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.

Compromise? At What Price?

The Islamic Republic's political-battle-ground has seen some significant turnarounds in the past week or so.

The most significant development was the replacement of Hashemi Rafsanjani, the chair of both the powerful Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts, up to last week, and one of the most prominent architectures of the Islamic Republic, from the Assembly last Tuesday. He himself, not contesting, cleared the way for Mahdavi Kani, a reactionary cleric close to Ali Khamenei, to basically occupy the chair on behalf of the leader!

Earlier in the week in yet another Hashemies' back-down, Mr Mohsen Hashemi, the son of Mr Rafsanjani, had resigned from the management of Tehran's Underground Metro. The control over the blessed asset has always been the subject of an ugly feud between the Rafsanjani's family and the conservative government of president Ahmadi Nejad. Mohsen Hashemi and his father were widely perceived as ardent oppositions to president Ahmadi Nejad.

Days prior to these, leader's thugs had attacked Faeze Rafsanjani, the daughter of Hashemi Rafsanjani and once a member of parliament, and threatened to kill her, her family and his dad. It sounded like the ultimate message to the Rafsanjanies, left them to choose between only two options; either you are with us or against us--familiar phrase, though Iranian version.

Given the seriousness of the internal political-crisis of the Islamic Republic compounded by the effects of the recent social upheavals against dictators in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt; both Rafsanjani and Khamenei were aware of their options and the ensuing consequences. For Khamenei the only way forward, after putting Mr Mosavi and Karobi, the Green's leaders, under house-arrest, and at the same time threatening Mr Rafsanjani, was to, in fact, materialise those threats. However this would have had dire consequences for him and his generals; and perhaps led to the implosion of the Islamic Republic political establishment, if not immediate, in the short-term. That was more like a suicidal option. Besides, they had to ask themselves a question, say they manage to survive the implosion, what good does the removal of the local oppositions bring for them? The answer was simple; none. In fact, such move would force Iranians and the West to search for oppositions elsewhere! Khamenei and his fellows would not want that; that was a given.

Hence they were more inclined to compromise. The unusual and rather quick response by Ali Khamenei to publicly embrace Rafsanjani's move and happily congratulating him on the matter of the Assembly's election was a clear indication of his relief. Khamenei went further and denounced what he had orchestrated himself, using the most vulgar language by his thugs against Rafsanjani's daughter just few days earlier. If all these were not enough to show his jubilation; Khamenei signaled his thugs to move Mr Mosavi and Karobi along with their wives back into their homes, they had been moved to safe houses since Bahman 25, Feb 14. By these quick concessions to the Rafsanjani's moves, he was hopeful to cement some sort of going back to normality after close to two years of the tense political situation in Iran.  

For Rafsanjani and the Green's leaders, shielding in the same trench, on the other hand, the consequence of differing could have been more dangerous and immediate. They could be physically eliminated i.e. thugs may invade their homes and kill them by the name of Jihad (an Islamic call to fight against the god's enemy). That way Khamenei could wash his hands and blame the revolutionary people. For example, Nephew of Mr Mosavi has been shot dead in a peaceful demonstration in Tehran last year. That was a clear warning at the time. Moreover, Rafsanjani, Mosavi and Karobi all knew that they are in the same Islamic Republic Ship as are Khamenei and the generals after all. The ship has now encountered the worst heavy seas in its 32 years old voyage; Iranians are demanding their freedom and democracy; and the West is worrying with the regime's nuclear ambitions and its support and links with terrorist organizations. In addition, the recent demise of the dictators in Tunisia and Egypt has mirrored Khamenei's fate. From the three's view points, there was no logic in their actions if they were to be thrown off the board with the prospect of the ship itself being wrecked only later. After all Mr Mosavi and Karobi have all along shown their commitment to the Islamic Republic Constitution. Alike Khamenei and his camp, Rafsanjani, Mosavi and Karobi also knew the destiny of the Islamic Republic should harm come their way. 

