Is Iran Headed for Glasnost or Tiananmen?
I have travelled to Teheran, Moscow and Beijing and have a vivid recollection of Revolution, Red and Tiananmen Squares. The current struggle in Iran between the reformers (forces of democracy) and the strong-armed conservatives (forces of the theocracy and status quo), is extremely fluid and a predictable outcome cannot be determined at this time. Whatever consequences occur in Iran, they will have a uniquely Persian flavor, influenced by the theocracy and will have similarities and differences from the democracy movements in the former Soviet Union (Glastnost/Openess) and China (greater freedoms and economic reforms.)
Iran’s government must now decide whether to “back down or crack down” or establish a hybrid between the two strategies. The theocratic regime is losing its legitimacy in part because of economic failure and the belief that there was electoral fraud. Iranian nationalism will be influential and could be decisive. Mousavi’s supporters may prevail in Iran if they have sufficient public and political support, including the country’s military and security forces as was the case with Boris Yeltsin in the Soviet Union in 1987.
This is truly a historical moment in Iran where inter-generational groups of students, women in chadors, shopkeepers, workers, and even turbaned clerics have joined together demonstrating the power of the people. This blend of political and electronic revolution represents an Iranian-type Tiananmen Square protest that occurred in 1989. There is a possibility that this movement may eventually split the cleric-military-state apparatus.
There are unintended consequences of revolutionary movements. For example, ethnic tensions throughout the Soviet Union resulted in the Baltic Republics asserting their independence; in China, there was a massacre of students protesting for democracy, in Tiananmen Square.
American history has given us a profound and complex experience with democracy and revolutionary movements. Theodore Roosevelt supported a group of Revolutionaries in Columbia, showed naval presence in the region and signed the Hay-Bunau Varilla Treaty so that the United States could build the Panama Canal. William Howard Taft condemned Theodore Roosevelt for negotiating with Japan and Russia which legitimized their autocracies. The Wilsonian Paradox called for democratic change but resulted in an interventional policy leading to W.W. I. Thus, his idealism to protect democracy and build a better world required going to war to “make the world safe for democracy.” Woodrow Wilson’s dilemma was characterized by engagement in foreign revolutions that could result in outcomes not always in the best interest of America. These experiences of American history should be scrutinized and analyzed by policymakers to plan the most effective strategy for the United States in dealing with the Iranian crisis.

I believe that protests from the citizens in Iran do the best way of showing the world that then need help from other countries to overthrow this corrupt government. After researching more about the topic on CNN.com I found this link that was very interesting, http://amfix.blogs.cnn.com/2009/06/22/iranian-protestor-plea/ check it out, it has a Iran College student who called CNN to explain what is actually happening over in Iran.

You make excellent points. The Counterpunch article addresses doubts about the extent of electoral fraud in Iran. I am not sure myself, but I am very suspicious of the ruling candidate’s 2-to-1 lead in the ballots.

More significant, the Iranian political leadership has clearly suffocated a vibrant, diverse, and even somewhat democractic civil society within the country. The election raised expectations for new openings that have remained nailed shut. The claims against the electoral outcome are claims for representation and voice. One cannot help but sympathize with those claims and embrace them cautiously as facilitators for better US-Iranian relations, I believe.

You ask excellent questions. I will try to answer them as best I can:

1. The Iran case shows, I think, that popular opposition is very important in pushing an authoritarian regime to confront difficult issues. Nonetheless, popular protesters rarely have the guns and money to force a change of government in the short term. Regime change occurs when individuals within the elite leadership ranks become convinced that the popular protesters have a point, and that some kind of serious political reform is needed. Protests therefore are most effective at persuasion. Political change requires change within elite leadership circles.

2. Yes, you are absolutely correct that there are many kinds of democracy. All democracies need not adopt secular assumptions. Some degree of tolerance for different views on basic issues seems necessary for democracy.

3. Gerecht is struggling with the big question. What can the US do to help reform in Iran? Strong support for the protesters will only de-legitimize them in the eyes of some Iranians. Detachment could, however, de-moralize the protesters and embolden the conservatives, as it did in China in 1989. I think the US needs to express concern and continue to support non-violent representative processes, without endorsing anyone in particular. This has generally been President Obama’s line, but it is a difficult one to walk consistently.

I also share Brenna Mackin’s hesitation to accept Gerecht’s opinion because his opinion is framed by a Foundation for the Defense of Democracies agenda. Surely it’s no conspiracy, but, as W.A.Williams penned, a consciousness of purpose exists.

Although statistics can be modified to say virtually anything, I found this article very interesting. http://counterpunch.com/amin06222009.html It’s subtitled, “A Hard Look at the Numbers” As I only have a modest base of information on Iran, it would be interesting to hear your comments on the article if you have time.

I am currently taking History 434 and really enjoy the readings.