Iran Election – A New Revolution?

The result of the recent presidential election in Iran that has seen Mahmoud Ahmadinejad returned to the presidency with official results showing a landslide victory, has sparked protests that are being widely reported in the media. The protests are being fueled by claims from Ahmadinejad’s rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, that the election results are corrupt and that the whole thing was “rigged” and therefore should be rendered invalid. Some commentators are touting the current Iranian protests as the beginning of a new Iranian revolution – a catalyst towards change.

Is Iran on the verge of a new revolution that could see the current regime overthrown in the same way the previous Iranian revolution did it at the end of the 70’s?

Examinations of the historical context and the current personalities in the present unrest are worth pursuing in order to answer that question.

Brief History

Amongst the west, the history of Iran and its current system is largely unknown to the average person in the street. Iran is seen as a hostile nation and a hotbed of terrorism funding. Studying its historical context can help shed some light on a nation that represents a scary unknown to many and help explain some of the hostilities that exist in Iran towards the west.

Over the last 100 years+ Iran has been through significant changes. At that the end of the 19th century Iran was ruled by a monarchy. Unrest caused by the excesses of the monarchy and the growing hold of foreign powers on the country led to a constitutional revolution in the early 20th century that established a parliament and rule of law that the monarchy was subject to. The monarchy was reestablished to be a gift given by the people rather than a supreme authority. 156 members were elected to that first parliament in 1906.

Over the next couple of decades the struggle between constitutionalists and monarchists continued and eventually, in the mid 20’s, the ruling Qajar dynasty that had held the monarchy since 1781, was overthrown and the Pahlavi dynasty began.

The Pahlavi dynasty began first through Reza Khan gaining control of the government, forcing the last Qajar monarch into exile and then squashing any opposing voice and forcing parliament to declare him supreme leader, thus he became Reza Shah Pahlavi. Under Reza, Iran saw much development, but over time his leadership became more and more despotic, the development slowed and movement towards any democratic process was squashed.

In 1941, following a massive invasion by Britain and Russia, Reza Shah abdicated his throne to his son, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi. Mohammed was a Shah who was sympathetic to western desires and western ways of life. He set Iran on a path of modernization and secularization, putting him in opposition to many Islamic clerics.

Alongside this Shah was the elected lower house (the Majlis) and the upper house (the senate). The lower house was elected by the nation and half of the Senate was elected as well – the other half of the Senate was nominated by the Shah.

Right at the beginning of the 50’s the country started moving towards nationalizing Iran’s oil. Up until this point, Iran’s oil was controlled by Britain through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, which later became BP and the oil, along with the money from the oil, was predominantly moving out of Iran. Iran was getting little benefit from its resources. At the beginning of March in 1951, the Shah’s choice for Prime Minister made an argument to the Majlis against nationalizing the oil. Only days later, he was assassinated.

After negotiations with the AIOC to try and gain Iran a bigger share of the oil revenue failed to produce results, both the Majlis and the Senate voted to nationalize Iran’s oil in the middle of March 1951. In April they elected Mohammed Mosadegh as Prime Minister and the Shah appointed him as Premier. He was a popular leader who set about nationalizing the countries oil.

Losing control of the oil was not a situation Britain was prepared to accept and very early on they started funneling money to Mossadegh’s opposition and unrest between the British and Mossadegh grew. Negotiations around oil broke down completely.

Prior to late 1952 America had not supported Britain’s policies towards Iran, but in 53, with a new Republican presidency in place in the form of Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill was able to play upon U.S fears of communism as part of the power struggle of the cold war and through accusations that Mossadegh was moving towards this feared political system (though he openly despised it), he was able to draw the U.S into opposition against the democratically elected leadership of Iran.

Towards the end of 1952, Mossadegh declared Britain to be an enemy and had successfully limited the powers of the Shah in his own nation.

To cut this part of the story short, November 1952 saw the start of Operation Ajax, a joint covert operation conducted by American and British Intelligence to overthrow Mossadegh and move power away from Iran’s elected officials and back into the hands of the Shah. The operation worked on many levels, even using plants within Mossadegh’s own supporter base who acted in horrific ways to push people away from him.

