International Studies
Fun and games in Tehran. While the rest of the Middle East isgrappling with the "Arab Spring", Iran has been indulging in its ownbitter battle for pre-eminence between the President, MahmoudAhmadinejad, and the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
The battle has been raging over the past three weeks after MrAhmadinejad's decision to fire the head of intelligence, HaidarMoslehi. Khamenei intervened to insist the man be reinstated andpublished the letter telling him to do so. Ahmadinejad then threw ahissy fit and refused to attend cabinet meetings for 11 days, untilthe stand-off was finally resolved on Sunday, when the sour-facedAhmadinejad returned to cabinet, spoke in praise of the SupremeLeader but continued to fire off darts at those around him.
It's the kind of spat that the Iranians, indeed the whole MiddleEast, love to retell in the cafs and bazaars, tales of who's in andwho's out, not very different from the days of the Shah. Compared tothis, today's tensions between Nick Clegg and David Cameron are butchild acting.
And before anyone gets too excited - as Washington is - aboutwhat the struggle will mean for the outside world, it is worthremembering that it is as much as anything a court struggle, a spatover precedence with few direct implications for any fundamentalchange in Iran.
This, is after all, a fight for power within the system.Ahmadinejad has offended not just Khamenei but parliament andconservatives by pursuing a policy of putting his own men inpositions of power and promoting, in particular, the position of hischief of staff (rejected for ministerial position by Khamenei)Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei.
Khamenei has responded by gathering clerics and conservativesalike to defend his constitutionally established position as finalarbiter of affairs, civil as religious, in the country.
In terms of internal politics, Ahmadinejad's challenge totheocratic rule (the velyat) and his attempt to wrestle power awayfrom the clerics to presidential government is not an inconsiderableone. In terms of the future of the country it doesn't really resolvemuch. President Ahmadinejad has clearly been weakened and may nowend up as a lame-duck leader with two years to go before thepresidential elections of 2013. But he still has a lot of energy andsome support from his generation of war veterans. Khamenei hasasserted his authority but may also have weakened it by having todemonstrate it so publicly and with such effort. The liberals, stillcowed by determined oppression, have no say in the fight.
Does that mean an Iran stuck in a convoluted and fractioustheocratic rut for the foreseeable future? Not necessarily. So far,it has managed to avoid getting sucked into the uprisings sweepingthe rest of the Middle East, partly by acclaiming them as fulfillingits long-term calls for the overthrow of western-supportedautocracies.
The uprisings in its ally Syria and its support for Assad rulethere, has badly undermined its right to moral leadership in theMiddle East (which matters to it) and threatened its most importantally in the Arab world as well as its avenue of influence inPalestine and Lebanon.
At the same time, in today's world of social networks andinternet communication, it's difficult to believe that people inIran, and especially the young, aren't influenced by what ishappening elsewhere in the region. After all, the frustrations whichhave impelled so many to take to the streets elsewhere - corruption,political oppression and economic sclerosis -are mirrored in Irantoo.
While the big beasts fight it out at the top in Iran, there aredeeper social forces moving below.
It's too early to write off the revolutions
It was inevitable that people would start pointing out thefrailties of the revolution that so quickly overturned the regimesof Tunisia and Egypt and threatened to upend so many others. And sothey have. The latest outburst of sectarian killing between Muslimsand Coptic Christians in Egypt has set off a barrage of despairingpredictions of what will come and could, it is claimed moreinsidiously, occur in Syria were the Assad rule to be ended. EvenTunisia, where it all started and the revolt triumphed so quickly,has been picked apart for signs of fracturing before the electionsthere in July.
That may be fair comment. But to criticise the uprisings fortheir amorphous nature is to denigrate them for the quality thatmakes them so important and so heartening. It is precisely becausethey are a movement of rejection of oppressive political andeconomic structures, a demand for freedom rather than a transfer ofpower to themselves, that the protests have managed to garner suchwide support. And it is because they are so unformed that a power-vacuum has resulted.
It is a vacuum that is bound to attract the most aggressiveelements in society and, over time, foreign meddling. In the case ofEgypt, the violence against Christians seems to have been largelystirred up by extreme Salafi groups. Those within Egypt accuse themof being orchestrated by pro-Mubarak forces trying to stir up chaos.That may or may not be true although, given the past of attacks onCopts, it is not a necessary explanation.
The encouraging factor in Egypt is that almost every newspaperand public voice has condemned the violence absolutely. Before wewrite off the country's prospects, or overstate the risk of afundamentalist challenge in Tunisia, let's trust their people towant the right thing and support them in gaining it.
a.hamilton@independent.co.uk
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий