Iran Political Turmoil An Opportunity

The supreme leader of fundamentalist Islamic Iran, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has confirmed the legitimacy of the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He did so publicly at a prayer ceremony on Friday at Tehran University, symbolically reinforcing the close connection between very traditional Moslem religion and practical politics in this country. The reformist political leader Mir Hossein Mousavi, who lost the election and has strongly challenged the results as rigged, was notably absent.
As the Ayatollah spoke, a very large audience chanted “death to the U.S.”, which has become common background music in this sort of political theatre. Three decades ago, Iran’s popular rejection of secular modernization, overthrow of ruling Shah Reza Pahlevi and return to Islamic traditionalism resulted in a sharp break with the United States, previously a close and distinctively influential ally. Over the intervening years, the gulf has remained, confirmed by policies on both sides.
In this context, the extremely carefully chosen words of Pres. Barack Obama to discuss developments in Iran are particularly appropriate as well as important. The “external enemy” has been a useful device for dictators from Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin to Castro and Cold War contemporaries. The current rulers of Iran reflect this practice, but in a context of only partial dictatorship. Overt Washington efforts to influence Tehran could only backfire.
To a remarkable degree, the average Iranian is very aware of U.S. interference. Immediately after World War II, Soviet troops occupied northern Iran. The Truman administration successfully pressured Moscow to withdraw. Under Eisenhower, British agents and the CIA overthrew the popularly elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh, which advocated nationalization of oil and other industries.
After the Islamic revolution, the lengthy hostage crisis in which personnel from the American embassy were held captive poisoned relations and helped defeat Pres. Jimmy Carter in 1980. Likewise, their release during the inauguration of Pres. Ronald Reagan provided an early boost in American public opinion for that new administration.
In the interim, the Carter White House effort at a military rescue of the hostages, which ended in disastrous collision of U.S. aircraft at night in the desert, reinforced a reputation for weakness which plagued that administration. Pictures of ayatollahs poking the burned bodies of American special operations troops were very widely disseminated. During the 1980s, the U.S. supported Iraq in the lengthy eight-year war with Iran.
Yet beneath this tapestry of conflict, there are some promising signs of Iran moderation. The Ayatollah’s statements at Tehran University reflect support for fair elections and the rule of law. He emphasized that accusations the election was rigged should be addressed “through legal ways” and also noted that politics involving competing perspectives was “natural”.
Much media commentary on protests in Iran focuses on use of cell phones, yet this high-tech dimension is more effect than cause, reflecting a relatively sophisticated active society. The 1979 revolution also was characterized by extensive popular demonstrations. The Shah’s modernization policies over the long term created a relatively well-educated population and sizable middle class.
Nearly a decade before the Bush administration occupied Iraq, former Pres. Richard Nixon wrote in his book ‘Beyond Peace’ that permitting Saddam Hussein to provoke invasion would be a mammoth blunder, which would reinforce the regional influence of Iran, a country of vital U.S. interest. The Obama administration clearly shares this assessment.
Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Macmillan and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu