The case against regime change in Iran

[Che Guava]

Well folks, the islamic republic of Iran has been getting a lot of attention in the news these days, not to mention a lot of play right here on CFC. While many here do favour a complete regime change (ground invasion, total dismantling of the gov't, a la Iraq), opinion does seem to be split on whether this is a realistic, or even desirable option for dealing with a government that is seen by many as a destabilizing force in the middle east. But before we get into the debate, a little news to bring out some points:

Rafsanjani to lead key Iran body

Former Iranian President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has been elected speaker of a powerful clerical body responsible for supervising Iran's Supreme Leader.

The Assembly of Experts has the power to dismiss the Islamic state's highest authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Mr Rafsanjani will succeed Ayatollah Ali Meshkini, who died in July.

Correspondents say the appointment further consolidates the authority of Mr Rafsanjani, who is already a powerful figure in Iranian politics.

Considered a "pragmatic conservative", Mr Rafsanjani's victory will also be seen as a blow to Iran's hardline president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The BBC's Jon Leyne in Tehran says there is now a clear divide in Iranian politics between supporters of Mr Rafsanjani and those of Mr Ahmadinejad, and a complex power struggle is being carried out behind the scenes.

Power struggle

Before he went into the election, which was held behind closed doors, Mr Rafsanjani was keen to stress the importance of the supervisory body.

"The Assembly of Experts should be considered one of the main pillars of the country because it has the responsibility to supervise the leader's qualification," he said.

Afterwards, officials announced that Mr Rafsanjani had received 41 votes in the 86-seat assembly, 11 more than his nearest challenger, Ayatollah Ahmed Jannati.

Ayatollah Jannati, a hard-line conservative cleric who heads the powerful Guardian Council, had earlier expressed his unhappiness with Mr Rafsanjani's political resurgence.

Ayatollah Mohammed Taqi Mesbah-Yazdi, an anti-reformist cleric considered Mr Ahmedinejad's mentor, came third in the election.

Influential politician

Mr Rafsanjani has been a dominant figure in Iranian politics since the 1980s.

He served two terms as president from 1989 to 1997, after nine years as an influential speaker of parliament under Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the republic.

As president, Mr Rafsanjani sought to encourage a rapprochement with the West and Russia and to re-establish Iran as a regional power. He also advocated free-market economic reforms and opposed harsh Islamic penal codes.

He stood again for the presidency in June 2005, but despite receiving the highest number of votes in the election's first round, was beaten in a run-off vote by Mr Ahmadinejad.

In December, Mr Rafsanjani joined the Assembly of Experts and was elected deputy speaker shortly afterwards.

He is also head of the Expediency Council, a body which arbitrates in disputes between parliament and the Guardian Council.

link

So there may be some glimmer of hope for reform in the government of Iran.

And now for my viewpoint: despite the lack of checks and balances withiin the Iranian system (see graphic above), what we seem to have is a government divided between elected and appointed positions, with some consensus on choice between the two. The unelected side is conservative and 'islamic' nearly by definition, while the elected side has had both moderate (Khatami) and conservative (Ahmadinejad) leadership. What I mean to point out here is that there IS a democratic process and viable institutions in place, they are simply held back by unelected officials, supposedly in charge of protecting the tenents of the islamic revolution.

What this seems to tell me is that there is a chance from within Iran to be able to reform the system, remove the present hierarchy, and give more power to elected officials, without the disruption and chaos of a total government overhaul. In this way, it would seem more wise for western nations interested in changing the government of Iran to support reformers from within the system as well as they can, and when/if they hold enough power, encourage them to restrict the powers of unelected positions and police organizations (i.e. republican guards).

So what do we think? Is a quiet revolution possible in Iran? Is there enough room to allow Iran to find its own way to democracy? Or should we be preparing for war against the next member of the 'axis of evil'?

 

[warpus]

Let change in Iran come from within - not from the outside.

We've all seen what has happened in Iraq. Change from within would be accepted by your average Iranian - most of the young people in that country are for reforms.. Change from the outside would pit your average Iranian against the "outside invader".

 

[Jesus Civs]

Let the Iranian people sort out Iran for themselves, if it even needs to be sorted out.

Let CNN, George Bush and all the rest whistle dixie.

