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)
16 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?
I feel like magazines like Foreign Policy continue to rehash articles about the IRGC with the same bias views that most American publications have used time and time again. I personally would like to see more stories on the economic influence the IRGC has in Iran, and what that means for the average Iranian citizen. I've read before that the IRGC controls some oil and telecommunication companies, as well as some organizations/foundations. It would be great to see how they gain from such close ties with these companies, as well as possible corruption that may be involved. Writers can even examine the rumor about the Revolutionary Guard selling bootleg alcohol and satellite dishes through the black market. Mostly though, I wish this article would have mentioned the fact that the United States had (and still probably is) previosuly enlisted the help of the CIA's Special Activities Division in order to start up cross border paramilitary operations against the Quds force (a special unit of the Revolutionary Guard). What exactly has the CIA achieved? What is there main goal? How does this affect America's investment in a democratic Iran?
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.
Post a Comment