The Next Iranian Revolution

How armed exiles are working to topple Tehran's Islamic Government

Michael J. Totten from the October 2007 issue

(Page 7 of 7)

The Iranian writer Reza Zarabi says the regime has all but destroyed religion itself. “The name Iran, which used to be equated with such things as luxury, fine wine, and the arts, has become synonymous with terrorism,” he wrote. “When the Islamic Republic government of Iran finally meets its demise, they will have many symbols and slogans as testaments of their rule, yet the most profound will be their genocide of Islam, the black stain that they have put on this faith for many generations to come.”

It’s certainly possible to be overoptimistic. Iranian dissidents have been predicting an imminent revolution for several years running. Michael Hirsh wrote recently in Newsweek that women in Tehran have “gone defiantly chic” in style and that the men are looking “less and less menacing and more and more metrosexual,” which makes the place sound more like freewheeling Beirut than an Islamist theocracy. But the state, he added, could still endure for some time. “It is an old, familiar umbrella of oppression that now stays just distant enough to be tolerated, even if it is little loved,” he wrote. “The success of this oppressive but subtly effective system should give the regime-change advocates in Washington some pause.”

Whom to believe? Hirsh’s analysis has been the correct one so far, but Iran is notoriously unpredictable even for those who are supposed to be experts. The 1979 Revolution shocked even CIA agents who lived in Iran while it was brewing. They insisted the Shah was firmly entrenched and could not possibly fall.

‘Developments in Iran Aren’t Controllable’
The Middle East is so rife with conflict, factions, murky alliances, foreign interventions, multisided civil wars, and wild-card variables that trying to predict its future is like trying to forecast the weather on a particular day three years in advance. There’s a reason the phrase shifting sands has become a cliché.

If the Islamic Republic is overthrown, almost anything might happen. Iran could become a modern liberal democracy, as most Eastern European states did after the fall of the Soviet Empire. It could revert to a milder form of authoritarian rule, as Russia has. It could, like Iraq, face chronic instability and insurgent attacks. Or its various “nationalities” could tear the country to pieces and go the way of the Yugoslavs. Optimists like Sanjari and Mohtadi may have a better sense of what to expect than those of us in the West, but still they do not know.

The only thing that seems likely is that a showdown of some kind is coming, either between factions in Iran or between Iran and the rest of the world. Predictions of the regime’s imminent demise have been staples of Iranian expat and activist discourse for years, so it’s hard to take the latest predictions seriously. But authoritarian regimes increasingly seem to have limited shelf lives. As Francis Fukuyama’s flawed but compelling book The End of History points out, there has been a worldwide explosion of liberal democracies since the 18th century, from three in 1790 to 36 in 1960 to 61 in 1990. (In 2006 Freedom House classified 148 nations as free or partly free.) History isn’t over and never will be, but it hasn’t been kind to dictatorships lately.

The Iranian state is soft and vulnerable compared with the worst abusers out there, and it constantly faces resistance from citizens. Something will give.

“Movements are taking shape in Iran,” Sanjari said. “The Iranian regime confronts the whole world with its policies. Political developments are very rapid now. Developments in Iran aren’t controllable. I hope the Iranian people overthrow this regime with no or few sacrifices. But that is a dream.”

Michael J. Totten is an independent journalist whose work has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Jerusalem Post, Beirut’s Daily Star, L.A. Weekly, Time, and the Australian edition of Newsweek. The Week magazine named him Blogger of the Year in 2006 for his dispatches from the Middle East.

Comments

|9.19.07 @ 1:04PM|#

I think this will happen about a month after Ron Paul is sworn in as president.

Justin Raimondo|9.19.07 @ 1:06PM|#

More "regime change" propaganda from the Unreasonoids. What's next: General Petraeus on the Wonders of the Surge?

|9.19.07 @ 1:08PM|#

Very interesting. However I'm not sure if the situation Abadi is wanting is wise. It may produce a divided Iran at war with each other similar to what's happened in Iraq. That would be a huge problem for the invasion force and it would take years to resolve. America does not need another Iraq situation. Nor do we need greater instability in the Mid-East.

|9.19.07 @ 1:10PM|#

The future question is will General Petraeus lead the surge in Teran.