Having this picture in mind and given the importance of the Rafsanjani's move, giving up the Assembly's chair where the Assembly is constitutionally conferred the power to dislodge the Supreme Leader, Ali Khamnei; the move was received by the Khamenei's camp as a good gesture. They appreciated it very much and readily expressed their willingness to accommodate the other side reasonable demands. But in all these political maneuvers between the Islamic Republic political factions; an absolutely imperative element is lost. That is the people of Iran. Where do they stand in the Iran's political-equation? Are these political factions able to ignore the people's demand? Do the Iranian people admit to the totalitarian regime should the political rivals reconcile their differences? Do the most educated people in the Middle East accept living under whims of a despot while the rest of the Africans and the Middle Easterners are getting rid of their dictators? I don't think so. 

Dictators' Appetite For Power

What we are witnessing unfolds in Libya and Iran today is a display of appetite for power. That is the dictators’ appetite to stay in power a bit longer at whatever cost. Their appetite is apparently peculiar among all dictators; much stronger than any other form of appetite we, the ordinary people, maybe aware of; that it forces them to such extent to even hire foreign mercenaries to kill their own people! Interestingly, they pay their hired guns from the pockets, their country’s resources, of the very people they are killing.

For the people living in a free and democratic society where they are born and grown up with their human and democratic rights already guaranteed under a strong constitution; story of this kind is hard to conceive. They are as much strangers to a one-man-political-show as to see military and police personnel become involve in politic. Even more strange to them would be watching the country’s judiciary acting as a tool of trade in the hand of a dictator. But that is what the dictatorship is all about. After all the only distinction between the democracy and dictatorship is the 'rule of law' as Hon KITTO J of the High Court of Australia puts it so eloquently in Ziems (1957): 

"Without the rule of law, democracy is but a misleading and empty phrase, for the contrast between a democracy and the totalitarian State lies essentially in the reliance, by people wedded to the democratic ideal, upon the law. The substance of democracy is that the State should be subordinate to the needs and welfare of the common individual, and that subordination can only be achieved when the structure of the State ensures that all are bound by a system of law that is defined and ascertainable; which is capable of change in accordance with the wishes of the majority constitutionally expressed; and which is publicly and effectively administered by judicial officers drawn from a profession trained in traditions of impartiality and incorruptibility." 

And now when we see positive signs of end to the dictatorship era; a dictator such as Col Ghaddafi of Libya proves the extent of brutality he is prepared to go; hiring foreign mercenaries against his own people. Fortunately civilised world is not going to sit ideal and watches while he butchers his own people. The UN Security Council and the NATO both responded promptly and accordingly. Since his action is not without precedent; his Iranian counterpart, Ali Khamenei has done it before many times; the international bodies should be willing and prepared to act should Ali Khamenei desperately decide to go down the same route. He has imported Lebanese terrorists, from his terrorist group Hezbollah, to suppress Iranian people in many occasions. The very recent one was on 25 Bahman, 14 Feb this year, when he imported 1500 Lebanese terrorists to Iran, reported by the London-based Al Shargh Al Osaat Arabic-English newspaper. He used them in the crackdowns of the Iranian Green’s gathering on the day called by Messrs Mosavi and Karobi. The importation was in addition to those tens of, if not hundreds, Lebanese terrorists who are being trained at the Ghods Forces', a branch of the Islamic Revolution Guards, camps inside Iran at any one time.

While behavior of this kind by these remnants of dictatorship era is a shock to those living in a democratic society; it has been the dictators’ usual business, albeit clandestine, in decades. Tens of thousands of Libyans and Iranians, just in current cases, who dared to politically oppose these dictators' ruling have been tortured and killed in summary executions whom we haven't heard much about in the past decades. Today, however, there is a positive side to all these shocks and horrors. Both the Libyans and Iranians have exposed the brutality of their dictators. They forced the dictators to bring out to the surface what they have been doing in secret for all these years; arresting; torturing; raping; and extra judicial killing of their political opponents in dark places away from our eyes.

Nonetheless the dictatorship era is visibly coming to end. After the former presidents of Tunisia and Egypt, Bin Ali and Mubarak, have given up their power under their people's pressure; it is only a matter of time before Ghaddafi of Libya and Ali Khamenii of Iran have to go too. The only good the killings of Libyans and Iranians is doing for them is to add to their long list of crimes that they have committed against humanity during their years in power.