This article obviously has a bias against the current Iranian regime you should try and be more objective in your reading of the facts and events described. Although this article doesn't deal with Ahmedinejad directly, try to think about who the majority of his constituents were during the 2005 elections. You guys know more about the governmental structure of Iran than the people writing the article, think about the "Islamic" counterparts to the secular institutions of the Iranian government. So try to think about how Khameini's appointments to the Revolutionary Guard from the Basiji (both "Islamic" arms of the government) could possibly affect future elections, Iranian society as a whole, and the ability of more progressive arms of the regime (Rafsanjani, Khatami, and most recently Mousavi) to function.
Monday, November 16, 2009
Foreign Policy Magazine: The Rise of the Iranian Dictatorship | Foreign Policy
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
31 comments:
Basically, I think this article is very much in line with all of the media coverage over the past summer.
I find it interesting that the authors bring up the parallel intelligence agency. They act as if this one parallel agency's activities mean that Iran is now a militarized dictatorship. However, as they note in the article, this structure has been around for a while and been involved in some very sketchy activities. If the security forces outside of the control of the president are their justification for the state being called a military dictatorship, why didn't they write this article a few decades ago when the parallel structure was developed.
I absolutely believe that the parallel structure is anti-democratic and hinders the political and social development of Iran. Nevertheless, these author's totally miss the mark. This is not an evolving military dictatorship. The security forces are separate from the state controlled military. As the article points out, security forces don't answer to the president they answer to the supreme leader. If the authors are upset by the supreme leaders undemocratic power, that is reasonable but to say that its the President's authority being enforced makes very little sense.
Well, after reading this I do not know who to trust. Last week I watched Fox news pull another radical right wing fast ball as they bashed Iran on prime time television. The controversy was over Iran's military beating civilians. I know that this is a bad thing, and that there is nothing nice to say. However, the news reporters had the audacity to disregard all other current events in the world and collect you tube videos of Iranian citizens being beaten with an attempt to show the worst ones. What kind of political propaganda is fox news trying to stir up. I think this is an absolute shame to see a news station broadcasting garbage like this when our country is suppose to be a world leader.
And, Im going to leave this blog on a more positive note. To make things fare, my response to this article is what ever happen George W. Bush and Enron, or what ever happen to Dick Cheney and Black water/ Triple Canopy? The answer is that they became American's leaders (more like batman and robin) who ran this country for a gruesome and dreadful 8 years while embarrassing the citizens who make this country what it is. However, men like that are some of the individuals that encourage an anti-middle east sentiment to pervade the air in the form of pollution for America's future generation of radical conservative right wing leaders.
That conservative radical Islamists control the military and intelligence services is nothing new within Iran. Other articles Sammy has posted suggests that conservatives took control of these unelected institution following the death of Khomenei in 1989 as a power sharing pact with pragmatists within the ruling clerical elite.
Also, I would not share the author's pessimism about the future democratic prospects within Iran. The late 90's saw a rise in the political influence of Modernists who advocate a view of Islam that is compatible with democracy. If it happened then it can happen again, especially if a new generation of Iranians are becoming fed up with the repressive measures of the conservatives and their incompetence at solving the economic problems of Iran. Perhaps what is needed to overcome the conservatives now in control of Iran is a more decisive appeal by the United States that we are ready to repair the relations between our two countries.
While I understand that we are supposed to read this article with some suspicion because of the apparent bias in it, I do somewhat agree with the article. It is something of concern when members of the military are appointed as members of other political positions. I understand how sometimes military personnel become members of other parts of government. For example, Ike Eisenhower was originally a general who later became the president of the U.S. However, it is different when someone is elected as opposed to when someone is appointed because the elected person has in some way proven he/she has the qualitifications for the position. When people are appointed, you are not always told the reasoning for the choice.
Something that I do not understand in the article is the paragraph that states:
"They argue that the military's intervention in Iranian politics is against the revolutionary ideals of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who founded the Islamic Republic in 1979. Khomeini established the IRGC to defend the revolution from internal threats after the fall of the shah. In 1988, he established the Basij forces on university campuses across Iran to ensure that students, long known for political dissent, would remain loyal to the republic."