PeeDub|9.19.07 @ 1:27PM|#

Wow. This is simply one of the most interesting articles I've ever read at Reason.com.

And this article is definitely not pro-invasion.

|9.19.07 @ 1:36PM|#

Where are all the editorials, demonstrations and UN resolutions for a Kurdish homeland? Oh yeah, that would run counter to the wishes of the Arabs, Persians and Turks. It's not like they're Jews or anything.

rho|9.19.07 @ 1:37PM|#

It's a very interesting assertion that Islamic law isn't very popular once it's implemented. If true--and I believe that it is, except as a marginally better solution to some other oppressive regime--it puts lie to the claim that all Muslims are looking to convert the world by the sword to sharia.

Of course, a lot of people know that already, but Totten is well-respected among the "warbloggers", so maybe this new thought for them will be the thin edge of the wedge.

|9.19.07 @ 1:43PM|#

1. Turkic Azeris. Not Turkish Azeris.

2. I remember reading about how different Iraq was, too, before that war. Iraq was a ripe target for regime change because IT was so very advanced, compared to its neighbors.

thoreau|9.19.07 @ 1:57PM|#

It is a fascinating article, and I admire the guy for being brave enough to enter a compound of armed rebels.

I'm sure Iran is ripe for change. But that's not the same as being ripe for invasion.

|9.19.07 @ 2:00PM|#

More "regime change" propaganda from the Unreasonoids. What's next: General Petraeus on the Wonders of the Surge?

With due respect, Michael Totten isn't advocating a policy of intervention in order to create (or hasten) regime change. He may have advocated forms of interventionism in other articles, but not in this one. He's just giving us the skinny on the Iran internal situation. Mr. Totten is one of the few western reporters that understands the Middle East culture, and we would all do well to pay attention to his reporting, even if we do disagree with an occasional editorialization on his part.

|9.19.07 @ 2:06PM|#

One fact in the "anti" column is the election of Ahmedinejad. If the mullahs are that unpopular, how does someone like him get elected? Fraud?

thoreau|9.19.07 @ 2:11PM|#

Ahmadinejad's election is actually a bit of a complicated matter.

First, reformers in the mold of Khatami were largely excluded in 2005, or else marginalized, making it hard for them to get votes.

Second, Ahmadinejad ran against a "good old boy" and he ran on a platform of redistribution. Yes, he has his own ties to elements of the ruling elite, but he ran against an establishment politician and he promised to redistribute oil wealth that the ruling elite controls. So it's arguable that voter frustration with the ruling elite was a factor in his election, and it wasn't entirely about hawkishness and religious fundamentalism.

Of course, in office Ahmadinejad has devoted himself to hawkishness and religion, but the point is that his actions after the election do not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the electorate in summer of 2005.

|9.19.07 @ 2:13PM|#

I wish Bush would leave Iran alone and let the Iranian people take care of the Mullahs.

thoreau|9.19.07 @ 2:15PM|#

Let's put it this way: Suppose that theocrats controlled most of America's natural resources, and the American people voted for a crazy guy who promised to redistribute some of the money that the theocrats were taking. Would anybody interpret that election as a sign of a pro-theocrat public?

If the crazy guy behaved differently once in office, would that change the fact that the public was in an anti-theocrat mood at the time of the election?

|9.19.07 @ 2:19PM|#

"Mr. Totten is one of the few western reporters that understands the Middle East culture, and we would all do well to pay attention to his reporting,. . ."

First -- there is no "THE Middle Eastern culture".

And no, he's naive for the most part but here he is trying to catch on a little better, and the whole tone is: it might be right to invade on one hand or maybe not on the other hand -- like a Cathy Young article.

It's suggesting but not advocating. TO his credit, he does get somewhat more informed than the average warblogger-type.

But I love this: "Iraq's tribal and medieval culture, the brutality, the lawlessness, revenge-Iraq was very primitive and still is, apart from Kurdistan."

