Understanding The Crisis In Iran By Muqtedar Khan

With a faltering economy, nonexistent air force, fledgling nuclear energy programme, Iran has become, in the words of Tony Blair, Bibi Netanyahu and John McCain a grave threat to humanity. What Iran lacks in material capabilities, it makes up with ideology and bluster.

Thirty years ago, Iran's Islamic Revolution transformed Iran, reorganised regional politics in the Middle East and created new polarities on the global political stage. Iran's consistently anti-Western foreign policy has eventually led it to become the West's number one nemesis.

With a faltering economy, nonexistent air force, fledgling nuclear energy programme, Iran has become, in the words of Tony Blair, Bibi Netanyahu and John McCain a grave threat to humanity.

What Iran lacks in material capabilities, it makes up with ideology and bluster. Iran's deadliest weapon against the West has for the last four years been President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's rhetoric. The United States declining ability to shape political outcomes in the Middle East, Iran's ability to use proxies very effectively in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine, and growing Israeli existential paranoia about Iran's nuclear programme shapes the context in which the current upheaval in Iran is viewed in 
Western capitals.

As Western powers watch in utter fascination, praying for positive change and preparing for the worst, Iran is experiencing a fundamental transformation in its domestic politics. The widespread perception among many Iranians that the Iranian regime essentially rigged the elections in Ahmadinejad's favour has broken the proverbial camel's back. Frustration due to economic difficulties, international isolation in the age of global integration, embarrassment at the buffoonery of their leader and perpetual limits of individual and political freedoms have all contributed to the creation of a pressure cooker like situation in Iran and the irresponsible and brutal response to the protest basically broke the valve. It would, however, be a mistake to think of the brave protests in Iran, even in the face of extremely brutal and repressive response by the regime and its militias, as just an expression of anger at the rigging of the elections or a desire to see Mir Hussain Mousavi as Iran's President.

President Obama is right, on major issues there is very little to choose between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Mousavi is after all an important member of the current Iranian establishment. From 1981-1989 he served as Iran's Prime Minister under Ayatollah Khamenei, the current supreme leader who was Iran's President at that time. His application to run for President was approved certifying his acceptability to the current regime. If he was seen as fundamentally different and a potential agent of change, his candidacy itself would have been rejected.

In simple words, it is not about Mousavi nor is it about just the elections. What is happening in Iran is a very public and very traumatic process of self-awareness. The Iranians and the Iranian regime are learning some hard facts about themselves.

The Iranian public is realising that they are dissatisfied with the status quo at many levels. They aspire for far more than what the current regime is able to deliver. False prestige derived from bombastic statements, international attention elicited through negative behaviour is clearly unacceptable. The Iranians want change. They want to engage with the world on equal footing. They respect international values and like the global culture and wish to become a part of it - an important part that is recognised for its past glory and for its present vitality.

The regime is realising that it has lost two essential components that have sustained it for three decades - internal cohesion within the ruling class and legitimacy among the masses.

The widespread belief that the system has cheated its own people is indicative of the decline of the regime's trustworthiness and its inability to deal with the accusations in a transparent fashion underscores its unreliability as an honest institution and finally its use of brutal force exposes the fact that the system values itself more than it values Iranians. The call to execute protesters by a prominent cleric says it all, to some the regime is more important than the people. Most importantly the green revolution has shown that there are serious cracks within the establishment. Former presidents Khatami and Rafsanjani are both seen as anti-Ahmadinejad and in favour of change. Some of the protests were called for and led by members of the clergy. This moment in Iranian politics will perhaps help coalesce all those who are harbouring discontent and create a potent agency for change that is not entirely outside the circles of power.

The fact that the regime has lost its unity and legitimacy does not necessarily mean immediate change. It only signals the beginning of change. The Obama administration should prepare itself to deal with a fragile, insecure, angry, befuddled, and steadily changing Iran in the near future.

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/DisplayArticle.asp?xfile=data/opinion/2009/July/opinion_July4.xml&section=opinion&col=