Is the Iranian regime Sistani-able?

Those who doubt the force or staying power of Iran's Green movement often characterize the movement as essentially leaderless and unfocused in its goals. It's true that putative leaders Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami are presently focusing on reform platforms; they condemn violence and assert that they want to work within the Constitution of the Islamic Republic.  As the regime and hardline establishment figures repeatedly retreat into recalcitrance, arresting and terrorizing demonstrators, intimidating the reformist leaders, calling for executions of demonstrators and sometimes death sentences for the leaders, it's hard to imagine the old establishment reformists finding a path toward meaningful compromise with a regime that has (as they sometimes themselves assert) has lost legitimacy. And it's true that there is no high profile leader calling for a full-scale regime change - which would be impossible from within the country.

At World Politics Review, Masoud Shafaee suggests a possible source of galvanizing leadership for those seeking change in Iran.  In an article tracing divisions between Iranian clerics, including recent assaults on close Montezari associate and presumptive spiritual heir Grand Ayatollah Yousef Sanei, Shafaee speculates:

Yet ironically, the regime may face its greatest threat not from within, but from outside the country. Ever since June's contested election, observers have been keeping a close watch on Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani (who hails from Iran but resides in the holy city of Najaf, Iraq), considered the highest living authority in all of Shiite Islam. Sistani comes from the "quietist" tradition of Shiite theology, one that, unlike the Islamic Republic's ruling doctrine of velayat-eh faqih, holds that clerics should abstain from becoming directly involved in politics. So far, he has refrained from condemning the regime's actions. But his clout is so strong in the Shiite world that, were this to change, the Islamic Republic would arguably no longer face just a political crisis within Iran, but also a crisis of religious confidence among all Shiites.

For now, the influential cleric has shown no signs of weighing in on the unrest. As Ashura came and went, Sistani issued a statement only inviting followers to attend memorial services for the "martyrs" who died in recent terrorist attacks in Karbala and Kazemein, Iraq. Yet there is little doubt that Sistani is watching events unfold in his native land. In November, he met with Ali Larijani, the speaker of Iran's Parliament, and more recently, he defended Sanei in the aftermath of Yazdi's attack.

A prayerful assembly in Iran

From Green Brief 31, perhaps the best current source for news inside Iran, a couple of snippets highlighting the tenor of state-sanctioned worship in the Islamic Republic:

Karroubi was assaulted in front of Tehran University as he tried to enter the compound to join the prayers.

It is worth mentioning that there was a loudspeaker inside the mosque which chanted, "Death to America!", but every time that slogan was heard, people loudly replied with, "Death to Russia, Death to China!"

Many women were reportedly stabbed with knives by Basijis dressed as women. Several mosques around the city were packed with Basijis waiting to come out and clash with protesters...Basijis even attacked people who had come to prayers.

The Basij are religiously indoctrinated from an early age as they're trained in the means of state terror. This is the modus vivendi of the theocracy established by Ayatollah Khomeini, the "enlightened Imam," according to Mousavi, who brought "unprecedented enlightenment" to Iranian society -- and who, according to Rafsanjani yesterday, "always said that without the participation of the people the Islamic government would never be successful."

Let's recall that compared to Khomeini, the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad thugocracy is kind and gentle. Instead of mass beatings, the enlightened Imam went in for mass executions, untold tortures, and, when war came, human wave sacrifices of indoctrinated teens. He also empowered a cadre of theocrats, starting with himself, to place their own authority ahead of that of the Koran -- let alone the people.

Can those who devoted their life's service, and continue to pay lip service -- and probably heart service -- to one of the twentieth centuries last great killers lead a movement for meaningful change? Perhaps, for a season. Gorbachev did it.

Did Rafsanjani cede the key point?

Muhammad Sahimi at Tehran Bureau believes that Rafsanjani's sermon at Friday prayers earlier today "is bound to reinvigorate the democratic movement" because Rafsanjani implicitly validated the people's doubt in the election results and "demonstrated the glaring fissures in the leadership of the Islamic Republic."