 

[Masquerouge]

I think Iran can change from within. I dunno if it will, though.

 

[JohnRM]

I am not sure that the institutions exist, but the people do and they are the most powerful decider of things. If they want it and are willing to work for it, they can have reform. At this point, I certainly don't think that the United States should be interfering with the internal politics of Iran. Of course, we all know that they are/will be doing so, anyway.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I am not sure that the institutions exist, but the people do and they are the most powerful decider of things. If they want it and are willing to work for it, they can have reform.

Pretty much my thoughts. The system can change, and it probably needs to; this does not have to be bloody.

They probably say the same thing about us!

 

[The Yankee]

I'll agree with John on this. Based on what I was taught in Iran over the past spring, I'd say that they just have too many hurdles to get substantial change from that system alone. They'd have to get a more liberal Supreme Leader, for example. That's probably the key, as it'd have a good effect on the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council, as well as less objections to certain candidates for office.

 

[Ecofarm]

I'll read the thead (you're welcome), but if you think that the "elected officials" just need enough courage, you are wrong. Your voting catagory should be asterisked with *=victim of government mentality.

Seriously, Iran has killed 10s of 1000s of government opposition on purely political grounds over the past 16 years.

You ask that someone has courage, in the face of fatalities (not casualities) of 10k/year for those who say anything against the current regime? Including injury and imprisonment, we are looking at 40k/year.

Is that reasonable? You you say anything if it meant your entire villiage gets slaughtered? The officials need courage? What about the citizens? Have you considered the citizens who cannot be expected to say anything about reform?

They might have the institutions, for example: universities.

But that' about it. Democracy, or representation of the people, DOES NOT EXIST.

Why don't we get some courage and do something about it instead of expecting peasants to hold forks against nukes. I mean, really, have a sense of sport about you.

I vote:

<X> The likelyhood of the peaceful emergance of a democratic regime (circa Kenya 03) =< 50%, in the next 30 years.

 

[amadeus]

Possible, but will require a revolution.

 

[The Yankee]

The best chance may have come during Khatami's presidency when the reformists also held the Majles. But that faction was routed in 2004 (I believe) and we know the outcome of the 2005 presidential election.

 

[Che Guava]

I'll read the thead (you're welcome), but if you think that the "elected officials" just need enough courage, you are wrong. Your voting catagory should be asterisked with *=victim of government mentality.

Not sure I get your meaning here....

Seriously, Iran has killed 10s of 1000s of government opposition on purely political grounds over the past 16 years.

You ask that someone has courage, in the face of fatalities (not casualities) of 10k/year for those who say anything against the current regime? Including injury and imprisonment, we are looking at 40k/year.

Is that reasonable? You you say anything if it meant your entire villiage gets slaughtered? The officials need courage? What about the citizens? Have you considered the citizens who cannot be expected to say anything about reform?

Citizens do have to stand up as well, but someone in the place of Rasfanjani has a much better chance of being able to make real change. If he had significant support in the legislature, for eg, he could dismiss the Supreme leader (and yes, he odes have the legal authority to do so) and introduce a bill wrestling power away from the unelected officials, granting greater powers to the legislature and introducing better checks and balances, he would have a real chance of making a change. I know it wouldn't be as easy-peasy as all of that, but if the citizens were to support him in such a step and stand up themselves, the rev. guards and the army would have either the choice of a coup or letting the reforms through. If the move was popular enough, then there would be little chance that they would risk the former.

They might have the institutions, for example: universities.

But that' about it. Democracy, or representation of the people, DOES NOT EXIST.

They have a legislature, an elected president and an assembly of experts. Those are all democratic institutions, even if they don't have the powers they deserve yet.

Why don't we get some courage and do something about it instead of expecting peasants to hold forks against nukes. I mean, really, have a sense of sport about you.

Hold forks against nukes? What Iraninas have to do is elect someone who will be thier best chance at making reforms and standing behind him/her. There might be some blood spilled in the process, but much less than a ground invasion or a total revolution.

I vote:

<X> The likelyhood of the peaceful emergance of a democratic regime (circa Kenya 03) =< 50%, in the next 30 years.

ok, but that doesn't sound like an answer to the question I posed...

