
As the horrific violence happening in Iran begins to settle in (but does not cease), and the rioting on the streets becomes "normal," (whatever that means) the watching world anxiously awaits the Islamic Republic's next step. Will it be Islamic? Will it be a Republic?
One thing is for certain: the current Regime, thanks to its acts of brutality and violence inflicted on its own people, has lost all legitimacy with the world and the Iranian people. The nuclear weapons program is essentially finished, the Regime's press releases and official statements have become comedy, and most importantly, the Ayatollah is no longer the spiritual leader he once was; his direct line to Allah has been severed.
So the Regime has two options: step down from power peacefully or rule with an iron fist. As the violence continues in Iran and becomes more horrific, the Regime will be forced to make a decision. The extreme violence used against the people has basically solidified the fact that the Regime attempted to fix the election; if these rioters are just a bunch of sore losers and Iran really is a democracy, why not let them protest? The same reasoning is applied to the filtering of Internet sites. If the election was legitimate, why not let the people discuss it in an open forum? While the crackdown on protesters seems to indicate the Regime will attempt to rule as a fascist government, they do so at their own peril.
If the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad remain in power, stripped of all legitimacy, they essentially become dictators, and they have to know what the world does to dictators; their neighbor used to be one. With an illegal, dangerous, and now fascist regime sitting in power, Iran's enemies will have few arguments against attacking the country. Those enemies most notably include Israel, but after Saddam's fall and the subsequent power vacuum emanating from within Iran, the Sunni Arab nations are also looking to oust the Shia Regime from power, which the Sunnis see as heretical. Jeffrey Goldberg touches on the Sunni-Shia struggle in this month's Atlantic:
"The conflict between Sunni and Shia is the most consequential in the Middle East because it is so profound and elemental. But precisely because it is so intractable, it might hold the key to solving another seemingly eternal Middle East conflict, the one between Muslim and Jew. The definitive Middle East cliché is, of course, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Well, it turns out that today, more than at any other time in the ruinous 100-year encounter between Arabs and Jews on the strip of land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, the two parties in the dispute have a common enemy: the Shia Persian Islamic Republic of Iran. "
We saw Israel's preparation for an attack just before the violence broke out in Iran: Netanyahu announced he would be open to a two-state solution with Palestine, Israel's Sunni neighbor. Already, the plot is being formulated and the roles are being cast: a joint-ventured attack on Iran is looming. Unless, of course, the Regime decides to forfeit their power. But even if they do, Israel may see Iran as less of a threat, but the Sunnis still see the Shia power state as an affront to Muslim hierarchy. If Mousavi does become the President, and a new Ayatollah is put into place, Iran may have a chance of dealing with the Sunnis, and if anyone can do this, it is Mousavi. Though Mousavi has been criticized by many in the West, with even President Obama saying there is little difference between Ahmadinejad and the would-be President (which was probably not a serious accusation, but a cunning political move: the more distance Obama puts between himself and Mousavi, the more legitimate Mousavi is in the eyes of Iranians), Mousavi is actually one of the most liberal and pro-Western political figures in Iran. And he has become much more liberal in the past twenty years. Couple this with the fact that Mousavi has become more than just a political rebel, but a sign of hope for Iranian Democracy, he could be the one that links Iran with the rest of the Middle East.
One thing is for certain: the current Regime has been backed into a corner, with no foreseeable future. In fact, this makes them more dangerous and more likely to be overthrown quickly, be it from within or without. What sane Middle Eastern country would allow a apocalyptic, cult-like, Shia Regime with full knowledge of its impending collapse, to remain in power for very long, especially if the Regime has nuclear aspirations? Ahmadinejad and Khamenei are essentially finished. They will try to hold onto their power for as long as possible, killing more people in the streets and creating more Nedas every day. Their Internet will eventually open up because the economy cannot operate without it and the world will learn of the true brutality and horrific violence the Regime has inflicted. The Mullahs will eventually grow tired of the violence and the power struggle will begin, with the Ayatollah and Ahmadinejad being asked to step down. At that point, hopefully Mousavi is given his title as President and a new constitution can be written, as many Iranians have been demanding. If that new constitution makes Iran into a true democracy, shedding the "Islamic" and becoming a mere "Republic," the world will have the first Muslim liberal democracy in the Middle East. But that remains to be seen.
The only thing that can be guaranteed is that the Iranian people will continue to suffer as they pursue liberty. Hopefully they don't stop their pursuit and their suffering comes to an end.
A version of this post appeared in the Tuesday, June 23rd print edition of the New York Legal Review and was cited elsewhere.