Question:
Presidential elections were held in Iran on June 12, 2009. The official results announced that the current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, won with 62.6% of the vote, while his rival, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, received 33.7%. The other two candidates won negligible percentages. Mousavi and his supporters questioned the election results, and on June 15, 2009, they organized unauthorized protest marches and demonstrations. When Iranian security forces dispersed the protesters, riots and violence broke out, leading to the deaths of 7 people and the injury of 29 others, as reported in Tehran...
Do these events indicate an international conflict occurring in Iran, or is it an internal struggle between power centers for positions? Furthermore, what is the extent of American and European involvement in these events?
Answer:
The events taking place in Iran following the announcement of the election results are noteworthy. The reality of the political system in Iran, the nature of the existing state institutions, the broad powers of the Supreme Leader (Murshid), and the limited powers of the President of the Republic—all of this makes the occurrence of such escalating events something that warrants close examination.
Statements from state institutions indicate that the regime realized the intensity of the events and that they were unusual. The Guardian Council even showed some concession to appease the protesters; on June 16, 2009, it reviewed the appeals regarding the elections submitted by Ahmadinejad’s rivals, who demanded the annulment of the elections and the holding of new ones. The council's spokesman, Abbas-Ali Kadkhodaei, stated that it was legally impossible to annul the elections and hold new ones, but if necessary, some disputed ballot boxes would be recounted (Al-Jazeera, June 16, 2009). The regime’s awareness of this intensity also prompted Ahmadinejad's supporters on June 16, 2009, to hold massive rallies and demonstrations in support of their president and to denounce the riots and violence committed a day earlier by participants in Mousavi's protests.
The declaration by the losing candidates, led by Mousavi, that the elections were marred by "severe violations" and fraud, and that they did not recognize the results, fueled movements in the streets. Protest marches were organized, punctuated by riots and violence by elements described as infiltrators who attempted to seize a security center to obtain weapons, as announced in Iran...
Most importantly, however, is the European exploitation of these events. French President Sarkozy stated: "The scale of the fraud was proportionate to the violence." British Prime Minister Brown said: "The Iranian leadership is required to refrain from violence and respond to legitimate grievances following the elections" (Al-Jazeera, June 16, 2009). French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner said: "What is happening in Iran is a very deep and important movement expressing a desire to revolt against tyranny, and France cannot bury its head in the sand regarding this" (Al-Hayat, June 18, 2009). He avoided answering whether France would recognize Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy, despite the question being repeated three times. Germany, Italy, and other European countries followed suit in raising the issues of violence and protests and doubting the election results. Likewise, their audio-visual media and newspapers denounced the violence, questioned the results, and called for non-recognition of Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy, as explicitly demanded by the British newspaper The Times on June 16, 2009, which described Ahmadinejad in derogatory terms as a "clumsy rural man whose head is in heaven and feet are in corruption." Iran protested against France and Britain, even organizing protests in front of their embassies in Tehran. The Iranian embassy in Paris also issued a statement protesting against: "Statements described as hasty and irresponsible, which indicate the interference of French officials in Iranian affairs" (Radio Sawa, June 16, 2009).
All this indicates that the Europeans found an opportunity to exploit the protests by Mousavi and his group. They moved their agents to stir up some youth and students to infiltrate the protesters and carry out acts of riot, violence, and shooting to force the Iranian security forces into clashes, thereby creating disturbances in an attempt to work against the regime. The Europeans are trying to exaggerate the matter as if a revolution has begun. Demonstrations and marches began to take place without Mousavi's approval, and despite his call to cancel the marches scheduled for June 16, 2009. Al-Jazeera correspondent Mohammad al-Bahrani reported on June 17, 2009, that matters had slipped from Mousavi's hands and that he did not have a specific party organization. All this indicates that there are other forces performing these acts. Iranian sources, as reported on the Al-Alam page on June 16, 2009, mentioned that there were infiltrators among the protesters who carried out the acts of violence.
As for the American reactions to the elections, they were positive. President Obama said: "It is up to the Iranians to decide who will lead Iran, and we respect Iran's sovereignty. We are preventing the United States from being the issue inside Iran, where it can sometimes be a political football" (US Government Page, June 16, 2009). US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said: "The United States has refrained from commenting on Iran's elections, and we hope they reflect the desire of the Iranian people" (CNN, June 14, 2009). White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said: "The White House is impressed by the vigorous debates and the spirit of enthusiasm generated by these elections, especially among Iranian youth" (CNN, June 14, 2009). The Washington Post announced that it had conducted a poll by two American experts indicating that Ahmadinejad would defeat his rival Hossein Mousavi by a ratio of two to one (Al-Alam, June 16, 2009). The Washington Post stated on June 16, 2009, "There is no conclusive evidence of fraud, which may not allow Washington or Western capitals to challenge the election result." UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon stated: "The will of the Iranian people must be fully respected" (Al-Jazeera, June 16, 2009). It is understood from the statements and actions of American officials, their media, and the UN Secretary-General that America is satisfied with Ahmadinejad's election for a second term. Obama even mentioned that "there are few policy differences between Ahmadinejad and his rival Mir-Hossein Mousavi" (Reuters, June 16, 2009).