I'm confused by how the conservatives can argue that the military's involvement with politics when the sentence afterwards states that the ayatollah created the IRGC to protect the revolution from dissent within the country. Is the military currently being involved in politics in a way that does not protect the revolution from dissent?
This article sounds like the same thing we have heard time and time again. Iran blah blah blah militia, Iran blah blah blah corruption, Iran blah blah blah, enter in more biased information here. And it makes me wonder if authors are writing this because this is what people want to hear (do people thrive off their own ignorance?), or is it because the authors don't know any better and don't wish to know any more.
Iran's youth (under the age of thirty) is over 70 percent of the population. Therefore, it is doubtful that the government would directly say that they appoint someone into a position of power so that he may "instill fear into university students". So many people would be even more angered than they already are if the Supreme Leader were that pompous to make such a remark. And it bothers me that the author is inferring those sorts of interpretations for me, instead of allowing me to formulate my own thoughts on the situation.
But let's say that the article has a slight degree of truth. The Iranian government is giving the militia more power than it has ever had before, and even the conservatives think that it may be a little too much. Why give the militia more freedom, more power, than they already have? Is the government afraid? (Evidently they are, otherwise they wouldn't be killing students). By giving the militia more power, the Iranian government is trying to look like a bigwig in the eyes of the West, but really is just overemphasizing their own incompetence in leading their people.
Ever dictatorship has had its rise and its fall...
Maral and Shabnam's posts hit on some really interesting points. This article isn't saying anything new. At all. It is perpetuating a stereotyped view of the country that the West always wants to hear. Additionally, it seems to give Ajmadinejad a lot more credit for the way things are happening than we learned was the case in class. Sammy described him as "Iran's highest ranking diplomat," and yet the article suggests that he and Khamenei are in cahoots, subverting some ideal of revolutionary principles that was created in 1979.
On Maral's comment, I know nothing about the IRGC's economic influence, and I'd be very interested to learn it.
The line about "even conservatives are unnerved by the militarization of the state" was almost amusing. From what we've learned, it seems the there has historically been a fairly heavy use of violence as an agent of politics...And I thought the Revolutionary Guard was separate from the military? Though increasing the capability of the state to have a monopoly on violence never bodes well for protesters.
The article is written in a way to install fear in the reader and in that way is very biased. However, I agree with some of the examples and the points author makes but do not agree with his conclusion. IRGC and Basij members have always been very politically active in Iran and many of their members have occupied positions of power in the government, this is certainly nothing new. The purpose of their creation was to be political and to silence the voices against the government as SAVAK did during Shah’s time. Also, Basij presence in universities is nothing new either. Although since the protests, Basij and university officials have become even tougher on politically active students with minimum sentencing of getting kicked out of the university. After that they are not going to be admitted to any other university in Iran.
Also, the “Islamic” counterparts to secular institutions of Iran’s government have more power and control. This is one of the reasons why Khatami didn’t get much done and why Ahmadinejad seems more powerful because he has the support of all the Islamic counterparts. The author’s conclusion that Iran’s government is becoming a military dictatorship undermines his good points. He doesn’t take into the account the overall structure of Iran’s government.
First, I want to say that for me, this was a great time to post an article like this. Prior to this course, my political outlook was full of intrigue, biases, and misunderstandings. I feel like I was always skeptical of the anti-middle east sentiments that seem to be oozing out of the media in the last decade or so, but my skepticism was passive.
However, throughout this course I have since become more exposed and consequently amazed at the picture American and western media paints. Foreign Policy is supposed to be a clear and insightful publication designed to analyze international trends and events regardless of ideology or bias. This article misses that mark.
Rhetoric and biases aside, assuming this article to be correct, I believe that a very interesting fact is that this seemingly Imperialistic government was originally created on a democratic foundation. So why choose to write in such a fashion? It seems that reporting the increase of military involvement in Iran's government is an attempt to appeal to the more conservative political opinions.
