Amid Unrest, Secretary Clinton's Comments in Geneva Sends Message to Islamic Republic

Last week, the United Nations Security Council passed sanctions on Muammar Gaddafi's regime to address the ongoing crisis in Libya. In a 15-0 vote, the Security Council also referred the case to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for possible human rights prosecutions. On Monday, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Geneva to address the Human Rights Council in light of these developments, and to build international consensus going forward. Her remarks, which was the first by a Secretary of State in front of the HRC, may be a preview of a recalibration of the Obama Administration's foreign policy, with a marked new emphasis on human rights.

Up until now, regional powers had only Tunisia and Egypt to look to as test-cases of how to deal with their own popular uprising. In both countries, limited force did little to quash protests while meaningful concessions seemed to only embolden demonstrators. With Gaddafi's decision to use unrelenting and brute force against mounting protests, followed by the international community's decisive action to delegitimize his regime (and possibly even assist the opposition), a clear signal is being sent to other embattled leaders that violent repression is no longer a viable means of political survival. It may in time come to be a defining moment in the field of international law.

Secretary Clinton's comments, however, also sent an unmistakable message to the Islamic Republic. In light of the recent ICC referral and sanctions imposed on Gaddafi's regime, her comments on Iran are particularly significant:

Extremists and rejectionists across the Middle East argue that they are the ones who champion the rights of the downtrodden. For decades, they have claimed that the only way to achieve change is through violence and conflict. But all they have accomplished is to undermine peace and progress. The success of peaceful protests has discredited the extremists and exposed their bankrupt arguments.

Iran, for example, has consistently pursued policies of violence abroad and tyranny at home. In Tehran, security forces have beaten, detained, and in several recent cases killed peaceful protesters even as Iran’s president has made a show of denouncing the violence in Libya. Iranian authorities have targeted human rights defenders and political activists, ex-government officials and their families, clerics and their children, student leaders and their professors, as well as journalists and bloggers.

Last week, the United States imposed new sanctions on Iranian officials for serious human rights abuses. Here at the Human Rights Council, we are proud to be working with Sweden and other partners to establish a special rapporteur on Iran. Its mandate would be to investigate and report on abuses in Iran, and to speak out when the government there does not meet its human rights obligations. Iranian human rights advocates have demanded this step to raise international pressure on their government.

This will be a seminal moment for this Council, and a test of our ability to work together to advance the goals that it represents. Indeed, every member of this Council should ask him or herself a simple question: Why do people have the right to live free from fear in Tripoli but not Tehran? The denial of human dignity in Iran is an outrage that deserves the condemnation of all who speak out for freedom and justice.

In Current Upheaval, Iran Stands out for White House

The New York Times reports a potentially significant development in Iran's nuclear program:

Iran told atomic inspectors this week that it had run into a serious problem at a newly completed nuclear reactor that was supposed to start feeding electricity into the national grid this month, raising questions about whether the trouble was sabotage, a startup problem, or possibly the beginning of the project’s end.

In a report on Friday, the International Atomic Energy Agency said Iran told inspectors on Wednesday that it was planning to unload nuclear fuel from its Bushehr reactor — the sign of a major upset. For years, Tehran has hailed the reactor as a showcase of its peaceful nuclear intentions and its imminent startup as a sign of quickening progress.

But nuclear experts said the giant reactor, Iran’s first nuclear power plant, now threatens to become a major embarrassment, as engineers remove 163 fuel rods from its core.

I argued earlier:

Since the two countries share no diplomatic relations, the U.S. does not have to walk the same tightrope [with Iran as it does when] its Arab allies (such as Egypt or Bahrain) face down pro-democracy protests. And unlike 2009, when it was uncertain whether or not Obama's policy of engaging Iran would pay off in nuclear talks, today it is the Islamic Republic that is eager to bargain at the negotiating table. A fourth round of economic sanctions are biting at Iran's stagnant economy, and the regime's much-prized nuclear program is in apparent disarray, having been fed damaging sedimented uranium, poorly engineered from the get-go, and sabotaged by the Stuxnet virus. President Obama was also keen to not want to taint the Green movement earlier on, comparing the United States to a "handy political football" for the regime at the time. But despite the White House's initial hands-off approach to post-election protests, the regime labeled opposition figures as 'seditionists' and agents of the West anyway.

