Ahmedinejad is declared the winner after a limited vote-count. The post-election crisis in Tehran is getting off the screen. The internal affairs are not much discussed in foreign media now. As expected, the reformist camp seems to be compromising surrender after the fierce violence against protesters. Contrary to his apparent passion saying he is “ready for martyrdom”, Mr. Mossavi has also compromised, while the real player behind him—the rival of Supreme Leader Khamenai—Ayatollah Rafsanjani was also out of the scene during the crucial moments of the movement in Tehran. He kept mum on the violence. Nor Rafsanjani provoked the movement, neither Mr. Mossavi raised his voice in the way he should have done. The giant defying public rallies were self-organized by people fed up of the regime. But a disintegrated movement before a ruthless tyrant regime, can not last longer.
The main player behind all the chaos, former President Hashmi Rafsanjani after a long silence has come up on scene with a goodwill statement towards the Supreme Leader, the unelected decision maker in Iran, Ayatllah Khamenai. It is a u-turn by one of the leading figures of the reformist camp that has been demanding reelection rather than limited vote count. It seems the reformist camp is compelled to sacrifice a term of rule for the system’s existential threat from the current crisis.
Though it was expected, no overnight revolution is going to happen in Iran. Everything will calm down after some days or weeks of angry young protesters on streets of Tehran. Once again a movement was brutally suppressed and once again the proponents of reformism abandoned the hopeful Iranian public. They surrendered to the call of might. Though it was nothing more than a clash for power by breeds of the same system, but world could deal easily with a new Administration in Tehran that would be—apparently so—comparatively easier to talk with.
Questions rises how did it happen? No doubt the continuous weeks of protests, initially enthusiastic, were the largest since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. But it was disorganized, disintegrated and unleaded. But here questions rise, why did Rafsanjani go off the scene and pulled himself back from the largest protests in Tehran–which a Grand Ayatollah of Qom—the headquarter of theocracy—Ayatullah Muntazeri had warned the system is endangered? Did the so-called reformists sacrifice a term of rule over the endangered existence of theocracy? Or that the ruling regime was too brutal and reformists lacked the gut to face it all without a proper planning, integration and communication?
The apparently strong camp of reformists with many influential faces, could have led the movement to a decisive situation, but it seems after hearing the voices of “we want freedom” from the self-organized protesters, they just preferred keeping mum and let the crisis die off. It was their lack of interest that the reformist leadership didn’t gear up the protests in cities other than Tehran and most importantly the rural parts of the country. Indeed, the reformists had not any considerable back from the Iranians living in larger rural areas. Their major strength was the educated youth from Tehran.
The serious split among the influential founders of the Islamic revolution was a good improvement in the sense that it generated awareness of the people against the tyrant regime. The belief of politically educated Iranians are further strengthened that the theocratic system has no remedy for their demands of freedom and a friendly relationship with the world
It was extremely terrible watching the video of Nida—the young girl shot dead on chest by the cruel Baseej. Death of over 20 people went all in vain because of the insincere reformist leadership and their lack of clear objectives.
Now the world has to bear another term of stubbornness, and extremism. Despite the sincere but cautious remarks of President Obama on the fraud elections and people’s will, Ahmedinejad reacted nonsense by accusing the US and Britain for the riots and crisis in Iran. A single foreign journalist was not allowed to report. Local media was banned. The accusations seems to be an attempt by the regime in Tehran to escape the efforts of President Obama for negotiations and resolution of nuclear ambitions.
The regime in Tehran feels extremism and continuity of the conflicts in Middle East is the assurance of their survival. Seeing the cold behavior, its much predictable a tough and decisive time is ahead for Obama Administration in dealing with Tehran for its nuclear weapon aims. And President Obama is realizing this after Ahmedinejad in a silly way asked him to apologize for what he remarked on the violence.
Though Mr. Mossavi was also part of the same system, but its true that after coming into power, he had had to change some policies, at least women freedom or avoiding confrontational policy with the world that he had promised during his campaigns. Now that the reformist camp has surrendered to the ruling regime in Tehran, the world has to compromise with a denier of holocaust that can go mad once having a nuclear bomb. Diplomacy is not the only way President Obama should be considering. A nuclear race in Middle East is not in interest of China and Russia. President Obama other than focusing on engagement with Tehran, should also start efforts on building a decisive alternative.