What do you think of Mousavi and Karoubi and Green movement?

Discussion in 'Iran' started by Political Traveler, Dec 20, 2011.

  1. What do you think of Mousavi and Karoubi and Green movement? I admit they are significant figures/members of the green movement. Would you go as far as calling them "leader"?

    Why are Iranians so obsessed with these two individuals and their home arrest to the point that they were of Khomeini thirty some years ago? Why don't people consider them as they are, members of the movement. They can even become presidents by election (and replaced after 4 or 8 years). I don't mind that at all, but leaders?
  2. JohnDoe Moderator

    I don't know if they are leaders, or figureheads.
  3. Boofby Member

    I won't pretend to know what Iranians think about those men, or whether or not they should be called "Leaders." All I know is how I feel about the movement.
    • Like Like x 2
  4. I think there are too many people who're putting too much value on Mousavi and Karoubi and giving them a free pass on their past.
    If they came out and accepted their previous mistakes and admitted that their position had changed, then I don't have a problem supporting them. I believe they ought to remain as presidential candidates whose positions should be vigorously debated.

    Some rather active Iranian activists blindly support Mousavi and Karoubi and constantly post (on FB) love poems about them and how devastated they (the posters) are that these two leaders are under house arrest. There are even people that openly call for us, the activists, having to make an "idols" (Ostooreh in Persian) out of them.
  5. JohnDoe Moderator

    I wonder if it's because there's a vacuum when it comes to leadership for the opposition, and those whom I perceive to truly be the leaders are all imprisioned?
    I always thought that M&K were a means to an end, rather than the end.
    I agree that if M&K are to be leaders then they must acknowledge and apologise for their past.
    I must admit I always found it interesting that Mousavi always called on people to protest, if he were arrested. Not sure what the difference is between house arrest and real arrest - other than the conditions obviously. But interesting that the people - for whatever reason - did not protest. Does that mean they were not prepared to put their lives on the line for him? Or had the momentum gone by that stage? But surely if he truly were the leader then the people would have found a way to make their voice heard?
    • Like Like x 1
  6. I agree with you that they ought to be means to an end. Most people agree with that too. So was Khomeini before he took power and slaughtered all opposition groups. I wish Mousavi (I have no respect for Karoubi) would have become president, opened the society up a bit, and with every election people would slowly bring about the reforms and changes that they want. I'm not sure how probable it is anymore for the establishment to allow Mousavi or Khatami or people like them to be elected again.

    I also don't think people inside Iran look at K&M as anything other than significant figures. The green movement people of Iran who go to protests and are looking for change for the most part (at least the people I knew when I was in Iran and those that I talk to today) want a secular Iran and realize that M&K are not going to take them there but can open up the country a bit so that leaders with those goals can surface.

    That brings me to another issue that bothers me, he absolute need that people have for a leader to tell them what to do or not to do. I personally suspect it has its roots in our deep cultural ties with religion and gods.
  7. JohnDoe Moderator

    Totally agree about people thinking Khomenei was just a means to an end - but surely they have learnt their lesson?

    (I happened to think that that is why the Arab Spring happened in other countries of the region, but in Iran they were all too familiar with the potential outcome. It may even be that those insecurities fed into the Green movement after the election)

    The problem I have with reforming the system is: what about Khatami's reforms? He tried to open the society and remember the slaughter in the dorms, that week of bloodshed in July 1999. Clearly the establishment/regime could not tolerate any hint of reform and not only stamped it out, but made sure that he was unable to reform any further, and then ensured his successor was a lot more hard line - ie Ahmadinejad.

    All I'm saying is I don't think the regime will allow itself to be reformed, and reform is the only thing that would have secured its survival into the future - albeit in a different form.

    For me it was very obvious fairly early on that the people and Mousavi were not 'singing from the same hymn sheet'. He wanted the system to remain largely intact - the people wanted an end to Velayat-e Faqih. That's why I say I don't think he was their leader, but their figurehead.

    I don't think that it's just in Iran that people need a leader - even in the smallest group, certainly here, there will always be leaders and sheep and the sheep don't ever seem capable of making decisions on their own!

    So how do I see the change coming?

    Well I think the regime itself will implode - the infighting and bickering is too deep, and too public for the regime to be able to indefinitely hold together. Remember we are talking about the opposition - they have already killed or exiled them. They have no one else to turn on expect themselves.
    I think the people's anger is just beneath the surface and when the regime starts to crumble, then it will be time for the people to take to the streets one more.
    The pressure on the economy is definitely having an impact and the sanctions seem to be adding to that.
    They must be dreading the March elections, but they also must realise that Khamenei is not going to last forever - what happens when he goes? Will that be the next big catalyst?

