The reactions of Islamic Republic of Iran to the Arab Uprising

This discussion has three parts: First an introduction, covering the uprising in the Islamic republic of Iran; then, the narratives and reactions of the Islamic regime to the Arab Uprisings, and finally a conclusion which covers the theoretical significance of the regional uprising.

I. The 2009 uprising in Iran:

Iran is not an Arab country, however, its citizens, like the other Middle Eastern and North African people, have suffered from the authoritarian and tyrannical regimes for centuries. The 1979 Iranian uprising against the Pahlavi dynasty ended to the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The first supreme leader of the Republic, Ayatollah Khomeini died in June 1989 and his successor, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ruled the nation for more than 20 years without major challenges until the 2009 disputed presidential election which caused a new uprising, later called “Green Movement.”

During the 2009 presidential election, several debates arranged between the presidential candidates, including Ahmadinejad and two reformists--Mousavi and Karrobi. The debates were agitating, causing huge voters’ turnout, especially among the “new generation” who were seeking for a peaceful socio-political transformation. The turnout rate was 84.77% (International IDEA). The regime officially announced Ahmadinejad as the winner for the second term.

Because of many reported frauds, the reformists, leading by Mousavi and Karrobi (two losing candidates), forcefully challenged the election result. The supreme leader, who supposed to be neutral in this type of disputes, defended the election results as valid, and in his Friday prayer sermon admitted his preference for Ahmadinejad's views, especially his anti-West and anti-Israel positions while supporting “Hezbollah” in Lebanon and Palestinian Hamas.

The uprising started. The street protests were large, crowds so enthusiastic, and the opposition so steady that it seemed as if Iran were on the brink of a new revolution. It was mainly arranged through internet, cell phones, face-book, and Twitter. It was peaceful while the protesters chanting “where is my vote.” No chanting against the West, or against the United States, or even against Israel. When the regime started to crackdown the uprising, for the first time the protestors directly chanted against the supreme leader, including his position on the Middle East, by chanting: “not Gaza, not Lebanon, we will die only for Iran.”

While the regime cracked down the uprising by arresting thousands of protesters, torturing and executing hundreds of them, and calling the activists “proxy of foreign foes,” the uprising moved to underground but still alive. Some Middle Eastern experts agree [recently, William Haig, the foreign minister of UK] that the Iranian Green Movement did inspired the Arab Uprisings and their success, in turn, is a big morale boost for the Iranian democracy-seekers (The Economist, Feb. 2011). Knowing this situation, the Islamic Regime is extremely sensitive to the Arab Uprisings, since they can reinvigorate the opposition and revive the uprising. To deal with the problem, the regime has fabricated several narratives to explain the Arab Uprisings mostly for domestic consumption.

II. Reactions to the Arab Uprisings (Excluding Syria):

The Islamic Regime welcomed the Arab Uprisings, NOT because they were pro-democracy and anti-dictatorship. Mainly because, the Regime did NOT have close relationships with Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, or Bahrain. Given the anti-Western and particularly anti-American narratives of the Islamic Republic, the regime has characterized the Arab uprising as an “Islamic Awakening” inspired by the 1979 Iranian Revolution. They have aggressively downplayed any resemblance of the Arab Uprisings to the Iranian Green Movement.

The activists were called “Muslim Masses” who are religiously motivated. Their goals are to overthrow the pro-Western regimes of these countries and replace them with anti-Western Islamic regimes similar to that in Iran. 1

The West and particularly the United States is desperately trying to derail these uprising from their "revolutionary objectives." The media have frequently reported statements from to the Western leaders, acknowledging that the Arab Uprisings are influenced by the 1979 Iranian revolution and reflecting the Western fear of Iranian influence in the Arab world.

Reactions to Syrian uprising:

Unlike the other Arab nations, Syria has been the only regional strong ally of Islamic Republic since the 1979 Revolution and during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. Since then, Iran has provided generous financial supports to Syria. Meanwhile, Syria has been Iran's main platform from which the Islamic Regime has been able to influence the Arab-Israeli conflicts, setting up Hezbollah in Lebanon, and supporting Palestinian Hamas in Gaza. 2

Therefore, the uprising in Syria has created a serious stumbling block for Iranian leaders. Because, the Syrian uprising challenged the Regime’s narratives that the Arab Uprisings have been “Islamic Awakening” and “anti-Western.”

