Monday, February 11, 2008

Iran's clerical old guard being pushed aside

New generation replacing clerics who had sought better ties with West

By Thomas Erdbrink
The Washington Post
updated 2:15 a.m. ET, Mon., Feb. 11, 2008

TEHRAN - After Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini's followers toppled a U.S.-backed autocracy in Iran, he brought to power a coterie of politically engaged clerics who sought to create the world's first Islamic republic. Nearly 30 years later, a new generation of politicians is sweeping aside those clerics, many of whom had become proponents of better relations with the West and gradual steps toward greater democracy.

The newcomers are former military commanders, filmmakers and mayors, many younger than 50 and only a few of them clerics. They are vowing to carry out the promises of the revolution and to place Iran among the world's leading nations. This rising generation has the support of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, supreme leader in Iran's political system, who backs the government's assertive foreign and nuclear policies.

Last month, local election councils disqualified scores of clerics and their allies -- including Khomeini's grandson, Ali Eshragi -- from seeking election to parliament March 14. Such candidates have been disqualified before, but analysts said the absence of members of the clerical old guard from other institutions of power in Iran means they will find it difficult to mount an electoral comeback.

"These newcomers are pushing the followers of the imam out of power," said cleric and political veteran Rasoul Montajabnia, using an honorific to refer to Khomeini. "We are being dealt with disloyally."

Ahmadinejad strengthened
Analysts say the purging of those clerics strengthens President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the most prominent leader of the new generation, and will result in a smaller political class that is more beholden to the supreme leader and less tolerant of even internal dissent.

"The newcomers don't have the same power base as the old guard," said Mehrdad Serjooie, a political analyst and former journalist. "They have no reputation dating from the time of the revolution, no direct access to oil money and no important supporters.

"The old factions often could operate more independently because they were powerful" in their own right, Serjooie added. "The new generation depends more on the leader."

Khamenei two weeks ago publicly vetoed a decision by Ahmadinejad to ignore certain laws passed by parliament. "This was a signal to show who is in charge," Serjooie said.

The newcomers say their emergence is part of a generational change. "For the last 30 years we have seen the same names in Iranian politics. It was natural that clerics took control of the country's affairs after they led the revolution, but as time goes by it's natural that younger non-clerics take over," said Saeed Aboutaleb, 37, a member of parliament since 2004.

He said clerics would remain important. "We need them for guidance, just as the late Imam Khomeini wanted. In the end, this is just a change in clothes," he added, referring to the overcoat and turban worn by clerics and the suits worn by younger politicians. "The newcomers are just as religious."

If the clerics have a chance at regaining the political prominence they enjoyed in the years following the 1979 revolution, analysts say, it will be under the leadership of former president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, an ayatollah and former close aide to Khomeini who lost the presidential election to Ahmadinejad in 2005.

During Rafsanjani's two terms in the 1990s, his faction controlled several important executive and economic institutions in Iran, among them the Oil Ministry. He helped bring cleric Mohammad Khatami to power as his successor in 1997.

Khatami's supporters, known here as reformists, included many onetime revolutionaries, such as former students who came to regret their 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, which led to the severing of ties between Iran and the United States. Rafsanjani's political allies teamed with the reformists and together they began arguing that Islamic law is dynamic and adaptable. They also favored reestablishing relations with the United States through compromise and proposed minor democratic reforms. Later, political fights broke out between the two groups.

Although they held executive power, Khatami and his supporters were prevented from carrying out most of their plans by the judiciary and the Guardian Council, a 12-member body that answers to the supreme leader. Both were dominated by opponents of relations with the United States and of political or religious change.

Most of the candidates disqualified last month belong to Khatami's broad reformist coalition, which sought to compete with the newcomers in this year's parliamentary elections. The Guardian Council is considering appeals and will announce its decisions March 5.

Rafsanjani's supporters, whom the newcomers have accused of corruption, a lack of revolutionary zeal and even spying, decided not to stand in the upcoming elections, although they have not given an explanation.

