Iranian Politics - Coursework Example

IRANIAN POLITICS The Islamic Republic of Iran has been characterised by intransigence for more than thirty years. Accordingly, this Middle Eastern country with a population of more than 70 million people, has been a theocratic Islamic Republic since Ayatollah Khomeini’s revolution in 1979. Heavily influenced by the Shi’a faith and the teachings of Khomeini, the Islamic Republic has consistently refused to bow down to foreign pressure, in either the domestic or foreign policy realms. While Iran is a regional power with a large economy, military and extensive regional influence, it remains a pariah state to some and a country to emulate for others. Accordingly, Iran’s total intransigence to world opinion since the fall of the Shah in 1979 has been a feature of the domestic and foreign policy of the present regime for more than thirty years. Significantly, the recent controversial election in June 2009 in which incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad beat the independent, reformist Mir Hossein Mousavi, remains mired in controversy. While some argue that the election was stolen from Mr. Mousavi, this recent event is just another addition to the long list Iranian intransigence in the face of world opinion since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979. Aiming to explore the trajectory of Iranian intransigence, up to and including the Presidential election of June 2009, the following aims to provide a thorough and concise overview of a fascinating subject. We begin now with an introduction to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the framework for Iranian intransigence. Following this, we explore Iranian intransigence in the domestic and foreign policy realms and look at how Iranian political behavior has followed a clear trajectory over the past thirty years (Zubaida 44-67). Introduction It is impossible to discuss Iran without mentioning Islam and the important role that Islam plays in our society, particularly since 1979. The revolution of 1979 enshrined an Islamic constitution and the establishment of the first modern theocracy in the world. Governed by Islamic principles and the teachings of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, Islam governs all aspects of modern Iranian society. Socially, politically and economically, Iran boasts a society which has embraced Islam as the guiding force for society. The legal system is Islamic, the social code enforces strict adherence to Islamic dress and behavior and the economy blends Islam and market economics. After overthrowing the Shah in 1979, a group of clerics, headed by the Ayatollah Khomeini established a theocratic Islamic Republic which thumbed its nose at world opinion and at the Western world in particular (Zubaida 44-67; Bloom 3-13). Iranian Intransigence: Domestic Policy Iran’s revolution was heralded by leftists around the globe as the autocratic Shah was unseated from the comforts of the Peacock throne in 1979. Despite this early enthusiasm however, the new regime quickly instituted policies which we surprising for some within the leftist political realm. Accordingly, the chador – previously banned by the Shah – was implemented as compulsory attire for women in Iran and a variety of autocratic measures were implemented by the newly anointed leaders of the regime. The ascendency of Ayatollah Khomeini led to the most dramatic event in the early days of the Revolution, the American hostage crisis. Signifying a total break with the Shah’s past relationship with the West, the American hostage crisis lasted for 444 days and culminated in the enhancement of the theocratic elements of the revolutionary regime. More recently however, domestic events within Iran demonstrate this country’s clear trajectory of intransigence in the face of world opinion (Zubaida 44-67). The recent Presidential election in June 2009 pitted President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against the independent, reformist leader Mir Hossein Mousavi and remains one of the most controversial events in Iranian politics over the last thirty years. This event remains mired in controversy as President Ahmadinejad was declared the winner with a 62% electoral victory. Significantly, this victory was contested by the reformist camp which doubted the authenticity of the results, arguing that in fact the election had been stolen. Importantly, the belief that the election had been stolen in favor of the incumbent lend to a series of high-profile protests within Iran. What is important is that the protests in Iran were largest anti0regime protests since the days of the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and represented the most severe threat to the stability of the theocratic Republic. Cracking down against the protesters, Ayatollah Khamenei, the Supreme Leader and Guardian of the Revolution, the Iranian state engaged in widespread violence against the protesters and has engaged in censorship of the opposition media (BBC, 2009). According to the well-respected British Broadcasting Corporation, Tens of thousands of opposition supporters clashed with the security forces and members of pro-government militia on Quds (Jerusalem) Day in September, the 30th anniversary of the storming of the US embassy in Tehran in November, and on National Students Day at the start of December…The Green Movement says more than 70 of its supporters have been killed since June, a figure the authorities dispute. At least five people have been sentenced to death, and dozens imprisoned (BBC, 2009). While actual numbers of casualties are disputed, the Iranian regime in Tehran has again demonstrated its political intransigence to both the domestic public as well as to the wider world. Significantly, this intransigence expresses itself through the organs of a state which is bent on maintaining political control despite significant challenges to its legitimacy. As the world media reports, with tens of thousands of protesters on the streets of Iran this event represents the largest and most sustained challenge to the legitimacy of the