True enough. But to an outsider reading a rushed transcript, it also seems that Rafsanjani effectively gave up on challenging the election results. Rather, he seemed to call for effectively palliating the wronged electorate by granting fredom of assembly and freedom of speech without offerng the possiblity that those acts would yield any concrete change. That is, he called for freeing the prisoners, consoling the mourners, and freeing the media instead of addressing their grievances with action. Below, I've highlighted what seems to me the key pivot in the political part of the speech.

The most important thing that has happened is that the trust that brought the people to vote in such large number is not there anymore.
We need to return this trust.
We all need to follow the law. And I’m talking about the government, the parliament, the Islamic Courts and the security forces.
We need to follow the laws.
All problems can be solved if we only follow the framework of the laws.
We need to create an environment where all sides could come together and discuss their issues.
We need to be able to sit down like brothers and sisters and talk about our differences.
Unfortunately,
The chance that was given to the Guardian Council of five days to get people together and regain their trust was not used.
That is not there anymore.
But we still have time to unite.

We shouldn’t imprison our own people,
We should let these people return to their homes,
We shouldn’t let our enemies laugh at us because we’ve imprisoned our own people.
We should sit together with mourners,
And we should console them,
And bring them back closer to the system.
We should not be impatient now.

Please do not censor media outlets that have legally obtained permits.
Let them do what they want to do legally.
Allow a peaceful and friendly environment to prosper.
We are all together in the Islamic Revolution,
We’ve all spent years in suffering,
We’ve all given martyrs for the cause of the revolution,
This unity needs to fostered.

I’m hopeful that we will be able to achieve this unity in the future,
And I’m hopeful we will get out of this situation,
Based on the wishes of the people,
And consensus among the leaders.

Rafsnajani, like Mousavi, claims that theocracy and republicanism, are the twin pillars of the Islamic Republic:

this is a theocracy,
A theocratic republic.
(People chanting)
Be patient, be calm.
If the government is not Islamic, then we are heading no where.
If it is not a republic, then it doesn’t amount to anything..

Effectively, though, a theocratic republic seems to give the people democracy when they agree with the theocrats. Rafsnajani calls at the end for unity, for consensus among the leaders. But the "chance" squandered by the Guardian Council, charged with investigating the announced election results that they subsequently rubber-tamped, "is not there any more." So where does that leave Iranians? Rafsanjani has no answer.

Wings breaking through a web? Iranian persistence in resistance

In several posts (1, 2, 3) noting the well-documented rise of Revolutionary Guard influence during Ahmadinejad's presidency, I have wondered how disaffected masses in Iran can effect change when the elite and paramilitary military/police forces executing the crackdown seems so fanatically devoted. What tools are at the people's (and upper-level reformists') disposal when the guns are all on the other side?

There are several possible answers to that question, and many of them are in evidence in today's Green Brief (#25) - perhaps the most dispassionate and reliable regular roundup of news inside Iran. They include the following. Indented passages below are from Green Brief 25 unless otherwise noted.

1. Economic resistance:

Vast weekly protests and the heavy presence of Basiji’s have had a negative impact on Iranian bazaars; they are finding it harder and harder to stay open. As a result, commerce is slowly coming to a standstill. Reports indicate that the opposition is in the midst of planning more strikes and protests.

Also of note on this front: the Mousavi campaign's reported cooptation of the Islamic holiday Itikaf, a 3-day period of state-sanctioned reflection and prayer, for which people are encouraged to stay home from work, as cover for a stealth strike. Some suggested that the subsequent official shut-down of government offices, justified by an intense dust storm, may have been a kind of counter-strike.

2. Some wavering in the ranks:

Reports indicate that many Basijis are quitting their jobs and are being replaced by fresh recruits, many of them under 18.

A bit of anecdotal evidence that rank-and-file conservatives are divided by the election debacle: yesterday's WSJ portrait of a fanatically devoted young Basij ended with this tale of his recently busted engagement:

For Mr. Moradani, the biggest shock during the election turmoil came in his personal life. He had recently gotten engaged to a young woman from a devout, conservative family. A week into the protests, he says, his fiancée called him with an ultimatum. If he didn't leave the Basij and stop supporting Mr. Ahmadinejad, he recalls her saying, she wouldn't marry him.