Ultimately it resulted in the Shah issuing two decrees dismissing Mossadegh. The decrees were illegal under the Iranian constitution, but the American and British operation had made sure everything necessary was in place to violently enforce those decrees and remove any authority from Mossadegh. By the end of 1953, any semblance of democracy in Iran had been destroyed and the Shah had been set up with dictatorial powers supported by Britain and the U.S.

Oil returned in bulk to the control of Britain and the U.S and both countries resourced the Shah for the following decades. His regime was brutal and despotic. The Shah was a dicator whose army and secret police force (SAVAK) were predominantly funded by the U.S. The SAVAK was well known for its use of torture against dissidents who may have opposed the Shah and it is commonly believed that many of the methods of torture used were taught by the CIA.

Roll forward to the late 70’s and Iranwas a nation in a large amount of unrest, a nation that could no longer tolerate the excesses and brutality of its dictatorial leader and the foreign powers that enabled that leadership. In the mind of the people, the Shah, Britain and the U.S were all part of the same brutal entity that was oppressing them. The Shah simply represented the face and conduit for the greed of foreign powers.

In late 1977, popular protests against the Shah started to develop and through 1978, anti-Shah groups were gaining a significant amount of traction, with Ayatollah Khomeini, and early critic of the Shah, being the central figure of the struggle against the Shah. The movement against the Shah was broad and Islamic fundamentalism represented only one part of it, with an academic middle class representing a large portion of those working to oust the Shah.

With no other figure to compete for the leadership of the backlash against the Shah, as the revolution took hold Khomeini quickly gained supremacy with a conservative Islamic core behind him. The leadership of Khomeini was not a foregone conclusion at the beginning of the revolution though and it took a few crisis for him and his followers to consolidate power.

Directly following the ousting of the Shah in 1979, students overran the American embassy and held those within it hostage for 444 days. It was a move that was supported by Khomeini and other conservative Islamic leaders and it was a move that enabled a nation to vent its frustration over U.S support of the brutal Shah. It was a bold move that very quickly cemented a certain identity within the nation.

America became openly hostile towards Iran and in the early eighties, moved in behind the new brutal dictator in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, to support and fund a military attack on Iran (whilst also acquiring much Iraqi oil). Just as the U.S had moved against Iran’s nationally elected government in 1953, they were now moving to crush the newly formed populist movement that had removed their puppet dictator and they were using another despotic leader to do so. Throughout the last century, the stifling of Iranian democracy can be directly attributed to foreign interference.

Thus the newly formed political leadership of Iran was thrown into a war. To cope with the crisis at hand, a country imploding and in need of leadership and a war on its border with an enemy supported by the world’s most powerful nation, Khomeini was able to quickly and violently crush rival revolutionists and the nation turned towards fighting its enemies – Iraq and its financier, the U.S.

Islamic fundamentalism became the motivating force in Iran’s fight, with martyrdom being held up as the supreme sacrifice. Countless numbers died in a bid to defend their nation. At one point they gained the upper hand in the war, but chose to never invade Iraq itself. They simply defended their own border.

With Iraq facing defeat, Saddam turned to a new tactic. With the necessary ingredients brought in from the U.S and Germany he employed chemical warfare – wiping out Iranian soldiers like flies. Iran had no way to respond and as hard as it may be to imagine for some, there was an ethical line they were not willing to cross; this was it.

The employment of the new tactic quickly led to the backing down of Iran and an agreement was signed. What was left was a scarred nation with a deeply embedded hostility towards the powers that had done their utmost to violently subjugate them and with the U.S playing such a critical role in that scarring, the west understandably became an open enemy.

The nation was also left with a fundamentalist Islamic leadership that had violently silenced any opposition. That leadership has been in place since, but the democracy Iran presently has is still much more than what existed under the U.S backed Shah.

That history should put into context the rhetoric of many Iranian leaders.

Now we fast forward to the present time and meet the two key players in the latest presidential election to determine whether Iran is really facing a new revolution or simply a political squabble.

Mahmound Ahmadinejad

Ahmadinejad is the current Iranian President (but not the supreme leader, that position currently belongs to Ali Khamenei). He was first elected in 2005.

