Blogs and Stories

Could the Mullahs Fall This Time?

by Rouzbeh Parsi Info

Rouzbeh Parsi

Trita Parsi Info

Trita Parsi
 
  • Share

As protesters poured into the streets of Iran in the biggest and bloodiest demonstrations since June, Trita and Rouzbeh Parsi say this time could be the breaking point. Plus, view our gallery of the protests below and watch new video from Iran.

With the government growing increasingly desperate—and violent—the new clashes on the streets in Iran may very well prove to be the breaking point of the regime. If so, it shows that the Iranian theocracy ultimately fell on its own sword. It didn't come to an end due to the efforts of exiled opposition groups or the regime-change schemes of Washington's neoconservatives. Rather, the Iranian people are the main characters in this drama, using the very same symbols that brought the Islamic republic into being to close this chapter in a century-old struggle for democracy.

Click Image Below to View Our Gallery of the Latest Iranian Protests

Article - Iran Protest Gallery Launch

Protests flared up again because of Ashura, the climax of a month of mourning in the Shiite religious calendar. It is a day of sadness for the death of the Prophet Muhammad’s grandson, Imam Hussain, who was martyred in 680. And this year the commemoration coincided with the seventh day after the death of dissident Grand Ayatollah Ali Montazeri, adding to the significance of the day. Ashura is also a reminder that the eternal value of justice must be defended regardless of the odds of success. This has provided the relentless Green movement with yet another opportunity to outmaneuver the Iranian government by co-opting its symbols and challenge its legitimacy through the language of religion. At protests Sunday, at least 10 demonstrators were killed by police.

This battle cry for justice in all its simplicity is where most political conflagrations start. It is the deafness of the powers that be that often make them the kernel of something larger and more earth shattering. It is testimony to the arrogance of power that a simple and rather modest call for accountability and justice is beaten down only to return, demanding more, and less willing to compromise and accommodate.

And it wouldn’t be the first time. In 1906, the call for a house of justice went unheeded and was followed by demonstrations, and eventually transformed into a demand for a written constitution. Similarly, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, in his imperial ineptitude, brought on himself an increasingly anti-monarchical coalition, ranging from liberals and communists, to the victorious Islamists who forged the Islamic republic in 1979.

Watch the Latest Videos of the Iran UprisingAshura, with its story of perseverance and martyrdom in the face of overwhelming force of oppression, was a perfectly stylized allegory for the struggle between the mighty state of the shah and the revolutionaries at the end of the 1970s. The Shiite mourning rituals, with their revisiting of the dead on the 3rd, 7th and 40th day of death, provided the demonstrators then, as well as now, with the opportunity to both remember those who died for the cause as well as re-iterating their opposition and condemnation of that state repression. This played an important role in bringing the simmering political discontent to a boiling point and wearing down what was perceived as the all-powerful Pahlavi state in 1977-78.

It is even more important this time around because there is no extensive leadership structure that steers the opposition. The ability to bring out crowds for important days of the calendar, religious and revolutionary ones, reminds everyone that they are not alone in their opposition to the current government.

No one can predict a revolution nor say with certainty when an authoritarian state loses its footing if not its grip. For it is not necessarily its ability or will to repress that will falter as much as ordinary people's unwillingness to allow themselves to be cowed and intimidated. It is a battle of wills where, on the one hand, the constant mobilization and tension pervading a discontented and rebellious society tests the state machinery's ability to endure as they try to perform their functions (including repression). Weighing in on the other side of the balance is the patience and capacity to stomach pain and suffering by the protesters and their sympathizers in all quarters of society.

Today a significant number of the original revolutionaries of 1979 are imprisoned or being harassed by shadowy groups from the borderlands of state authority. The constituency of the Islamic republic is becoming increasingly alienated as the hard-line faction ruling Tehran demands loyalty to an increasingly surreal understanding of, and vision for, Iranian society. Not much is left of the dynamism and visions that fuelled the revolution of 1979—but having learned from that experience, the demands of the reformist movement today are much more sophisticated and their abstention from violence so much more promising for the future.

The state's ability to use the language of religion to repress these developments is failing. Again and again, religion has proven itself to be much better suited as a language of resistance than governance. This became increasingly clear to Khomeini himself after the success of the revolution. In the constant bickering within the revolutionary elite, Khomeini increasingly invoked reasons of state for justifying actions, demoting religion to the role of ideological veneer. By the end of his life, he stated that the state could abrogate the basic principles of Islam if it deemed necessary for the survival of the Islamic republic.

Instead of a system where religious thinking controlled and wielded state power, he ended up with an arrangement where the state utilized religion for its own purposes, emptying religion and its language of substance, discarding it on the growing heap of unfulfilled promises of the revolution.

Ashura, the commemoration and the principle it invokes, proves to be relevant yet again, as those who hold the reins of power in Tehran unleash violence against their own people. Undoubtedly the people of Iran will persevere in their quest for greater freedom and justice through their nonviolent transformation of the system from within. It will indeed be ironic if the Iranian theocracy begins to crumble on the most important religious day of the Shiite calendar.

Rouzbeh Parsi is research fellow at the European Institute for Security Studies. Trita Parsi is the president of the National Iranian American Council and the 2010 recipient of the Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order.

For more of The Daily Beast, become a fan on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.


View as Multiple Pages
December 27, 2009 | 3:22pm
  • Share
Comments ()

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
4:05 pm, Dec 27, 2009

Ulr1ca


Let's hope that no American president will ever again
refer to a sovereign nation as an Axis of evil
Ulrica

|
|
Reply
|
5:15 pm, Dec 27, 2009

heyman

True,lets hope next time we can ignore it,the definition of ignorance.Keep your ignorance to yourself please.

|
1:39 am, Dec 31, 2009

vabayad

Hey Trita, how you gonna get funding if the regime falls?

|
|
Reply
4:19 pm, Dec 27, 2009

vabayad

Hey Trita, where you gonna get funding from when the regime falls?

|
|
Reply
4:40 pm, Dec 27, 2009

SBadakhsh

Dear Trita,
It's about time for you to wake up from this nightmare of yours. You are quite delusional in your assessment of the situation in Iran. Wake up my friend!

|
|
Reply
7:32 pm, Dec 27, 2009

p997gt3

Bullmoose,

Of course, the evil neo cons and their awful external meddling and name calling prevented real changein Iran. I'm sure you were very upset by all that liberal external pressure and name calling on the South African apartheid regime too.

|
|
Reply
|
8:55 pm, Dec 27, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
2:10 pm, Dec 28, 2009

p997gt3

That's your response? Take a remedial debate course and look up fallacious arguments. And please reread (and edit) your nonsense before ripping on someone else's use of the English language.

|
5:00 pm, Dec 28, 2009

patrick5

"This battle cry for justice in all its simplicity is where most political conflagrations start. It is the deafness of the powers that be that often make them the kernel of something larger and more earth shattering. It is testimony to the arrogance of power that a simple and rather modest call for accountability and justice is beaten down only to return, demanding more, and less willing to compromise and accommodate."

You could just as easily be talking about the Obama Administration.

|
|
Reply
|
9:38 pm, Dec 27, 2009

JLF1200

Nobody is beating or shooting the Teabaggers. They're the only ones threatening violence, and it's a good thing they're mostly dumb white trash without a clear sense of logic or reason, otherwise they'd be a serious threat in this regard.

Your silly hyperbole does fit in nicely with the Teabagger battle cry of "oppression," though. So at least you can be proud that your Teabagging skills are honed.

|
|
Reply
11:13 am, Dec 28, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
2:12 pm, Dec 28, 2009

newswoman

That remark, Patrick, would be laughable if it weren't so sad. This administration ' bent backward' to accomodate the Reps, and yet they cry that the Dems 'aren't bi-partisan'. They have taken themaelves out of the governmental process with their constant 'NO' to everything the administration is trying to do. You Reps can never accept being out of office. You trashed Carter, Clinton, and, now Presidenr Obama. Shame on you.

|
|
Reply
|
2:33 pm, Dec 28, 2009

p997gt3

How is standing in the way of something you don't believe in the same as taking oneself out of the process? Trying to block bad policy is a good thing.

|
5:53 pm, Dec 28, 2009

matoko

Might be? Try IS the breaking point.
Martyring a seyyed named Ali Mousavi during Ashura?
Khamenei and 'Nejad are following the footsteps of the Ummayyads...and we all know how that turned out.

|
|
Reply
|
10:15 pm, Dec 27, 2009

MartySullivan42

Heh, good luck with that.

|
|
Reply
1:27 am, Dec 28, 2009

jgwhitworth

Do you honestly believe that having multiple free elections next door in Iraq had nothing to do with it? You are wrong. The Necons plan is working beautifully.

|
|
Reply
|
10:17 pm, Dec 27, 2009

MartySullivan42

Could the Mullahs Fall This Time?

No.