"We believe we should open the atmosphere in the country, give more freedom and practice detente in the international arena. The newcomers are dogmatic and don't believe in the wishes of the people," said Montajabnia, the cleric, who is a member of the National Trust Party and part of the reformist coalition. "This is a power struggle for the political direction of this country."

The struggle began almost four years ago with the surprise election to parliament of a majority representing the newcomers, and it continued with Ahmadinejad's presidential victory and the subsequent replacement of tens of thousands of experienced government managers.

Important positions taken over
The newcomers, some of whom had spent years in secondary positions in the Iranian system but had no prominent role in the revolution, have taken over important positions traditionally held by clerics. Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, a former student of physics and deputy minister of education, became the first non-cleric to head parliament following the 2004 election.

The top negotiator on nuclear issues, cleric Hassan Rowhani, was replaced by Ali Larijani, a former head of Iranian state television. Larijani was replaced in October by Saeed Jalili, another non-cleric and a close ally of Ahmadinejad.

Among the newcomers are a few clerics, almost all of whom studied at a religious school in the holy city of Qom known for its strict interpretation of Islam.

Ahmadinejad's faction, which calls itself "principalist," consists of newcomers who say they want to act according to the principles of Islam and the revolution. Many members are former commanders in Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, a force created after 1979 to protect the revolution. Members of another, more technocratic group have similar ideals and backgrounds but are at odds with the government on how to implement those principles. Larijani, who is seeking election to parliament, is emerging as the head of that faction.

"After a purge, the remaining faction divides. The split in the newcomers group will finally result in two main new groups in Iranian politics," said Iraj Jamshidi, political editor at Etemaad newspaper.

‘A lot of abuse of power’
The newcomers say the politicians who preceded them haven't realized the goals of the revolution. "There has been a lot of abuse of power," said Aboutaleb.

Jamshidi, whose newspaper is considered reformist, said the "clerics who used to hold high positions are being held responsible for the current problems in Iran."

Still, Rafsanjani holds one last trump card. In September he was chosen as chairman of the Assembly of Experts, an elected council of 86 clerics that selects, supervises and can dismiss the supreme leader.

"We don't know what's happening in the assembly," Serjooie said. "But we can be sure the new generation is now trying to get as many other institutions as possible under their influence, to cement their newly attained power."

Jamshidi said there is little likelihood that the cleric-politicians who gained power after the revolution will rebuild their standing. "They are not a part of the decision-making process anymore," he said. "I don't see any chance of a comeback."

The US missed a great opportunity to improve ties with the US and promote democracy in the country when Khatami was president. Sadly, the US, under Bill Clinton, rebuffed the regime and a few years later the window had closed and Ahmadinejad was elected. Like this article points out, a number of power players in the Iranian regime were disenchanted with the outcome of the 1979 Revolution and wanted to liberalize the country and better ties with West. And they were in a better position to do it than anyone else. Khatami, for instance, is a trained cleric and had clout among both the political and religious communities. It was therefore easier for him to push through reforms that might have been seen as anti-revolutionary had they been attempted by other politicians. But now these figures are being sidelined and populist radicals like Amadinejad are running the show. The window may soon not be only shut but nailed closed. I am not saying the US (or the West in general) is to blame for this. However, the US should get over its grudge over the Embassy hostage issue and seek to engage Iran in a more positive way. If there is a country in the Middle East that is democratically-minded and enjoys a rich civil society (other than Turkey and Israel) and history of political participation it is Iran. It is certainly an illiberal regime and has miles to go, but the underpinnings of democracy exist. Sadly, I think most policy makers and most American terribly misunderstand Iran on about every level.

5 comments:

Beck said...

I'm inclined to agree with you Reed... Iran is very quickly becoming yet another "missed opportunity". If we wanted to encourage a rising democracy in the Middle East, it probably should have been through the political engagement of Iran, not a massive, costly, and prolongued nation building project in Iraq.