Islamic regime in Iran. Despite significant domestic opposition however, Ayatollah Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continue to ignore domestic public opinion in Iran. How has Iranian intransigence expressed itself from a foreign policy standpoint? Iranian Intransigence: Foreign Policy Prior to his alleged theft of the June 2009 election, Iran’s controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad led the charge towards the acquisition of nuclear weaponry and has been inciting the international public for years. His outlandish claims that the Holocaust never existed, that Iran will “wipe Israel off the map”, and his overt support for Hezbollah in Lebanon make Iran an international problem. Accordingly, his nuclear ambitions to arm the theocratic republic of Iran may in fact allow him to bring his threats to fruition. The theocratic Islamic republic continues to ignore international condemnation with respect to its nuclear ambitions and it has become widely apparent that sanctions – be they United Nations or bilateral sanctions such as those presently implemented by the United States – have not worked. Iran has faced a plethora of international sanctions in relation to its continued desire to enrich uranium following Iran’s decision to ignore Security Council Resolution 1696, which expressly forbade Iran from ceasing its uranium enrichment program. This was followed by ignore Security Council Resolution 1737 which froze the assets of key individuals and companies involved in the enrichment program as well as limited the availability of nuclear-scale material to this country. Sanctions were increased in March of 2007 with Security Council Resolution 1747 and again with Resolution 1803 which expressly forbade Iran from continuing its enrichment process. Iran has consistently ignored the international community and remains committed to developing nuclear technology (BBC 2009). Iran’s nuclear ambitions will have both regional as well as global repercussions. From a regional perspective, Israel will most likely be impacted by a nuclear Iran. Despite this, the United States is the world’s hegemon and a country with a complex relationship with Iran, especially in the post-Revolution period of 1979 and beyond. A nuclear Iran is a threat to the global community but represents a dire and existential threat to the Jewish state of Israel. According to some analysts, an Israeli attack of Iran is imminent. Accordingly, John Keegan of the London Telegraph (2006) reports Israel is exacerbated with Iran’s declared financial and operational support for Hezbollah and will bear arms in order to end Iran’s support of the Islamic terrorist organization Hezbollah. The Hebrew daily Haaretz reports (2008), the Iranian regime is ready to counterattack if Israel were to strike the first blow. Accordingly, “if the Zionist regime attacks Iran, we will surely strike its nuclear facilities with our missile capabilities," Mohammad Ali Jafari, Guards commander-in-chief, said to Irans Arabic language al-Alam television. Despite threats, it appears as though Iran is willing to make strong verbal pronouncements but able to act to match its rhetoric. From denying the Holocaust, to supporting Hezbollah, ignoring UN Security Council Resolutions and continuing to attempt to arm itself with nuclear capabilities, the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to ignore the wishes of the international community, from both a foreign policy as well as domestic standpoint. Concluding Remarks With the aim of understanding the response of the Iranian regime to the threat posed by the election of a reformist and independent candidate, the preceding has charted a history of Iranian intransigence dating back to the early days of the Revolution in 1979. Accordingly, Iranian intransigence is nothing new and is exhibited in both the domestic and foreign policy realms. The crackdown by Iranian authorities on the protesters in Iran following the disputed June 2009 represents the latest manifestation of Iranian intransigence to world as well as domestic opinion. Significantly, these protests represented the most sustained threat to the viability of the Islamic Republic since 1979 and the Iranian regime responded accordingly. This essay has charted Iranian intransigence since the early days of the Islamic regime, beginning with the US hostage crisis which lasted for 444 days to the crackdown on protestors in 2009. Significantly, Iran’s pronouncements against the Jewish people, its support for Hezbollah and its nuclear ambitions combined point to serious concerns for Iran in the realm of international affairs. Iran does what it wants when it wants and it remains a threat to international security and peace. Importantly, the crackdowns following the June 2009 election demonstrate that the present Iranian government is also a threat to the Iranian people themselves. Is this regime sustainable in the long term? Only time will tell. What we do know now is that the foundations of the Islamic regime in Tehran have been rocked to the core by the events following the June 2009 election. As the largest protests on the streets of Iran since the downfall of the Shah, the Islamic Republic remains forever changed. References Bloom, Mia. Dying to Kill: the allure of suicide terror. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. “Iran: If Israel attacks us, well hit its nuclear sites” 2007. Haaretz.com. Online. Available from Internet http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1102705.html, accessed 21 February 2010. Keegan, John. Why Israel will go to war again – soon. 2006. Telegraph.co.uk. Online. Available from Internet http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3633843/Why-Israel-will-go-to-war-again---soon.html, accessed 21 February 2010. “Q&A: Iran protests”. 2009. British Broadcasting Corporation. Online. Available from Internet http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8343494.stm, accessed 21 February 2010. Zubaida, S. “Trajectories of Political Islam: Egypt, Iran and Turkey”, Political Quarterly, 71.1 (2002): 60-78. Read More