It Couldn't Happen Here... Could It?
On a quiet street in Tehran one night last week, the Iranian-American writer Cameron Abadi was stopped by a teenaged Basij militia member. The youth, still growing his first beard but armed and quite full of himself, demanded in rough provincial dialect that Abadi exhale enough to show if he'd been drinking.
Abadi, clean, was told to move on. But if the boy had had the wit to ply him with some questions, he might then have cried, "Take him in!" and doomed this New York-born-and-bred Yale graduate. Unbeknownst to Abadi, a colleague from a website he was writing for had just been arrested at the airport trying to leave. Abadi, lucky a second time two days ago, got a Turkish Airlines flight via Istanbul to Dusseldorf, where he caught a train to Berlin.
Even when the regime let the streets fill with peaceful citizens by day, it sowed the menace Abadi faced by night. Iranians were shocked because Tehran has so little street crime -- and so few cops -- that people walk at all hours without looking over their shoulders. It's a bit like New York City 70 years ago, when the novelist Howard Fast and his girlfriend slept in Central Park on hot summer nights to escape moral strictures as stifling as their airless apartments. They feared not muggers but an occasional police officer.
In Tehran now, too, the only public menace is the state. But the Iranian state teaches oppressed, angry boys to cling to guns and God -- both dispensed by the state itself, including by that senior boy and ex-traffic engineer, Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. Yet some U.S. neocons and lefties seem to like having him around.
Neoconservatives have been gloating about him. "See? We warned you," they say, jabbing at silly liberal moralists, who've temporized about Ahmadenijad because they've fixed their righteous fury on Israel and admire or excuse its would-be annihilators, Hamas and Hezbollah, which are funded by fellow theocrats in Iran.
Silly though some of those liberals indeed are (Don't get me started), neocons have become the other side of the coin, recognizing in Amadenijad a perfect foil for their own embrace of an American political party that engages in chillingly similar preachments and practices.
Sound fantastical? We've had Blackwater mercenaries patrolling the streets of New Orleans on contract to the federal government. We've had torture protocols that turn honorable conservatives' stomachs. We've had surveillance, renditions, and inexplicable detentions. We've had predatory capitalists unleashed to crush the hopes, health care, and home-ownership prospects of millions of heartbroken poor and lower-middle class Americans.
As those Americans become desperate and angry, we have Fox News showing them day and night whom to hate and make war on. We even have pastors telling parishioners to bring guns to church, and Texas legislators working to let University of Texas students do likewise in classrooms.
And we have neo-cons like Bill Kristol, who discovered the "pistol-packing hockey mom" Sarah Palin while taking a Weekly Standard cruise and commended her to John "Bomb-bomb-bomb, Bomb-bomb Iran" McCain. At the 2008 Republican convention, Kristol and most other neo-con war-mongers found themselves staring into a horror-house mirror at the Basij populism they'd worked so hard, if only semi-wittingly, to foment.
They saw nothing wrong because, like their preternaturally insecure forebears in Europe, they'd made themselves creatures of the national-security and corporate state -- becoming its apologists, strategists, myth-spinners, and flag wavers and thinking that, at last, they had arrived.
Alas, as in the France of the 19th century and the Kaiserreich and Austria-Hungary in the 20th, neocon creatures of the state always wake up only when their "national greatness" myth-making and yahoo populism have left them high and dry, hated by the very people they thought they were rousing. That will happen to them here, too -- all the more quickly if, as seems increasingly likely to Paul Krugman, the Obama administration fails to undo the lasting, scarring, damage that neocons and their patrons have already done to people's hopes, health, and homes.
This month, Iranians -- encouraged, undoubtedly, by our 2008 election and by Obama's address to them and his speech in Cairo -- tried to have their own Obama moment. "It's hard right now to remember," Abadi writes poignantly, "that before dread settled over the country, before violence and fraud tore the threads that bound Iranian society together, the Islamic Republic enjoyed several weeks of unprecedented vibrancy. There was, of course, the joyous green-clad tidal wave that swept over Tehran in the days prior to the vote. But, the streets of the capital were also home to many earnest, if mundane, displays of democracy..... in a spirit of generosity and optimism.
"[These Iranian democrats] were college-age volunteers who canvassed undecided voters. They were strangers who staged impromptu public debates on street corners. They were tens of millions who waited long hours in the summer heat to cast their ballots. And they were all Iranians who wanted their voices heard.
"It was the feeling that their devotion had been betrayed, that their claim to fairness had been violated, that sent Iranians onto the streets."
There, they were met by something like what Dick Cheney and his neo-conservative cheerleaders have tried to foster right here. Isn't it time we sensed what's at stake and what kind of American civic-republican (and even religious) energy it will take to make Obama deal wisely with the thugatollahs and with those in our midst who count on them as backstops or as foils?




















Excellent.
