Tehran in 2009, however, was a struggle between two main factions, both of which supported the Islamic republic as it was. There were the clerics, who have dominated the regime since 1979 and had grown wealthy in the process. And there was Ahmadinejad, who felt the ruling clerical elite had betrayed the revolution with their personal excesses. And there also was the small faction the BBC and CNN kept focusing on ”” the demonstrators in the streets who want to dramatically liberalize the Islamic republic. This faction never stood a chance of taking power, whether by election or revolution. The two main factions used the third smaller faction in various ways, however. Ahmadinejad used it to make his case that the clerics who supported them, like Rafsanjani, would risk the revolution and play into the hands of the Americans and British to protect their own wealth. Meanwhile, Rafsanjani argued behind the scenes that the unrest was the tip of the iceberg, and that Ahmadinejad had to be replaced. Khamenei, an astute politician, examined the data and supported Ahmadinejad.
Now, as we saw after Tiananmen Square, we will see a reshuffling among the elite. Those who backed Mousavi will be on the defensive. By contrast, those who supported Ahmadinejad are in a powerful position. There is a massive crisis in the elite, but this crisis has nothing to do with liberalization: It has to do with power and prerogatives among the elite. Having been forced by the election and Khamenei to live with Ahmadinejad, some will make deals while some will fight ”” but Ahmadinejad is well-positioned to win this battle.
I feel sorry for the demonstrators in Iran who won’t get a fair election, and for the handful of young people who suffer under the thugs who run that country. I feel even more sorry for the thousands of victims of the main Iranian export: State-sponsored terrorism. It’s sad when innocent young people like Neda the Iranian martyr, die in a pool of their own blood. It’s sad, too, when young people get blown to pieces as a result of Iranian-sponsored terrorism. Let’s keep this in perspective. If change in Iran means fewer American citizen soldiers die, I’m all for it. If change in Iran means there’s a new task-master for Iranian-sponsored terror, I’m not charmed–no matter how cool CNN makes it look.
Overall this analysis is spot on and much better than the analysis we’re getting from the mainstream media. There are, however, two points where the Stratfor analysis breaks down. First, even failed revolutions can have tremendous consequences. China was never the same after Tiananmen Square. Even though that revolution failed, it helped to transform China. Second, while Stratfor is absolutely right that the real action in Iran is not what’s going on in the streets but the hidden struggles among the elites, that struggle is far from over. Rafsanjani and others have too much at stake and I think this analysis counts them out too quickly. The old elite have too much at stake now and there will be no quick Ahmedinajad victory here — he has too many powerful enemies among the old guard of the Revolution. Stratfor is correct that many of the demonstrators represent a vocal and very frustrated class of highly educated and Westernized Iranians who loathe the Islamic Republic, but they are not the majority. The real action is going on behind the scenes and it’s not a struggle for democracy but a huge power struggle between factions in the ruling elite of the Islamic Republic. Once again, our superficial mainline media haven’t really got a clue what’s going on.