Ahmadinejad was born in 1956, three years after the destruction of Iran’s fledgling democracy and after a stunning academic career he became a significant figure in the student movement supporting the Islamic leadership. Some sources place him as being part of an organization that was used to prevent students from supporting one of the Ayatollah’s rivals and also place him as one of the significant organizing figures in the hostage situation at the American embassy. It is reported that during the Iran/Iraq war, he became part of the Revolutionary Guard as a member of the intelligence and security arm.

His political career saw him become the Mayor of Tehran, put in through the election of a largely conservative Islamic council. He reversed some of the changes put in place by previous moderate and reformist mayors. That path led him to the presidency.

The popularity of his conservative Islamic presidency is driven by his modest lifestyle, his focus on making sure that Iranians benefit from their oil reserves and his open concern for the poor.

Ahmadinejad is a product of the brutal years of the Shah, the revolution, the war with Iraq and conservative Islamic values. He is Islamic to the core and is modest lifestyle demonstrates his principles. All of these must be taken into account when listening to his rhetoric and understanding his policies and approach to the west.
He is favoured by the current supreme leader and many members of the current council that oversees the country.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi

It is being assumed by many in the West, simply because he is vocal in his opposition to Ahmadinejad, that Mousavi is a reformist who would take the country in a very different direction. It is this idea that is fueling thoughts that Iran is embarking on another revolution that will see the country completely change. But how accurate is this evaluation of Mousavi and his motives.

Firstly, it is important to note that every candidate in the presidential election is approved by the supreme leader – these are people loyal to the principles of the revolution and its governing Islamic theocracy. Any idea of reform is simply at a micro level, not a macro level.

Secondly, Mousavi’s record must be taken into account.

Mousavi served as the Prime Minister of Iran between 1981 and 1989. He was the last Prime Minister due to constitutional changes that removed the role of PM. He was a key figure in the revolution and of course in the establishment of the new foundations of the country following it. His leadership during the Iran/Iraq war was one of the critical elements needed to stabilize the country and its economy.

Mousavi backed the U.S Embassy hostage crisis. It was he who attributed the hostage situation as integral to the establishment of Iran’s new identity. He was part of a regime that violently stamped out opposition and any pro-American sentiment.

When the fatwa was put on the head of author Salman Rushdie in 1988, it was Mousavi who declared on radio that the order would be carried out.

It could be argued that Mousavi was more intimately connected to the revolution and the subsequent power gain of the conservative Islamic block than Ahmadinejad himself. Like Ahmadinejad, he has no desire to halt Iran’s uranium enrichment program and he does not support the existence of the state of Israel, though he questions Ahmadinejad’s approach.

Where is the current unrest going?

What is taking place is a clash of two schools of revolutionary thought. They are both essentially one part of the same thing.

The current leadership of Iran from the supreme leader through to Ahmadinejad support the concept of Iran remaining as a revolutionary Islamic state. Mousavi, on the other hand, though intimately connected to the revolution and still fully supportive of its principles, represents a much more pragmatic school of thought that wishes to move the state towards becoming much more modern. Many of the same sentiments still exist in the second camp, but they are presented in different language – less hostile and more open to foreign relations with countries presently seen as hostile.

Could a revolution occur? Not on the scale of 1979, but change could very well be in the air if the reformist camp does not back down – but if they do not gain an upper hand, the repercussions could be bloody; even more so than the current unrest.

The current state of Iran is still fresh, with many of its leaders having been those who pushed the revolution forward and who remember the days of the brutal regime of the U.S backed Shah. Many of them probably lost loved ones in the war against Iraq where Saddam gassed their brothers while America chose to publicly turn a blind eye to that atrocity till it suited them in their bid to bring down Saddam themselves. Scars of foreign interference are still somewhat open for many. Conservative or reformist, this will still be a nation that understandably approaches the west with a critical and wary eye, sniffing for skullduggery. It is a nation still forming its identity and it wishes to be the lapdog of no-one. Iran is a nation with a sense of pride in its independence and no matter who is at the helm at this point in history, if it feels any sense of being pushed around by another, the rhetoric will flow thick and fast – whether it be out of the mouth of Ahmadinejad or Mousavi.

Iran is still a nation born out of recent revolution – the question being asked right now and evidenced in the unrest is, where too from here?