What Next for Iran?

Since Friday every hour I have been home I have glued to the news. Websites, forums, Twitter, text messages, 24 hour rolling news. I have been using the full power of my technology fueled existence to find out what's going on in a bizarre country which I have never visited, is thousands of miles from me, and to which I have no links or loyalty.

I am talking about Iran, ally-turned-ubernemesis of the United States. The Iranian election, such as it was, has clearly been rigged, any objective reading of the results bring up wonderful results like the 80% of British expats voting for Ahmadinejad (cos people leaving Iran are doing so cos they love the regime), 57% of people in Mousavi's home town (which is majority Azeri, the ethnic group Mousavi comes from) and so on and so forth. The fact that results started coming out just 2 hours after the vote closed in a country with such an incredibly poor infrastructure truly stretches credibility beyond all breaking point. In a way we are fortunate, anyone with a brain can rig an election. It takes someone truly incompetent to rig an election this obviously.

On Twitter I've followed about 7 or 8 Iranians the last couple of days. It is incredible to see the rage and passion of these people, and to hear the real human experiences of people taking part in the protests, but where can these protests take Iran?

In answering this question, we must understand Iran itself. Understanding the politics of any nation, must stem from an understanding of that nation. We cannot understand American politics without understanding the values on which America is built, and the divides within it. We cannot understand Africa without understanding the legacy of Empire.

Iranian civilisation is one of the most Ancient on this Earth, up there with China. Iran, until the 1930s was known by the name 'Persia', yes, them of the rugs, and the killing of Spartans in widely inaccurate movies. For much of its history Persian culture was truly great, providing the world with many technological advancements, and producing works of real beauty. Like China however Persia came to fall from Great Power status and while it was never fully turned into a part of any Empire (save for very brief periods) it was made the perpetual bitch of Empires everywhere. (Particularly the British and the Russians. Today in Iran, Brits are as hated as Yanks).

In 1953, the democratically elected Prime Minister of Iran, Mossadegh, decided to nationalise the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (now BP) which was part owned by the British government. Mossadegh wanted to keep the money from oil sales within Iranian territory as he felt the company unfairly profited from an Iranian resource (which it did). In a move of stupendous idiocy, the British and the Americans sponsored a coup by the monarch of Iran, the Shah, who then established a brutal and repressive dictatorship. After a couple of decades of this, 1979 hit, and uprose the Iranian people. The revolution was highly fractured to begin with, liberals, communists and islamists all united against the regime, but eventually it came under the sway of an Islamic Ayatollah called Khomeini, who crafted the Islamic Republic of Iran, the regime you now see before you.

Khomeini crafted the position of Supreme Leader for himself, and created a raft of institutitions ruled by clerics, as well as institutions that were 'democratically' elected. Candidates for these 'democratic' elections first have to be checked for suitability by the Guardian Council, who will happily veto any candidate who is not 'Islamic' enough.

This dual system has inherent contradictions to it. Iran is not a democracy but its system is fractious. Most Iranians had, until this election, genuine belief in their democracy.

There are several things to remember about Iran.

Firstly Iran is desperate to be respected. Not to be liked, but to be respected as the great pre-Islamic civilisation that it is. Iran's nuclear ambitions are part and parcel of this desire, nuclear power is a sign of technological advancement and it is Iran's way of declaring itself as an advanced civilisation. Even among the pro-Western youth we find support for Iran's nuclear programme. This also shows itself in Iran's attempts (however hamfisted) to convince foreigners of its respect for international law and the international system, and in its attempts to be an important regional player through its alliance with Syria and meddling in Iraq and the Lebanon.

Secondly, Iran has a massive demographic issue. 70% of the population is under 30, as they rapidly reach maturity they desire jobs, jobs the Iranian economy cannot produce, creating anger at the regime.

Thirdly, what we are watching is not national. There are no doubt disturbances elsewhere, but Ahmadinejad and the regime have their highest support among the poor in the rural countryside. The most active participants in these protests have been middle class students in Tehran. Ahmadinejad may well have won the election legitimately, he is deeply popular in some parts of Iranian society, particularly for his anti-poverty programme.