Moving on!

|
|
Reply
1:22 am, Dec 28, 2009

DevilsLawyer

The fall of the mullahs has been predicted enough times since this summer that I think we've become desensitized to the thought. If it does happen, though, it'll be the start of the possibility of good things. Let's see if the Iranian people can improve on the experience of 1979.

|
|
Reply
|
2:45 am, Dec 28, 2009

newswoman

The only way the Iranians will get justice, is if they do a "French Revolution" and take over the government. They have to get rid of the Basij, first, who ride around on motocycles and beat and kill dissidents. It will be a bloodbath, but it may be the only way to go.

|
|
Reply
|
2:38 pm, Dec 28, 2009

DevilsLawyer

Problem is, that's sort of what happened in 1979. They forcibly knocked down a U.S.-backed secularist thug from his throne and ended up placing non-U.S.-backed Islamist thugs in his place. I'm just hoping the next revolution, if it happens, won't be a case of meeting the new boss that's not much better than the old.

|
7:07 pm, Dec 30, 2009

keemia

I think the authors are overly optimistic about this. The regime is showing strikingly strong organizations (Hitleresque in some ways). Until we see the basij and the plainclothes people turn against the regime, I don't believe the regime will topple.

But the other side of the coin is that the anti-gov't crowds also seem pretty organized. The crowds don't seem random, and move in marvelously coordinated ways.

|
|
Reply
3:12 am, Dec 28, 2009

alexloo11

The world is watching you Iran. Even with your media ban, cell phones rule this decade. Your atrocities will not go unnoticed.

|
|
Reply
3:24 am, Dec 28, 2009

JohnConnughton

If I were a person who prayed, it would be for Iran to change peacefully rather than violently. But looking ahead I do see a change coming and it is momentous, far greater than one nation. Because my reading of the Koran is that it is political far more than it is merely religious; more about how the Prophet would deal with the world than about how Allah would deal with it. If Iran wakes up and realizes that faith belongs in the mosque and not in an un-elected overseer of political design, theocracies (of any stripe) will be endangered by their example.

|
|
Reply
9:05 am, Dec 28, 2009

DakLak

Instability in any country is a risk for others nearby.

Look at Iraq.

Until Bush and Cheney came along Saddam had the whole place under his thumb which might have been rough on the citizenry but at least the region was quiet and 4000 soldiers were still alive.

Cheney - the war profiteer.

|
|
Reply
|
10:01 am, Dec 28, 2009

escomments

Rough on the citizenry?

Yeah... I guess if the reverse were happening and it was our citizens that were being thrown into meat grinders that would also be okay as long as the region were stable.

That is... unless your sanctimonious ass was being ground up. Or would you be willing to sacrifice yourself for the greater good of the region's stability?

You probably wouldn't mind at that point if some of our neighbors contributed a few thousand of their Brave Young Soldiers to do what was necessary to stop the evil dictators from their terrorist rule.

I'm sure they probably would also have someone like you spewing that "The region is stable, let's not get involved."

|
|
Reply
|
11:01 am, Dec 28, 2009

JustinTyme

Yes, Haliburton, Blackwater, Cheney and the Torturers were there to save the Iraqi people.... Riiiiight.
Which reason # was that, after they tried WMDs, Al-Queda, ...etc, etc...

Pepi and his Nixon squad are a bunch of thugs who never saw a $, a barrel of oil, or a new pile of military contracts they didn't love.

|
1:14 pm, Dec 28, 2009

escomments

Good one justin,

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, is a potent argument.

You are right, it was just a huge conspiracy to get the oil and the contracts. Oh... and a good chance to torture people. Of course we knew there weren't any WMDs before we went... Wait a minute... We didn't know! We thought there were WMDs. Yeah. now that I think about it, so did everyone else in the world until we didn't find any. Oh geez. What if? Should of? Could of? To go? or not to go? That was the question answered by congress and the UN.

I take it, you weren't fooled for a minute. You were one of a few who knew there weren't any WMDs and GWB just made it all up and got British intelligence and Israeli Intelligence, not to mention the Clinton administration to go along with the hoax because hey... I guess they wanted a piece of the action. You know with all that Oil and Torture and all.

But what of the people who aren't under the thumb of a murderous dictator anymore? They held up their little blue stained fingers having voted for the first time in their lifetime.

That really didn't matter to you. did it?

|
1:48 pm, Dec 28, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
2:15 pm, Dec 28, 2009

This user is no longer registered.

|
|
Reply
|
2:17 pm, Dec 28, 2009

heyman

If you had the brains to consider the people Cheney went after are exactly what you consider Cheney to be IN REALITY,you would be normal..But you must love your DNC fantasy..keep Dreamin for the BIG CHANGE

|
1:46 am, Dec 31, 2009

JohnConnughton

escomments says that everybody believed in WMD. Not true. In March 2003 I (for one) wrote an editorial arguing that the continuing inability of UN inspectors to find any evidence of WMD was starting to look like evidence there might not be any-and that in any event they were already there looking so why are we jumping into this?

The situation posed an exercise in rhetoric: how do you prove a non-existent thing does not exist? One finding and Bush wins, so not finding any is a cause for war? Unbelievably, Bush not only told the UN inspectors to get out of Iraq, he would not let them return after Baghdad fell. My eyes rolled in my head. What? So now, when WMD are found at last, by us and not by more believable inspectors, who is NOT going to suspect that Bush put them there himself out of our emense stockpiles of same, in order to frame Hussein retroactively? Well, to the credit of this nation, perhaps some to him, no such thing happened.

But that's how Bush played his game. He also excluded from the rebuilding of Iraq any nation (France, Russia etc.) who had not lined up behind him. To the victor go the spoils, hey? Except about 3 years later we were begging others to come back in, and now it's almost funny how the USA is getting cut out of the oil development auctions.

Considering how he screwed up in international politics, I'm just glad he didn't put on his flight jacket and try to run the military too.

|
|
Reply
3:05 pm, Dec 28, 2009

Danram

Yes, let's most definitely look at Iraq, now poised to become the Middle East's first successful democracy and a source of sorely-needed fundamental change for the entire region. What we are seeing now in Iran is due in no small measure to what has happened and is happening in Iraq. Although I didn't like a lot of what he did when he was president, George Bush was 100% right in taking out Saddam Hussein and will ultimately be vindicated by history in the same way that Ronald Reagan was.

|
|
Reply
|
8:02 pm, Dec 28, 2009

heyman

Amen,Iraq is the only place free in the Middle East,thanks to our soldiers.

|
1:49 am, Dec 31, 2009

heyman

Yea and 250,000 starved children,750,000 dead Iranians. Daklak-the politically brainwashed..

|
|
Reply
1:44 am, Dec 31, 2009

newswoman

I and my husband were pretty sure there were no WMDs because rhe UN inspectors said there were none. Why didn't anyone believe them? They were in Iraq for 4 YEARS. They knew what they were talking about, did't they?

|
|
Reply
|
2:43 pm, Dec 28, 2009

Danram

So there were no WMD's in Iraq. So what? Given Saddam's history up to that point, I personally don't blame President Bush for opting to be safe rather than sorry.

Besides, if Saddam didn't have an active WMD program in 2003 it was only a matter of time until he started it up again. Anyone who seriously believes otherwise is living in a fantasy world. All of the pieces were still intact. It's akin to walking into a convicted murder's kitchen and seeing a pistol lying disassembled on his kitchen table, ready to be reassembled and used in short order. The Middle East is a much better place today with him dead and the Baathists out of power.

In fact, what we're now seeing unfolding in Iran is due in no small measure to what's happened in Iraq. Young Iranians look across the border into Iraq and they see freedom of speech, freedom of the press, respect for women's rights, and genuinely free elections and they are demanding the same things for themselves today in the streets of Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, etc. Had we not taken out Saddam and helped install a genuine democracy in Iraq, I seriously doubt that Iran's mullahs would be feeling the heat the way they are now.

|
|
Reply
|
7:55 pm, Dec 28, 2009

JohnConnughton

Danram, interesting argument. Iraq isn't out of the woods yet but I hope you are right about their future; and you might be right how that influences Iran-although as bitter enemies all too recently that might be a long shot.

The problem with deposing Hussein is not that he wasn't a thug that needed deposing, but the moral right of one nation to force change on another.

When individuals commit crimes, societies acts in concert as juries and cannot tolerate self-appointed judge/jury/executioners. With nations, we try sanctions etc--we are still just starting to learn. And in fact the UN was pretty much on Hussein's back, so his war-starting days may well have been over already. (Recall that Bush Sr. united the entire world with maybe 2 exceptions to kick Iraq out of Kuwait.) But Hussein was still murdering some of his own people, and so the thing is, THEY the Iraqis should have been the ones to depose him.

What you are really arguing for is vigilantism, bullying, the power of the biggest gun. And that's not a good idea. In the short term GW trashed America's reputation. In the long term, someday somebody else may have a bigger gun. Will you be content to have them come in and install new government here because they don't like the one we have?

|
11:27 pm, Dec 28, 2009

heyman

Yea if you and your husband considered that the OBJECTIVE was to make sure there were no WMDS you might make sense in seeming worried that we didn't find any.

|
|
Reply
1:50 am, Dec 31, 2009

Danram

Could the mullahs fall this time? Well, if the CIA has been busy supplying the reformists with both guns and bullets so that they can actually fight back, I'd say yes. If not, I tend to doubt it.

|
|
Reply
7:47 pm, Dec 28, 2009
Leave a comment

Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.

View Comments

YOUR FRIENDS