But would Iran have accepted such engagement? Don't forget, we are the great Satan after all, and our support for Israel pretty much precludes any reasonable political discourse with those in power in Iran.

And if it were going to be a mutally exclusive proposition, I would still choose Israel as a buddy over the Ayatollah, unfortunate as that situation might be.

But I think it's important that we take steps to ensure that it is *not* a mutually exclusive proposition. I'm just wondering how we would do that without outraging Israel, seeing as how Iran is the #1 financial and political supporter of Hezbollah.

*shrug*

I dunno.

Anonymous said...

Well, Israel doesn't have a lot of choice actually. I mean, what is it likely to do if we engage a country it opposes? The US is really it's only strong ally, and if not for the US it would have a much harder time surviving. So if the US engages Iran Israel has little recourse. The problem, I think, comes on the domestic front--pro-Israeli groups in the US would be seriously pissed off.

The Great Satan is true enough. Many Iranians would like to the US brought to its knees--especially the radicals that make up the Supreme Council and the student fundamentalist groups that we see burning flags on the nightly news. But they are a minority. The people I have known who have visited Iran insist that while those demonstration are pretty common, they are also pretty small, and if the camera panned 10 degrees left we would see dozens of Iranians going about their normal day and totally ignoring the burning flags and effigies.

The problem, as in so many cases, is that these radicals run the show. The guys burning flags are also the ones passing tips the Revolutionary Guard when they suspect someone of being pro-West or pro-liberalization and calling the morality police when a woman is out without a male relative. So the question of course is how promote the reformers over the radicals. The first step is to remove sanctions and back away from the "all options of the table" bullshit. I can't believe that people--and I mostly mean the Bush admin--think that is effective or appropriate. That kind of language only increases the power of the radicals who can then say "see, we are trying to cooperate while the US is threatening violence." IT is just ridiculous! Those two things alone could dramatically improve the situation.

Beck said...

I actually totally agree with you on that front. I knew an Iranian girl from a class a few semesters ago, and she intimated to me that for the most part, while very protective of their cultural identity, the average Iranian is actually curious about, even secretly supportive of, the U.S. and western ideals. But, whenever the U.S. takes a threatening stances or makes threatening statements, opinion sways in the other direction.

I think she put it this way: "my family loves America, but they are not afraid to fight you"

A simple, but hugely profound statement if you think about it. All signs seem to point to the fact that the average Iranian wants normalized relations with us. But when we take a threatening position, we're only strengthening the influence of the anti-west, anti-US radicals.

It's like a Chinese finger trap. Of course we want to take a firm stance against state sponsored terrorism, of course we want to stand up against hard line, brutal dictatorships.... but sometimes, especially in Iran's case, speaking softly is more effective than waving the big stick.

Anonymous said...

Jumpin' Jesus, you sound a like a raving liberal-leftist-peacenik. Such words of restraint and contemplation! You even talked to the enemy, a Muslim. How can you even trust what she said? She wants to lure us all in and then explode herself for the glory of Allah. To think, you were taken in by the evils of rational thought and prudent judgment. Well, I am sure the Islamo-fascists appreciate it, but now you've likely doomed all of us morally upright and bloodthirsty Americans. Let us just hope the ol'Bush admin to smart enough not to listen to such liberal, terror-sponsoring reason.

...But seriously, thanks. I am glad that even people on the right see the inanity of the Bush administration's perspective on Iran--all options on the table and all that. Although McCain's bomb, bomb, bomb Iran thing was a little scary, and Hillary's vote to support the president in his strong anti-Iran posturing makes me seriously uncomfortable, I like to think that ven if Obama doesn't win the next leader of the US will be a little more willing to negotiate and less of a total dickhole.

Beck said...

... right before he sends a strike team into Pakistan, you mean? ;)

Anyway, like I've said before: I think any reasonable person has both conservative and liberal tendencies. Realism and Liberalism (even Idealism) have their proper place in a well balanced world view.