Robert Fisk Reports From Iran
Jun 17th, 2009 | 16 responses
He’s been driving all around Tehran with no interference, and seeing extraordinary scenes. Here are some snips:
I’ve just been witnessing a confrontation, in dusk and into the night, between about 15,000 supporters of Ahmadinejad – supposedly the president of Iran – who are desperate to down the supporters of Mr Mousavi, who thinks he should be the president of Iran.
There were about 10,000 Mousavi men and women on the streets, with approximately 500 Iranian special forces, trying to keep them apart.
It was interesting that the special forces – who normally take the side of Ahmadinejad’s Basij militia – were there with clubs and sticks in their camouflage trousers and their purity white shirts and on this occasion the Iranian military kept them away from Mousavi’s men and women.
In fact at one point, Mousavi’s supporters were shouting ‘thank you, thank you’ to the soldiers.
One woman went up to the special forces men, who normally are very brutal with Mr Mousavi’s supporters, and said ‘can you protect us from the Basij?’ He said ‘with God’s help’.
It was quite extraordinary because it looked as if the military authorities in Tehran have either taken a decision not to go on supporting the very brutal militia – which is always associated with the presidency here – or individual soldiers have made up their own mind that they’re tired of being associated with the kind of brutality that left seven dead yesterday – buried, by the way secretly by the police – and indeed the seven or eight students who were killed on the university campus 24 hours earlier.
Quite a lot of policeman are beginning to smile towards the demonstrators of Mr Mousavi, who are insisting there must be a new election because Mr Ahmadinejad wasn’t really elected. Quite an extraordinary scene.
There were a lot of stones thrown and quite a lot of bitter fighting, hand-to-hand but at the end of the day the special forces did keep them apart.
I haven’t ever seen the Iranian security authorities behaving fairly before and it’s quite impressive.
It seems to me that scenes like this would not be taking place, and could not have taken place, if the Obama administration had responded to the election results the way right-wingers like William Kristol and John McCain (and Clifford May from National Review on CNN a couple of days ago) had wanted him to.
Fisk makes the additional point that the street demonstrations and the anger over the election results has nothing to do with Iranians’ support for the Islamic Republic in general:
[The protest] is absolutely not against the Islamic republic or the Islamic revolution.
It’s clearly an Islamic protest against specifically the personality, the manner, the language of Ahmadinejad. They absolutely despise him but they do not hate or dislike the Islamic republic that they live in.
I’m guessing that if Obama had taken the heavy-handed approach the interventionists on the right had wanted him to take, Iranians might very well have been rallying around Ahmadinejad rather than openly and vehemently protesting the election results.
ADDED: Juan Cole posts an on-the-scene report from an academic colleague (ital is Cole’s; bold at the end is mine):
Report on Tuesday’s Demonstration for Mousavi in Tehran from an eyewitness. Again, I was sent this by an academic, but will not give the name to avoid any repercussions for the individual.
Today, under slate skies and despite official warnings that the permit to march had been denied, against rumors that orders had been given to shoot to kill, they came. They came by the tens if not hundreds of thousands, marching east to west along the many kilometers of Enqelab Street to Azadi, or Freedom Square. “It would be dishonorable, na mardi, to not go,” a young couple explained. “We have to go.” Another man asks who is going, what is going on? He is told that the “Mousavi-chiha” are marching starting at 4. He laughs, “Mousavi-chiha nadarim, hame ye Iran hastand!” We don’t have Mousavi supporters, it’s now all of Iran…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
16 Responses to “Robert Fisk Reports From Iran”
First this:
“It seems to me that scenes like this would not be taking place, and could not have taken place, if the Obama administration had responded to the election results the way right-wingers like William Kristol and John McCain (and Clifford May from National Review on CNN a couple of days ago) had wanted him to.”
Then this:
“I’m guessing that if Obama had taken the heavy-handed approach the interventionists on the right had wanted him to take, Iranians might very well have been rallying around Ahmadinejad rather than openly and vehemently protesting the election results.”
I think it’s pretty safe to say that in your mind, Obama is the reason the sun comes up each morning.
Wow, jwest, is this the best you can do? I must have made a pretty convincing argument if you can't come up with a single substantive point to counter it.
Although I think Obama hgas taken the correct stance, if he had come out more strongly it would not have done much to lessen this level of support for Mousavi. This support comes from a hatred of Ahmadinejad that grew even during the Dubya days.
Now what would be the negetive of strong comments denoucing Ahmadinejad at this time would be the excuse it would give for a crackdown. The crackdown will still likely intensify, but without words from the US that would help justify it. As far as the actual support of Mousavi inside Iran,, it wouldn't make any real difference.
As an alternative to JW: (h/t Sully)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/georgepac…
What is going on in Iran isn't about Obama, it's IRAN and it's citizens…
BTW does Jwest really need a single substantive point to counter comments without one either?
I mean look at what is quoted from Fisk:
“It’s clearly an Islamic protest against specifically the personality, the manner, the language of Ahmadinejad. They absolutely despise him but they do not hate or dislike the Islamic republic that they live in.”
