Iranian Protests: Third Time’s the Charm?
As protests against the Iranian regime escalate yet again, will the US stand against the totalitarian theocrats in Tehran or continue to appease them?
For the third time in just over a decade, the Iranian people are bravely protesting against their dictatorial regime and the indignities it forces upon them. In June 2009, the Green Movement erupted in Tehran after a widely disputed election returned the regime-approved favorite Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. The next day, hundreds of thousands of people took to the streets to register their dissent and contest the (likely bogus) election results; the protestors were angry about the state of the economy, the regime’s costly foreign adventurism, and the clear disregard for the will of the people. Students, middle-class workers, and young people drove the movement, which lasted through the end of 2009. In news that wouldn’t shock anyone, the protests were brutally repressed, with thousands of arrests, hundreds of killings, and televised show trials reminiscent of the Stalin era.
Ten years later, anti-regime protests broke out again, this time triggered by an “abrupt increase of at least 50 percent in gasoline prices.” The protestors were mainly lower-class young men who were frustrated by high unemployment and lack of economic opportunity, some of which was exacerbated by American sanctions on the country due to its nuclear program and support of terrorism. Using the 2009 playbook, in which protests were coordinated and anti-regime anger spread via the Internet, the 2019 movement proliferated rapidly across the country in just a few days. Demonstrations erupted in 29 of Iran’s 31 provinces, showing significant cracks in the Islamic regime’s traditional power base. Still, these protests were put down as harshly as were those in 2009; the government cracked down hard on demonstrators, using lethal force and detaining thousands. In just 4 days in November 2019, the regime killed 321 civilians in its forceful response to the anti-government sentiment.
Now, just a few years later, massive anti-regime protests have once again arisen in Iran. As in 2009 and 2019, they have spread like wildfire, with sizeable demonstrations cropping up across the country. But will they end in the same way, with the regime still empowered after crushing a nascent democratic movement? Or will this time be different? Much of the answer relies on the specific nature of these protests, as well as the Western (read: American) response.
This round of protests, by some estimations the biggest since the 1979 Revolution, was sparked by the death in police custody of a 22-year-old woman, Mahsa Amini, who was arrested by Iran’s ‘morality police’ for the ‘crime’ of “inappropriate hijab.” The authorities claim she died of a heart attack, but her family disputes this and says she was in good health before her arrest. The hijab law, in effect since 1981, is widely unpopular and is viewed by many Iranians as an unwelcome reminder of the totalitarian theocracy they find themselves living under. The death ignited a powder keg of anti-regime sentiment, bolstered by the poor economy, rising inflation, systemic corruption, a lack of freedom, and wasteful foreign interventionism. The protests have expanded quickly throughout the country (see map above), from Tehran to the outlying regions of Iran, where ethnic minorities seem especially fed up with the government.
Still, the inciting event – Ms. Amini’s likely killing at the hands of Iranian police – has lent a different character to these demonstrations: a profoundly female one. Many of the current protests are being led by women who are the most at risk from the oppressive policies of the theocratic regime. They are perhaps the most repressed group in Iranian society, with prohibitions on their dress, actions, and basic human rights. Yet tens of thousands of these women are braving the brutality of their own government to express their hatred of that very regime. And the brutality is already evident; dozens have been killed in the government response, and more is coming, as Iran’s leader Ebrahim Raisi has promised to “deal decisively” with the unrest. The videos coming out of Iran have been incredible to see, including some which show demonstrators fighting off armed regime thugs and forcing them back. The ones below are representative of the scope of the movement, one which is clearly a serious threat to the theocratic regime.
The scenes in Iran are astonishing. How far will these protests go?
pic.twitter.com/AJeHB0yyYB— Frida Ghitis (@FridaGhitis) September 20, 2022
The biggest picture of Khamenei in Iran has now been burned #مهسا_امینی#MahsaAmini #IranProtests
— المصعبي🇸🇦🇦🇪🇸🇦🇦🇪🇸🇦🇸🇦🇸🇦 (@Piu2Ci) September 22, 2022
Obviously, we should be fully supporting the Iranian people in pushing their repressive government to respect the personal liberty we all possess as an innate right. So far, there has been some positive rhetoric from politicians and the administration, but this is not and has never been enough. Despite the significant shifts in Iran policy over the last three presidential administrations (Biden, Trump, Obama), one thing has been constant – the lack of real support for the courageous Iranians who stood up to their government. Each President has had the chance to clearly, consistently, and credibly stand with the Iranian people against their government, but none thus far has done so effectively. Obama failed to act in 2009, as he sought a major diplomatic reset in the Middle East, one which placed Iran in pole position as the biggest regional power. He placed his own misguided foreign policy goals over the basic rights of Iranians, something which seems to be echoing in the current administration. Although the Trump team often had better policy towards Iran – sanctions, pressure, ostracization – the man himself was the paragon of inconsistency and idiocy. As such, the United States was not seen as a credible backer of the Iranian people and any serious involvement on their behalf could be played for the regime’s benefit. All of these politicians on both sides of the aisle deserve approbation for their failures. But will the Biden administration change course? Two recent events suggest that is unfortunately unlikely.