Kurdistan is a contender in the region for championship title in the area of "honor killings" of females.

http://www.stophonourkillings.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=1980

Totten's a simpleton but far better than the worst.

|9.19.07 @ 2:28PM|#

thoreau - thanks, I'd heard about, but forgotten, the economic populism policy planks.

|9.19.07 @ 2:32PM|#

Thanks matthew. I was laughing so hard I couldn't see through the tears to reply. I still remember his amazement that they had supermarkets over there, "with Red Bull!"

wsdave|9.19.07 @ 2:46PM|#

"Of course, in office Ahmadinejad has devoted himself to hawkishness and religion, but the point is that his actions after the election do not necessarily reflect the sentiments of the electorate in summer of 2005."

You mean politicians would make promises they have no intention of keeping, just to get elected? Say it ain't so.

To bad these guys don't live in America, where that never happens.

robc|9.19.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Iraq was a ripe target for regime change because IT was so very advanced, compared to its neighbors.

It worked. In Kurdistan. Of course, if Nixon had just made them the 51st state as they offered, all these problems could have been avoided. We would have just had a different set instead.

shecky|9.19.07 @ 3:06PM|#

Totten always strikes me as a honest, but credulous writer who conjures wonderful stories about the Middle East. Despite his wide travels throughout the area and associations with so many people of the region, I can never quite shake the feeling that he's somehow managed to misread his surroundings in some small, yet crucial way.

|9.19.07 @ 3:22PM|#

robc,

We didn't change the regime in Kurdistan.

They developed their own democracy, all by themselves, during the 1990s. Without Uncle Sam having to take over their country and show them how to behave at all.

thoreau|9.19.07 @ 3:23PM|#

Exactly, wsdave. We can't assume that Ahmadinejad's actions in office reflect the attitudes of the people who voted for him (or against Rafsanjani) in 2005.

|9.19.07 @ 3:36PM|#

"""I wish Bush would leave Iran alone and let the Iranian people take care of the Mullahs."""

And miss an opprotunity to give President Hillary Clinton more problems to deal with? Not a chance.

|9.19.07 @ 3:44PM|#

First -- there is no "THE Middle Eastern culture".

Of course there isn't. Likewise, there isn't any Western European culture either. But we use those glommings as a shorthand. I will try to avoid it in the future, though.

To his credit, he does get somewhat more informed than the average warblogger-type.

Which is largely what I meant. I know next to nothing about the cultures in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Pakistan, etc, etc. (and all their myriad subcultures, factions, and yes, even individuals), but compared to the average reporter "embedded" in a greenzone hotel, he's a fricken genius.

If you read the average non-Totten article, you would think that the Middle East (as a region, not a culture) consists of only Shiites and Sunnis. Heck, many reporters don't even realize that Iran isn't an Arab nation.

|9.19.07 @ 4:13PM|#

I don't care whether Iranians choose to let mullahs or rodeo clowns govern them, and I'm certainly not about to countenance an invasion in order to make the choice for them. This article, whatever its faults, makes it pretty clear (and not the first I've seen), that the mullahocracy is basically just another kleptocracy but with goofy hats and ugly robes.

|9.19.07 @ 4:17PM|#

If you read the average non-Totten article, you would think that the Middle East (as a region, not a culture) consists of only Shiites and Sunnis.

And even that is an improvement over the average article a few years ago.

|9.19.07 @ 4:21PM|#

Oh, and it looks like the Syrians just killed another Lebanese MP

|9.19.07 @ 4:23PM|#

If you read the average non-Totten article, you would think that the Middle East (as a region, not a culture) consists of only Shiites and Sunnis. Heck, many reporters don't even realize that Iran isn't an Arab nation.

