Protests Are Not Enough To Topple the Islamic Republic

[Devin]

Protests Are Not Enough To Topple the Islamic Republic

by Michael Rubin
Los Angeles Times
June 19, 2009

Protests aren't enough to topple the Islamic Republic - Middle East Forum

Michael Rubin, a senior editor of the Middle East Quarterly,
is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and
a senior lecturer at the Naval Postgraduate School.

Street protests in Iran are important but are themselves not enough to
force change. The supreme leader will not be swayed because he considers
himself accountable to God, not to the people. Indeed, even the Islamic
Republic's clerical establishment is irrelevant in this calculus. President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad' s invocation of folk religion -- his appeals to the
messianic Hidden Imam, for example -- is a way to bypass senior religious
figures who, according to Shiite theology, will be among the greatest
obstacles to the Hidden Imam's return. Nor does the supreme leader,
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pay too much heed to his fellow clerics in Qom.
They have always refused to bestow on Khamenei a level of religious
legitimacy to match his ambition. Today, the majority of Iran's grand
ayatollahs oppose the concept of theological rule. Not by coincidence,
the majority are now in prison or under house arrest.

Khamenei can weather the public's disdain so long as the Revolutionary
Guard serves as his Praetorian Guard. Khomeini, the Islamic Republic's
founder, formed the Revolutionary Guard to defend his revolutionary vision.
It is more powerful than the army and answers only to the supreme leader.
That the Islamic Republic has lost legitimacy in the eyes of the Iranian
public is now evident to the outside world, but it is not news to the regime.

In September 2007, Mohammad Ali Jafari, the new Revolutionary Guard chief,
reconfigured the force into 31 units -- one for each province and two for
Tehran -- on the theory that a velvet revolution posed a greater threat to
regime security than any external enemy. Guardsmen are not stationed in
their home cities so that they do not hesitate to fire on crowds that might
include family and friends.

In the public mind, the Islamic revolution 30 years ago looms large.
The regime is not aloof to this. It understands the shah's mistakes and is
determined not to repeat them. Next month marks the 10th anniversary of
the student uprising, which erupted after the security forces attacked a
student dormitory. Their brutality shocked the Iranian public, and
demonstrations spread throughout the country. For a few days, regime
survival was also subject to speculation.

In the aftermath of the protests, the Chinese government supplied security
consultants to Tehran. Rather than bash heads and risk protests and endless
cycles of mourning, Iranian security services began photographing
demonstrations, after which they would arrest participants over the course
of a month when they were alone and could not spark mob reaction.
With the assistance of European businessmen, the Iranian government
upgraded its surveillance of communication (and the Internet). >>>MORE>>>

 

[Xenophon]

This remains to be seen, so far the regime is doing the exact wrong thing and speeding its demise.

 

[Devin]

This remains to be seen, so far the regime is doing the exact wrong thing and speeding its demise.

I don't know Xenophon, that's would it would seem like but I've listened to a bunch of
people from Iran who say that the current mullah regime is too powerful to "overthrow"
by protests alone. They control the Revolutionary Guards. Also the 4 people who ran
in the election were hand-picked by the mullahs. ..Plus Mousavi was a former radical
himself, supporter of Hezbollah.

 

[oreo]

As long as the hard-liners are in charge of the military--police & security forces in Iran--these protestors do not have a snow-balls chance in hell of overthrowing this regime. (They're unarmed--all they have is rocks.)

 

[rcajun90]

This remains to be seen, so far the regime is doing the exact wrong thing and speeding its demise.

I don't know Xenophon, that's would it would seem like but I've listened to a bunch of
people from Iran who say that the current mullah regime is too powerful to "overthrow"
by protests alone. They control the Revolutionary Guards. Also the 4 people who ran
in the election were hand-picked by the mullahs. ..Plus Mousavi was a former radical
himself, supporter of Hezbollah.

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

 

[Devin]

As long as the hard-liners are in charge of the military--police & security forces in Iran--these protestors do not have a snow-balls chance in hell of overthrowing this regime. (They're unarmed--all they have is rocks.)

That's what I would think at this time. But I'm not an expert on Iran.

