Like many in the West, when I think of Iran, I think of Bearded Mullahs, “Death to America, Death to England” (‘Marg Bar Amerika, Marg Bar Angeleez’), Revolutionary Guards, and women in chadors and veils.
 |
| Iranian State Organised Protests - Death To Someone |
But mostly I guess I think of Mullahs, Women oppressed, Iranian backed 'Hamas' and ‘Hizbollah’ militias, Terror attacks. I rarely, if ever think about what the people of Iran are really like.
In earlier blogs I have alluded to the fact that Iran might well eventually (with the extinction of the current regime) become the first truly democratic, secular Muslim state in the Middle East, but only as a passing thought. See End of History or New World Order?
However, today I have just read a very interesting article by Sunday Mail columnist Peter Hitchen, he has just been on a trip around Iran and found that things are not as they appear to us in the West. Mr Hitchen is a right leaning, anti PC writer, so not easily seduced towards Islamic propaganda, but he was sufficiently impressed to alter some of his views.
Persian, or Iranian history is a long one, stretching back at least 6,000 years (the first link on this blog covers it in brief), of which Islam forms only the last 1,300 yrs, but for modern purposes it starts with the US inspired coup against a 'democratically' elected president, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, over the control of oil.
There is, as you might guess, some dispute about the form of democracy that was being operated in Iran and some on the right think that it was a good thing. In particular they point to the fact that Mr Mossadegh had Communist and Islamist allies, and had disagreements both with the Shah, and with the parliament over his handling of talks regarding compensation of the British for the oil he had nationalised. But it was the fact that he dissolved the parliament unconstitutionally, using a proposed referendum to avoid impeachment, that causes many to say it was he who was preparing for a coup.
This led to the imposition of a dictatorship by the Shah of Iran on the peoples of Persia. The iniquities and oppression of this incompetent regime led to the 1979 “revolution”, and thus the current Mullah led theocratic regime. So you could say that once again we interfered in the Middle East, and made things worse for all concerned.
Now, anyone who reads my blogs will be aware that I am very unsympathetic towards Islam as a whole, and radical Islam in particular, but I like to think that I am willing to be open to revising my opinions when new facts come to my attention. In this regard Iran is its own worst enemy, as its public image is one that it creates itself.
The Mullahs came into power promising that people would be better off under a truly Shia Islamic governance, and initially this appeared to be the case. Jobs were created for the poor (state jobs), and education in state schools was provided in areas, where previously it had not existed. This is why the Shahs regime was incompetent; they had oil money, but spent it on the army and aggrandisement, and not on free health and secular education for all.
However, along with some benefits, came Islamic law: No Alcohol; Persian Islam had traditionally allowed alcohol – see poems of Hafez, Persia’s most famous poet.
Wine was being produced in the Shiraz region right up until 1979, so the imposition of an alcohol ban was actually a very non Iranian act, and was more influenced by Shia being influenced, from the largely Sunni Arab world, where alcohol had never been as freely available. Dress codes for women, and general bans on public behaviour, cut deeply on a population which was up to 40% under the age of 25.
Now, twenty seven years later, the economy has failed to develop, with mass unemployment for the young a real problem, and corruption rife (many mullahs have carved out economic empires on state awarded contracts), the pressures for change have started to build. Mr Hitchens article shows that in many quarters, from the non radical elite (whose kids are trying to emigrate), to the poor, whose jobs are disappearing as the economy stagnates, attachment to the regime and this style of government is weakening.
The only glue that binds all this together, is the fear of invasion or attack by the “Great Satan, and its acolyte, Little Satan” – The US and UK to you and me. After watching the debacle that is Iraq on its borders, the general public in Iran are willing to fight on behalf of a state that, on the whole commands less support than it has done in former years.
The Mullahs may be a lot of things, but politically stupid is not necessarily one of them, and they are as well aware of the problems that face their rule as anyone else. They are also aware that perceived threats from outside hold their population together, in much the same way as it does for other regimes e.g. North Korea, which follows a similar tactic.
Which brings me back to Iran’s projected image abroad. Externally the Iranians show Mobs burning effigies, and chanting 'death to <insert name here>' every time a mullah says so. They have public broadcasts of very hard line mullahs, claiming that all Islam’s woes are because of the “crusaders” i.e. Christian West, who should be driven from Muslim lands i.e. Any lands that were formerly Muslim (Israel, Spain, the Balkans etc etc), and women are portrayed only in black chadors and veils.