Totten isn't immune to similar charges. In fact, he comes off as incredibly naive. He appears to assume that the will of a few ex-patriots is a fair representation of the will of "Iranians" in general. At the very least, his article takes statements by Komala exiles about "the people of Iran" at face value, e.g., the Komala official's statement that "[t]he people of Iran are thinking politically. The people have had many bad experiences since the 1979 revolution. They want the American people to topple the regime..." In response to this invasion, which would presumably put Komala into power (convenient, no?), Totten muses that "[h]e did not only mean that the Kurds of Iran want a war, as the Kurds of Iraq wanted a war. He also meant most Persians want an invasion." Oh? And I happen to know that "the American people," not just the small group loyal to me, want a revolution that puts me, personally, in power. This is all particularly odd in light Totten's repeated reminders that the Iranian people are not a monolithic, homogenous group. Why doesn't bother connecting the painfully obvious dots here?

Anyway, I didn't particularly like the original Iraqi flavor of Chalabi, and I'm not convinced that Totten has discovered anything more than Chalabi 2.0.

|9.19.07 @ 4:28PM|#

I can never quite shake the feeling that he's somehow managed to misread his surroundings in some small, yet crucial way.

Well, he mostly just visits these places, doesn't live there. As far as I know, he's only spent significant time in Lebanon. Also he neither speaks nor reads any of the local languages so by necessity Totten either learns via a translator, or (a common trap for Westerners)he makes friends with English-speaking Westernized locals. Totten thus tends to assume that the views of these people are representative of a large portion of the population, when in reality these Westernized Middle Easterners are often very marginalized people in the context of their own culture. But for all that, he really does make an effort, he does have fresh angles and explores issues other reporters ignore, and his "gosh, gee whiz" attitude can be a refreshing break from the cynicism so prevalent in most of the reporting profession.

|9.19.07 @ 4:28PM|#

"We didn't change the regime in Kurdistan.

They developed their own democracy, all by themselves, during the 1990s. Without Uncle Sam having to take over their country and show them how to behave at all."

Nope, no regime change there - just a Giant Protective Bubble called "The No Fly Zone".
Kind of a cool experiment in allowing people to determine their own destiny without coercion.

JBinMO|9.19.07 @ 5:18PM|#

It's good to know that only 51% of Iranians are presians. In the event of an invasion I can now call a bookie and get money down on another sectarian war.

|9.19.07 @ 9:14PM|#

Wow. This is simply one of the most interesting articles I've ever read at Reason.com.

Ditto... I'm not much for sending Internet articles to people, but I forwarded this to most of my "well-read" friends and colleagues. A great piece of journalism.

Michael J. Totten|9.19.07 @ 9:45PM|#

Interesting discussion. Thanks, everyone, for reading.

I would like to respond to a couple of points without intruding too much here.

Happy Jack: I still remember his amazement that they had supermarkets over there, "with Red Bull."

You do not "remember" my amazement at this, you are hallucinating it. I've spent way too much time in third world countries, and in the Middle East in particular, to be amazed at a supermarket.

Chris S.: his article takes statements by Komala exiles about "the people of Iran" at face value

Some of his statements, yes, if they credibly line up with what else I have heard and read. Others, no. From the article: "Mohtadi could be wrong. Maybe he's talking about a minority that looks to him like a majority. Perhaps his analysis is slightly deceitful, a little self-serving. These things happen. We know how inaccurate Ahmed Chalabi's rosy predictions about post-Saddam Iraq turned out to be."

|9.19.07 @ 10:34PM|#

I wish Bush would leave Iran alone and let the Iranian people take care of the Mullahs

What exactly is Bush doing to prevent the Iranian people from doing just that?

|9.19.07 @ 11:27PM|#

You do not "remember" my amazement at this, you are hallucinating it. I've spent way too much time in third world countries, and in the Middle East in particular, to be amazed at a supermarket.

Hallucination

What I think they don't understand is that what's normal in the Middle East somehow amazes (and comforts) people who have never been here.

|9.20.07 @ 12:06AM|#

Jack's been in the happy juice again - and it ain't Red Bull.

Michael J. Totten|9.20.07 @ 12:23AM|#

Happy Jack,

I see where the misunderstanding is, and it's at least as much my fault as yours. Other people, not me, found grocery stores in Dokuk, Iraq, amazing, and I knew that before I went there.