 

[amadeus]

They have a legislature, an elected president and an assembly of experts. Those are all democratic institutions, even if they don't have the powers they deserve yet.

It is as "democratic" as the Cuban or Vietnamese system; candidates need to be screened and approved before they're even allowed to run for office.

East Germany also used to have multi-party elections, but all of the parties were basically the same.

 

[Che Guava]

It is as "democratic" as the Cuban or Vietnamese system; candidates need to be screened and approved before they're even allowed to run for office.

East Germany also used to have multi-party elections, but all of the parties were basically the same.

But this is just it: the Iranian system is flawed, no doubt at all. Any system in which a governing body approves candidates before an election is never going to be really democratic.

BUT, there is a system in place that, if modified, could serve democracy well. If you take away that dotted orange line on the graph, suddenly things start to look a little better for the Iranian system, and I bet it wouldn't be as hard to start to muck around with some of those blue lines too.

Rather than a bloody revolution and a complete tear-down of the Islamic republic, i could envision using what institutions are there to make a smoother transition, not unlike the transition made by warsaw pact countries following the collapse of the soviet union. Look at the example of Poland, who, inspite of a tightly controlled political process, managed to open up thier legislatures to other parties, making the transition from one-party state to functioning democracy is the span of about 3 years.

Of course the situations are different, and one can never discount the incredible will of the Polish (and east gernman, czech, etc) people to push for change, something that seems to be a little less pronounced in Iran, but in the end, I would rather see a polish change than an Iraqi one.

 

[Ecofarm]

Citizens do have to stand up as well, but someone in the place of Rasfanjani has a much better chance of being able to make real change. If he had significant support in the legislature, for eg, he could dismiss the Supreme leader (and yes, he odes have the legal authority to do so) and introduce a bill wrestling power away from the unelected officials, granting greater powers to the legislature and introducing better checks and balances, he would have a real chance of making a change. I know it wouldn't be as easy-peasy as all of that, but if the citizens were to support him in such a step and stand up themselves, the rev. guards and the army would have either the choice of a coup or letting the reforms through. If the move was popular enough, then there would be little chance that they would risk the former.

They have a legislature, an elected president and an assembly of experts. Those are all democratic institutions, even if they don't have the powers they deserve yet.

Hold forks against nukes? What Iraninas have to do is elect someone who will be thier best chance at making reforms and standing behind him/her. There might be some blood spilled in the process, but much less than a ground invasion or a total revolution.

Did I mention, 10~30k political opposition casualities per year for 16 years? Any support anyone might have against the Supreme Leader is l0ng ago dead.

You seem to think that Iran's government is somthing similar to a democracy. Ahh, the bliss of ignorance, how I miss it.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

If a people want change they can acheive it. An invasion would lead to a lot of problems. It is the Irainian's country let them decide. Anything else will be an artificiall solution.

 

[Che Guava]

Did I mention, 10~30k political opposition casualities per year for 16 years? Any support anyone might have against the Supreme Leader is l0ng ago dead.

You seem to think that Iran's government is somthing similar to a democracy. Ahh, the bliss of ignorance, how I miss it.

I can only assume by your replies that you aren't really reading mine. Ignorance indeed.

If a people want change they can acheive it. An invasion would lead to a lot of problems. It is the Irainian's country let them decide. Anything else will be an artificiall solution.

Sounds like a good idea to me!

 

[EdwardTking]

It is as "democratic" as the Cuban or Vietnamese system; candidates need to be screened and approved before they're even allowed to run for office.

or as the USA where the unelected Supreme Court judges appointed a former President' s son President.

East Germany also used to have multi-party elections, but all of the parties were basically the same.

Some of us have been reading these threads for years, but still can not work out the difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both US parties seem to rely on wealthy capitalists support and support elite capitalism in return.

Who knows the Soviet Union might be here today if they had had two communist parties which pretended to be different.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm not in favor of invading another country. We already have enough on our plate as it is.

 

[Murky]

I'm not in favor of invading another country. We already have enough on our plate as it is.

The plan I read was about bombing them so much that they would no longer have the military capability to threaten their neighbors, not invading.

The whole region is hostile to us and anything we do will only stoke the flames.

 

[George2816]

no, if the people of Iran want to change their gov't then gl trying but as in all revlots/revolutions their are some people that don't want to change!