Wow, what an eventful last week and a half it’s been!
In both good ways and bad, as I’m sure you’ve already noticed. Whether it’s been NASA launching it’s first robotic probes to The Moon in over a decade or North Korea thumping its chest as a regime change seems imminent, there’s definitely been enough to keep the media busy. But no story over the last week has been more captivating then the social fallout from the Iranian election. As many already know (or may not know), the social turmoil that has gripped the country over the past few days was sparked when the incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad declared he had won re-election with 63% of the vote. Calling bull, the supporters of the opposition candidate, Mirhossein Mousavi, took the streets in protest. At first in marches, and in more recent days, near or complete riots.
In resposnse, perhaps embarassament that they had lost control of a significant percentage of the citizenry, Iran has initiated a media blackout to all foreign media outlets, making it increasingly difficult to know what exactly is going on. Efforts to block the Internet have been met with futility as websites like Facebook, Twitter, and YoutTube have been used extensively to mobilize and organize opposition movements and have allowed people to spread news of what is happening by a virtual word of mouth. What’s been remarkable is that there is still enough information flowing out of Iran through these outlets alone that mainstream media outlets around the world have been able to report on the crisis in Iran nonstop for the last several days.
One of the more shocking developments to come out tonight was a video submitted by an iReporter on CNN that depicted what appeared to be police raids in Tehran. Eerily reminescent of Krystalnacht, a raid ordered by Hitler and carried out by the S.S. to capture Jews throughout Berlin before World War Two, the video shows only the flashing lights of cars as their alarms are blaring from the gunshots erupting from the raids. Screams can be heard peircing through the night as nothing short of chaos ensues.
Given the political climate in Iran, whether spurred into action out of a dislike of their own government, very conservative in nature, or influenced by more liberal foreign policies by the United States, such as President Obama’s willingness to sit down and talk with Iran, or even seeing a burgeoning democracy next door in Iraq… whatever the reasons, we could be witnessing the beginning of a period of civil unrest in Iran, not unlike the Revolution in 1979. It could in fact be another revolution, but it is hard to tell at this point.
Only time will tell, but I think that President Obama is making the right move by not getting directly involved. If he did, it would be going against the reason for voting for him, which was under the assumption he wouldn’t drag the United States into the internal affairs of another country. From what I’ve been reading, most western democracies, including the U.S., support the opposition movement in Iran. That I keep hearing conservative pundits (or gas bags as they appear on Fox News) ridicule Obama for not taking action on the matter is disconcerting.
There are really three historical precedents for the unrest we are witnessing right now and why the U.S. should stay out of it. The first would, obviously, be the 1979 Revolution, of which Ahmadinejad played a role. That revolution resulted in the attack on and capture of Americans a the embassy in Tehran, a standoff that would last for 444 days. This was the incident that precipitated the current diplomatic position the United States and Iran have been in for the last 30 years, which until just recently included zero diplomatic contact whatsoever.
The other historical precedent is the 1991 intifada in Iraq. Staged shortly after the end of the Gulf War, they were led by Shia Muslims who were under the impression that the Hussein regime was weak and anti-government prostests were staged. The United States also played a role in encouraging the protests and the view among the Iraqis was that the U.S. would aid in any attempts to overthrow the government. The United States didn’t help and tens of thousands of Iraqis died as the government cracked down on the uprisings. While the U.S. can’t be blamed in full for what happened because there was, in reality, little the U.S. could do to aid in the uprising.
The final precedent is the Bay of Pigs Invasion. Need I say more?
The truth is, in modern times at least, the U.S. has not had hardly any luck in helping anti-government uprisings without someone getting upset, usually the locals. That’s the reason there’s an insurgency in Iraq and interfering in a potential revolution that has already been started by the people of Iran would be foolish on our part. Let them handle it. Many in Iran look up to the United States (in fact so much that the people of Iran actually favor the U.S. more than any other Middle Eastern nation), but lets not take advantage of that good will and bring them into our sphere of influence.
If all else fails, as the violence and civil unrest settle and the electoral crisis resolves itself, for better or worse, Iran will have been shaken to its core and it will have become apparent to its president and supreme leaders that they must change their ways or risk further uprising from the citizenry. Change is inevitable, and I would wager that it is going to work in the favor of everyone, from the average Iranian to Israel to Europe to the U.S.
Things are changing in Iran, and as one Twitterer put it, “On 9/11, we were all Americans. Tonight, we are all Iranians.” May Democracy live on and my thoughts and prayers are with every Iranian protesting against Ahmadinejad, and really, the supreme leader. It’s time for change.