Internally, they highlight every international incident as an attack on Iran, from the UN resolutions on nuclear power, to allied activities on their borders with Iraq. Resistance is in the form of the Hizbollah groups in the Lebanon and Iraq, and aggressive attacks in the waters off the Iraq / Iran borders e.g. the seizure of British sailors. The US plays into this mindset by being openly belligerent towards the regime, and thus by extension, support them in power.
Mr Hitchens article covers this and more, and although I suspect he was hearing from more of the dissident population than he realised, rather than the working class backbone of the regimes support, there were never the less signs that changes are occurring.
He details the resistance and gradual breakdown of the strict dress codes on women; the tacit ignoring of places where young people could go to meet members of the opposite sex; the lack of interest in, and disrespect for the Mullahs behind their backs; the forced nature of the ritual Friday chants, with people having to be bused in to make up the numbers; the general openness of the civic society, with a keenness to talk to westerners.
You can't help feeling that Islamic regimes follow the soviet models i.e.
I would guess that in Iran, we are witnessing the start of stage 3 (see Student purges), this means that we can expect to see
There is one major fly in the ointment for any hope for reform. The Revolutionary Guard - for obvious reasons the theocratic regime set up an alternative to the traditional armed forces (like the soviet model) in the form of several very powerful band of fanatics.
The premier of these is the Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) with 125,000 active troops, boasts its own ground forces, navy and air force, and oversees Iran's strategic weapons. It also controls Basij Resistance Force (an Islamic volunteer militia of about 90,000 men and woman and a mobilisation capacity of nearly 1m), and the powerful Bonyads ('charitable' foundations), which run a considerable part of the Iranian economy, and its elite 15,000-strong overseas operations arm, the Quds Force.
The Bonyads are the Islamic equivalent of a state business / welfare system, of course it's administered in a political manner, if you are not a supporter of the regime, or are considered suspect, or the local mullah wants to punish you, then no help comes from the charity. For the eternally poor of Iran, this money doled out by the mosques (usually as food parcels) is the only thing between them and starvation, this means the recipients will march on the streets at the drop of a hat, to condemn external or internal enemies of the system. This partly explains the regimes ability to get mass 'popular' support at any time.
A formidable barrier to any change, which even the traditional armed forces of about 350,000 would be unlikely to beat. When US Presidents call for 'regime' change and the people to 'rise up' in Iran, they display a simplistic understanding of how the regime keeps itself in power. If they thought Soviet Russia 1970, they might appreciate the unlikelihood of a popular uprising.
The main principle of governance in Iran is to keep each arm of government (or possible resistance) at each others throats, vying for power being dispensed from the Mosque, and the trick is in keeping the whole edifice in a state of internal tension and balance. No one group can be allowed to have too much power so that they feel able to resist commands. In the medieval period it would be a triumvirate of King, Church, and Nobles. The successful King would balance the other two's influence to maintain his own power.
All power stems from the Mullahs. The system is not unlike the communist parties rule in China
However, today I have just read a very interesting article by Sunday Mail columnist Peter Hitchen, he has just been on a trip around Iran and found that things are not as they appear to us in the West. Mr Hitchen is a right leaning, anti PC writer, so not easily seduced towards Islamic propaganda, but he was sufficiently impressed to alter some of his views.
Persian, or Iranian history is a long one, stretching back at least 6,000 years (the first link on this blog covers it in brief), of which Islam forms only the last 1,300 yrs, but for modern purposes it starts with the US inspired coup against a 'democratically' elected president, Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953, over the control of oil.
There is, as you might guess, some dispute about the form of democracy that was being operated in Iran and some on the right think that it was a good thing. In particular they point to the fact that Mr Mossadegh had Communist and Islamist allies, and had disagreements both with the Shah, and with the parliament over his handling of talks regarding compensation of the British for the oil he had nationalised. But it was the fact that he dissolved the parliament unconstitutionally, using a proposed referendum to avoid impeachment, that causes many to say it was he who was preparing for a coup.
This led to the imposition of a dictatorship by the Shah of Iran on the peoples of Persia. The iniquities and oppression of this incompetent regime led to the 1979 “revolution”, and thus the current Mullah led theocratic regime. So you could say that once again we interfered in the Middle East, and made things worse for all concerned.
Now, anyone who reads my blogs will be aware that I am very unsympathetic towards Islam as a whole, and radical Islam in particular, but I like to think that I am willing to be open to revising my opinions when new facts come to my attention. In this regard Iran is its own worst enemy, as its public image is one that it creates itself.
The Mullahs came into power promising that people would be better off under a truly Shia Islamic governance, and initially this appeared to be the case. Jobs were created for the poor (state jobs), and education in state schools was provided in areas, where previously it had not existed. This is why the Shahs regime was incompetent; they had oil money, but spent it on the army and aggrandisement, and not on free health and secular education for all.
