On the future of Iran

Ten days ago, the citizens of Iran went to the polls and vote in the presidential election. While there were multiple candidates on the ballot, two figures were viewed as the main choice. The incumbent, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was facing a tough battle from Hossein Moussavi following years of economic strife and a severe drop in international standing. While Moussavi wasn’t too different from Ahmadinejad in domestic policy, he was seen as a much-needed change to improve relations with the international community.

The polls opened, and millions of voters came out across the country to voice their opinion. So many in fact, that the polls were held open for a few additional hours to ensure everyone had a chance to cast their ballot. From this point, the joy of voting suddenly hit a snag. For starters, the millions of ballots were counted in only a matter of three hours, which seems odd for an election that had to be extended due to the overwhelming turnout. Added to this problem was the conflicting election results leaked to the media. Both men claimed victory by winning at least 60% of the vote. (It was noted today that there were voting discrepancies in 50 of the largest cities in Iran, though that only accounted for 3 Million votes.)

The confusion over the election, and feeling of voter fraud drew millions of Moussavi supporters and reformists into the streets across the nation, shouting their discontent and carrying signs that read “Where is my vote” in English. These protests have been met with police lines trying to deter the activists then increased violence when the Basij (the militia) started to beat – and in some cases, kill – the protesters. One of the victims has been identified as Neda Agha-Soltan, a young woman who was engaged to be married. Much like the unknown student who was crushed by a tank in Tiananmen Square protests of 1989, Neda has become the face of the deadly oppression the government can impose upon those challenging their authority.

So the question becomes, “What action should the United States take?” There are two schools of thought. The first is a strong, up-front condemnation of violence and force used against the protesters. In 1981, President Reagan addressed the violence and force used against the public uprising in Poland by challenging the government directly. He said:

The men who rule them and their totalitarian allies fear the very freedom that the Polish people cherish. They have answered the stirrings of liberty with brute force, killings, mass arrests, and the setting up of concentration camps. Lech Walesa and other Solidarity leaders are imprisoned, their fate unknown. Factories, mines, universities, and homes have been assaulted.

…

I urge the Polish Government and its allies to consider the consequences of their actions. How can they possibly justify using naked force to crush a people who ask for nothing more than the right to lead their own lives in freedom and dignity? Brute force may intimidate, but it cannot form the basis of an enduring society, and the ailing Polish economy cannot be rebuilt with terror tactics.

The other school of thought is to take a softer approach, hoping not to antagonize a government that already despises the United States and spinning any statement as an attempt to label the protests as interference by the West. President Obama has said:

Obviously all of us have been watching the news from Iran. And I want to start off by being very clear that it is up to Iranians to make decisions about who Iran’s leaders will be; that we respect Iranian sovereignty and want to avoid the United States being the issue inside of Iran, which sometimes the United States can be a handy political football — or discussions with the United States.

Having said all that, I am deeply troubled by the violence that I’ve been seeing on television. I think that the democratic process — free speech, the ability of people to peacefully dissent — all those are universal values and need to be respected. And whenever I see violence perpetrated on people who are peacefully dissenting, and whenever the American people see that, I think they’re, rightfully, troubled.

With two distinctly different approaches, leaving one to ask which action is correct? That is rather hard to say, as the variables are different. While I believe Obama should strike a slightly more forceful tone and standing up for the rights of people to protest without fear of violence, I don’t think directly challenging the Iranian leadership is the right idea. And while I personally believe the United Nations has turned into a rather worthless organization when it comes to standing up to human rights under oppressive governments, I think Obama should be actively pursing an international resolution calling for an end of violence towards the protesters. That way, it shows that the world supports those rallying in the streets without directly challenging the leadership of the nation.

When all is said and done, will these protests matter? As stated earlier, there isn’t a glaring difference on the issues between Moussavi and Ahmadinejad. However, we might be surprised if the protesters are successful in overturning the election. Moussavi has been the face of the reformist movement during the rallies, and might change his positions to match those of the public. While the President answers to the Ayatollah, a President backed by a powerful populist movement (especially women) might be able to force the Supreme Leader to initiate change in favor of basic human rights for all within Iran.

Unfortunately, it is highly unlikely that these current protests will lead to a complete collapse of the existing government power structure, meaning the ruling class will remain. However, with a series of gradual changes in domestic policy and rights, long-term changes are possible. Till that day comes, it is my hope that no other protester will meet the face of Neda – Iran’s “Angel of Freedom.”

Related articles:
Powerline – “A Word From Ronald Reagan”
The New York Times – “Both Sides Claim Victory in Presidential Election in Iran”
Cafe Sentido – “Rivals Ahmedinajad & Mousavi Both Declare Victory in Iran Election”
Hurriyet Daily News – “Status quo likely victor in Iran vote”
America Blog – “Secret document declares Mousavi winner”
Progress Politics - “President Obama regarding Iran Election Situation”

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!