The first concerning event with respect to how the Biden administration may approach the Iranian uprising came just this week, with the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) meeting in New York City. As you may know, I’m not exactly a huge fan of the United Nations, and UNGA is one of my least favorite events of the year. At this meeting of all the world’s nations, evil totalitarians are given the same respect and deference as are democratic leaders, and are allowed to address the world directly without interruption. That brings us to the events of this week, where Iran’s so-called President, Ebrahim Raisi, addressed the assembly. Raisi himself is an evil man and a serial human rights abuser, having been in charge of the torture and murder of thousands of dissidents in the 1980s. He is, as discovered during his softball interview with 60 Minutes (why the hell did they interview him?!), also a Holocaust denier, something he shares with the Ayatollah. His address itself was replete with whataboutism, false analogies, slanders on the regime’s enemies, and even a tribute to the late IRGC terrorist leader Qassem Soleimani, who now only exists as a smear on a Baghdad airport road thanks to the good old US of A.
Raisi’s speech was abhorrent, yet the American delegation did not walk out of the room, nor did President Biden cancel his later speech at the same podium. But all of that is beside the point. Why in the hell did we even allow Raisi into the country to gain such a prominent platform as the equal of the American president? The US has the whip hand in terms of the UN – it is on New York’s east side, after all – but we always seem far too reluctant to use it. We should never allow a dictator who hates us and is in the process of murdering his own people to enter the country, much less allow him to speak his lies at the UN. The Biden administration should have denied Raisi and other Iranian leaders who are directly involved in suppressing the current protests entry visas and forced them to either address the conference virtually or not at all. (Frankly, we should probably kick the UN out of Manhattan and the country entirely, but that’s an issue for another post.) The fact that we allowed this despicable address at all does not bode well for our response to these protests.
The other factor that is concerning to those who wish for the administration to boldly and fully support the Iranian protestors, is the Biden team’s intense desire to rebuild the 2015 Iran nuclear deal (also known as the JCPOA). I’ve written about their obsession with re-entering the deal before, but things have only escalated on the capitulation front since then. Over the past year and a half, the Biden administration has been singularly focused on appeasing Iran and getting it to rejoin the nuclear pact which was ended a few years back due to Iran’s noncompliance and the terrible terms of the deal. The negotiations have started and stopped several times over that period, but the US has seemed like the party desperate for a deal – any deal – while the Iranians have continued to make progress on building their nuclear weapons program. Now, Raisi and other Iranian leaders have baldly stated that they require “guarantees” from the US before any deal is made, which is a ridiculous request coming from a pariah state. Still, the Biden administration may be desperate enough to take them up on that offer.
Why are we still engaging in any sort of negotiations whatsoever with these totalitarian lunatics? Not only have they threatened the US and Israel with nuclear weapons – which is the clear purpose of their “peaceful” nuclear program – they have continued to fight against us and our friends abroad. The Iranian regime is one of the world’s most prolific sponsors of terrorism, and is working to train and equip Hezbollah operatives in the Western Hemisphere, a danger to the homeland and a direct slap in our face. Iran supports terrorists who fight against Israel both within and outside its borders, groups that have killed Americans in the past. Besides these actions promoting terrorist violence, Iran is also now supplying the Russian war effort in Ukraine with drones, ammunition, and other materiel. If the Biden team cares so much about the fate of the Ukrainian people in their existential fight against Russian invaders, he should stop dealing with one of Russia’s biggest boosters. The administration talks a big game about democracy and human rights, yet is currently trying to gift Iran – a government which is in the middle of a harsh crackdown on pro-democracy protestors – with a legal nuclear weapons program. In continuing on the path of appeasement in order to gain the fig leaf of a useless nuclear deal, we’re failing to confront a horrific dictatorship at a time of weakness. If the JCPOA negotiations are any guide, the Biden team’s response to these courageous protests will be spineless and weak.
Despite these negative indicators, the Biden administration may still be able to succeed where its predecessors have failed in supporting the Iranian people against their theocratic regime. What steps, besides strong rhetoric, would fit the bill?