For me there is no doubt that this article only reinforces the habitual tendency of American media to portray Iran in this light. And yes, to a certain extent what the article says, is true, and yes, it is a bit frightening to think about what effects the military involvement could have on the country heading into the future. However, as everyone has mentioned thus far, this is nothing new or surprising in Iran. And the article fails to acknowledge this point, along with the point that there is something new going on in Iran. It is ironic because they use this very fact to try and close out the article, as if it has diminished. I quote, "This will surely lead to a more restrictive society at the precise moment a broad-based opposition movement seemed to promise real change for the first time since the 1979 revolution". They act as if this broad based opposition is gone, and the appointment of a few officials has distinguished it completely. However, let's not forget that the Iranian citizens have been dealing with this political nature for years and will not give up that easily. The massive young population within Iran is only becoming more aware of the nature of politics within the country and in my opinion, provides a bright future, contrary to what the article may claim.
This article portrays Iran as a bloodthirsty country that has no respect whatsoever for its citizens. I do not believe that. It is extremely unfortunate that the author of the article chose to make Iran seem like one of the most dangerous places in the world and neglect any positive things.
While I do admit that by implementing such people into high positions in the government does create a sense of oppression, that sense has been there long before. It's sad that it is getting so much media now yet when the university was broken into, no one offered to step up to help. So this sense of oppression has been there since before, and it would do better justice focusing on what is being done and how the majority of the population feel. It also speaks volumes to describe just how much power and control the supreme leader truly has. The presidents appear as simple puppets unable and unwilling to do anything that goes against the supreme leader.
This article makes Iran seem hopeless in terms of being able to overcome the conservative radical Islamic regime it has now. All of the protests and riots going on since the beginning of the summer definitely give the sense that the people, especially today's modernized, pro-democratic students and other Iranian young people (who make up the majority of the country!), will not put up with the regime for too long.
I realize that this article was posted with the expectation that because it displays an anti-Iran bias, that anything it says cannot be true, I do tend to agree with the author on his main points, although perhaps not to the same degree.
Iran seems to be becoming increasingly hard-line. The appointment of a man accused of approving things like torture and rape, even if he is not directly involved in it, is still disturbing, even if it is nothing new. It is brutal and indicative of more violent things to come.
This article also seems to take the extreme position when its author states: “Khamenei has given the militias under his control unprecedented power. This will surely lead to a more restrictive society at the precise moment a broad-based opposition movement seemed to promise real change for the first time since the 1979 revolution.” This statement, like most made by the popular media, is so extreme that even if it holds some grain of truth, it cannot be taken seriously because of its extremity.
To contend that Iran is becoming a militarized dictatorship is a bit slanted of an argument. However, the IRGC and the Basij forces generated from the mind of Khomeini were, by principle, a contingency that could lead many outside observers to see such a structure develop. Now tightening their influence around the flowering minds of university students, these seem as threats to any sort of political opinion or youthquake every day Iranian people. I do agree that this is anti-democratic, but it is not fair to start naming off all of the forms of corruption that have generated here in the U.S. If we are speaking of the militarization of Iran, it is best not to become hypersensitive towards subjects that occur so often around the world. The fact is that Khomeini's reign was established upon fragmentation and a very militaristic mindset. Therefore, the fruit he bears in controlling and mediating within Iran is going to follow in suit. It is pretty common sense. It should be no surprise that people in the IRGC are going to wind up as political leaders. It may present a bad view of Iran, but the same reflection is given here in the U.S. at times. We often elect governors or Presidents that have no right assuming their positions, and are not qualified for their positions. As a result, the policies they establish follow a pattern of their insufficiency. I am in no way supporting this process, or even rationalizing it. Nevertheless, I am trying to calm the waters a little by asking: "Well, what did you expect?"
I can certainly understand some of the hostility towards this article. The author seemingly treats the use of Islamic militias and intelligence services as new phenomena, when as we're seen in class, these organizations have been around for decades now. However, I don't think the article is completely without merit. At its core, the article seems to be arguing that as the Iranian leadership relies more and more upon Islamic military organizations like the Basiji or the Revolutionary Guard, the more their authority and legitimacy will depend on the use of force. The way I see it, Khamenei has a delicate act he must balance. If he doesn't give these military organizations the power to keep Iranian dissent suppressed, it will lead to instability. However, if he gives them too much power, then the military can act independent of him and run the state themselves. I think this is what the article means by military dictatorship. As stability in Iran becomes more dependent on naked force, the other organization risk losing their relevance as the military becomes the de facto legitimate authority in Iran.
