The Greening of Iran

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
Newscaster Howard Beale in Network.

Very few Iranians have seen Network, but millions of them have taken to the streets to express the same attitude in the wake of the June 12 election there. At first, it was just suspicion that incumbent President Ahmadinejad and his cronies had stolen the election (maybe true), but now that protesters have been killed and communications have been shut down, the real issue has become the Islamic regime itself. The opposition has cleverly chosen the color green as its emblem, since that color also represents Islam.

Have we not seen this all before? The Yellow Revolution in the Philippines, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in the Georgian Republic, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. Who can forget Boris Yeltsin rallying the Russian people from the top of a tank in 1991, only months before the collapse of the Soviet Union? Could the people of Iran be at the brink of grasping freedom from the hands of the Grand Ayatollahs?

The leader of the opposition, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was prime minister of the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq War. While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was recruiting teenagers to clear minefields with their own bodies (1), Mousavi's government was negotiating with Israel for the purchase of US-made Improved Hawk Missiles. When Israel delivered obsolete Hawks to Tehran (as though the dumb Persians would never notice the difference), Iran returned the weapons. Then Republican President Ronald Reagan authorized the sale of the Hawks and other weapons to Iran in the hope that the Islamic Republic would facilitate the release of American hostages held in Beirut. (2) Mousavi and then-Supreme Leader Ruollah Khomeini were willing to deal with Israel for the sale of Iran's strategic interests. It is hard to even imagine Ahmadinejad making such a pragmatic bargain. For this reason alone, I believe that there is "a dime's worth of difference" between the two presidential contenders.

As this is written, current Supreme Leader Ali Khameini is trying to defuse the crisis by offering a partial recount and investigation of allegations of election fraud. But nothing short of a run-off election between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, preferably with international observers, would satisfy the opposition. Mousavi has defied the Guardian Council by urging mass demonstrations every day.

Khameini and Ahmadinejad have the support of the Revolutionary Guards and the huge Basij Militia; they could be used to crush the opposition in a "Tiananmen Square" operation, which would infuriate the country and expose the tyrannical nature of the regime. Only the Iranian Army is strong enough to save the opposition from a massacre, but if the Army sides with the opposition, the entire theocratic regime is through.

Since all the parties to the conflict know this, I believe that face-saving compromise (such as a run-off election) will be made. But even that would undermine the monolithic nature of the regime, which will never be the same, even if Ahmadinejad is re-elected.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Iran first tried to clear the Iraqi landmines with donkeys, but the animals bolted after the first explosion. Iranian children proved much more reliable.

(2) The proceeds of the sale were used to finance the anti-Sandanista "contras" in Nicaragua, so the affair became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. The hostages were released, but Reagan denied that he "traded arms for hostages."

Netanyahu's Palestine

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has given conditional endorsement to the concept of a Palestinian state, advocated by three US Presidents, his own predecessors, and the Quartet (1). But, as always, "the devil is in the details" and the details of Bibi's conditions are deal-killers.

According to Netanyahu, the proposed state must be unarmed and recognize Israel as a Jewish state. The second point is mere rhetoric, since the Palestinians would be recognizing nothing more than the truth that Israel has a Jewish majority and reflects Jewish culture. However, to say so openly would be admitting that Israeli Arabs are living in someone else's country, a very distasteful admission.

But the idea that Palestine would have no army is both essential for Israel and intolerable for the Palestinians. A truly sovereign and independent country would be able to defend itself with its own military, and could even provide military bases for other countries. If Palestine had this right, the new state could arm itself with tanks, fighter jets and rockets. Moreover, it could allow foreign countries, such as Iran, to establish bases on its territory. Of course, Israel cannot tolerate this type of threat, and it is inconceivable that any American government would even try to pressure Israel into accepting such a risk.

But why not have a de-militarized Palestine? Costa Rica gets by without an army, and seems to do OK; why not Palestine? The West Bank borders only on Israel and Jordan, neither of which are likely to attack it. Gaza borders on Egypt, but there is no way that Egypt would invade that parcel (2).

Actually, Palestine Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas might be tempted to accept a de-militarized state, which would still be a vast improvement over his present situation. Such a state would have all the trappings of sovereignty: a flag, a seat in the UN General Assembly, embassies all over the world and the right to issue its own currency and government bonds. The internal checkpoints would be gone. But, as noted in our June 5 posting, Abbas is too weak to accept a settlement without the blessing of Hamas, and Hamas will never give up its rockets. Even if Gaza were severed from Palestine, the power of Hamas and allied hardliners (e.g. Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) in the West Bank alone would be too strong to permit Abbas to take Netanyahu's deal.

Netanyahu also insisted on keeping Jerusalem, and made no pledge to remove the settlements and their residents, so for the Palestinians there is not much to like about the proposed new state. Obama envoy George Mitchell will find himself in the position of a real estate broker whose buyer's maximum offer is still way below the seller's minimum acceptable price. But, unlike a real estate broker, Mitchell cannot admit the parties are too far apart and walk away. That would be admitting that Obama's effort to establish a Palestinian state had failed, and his promise to do so was empty. Failure is not an option!

And so, the game of shuttle diplomacy, endless negotiations, public pressures, recriminations and frustrations goes on with no end in sight.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The US, UN, Russia and the European Union.

(2) Egypt was offered Gaza along with the Sinai, and refused to accept the territory.