The regime has solved this dilemma simply by not reporting any of the events in Syria during March and early April. In contrast to the Syrian uprising, there was continuous media coverage about the suppression of Bahraini Shiites by the Bahraini’s Sunni regime, backed by Saudi Arabia. There have been almost daily "fatwa" by Iranian religious leaders who condemned the Saudi leaders as "infidels" for their crimes in Bahrain. 3

Uprising as the enemy of Islam: The momentum of events was so great that the Islamic Regime had to break their silence, fabricating some narratives for domestic consumption. The media started reporting the Syrian government position and blaming the unrest on the “enemy of Islam,” The interesting point was that the Islamic Regime, in all the narratives, resembled the Syrian uprising to the Iranian Green Movement while the other Arab Uprisings to the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Protesters as terrorists and agitators: Unlike the characterization of the protestors in other Arab nations as “Muslim Masses” the Regime has portrayed the Syrian pro-democracy demonstrators – as "agitators" and "terrorists" hired by Israel to create disturbance and insecurity.4

Most recently, during the last 2-3 weeks, the tone of narratives has been changing and getting more conciliatory, e.g., the Islamic regime asked the Arab League to mediate between the Assad’s Regime and the Syrian protesters. Or, reported in New York Times (Sept. 8, 2011). Ahmadinejad unexpectedly, called “President Assad to end his violent crackdown of the uprising challenging his authoritarian rule in Syria.”

Neither the Iranian Media nor the officials have mentioned anything on the democratic nature of the Arab Uprising. Nor any mention of the other aspirations of the Arab people such as freedom of the press, official accountability, free elections, or economic justice. These were completely absent in official Iranian coverage. Instead, the Islamic Regime has fabricated its own narratives basically for restoring the regime’s legitimacy, lost during the green movement. Christian Science Monitor (June 2011) reported this: “the movement has achieved its goal by gaining high moral ground, revealing the true face of the Islamic regime, and draining away much of its political legitimacy.”5

III. Theoretical significance to the uprisings:

The driving forces in the regional uprisings, including Iran, have been new generation. The definition of generation in sociology is more complex than in demography. Karl Mannheim, German sociologist, identifies a “generation” with “shared or common experience” of people on major political, social, and cultural issues. Of course, this definition overlaps with the “demographic definition.” When Thomas Freedman, came back from Iran in June 2002, said this: Iran has a bomb, not a nuclear bomb, but new generational bomb, a bomb that is moving toward an explosion. He added that Internet and satellite have created common experiences and expectations among these people.

The Common experiences and expectations, called generational identity, have been displayed in most of the banners, chanting, interviews, and reports. Exposed to the Western culture, new generations seeking for democracy, freedom, and their citizen rights, reflecting their new cultural identity. Unlike my generation, they are NOT idealists, asking for a utopian society. They are more pragmatic, asking for socio-political changes that directly affect their daily life.
Some social scientists call the Regional Uprisings as “the fourth wave of democratic movements,” started after the collapse of Soviet Unions in the Eastern Europe, South Asia, and Latin American. For example, Haamed Abdossamad (an Egyptian-born journalist in Germany) follows this idea and adds in his recent book End of Islamic World: “Young generation in the Islamic world attempts to save themselves form trapping in this cultural fundamentalist framework.”

“Clash of Civilization” and the Arab and Regional Uprisings. The uprisings in the region compel social scientists to revise Huntington’s famous theory, “clash of Civilization (2002). According to “Clash of Civilization,” the fundamental source of conflict in the post Cold-War era would not be primarily economic or ideological but cultural, between different civilizations. Since, “people of different civilizations have different views on their social relationships, for example, between citizen and state, parents and child, husband and wife, as well as different views of rights and responsibilities, liberty and authority, equality and hierarchy.” These differences are the products of centuries; they will not soon disappear. He adds, now international conflicts are “between the West and non-Western civilizations, including the “Islamic civilization which has been a seesaw for 1,300 years.”

