what the Egyptians achieved, and the Yemenis; Tunisians; Libyans; and Syrians are in the process of achieving? My answer is; not very long; not very long at all.

Mr Khatami, you are not the Iranian people's speaker!

Mohammad Khatami, former Iranian president, has suggested a reconciliation between the leader camp and his killing-machine and the people! I was wondering whose people he was referring to. Because if it was the people of Iran; he has no right to speak on their behalf and/or their demands.

Referring to the post-presidential-election clashes between the leader's killing-machine and the people over two years ago, he suggested the both sides to disregard what has happened and reconcile their differences. What Mr. Khatami, as an individual, was suggesting is in fact to ignore all crimes committed against the people. Crimes such as rapes; extra-judicial killing; medieval tortures; arbitrary arrests; and/or mass graves in which perhaps hundreds, if not thousands, of the best children of this country have been buried unknown. Those crimes are not fully identifiable until such time that they being investigated by international bodies. Mr. Khatami was somehow too generous to individually spending from the pockets of thousands of Iranian families who have lost their loved ones in the hands of criminal gangs--organized at the highest level of the Islamic Republic political and military apparatuses. 

Mr Khatami must remember that he is an individual who is entitled to his opinion. However, he has no right to speak on behalf of the people of Iran and their demands; particularly not those who have paid the ultimate price!

Does It Matter?

After almost two weeks that the Islamic Republic's political-ship encounters stormy weather, it seems that president Ahmadi Nejad has backed down from his challenge to the leader's authority. But the question is; does it really matter?

Ahmadi Nejad may now sit beside his sacked Intelligence Minister, Mr. Moslehi, at his Cabinet meetings, but the leader's authority has already been dented in an unprecedented way. Except Messrs. Mosavi and Karobei, the presidential candidates in the last election, challenging the leader's verdict over any matter, both domestic or internationally, in the Islamic Republic used to be a 'No Go Zone'. However, we are now more often witnessing one. This very last time was in fact the second time in the last few years that president Ahmadi Nejad has done it. First time was when the leader signaled his wish to see the president's current, at the time Vice-President, Chief of Staff, Mr. Rahim Mashaeei, departure. President Ahmadi Nejad moved him into his office with greater prerogatives. That was seen by many as a direct challenge to the leader.

This time around was even bigger and noisier challenge. I wrote about it on this space.

President Ahmadi Nejad refused to accept the leader's verdict by not attending his duties for almost 10 days. He had even, after resuming his duties, asked the minister, in his first few meetings, to leave the Cabinet room. There were rumors that he has suggested that "following a leader does not mean that one has to give up his constitutional authorities as president"! If that is true, which seems to be, at the face value of violent verbal attacks he received from the leader's camp; it would be a big and new development inside the Conservative Islamic Republic. The Supreme Leader authority has more and more been questioned and undermined; his myth is being faded.

Notwithstanding of the president Ahmadi Nejad's back-down against the leader temporarily; the wheel for the removing of such figurehead is in motion now. And despite his thugs best attempts to save his face and authority; he is now a badly cracked-leader. People can now see how weak and feeble this poor-man is. In the hindsight Iranian people have shown it before on streets of the Iranian cities. They had damaged the image of this fragile leader after the election-coup two years ago. They brought down his posters marched over and burned them. In some cases-I heard-they even pissed over his images. A poor old-man at the end of his despotic road.

So that was it!

Iran's leader has been spying on president Ahmadi Nejad for a while, reported by TheEconomist. Ali Khamenei has apparently used Mr. Heydar Moslehi, the Intelligence Minister, to bug the president's office. An outraged president then sacks his minister. The rest I wrote about down here.

I am now more concerned about the reason behind the move, spying on someone whom the leader went to a great extent to rig an election and put him into office. The first indication is that the main target had been Mr. Mashaei, the president's Chief of Staff who has been a controversial figure for quite sometimes now. He has been associated with a new idea of an Iranian Islamic-Culture, say an Iranian version of Islam, as opposed to an Arabic Islamic-Culture.

Traditional Iranian clerics have responded fiercely to such idea and understandably so. They see the idea a great danger to their religious authority; social status; political power; economic power; and above all their relevance to the new Iranian society. For them the killing and burial of the idea is a battle of 'to be or not to be'.

That was perhaps--I am pretty sure it was--behind the move by the leader over a year ago to order Mr. Mashaei's removal as the Vice-President. However, as a defiance, president Ahmadi Nejad kept Mr. Mashei close by moving him into his office. That was the first sign of unprecedented challenge to the leader.