He told her that was impossible. "I suffered a real emotional blow," he says. "She said to me, 'Go beat other people's children then,' and 'I don't want to have anything to do with you,' and hung up on me."

She returned the ring he gave her, and hasn't returned his phone calls. "The opposition has even fooled my fiancée," he says.

3. Protesters' persistence

While mass protests of the sort that culminated on June 20 may be effectively quelled for now, the Green Wave is proving persistent, resilient and innovative:

Delayed reports - just emerging - confirm that protests did indeed take place around the country on July 9th. We also have authentication of mass arrests during this time. Reports of black-outs during Ahmadinejad’s speech [allegedly caused by protestors' coordinated plug-ins of as many appliances as possible] are now being confirmed by mainstream media as well (this was confirmed on twitter three days ago). ..

People in Tehran are continuing to honk their horns at the sight of Basijis - and chanting anti-government slogans while speeding away. Many people drive with their headlights on.

4. Continued resistance from high-level clerics and "old Bolsheviks" of 1979:

Many of the same scholars and journalists who have recounted the tightening grip of the Ahmadinejad/Revolutionary Guard Khamenei-backed faction have also noted that powerful elements in Iran's clerical and political elite don't like it -- and in particular, don't like Ahmadinejad. Leading dissenters include the "defeated" presidential candidates; former President and current Chairman of the Assembly of Experts and the Expediency Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani; onetime Khomeini heir apparent Ayatollah Montazari; and the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum. That resistance is not going away:

In a letter to the Head of the Judiciary, Mahdi Karoubi – one of the candidates during the election and a key force behind the current protests – asked for the immediate release of all political prisoners as well as arrested protesters. In a letter addressed to Ayatollah Shahrodi, Karoubi claimed that, “People believed in the system, however, the system had been hijacked by a few.” He accused Tehran’s authorities of systematically eradicating opposition. He warned the government of “unimaginable consequences” if the current situation persisted.

Ayatollah Montazeri has released a Fatwa that is very supportive of protesters and their cause. In the Fatwa, Montazeri “condemned violence against protesters as un-Islamic.” He’s pleaded with the government to not play with the name of Shi’ism and Islam with their actions. He hinted that Khamenei’s leadership is standing against Islam, human rationale and National interests – and that he was clearly in the wrong. Reports of Ayatollah Ustadi - Qom's temporary Friday Prayer’s Imam - resigning his position and calling a strike could not be confirmed...

The spokesperson for Parliament's Imam’s Way Faction declared that the government’s legitimacy was “questionable” after what transpired post-election. Reports from Tehran indicate that many members within the Faction are thinking of not partaking in the “vote of confidence” that will be held in Parliament soon (the President selects a cabinet, and then a vote of confidence takes place). The spokesperson added that, “When a Cabinet Minister refuses to answer to the public, then it shouldn’t expect to get a vote of confidence”....

A number of prominent citizens in Tabriz have written a letter to Khamenei declaring that, “people were not satisfied with the election and that they will continue to voice their opposition to Ahmadinejad’s government.”

One would imagine that persistence on the part of rank-and-file Greens would be the life-blood sustaining those persisting in the upper-level power struggle. The statements released by powerful groups and individuals questioning the legitimacy of the elections are always made in the name of the people's right to a voice and the legitimacy of their protests.

The people's persistence may continue to be fueled, as in 1978-79, by that peculiar Shiite passion for and response to martyrdom, most obvious so far in the iconization of Neda, the young woman shot to death on the street after stepping out of a car into the midst of the protest of June 20. Today, twitterers are reporting a new martyr:

Sohrab, a high school senior, dies in Evin few days AFTER his mom put up bail 4 his release. #iranelection

StopAhmadiNew pictures of Sohrab Arabi (killed in Evin prison) http://bit.ly/JiTM7 #iranelection #neda #sohrab

Back on June 15, BooMan noted, "It's often said that the [1979] revolution advanced in 40-day stages, as forty days is the traditional period of mourning in Iran's culture."