The US has its own strutting young Basij militia, Border patrol, at freeway checkpoints far from the border in the Southwest. Are you a citizen? Where are you coming from? Where are you going? Open your car's trunk!
War is the Health of the State, Randolph Bourne (excerpt):
June 26, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The [John Birch] society, which was established in 1958, says its membership has doubled in recent years . . . . New York Times
Well; of course. Someone's got to kep an eye on the doings of the Illuminati.
June 26, 2009 11:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
a Sinclair Lewis Fan?
June 27, 2009 12:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good post. Just imagine the clamor on FOX News for "law and order" had American students responded to the Bush administration's many offenses by taking to the streets and protesting as fervently as have the Iranian students.
Although I have no way of knowing who actually won the Iranian elections, my suspicion is that Amadenijad really did win, but by a much smaller margin than the Mullahs reported. My sense all along is that the Mullahs were not so much interested in ensuring an Amadenijad victory as they were in maintaining order. Having witnessed the passion of Mousavi's supporters before the election, they worried about reporting a close win for Amadenijad. So they exaggerated the results in order to make it seem like a landslide, hoping thereby to limit the intensity of the reaction. They miscalculated, of course, and their transparent dishonesty seems only to have increased the strength of the opposition.
What's interesting here (and, again, I'm speculating on what really happened) is that the Iranian government would have had a right to maintain law and order had it reported the results correctly and Amadenijad had won the election. But once the government exaggerated the results, they undermined their legitimacy and, having violated the law themselves, lost the right to enforce order. What will be interesting, I think, is to see if the government has now discredited itself in the eyes of Iranian people to an extent that the opposition--which truly may have been in the minority on the election day--now becomes the majority.
June 27, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, this last point is very important. It's the point Cameron Abadi when I cited him (although not by name, for his safety) in my first post: Many Iranians who had basically gone along with the Islamic republic were 'radicalized' by the way the regime handled the election:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/06/17/what_the_next_24_hrs_in_tehran_will_tell/
That's not to say, though, that the newly alienated therefore favor radical democracy or even secularism. Apparently some do, some don't. Nor does the new opposition to the regime necessarily mean any new affection for Israel. The Shah had very normal diplomatic and other relations with Israel, and he remains a hated memory. So, there's no telling what shape the opposition would take even if Moussavi were installed and even if Khamenei were replaced by a more "moderate" Supreme Ruler. As for whether there could be a more completely secular revolution or dramatic reconfiguration of the Islamic republic, I doubt that, but I have no idea. I'll ask Cameron Abadi what he thinks.
June 27, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's not to say, though, that the newly alienated therefore favor radical democracy or even secularism. Apparently some do, some don't.
This also is important. During the last month, the American media has too often presented an overly simplistic portrait of the Iranians as divided into two poles: one secular, pro-Western, democratic; the other extreme, anti-Western, autocratic. (This, by the way, represents progress, since before this month, Iran was generally presented as a nation of 70 million religious fanatics.) The reality, however, is far more complex. To give readers an idea of this complexity, I copied at the bottom of this comment Wikipedia's description of the family of Mohammad Khatami. Khatami (Amadenijad's predecessor) is considered a reformer and backed Mousavi in the recent election. It is not a simple place where the granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of the Islamic revolution and father of the current Islamic republic, grows up to be a feminist activist. It is that complexity that gives me great hope that Iran will evolve in a positive direction in the future. One thing that I'm afraid might hinder that evolution, however, is a clumsy intervention from the West based on simplistic assessments of who is good and who is evil.
_________________
Khatami married Zohreh Sadeghi, daughter of a famous professor of religious law, and niece of Imam Musa al-Sadr, in 1974 (at the age of 31). They have two daughters and one son: Leila (born 1975) who is now a mathematics professor, Narges (born 1982), and Emad (born 1988).
Khatami's father, the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khatami, was a high ranking cleric and the Khateeb (the one who delivers the sermon for Friday prayers) in the city of Yazd in the early years of the Iranian Revolution.
Khatami's brother, Dr. Mohammad Reza Khatami, was elected as Tehran's first member of parliament in the 6th term of Majlis, during which he served as deputy speaker of the parliament. He also served as the secretary-general of Islamic Iran Participation Front (Iran's largest reformist party) for several years. Mohammad Reza is married to Zahra Eshraghi, granddaughter of Ayatollah Khomeini (founder of the Islamic Republic of Iran) who is a feminist human rights activist.
Khatami's other brother, Ali Khatami, a businessman with a master's degree in Industrial Engineering from Brooklyn, served as the President's Chief of Staff during President Khatami's second term in office, where he kept an unusually low profile.
Khatami's eldest sister, Fatemeh Khatami, was elected as the first representative of the people of Ardakan (Khatami's hometown) in 1999 city council elections.
June 27, 2009 9:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another thoughtful post in the style of great columns' past.