First, the negotiations over the nuclear deal must end. We cannot in good conscience negotiate with a regime that is in the process of massacring its own people for the ‘crime’ of dissent, and we especially cannot allow that regime a nuclear weapon free and clear. Ending negotiations isn’t enough, however. We need to stop the Iranian program in its tracks. That means supporting the Israelis in their very successful campaign against Iran’s nuclear capacity, as well as working to sabotage it ourselves a la the Stuxnet virus.
Other than cutting off the nuclear negotiations, we must return to the successful Iran policy of the last administration – maximum pressure. We should level punishing sanctions on Iran’s leaders, economy, and industry; they should cement Iran as the international pariah it is and make trading with it immensely difficult. We should be using our covert and cyber operations skills to undermine the regime and its ability to repress Iranian civilians. Targeted assassinations, along the lines of the drone strike which killed Soleimani, should be on the table for any Iranian official who coordinates this oppression.
We must also work to aid the demonstrators themselves, by sharing their message widely in media and with our allies, as well as by engaging in more concrete measures. That includes using Starlink, Elon Musk’s space-based internet provider, to go around Iran’s internet shutdowns and allow dissidents to continue to access information and spread videos and testimonies from the protests. Starlink has worked wonders in Ukraine during its brave resistance against the Russian invader, and we should port that strategy over to Iran. We should be pushing for international observers to enter Iran and report on the civil rights abuses of the regime; even when those requests are denied (as they certainly will be), the denial itself works to indict the regime. Finally, we must offer asylum to the refugees who are being persecuted for exercising basic freedoms and are able to flee from the totalitarian horror in Iran. America has always been a beacon of hope for oppressed peoples, and we can put our money where our mouth is here by taking in those who seek refuge from the mullahs.
This may be an uphill battle given how deferential the Biden team has been to the Iranian regime, but it is worth the try. The bravery of the Iranian protestors deserves no less. We failed twice already, but maybe the third time’s the charm.
One of the tweets that I saw that struck me as interesting was a young woman explaining why she was willing to stand up to the regime. It was something to the effect of “there are so many things that you can do wrong, that you can never do right. You’re going to get in trouble anyway so get in trouble for standing up for yourself.”
And I’m sure that I didn’t get that 100% right, but that’s the core of what I saw.
The religious police over there are going to find out what police everywhere find out: use your authority poorly and you’d best start partnering up when you go out.Report
“You’re going to get in trouble anyway so get in trouble for standing up for yourself.”
like the man said, “what’s the penalty for not wearing the proper clothes? and what’s the penalty for revolution? Well…“Report
Sounds like a proverb I’ve heard ascribed to the Chinese.
Two peasants were sitting under a tree. The first asks the second “What is the penalty for being late?” the answer “Death”. Then the first asked “What is the penalty for revolting?” the answer, again, was “Death”. The first peasant then said “I have news for you comrade- we’re late.”Report
I believe it’s actually history. Chen Sheng was the guy who kicked off the first rebellion against the Qin Dynasty after running this exact calculus.Report
Why on Earth are Israel’s foreign policy concerns relevant to US decision-making? They have their own nuclear deterrent and ongoing soft war with Iran which is their prerogative but the idea that they’re some kind of victim that should weigh into our considerations is absurd. They’re the regional big dog and on the best of days an unreliable ally to the US that at all times puts its own interests first, not to mention is itself slowly deteriorating into just another country in the region in thrall to its own religious zealots.
Regarding the Iranian people I wish them well. I hope they can find a way to win, and put together a better government for themselves. However I can think of no better way to damage their prospects and legitimacy within Iran than the United States attempting to put its finger on the scales towards that outcome. We suck at it and no one in the ME finds us credible, for reasons that at this point I would think are completely understandable and obvious.Report
What’s more, the protestors themselves have been pretty up front about not wanting the U.S. to do anything for them.Report
Which is completely rational. If I’m a protester over there the worst thing that can happen for me and my cause is being cast as a proxy for the US.Report
This is always it, which is why complaints about American leaders not publicly supporting them is more about domestic political chest beating rather than interest in getting rid of the Mullahs.
Conflict with America strengthens the regime, they’re weakest when the issue is their own domestic failures. Making the protests seems like American proxies is bad for them and good for the regime. Therefore, a POTUS sticking is oar into the water is bad.Report
The OP, like so many in this country, is clearly incapable of viewing anything happening anywhere in the world except through a cloudy and propaganda-filtered American lens, and worse, with the extreme tunnel vision of American conservatism.Report
“As protests against the Iranian regime escalate yet again, will the US stand against the totalitarian theocrats in Tehran or continue to appease them?”
I mean, talk about a false dichotomy. This is the first thing written here and it entirely gives away the farm as to what perspective is (and what perspectives are not) represented here: one wherein America must be involved, must take a side, and there are only two sides to consider.Report
I find what unites Americans across the political spectrum is a belief that decisions made by Americans are vastly more important to the fate of the rest of the world than they actually are.
Quite a lot of this stuff isn’t about these little dramas going on in Washington. Also , ironically America is a lot more effective at exerting the power it does have when its more conscious of this.Report
I agree with this completely.Report
This. This fully and completely. Because our continued engagement with the secular government of Israel makes a mockery of this statement by the OP:
Report
I love it when neocon hawks come around and start thumping their chests about how what hasn’t worked in dozens of cases over the last 50 years will now work in Iran. To wit:
Because that worked so well before.
Because you have public, credible information that we aren’t doing this?
No. We don’t need to assassinate anyone – because in this case you are talking about dozens and dozens of people in Iran. That level of assassination campaign would make us on par with Russia, where anyone Putin dislikes presently is falling out of a hospital window.Report
That level of assassination campaign would make us on par with Russia, where anyone Putin dislikes presently is falling out of a hospital window.
Or worse! We’d be no different than the religious police who killed Mahsa Amini!Report
Also trueReport
No. It’s not.
There is a difference between pushing little old ladies into the path of a bus and pushing them out of the path of a bus.
And saying “you’re just pushing little old ladies around in each case!” ignores some seriously important facts.
There might be some very good reasons that we should not get involved. What it will do to lower our obvious moral standing is not among them.Report
“We should level punishing sanctions on Iran’s leaders, economy, and industry; they should cement Iran as the international pariah it is and make trading with it immensely difficult.”
Because that worked so well before.
Well, South Africa.Report
I was referring to all the post-1979 sanctions leveled against Iran, which have yet to produce regime change or any shift in the Iranians approach to governance.Report
You were referring to dozens of cases over the last 50 years. You specified then that these ideas were being applied now to Iran, implying that you were including or even exclusively discussing cases other than Iran.Report
The Iranian leaders have just enough support to be able to crack down on the protestors. My understanding is that they are popular in the rural areas and the rural areas are populated enough to keep them in power. You are going to need a total revolution to get rid of themReport
You’re just talking about Iran right? 😉Report
It may be applicable in multiple countries.Report
As ever, imagine if we discussed the Iranian protests, or Bishop Kiril, the way we discuss the DeSantis regime or The Christian Nationalists, or vice versa.
What might an argument in defense of the Muslim theocracy sound like? Would it sound familiar, and hit many of the same notes as ones we see everyday here?
Is there a Persian Liz Bruenig, or a professor from Tehran equivalent to Adrian Vermeule?Report
I imagine that comparing the protests to the government would be comparing apples and oranges.
Have there been any major street protests in the US in the last couple of years that we could look at?Report
Are any of your or my comments about the George Floyd protests applicable here?Report
Sure.
Are any of yours?Report
Probably all of them.
Which is my point, that we often view others countries in stark simple terms, overlooking that they are just as morally complex as our own.
Like I’ve said many times, we like to imagine “if I were in Berlin in 1933, why, by golly, I would boldly stand up for what’s right!” forgetting that “what’s right” is always shrouded in controversy and ambiguity.
In case anyone thinks I’m making the case for relativism, it’s exactly the opposite.
That we shouldn’t let the smoke and chaff of current affairs blind us to what is right.Report
Does this lead us to arguing that we haven’t seen any evidence that morality police unions have more violence than morality police that don’t have them?
Does this lead us to arguing that the morality police need to be reformed?
Where does this lead us in the current year?
I mean, for my part, my sympathies are with the people protesting rather than with the morality cops.
And that’s without getting into issues involving property damage. (All of the violence that has made it into twitter is violence against the morality police who were stupid enough to get separated from their brethren rather than showing protesters breaking windows.)Report
What makes you think we’re arguing?Report
The whole issue of the applicability of comments about the George Floyd protests.Report
You seem to be arguing that we should judge other countries before we understand them. Like your recent comments about Italian politics. Or actually, maybe your argument is that we should take less time to understand our own country before judging it.Report
Statistically speaking there has to be an Iranian equivalent of Liz Bruening or Adrian Vermeule. One of the defenses of religious modesty clothing I’ve seen from a kind of feminist prospective is that it prevents women from having to be sexy and please men. It deflects the male gaze, etc. I don’t think this is entirely correct because you can usually tell who has a good figure underneath and during the High Pandemic, I saw masks as kind of an intriguing for the imagination.Report
I’m happy to see that the unalloyed neocon viewpoints are being represented here for the purpose of giving everyone a voice in the conversation- no matter how laughably wrong a given voice may be.
