The Iranian Revolution Will Not Be Televised (in the U.S.)

When a tyrannical regime dies, you can see the symptoms in the little things. Late Friday afternoon, after millions (yes, millions–this according to Le Monde, France 2, and L’Express, with the BBC saying that the demonstrations were bigger than those at the time of the Revolution) of Greens mobbed the streets and squares of more than thirty towns and cities to call for the end of the regime, there was a soccer game in Azadi Stadium in Tehran. It holds about a hundred thousand fans, and it was full of men wearing green and carrying green balloons. When state-run tv saw what was happening, the color was drained from the broadcast, and viewers saw the game in black and white. And when the fans began to chant “Death to the Dictator,” “Death to Russia,” and “Death to Putin, Chavez and Nasrallah, enemies of Iran,” the sound was shut off. So the game turned into a silent movie.

But the censors forgot about the radio, and the microphones stayed open, so that millions of listeners could hear the sounds of the revolution. And in Azadi Stadium, as in most parts of the country, the security officers either walked away or joined the party.

You will not have heard such stories, nor read about them in our “media,” which have raised denial of the day’s major events to an art form of late. ...

The big problem with Iran will be that once they tear down the regime, there may not be a suitable new government to replace it with, that would be accepted by the Iranian people. With one exception.

In Iraq, Grand Ayatollah Sistani and a few of the other top Ayatollahs have seen the light about democracy, and they have enormous credibility and clout. If they ask the government of Iraq to provide assistance to the Iranians in helping them to build a truly democratic government, Iran will have a window of opportunity to get its act together before some strongman tries to take them over again.

It will be the hardest juggling act imaginable. But if successful, it could throw much of the region into peace and prosperity like it has never seen before.

Ironically, it could have a momentous impact in both Syria and Lebanon as well.

The present regime in Iran is at odds with traditional Shia teachings. The political system of Iran since 1979/80 is that of the so called "velayat faqih" (simply put: earthly rule by the clerics). This is a concept of Khomeinism and alien to traditional Shiism. Many Ayatollahs and ranking clerics (bonafide clerics, unlike Khomeini) were and are opposed to the "velayat faqih".

An "islamic republic" is a modern invention, not a traditional one. It was the attempt in the 1960-70's to create a novel combination of a Soviet Republic / Party dictatorship with islamist ideology. The goal was to present an anti-Western islamist republic as an alternative to the pro-Western secularized monarchy, which is the real traditional system in Iran (for 2500 continuous years).

The example you cite, Ayatollah Sistani, is one of those clerics opposed to the "velayat faqih". They are "quietists" who think that clerics should keep distance to earthly politics and concern themselves with studies and theology.

Delegitimizing the Khomeinist regime in Iran is thus not an too big challenge. They are illegitimate to wide swaths of the public anyway, who don't give a hoot about islam or theology (according to a study made among Mullahs 70% of Iranians don't attend Mosques and only one in five prays).

Indeed once the regime is toppled, I think the "quietist" school of Shiism will come to the forefront and withdraw largely from politics.

As to the future system in Iran... the best way to combine tradition and modern democracy would be IMO a constitutional, parliamentary monarchy like in Britain. However realistically I think that there won't be a royal restoration, but a parliamentary republic with parties.

I do hope that there is a positive outcome for Iran. Especially their urban people really want and deserve to be part of the modern world, being educated and at least somewhat sophisticated.

However, I wonder if it would be better for all if Persia was divested of Iranian Kurdistan, Khuzestan and Baluchistan. The Kurds, Arabs and Baluchs are never going to get along with the Persians, and their relationship is exploitative.

The outcome of this would be the Iranian Kurds joining with the Iraqi Kurds into a “greater Kurdistan”, the Khuzestan Arabs joining with the Iraqi Arabs, and a reunited Baluchistan, joined with Pakistan.

No on that for multiple reasons:

1) Most Iranians (not only Persians) are intense nationalists. It has sometimes been said that Iran's true religion is Iran. "Iran zamin"... the sacred Iranian soil is a phrase used by most diverse political groups, whether secular or religious... the vast majority of Iranians see themselves as nationalists if not chauvinists.