Is there a conflict of interest between American foreign policy in Afghanistan and talk of democratic reform / revolution in Iran?
Militants are the asymmetric enemies of both Afghan democracy and Afghan moderate muslim rule. They tempt a harder line from whatever regime they challenge.
Comparisons between hard liners would benefit from comparisons between the features, capacities and incapacities of differing nation states as popular servants in the first place. One thing we don't hear much of, whether criticizing Islamic regimes or those deemed neocon / neoChristian or the Jewish state, is whether we are overemphasizing the religious aspect of who rules as anti-democratic versus the mere problems of capacity of rule (whatever kind) faced by whomever rules diverse peoples through the vehicle of the nation state.
There has been a shift in US defense policy to emphasize war against "asymmetric" threats. Often this has meant small unit counter-insurgency, counter-terrorist operations. That kind of threat and its matching military/intelligence operation is closer to the street; even the political street. The more operations are preemptive, preventive and 'non-lethal' the more micro-controlling and politically invasive.
This has also meant tightening security nets against these elements not only at home, but surrounding developed infrastructures. This has had unintended consequences.
After asserting a certain level of control with arms, the counter-insurgency regime's temptation is to "affect" power shifts behind the scenes to reduce the bloodshed, as military commanders' have wheeled and dealt with sectarian power brokers in Iraq; distributing money; etc. It is gambling on human vessels who are fickle, afraid, greedy, aggressive and whatever else while holding on to implied coercion.
And this leads us back to the religious or cultural approaches to human governance which assume that getting mass style agreement or substantive religious devotion to a particular order will package desires (demand) for freedom in a way that makes it possible for those running the nation state to run it more peacefully. It is the changing of hearts and minds approach that would bring them to a certain uniformity first.
Government classes all over continually recall the basic truth that sane people don't want anarchy. That parameter begs a frontier question: what makes us anarchic when individually free?
June 27, 2009 10:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the more a society or regime claims to respect individual autonomy or liberty, the more there has to be a pretty deep consensus about what the common bonds and rules of the road will be. Liberalism depends on virtues and beliefs which the liberal state itself can't really nourish or enforce or defend, precisely because, being "liberal" in the classical and "free market" sense, it isn't supposed to intrude too much on individual freedom.
But that leaves the liberal state incapable of drawing distinctions between bold free spirits (say, entrepreneurs) and parasitical free riders (say, finance capitalists, derivative traders, ec.) No wonder John D. Rockefeller was such a strict, religious Calvinist; the price of freedom is self-discipline, which can be sustained only by some deep faith.
The worst thing, from a liberal point of view, is when the state itself tries to inculcate that faith, thereby corrupting it. It's an unending dilemma or paradox. How do you sustain an expectation of deep faith (without which people can't trust one another to do the right thing) without imposing doctrine? We Americans are always about to lose our balance on this, but we have always seemed to recapture it.
June 27, 2009 10:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
. . . self-discipline . . . can be sustained only by some deep faith.
Not so! Societal opprobrium is more than adequate -- not to mention the loss of future advantage if malefactors are given to understand that others will no longer do business with them.
The problem is that the society that counts doesn't consider "finance capitalists, derivative traders, etc." to be subjects of obloquy -- currently. A few of these scoundrels carted off to jail and that view might change.
June 27, 2009 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, in a society without a Bedford-Falls-like good faith in it, there is not much power behind the outrage at the exploitation of that good faith, but some level of tabloid admiration for the scofflaws who interrupted the boredom plus got their book deal after therapy as their most severe term of probation. In Pottersville, isn't that the baseline?
June 28, 2009 12:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
In powers, the office of President of the Islamic Republic is about equivalent to the Governor of Texas. So ---
Why would the mullahs care who is elected to that office? (See, the experience of the late and less than great Mohammad Khatami)
We should, it seems to me, see this recent foofaraw as a socioreligious problem rather than a political one. The threat is Western culture no matter whence it comes. And it has arrived. Witness: Iran's urban Westernizing youth who have, for the time being, hitched their wagon (their energy and enthusiasm) to the only anti-mullah symbol available -- the Moussavi campaign.
Moussavi is no threat; the generation of urban youth is. The utopists' communitarian dream is fading.
Quaere. How ya gonna keep 'em down on the farm after they've got a satellite dish?
June 27, 2009 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Frontline World had an excellent report this week on the "youth bomb" in Egypt and the challenges the Mubarek dictatorship (Obama's force for stability) faces in creating jobs. Ditto applies for Iran.
We flatter ourselves when we think people are motivated by "freedom." It is pretty hard to overthrow a regime with a growing economy and full employment.
When the Shah lost the merchants, he lost the country.
June 27, 2009 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran isn't Afghanistan. Iranians revere higher education and it's pretty hard to maintain rigid theocratic control if the population has been educated in critical thinking.
Now, too bad the US doesn't seem to value higher education.
June 27, 2009 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
word
June 27, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink