Iran framing
Just a little framing of what we're seeing in Iran. All the focus is on the street protesters, but they're not the real story.
The real battle going on is the institutional battle between Khamenei and his power structure versus the troika of Moussavi, Rafsanjani, and Khatami, each with followers and supporters spread throughout the power structure.
The elections and the street protests are merely a focal point and fuel for the larger battle. The street prtesters are not going to bring down or take over the government, but they're extremely important as they keep the crisis alive and keep stress on Khamenei.
While we're watching the protests, what we're not seeing is the larger battle for legitimacy and the levers of power. The "reformists" (although the definition of that may break down if you mean it as anything but against the current structures) don't even really have to "win" to have effect. If they damage the legitimacy of Khamenei and finish this with their current levels of influence, they've won.
On my TV, this "crisis" is being framed as the people (good) against the current government (bad,) but in reality, it's not that clean. It's really Khamenei and his structures against some who are trying to diminish his influence.
I don't really know what I'm trying to say. I'm just trying to get up above the rather meaningless, sensationalizing coverage of individual events on the street.
The real battle going on is the institutional battle between Khamenei and his power structure versus the troika of Moussavi, Rafsanjani, and Khatami, each with followers and supporters spread throughout the power structure.
The elections and the street protests are merely a focal point and fuel for the larger battle. The street prtesters are not going to bring down or take over the government, but they're extremely important as they keep the crisis alive and keep stress on Khamenei.
While we're watching the protests, what we're not seeing is the larger battle for legitimacy and the levers of power. The "reformists" (although the definition of that may break down if you mean it as anything but against the current structures) don't even really have to "win" to have effect. If they damage the legitimacy of Khamenei and finish this with their current levels of influence, they've won.
On my TV, this "crisis" is being framed as the people (good) against the current government (bad,) but in reality, it's not that clean. It's really Khamenei and his structures against some who are trying to diminish his influence.
I don't really know what I'm trying to say. I'm just trying to get up above the rather meaningless, sensationalizing coverage of individual events on the street.
posted by mikevotes at
1:57 PM
5 Comments:
So you don't see even a remote chance of a populist sea-change in the structure of the Iranian government. Merely a rearrangement of deck chairs.
What do the protesters really want, besides their guy as president? Are they opposed to the religious ruling council concept, or merely to the Ahmadinejad-supporting players on the council? Are they really looking for democracy, or, like many US politicians, just winning power?
By
-epm, at 2:31 PM
Well, do you see anything that portends the downfall/removal of the Guardian Council? At this point, I would wager that Ahmadinejad comes out of this thing as PResident.
Where's the impetus for either of those things to change. So long as the protests are relatively well mannered and nobody in the opposition tries an armed coup of some type, we're likely looking at some unsettled version of the status quo.
The street protests are eventually likely to lose steam. The power structure really has time on their side.
They'll come out damaged, but in power.
(Assuming the protesters don't go violent and no one attempts an armed mcoup or occupation of elements of the government. Either of those would throw all the cards in the air.)
And my sense is that the protests are somewhat against the (existence?) of the Guardian Council. Most of those protesting were born after the revolution and don't necessarily see Islam in government the same way as the olders. To them, it's not a bulwark against Western intervention, but an unnecessary block on elective democracy. That's my hunch.
By
mikevotes, at 3:34 PM
I think you're saying what I've been trying to say all along. There's a power struggle going on and the Western media (that's all we get) is trying to frame it as a populist secular uprising friendly to the West. In essence the protesters (both sides) are pawns in a bigger game.
By
Anonymous, at 3:49 PM
Sort of, although I would argue that the Moussavi side is more likely to be more western friendly because its base is the more westernized urbanites.
Doesn't mean they'd be changing the nuclear stance, but just on a broad level, they'd have a more Western tilt.
By
mikevotes, at 5:05 PM
The Supreme Leader rules the country and makes all decisions, including the candidates running for President.
It doesn't matter who is President, he enforces the Supreme Leaders directions.
The Supreme Leader could call for a new election to quell the protester, that means nothing for any reform in the country.
The President in Iran is an old fashion puppet of the Supreme Leader.
We know there were irregularities in the election.
We know that the Supreme Leader has shut down communications and news releases to hide what is going on.
We know that there are mass demonstrations.
We know that there have been some deaths.
We know that Iran is nothing but an oppressed society.
What we do not know, is if the citizens have a chance against the armed forces of the Supreme Leader, if they decide to try an armed coup against the Supreme Leader.
I doubt it unless some in the Guardian Council have control over parts of the military and want to remove the Supreme Leader.
By
Unknown, at 6:16 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home