2) Separatist movements on the periphery have always existed , but never were strong or decisive. The "golden days" of separatism was after WW1 and WW2. In the northern provinces the Soviets both times encouraged separatism among Azeris, Gilakis and Kurds. Each time they failed, in the case of post-WW2 Azeris, it was a popular uprising against the "ethnic separatists" by the very people they claimed to represent. Azeris burned Azeri (Turkish) books and overflowed with Iranian nationalism.

Similarily the "Kurdish Republic" the Soviets installed 1945-46, was destroyed from within by Kurdish tribes which were loyal to Iran.

Let's not overlook that the Kurds are an Iranian people (unlike Arabs) and that Kurds have been more respected regarding cultural identity in Iran than i.e. in Turkey or pre-2003 Iraq. Not to mention that Turkey won't accept a Kurdish secession next door. They are iffed enough by the KRG in Iraq.

3) Regarding the Arabs in the South. The "Separatists" which occasionally attack Iranian targets there are largelly remnants of Saddam's 1980's astroturf. When Saddam's Iraq invaded Khuzestan to "liberate the Arabs" and carve out "Arabistan", the vast vast majority of Khuzestan Arabs fought for Iran.

Similarily the Khuzestan Arabs mostly didn't support separatism in the 1920's (under Sheikh Khazal) and submitted themselves without bloodshed to Iran under Reza Khan (Pahlavi). Also throughout the 20th century a large number of Persians has established itself in Khuzestan. Finally from Iran's standpoint, giving up Khuzestan would be economical suicide, since the majority of it's oil lies there.

4) Baluchistan is an interesting matter. It holds little economical value to Iran (apart from drug trafficking and fishing), at least not comparable to Khuzestan, and is more trouble than blessing. However I doubt that from our standpoint a "Balooch state" would be desirable. It could likely end up as a Taliban like narco-state. And it will no doubt trigger a collapse of Pakistan. Pakistani Baluchestan will also secede, which will trigger a total crumbling of Pakistan and Afghanistan into many radical fiefdoms. Note that even Jundullah's (the main "quasi-separatist" group in Baluchistan) head denies that he seeks secession. He argues for local rule, although I wouldn't trust him overly on that.

The Balooch are (like the Kurds) speaking an Iranian language, and are likely related to Iranians (although there are some theories linking them to Arab origin). I'm not an expert on Baluch history, but it's clear that their main difference from most Iranians is their Sunni religion and cultural identity, which is repressed by the regime.

...

I therefore think that if all aspects are balanced a strongly federal Iran, with regional cultural and religious freedoms and some level of self-rule will be more stable than a splintering of the region, which could open a Pandoras Box in all countries in the region.

My 2 cents.

Some (maybe many) of the protestors will certainly object to an outside attack. But Israel will in a preemptive case necessairly limit it's attacks on nuclear facilities and maybe regime figures. I think that especially the latter would meet approval among the protestors. It is apparent (and logical) that pissed off anti-regime Persians hate Palestine (as is true for most Arab states). They don't necessairly love Israel, but they have not interest in fighting for Arab Palis (who are also hired as regime thugs).

IMO Israel should take out the key nuclear facilities for it's national interests sake in as smooth, precise and surgical strikes as possible.

Regime change in Iran can be allowed to develop more smoothly without the pressing nuclear issue. It will come eventually, because the reason for discord is internal and will fester as long as the regime is in power.

It's a question of time. Regime change can be allowed to take time. The nuclear issue not so much.

Ideally the US would take (under a real President) a leading role and promise renewed cooperation with a regime-changed Iran which could very well be an economic powerhouse again and maintain local security like it used to do for decades before 1979.

N.B. the big attraction of Baluchistan is its relatively unexploited mineral wealth. Add to that Pakistan will never part with B. because of the new, Chinese built port of Gwadar.

The problem is that a split B. has been used as a safe zone, to the irritation of both nations. When they cut up rough in Pakistan, and the army goes after them, they flee to Iran, and vice versa.

Right now, a lot of the worst troublemakers in the NWFP and the other enclaves in Pakistan are fleeing to B., which just guarantees that it is going to blow up soon, probably on both sides of the border.

Well, time will tell.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.