Are reformists dead?
Post-elections strategy

By Abtin Samadi
February 25, 2004
iranian.com

Iranian reformists were unable to bring most of the changes they promised. Some major reasons behind their impotent domestic legacy:

1. Iran's system is rigid to reform, and demands daring actions by reform minded politicians and activists. The reformist politicians were for the most part not daring enough to achieve the things they promised.

2. International pressures, mainly from US and Israel, and the so called "war on terror" by well established terrorist regimes diverted much attention from Iran's domestic issues. Iranians were suddenly faced with the serious threat of war from the same regime that was instrumental in the terrorism of SAVAK, Saddam and the Taliban, to name a few.

Due to these external pressures and baseless accusations by the bloody hands that exerted them, the internal pressures on Iran's regime were considerably alleviated. As usual, the regime masterfully used the actions of the so called "Great Satan" and the Israeli occupation to hinder movements aimed at reducing their power, while the fanatics in America used the so called "Axis of Evil" and terrorist threats to justify their policies as well.

Although the reformists' domestic legacy was a major failure by most accounts, their international legacy seems to be their greatest achievement. Lead by Khatami and his prominent speeches at international forums, the reformists were able to put a kinder and gentler face on Iran in the international arena, which paved the way for improved relations with other countries and international organizations, and helped hinder US and Israel from making unilateral attacks against Iran.

For a long time the American regime has masterfully used this classic good cop - bad cop strategy, both domestically and internationally to achieve their objectives in a manner that would not alienate the people. Iran's regime made use of a similar strategy to assure internal stability and better international standing, through the reformists.

Now, after the elections, the question is: what is the future of the reformists?

The general consensus seems to be that in the eyes of many Iranians, the reformists were dead long before the elections. But are the reformists dead in the eyes of the regime? I don't believe that is the plan, for the same reasons that I don't believe the Democrats or Republicans of the American regime would destroy each other if they could, because there are more powerful interests at stake than the interests of the individual political parties.

In the case of America, the powerful unelected governmental and corporate entities who wield much of the power behind the scenes would never allow such a thing to happen, because a great deal of their power and political control depends on this good cop -- bad cop distinction that allows them to feed the common people with a false sense of political self determination.

Similar to the US, it is the natural strategy of the unelected rulers of Iran to maintain such a charade, or alternate strategies that would allow them to preserve the status quo. But you may ask, if that is the case, why did the Guardian Council disqualify so many "good cop" candidates, which on the surface seems to be aimed at destroying the reformists?

First, this good cop -- bad cop charade was identified by Iranians long before the Guardian Council decision. People were already dissatisfied with the reformists and a significant number of people were calling for boycott months before the reformists candidates were disqualified.

Like I mentioned earlier, the reformists were already dead in the eyes of many Iranians. Thus, it is likely that the action of the Guardian Council was aimed at bringing back some life into the dying reformists, who all of the sudden, following the Guardian Council decision, became the ones who were calling for a boycott that was originally aimed against the regime as a whole, including against the reformists.

I suspect that the appearance of debate and political conflict, or at least the attempt for such an appearance will still continue in Iran. In addition, the regime, by creating martyrs out of the already dead reformists, has produced a celebrity like dissenting voice that should attract much national and international attention, while at the same time divert attention from the harsher and sometimes fanatic critics of the regime.

Naturally, these disqualified reformist dissidents will be less harsh on the regime than expatriates like Reza Pahlavi and his followers, who could have monopolized the dissenting spotlight had the reformists not been disqualified.

In essence, the regime has to some extent replaced the harsh expatriate dissenters with more lenient reformists dissenters, and made some backup moves in the event that if there was a revolution, the country would not completely fall under the control of the Pahlavi group.

Comedy & Satire in San Jose on February 27 >>> Details

* Send this page to your friends