
Boris Yeltsin, on top of a tank in Moscow, declaring an end to the Soviet regime in 1991
When the featured article was being written, the author and the Iranian people still had hopes to find leadership to their quest for freedom. Unfortunately, Mir Hossein Mousavi has not appeared in front of the protestors since the elections of June 12, and yesterday rejected another vote recount. The recent activities in Iran are, undoubtedly, a huge step forward in fostering democracy in this majority Muslim nation. However, they will result in nothing without proper leadership. Russia and China did not have to recognize, much less defend, Ahmadinejad’s victory as soon as they did, but perhaps they knew the painful truth ahead of time: the Iranian opposition has no leader, and a leader is what is so desperately needed at this historic moment.
Charles Krauthammer’s article published over at Townhall.com on June 26 does a great job of describing the difference between Russia’s 1991 and Iran’s 2009: “They need a leader like Boris Yeltsin: a former establishment figure with newly revolutionary credentials and legitimacy, who stands on a tank and gives the opposition direction by calling for the unthinkable -- the abolition of the old political order.” Most Russians remember Yeltsin as a despot, a drunk, and a sometimes embarrassing grandpa. World history will remember him as the man who ended 70 years of an Evil Empire, permanently curing Russia's infection of Communism. Hopefully, four years from now, an Iranian Yeltsin will stand up on a tank and prove that innocent protestors did not die in vain.
Visit the extended post to read the full version of the discussed article.
Iran: Desperately Seeking Yeltsin
Charles Krauthammer
Friday, June 26, 2009
WASHINGTON -- Iran today is a revolution in search of its Yeltsin. Without leadership, demonstrators will take to the street only so many times to face tear gas, batons and bullets. They need a leader like Boris Yeltsin: a former establishment figure with newly revolutionary credentials and legitimacy, who stands on a tank and gives the opposition direction by calling for the unthinkable -- the abolition of the old political order.
Right now the Iranian revolution has no leader. As this is written, opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi has not appeared in public since June 18. And the Khamenei-Ahmadinejad regime has shown the requisite efficiency and ruthlessness at suppressing widespread unrest. Their brutality has been deployed intelligently. The key is to atomize the opposition. Start with the most sophisticated methods to block Internet and cell phone traffic, thanks to technology provided by Nokia Siemens Networks. Allow the more massive demonstrations to largely come and go -- avoiding Tiananmen-style wholesale bloodshed -- but disrupt the smaller ones with street-side violence and rooftop snipers, the perfect instrument of terror. Death instant and unseen, the kind that only the most reckless and courageous will brave.
Terror visited by invisible men. From rooftops by day. And by night, swift and sudden raids that pull students out of dormitories, the wounded out of hospitals, for beatings and disappearances.
For all our sentimental belief in the ultimate triumph of those on the "right side of history," nothing is inevitable. This second Iranian revolution is on the defensive, even in retreat. To recover, it needs mass, because every dictatorship fears the moment when it gives the order to the gunmen to shoot at the crowd. If they do (Tiananmen), the regime survives; if they don't (Romania's Ceausescu), the dictators die like dogs. The opposition needs a general strike and major rallies in the major cities -- but this time with someone who stands up and points out the road ahead.
Desperately seeking Yeltsin. Does this revolution have one? Or to put it another way, can Mousavi become Yeltsin?
President Obama's worst misstep during the Iranian upheaval occurred early on when he publicly discounted the policy differences between Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mousavi.
True, but that overlooked two extremely important points. First, while Mousavi himself was originally only a few inches to Ahmadinejad's left on the political spectrum -- being hand-picked by the ruling establishment precisely for his ideological reliability -- Mousavi's support was not restricted to those whose views matched his. He would have been the electoral choice of everyone to his left, a massive national constituency -- liberals, liberalizers, secularists, monarchists, radicals and visceral opponents of the entire regime -- that dwarfs those who shared his positions, as originally held.
Moreover, Mousavi's positions have changed, just as he has. He is far different today from the Mousavi who began this electoral campaign.
Revolutions are dynamic, fluid. It is true that two months ago there was little difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. But that day is long gone. Revolutions outrun their origins. And they transform their leaders.
Mikhail Gorbachev and Yeltsin both began as orthodox party regulars. They subsequently evolved together into reformers. Then came the revolution. Gorbachev could not shake himself from the system. Yeltsin rose up and engineered its destruction.
In the 1980s, Mousavi was Ayatollah Khomeini's prime minister, a brutal enforcer of orthodox Islamism. Twenty years later, he started out running for president advocating little more than cosmetic moderation. But then the revolutionary dynamic began: The millions who rallied to his cause -- millions far to his left -- began to radicalize him. The stolen election radicalized him even more. Finally, the bloody suppression of his followers led him to make statements just short of challenging the legitimacy of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the very foundations of the regime. The dynamic continues: The regime is preparing the basis for Mousavi's indictment (for sedition), arrest, even possible execution. The prospect of hanging radicalizes further.
As Mousavi hovers between Gorbachev and Yeltsin, between reformer and revolutionary, between figurehead and leader, the revolution hangs in the balance. The regime may neutralize him by arrest or even murder. It may buy him off with offers of safety and a sinecure. He may well prefer to let this cup pass from his lips.
But choose he must, and choose quickly. This is his moment and it is fading rapidly. Unless Mousavi rises to it, or another rises in his place, Iran's democratic uprising will end not as Russia 1991, but as China 1989.
Copyright © 2009 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.



Comments
Actually, it is the USA that is waiting for such a "liberator" figure. Although, I hardly think that yeltsin is the sterling historical example (Democratic leaders to not turn tanks on congress) Well, we shall have our own version undoubtedly. Perhaps Pugachev (not the sukhoi pilot) is the more appropriate analogy. Yes, I am talking about 1774/75. After all, it is widely known that the peasants are arming themselves as never before. Yes, this is also like "time of troubles" and we certainly have our own false Dimitry now. Pretenders abound- with no credibility, credentials or even birth certificates. All part of the diabolical plan.
In any event, one can hardly put credibility in anything at all in US press, on the subject of Iran. Remember Mossadeq and the CIA removal of democracy in 1953 anyone? Well, I am sure the Iranians do. But no info on that subject, just as with anything else re that nation. Nothing but total distortions.
That- as well as other reasons- is why there are so many dissidents in the US of a today. Hard to tell whether it will be the press or the politicians who are to be "shunned".
Lois White Buffalo
Posted by: Lois DuPey | July 1, 2009 9:28 AM
@Lois DuPey
Or when the CIA was covertly working with Iran to support Islamic militants against the Soviets in Afghanistan and during the transfering arms and Iranian Kavak military instructors and militants to help train and equipment Bosnian fighters to set up an Islamic state there massacring and ethnically cleansing the Bosnian Serb population.
Posted by: james | July 3, 2009 4:00 PM
Yeltsin, a "liberator"?! You must be kidding me? Only a disconnected-from-reality "soft intelligentsia" who has long sold himself to the CIA-financed NGOs and crumbs from the US Congress can call that guy a "liberator". Tens of millions of people were subsisting for 10 years of his f&%ing "democracy" while the drunkard was giving away Russia's wealth to a handful of Jews robbing the country in cold-blood under the loud cheer from Washington. I am sure Mr. Mamchur, your masters at CIA would love to see the same type of "liberator" for Iran - what a better way to get rid of the entire population and get their oil for the "true democracy"... You are probably targeting your articles to folks with limited intelligence or so shallowed out by the US propaganda that they would swallow any BS you have been ordered to feed them.
Posted by: Alexei | September 1, 2009 8:38 PM