Elections in Iran

The Hope for Iranian Democracy

Presidential elections are coming up in Iran on June 12, just a few days away. While the nuclear problem would not disappear with Ahmadinejad’s departure, the situation is certainly unlikely to improve if he is re-elected, or if another wins who professes closeness to the established regime.

Several weeks ago, 54 Islamic student societies in Iran issued a joint statement criticizing the current regime, and pushing for it to step down. The students warned that if Ahmadinejad and the military figures in the executive branch remain in power, it will lead to “the silence of social movements and disorganized street riots as a result of rage and suffering.”

Professor Masoud Kazemzadeh recently wrote an article optimistic about the prospects for the development of an Iranian freedom movement.

On May 25, 2009, something very rare in Iranian history occurred. A coalition composed of grassroots pro-democracy political forces in Iran was formed... For the first time, this coalition brings together many pro-democracy groups, labor union activists, human rights activists, women’s rights activists, university student activists, prominent moderate Muslim activists, intellectuals, and political prisoners. In the next month or two, it will become clear whether or not this effort will succeed.

Only time will tell if the solution to the challenge posed by Iran will be a revolution of the kind seen in 1979 or the gradual transition to a free society. Unfortunately, the opposite is also possible, wherein the ruling Islamists hold onto power and continue the pursuit of nuclear weapons, along with the oppressive policies under which many Iranians have suffered.

After 100 years of struggling for freedom and democracy, the potential for the Iranian people to succeed is now.

The Threat from the Iranian Regime

There has been much talk in the media about an alleged nuclear threat from Iran and its fundamentalist regime. Is it true? Does Ahmadinejad have the means and the intent to essentially blow up the world? In Islam, suicide is forbidden, but unfortunately all facts point to Iran’s leaders moving forward with this ill-fated venture.

President Ahmadinejad asked in a television interview, “Is there an art that is more beautiful, more divine, more eternal than the art of the martyr’s death?” On another occasion, he told Iranians that ‘‘a nation with martyrdom knows no captivity.’’

Hudson Institute fellow S Enders Wimbush noted that:

“Iran’s leadership has spoken of its willingness—in their words—to ‘‘martyr’’ the entire Iranian nation, and it has even expressed the desirability of doing so as a way to accelerate an inevitable, apocalyptic collision between Islam and the West that will result in Islam’s final worldwide triumph.“

This culture of martyrdom is inculcated into Iranians from a young age. Thirty years ago, 13 year old Hossein Fahmideh blew himself up in front of an Iraqi tank. Today, his face adorns postage stamps and money; film and TV have glorified him. On a religious holiday, school children are taken to a martyrs’ cemetery, marching below banners that say ‘Remembering the Martyrs today is as important as becoming a Martyr “and ‘The Nation for whom Martyrdom means happiness, will always be Victorious.’’

Iranians have already shown the world that this is not idle talk. During the 1980’s war with Iraq, thousands of Iranian children were sent to clear mine fields with their bodies, wearing plastic keys that symbolized that the gates of paradise were open to them. By Matthias Küntzel writes, “what began with the clearing of mine fields by human detonators has become in the form of suicide bombing the most powerful weapon of the Islamist movement worldwide.”

But then of course, it isn’t suicide. It’s religiously sanctioned martyrdom.

In light of the penchance for death expressed by some Iranians, do they have the ability to initiate a nuclear war that would almost certainly end in their demise (and everyone else’s)?

The answer is either yes, or very soon.

UN officials recently announced, as reported in the New York Times, that Tehran had amassed enough uranium—if purified further—to make a nuclear bomb. Traces of weapons grade material have been found in Iran. In recent years, Iranian theologians have decreed that atomic weapons are permissible to use under Islamic law, thereby removing another potential impediment.

Contrary to some opinions, the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) did not say Iran stopped pursuing nuclear weapons. It only claimed they stopped pursuing the weaponization track. But they were still working on the fuel. It seems that Iran is getting off the hook based on a technicality. Abbas Milani, director of Stanford’s Iranian studies program, pointed out that the NIE showed Iran was lying for years about its nuclear activities.

What is the Ahmadinejad regime after?

Princeton Professor Bernard Lewis summed it up well in a 2007 speech:

“If you consider the situation during the cold war, both sides—the United States and the Soviet Union—had nuclear weapons. Neither side used them because each side knew that the other would retaliate in kind. This was known as Mutual Assured Destruction; M.A.D. for short. M.A.D. doesn’t work with these people, because Mutual Assured Destruction is not a deterrent; it’s an inducement. And they believe that the end of time will bring the triumph of their cause. If many of their people perish, they will be doing them a favor; they will be giving them a quick free pass to heaven and all its delights.”