The Occasional Dissident

“The society must be purified of these people.”
- Holocaust denier and perhaps reelected Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (“Iranian Candidate Exhorts Protestors,” Washington Post, June 15, 2009)

Dear citizens, we have to accept that the Washington Post may have erred in some degree in its translation of the remarks by the current and perhaps future Iranian President.  However, a leader who calls for the eradication of Israel and who pretends that the destruction of the Jewish minority in Nazi-controlled areas simply never happened is perhaps likely to look for similar solutions closer to home, especially when those solutions preserve his rule.  In short, the comment is believable; it seems to be exactly what we should expect from a leader who fights history, truth, other nations, and his people.

The Post also featured a rather remarkable photograph on its front page, accompanying the story referenced above.  It is my pick for a Pulitzer should anyone ask me.  In it, we see a woman dressed in a traditional chador.  Her right arm is raised displaying an open hand—a prime metaphor of the current era.  However, it is clear from her face that she is angry and is engaged in a very serious confrontation.  Behind and beside her, we see parts of five other bodies.  Their attitudes and actions are obscured from view.  In front of her are five men.

Four of these men are displaying closed fists—the other popular metaphor.  They are closed around the handles of rubber truncheons.  One man is facing the woman as she looks directly at him.  It appears she may be shouting at him.  His truncheon is waist level and at the ready.  The other three are depicted in mid-beating.  Two are bent deeply at the waist; another is upright but apparently ready to bend forward with a violent blow.  His truncheon, like one of his companions, is above his head.  The other overhead truncheon is flexed by the speed of its forward momentum.  It is in mid-violence, coming from above to crash into the last man in the photo.

That man—call him “Free Citizen,” if you will—is lying on the ground.  He is on his right side.  At his head is the erect man.  The third man is at his shoulder with his truncheon headed toward the ground, apparently having delivered a blow.  Free Citizen is holding his left temple, the likely target of this strike, with his right hand.  His left hand is open and over the closed fist of the bent, overhead-truncheon-swinging troglodyte.  The latter’s fist is closed on Free Citizen’s jacket lapel, holding him still for the blow and providing crucial leverage to increase the force.  Free Citizen’s left leg is slightly raised, not unlike the submissive attitude a dog takes when faced with a superior force.  Free Citizen, in fact, is being beaten like a dog on the street by men of lesser value.  The Iranian election results are in.

Now, we watch in awe and wonder and more than a little bit of apprehension and even fear as the Iranians battle for sovereignty.  It is a useless battle, of course.  A government can suppress its citizens with some success for some time, but in the end, as Iran’s history shows as much as ours, sovereignty lies with the people, and the people always win in the end.  An election result, accompanied by suspicious numbers and a widespread closing down of internal and external communications, has been rightly perceived to be dubious—maybe a theft.  The theocratic leadership of the country validated the result, and the losers in the election—a good share of the population, perhaps, they and we suspect, a majority—have engaged in widespread and peaceful protest.  They approach, with open hands and voices, the thuggish regime supporters holding truncheons in closed fists.  This battle presents a difficult question; how should we be fighting in Iran’s civil war?

Events are moving so quickly in Iran that one is hard-pressed to decide on a course of action.  Our government is paused.  While the election results once were validated, now the theocratic regime is promising “a review” of the election.  An agreement to forgo a planned protest rally today, a protest that had been banned in any event, resulted in the end in a huge rally that was not subject to interference by the security forces.  Meanwhile, reports are in of the regime’s militia, perhaps comrades of the group pictured on the Washington Post front page, shooting at protestors.  We should expect that will not long be tolerated.  Whose hand is open?  Whose is closed?  The answer may be changing moment-by-moment.  In this confusion, we must first vow to do no harm.

Supporting either side in this clash will almost certainly result in more violence.  Suggesting that Ahmadinejad has the right to use force against his people is inherently immoral, especially so in this circumstance.  He will use that endorsement if it is offered.  Supporting the opposition likewise will provide Ahmadinejad with—from his point of view—justification for violently and effectively eradicating a foreign-inspired rebellion, or, as he depicts it, purifying society.  In the short term, we must publicly, through all means at our disposal, call for calm.  We must ask that both sides seek a moderator to resolve a dispute that may otherwise lead to horrific bloodshed.  A respected arbitrator, one trusted by all Iranians, must determine the correct election result or order a new election, so that the losing side—whichever that proves to be—can peacefully accept the election winner.  Both candidates must agree to protect the supporters of the losing side.  Ahmadinejad must apologize for the violence perpetrated against the supporters of the opposition candidates.  He must acknowledge that Iranian society is already pure.

In the long term, and we have to accept that this could prove a long conflict, we must do all we can to engage the Iranian leadership in distractions.  Now is the time to suggest an immediate conference on Iraq and its future soon to be changed by the withdrawal of U.S. troops.  Now is the time to organize a conference on Afghanistan and the Baluchistan region, bringing in Iran’s two eastern neighbors.  It is at this moment that the International Atomic Energy Agency should be engaging the Iranian leadership in talks over monitoring its civilian nuclear establishment.  This is a period when “ping-pong” diplomacy is required, when we should be engaging the country in non-governmental exchanges of ideas and culture and sports.  Little of any future use may be expected from these efforts.  The Iranian regime may try mightily to resist all these opportunities regardless of any potential benefit for them.  Yet, we must pursue them all vigorously based on a simple concept: it is difficult to beat your family in your home if the neighbors are constantly knocking at your door.  The Iranian regime and its security forces must know that we are watching them constantly and closely.  The safety and even the survival of Iranian citizens demand that we are as fully engaged in peaceful distractions as possible.

The outcome, however, we must leave to the Iranians to decide.  There was a moment, a subject of speculation by Ryszard Kapuscinski in his book, Shah of Shahs, when an Iranian protestor was no longer afraid of the Shah’s murderous security forces.  It was the end.  When those who walk with open hands are dismissive of the threat posed by a closed fist, the closed fist is rendered feeble and useless; it grasps nothing but its own defeat.  That moment is pictured on the front page of today’s Post.  A woman, raising an open hand and using her voice, is fearlessly approaching a man whose fist is closed around a rubber truncheon.  We could ask for no more hopeful sign.  This woman can defeat this thug.  And millions like her can win this conflict, with the powerful blows of peaceful, open hands.

- Alan Howe, June 2009