Interview with Prof. David Menashri on Iran’s elections: “Fighting within the family”

Earlier today, the Pulse interviewed Professor David Menashri, Director of the Center for Iranian Studies and Dean of Special Programs at Tel Aviv University.

Pulse: What do you think we can expect from the continued unrest in Iran?

Menashri: It is very difficult to know what to expect in such instances. Since the early days of the revolution I do not remember such an outburst of anger and disenchantment. The resentment that we are now witnessing has grown over time due to the frustration regarding the results of the revolution, governmental policy over the years, and, now, the gap between the expectations that the reform camp had concerning the election results and the official results. All together there is a sense that something went wrong in the conduct of the elections and in the process of counting of the votes. The revolution, some claimed, has long been "intercepted" by the radical clerics and, now, demonstrators argue, the election "was stolen" from the reform camp.

Pulse: Is this an unexpected blow to the opposition movement?

Menashri: This is not their first electoral loss. In 2004 the opposition lost the Parliamentary elections and again in 2005 they lost when Ahmadinejad became President, but these losses did not generate such outbursts of anger as we see today.  Ten years ago, in July 1999, there were also political demonstrations in Iran-similarly led by young Iranians struggling for greater freedoms and welfare-but the combination of two key elements brought an end to them then: Twenty-four top commanders of the Revolutionary Guards wrote a strongly-worded letter to Khatami, urging President Khatami to deal with the case promptly, because tomorrow may be "too late." They concluded: "our patience has run out. We cannot tolerate this situation any longer." While the security forces provided the regime with the power of arms, hard-line clerics offered Islamic justification for violent suppression. Thus, Ayatollah Mohammad Taqi Mesbah Yazdi (who is considered Ahmadinejad's mentor) stated in a Friday sermon that the heads of those acting against the Islamic regime, or speak out against its basic tenets-should be cut by a sharp sword. Dismissing leniency and indulgence as alien to the spirit of Islam, he said: Islam directs us to remove the weed, which grows on its way, and we are duty-bound to act vigorously against hooligans, traitors and heretics and against the mercenaries of the foreigners. Thus, in a combined move, the religious authority and the military power came together to put an end to the demonstrations. The lesson was that even though the reform movement had moral strength on its side, the government machinery has far greater power, backed by determination to maintain power in their hands. In 2009, the events of 1999 are being revived, but with far greater magnitude. Today, too, the regime maintains such strengths, but is faced with stronger and more determined rivals.

Pulse: What will this mean to President Obama's proposed dialogue with Iran?

Menashri: Since Mr. Obama made his offer of dialogue when Ahmadinejad was president, the fact that he has been re-elected per-se should not necessarily cause second thoughts. However, the basis of legitimacy that Ahmadinejad had until one week ago is definitely not the same as he has today. Washington is now facing a President whose election is called into question by the children of the revolution themselves.  It should be also remembered, that these are people who were indirectly encouraged by the emergence to the presidency of Barack H. Obama last November and adopted his call: "Yes We Can."  This spirit of "Obamaism" made the radical regime scared and concerned and gave the reformist elements heart and encouragement. Given the developments of the last few days, the proposed Washington dialogue with Iran is more problematic than it was a week ago and Mr. Obama will have to carefully calculate his policy vis-à-vis Iran.

Pulse: What about Israel?

Menashri: In the short run, these developments play into the hands of the Israeli government. The disturbances started at precisely the time when Prime Minister Netanyahu was preparing for his Bar Ilan University speech and no better gift could have been given to him than having the children of the revolution accusing the regime of dictatorship.  Netanyahu was expected to have a more attentive ear from the international community under these circumstances. But the story is not over.  In the long run, it would have been better for Israel if a pragmatic, pro-reform government in Iran would have replaced the current radical attitude of Ahmadinejad and his well-known positions on wiping Israel off the map, against western civilization and his statements about the Holocaust.

Pulse: Can we expect a change in Khamenei, will something come of all this?

Menashri: One problem that I see is that when Khomeini was the Supreme Leader he always positioned himself above rival factions and therefore in a crisis was able to step in and negotiate a deal between opposing camps.  But not only does Khamenei lack the same charisma or leadership qualities as Khomeini, he is highly identified with Ahmadinejad and involved in his campaign, and has thus undermined his ability to provide the services of an impartial leader. Remember that all of these groups are part and parcel of the Islamic system-they are, in essence, fighting within the family. But that can often be harsher than fighting with those on the outside.  If we look at how vicious this election campaign was on the ideological, political and personal levels, we understand the depth of the divisions here.  When in the televised debate Ahmadinejad lashed out at Moussavi's wife rather than the candidate himself, which is not a part of Persian culture, we are able to see just how bad the blood is between these factions and the leaders at their top.

Pulse: Does the pro-reform camp have a chance?

Menashri: The strength of the reformists is in their moral standing. Frustration and disillusionment strengthened their ranks and they sought hope in the presidential elections. Mousavi has turned into the symbol of such hopes, but the movement seems to be stronger even than its leader. Yet, the radicals, on their part, have significant advantages: In addition to their control of all government apparatus, they speak in the name of God, they have the army on their side, and they have the determination to fight to maintain their power-they are determined not to let the opposition do to them what they did to the Shah.  They have learned their lessons well.

Pulse: So what does all of this upheaval mean?

Menashri:  Deep in Iranian society, the experiences of the last few days will be very crucial and important for the long run even if this movement is ultimately suppressed.  Something happened in the Islamic Republic of Iran and you never can know how it will end. As a famous Israeli poem reads: All of a sudden, a nation wakes up in the morning and starts moving in a new direction. There is something in all popular movements that are unpredictable; our knowledge is simply insufficient to predict the outcome, nor even to determine what would be the last straw that breaks the camel back. Even if not fully successful, there is no question that the memory of today's events will continue to have influence and will linger in the back of the minds of Iranians for years to come.

Prof. David Menashri is the Director of the Center for Iranian Studies and Dean of Special Programs at Tel Aviv University. Prof. Menashri's main field of academic research is history and politics of modern Iran, Central Asia, the Persian Gulf and history of education in the Muslim world. David Menashri has been a visiting Fulbright scholar at both Princeton and Cornell University and, among others, a visiting scholar at the University of Chicago, Melbourne University, the University of Munich and Waseda (Tokyo). In the late 1970s he spent two years conducting research and field studies in Iranian universities on the eve of the Islamic Revolution.  He is the recipient of numerous grants and awards in Israel and abroad, including grants from Ford Foundation, Fulbright Foundation and Ben Gurion Foundation.