From what I have gathered in class and in the readings, I feel as if these 'hard line' appointments are nothing new to Iran. Thus, the author's prediction of Iran slipping into a militaristic dictatorship may be a little presumptuous. I say this because, while hard line military men continue to be appointed to these positions of power, at the same time an opposition is growing. As this opposition to hard liners grows stronger and becomes more demanding, the leaders, in both the secular and Islamic branches, will have to respond to their demands in some way to maintain legitimacy and keep authority. Also, it is important to keep in mind that this article focuses on two instances of military appointments, where, I'm sure many other appointments are not former military men. I have faith that with every step the government (both Islamic and secular) takes towards an authoritarian rule the people of Iran will fight back to keep the balance in line.
Although this article comes off as very harsh, it has a valid point. Often times the current regime has to resort to militaristic organizations to hush any signs of an uprising. The article claims that "this will surely lead to a more restrictive society" in Iran; I hope this is indeed the case.
As I see it, as more rights are grossly violated by the government, the more enraged the people will become, which will fuel even stronger opposition to the government. sure, the violent repression of the voices of the youth might quell the resistance for some time, but an uprising will eventually form.
In addition, the article claims that:
"In 1988, he established the Basij forces on university campuses across Iran to ensure that students, long known for political dissent, would remain loyal to the republic."
I am curious as to whether this was truly the intent behind the formation of the Basij. From what was taught in class, I understood that the Basij came about under different circumstances for a different purpose.
Lastly, I am curious to see where on the political spectrum this news source lies. I do not believe they are a completely conservative organization; they could be just pissed off liberals. Although we are supposed to read this article with suspicion, I do agree with some of the main points he puts forth.
I don't really see why the article should be so discredited - there seems to be a lot of validity embedded. To be honest, before the elections I knew very little about Iranian politics and still know very little actually - but I do have relatives there and I did see and hear what happened during the elections and this article seems to be pretty much in line with that.
I find it interesting that even when we see live footage and hear firsthand accounts of horrible things happening, people still lay the blame on the media for hyping it up. This creates a mindset where we rationalize that everything bad happening is merely the media looking for a reaction/audience. This stuff needs explanation and investigation - and while the media may overdo it sometimes, it's better than just living euphorically pretending that everything's alright. So I'm perfectly fine with the article calling things as they are.
The Iranian government is harsh and very controlling over its citizens activities no doubt about that. The protests this summer demonstrate what most people already suspected about the governments shady behavior. The only way to diminish such a dictatorship is to bring international attention like the protests did. With Barack Obama as president I think there is a lot hope that things can change in Iran. There is certainly a trend towards with the election of leaders such as Rasafgani and Khatami. I think pretty soon we will see reforms in Iran as the internal opposition continues and the international spotlight is on them.
The article is clearly biased against Iran, the author seem to have very little knowledge about the political structure of Iran. The author seem to forget that even though Iran have a strong para military that, of course, have a lot of power, they are still not ruling the country. The power in Iran is divided by democratic elected bodies and religious authorities, where most of the power lies in the religious authorities.
Even though the author overemphasize the power of the military in Iran, the article say something interesting about how the regime has used military power to take control of the country, a regime that uses military power to maintain control over the country is a regime that has lost its legitimacy. This can be a positive sign of change.
I don't really know how to position myself after reading this article.
The author clearly uses the fear and is very alarming however the facts he quote seems as a matter of fact to strenghten the authoritarism of Iran leaders. He describes the new appointements as the answer from the Suprem Guide to the events of this summer.
As a matter of fact, he picked hard-liners, involved in precedent repressive movements in order to deter future demonstrations against the regime.
Therefore, it's quite hard to find this article very biased as long as it is well-documented but I also agree that the style reinforces the fear of Iran.
This article is not very insightful, to say the least. It tries to be sexy, but many of the parallels are inappropriate and hasty conclusions seem to have been made. The assertion that Iran is a militarized state, concentrating hard-liners in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. as a means to ramp up its control over the general population, is plain ridiculous. The author's tone comes across as extremely biased. Abdo consistently asks the reader to read into the information with a definitively Western perspective. Far from unbiased journalism, this article seems a piece of sensationalist wishful-thinking, designed to create many points out of little information.