Taking the over all post as it is, a neocon tract, I’ll grant I’ve read far worse. I can’t help but call out the section on the JCPOA for its mendacious misrepresentations. No, Mike, the JCPOA was working, as intended and negotiated, to verifiably prevent Iran from advancing towards a nuclear weapon. Iran was, by and large, complying with its obligations within the JCPOA and Trump then idiotically and unilaterally walked away from the deal reneging on it and brutally spiking America’s international reputation. As a result of Trumps actions Iran is closer to a nuclear weapon than ever while Trumps “Maximum pressure” policy, which you describe as successful, has so far failed to cause regime change or curtail Irans adventurism in its neighborhood. So, we traded Iran’s being kept concretely away from a nuclear weapon for… nothing except a blot on America’s reputation. Successful indeed.
As for your policy prescriptions, they seem on part with the quality of your analysis. No doubt if Iran demonstrates that is has developed a usable nuclear weapon, you’ll pen a post here admitting that Trump, and you, were wrong to walk away from the JCPOA and dumped a terrible solution into Bidens lap. No doubt you’ll write such an article from your chalet on Mare Crisium after you flap your arms and fly to the moon. Likewise, I have no doubt the US has the capacity to execute assassinations, drone strikes and other meddling in Iran without undermining anti-regime demonstrators. Maybe the drones and spooks will even be greeted as liberators!Report
“Why has our extra-judicial killing of several leaders, effectively an act of war, not inspired the people to remove the rest of them from power? It makes no sense!”Report
“Sure our drone attacks took down some wives and children with the main targets and one of our targets turned out to be a janitor but in the former case they knew what they were signing up for when they chose to be married to/born to Islamic tyrants and in the latter case, well you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.”Report
Havana, Cuba 25 Nov 2027:
Today an administration spokesman announced that it has successfully eliminated several terrorist leaders in a drone strike in the remote ungovernable tribal lands of the Florida Panhandle.
A video was released showing a drone cam flying into a Dodge Ram pickup with a Confederate flag and adorned various talismans, what are locally called “truck nutz”, driven by a senior radical cleric named Reverend “Buck” Monroe of the Yee Haw Light of Jeebus congregation.
The action was taken after repeated failures by the DeSantis regime to control bombings and attacks on abortion centers and children’s hospitals offering supportive care for trans youth. After the 2022 liberalization of Cuban abortion and LGBTQ laws, many desperate American women and transmen and transwomen have been making risky boat voyages to Cuba seeking freedom. But many of these refugees have been attacked and vilified by radical religious extremists such as the YeeHaw Jeebus adherents.
“We can no longer stand by while terrorists launch attacks on innocent civilians who are seeking freedom”, the administration declared.Report
This hypothetical scenario is funny, but Iran is literally doing what OP called for today: they launched a bunch of missiles and drones to attack Kurdish targets in Northern Iraq, targeting individuals/groups/locations that Iran has labeled terrorists, and we have condemned the attacks as a dangerous threat to innocent lives and the stability of the region, as I’m sure the OP would as well.Report
No government on this earth has either the power or the moral authority to base its foreign policy on the general redress of wrongs. It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyway, that the current regime in Iran is awful. And if the Iranians get rid of it — and manage not to replace it with something worse in the process — we should all cheer. But our practical ability to bring about this happy state of affairs is extremely limited. We have hit Iran with punitive sanctions consistently since the late 20th century and gotten — well, what? If anyone wants to go to war with Iran because it’s awful, have the stones to say so — and see how willing the American people are to sacrifice American blood and treasure to solve the internal problems in Iran. As for other measures, I’m reminded of an embattled governor who told one of his supporters: “I’ll come into your district and campaign for you or against you. Whichever you think would help.” Any reform movement in Iran that even smells as if America is behind it will fail for just that reason.
Operating on the world stage means you often have to do business with a**holes. But you don’t have to sleep with them. The nuclear negotiation with Iran is doing business with a**holes, not sleeping with them. We’re not doing it to be nice to Iran; we’re doing it because it is in our interest. And it is even more in our interest the worse the Iranian regime is. Stopping the negotiations would be cutting off our nose to spite our face. And we wouldn’t have to be negotiating at all if TFG hadn’t s**t-canned a working deal.Report
Keystone XL wasn’t even finished, much less working. The original Keystone is still up and running.
Facts actually matter.Report