What will happen on July 30, the 40th day following Neda's death?

Hopeful developments in Iran

As Khamenei and Ahmadinejad continue to arrest and torture protesters and ramp up threats against Mousavi, Karroubi and their supporters, two more hopeful signs arise of resistance within Iran's ruling elite:

1) A group of top-tier religious leaders has ramped up its opposition to the official election results and the crackdown, the NYT reports:

The most important group of religious leaders in Iran called the disputed presidential election and the new government illegitimate on Saturday, an act of defiance against the country’s supreme leader and the most public sign of a major split in the country’s clerical establishment.

A statement by the group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qum, represents a significant, if so far symbolic, setback for the government and especially the authority of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, whose word is supposed to be final. The government has tried to paint the opposition and its top presidential candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, as criminals and traitors, a strategy that now becomes more difficult — if not impossible...

The clerics’ statement chastised the leadership for failing to adequately study complaints of vote rigging and lashed out at the use of force in crushing huge public protests.

It even directly criticized the Guardian Council, the powerful group of clerics charged with certifying elections.

“Is it possible to consider the results of the election as legitimate by merely the validation of the Guardian Council?” the association said.

Perhaps more threatening to the supreme leader, the committee called on other clerics to join the fight against the government’s refusal to adequately reconsider the charges of voter fraud. The committee invoked powerful imagery, comparing the 20 protesters killed during demonstrations with the martyrs who died in the early days of the revolution and the war with Iraq, asking other clerics to save what it called “the dignity that was earned with the blood of tens of thousands of martyrs.”

2) Rafsanji, still cryptic, appears to point toward some solution other than acquiescence to the official election results. CNN:

"People from across the country participated in the elections, with excitement," ILNA quoted Rafsanjani as saying in Saturday's story. "But unfortunately the events that occurred after that and the difficulties created for some left a bitter taste, and I don't think that any wakened consciousness would be satisfied with the resulting situation."

He referred to the recent expressions of opinions across the country regarding the election crisis as a reflection of a power struggle "at the highest levels of the system."

"I hope that with proper management and fortitude, in the next few days, we can be witnesses to the betterment of the situation, resolution of the difficulties and the decrease in the number of the families waiting for their loved ones," Rafsanjani said. "We must think about safeguarding the long term interests and benefits of the system."

Everything Rafsanjani has said publicly since the election can be read two ways, e.g., his call on Mousavi et al to work through legal channels (June 27) and his dubbing the election aftermath “a tangled mess, perpetrated by suspicious sources whose objectives are to create differences and separations between the people and the system and eroding the trust of the people in the Islamic system" (June 29).

Did Rafsanjani cave?

It's been generally assumed that the "special commission" of Iran's Khameini-controlled Guardian Council charged with investigating the vote will merely rubber-stamp the official results.

Now, according to the Iranian government-controlled Press TV, the Rafsanjani-led Expediency Council is calling on Mousavi and Karroubi to "resolve disputes through legal channels" -- that is, through the special commission, which would mean presenting their cases by Sunday. For what it's worth, the Expediency Council statement also promises a genuine investigation into the vote:

The body, led by the influential cleric and former President Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, asked the candidates, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohsen Rezaei, to fully cooperate with the Guardian Council -- tasked with supervising the elections.

The statement called on the candidates to “use this appropriate opportunity to submit their documents and evidence for a comprehensive and precise investigation”...

The Expediency Council also called on the election watchdog to precisely follow the complaints, respond to suspicions, and to use an appropriate team of experts with the aim of building the necessary confidence in the society, ISNA reported.

From the beginning of the post-election struggle, there's been widespread rumors -- often tagged as wishful thinking on dissidents' part -- that Rafsanjani has been working through the Assembly of Experts the Expediency Council, both of which he chairs, to mount some kind of challenge to the official election results. Does this report indicate that he's given in? Is this statement not his doing? Or is there still some glimmer of a possibility that he's laid the grounds for an investigation result other than ratification?

Is something happening on Iranian Press TV?