Now, I understand that the protests last summer obviously excited some journalists into believing that Iran was spiraling into a chaotic dictatorship, but this article takes it to another extreme. Yes, Khamenei has appointed some questionable muscle men into positions that hold a lot of power, but that doesn’t affect the rights of any other politician in the country. The conclusion at the end of the article that Khamenei giving the militia “unprecedented power” will “surely lead to a more restrictive society…” is a complete overstatement of what will actually happen after the appointment of these officials. There may be a slight increase in the sense of oppression felt by the Iranian citizens, but this is something the Iranian people have faced before.
This article plays so much on emotions, especially on fear (the word, along with "brutal", "crual" etc. is used quite a lot of time) that it is sometimes hard to see what the author's point really is.
If it is to say that the Islamic Republic is a repressive regime for the dissidents and opponents, that is true. But unfortunately, as many other bloggers have said, it has almost always been like that. The appointments of some hard liners in the key positions of the IRGC is definitely not a good news for the perspective of liberalization of the regime. But it does not suddenly make Iran a military dictatorship.
I think one of the biggest issue about the IRGC is that it is not under the control of the democratically elected authorities of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Indeed, according to the constitution, the President and the Majlis have very little power on the armed forces, and especially on these parallel intelligence forces, which are under the direct control of the Supreme Leader. As long as the Supreme Leader was responsible in front of the the democratically elected Assemble of Experts, this problem was somehow mitigated and its impact was lessened. What the article fails to higlight is that the Supreme Leader is taking more and more autonomy from and has more and more influence over this Assembly. He has recently asserted that he was not impeachable, as his position resulted of some sort of a divine will, and not a popular one. This is the substantial and worrying change of these last months.
Indeed, even some conservatives and hard liners in Iran have acknowledged that the constitutional and political status quo was no longer unsustainable. Some og them would agree with a smooth and control change that would preserve the nature of the Islamic Republic and the role of the Mollahs. In fact, what the article also fails to see is that the iranian political elite is not blind to what has happened in the streets of tehran in June. The IRGC, brutal as it might be, won't be able to crush all the Iranians that call for a political break-though (but not a revolution).
The Iranian youth is demographically dominant but still politically and socially marginalized. Each year more than 4 millions youngsters study in the University, 2 of them study social sciences. These students are the basis for a growing middle class. This educated middle class is already asking for change. These students and this middle class, made of shopekeepers of the bazaar, of executives of national companies, were the ones who protested against Ahmadinejad in June. This category of the population was also the one that started the protests against the Shah Regime in 1977-78. The Islamic regime is well aware of this force, and I doubt it is foolish to the point of directly confronting it with the IRGC. Of course there will be repression, but not to the point of setting up a military dictatorships. Tomorrow (Azar Day) will be an interesting test of these assumptions.
And let's remember one thing. After 1953, and especially 1963 and during the 70s, the Shah tended to strengthen its own version of the IRGC, its own secret police/militia : the Savak. But in front of the growing protests of the Iranian population in the late 70s, it backed up and released political prisoners, while authorizing more freedom to demonstrate etc. This led to the strengthening of the opposition and eventually to the overthrow of the monarchy, after the army had rallied the protesters. While I don't think that the current discontent in Iran will lead to a revolution (I think that Iranians have seen that violent revolution can do more harm that good), I am relatively confident in the capacity of the reformer of the regime (Rasfandjani, Mousavi, Karoubi, Khatami) to lead the movement for change and pave the way for a more democratic regime.
I agree with the notion that the new appointments "give hard-liners more influence within Iran. Though it is clar that "unprecedented power," and "most feared and brutal men in Iran" are strong statements--the points made in this article are to a large extent true.
With these appontments, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps can further suppress dissent (like in the example of the Basij's embeddedness in student spheres) and also suppress mediation from opposing parties.
Appointments are always alarming to me, particularly when the individuals appointed could, or are usually, selected by vote. I believe that by appointing these individuals to public positions, they may not represent the will of the Iranian people who may otherwise not have voted in this individual of their own accord.
While two more appointments of militaristic figures may not be as dramatic or telling a development as the article warns, it is nevertheless indicative of the current regime's tendancy towards repression of dissent by any means necessary.