This time around, however, over the bugging issue and the Ahmadi Nejad's refusal to comply with the leader decision of reinstating the Intelligence Minister, was a decisive moment for both the traditional clerics and the leader in one side and the president and his camp on the other. While the leader's side is attacking the president's camp at full-stem; perhaps for president Ahmadi Nejad and his supporters a contemplation of a remarkable opportunity they have is a must.

A Genuine Or Bogus Fight?

Two years after Iran's election-coup which landed president Ahmadi Nejad in office, a new political conflict emerges in Iran, this time; between president Ahmadi Nejad and his most powerful backer so far, Ali Khamenei, the so-called Supreme Leader.

The conflict came to light over a week ago when president Ahmadi Nejad pushed his Information-Intelligence minister, perceived to be the Ali Khamenei's man, the leader, to resign. Ali Khamenei, only hours after the acceptance of the minister's resignation by the president; reinstated the minister unconstitutionally. A humiliated and publicly embarrassed president has then refused to attend the Cabinet meetings for more than a week now. He has even refused to go to his office and stayed at home for the past week or so. Furthermore he is said to have threatened to speaking-out about the affair and appeal to the public. This suggestion has, however, angered the leader's supporters, thugs, and instigated some nasty attacks on the president and his supporters from the leader's camp, mostly loudmouthed thugs, including the conservatives MPs. Because there is no such thing as an independent parliament or MPs in the Islamic Republic. The MPs went on and threaten to impeach the president over the matter.

However, president Ahmadi Nejad "has done nothing wrong", said himself. He has been constitutionally conferred with the power to appoint, subject to the parliament approval, and/or remove his cabinet ministers. Ali Khameni has gone far beyond his constitutional powers to publicly spurn the president. But then again in the Islamic Republic of Iran; law, whether it be the constitutional or any other law, and its application has no meaning whatsoever.

There is no such thing as the independent branches of government. The country is being run by a bunch of buddies headed by the leader and his pressure groups, mostly thugs. This recent event in hand is a perfect example of an independent executive branch where the president has no real power over his cabinet. And when president Ahmadi Nejad stayed home for over a week, as a way of protesting and defending his constitutional power; the leader unleashed his thugs using the most vulgar language to threaten him to death.  

The so-called legislature's response to threaten, with just a telephone call from the leader's office, the president was yet another example of another branch of government being a puppet legislature. This was not however a surprise at all. Right after the disputed presidential election two years ago, the house's speaker, Ali Larijani, was under attacks from the leader's pressure group; he then called the house, the "Ali Khamenei's Parliament"!

What about the judiciary? Come on! That is a joke! We remember the extra judicial killings. We remember the arbitrary arrests; and the medieval tortures and rape used as political tools to break the resilient protesters. We remember the Political Show-Trials during and after the disputed presidential election. We remember the political prisoners' wives, children, fathers, mothers and the relatives being kidnapped and kept hostage just to silent their loved ones. Here again, like the Legislature, the leader's thugs running the show! That judiciary must be burnt down and rebuild from the scratch.

The only questions remain unanswered are that: is this conflict for real? Is there any attempt by president Ahmadi Nejad to undermine the leader? His reluctance to accept the leader's verdict could certainly be interpreted as such. And this was not the first time either. He has, despite the leader's opposition, kept his current Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaeei, before. That was interpreted as a defiance of the leader's wish at the time. 

What we see unfolding in Iran as a power struggle between the leader and the president has in fact a bigger and deeper element at its core. That is what the leader's camp has claimed to be a revolution against the Mullas' dominating political authority, orchestrated by Mr. Mashaei, the president's Chief of Staff, and his associates. Now regardless of who is the winner of this recent wrestling match between president Ahmadi Nejad and the leader; I would like to see a cocktail of future matches with the political cyclone currently passing through the Africa-Middle East regions. It gets us all drunk with a lovely feeling! Trust me.



  

In light of the political unrest in Bahrain and the military involvement of Saudi Arabia to assist the Sunni political establishment in the country with the majority Shiite population, the timing was right to write on the Sunni-Shiite relationship since the creation of the Islamic Republic in Iran over 32 years ago. I posted a lead on the issue here.

Unfortunately, the time has been hectic recently, both at work and study. Therefore I had to remove the lead for now. I am sorry for that. I am still interested to write the piece, however, don't set a time.