However, along with some benefits, came Islamic law: No Alcohol; Persian Islam had traditionally allowed alcohol – see poems of Hafez, Persia’s most famous poet.
“OH Cup-bearer, set my glass afire
With the light of wine! Oh minstrel, sing:
The world fulfilleth my heart's desire!
Reflected within the goblet's ring
I see the glow of my Love's red cheek,
And scant of wit, ye who fail to seek
The pleasures that wine alone can bring!”
With the light of wine! Oh minstrel, sing:
The world fulfilleth my heart's desire!
Reflected within the goblet's ring
I see the glow of my Love's red cheek,
And scant of wit, ye who fail to seek
The pleasures that wine alone can bring!”
Wine was being produced in the Shiraz region right up until 1979, so the imposition of an alcohol ban was actually a very non Iranian act, and was more influenced by Shia being influenced, from the largely Sunni Arab world, where alcohol had never been as freely available. Dress codes for women, and general bans on public behaviour, cut deeply on a population which was up to 40% under the age of 25.
Now, twenty seven years later, the economy has failed to develop, with mass unemployment for the young a real problem, and corruption rife (many mullahs have carved out economic empires on state awarded contracts), the pressures for change have started to build. Mr Hitchens article shows that in many quarters, from the non radical elite (whose kids are trying to emigrate), to the poor, whose jobs are disappearing as the economy stagnates, attachment to the regime and this style of government is weakening.
The only glue that binds all this together, is the fear of invasion or attack by the “Great Satan, and its acolyte, Little Satan” – The US and UK to you and me. After watching the debacle that is Iraq on its borders, the general public in Iran are willing to fight on behalf of a state that, on the whole commands less support than it has done in former years.
The Mullahs may be a lot of things, but politically stupid is not necessarily one of them, and they are as well aware of the problems that face their rule as anyone else. They are also aware that perceived threats from outside hold their population together, in much the same way as it does for other regimes e.g. North Korea, which follows a similar tactic.
Which brings me back to Iran’s projected image abroad. Externally the Iranians show Mobs burning effigies, and chanting 'death to <insert name here>' every time a mullah says so. They have public broadcasts of very hard line mullahs, claiming that all Islam’s woes are because of the “crusaders” i.e. Christian West, who should be driven from Muslim lands i.e. Any lands that were formerly Muslim (Israel, Spain, the Balkans etc etc), and women are portrayed only in black chadors and veils.
Internally, they highlight every international incident as an attack on Iran, from the UN resolutions on nuclear power, to allied activities on their borders with Iraq. Resistance is in the form of the Hizbollah groups in the Lebanon and Iraq, and aggressive attacks in the waters off the Iraq / Iran borders e.g. the seizure of British sailors. The US plays into this mindset by being openly belligerent towards the regime, and thus by extension, support them in power.
Mr Hitchens article covers this and more, and although I suspect he was hearing from more of the dissident population than he realised, rather than the working class backbone of the regimes support, there were never the less signs that changes are occurring.
He details the resistance and gradual breakdown of the strict dress codes on women; the tacit ignoring of places where young people could go to meet members of the opposite sex; the lack of interest in, and disrespect for the Mullahs behind their backs; the forced nature of the ritual Friday chants, with people having to be bused in to make up the numbers; the general openness of the civic society, with a keenness to talk to westerners.
You can't help feeling that Islamic regimes follow the soviet models i.e.
- Initial idealism, enthusiasm and 'revolution', followed by
- Crackdowns and purges of "Class enemies" (i.e. easy targets such as minorities, or 'intellectuals'), start of a corrupt ruling elite, then,
- Foreign military adventurism, economic stagnation, birth of an underground resistance and public apathy, with spasmodic repressions of the mainstream general population, then
- Breakdown and failure, followed by one of two options.
- Either a counter revolution (Soviet models) or A retreat into hopeless 7 th century poverty (Islamic models?).
I would guess that in Iran, we are witnessing the start of stage 3 (see Student purges), this means that we can expect to see
- Big efforts to divert the population from the major internal problems by military activity abroad (Nuclear bomb, Lebanon and Iraq).
- More 'crackdowns' on anyone 'subverting the regime' (Students, young women, unions, newspapers, middle classes etc).
There is one major fly in the ointment for any hope for reform. The Revolutionary Guard - for obvious reasons the theocratic regime set up an alternative to the traditional armed forces (like the soviet model) in the form of several very powerful band of fanatics.