Fourthly, Mousavi is a regime man. He was Prime Minister during the war with Iraq in which he repressed people himself. He supports the nuclear programme. He is not a great beacon of liberalism come to turn Iran into a democracy. He is pro-Supreme Leader and pro-Regime. What Mousavi is offerring is a softer version of Iran, with women's rights, a more concilatory stance towards the US, and so on.

So what will happen next? Such talk is speculation, but hell its my blog and I'll do whatever the fuck I like.

At first my thinking was that this was going to be Iran's Tianenman Square. There are many similarities, student led protests in the capital, a repressive regime, cooperation with certain elements of the regime. However the problem with this idea became clear very quickly, Iran cares what other countries think, and wishes to legitimise itself to its people as a democracy. Becoming a harshly repressive regime will only convince more people of the failures of Iranian democracy.

Similarly however it seems, unlikely that the regime will be overthrown to me. While the regime is deeply unpopular in some quarters it is clear that it is extremely popular in others. There is not the mass hatred required, the security forces are all remaining extremely loyal it appears, there is no mass turning of politicians. Iran is not united one way or the other, but to break the regime a wider consensus is required in my eyes.

Therefore there are ultimately two likely results for me:

1. Things carry on as is. The ballots are 'recounted' (how you recount ballots that you've set fire to I'll never know, this suggests me a go at fraud again). Ahmadinejad is declared winner again, by a smaller margin, the protests peter out, without outside support and widespread internal support the ringleaders are locked up. Possibly Mousavi is offerred a job in Ahmadinejad's cabinet as an olive branch. Without direction, widespread support or a figurehead in Mousavi the protestors give up and return to their lives.

2. The ballots are 'recounted', Mousavi is declared the winner, or Ahmadinejad is declared the winner and the protests continue nonetheless until another election has to be held. There are reasons why a fraud could be committed to declare Mousavi the winner at this point, simply to stop the protestors on the most part. If another election is held Mousavi now has such moral authority that he would win easily. If Mousavi does become President it could swing either of two ways. Mousavi would not be the first reformist President, the President become Ahmadinejad, Khatami, was a reformist, who, alas, was blocked from reform by the religious institutions and blocked from dialog with the US by both Clinton and Bush administrations refusal to deal with Iran (a dire mistake). Mousavi could have the same kind of Presidency, officially in charge while blocked by the religious institutions, however Mousavi's high moral authority (particularly if he is elected in landslide) could pay off and force the clerics to listen to him. Or it could be somewhere between the two, who knows.

The regime isn't going to end. This is another step down the road for the Islamic Republic. It will end one day, all regimes eventually do, freedom is too attractive a cause. Iran's innate contradictions and tensions cannot last forever, but we are not on the cusp of that end yet. When it comes however, the newly freed citizens of Iran will look back to these protests, and be grateful, because however they go, they are an important step down the road, and even a single step is something.

The War for the Soul of the Republican Party

With McCain's loss in the election many pundits are predicting a sort of Republican Civil War within the party.

In fact the opening salvos of the war were being fired a few weeks before the election with Palin becoming increasingly vocal and independent, and criticism coming at her from within the campaign. The McCain campaign often gave an impression throughout the campaign of being factionalised and schizophrenic. That's because it often was, with different figures in the campaign having radically different views on the best way to win the election. Now that the election is lost each figure of course thinks that their course of action would have won the election. McCain thinks he should have fought a moderate campaign based on political independence and 'Country First'. Palin no doubt thinks she should have been allowed to do what she wished - rail against Obama's 'links' with 'terrorists', and speak up on issues like abortion, gay rights and so on.