If Iran's nuclear program proves to be in shambles, it would no longer pose an immediate threat to the West. Consequently, the Obama administration would have even less to risk by speaking out more forcefully against the Iranian regime, and is thus faced with a dilemma: should U.S. policy towards the country continue at the status quo ante? With a contagion of popular uprising spreading throughout the region, the Islamic Republic is suddenly looking very vulnerable. Its opposition – at this point essentially demanding regime change – has been watching events unfold, first in Tunisia, then in Egypt, and now in Libya. And as tragic and bloody as Gaddafi's maniacal fall from power is turning out to be, the Libyan people are on their way to achieving what the Iranians couldn't a year and a half ago. Yet the entire population of Libya is only twice the number of people who took to the streets of Tehran in June of 2009. For the regime, that is a very frightening thought. The United States should view it in the opposite light.

There have been hints of a shift coming from the State Department, and both Secretary Clinton and President Obama's recent comments on Iranian authorities' crackdown of last week's protests were noticeably sharper than ever before. Still, with the current upheaval sweeping the region, one wonders if the administration should do more. Abbss Milani writes for the New Republic:

President Obama should no longer be worried that full-throated rhetorical and political support for the protesters could redound against the United States. And now that the international community is united around sanctioning Iran for its nuclear activities, there is less need for Obama to assure Khamenei that he does not want regime change. Along with other members of the international community—particularly Turkey—the United States should further isolate the regime, thus serving notice to them that continued brutality against the people will beget it a fate similar to South Africa. (Turkey, too, must be reminded that it cannot be the leader of a democratic Middle East while embracing the region’s most brutal regime.)

It is by no means clear that the government in Tehran will crumble next week, next month, or even in the next decade—yet the same thing could have been said about Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya, ten years, a month, or even a week ago. Moreover, the benefits for the Middle East could be truly breathtaking: With Egypt on a perilous path to possible democracy, and with Turkey already a working democratic polity, the advent of democracy in Iran could easily tip the regional balance toward democracy, rule of law, and reason. By supporting the Green Movement along with other liberal movements throughout the Middle East, Obama can help to make it so.

If Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are any indication, the White House will likely act more hesitantly than boldly. Were Tehran to soon see massive protests like those that rocked the capital in 2009, however, that may soon change. With Gaddafi teetering at the brink, all eyes remained fixed on the region. Those in the West Wing are no exception.

By the Numbers

$108.70: Price per barrel of Brent crude, a 2-1/2 year high.
21%: Percentage of Iran's GDP accounted for by its petroleum sector.

After Tunisia, Egypt, and 25 Bahman, a Clear Shift in Iran's Political Landscape

Credit:  Mana Neyestani / منا نیستانی

At least tens of thousands of Iranians poured into the streets of Tehran and elsewhere on Monday, breathing new life into the stagnant Green Movement. Though the opposition was never truly quashed following the brutal post-election crackdown, this weeks protests were nonetheless crucial in publicly dispelling the regime's contention that the movement was, in the words of Hossein Hamedani, a senior commander in the Revolutionary Guard, "nothing more than a dead corpse." So while most agreed that the Greens had only gone underground after last year's protests tapered off, it was uncertain if the movement could mobilize again, and in significant numbers. On Monday they showed that they could.

The scenes on YouTube were familiar: protesters hurrying away from storming Basiji motorbikes, teargas canisters flying through the air, an isolated member of the government's militia surrounded by demonstrators -- and beaten. Yet there was a subtle but discernible difference between the 25 Bahman protests and those that followed the rigged 2009 election. What started out with a simple demand -- "Where is my vote?" -- has evolved into something far more confrontational. The chants heard on Monday were indicative of this. "Mubarak! Ben Ali! It's now the turn of Seyed Ali!" protesters chanted, referring to Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of the regime.

And so despite what the movement's leaders, Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi, are forced to say publicly, this is no longer a struggle merely aimed at "reforming" the existing system. Those days are over, and both Mousavi and Karoubi likely recognize this in private. Their decision to stage the protests on 25 Bahman -- and not repeat last year's tactic of 'hijacking' official rallies, such as the one on 22 Bahman -- reflects this point.

Something's in the air
A year after the last major protests in the country, the Iranian opposition is now directly and unequivocally challenging the very legitimacy of the regime. And while similar sentiments were heard as last year's protests turned violent, things have changed considerably since then. In the wake of revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and the several other uprisings that have followed in the Middle East and North Africa, the Iranian people are no longer alone in challenging their authoritarian leaders. Indeed, the entire region appears to be on the cusp of enormous and lasting change. It is a zeitgeist that is captured on the cover of this week's Economist.

The Islamic Republic finds itself in a precarious position. As protests in Egypt grew, the regime could no longer stay silent on such a seismic shift in its backyard. The official spin -- calling it an Egyptian "Islamic awakening" -- was of course necessitated by the regime's own crackdown on post-election protests in 2009 and into last year. While such propaganda may serve well with older and more susceptible classes, Iran's youth knows the power of information and watched young Egyptians achieve what they could not: the overthrow of their ruling dictator. The hypocrisy of Khamenei's praise towards Egypt has surely not been lost on them.

What's particularly ironic is how recent events are unfolding in a manner strikingly opposite of how Iran's early revolutionaries envisioned them. Following the Islamic Revolution, the country's foreign policy was primarily focused on 'spreading' the revolution to the Arab and Sunni world -- essentially a policy of foreign intervention. Even after Saddam Hussein attacked Iran, leading to a prolonged eight-year war, Ayatollah Khomeini declared that the "road to Qods (Jerusalem) passes through Karbala," a holy city in southern Iraq. Ultimately the Iran-Iraq war and a series of economic sanctions forced the Islamic Republic to shift its focus inwards to domestic issues, as well as act more rationally on the international stage. Despite its proxies in the Levant, the revolution has not spread.

But now, with the fall of Hosni Mubarak some 32 years later, the regime is claiming that it has. In reality, it has been the numerous secular and democratic Arab uprisings that have galvanized the Iranian opposition out of hibernation. These are popular movements and there is a palpable solidarity between the protesters of each state to be rocked by the current upheaval, with their goals essentially the same. Egyptians were inspired by the success of the Tunisians, who in turn cheered the much larger Arab state on as its people toppled their own dictator. Calls for 'days of rage' have been borrowed by Syrian and Yemeni activists after the tactic proved effective in Egypt. Iran is similarly affected. A statement released by a group of protesters in Tahrir Square called on Egyptians to stand "in solidarity with the Iranian people who suffer injustice, dictatorship and corruption,” while Wael Ghonim, the reluctant heroic face of the Egyptian revolution, sported a green wristband identifying with Iran's opposition after he was released from custody. "I would tell Iranians to learn from the Egyptians, as we have learned from you guys, that at the end of the day with the power of people, we can do whatever we want to do," he said.

Spoils of upheaval
And yet this same wave of unrest, while troubling for the Islamic Republic on the domestic front, is greatly benefiting it outside its borders. While the regime is busy suppressing dissent at home, it has begun repositioning itself in the region to reflect recent developments. With Egypt, Hosni Mubarak (who was quoted as saying he had a "visceral hatred" for the Islamic Republic in a diplomatic cable released by Wikileaks) is no longer a thorn in the regime's side. And while the future Egyptian state will likely continue to respect its existing international treaty obligations, a representative Egypt will undoubtedly be far less cozy with Israel, Iran's greatest threat.

In Yemen, a loose coalition of opposition forces have been clashing with authorities for weeks. Although the Gulf state is predominantly Sunni, it does have a sizable Shi'aa minority and an insurgent separatist movement headed by the Houthi clan. In 2009, Yemen's top counter-terrorism official went so far as to say that there was "no doubt" that Iran was supporting the separatists. At the very least, even a weakened Yemeni state considerably benefits the Islamic Republic.

And then, of course, there is Bahrain. A small island nation in the Persian Gulf where 70% of the people trace their Shi'aa roots back to Iran, the country is an authoritarian Sunni monarchy whose two emirs (father and then son) have ruled for 50 years. Unlike Egypt, where Coptic Christians and Sunni Muslims stood in solidarity against the government, sectarian fault-lines are likely to play a key role as confrontations with the Bahraini kingdom continue. While the protests have thus far focused on economic and political reforms, Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa, the King of Bahrain, has been keen to capitalize on his country's religious pluralism. Police action was necessary to pull Bahrain back from the "brink of a sectarian abyss," his foreign minister said responding to the country's violent response to peaceful demonstrators, which has left at least five dead. (It is unclear how the kingdom's reliance on a security force made up of Sunni foreign nationals does not play on these same tensions.) Were Bahrain to follow Tunisia and Egypt, the emergence of a government more reflective of the country's Shi'aa majority would undoubtedly be a win for Iran.