The premier of these is the Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) with 125,000 active troops, boasts its own ground forces, navy and air force, and oversees Iran's strategic weapons. It also controls Basij Resistance Force (an Islamic volunteer militia of about 90,000 men and woman and a mobilisation capacity of nearly 1m), and the powerful Bonyads ('charitable' foundations), which run a considerable part of the Iranian economy, and its elite 15,000-strong overseas operations arm, the Quds Force.
The Bonyads are the Islamic equivalent of a state business / welfare system, of course it's administered in a political manner, if you are not a supporter of the regime, or are considered suspect, or the local mullah wants to punish you, then no help comes from the charity. For the eternally poor of Iran, this money doled out by the mosques (usually as food parcels) is the only thing between them and starvation, this means the recipients will march on the streets at the drop of a hat, to condemn external or internal enemies of the system. This partly explains the regimes ability to get mass 'popular' support at any time.
A formidable barrier to any change, which even the traditional armed forces of about 350,000 would be unlikely to beat. When US Presidents call for 'regime' change and the people to 'rise up' in Iran, they display a simplistic understanding of how the regime keeps itself in power. If they thought Soviet Russia 1970, they might appreciate the unlikelihood of a popular uprising.
The main principle of governance in Iran is to keep each arm of government (or possible resistance) at each others throats, vying for power being dispensed from the Mosque, and the trick is in keeping the whole edifice in a state of internal tension and balance. No one group can be allowed to have too much power so that they feel able to resist commands. In the medieval period it would be a triumvirate of King, Church, and Nobles. The successful King would balance the other two's influence to maintain his own power.
The Iranian balancing act is something like this
All power stems from the Mullahs. The system is not unlike the communist parties rule in China
The Guards are also thought to control around a third of Iran's economy, through a series of subsidiaries and trusts. The Guards' engineering wing, Khatam-ol-Anbia (also known by an acronym, GHORB), has been awarded several multi-billion-dollar construction and engineering contracts, including the operation of Tehran's new Imam Khomeini international airport.
The Guards are also said to own or control several university laboratories, arms companies and even a car manufacturer. The Financial Times estimates that about 30% of their operations are business-related, generating an estimated $2bn (£975m) in annual revenues
Therein lies their potential weakness, money breeds corruption, and corruption leads to decay.
On a different tack, an interesting side observation in the article was the contrast with Turkey.
The Guards are also said to own or control several university laboratories, arms companies and even a car manufacturer. The Financial Times estimates that about 30% of their operations are business-related, generating an estimated $2bn (£975m) in annual revenues
Therein lies their potential weakness, money breeds corruption, and corruption leads to decay.
On a different tack, an interesting side observation in the article was the contrast with Turkey.
“We treat Turkey like a brother, when it is a militant Islamic state only kept secular by a disguised military dictatorship. And we treat Iran like a pariah, when it is largely a secular nation, kept Islamic only by an aging and discredited, but open, despotism.”
As once a long term visitor to Turkey, I can assure any reader that this truth about Turkey is accurate, and we would all be better being aware of this when considering their admittance into the EU.
Post Script: Ironically the moment I posted this blog, the Iranians launched their annual "dress crackdown" but make it more severe than it has been in years. They really are their own worst enemies!
Clothes crackdown in Iran.
Link to the full Peter Hitchens story:
Iran Blog
Christians Killed in Turkey
Post Script: Ironically the moment I posted this blog, the Iranians launched their annual "dress crackdown" but make it more severe than it has been in years. They really are their own worst enemies!
Clothes crackdown in Iran.
Link to the full Peter Hitchens story:
Iran Blog
Christians Killed in Turkey
***************************************
This post is from the site No PC Views.
if you are viewing it elsewhere, then it has been scraped or stolen.
You may wish to view the post in its original context by visiting No PC Views (http://no-pc.blogspot.co.uk/)
No comments:
Post a Comment
All comments are welcomed, or even just thanks if you enjoyed the post. But please make any comment relevant to the post it appears under. Off topic comments will be blocked or removed.
Moderation is on for older posts to stop spamming and comments that are off topic or inappropriate from being posted .... comments are reviewed within 48 hours. I don't block normal comments that are on topic and not inappropriate. Vexatious comments that may cause upset to other commentators, or that are attempting to espouse a particular wider political view, are reviewed before acceptance. But a certain amount of debate around a post topic is accepted, as long as it remains generally on topic and is not an attempt to become sounding board for some other cause.
Final decision on all comments is held by the blog author and is final.
Comments are always monitored for bad or abusive language, and or illegal statements i.e. overtly racist or sexist content. Spam is not tolerated and is removed.
Commentaires ne sont surveillés que pour le mauvais ou abusif langue ou déclarations illégales ie contenu ouvertement raciste ou sexiste. Spam ne est pas toléré et est éliminé.