It is worth noting that Iran, during Ahmadinejad's first four-year term, had an understanding with America on two prominent and important issues: Afghanistan and Iraq. Indeed, Iran was moving in line with America, by the admission of its own officials, foremost among them Ahmadinejad. During his visit to New York to attend UN meetings last year, he stated in an interview with the New York Times on September 26, 2008: "Iran has provided a helping hand to the United States regarding Afghanistan... and our country has also provided assistance to America in restoring calm and stability to Iraq." President Ahmadinejad visited both Afghanistan and Iraq last year while they were under the bayonets of America and its brutal, destructive occupation. This indicates the satisfaction of Iran and its president with the US occupation of both countries, practically recognizing it and the agents installed by America there. In fact, Iran openly declares its support for Karzai and Maliki—the American agents installed there. The presence of Ahmadinejad currently serves America more than the so-called "reformists" like Khatami and Mousavi because he and his so-called "conservative" current focus on the issue of Shiazation, or so the atmosphere around them suggests. This raises fears among countries in the region, especially those whose rulers are linked to the British in the Gulf and elsewhere. Morocco even severed its diplomatic relations with Iran a few months ago on the charge that Iran supports Shiazation and stirs up unrest there. King Abdullah II of Jordan had spoken about the Iranian threat under what he called the "Shia Crescent." All of this serves America in controlling these countries by frightening them with Iran's "Shiism" as a pretext for the US to remain in the region to protect these states from Iran! Simultaneously, America fuels division among Muslims by playing on the chord of Iran's alleged spread of Shiism, and thus by stirring sectarian and denominational tensions.
Regarding the American reactions to the post-election demonstrations and violence, Obama stated: "I have said before that I have deep concerns about the elections." He then added: "Given the history of US-Iranian relations, it would not be productive for the US president to be seen as meddling in Iranian elections." He hoped that "the Iranian people would take peaceful steps to be able to express their aspirations" (AFP, June 16, 2009). Even his Vice President Joe Biden, despite saying the result raises many questions, added, "The United States does not have enough evidence to provide a final judgment," and said that the United States is ready for dialogue with Iran (BBC, June 16, 2009). These statements reflect a non-accusatory and soft tone toward Iran. Some have criticized the stance of American media, especially major ones like CNN and Fox News, for their silence regarding what is happening in Iran, despite their reputation for covering and inflating events when it serves American policy. Meanwhile, Western European media, led by the BBC (TV, radio, and online), is leading a massive campaign magnifying the events in Iran. The Iranian Foreign Ministry "accused Western media of being spokespersons for those carrying out the riots" (Asharq Al-Awsat, June 18, 2009).
The above indicates that the fingerprints of the international conflict between America and Europe are visible in Iran. European countries, led by France and Britain, are working as hard as they can to stir up protests during this period by infiltrating their agents and provoking people through all political and media means in an attempt to destabilize the situation in Iran and a weak attempt to topple the regime and bring in their agents. It is not expected that they will succeed currently because the situation is still under the control of those moving within the American orbit, whether they are reformists or conservatives. Furthermore, there are no visible European forces working on the Iranian scene; rather, their agents are hidden, waiting for opportunities as seen in these events.
This is clear from the European and American reactions. Europe is at the height of its agitation over what is happening, and its actions and statements clearly show tension. America, however, is calm toward what is happening. If things in Iran were going against America's will, or if the regime in Iran were going against the American current, or if America had an interest in change in Iran, it would have raised an uproar against the Iranian regime and its leadership, especially Ahmadinejad. It would have ridden the wave of incitement as the European countries are doing, exaggerated matters, and fabricated lies. Its media would not have been silent for a single moment—as it is famous for doing, just as they did against Saddam until they occupied and destroyed Iraq, and against the Taliban until they occupied and destroyed Afghanistan as well, killing millions of Muslims in both countries.
- While the fingerprints of the international conflict are clear, the struggle between internal power centers is also evident. What is understood from the actions of the Mousavi current and those behind it—such as Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Nateq-Nouri—following the announcement of the results, is that they could not stomach their defeat, just as Rafsanjani himself was defeated in the previous elections against Ahmadinejad. They wanted to create confusion so that the elections would be repeated. The conflict between the so-called Reformist current, led by Rafsanjani and Khatami and represented in these elections by Mousavi, and the so-called Conservative current, led by Ahmadinejad and supported by the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other Shia scholars, is an internal struggle over leadership, interests, and implementing some internal changes or "reforms." The struggle between them is intense and at its peak, as it appears. Ahmadinejad even "likened Rafsanjani and former Interior Minister Nateq-Nouri to the roles of Talha and Zubayr in the Battle of the Camel against Imam Ali, and called for their uprooting from the political scene" (Al-Hayat London, June 18, 2009). However, both currents agree on foreign policy except for some stylistic differences in rhetoric.
For this reason, Obama said there is not much difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Since the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a statement on June 16, 2009, showing support for Ahmadinejad, congratulating him on his election and success, and calling on the people to rally around him—noting that he would achieve progress for the country and ensure national security and vitality—he further stated: "Undoubtedly, this is also a divine choice in which success will bring the mercy of God Almighty" (Al-Alam, June 18, 2009). He was also supported and congratulated by the Speaker of the Shura Council Ali Larijani and the head of the judiciary Hashemi Shahroudi. All this will consolidate Ahmadinejad's authority and confirm the legitimacy of his election. It is likely that some ballot boxes will be reviewed as a solution to the objections and protests, but it will not change the result. Nevertheless, the internal power struggle has found a path that will not be easily closed, even if it falls silent for a while...