Michael Yon, for example, when he visited Dokuk after spending months covering the Battle of Mosul.

"Once in Dohuk, American soldiers removed helmets and body armor, and carried only their weapons. The commander set them free, with orders to return later that day. I walked with some soldiers to a department store where we passed by the kiddie rides outside. The storefront may well have been in Colorado Springs, or Munich. There were big push-carts for the adults, and little carts for the children.

Inside the store was a grocery section, where the people smiled, fresh canteloupes smelled sweet, the apples were red and green and yellow. There were oranges, bananas, and more. Nearly half a year had passed since I had seen such things."

I had that in mind when I took a picture of the grocery store. I lived in Beirut at the time, where grocery stores are mundane and uninteresting.

If I casually mention Starbucks in Beirut, for example, almost everyone I know is amazed that they have Starbucks. I'm not, I see such things in the Middle East all the time, but lots of Americans picture a vast Afghanistan-like region. I do what I can to show the normal stuff and break down that stereotype because it annoys me.

Michael J. Totten|9.20.07 @ 12:25AM|#

Also, Jack, that sentence you quoted: What I think they don't understand is that what's normal in the Middle East somehow amazes (and comforts) people who have never been here.

I lived in the Middle East when I wrote that and obviously did not (and do not) fall into the category of people who had never been there.

|9.20.07 @ 12:32AM|#

I think Happy J has made his point, but he left out this:

"So I took pictures of the grocery store. It's not all burkhas, camels, and caves out here."

Good Lord.

Thanks for sharing.

|9.20.07 @ 12:36AM|#

Actually I am being too harsh as I did something similar by sending a Hard Rock Cafe postcard from Dubai and elicited that type of reaction from recipients. Deliberately.

But I suppose it shows the state of mind of the readership back here that things like that need to be said or done.

Still, praising Kurds as less traditional and tribal may be a bit premature . . .

|9.20.07 @ 10:49AM|#

Matthew, you were at the Hard Rock in Dubai, too?

Terrible food, but I got to see an autographed single of Faith No More's "Epic" signed by Patton.

And a guitar from the same band.

I've had similar experiences in eliciting such reactions, intentionally or not. Have you ever seen the malls in the UAE in November/December?

Talk about a cognitive dissonance check.

|9.20.07 @ 1:50PM|#

I'm amused by the commenters dismissing Totten as "naive" when it's more likely than not that they've never traveled to those regions. How many of you have been to Iraq or Lebanon? Met with Peshmerga or anti-mullah communists? Somehow, reading a few articles in the Economist or the Nation makes you a better expert than Totten.

|9.20.07 @ 2:30PM|#

"Naive" and "war-blogger" are not accurate descriptors for Michael Totten or his writings. I see no evidence of a stated agenda either, perhaps those comments more accurately represent his readers innate bias.
After reading this article I am left with the realisation that there seems to be no shortage of ill-advised alliances for the United States to make.
Clearly the current lunatic in charge cannot be allowed to develop an atomic weapon, but how to proceed is more complex than most of us realise.

matthew hogan|9.20.07 @ 8:12PM|#

I'm amused by the commenters dismissing Totten as "naive" when it's more likely than not that they've never traveled to those regions.

Traveled and even lived there and known intimately people from there for decades. Met people of all stripes. And do read the Economist. Mostly jeer at the Nation but it's tragic that even they can make more sense (or less nonsense) these days on foreign affairs than many of the people I supported for office and are in it.

Also, at some points, if you apply the principle that human nature is universal, some things should set off innate skepticism, including wide-eyed responses to "the exotic."

|9.23.07 @ 11:25AM|#

What a wonderful article! My only regret is that the author did not say anything about the effects of Tehran becoming a nuclear power on the ability of the current regime to survive or prosper.

kavips|9.29.07 @ 12:35PM|#

Thanks for taking the risks you did and bringing light to this information.

How much of a detriment would Turkey, should Iran change regimes, affect these movements which you familiarly write about?