Bernard Lewis, following the “Clash of Civilization,” has also attempted to explain the roots of Muslim rage against the Western civilization in three stages (1990). The Muslims have suffered from three successive stages of defeat. The first was their loss of domination in the world, to the advancing power of the West. The second was the undermining of Muslims’ authority in their own country, through an invasion of foreign ideas and ways of life. The third was the challenge to their mastery in their own house, from “emancipated women to rebellious children.” It was too much to endure, and the outbreak of rage against these alien and infidel forces was inevitable. Therefore, the rage has directed against the West, including the United States, such as Sep 11, 2001.

The recent regional uprisings do not support “the clash of civilizations” between West and Non-West. First, the theory underestimates the diversity within Muslims, especially generational gaps while overestimating the role of Muslim fundamentalism. Second, the theory does not incorporate the role “cultural globalization.” Having access to internet, Satellite, and other technology, and thereby to new cultural resources, the new generation no longer consider the state and religious positions as “divine” or “holy;” rather, asking for their accountability. In sociological words, new technology has facilitated “long-distance acculturation,” and created tremendous opportunities for the new generation to internalize “the citizenship culture developed in the West.” Consequently, as Haamed Abdossamad says in his book “both the state and religious authorities are losing their authority and legitimacy.”

Therefore, “Clash of Civilizations” is happening, but NOT between “West” and “Non-West,” rather between two generations within the Islamic Nations. Between the traditional authorities who are still abiding to their old culture which is the basis and justifier of their authority and the new generation who have been “acculturated” to a new values and new social relationships.

Finally, Huntington adds that in ideological conflicts, the key question was: “Which side were you on? And people could choose and change the sides. In conflicts between civilizations, the question is: What are you? That cannot be easily changed. The answer for Huntington’s questionis very simple. The new generations in the region are saying we are “human beings” and like the other human beings, we are asking for our human and civilian rights.

Of course, I am not ignoring the role inequality and economic injustice in these uprisings. But, we have learned this from the collapse of the Soviet Union, that the best way to fight against corruptions and achieve economic justice is not through authoritarian regimes; rather, by establishing a democratic system which makes the government accountable.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, told the crowd at his Friday prayer sermon in February. "Today's events in the north of Africa, Egypt, Tunisia and certain other countries have another sense for the Iranian nation. They have special meaning. This is the same Islamic awakening which resulted in the victory of the big revolution of Iran, against the "arrogant powers" of the West, especially the United States and Israel.
For example, the government has sold four million barrels of oil each year significantly lower that the international market prices along with one million barrels free. Syria has obligation to pay Iran five billion dollar for this trade.” (Ali Bigdeli, BBC 8/03/2011).
In the first day of holy month of Ramadan, the Media covered the demonstration in Morocco on their front pages while ignoring the same day’s uprising in Syria which was one of the bloodiest day in Syria and more than 140 people were killed. When the spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry was asked about the uprising, he replied it is their "internal affair.”
The Iranian state media reported a broadcast of "confessions" of "Syrian agitators”. The Islamic Regime quoted from Syrian state news agency, that arrested people confessed that the group “travelled a while ago to Israel and have been paid to send photos and videos taken from the unrest in Syria to foreigners," (Guardian UK: April 18, 2011).
For example, Ayatollah Khamenei, in his February 4, 2010 sermon, delivered partly in Arabic and widely publicized by Iran's state-run Arabic-language channels that target audiences in the Arab World, called Hosni Mubarak a "tyrant" and "a Western and Zionist lackey." When the Iranian pro-democracy activists started staging demonstrations to support the anti-Mubarak demonstrators in Egypt, the regime not only crashed them but also blocked their websites and placed their leader under house arrest.
More than one billion of young and educated Muslims in the Islamic world are realizing that their culture is unable to answer their citizenship rights, dignity, and individuality.