Sunnis do not attribute great importance to the violent deaths of Ali and Hussein, but for Shiites, whose name comes from the phrase Shi'at-Ali, or "followers of Ali," they were cataclysmic events. To them, Ali and Hussein represent both the mystic spirituality of pure Islam and the self-sacrificing life that true Muslims must live. In this view, shaped by Zoroastrian tradition, the two heroes rebelled against an establishment that had become corrupt and thereby lost its farr. They are believed to have sacrificed themselves, as th etruly pious must, on the altar of evil. By doing[ so,] they bequeathed to Shiites a legacy of religious zeal and a willingness, even an eagerness, to embrace martyrdom at the hands of God's enemies.
Ali remains the most perfect soul and the most enlightened leader who ever lived, excepting only the Prophet himself; Shiites still pore over his speeches and memorize his thousands of proverbs and aphorisms. Hussein epitomizes the self-sacrifice that is the inevitable fate of all who truly love Islam and humanity. His martyrdom is considered even more universally significant than that of Ali because it was inflicted by government soldiers rather than by a lone fanatic. Grasping the depth of this passion is essential to any understanding of modern Iran.
Kinzer explains that the commemoration of Imam Hussein's death, with its rites of public mourning, is such an emotionally involved and cathartic event, that to witness it is to almost believe that the people in the streets are weeping for someone they knew who had only just died.
Iran's leaders will always have the pressure, though it may be slow to build, of a long cultural tradition holding that rulers must maintain some moral authority in order to rightly maintain temporal authority.
With such transparently fraudulent election results, Khamenei's government seems to have lost its farr in the eyes of Iranians.
What can we do to help?
I propose this: extremely little.
It may be goofy, but I'm wearing a touch of green today. I will say that I support the right of Iranians to have their votes counted and their choices respected. I will say that whatever government they end up with in the aftermath of this election, it should be recognized and negotiated with in good faith.
Because ... it's really none of my business. It's really not the US' business, and it isn't the business of any European nation.
So I will do one more thing on behalf of Iran's struggle for democracy: categorically condemn any calls for cessation of relations, additional sanctions or any sort of military or covert action designed to destabilize their government. If anyone suggests putting the Shah's son back in power in my hearing, that person will get a strenuous mocking.
Once upon a time, the Anglo-Iranian oil company operated a concession negotiated with the corrupt Qajar dynasty. As Kinzer describes, Iranians weren't allowed even to look at the company's books and received a pittance for the exploitation of their national resources.
When a new 50-50 profit sharing deal was announced between the US and Saudi Arabia, something the American ambassadors had been warning Britain was in the works, public pressure for greater transparency in Iran became louder. When the British refused to negotiate terms, full-throated calls for complete nationalization and expulsion of the British that no public official could speak against.
Against this backdrop, Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq came to power and nationalized Iran's oil industry.
When the British were expelled, when they made clear through military blockades and diplomatic pressure that Iran wasn't going to be able to sell its oil anywhere in the world, deepening its poverty, Mossadeq's popular government began to run into trouble.
Yet while there were legitimate detractors, he was not removed from power in an election. Iranians were not allowed to develop an alternative to his government. Instead, in 1953, a US-backed coup was planned out of the American embassy in Tehran at the behest of the Eisenhower administration and the Shah was returned to power.
Had Mossadeq made mistakes? Well, of course. But it wasn't really the point. As the Shah meted out bloody reprisals and set up a system of political repression that would last his entire reign, he and his American backers deprived Iran of the process of democracy itself. The process of setting up channels for non-violent dialogue between different sectors of society, and building public and private institutions for determining and expressing the terms of civilized debate.
It's a terrible crime to take democracy away from a country.
When the Shah fell, deposed by a broad coalition of groups, many who were secular, the only contingent focused and organized enough to seize power were the hardline ayatollahs.
Imagine, if you will, that following the stolen election of 2000, that Canada had invaded, set up a monarchy in Washington, DC, and dismantled all political parties, political action committees, independent political news sources and tortured or killed anyone who expressed interest in setting up new ones. Then imagine that, about 20 years later, the fed up populace rebelled and took back the government, only to have it taken over by a well-organized bloc of Catholic bishops - because they were the only organized group still standing.
Would that represent the will of the American people? Even the people who'd opposed Bush? No. Emphatically no.
Iranians used to worry about the predations of Britain and Russia. Now they worry about the United States. The US is seen as having, almost seamlessly, picked up the baton of imperial rule from right where the British dropped it.
The US embassy was seized in 1979 because Iranians fully expected that another coup would be arranged against them to destroy their autonomy and bring back the Shah.
Iran's clerical government has used that wholly reasonable concern, as well as the US' publicly known, permanent covert operations campaign against them, as a club against any opposition. It's all too easy in Iran to brand someone as 'soft on the United States,' as it were, if not as an outright tool of our government.
It's fear of foreign meddling as much as anything that has kept the extremely unpopular clerical government in power. Do you start a family argument when someone is trying to break down the front door? You do not.
Nonetheless, the Iranian people have diligently continued trying to build democratic institutions. They've achieved as much under the circumstances as probably anyone could. In spite of being terrorized by the regime, in spite of a horrible war with Iraq, they never gave up.
The Obama administration has, so far and very sensibly in my opinion, stayed out of this. Obama had not expressed an interest in one outcome or another of the election, he hasn't threatened to come in guns blazing to rescue people who don't want that kind of rescuing. The neocon response is merely stupid, as usual, as it always was under Bush.
There's no reason to listen now to the people who were wrong about everything Middle Eastern in the past.
Ther's some chaos right now, but for love of Graud, the best gift we could give to the people of Iran would be to let them know that they don't have to worry about external threats right now. That we'll be patient and let them figure it out.
If it should happen that the stolen election holds? Well, I'm still glad no one invaded the US in order to interfere in the 2000 results. Look what's happened since: at the incredible progressive movement we've built, at the president we elected.
Let them be, let them sort it out, let them own their country. It's the right thing to do. |