Extending a hand
The rub for the Islamic Republic remains that any geostrategic gains would come from the same contagion that has seemingly revived the Green movement at home. The White House, who was caught off-guard and criticized by some for its earlier handling of events in Egypt, is trying to stay ahead of the curve this time around, and has noticeably tweaked its Iran policy during the past week. "I find it ironic that you've got the Iranian regime pretending to celebrate what happened in Egypt, when in fact they have acted in direct contrast to what happened in Egypt by gunning down and beating people who were trying to express themselves peacefully," Obama pointedly said following the 25 Bahman protests. The State Department has even started a Farsi Twitter feed.

The shift is a wise move. Since the two countries share no diplomatic relations, the U.S. does not have to walk the same tightrope it faces when its Arab allies (such as Egypt or Bahrain) face down pro-democracy protests. And unlike 2009, when it was uncertain whether or not Obama's policy of engaging Iran would pay off in nuclear talks, today it is the Islamic Republic that is eager to bargain at the negotiating table. A fourth round of economic sanctions are biting at Iran's stagnant economy, and the regime's much-prized nuclear program is in apparent disarray, having been fed damaging sedimented uranium, poorly engineered from the get-go, and sabotaged by the Stuxnet virus. President Obama was also keen to not want to taint the Green movement earlier on, comparing the United States to a "handy political football" for the regime at the time. But despite the White House's initial hands-off approach to post-election protests, the regime labeled opposition figures as 'seditionists' and agents of the West anyway.

Regardless of American policy towards Iran, the stakes have been considerably raised inside the country. The regime has dug in its heels and resorted to violence, as it has since post-election protests broke out. If there is a lesson to be taken away from the fall of Mubarak and Ben Ali, it is that demonstrators are only emboldened by compromise. Brute force, unfortunately, is effective. The Islamic Republic was itself born from a revolution, after all, and the tide only definitively turned against the Shah after he addressed the nation, acknowledging their demands. The revolutionaries smelled blood.

But suppression can hold down a people for only so long, as the countless upheavals throughout the region show. If the Iranians are able to mobilize in numbers comparable to 2009, then the regime has reason for concern. Even many of the protesters who braved the streets on Monday were surprised at the large turnout. And despite several heavy clashes with security forces, there was also surprise at the level of restraint by many in uniform. Since the protests, a letter signed by several senior Revolutionary Guard officers and addressed to the Guards' top commander has emerged, demanding that they not be ordered to fire on peaceful demonstrators. If the letter is indeed authentic and the demands of its signatories true, then it would be an enormous development and immediately threaten the regime's grip on power. With a significantly lessened threat of violence and personal injury, protesters could potentially pour into the streets en masse as they have in other countries, and capture the public space, where revolutions are born. But in light of last year's crackdown, the opposite outcome is equally possible. In these precipitous times, nothing is certain.

Renewed protests are scheduled for Sunday.

As Mubarak Falls, Greens Try to Mobilize

Exactly 32 years after Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was deposed by a revolution in Iran, the Egyptian people successfully ousted Hosni Mubarak from power on Friday. This is sure to galvanize an already-tense region. Just as protests continued in Yemen, they erupted in Algeria, where demonstrators clashed with police and vowed for renewed rallies on Saturday.

And in Iran, Green movement leaders Mir-Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi have called for demonstrations to be held tomorrow, on 25 Bahman, throughout the country in support and solidarity with the Egyptian people. Not only has the Interior Ministry refused to issue permits for the demonstration, but the regime has begun jamming BBC Persian's satellite signal, placed both Karoubi and Mousavi under effective house arrest, and cut each of their telephone lines in order to prevent them from communicating or coordinating with opposition activists. The word "Bahman" has even been blocked from internet search results by the regime.