 

[oreo]

This remains to be seen, so far the regime is doing the exact wrong thing and speeding its demise.

I don't know Xenophon, that's would it would seem like but I've listened to a bunch of
people from Iran who say that the current mullah regime is too powerful to "overthrow"
by protests alone. They control the Revolutionary Guards. Also the 4 people who ran
in the election were hand-picked by the mullahs. ..Plus Mousavi was a former radical
himself, supporter of Hezbollah.

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

This is different than 1979. We stopped backing the Shaw of Iran--while Iranians were chanting in the streets--death to America. The radical Mullahs moved in--which are very unlike the Shaw. They aren't going to just give up their power without 3/4 of the country being destroyed. Their way is to oppress--& they know how to keep the republican guard in check along with the military & security forces.

The Shaw was a cake-walk for them to get out of power.

 

[Devin]

This remains to be seen, so far the regime is doing the exact wrong thing and speeding its demise.

I don't know Xenophon, that's would it would seem like but I've listened to a bunch of
people from Iran who say that the current mullah regime is too powerful to "overthrow"
by protests alone. They control the Revolutionary Guards. Also the 4 people who ran
in the election were hand-picked by the mullahs. ..Plus Mousavi was a former radical
himself, supporter of Hezbollah.

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

It could happen I suppose, Rcajun. After all, the Iranians threw out a secular
more Westernized government when the Shaw was disposed. They went by way of
Shira and the backward mullahs. Why? --- Fast forward to now.....the percentage of
youths in Iran far outnumber the 'adults' (old folk) who have been around awhile.
They want change. They want their Twitter and their iPhones and all-access Internet.
They want to hang with the opposite sex and drink coffee and date. And look at each
other face to face. Right now that does not happen very often or in the open. Anything
the kids do is in secret and they have their own 'back door ways' of getting around
the strict mullahs. But this is now 2009 and they don't want to live in the 7th Century
any longer. I can't blame them or the other protesters. They want more social freedoms
and as a world citizen, they should get it.

Of course I'd be shot for saying that in Iran today.

 

[Devin]

I don't know Xenophon, that's would it would seem like but I've listened to a bunch of
people from Iran who say that the current mullah regime is too powerful to "overthrow"
by protests alone. They control the Revolutionary Guards. Also the 4 people who ran
in the election were hand-picked by the mullahs. ..Plus Mousavi was a former radical
himself, supporter of Hezbollah.

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

This is different than 1979. We stopped backing the Shaw of Iran--while Iranians were chanting in the streets--death to America. The radical Mullahs moved in--which are very unlike the Shaw. They aren't going to just give up their power without 3/4 of the country being destroyed. Their way is to oppress--& they know how to keep the republican guard in check along with the military & security forces.

The Shaw was a cake-walk for them to get out of power.

Oreo, I never understood why we stopped backing the Shaw. He was married to an
American woman and he was westernized. Why would we want to overthrow a guy
like that for the radical mullahs?

 

[Annie]

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

This is different than 1979. We stopped backing the Shaw of Iran--while Iranians were chanting in the streets--death to America. The radical Mullahs moved in--which are very unlike the Shaw. They aren't going to just give up their power without 3/4 of the country being destroyed. Their way is to oppress--& they know how to keep the republican guard in check along with the military & security forces.

The Shaw was a cake-walk for them to get out of power.

Oreo, I never understood why we stopped backing the Shaw. He was married to an
American woman and he was westernized. Why would we want to overthrow a guy
like that for the radical mullahs?

Jimmy Carter.

 

[Soaring]

I don't know Xenophon, that's would it would seem like but I've listened to a bunch of
people from Iran who say that the current mullah regime is too powerful to "overthrow"
by protests alone. They control the Revolutionary Guards. Also the 4 people who ran
in the election were hand-picked by the mullahs. ..Plus Mousavi was a former radical
himself, supporter of Hezbollah.

I heard this all in 1979 with the Shah, 1989 in Eastern Europe and in 1991 in the Soviet Union. If enough Iranians want change it will happen. The Republican Guards can refuse orders to kill their countrymen. Perhaps that will be the next stage? Riots and protests and the Mullah's call out the Rep. Guards and they turn their guns on the Mullah's? Let's hope so. A free and responsible Iran sounds wonderful.