It should always be acknowledged that much of the news here in the U.S. is severely biased towards making certain political enemies of the United States appear at times worse than they truly are. The type of reporting in this article is in the same realm as highly biased works produced on for example Cuba.
Regardless of the banalities within this argument, within this article it must be noted that there is a great deal of issues to be seen with the scenario presented within the article. Following the article, Iran has a growing military force, which is backed by the Supreme Leader through the appointment of Naghdi in order to instill fear in University students. This as is presented is a huge issue if it holds any shred of proof because it would mean that the government is not afraid of its overwhelmingly young population.
This does not make much sense but if it is true it could mean for a more repressive government out of the control of the people which in the long run may lead to people taking back the control.
It is apparent that many of the conclusions presented from the article are a bit farfetched in my opinion and were not thought out in terms of future, none-the-less a new military dictatorship would be horrible.
It is without a doubt true that there are oppressive forces in Iran. The structure of the government is extremely different than a democratic government such as the one we have here in the U.S., and although the government that is present in Iran is different that does not signal that it is becoming a militarized dictatorship, it is still the same Theocratic government it has been. There is a parallel structure in this government that does allow for "unjust" activity to occur. With the parallel structure we do find that an paramilitary group such as the IRGC can flourish as it has, and unless there is a huge shift in the organization of the Iranian government,it will continue to do so in the future.
Leaders have been produced from the IRGC and from the Basij for quite some time now, therefore it is strange that it should suddenly be so emphasized in this article.
This article is very in line with a more recent one that came out by Maziar Bahari, on the cover of Newsweek, called "118 days in Hell". I'd like to believe this "rise of Iranian Dictatorship" is another misguided generalization by the media. But, after reading Maziar's account of being jailed for 118 days in Evin prison, being abused and tortured, tis not so hard to believe anymore. Ten years ago, Iran was calmer. Now, there is a larger opposition but an even more cruel iron fist to destroy them. The Basij and IRGC were always around, but now they are MAINSTREAM. They have legitimate posts and as evidenced by the articles, they take full advantage of their newfound power. While before they tortured and abused under the radar, they now do it blatantly for the world to see.
This does not make the future of Iran look brighter. China is still a communist country even after the brutality of Tiananmen Square. It just learned to silence those against it more efficiently. In Iran, it is the same battle, and if the IRGC and Basij prove smart enough to overtake ALL of Iran's instutions and establish full control and legitimacy, than Iran will move farther away from democracy. On the bright side, maybe it can pair its ruthless military dicatorship with economic-superpower style success?
Again...again...again. Change the record I say. The same things are said over and over again. It seems that Iran is truly hell on earth, at least according to articles like this. When will Iran be portrayed in a manner which truly describes their country? Unequivocally nobody knows.
Some of the points in this article seem truly contradictory to what Iran is made of. This article states that the Iran dictatorship is attempting to plague the college student demographic. Why would they do this? Do they not realize that 70% of Iran is made up of people below the age of 30. Of course they realize this. Iran knows, everybody knows with maybe the exception with those associated with this article.
This class has truly changed my view of Iran and also the middle east. This portrayal of the middle east as a tyrannical, hell substitute needs to end.
This article coincides with much of the same ideas and materials covered since the start of the Iranian elections. Accusatory and pessimistic. Much of what is written is true in regards to the fear instilled in the people, the quieting of the opposition and the political injustices, however we cannot blind ourselves to the U.S.'s past intentions. Ever since the beginning of the elections and the protests, all I saw on the news were youtube videos of protests, Neda being shot, and political figures debating the future outcome of Iran as if they really care for the betterment of Iran and its people. Lets not forget that during the Iran Iraq war it was the US and Israel that funded the Iraqi's with the same chemical weapons they used on the Iranian population. Now they are flooding our Internet sites and news channels with heartfelt "we care about the Iranian population" propaganda when back during the war, they willingly turned their back as thousands of Iranians died? All I'm saying is we have to take what we read with a grain of salt.
Also, the pessimism expressed in this article in regards Iran's future ability of democratizing is very disheartening. The one thing holding back the people from another revolution and hopes of democratization is the fact that the current regime is using religion as a means of silencing its less educated population. Knowledge spreads like wildfire however and there is still hope for people to be informed and unite in order to bring down the dictatorship.
Post a Comment