    And you Political Traveler - how to you see the change coming? Because come it will!!!!

    • Like Like x 3
  8. I agree with all you said about Iran. we might or might not have disagreement on the leader topic which we can discuss later. I'm not saying having someone to take direction from, or someone that unites people and organizes them together is bad. It is indeed essential; we also have to make sure we draw a swift line between giving direction and giving orders (even for a good cause). At the same time its very hard to ensure such thing unless people recognize the difference between the two themselves when they hear it.

    I remember 1999 and Kooye Daneshgah. I was going to a high school in Tehran between Enghelab square and Ferdowsi square. IMO "kooye Daneshgah" along with "Serial Murders of Intellectuals" (Ghatlhaye Zanjirei) in 1998 were the beginning of Green Movement. During 2009 election it spread to not so active students and non-students in general.

    Like you, I also don't think this regime will allow reform anymore. Khamenei certainly won't. So unless there is a drastic change in current key figures running the country I seriously doubt we're going to see anyone close to even Mousavi or Karoubi in power.

    what do I see happening from now on? Honestly I'm not sure. I mentioned above what i hope for which is gradual reforms through people like Mousavi so that within 4 or 5 presidents we can get to secular democracy. I doubt that will happen easily under this regime. I see them arresting, killing, and bankrupting people as long as they can without the smallest regard. Khamenei's death will definitely bring a whole lot of uncertainty. While I don't think his son (Mojtaba) will become supreme leader or a public figure, I do think he'll be very powerful in the background. From what I've seen and read he is far worse than his dad.

    A war with Israel or U.S. would also change everything. It'll badly hurt green movement for sure.
    • Like Like x 4
  9. Anonymous Member

    My only issue with the Green Movement at first, was that they were advocating humanistic treatment of Muslims only. They did not include humanistic treatment of non-Muslims (especially the Baha'i) until after the movement was violently persecuted. That was when the movement finally got a wake-up call when they realized what they experienced was what a lot of non-Muslims in Iran have endured for a long time.

    To note, in Iran it is still rewarded and praised in some parts of that country to kill a Baha'i in the street. Thankfully, the movement has incorporated a broader perspective, it seems, by seeing other people's humanity and advocating for them as well. I'm not sure if Mousavi had a hand in pushing for such before he disappeared.

    Though I have to say the movement has sadly been beaten down hard and now the remnants are slowly being removed from society (through imprisonment and torture). The problem was the tactics. They were peaceful, a good virtue, but the regime has shown it only answers with cruelty and violence. And that, sadly, is usually the winning force if the opposition does not have the grit to fight back harder.

    Take Ghandi, for instance. His civil-disobedience and protest tactics only worked because the Britain had people to answer to if it did something inhumane. And it worked. Ghandi made the British government in India look so horrible and cruel, the British basically gave up and left, or face real consequences and a worse reputation from the rest of the world.

    The Iranian regime has no one to answer to but itself and its only twisted religious viewpoints, so it wont' feel bad torturing and falsely imprisoning people who oppose the views they demand to be mandatory. Yeah, they say shit back to the U.N., but only because they want the opposition against the rest of the world. If the Green Movement became a full-on rebellion, we might be seeing a different situation. But for now, I don't see the sociopath regime changing or falling to the voice of humanism anytime soon.
  10. Anonymous Member

    The only "good" thing I can see about Ahmadinejad, is that besides being "a lot more hard-line" he's also a lot less stable.
    He seems insecure, paranoid, and the sort of figurehead leader liable to a dramatic public meltdown.

    For someone who actually had power and clout and force in the government, this would not be a good thing. A man who appears to be as much a deranged lunatic as this one, would only be a source of great misery, as Qadafi was. But if he (as it seems) has very little actual power and influence, and only serves as the public "Face" of the regime,
    for him to appear crazy probably does not help the standing of the central authority.

    Seems unlikely, but a very public and visible explosion/implosion of Ahmadinejad might help people see that the front men of the clerical council are not to be taken seriously, and their words are less than worthless. (the words of the 'stooges' that is).

    Is he only acting, or faking it? Or have they shortened his leash so there will be no temper-tantrums in public anymore? Or am I completely missing the boat.
  11. I actually think unlike Khamenei, Ahamadi Nejad believes most of the comments he makes which is scary.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors


Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins