Some observations on the Iranian presidential election and its aftermath by Phil Wilayto

Dandelion Salad

by Phil Wilayto
June 13, 2009

Sunday Times, 14 June 2009
Sunday Times, 14 June 2009

As this is being written, official announcements in Iran today of a landslide victory by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are being met with cries of “fraud” by supporters of his principal challenger, former Prime Minister Mir-Hossein Mousavi.

The New York Times is reporting that “at least one person had been shot dead in clashes with the police in Vanak Square in Tehran. Smoke from burning vehicles and tires hung over the city late Saturday.”

It seems clear which side has started the violence. From today’s Times:

“’Death to the coup d’état!’ chanted a surging crowd of several thousand protesters, many of whom wore Mr. Moussavi’s [sic] signature bright green campaign colors, as they marched in central Tehran on Saturday afternoon. ‘Death to the dictator!’ Farther down the street, clusters of young men hurled rocks at a phalanx of riot police officers, and the police used their batons to beat back protesters. There were reports of demonstrations in other major Iranian cities as well. … As night settled in, the streets in northern Tehran that recently had been the scene of pre-election euphoria were lit by the flames of trash fires and blocked by tipped trash bins and at least one charred bus. Young men ran through the streets throwing paving stones at shop windows, and the police pursued them.”

(Note: Northern Tehran is the more affluent part of the city. There were no reports of protest in the much poorer southern part of the capital.)

While there’s still time to rationally look at the elections, I’d like to offer a few observations.

The dominant view among Western commentators, as well as some progressive members of the Iranian diaspora, is that Mousavi is a “reformer” who favors loosening restrictions on civil liberties within Iran, while being more open to a less hostile relationship with the West. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, is described as a “hardliner” who demagogically appeals to the poor, while making deliberately provocative statements about the United States and Israel in order to bolster his standing in the Islamic world.

In my opinion, both of the above characterizations are superficial. The fundamental contradiction between the two leading candidates has to do with their respective bases of support and, more importantly, their different approaches to the economy.

Ahmadinejad, himself born into rural poverty, clearly has the support of the poorer classes, especially in the countryside, where nearly half the population lives. Why? In part because he pays attention to them, makes sure they receive some benefits from the government and treats them and their religious views and traditions with respect. Mousavi, on the other hand, the son of an urban merchant, clearly appeals more to the urban middle classes, especially the college-educated youth. This being so, why would anyone be surprised that Ahmadinejad carried the vote by a clear majority? Are there now more yuppies in Iran than poor people?

Why is there so little discussion of the issue of class in this election? Is it because so many professional and semi-professional commentators on Iran are themselves from the same class as Mousavi’s supporters, and so instinctively identify with them? Myself, I’m a worker, and a former union organizer. When I watched the videos and viewed the photos of the pro-Mousavi rallies in Tehran and other cities, I didn’t feel elated – I felt a chill. To me, this didn’t look like a liberal reform movement, it felt like a movement whose real target is a government that exercises a “preferential option for the poor,” to use the words of Christian liberation theology.

How about the economy?

A big issue in Iran – virtually never discussed in the U.S. media – is how to interpret Article 44 of the country’s constitution. That article states that the economy must consist of three sectors: state-owned, cooperative and private, and that “all large-scale and mother industries” are to be entirely owned by the state. This includes the oil and gas industries, which provide the government with the majority of its revenue. This is what enables the government, in partnership with the large charity foundations, to fund the vast social safety net that allows the country’s poor to live much better lives than they did under the U.S.-installed Shah.

In 2004, Article 44 was amended to allow for some privatization. Just how much, and how swiftly that process should proceed, is a fundamental dividing line in Iranian politics. Mousavi has promised to speed up the privatization process. And when he first announced he would run for the presidency, he called for moving away from an “alms-based “ economy (PressTV, 4/13/09), an obvious reference to Ahmadinejad’s policies of providing services and benefits to the poor.

In addition to their different class bases and approaches to the economy, Ahmadinejad presents an uncompromising front against the West, and especially against the U.S. government. This is a source of great national pride, and has produced some positive results. For example, President Obama has now actually admitted, at least in part, that it was the U.S. that in 1953 overthrew the democratically elected government of Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh.

The whole idea that tossing Ahmadinejad out of office would make it easier to change U.S. policy toward Iran is, in my opinion, very naive. Was Dr. Mossadegh a crazy demagogue? No, but he did lead the movement to nationalize Iran’s oil industry. If Mousavi, as president, were to strongly state that he would refuse to consider any surrender of Iran’s sovereign right to develop nuclear power for peaceful energy purposes, that he would continue to support the resistance organizations Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza, that he would continue to try and increase Iran’s political role in the Middle East, and that he would defend state ownership of the oil and gas industries, would the Western media portray him as a reasonable man?

Further, there’s the nature of Mousavi’s election campaign. Obama called it a “robust” debate, which it certainly was, and a good refutation of the lie that Iran has no democracy. But it is also a political movement, one capable of drawing large crowds out into the streets, ready to engage in street battles with the president’s supporters and now the police.

Is it possible that the U.S. government, its military and its 16 intelligence agencies are piously standing on the sidelines of this developing conflict, respecting Iran’s right to work out its internal differences on its own? Could we expect that approach from the same government that still maintains its own 30-year sanctions against Iran, is responsible for three sets of U.N.-imposed sanctions, annually spends $70-90 million to fund “dissident” organizations within Iran and, according to the respected investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, actually has U.S. military personnel on the ground within Iran, supporting terrorist organizations like the Jundallah and trying to foment armed rebellions against the government?

The point has been made that U.S. neocons were hoping for an Ahmadinejad victory, on the theory that he makes a convenient target for Iran-bashers. But the neocons are no longer in power in Washington. They got voted out of office and are back to writing position papers for right-wing think tanks. We now have a “pragmatic” administration, one that would like to first dialog with the countries it seeks to control.

I think what is important to realize is that Washington wasn’t just hoping for a “reform” candidate to win the election – it’s been hoping for an anti-government movement that looks to the West for its political and economic inspiration. Mousavi backer and former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is a free-market advocate and businessman whom Forbes magazine includes in its list of the world’s richest people. Does Rafsanjani identify with or seek to speak for the poor? Does Mousavi?

What kind of Iran are the Mousavi forces really hoping to create? And why is Washington – whose preference for “democracy” is trumped every time by its insatiable appetite for raw materials, cheap labor, new markets and endless profits – so sympathetic to the “reform” movements in Iran and in every other country whose people have nationalized its own resources?

Would Iran be better off with a president who, instead of qualifying everything he says about the Holocaust, just came out directly and said, “Look, there’s no question that millions of Jewish people were murdered in a campaign of genocide, but how does that justify creating a Jewish state on land that is the ancestral home of the Palestinians?” That would certainly make the job of anti-war activists much easier – and if you look hard enough, you can find something close to those words in Ahmadinejad’s statements.

But it wouldn’t be enough. The U.S. government and its complementary news media would just find another hook on which to hang their demonization of Iran and its government.

The days ahead promise to be challenging ones for all those who oppose war, sanctions and interference in the internal affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran. As we pursue that work, it would be good not to get caught up in what is sure to be a tsunami of criticism of a government trying to resolve a crisis that in all likelihood is not entirely homegrown.

* Phil Wilayto is the editor of The Virginia Defender newspaper and author of “In Defense of Iran: Notes from a U.S. Peace Delegation’s Journey through the Islamic Republic.” He can be reached:

© 2009 by Phil Wilayto – Permission granted for republication, with attribution.

h/t: Cem Ertür


Presidential election in Iran: selected items from the British press

Pepe Escobar: Ahmadi Big Bang + Police Attack Protesters

from the archives:

Iran’s President Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map” By Arash Norouzi (2007)

21 thoughts on “Some observations on the Iranian presidential election and its aftermath by Phil Wilayto

  1. Pingback: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a Washington ODE by William Blum « Dandelion Salad

  2. Pingback: The Great Divide- Iran and Leftists by Gary Sudborough « Dandelion Salad

  3. Pingback: Iranian Elections: The ‘Stolen Elections’ Hoax by Prof. James Petra « Dandelion Salad

  4. Pingback: Kucinich on Iran « Dandelion Salad

  5. Pingback: UK Foreign Minister David Miliband: The long thesis of the conspiracy by foreign powers against Iran is peddled vociferously by the regime « Dandelion Salad

  6. Pingback: Stand or Remain Complicit By Timothy V. Gatto « Dandelion Salad

  7. Pingback: Does U.S. poll rule out fraud in Iran? + Thousands maintain Iran protests « Dandelion Salad

  8. Pingback: A Different Perspective on the Iranian Elections by Gary Sudborough « Dandelion Salad

  9. Pingback: Iran Faces Greater Risks Than It Knows By Paul Craig Roberts « Dandelion Salad

  10. Pingback: For workers’ power and a socialist Iran by Peter Symonds « Dandelion Salad

  11. Pingback: CIA, Iran and the Election Riots « Dandelion Salad

  12. Pingback: Are You Ready For War With Demonized Iran? By Paul Craig Roberts + Ahmadinejad Won. Get Over It « Dandelion Salad

  13. Pingback: Babak Yektafar: Revolutionary guard in charge « Dandelion Salad

  14. Pingback: Facing the Bushes’ Iranian whirlwind by Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman + Shots fired on an angry crowd « Dandelion Salad

  15. Pingback: Clinton: We hope the outcome reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people « Dandelion Salad

  16. Pingback: Iran boils over by Lee Sustar « Dandelion Salad

  17. Pingback: Pepe Escobar: Struggle within Iranian elite « Dandelion Salad

  18. Pingback: US Media Campaign to Discredit Iranian Election By Charting Stock « Dandelion Salad

  19. Every revolution of any kind that erupts in response to tyranny must go through its own unique set of growing pains and evolution. They almost all make major mistakes during their process of transformation, and end up turning on the very same people who supported them when they rebelled against the previous tyrannical regime – that is until the new revolutionary regime become as tyrannical, in its desperate efforts to hold onto power, as the previous one, then that revolution takes on a new life and soul of its own, evolves in a different way and blossoms into something beautiful that meets the aspirations of the majority of its people. The French revolution went through that, the Soviets did too, and many others, and eventually the Iranian revolution will join them. One can easily tell, from watching the younger generation of Iranian men and women, who took to the streets, that they are a different generation with a different mentality than that of their theocratic regime. The way they look, dress, talk etc, shows that these younger Muslims, and they are by the way Muslims too, just not as strict and fundamentalist in their ways. For those geniuses who branded all Muslims as if they can not maintain their faith and still have normal aspirations or lead normal life like everyone else on this planet, I disagree with their shallow view of Islam and Muslims. Just look at Turkey and Indonesia among many others who were able to do it – to combine both, their Islamic faith and still live a normal modern life. Every religion has its fanatics and wackos – God knows we do too. Just watch the extremist evangelical right-wingers of the Republican Party and how they wish to impose their way of life and their convictions on the rest of society. How many of those, in our modern democratic USA, with all the science and enlightenment, still believe in the literal words of the bible and reject the very basic foundation of scientific advances and methodolgy, like with the scientifically proven evolution, to name but one example, and that the world is six thousand years old. Those fundamentalists of ours are no different in their zeal, mentality, ideology and practices than those in Iran, and if they could seize power they’d impose their own version of life style and beliefs, by force even, for they believe that they are doing God’s work, on all the rest of us who don’t share their ideology, and they’d forgo democracy and liberties in a second, if they thought they could get away with it and had a chance of succeeding. Extremism and fundamentalism exist in every religion on this planet and have their kooks and wackjobs who want to do their God’s work and wishes, which to them justifies any necessary means, including thoughtless barbaric violence. So it would be wise and prudent of us to watch out from our own nutty extremists, for they are much closer and can inflict much more damage on us. Iran will, eventually, and I do predict not too long down the road, find a way to correct its course and get on the right track in balancing its Islamic faith with the needs of modern society that many of its people aspire to have, in their own way though, not necessarily ours – and let’s be smart for a change and keep that one aspect in mind and learn from our previous mistakes of trying to, arrogantly, transform the world into what we think is the perfect formula that the world should adopt, so as to be just like us – which is hardly perfect, I’d say!

  20. Pingback: Presidential election in Iran: selected items from the British press « Dandelion Salad

Comments are closed.