It could happen I suppose, Rcajun. After all, the Iranians threw out a secular
more Westernized government when the Shaw was disposed. They went by way of
Shira and the backward mullahs. Why? --- Fast forward to now.....the percentage of
youths in Iran far outnumber the 'adults' (old folk) who have been around awhile.
They want change. They want their Twitter and their iPhones and all-access Internet.
They want to hang with the opposite sex and drink coffee and date. And look at each
other face to face. Right now that does not happen very often or in the open. Anything
the kids do is in secret and they have their own 'back door ways' of getting around
the strict mullahs. But this is now 2009 and they don't want to live in the 7th Century
any longer. I can't blame them or the other protesters. They want more social freedoms
and as a world citizen, they should get it.

Of course I'd be shot for saying that in Iran today.

Oh, I totally agree Devin. The young Iranians aren't going to put up with an oppressive government very much longer, and this may be their time to take over. Armed? They don't have to be. They just have to shut down the working government by constantly protesting in the streets.

 

[Devin]

This is different than 1979. We stopped backing the Shaw of Iran--while Iranians were chanting in the streets--death to America. The radical Mullahs moved in--which are very unlike the Shaw. They aren't going to just give up their power without 3/4 of the country being destroyed. Their way is to oppress--& they know how to keep the republican guard in check along with the military & security forces.

The Shaw was a cake-walk for them to get out of power.

Oreo, I never understood why we stopped backing the Shaw. He was married to an
American woman and he was westernized. Why would we want to overthrow a guy
like that for the radical mullahs?

Jimmy Carter.

OK Annie, I'll rephrase my question: why would Jimmy Carter, peanut farmer and
nuclear engineer want to overthrow the westernized Shaw for the backward mullahs
who hated the west?

 

[Annie]

Oreo, I never understood why we stopped backing the Shaw. He was married to an
American woman and he was westernized. Why would we want to overthrow a guy
like that for the radical mullahs?

Jimmy Carter.

OK Annie, I'll rephrase my question: why would Jimmy Carter, peanut farmer and
nuclear engineer want to overthrow the westernized Shaw for the backward mullahs
who hated the west?

Jimmy Carter, POTUS and Evangelical, believes to this day that HE knows what is right for the world. He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.' It brought down his presidency and cost the US world of hurt. Obama is not naive as is Carter, but has the same hubris.

 

[Devin]

Jimmy Carter.

OK Annie, I'll rephrase my question: why would Jimmy Carter, peanut farmer and
nuclear engineer want to overthrow the westernized Shaw for the backward mullahs
who hated the west?

Jimmy Carter, POTUS and Evangelical, believes to this day that HE knows what is right for the world. He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.' It brought down his presidency and cost the US world of hurt. Obama is not naive as is Carter, but has the same hubris.

Sorry - could you re-phrase this?--> "He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.'"

 

[Annie]

OK Annie, I'll rephrase my question: why would Jimmy Carter, peanut farmer and
nuclear engineer want to overthrow the westernized Shaw for the backward mullahs
who hated the west?

Jimmy Carter, POTUS and Evangelical, believes to this day that HE knows what is right for the world. He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.' It brought down his presidency and cost the US world of hurt. Obama is not naive as is Carter, but has the same hubris.

Sorry - could you re-phrase this?--> "He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.'"

Very much like Obama, he was 'correcting' what he perceived to be an 'American wrong', restoring the shah to Iran, which however was popular with the Iranians at the time.

 

[Devin]

Jimmy Carter, POTUS and Evangelical, believes to this day that HE knows what is right for the world. He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.' It brought down his presidency and cost the US world of hurt. Obama is not naive as is Carter, but has the same hubris.

Sorry - could you re-phrase this?--> "He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.'"

Very much like Obama, he was 'correcting' what he perceived to be an 'American wrong', restoring the shah to Iran, which however was popular with the Iranians at the time.

I understand the 'correcting an American wrong' thing but what did Carter see as an
American wrong & why? He thought the mullahs were a better option?

 

[Annie]

Sorry - could you re-phrase this?--> "He wanted to show the ME that having restored the shah in the first place, would not stand-his first bow to what he called, 'human rights.'"