Perhaps it's a random ripple, but Press TV, the Iranian government vehicle, seems to be putting out conciliatory signals in a trio of stories. Could it be part of a push to get Mousavi and allies to accept some kind of face-saving sop along with the official election results -- or even sign of a more substantive compromise? (Times coverage is suggesting the opposite - that the hardliners are consolidating their hold.) For what it's worth, here's the trio:

1) A report that both Rafsanjani and Mousavi "vow support to end unrest":

Head of Iran's Expediency Council, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani will support efforts to end the post-election tension in the country, an Iranian lawmaker says.

Alaeddin Boroujerdi, Head of Iran's Parliamentary Committee on National Security and Foreign Policy told Fars news agency that the committee's governing board has held a meeting with Rafsanjani and Mir-Hossein Mousavi...

Boroujerdi termed the parliamentary delegation's talks with Rafsanjani as "constructive".

"The lawmakers asked Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani to help solve the problems and he vowed support and we hope that we would witness practical measures to be taken to end the current situation soon," he added.

Boroujerdi also noted that the lawmakers have discussed the post-election developments with Mousavi.

"During the meeting, the governing board of the committee explained their expectations from Mr. Mousavi and he voiced his interest to help in solving the issues."

Boroujerdi stated that the talks between Mousavi and Iranian lawmakers will continue.

2) A senior cleric's call for "national conciliation":

Senior cleric Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem-Shirazi has called for Iran's presidential election dispute to be settled through "national conciliation"....

He went on to say that the solution to the conflict must not be a superficial one. "Definitively, something must be done to ensure that there are no embers burning under the ashes, and (to ensure) that hostilities, antagonism and rivalries are transformed into amity and cooperation among all parties."

He called on rival parties to show self-restraint, to resolve the problems rationally and to bear in mind the future of the country.

3) Mousavi's most recent statement, presented in an abbreviated but straight-arrow manner:

Defeated presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi says the Iranian government has been distorting the facts about the state of affairs in the country.

In a statement posted on his official website, Kalemeh, Mousavi took a shot at Iranian state media for portraying him as the figure responsible for the latest "violence and bloodshed" in the country.

He accused authorities of making efforts to isolate and vilify him in a bid to get him to withdraw his election challenge.

"I will not withdraw from demanding the rights of the Iranian people to protect my own interests and for fear of their threats," read the statement by Mousavi.

"Mousavi is not Khomeini, and Khamenei is not the Shah"

While no one knows what the endgame will be in Iran, Karim Sadjapour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace speaks with authority about the personalities of the principals and the dynamics of their power struggle (h/t Steve Coll):

The weight of the world now rests on the shoulders of Mir Hossein Mousavi. I expect that Khamenei’s people have privately sent signals to him that they’re ready for a bloodbath, they’re prepared to use overwhelming force to crush this, and is he willing to lead the people in the streets to slaughter?

Mousavi is not Khomeini, and Khamenei is not the Shah. Meaning, Khomeini would not hesitate to lead his followers to “martyrdom”, and the Shah did not have the stomach for mass bloodshed. This time the religious zealots are the ones holding power.

The anger and the rage and sense of injustice people feel will not subside anytime soon, but if Mousavi concedes defeat he will demoralize millions of people. At the moment the demonstrations really have no other leadership. It’s become a symbiotic relationship, Mousavi feeds off people’s support, and the popular support allows Mousavi the political capital to remain defiant. So Mousavi truly has some agonizing decisions to make.

Rafsanjani’s role also remains critical. Can he co-opt disaffected revolutionary elites to undermine Khamenei? As Khamenei said, they’ve known each other for 52 years, when they were young apostles of Ayatollah Khomeini. I expect that Khamenei’s people have told Rafsanjani that if he continues to agitate against Khamenei behind the scenes, he and his family will be either imprisoned or killed, and that the people of Iran are unlikely to weep for the corrupt Rafsanjani family.

As the Shah tentatively cracked down, killing dozens of protesters here and hundreds there, those seeking his overthrow kept coming back for more. Sadjapour suggests that while Khomeini was more ruthless than the Shah, Khamenei may prove more relentless than Mousavi. Rafsanjani is a wild card, though. And the Iranian people have that Shiite reverence for martyrdom. But can any people resist a truly ruthless crackdown? Perhaps only when the soliders in the tanks refuse to roll.