There is no doubt that a certain synergy is in the air in the Middle East, one that has proven capable of sparking popular uprisings throughout the region and toppling two authoritarian governments. There has been much talk of whether or not Iran started this trend in 2009 with the massive protests that followed the 2009 election. Regardless, the Islamic Republic -- and indeed, every regime -- is on edge. What sort of turnout Monday will produce remains to be seen. What is certain is that there has not been this much anticipation leading up to an Iranian protest for a year. With the shockwaves from Tunisia and Egypt still reverberating, the Greens go into tomorrow hoping to capitalize on the current fervor into a strong showing in the streets. What, if anything, comes after that is impossible to tell at this time.

Khamenei Links Events in Egypt to Islamic Revolution; Muslim Brotherhood Responds

Today marked a rare appearance by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to lead the official Friday prayer sermon in Tehran. Predictably, his comments were directed towards the events unfolding in Egypt. The Christian Science Monitor reports:

Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, addressing Egyptians in Arabic after delivering the Friday prayer sermon in Tehran, portrayed himself as “your brother in religion,” while praising the “explosion of sacred anger” and warning against any US role in the outcome.

Describing close US ally President Hosni Mubarak as a “traitor dictator” who is working for Israel and guilty of “great betrayal” of Egyptians, Ayatollah Khamenei said the regime-changing events in Tunisia and now Egypt were natural extensions of Iran’s own Islamic revolution in 1979.

The Muslim Brotherhood, however, has responded to Khamenei's comments on its website¹:

MB responds to Iran’s Islamic Leader Mr Khamenai: The MB regards the revolution as the Egyptian People’s Revolution not an Islamic Revolution asserting that the Egyptian People’s Revolution includes Muslims, Christians, from all sects and political

(h/t Enduring America).
__________________________
¹ See: 12:50 on February 4th, 2011.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi's Comments on Recent Events in the Middle East

The Middle East is on the brink of great events that could affect the future of the nations of this region and the rest of the world. Certainly the ultimate aim of what is happening is the disruption of the unjust order that has captured the fate of many nations of this region in its talons. There is no doubt that the starting point of the events we are witnessing in the streets of Tunis, Sana'a, Cairo, Alexandria, and Suez must be sought in the massive demonstrations of June 14, 17, and 19 [2009] of Tehran. On those days, people took to the streets with the slogan of "Where is my vote?" to peacefully demand their trampled rights.

Today the slogan of "Where is my vote?" of the Iranian people is echoed in the slogan of "The people demand the overthrow of the regime" in Cairo, Suez, and Alexandria. To find the roots of these connections and similarities we need not go too far afield. It suffices to compare the manner of the recent elections in Egypt with that of our own, where the head of the "Guardian Council" blithely states that there is no need for the votes of millions of "Green" citizens. If we monitor the collapsing regimes of the Arab world and the Middle East, we will see that in all these regimes social networks, the press, and the virtual space have been assaulted and that the Internet, the messaging, and mobile systems are shut down. Everywhere pens are broken and dissidents are imprisoned.

Unfortunately, the interests lurking behind ruling ideologies in this country don't allow the realities to show themselves as they are. Subservient orators speaking from official podiums turn a blind eye to the corrupt and tyrannical activities of the Pharaoh of Egypt who has created this explosive situation by arrests, forced confessions, legal harassment, and the plundering of the people at the hands of well-connected cliques. They underline the Egyptian "day of people's anger," but fail to mention that this day of anger is the result of inefficiency and corruption at the highest levels, squandering of public funds, restriction of written and spoken word, and executions and executions and executions, the setting up of gallows in public to terrorize the people. They don't say that if the regime respected the sovereignty of the people to determine their own fate and if it refrained from stealing the recent Egyptian elections, it would not be facing the demand of "overthrow of the system" by the respected people of Egypt. Or maybe they are not aware that the continuation of the policy of domination and terror finally turns into its own opposite, rendering the "day of anger" and days of national fury inevitable. The Pharaohs usually hear the voice of the people when it is too late.

Our nation admires the glorious revolution of the people of Tunisia and the uprising of the people of Egypt and Yemen and other nations in the region to attain their rights. We salute the courageous and vigilant people of Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Yemen and implore the merciful God to grant them victory in their struggles to achieve their rights.