Very much like Obama, he was 'correcting' what he perceived to be an 'American wrong', restoring the shah to Iran, which however was popular with the Iranians at the time.

I understand the 'correcting an American wrong' thing but what did Carter see as an
American wrong & why? He thought the mullahs were a better option?

Truth be told, I think he just did what he thought was the 'right thing,' not really pondering where it might go. He undermined the Shah just about from the inauguration on. Then again, he set the table for PA/Hamas also.

I really have disliked Carter since he 'retired' as POTUS, but never thought he was purposely 'bad.' I'm not so sure with Obama, regarding US economic system and certainly NOT ethics. He's way too skilled in the Chicago Way.

 

[lcrackel]

First of all the power in Iran is centralized and under complete control by the assholekouhmini or whatever he calls himself, so I would be curious as to how any one thinks that unarmed citizens is going to overturn a militia with guns, grenades and other weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that is realistic. Second of all - It's not going to happen people -

 

[Agnapostate]

The idea that the popular opposition to Ahmadinejad constitutes opposition to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution itself is absurd. Iranians may not desire excessively theocratic or authoritarian policies, but neither do they desire the institution of Western secularism in Iran, which is an Islamic republic and will remain such for the conceivable future. American neoconservatives and interventionists who dislike this reality have only their own ideology to blame. The destruction of parliamentary democracy in Iran was the legacy of the Eisenhower administration's imperialism, and is one of the many reasons for a general dislike of America as a whole today in that region, though it's certainly not the case that the entire citizenry here harbor the same anti-democratic sentiments as the more imperialistic among us.

 

[Annie]

First of all the power in Iran is centralized and under complete control by the assholekouhmini or whatever he calls himself, so I would be curious as to how any one thinks that unarmed citizens is going to overturn a militia with guns, grenades and other weapons of mass destruction. I don't think that is realistic. Second of all - It's not going to happen people -

Truthfully, didn't think they'd last this long. The 'guy' with control is Khameni, but right now even that is up for grabs. Going to depend on police and such, whether or not they decide to go with the people or go with the council.

Perhaps something else too:

Iran Updates (VIDEO): Live-Blogging The Uprising

11:49 PM ET -- Parliament Speaker: Majority of Iranians think election was fraudulent. And printed in state-run media no less!

Iran's Parliament (Majlis) Speaker Ali Larijani suggests that some of the members in the Guardian Council have sided with a certain candidate in the June 12 presidential election.

Speaking live on the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB) Channel 2 on Saturday, the speaker said that "a majority of people are of the opinion that the actual election results are different than what was officially announced."

"The opinion of this majority should be respected and a line should be drawn between them and rioters and miscreants," he was quoted as saying by Khabaronline -- a website affiliated with him.

He was referring to rallies that have been held on a daily basis in Iran, since the announcement of the presidential election results last Friday, in which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was re-elected with almost two thirds of the vote.​

10:05 PM ET -- More on the Assembly of Experts statement. Earlier today, the Tehran Times posted an article claiming that the powerful clerical group, the Assembly of Experts, had on Saturday "expressed its 'strong support' for the Supreme Leader's statements on the presidential elections on Friday." It would have been a major blow to reformists' efforts to win the support of many senior clerics.

But as it turns out, it's not true. Reader Ali writes in:

I just wanted to point out that the letter of support written by assembly of experts in support of Khamenei's sermon is only signed by the deputy leader of the assembly, who is a former head of the judiciary and a staunch supporter of ahmadinejad, as well as a rival of Rafsanjani for the assembly's leadership election. He is the only one signing the letter and the government sponsored news media are reporting it as a letter from the full assembly.​

And reader Majid provides more details:

Once again thanks for the great job in reporting the events. Just a comment about your 7:33pm item about the Assembly of Experts. The statement is not by the Assembly of Experts, but by Mohammad Yazdi, the head of the "Dabirkhane" of the Assembly of Experts. His statement doesn't carry much weight and definitely not a blow to the freedom movement. After all, there are certainly many Khamene'i loyalists in the Assembly of Experts and such comments could be expected from these cowards.​

I'll wait to see what happens as the next day starts there, which should be soon.