Who speaks for the Islamic Republic?

The battle between Mousavi and Khameneiis playing out as a contest over which of them speaks for the rule of law as established by the revolution of 1979.

In his Friday Prayer speech earlier today, Khamenei drew all four candidates within the circle of "love" that he claims the Islamic Republic to be ("the elections of the 12 June was.... a show of their love for their regime") and casts the post-election resistance as the work of evil outsiders :

The competition for the election was very clear. Enemies and dirty Zionists tried to show the election as a contest between the regime and against it. That is not true, all four candidates support the regime." [He lists the government positions of the opposition candidates]. All of the candidates are part of this system and regime. Zionists and the bad Britishradio said it was a challenge to the regime.

"The issue is inside the system. The dispute is not against the revolution. The dispute was among candidates and there was a positive and negative effect. People were able to judge, they felt part of the system. All views were available to the people.

That "all four candidates support the regime" -- or did before the vote count -- is not only true, it also taps into the central theme of Mousavi's campaign and of his post-election protest. Back on April 3, the Iranian government vehicle Press TV reported:

[Mousavi] added that freedom of information should become a basis for both the government and economy, warning that overlooking the Iranian constitution and its contents posed a major challenge to the country.

"The issue of non-compliance with Iranian rules and regulations is the biggest problem that the country is currently faced with," he said.

Then, on June 13, Mousavi claimed authority to contest the vote in the name of the Revolution of 1979 and the law established by the revolutionary regime:

I advise all officials to halt this agenda at once before it is too late, return to the rule of law and protect the nation’s vote and know that deviation from law renders them illegitimate. They are aware better than anyone else that this country has been through a grand Islamic revolution and the least message of this revolution is that our nation is alert and will oppose anyone who aims to seize the power against the law.

And on June 14, he effectively cast those in control of the vote count as destroyers of the state:

The events that we all have witnessed in the past days were unprecedented in the Islamic Republic. The reason for the fearful concern of the people is due to the extreme sense of danger for the great achievements of the (Islamic) Revolution. Those who after massive cheatings have declared these unbelievable results for the presidential elections are now out to establish these results as undisputed facts and start a new chapter in the history of our country.

Now, Khamenei is trying to use this weapon of Mousavi's against him. He has drawn a line and declared that anyone who continues to protest the official election returns is aligned with the "Zionists" and evil western diplomats:

The guardian council has said that if people have doubts they should prove them. I will not follow false allegations. In all elections some are winners and some are losers. Correct legal procedures should be followed to ensure trust in the process. "The candidates should be careful about what they say and do" [Mousavi doesn't seem to be there]. "Some diplomats from the west are showing their real face and that they are enemies. The worst are the British.

The street is the place of living and trading. Why are you taking to the streets? We have had the election. Street demonstrations are a target for terrorist plots. Who would be responsible if something happened?

Khamenei has just washed his hands of the blood he's preparing to spill -- and in fact smeared it not only on Mousavi but on Rafsanjani:

"Rumours spread that were not true, and gave a bad image to the previous government. Calling the president a liar is that good? This is against the truth. The 30 years of the revolution was turning black." Khamenei talks about the rumours about Hashemi Rafsanjani. He praises Rafsanjani as "close" to the revolution. "The youth should know that... He was at the service of the revolution. I do have some difference with him, but people should not imagine something else between him and the president.

Again, Khamenei is at once asserting that all rivals within the current leadership circle are "part of this system and regime" and warning them not set themselves against it. Rafsanjani, however, is the only rival who might have the constitutional power to in turn cast Khamenei as the one outside the law. Rafsanjani is Chair of the Expediency Council, which according to the Economist in 2005 "was given an undefined 'supervisory authority' over all three branches of government," and head too of the Assembly of Experts, which "can also theoretically dismiss the supreme leader if he fails to meet specific criteria or becomes unable to execute his duties satisfactorily."

"Who would be responsible if something happened?" The rival histories are being written already.