Since the election shots have been firing between both camps, with McCain aids anonymously briefing the Press that Palin is some sort of idiot, and Palin referring to her detractors as 'jerks'. It is my belief (and the belief of many pundits) that the camps will widen to include the latent divisions within the Republican Party, between neocons and their Religious Right allies on the one hand, and moderate and fiscal conservatives, more concerned about lower taxes and efficient government than foreign or social policy. A third, smaller faction, based around grassroots support for Ron Paul may also appear in my view being like the Anarchists in the Spanish Civil War - pissing off all sides, without much hope of actually winning but virulently refusing to be put down nonetheless.

The fate of this war is intrinsically tied to the fate of Palin herself. While she's the new villain amongst moderates and liberals she has set the Republican Base on fire as anyone who's seen footage of her rallies can attest to. With Ted Stevens looking like he might have just won the Alaskan Senate election Palin has a chance to become a prominent figure in national politics. Stevens has been convicted on 7 counts of corruption. As a result the Democrats in the Senate can (and probably will) expel him. Theoretically the Republicans could stop them, but if you were a Republican Senator who'd only just scrapped a victory through by the skin of your teeth would you want to stand up and declare "Yeah, let's keep the corrupt guy." This will result in a special election (like a British by-election) for the Senate seat, which will probably pit Palin against Stevens' opponent, former Anchorage mayor Mark Begrich. Palin is popular in Alaska, and would probably win (if Alaskans will re-elect the corrupt guy do you really think that Palin is going to have much trouble?). This will give Palin a national platform - the Senate - from which to become the de facto leader of the Religious Right.

The party itself is also a more right-leaning party than the one in 2004. The irony of this war is that as politics in America is geographical as well as ideological most moderate Republicans are in liberal, or moderate, states. Figures like John Sununu in New Hampshire, and Gordon Smith in Oregon (who was placed by one National Journal article as being the exact centre of the Senate) have lost their seats as a result. Similarly moderates have abandoned the party, both congressmen (like moderate Virginia Senator John Warner who resigned before this election) and the grassroots.

As well as this the Conservative wing has at least two potential national leaders (as well as Palin, Huckabee probably has good hopes for 2012), whereas the moderate wing now has none. Giuliani is TOO moderate even for much of the moderate wing. McCain is too old and a proven loser. Ron Paul could attempt to ally himself with this faction, but he is too politically eccentric to succeed. The moderate wing's best hope is a charismatic young Governor could pull an Obama. Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana are both candidates for to 'out-Obama' Obama by appearing out of nowhere and getting the nomination in 2012 (Jindal is also Indian-American, allowing the Republican party to play ethnic one up. "You've got a mixed race guy? We've got an Indian!") Alternatively Mitt Romney could make a 'unity' or 'compromise' candidate.

Of course this sort of speculation is futurism, and anything could happen in the next 4 years. Nonetheless it is clear that the GOP is in civil war.

The likely result of this civil war, in the meantime, is probably that the Right will win. In 2010 there are mid-terms, and almost always (you can count the number of times this rule is broken on one hand) the opposition party has a success in mid-terms. The GOP will probably fight it with candidates from the right of the party, due to its abandonment by moderates. This may not happen but likely will, probably reducing the Democratic majority, rather than overturning it. The Right will probably declare this a victory for them, and use it as a justification to continue on this path during the remainder of Obama's first term.

The simple reality is though that elections are won from the centre. Parties that are viewed as being on too far on one end of the spectrum or another fail to get elected because the simple reality is that most people are neither left nor right, but centrist. Ask the British Labour Party in the 1980s or the British Conservative Party pre-Cameron.

Sooner or later someone in the GOP will realise that in order to win, and winning will, sooner or later, become more important to the GOP than ideological purity, they'll have to moderate. The true question is not who will eventually win the GOP civil war, but when the moderates will gain enough influence to boot the Democratic Party out of office.

Welcome!

This is the umpteempth time I've tried to set up a blog. I'm hoping to actually stick to this one. Unlike previous attempts I plan on this one being broad - basically anything I want to write will go up here. If people want to read it, they can, if not... pfft.

I'm a 23 year old recent International Relations with Politics graduate, hoping to make my way into Social Research.

Most of this blog will probably be political in nature, with the occasional rant here and there.