Then look at your comment:
” I’m guessing that if Obama had taken the heavy-handed approach the interventionists on the right had wanted him to take, Iranians might very well have been rallying around Ahmadinejad rather than openly and vehemently protesting the election results.”
Why would you make that guess after quoting Fisk's assertion that they absolutely hate Ahmadinejad? Sorry but that doesn't add up.
One of the other fascinating aspects of all this is the contradictory accounts of press freedoms. I think it was this morning that the NPR reporter there was being told he could no longer cover the protests at all, and then you have this reporter driving around unimpeded.
Similarly, you have accounts of militias/policemen running into college dorms and beating people, and then soldiers taking care of other pro-Mousavi protesters.
It all indicates that there is no single opinion yet among the powers that be in Iran about how to handle this. I just hope that this indecision is not like the indecision in the communist party of China before Tiananmen.
Kathy,
Some years ago, I spent a good amount of time in downtown Chicago. Each morning, I would go the Oak Tree Café and have one of their wonderful breakfasts.
Every morning outside the café, there was a local (I assume homeless) man who used to carry on extensive arguments with a streetlight pole. I don’t believe he ever won one of those fights although he had a better chance getting through to that pole than I do to you.
If you ignore facts, logic, reason and intellectual honesty, you make a pretty good case. Toss in a little blind hatred of all things conservative and you’ve got yourself an article. My comment above wasn’t an argument. It was holding up the key portions of your article to ridicule for your cult-like adoration of all things Obama.
I don’t believe the Oak Tree Café is there anymore and I’m sure the homeless man has moved on, but next time I’m in Chicago I’ll find that streetlight pole and yell at it a little………and be thinking of you.
Leonidas, my point is that if the U.S. had taken sides in the aftermath of the election results, Iranians, who DO have a sense of national pride and patriotism, might very well have felt it necessary rally around Ahmadinejad because to do otherwise would be like supporting U.S. intervention.
So there's no contradiction in my opinion. As much as I despised former Pres. Bush, if another country was trying to interfere in my country's election results, I would want to put my country's national sovereignty over my opposition to the person who won the election.
My comment above wasn’t an argument. It was holding up the key portions of your article to ridicule for your cult-like adoration of all things Obama.
Except, of course, that my statement about the correctness of Obama's decisions with regard to Iran does not logically lead to the conclusion that I have a “cult-like adoration of all things Obama.” It just doesn't. So your “holding up the key portions” of my post on Obama's stance on Iran to “ridicule my cult-like adoration of all things Obama” is fatally flawed from the start.
That’s just what that old guy used to say to the lamp post!
We tried the belligerent and bellicose approach for 8 years. It failed.
This isn't about Obama. It's about Iran.
I disagree with Kathy for gratitously inserting the editorial comments in Robert Fisk's report, which was intended to be a factual, if anecdotal, account, and I disagree with jwest for rising to the bait.
Both sides should have thought better than to turn this factual report on conditions on the ground in Iran into another ideological debate on Obama. There is plenty of commentary out there on the Obama adminstration's response. Fisk's report wasn't one of them.
Apart from the Obamadoration and the despicable GOP, the Fisk article is really pretty amazing and worth reading the whole thing. It makes you wonder why more correspondents don't just go out and see what is going on for themselves.
A) Because they would need to speak the languages of the country/region they are reporting about.
B) Because they would need to understand the history and the culture they are reporting on.
C) Because they need to get paid and make a living when nothing major/earth-shaterring is occurring.
D) Because the publishers/editors back home would probably not want to see their prejudices & propaganda destroyed by facts.
“I think it’s pretty safe to say that in your mind, Obama is the reason the sun comes up each morning.”
A lot of people do seem to be acting that way currently — for all I know they confuse him with the sun, too. Obviously this more silly love of Obama (and pathological hatred of non-liberals, a.k.a. “right-wingers” and such) is irrational, which explains why one would be moved to defend Obama as a response to Fisk's defense of Iran's religiously controlled society. (It doesn't follow, but with such people, needn't.)
The real issue (not given its due — as often happens with misplaced liberal priorities) is that Fisk appears to be in defense of Iran's religiously-controlled society. Fiske is notoriously anti-Israel and has been anti-Western before, don't forget.
“Both sides should have thought better than to turn this factual report on conditions on the ground in Iran into another ideological debate on Obama.”
This reminds me of “cycle of violence” and other statements that express or imply equality of blame in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The issue was the wandering off from reporting on Iran, to Obama, which in no way was wrongly reacted to by J. West.
I already described earlier, elsewhere, the key issue with Obama _and_ Sec of State Clinton, that they should not repeat the blunder of Bush the elder, inciting people in Iraq to revolt, without backing them up when Hussein suppressed them. It has nothing to do with mainly hatred-mythical neo-cons or such.
It makes you wonder why more correspondents don't just go out and see what is going on for themselves.
Indeed it does. Excellent point, DaGoat.