The Mideast Channel
A Partnership of the NAF Middle East Task Force and the Project on Middle East Political Science Twitter Facebook RSS
Daily Brief Latest from the Blog Latest from FP

Posted By Geneive Abdo Share

A long-brewing power struggle recently burst into public view over Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's decision last month to dismiss Intelligence Minister Heydar Moslehi. The ensuing power struggle between Ahmadinejad and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has left the Iranian president deeply weakened and revealed many useful lessons about the closed and convoluted political workings of the Islamic Republic. On the surface, the battle appeared to be over when Ahmadinejad backed down. But there are deeper issues at stake which remain far from resolved. When Khamenei gave the president an ultimatum to reinstate the minister or resign, the supreme leader was not only preserving his own power -- the supreme leader has final say over government affairs -- but that of the entire clerical establishment.

The real fight was not about cabinet ministers. It was part of a test of wills between the Ahmadinejad loyalists, especially those in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the ruling clerical establishment over ideology, religion, the survivability of the Islamic Republic, and Iran's influence in Arab states now in transition. Khamenei appeared to believe that the cocky, alarmist Ahmadinejad, who in recent months had been boldly advancing an Iran with minimal clerical influence run by the IRGC and inspired by Iranian nationalism, not Iranian revolutionary Islamism, had to be slapped down. Otherwise, the Islamic Republic, as it has existed since the 1979 revolution, risked extinction. It might seem counterintuitive, but Khamenei's survival and that of the clerical system is in the West's interest. The alternative -- a highly militarized state run by the Revolutionary Guards -- would be much worse.

Since his election to a first term in 2005, Ahmadinejad had carefully courted Khamenei, his most powerful advocate in the volatile world of Iranian politics. In June 2009, in a rare but highly symbolic moment, Ahmadinejad became the first president in the Islamic Republic to kiss the hands of the supreme leader during his second inauguration ceremony. But no longer. Ahmadinejad embarked on another new trail by becoming the first president in the republic to publicly disobey the supreme leader. Angered by Khamenei's interference in the management of his cabinet, the president staged a boycott and did not show up for work for 11 days.

Khamenei and other powerful figures have clearly come to believe the president poses a very real threat to the system. This has prompted even many of Ahmadinejad's ardent supporters to side with Khamenei. Reactionary cleric Mesbah Yazdi, a longtime mentor of the president, turned against him and criticized the president for challenging supreme clerical rule, the foundation of the Islamic political system. "Some people introduce themselves as supporters of velyat (supreme clerical rule), but in reality they act otherwise," Yazdi said. "The restoration of anti-clerical thinking could be the next great sedition in this country," he said, clearly demonstrating his fears of a plot to do away with, or at least weaken, Iran's political clergy. Other reactionary clerics have gone as far as to throw the president in with Iran's "enemies," a category usually reserved for Israel and the United States.

As much as Khamenei detests the United States, he will always prefer "soft power" to a military confrontation, whether it is with Israel, the United States, or regional rival Saudi Arabia. This is not the case for Ahmadinejad and his partisans inside the IRGC whose members have gained greatly in both political and economic influence. Ahmadinejad is still believed to have powerful supporters inside the Corps, despite comments made last week by Maj. Gen. Mohammad-Ali Jafari, the commander of the IRGC, warning the president to "stay away from deviant factions," a term used to refer to Ahmadinejad's chief of staff and close confidant, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashaie. Many high-ranking officers and the rank and file of the IRGC share Ahmadinejad's radical views and political ideology and have greatly benefited from his government's policies in the past six years. They will stop at little to provoke Israel and empower Iran's regional proxies, which include Syria, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

While the two factions have disagreed in the past on nuclear negotiations with the United Nations, their real differences revolve around the future direction of Iran's Islamic system, with the nuclear program only a proxy arena for waging those deeper political battles. The president's pretenses of reaching out to engage the United States and Western governments are solely to increase his power internally, with the hope that the power structure might change and Khamenei might be the last supreme leader.

Ahmadinejad and Mashaie, whom the president hopes will succeed him when his term expires in 2013, envision a future Iran devoid of Islamic orthodoxy. This attempt to take Iran in a new direction has prompted accusations from high-ranking clerics that Ahmadinejad and Mashaie are influenced by religious "deviants" who believe in supernatural powers and djinns, or spirits. In fact, in the past Mashaie has said he can interpret for himself the Islamic texts, such as the Quran, and does not need the clergy -- an enormous threat to the clerical establishment's claim to religious sanction for their hold on power. In response, Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi told a group of IRGC officers and staff that, "In order to learn the religion, one must go to scholars of the religion and not to exorcists and monks. Which wise person would accept learning the faith from exorcists and monks instead of scholars of the faith?"

Not only would Ahmadinejad and Mashaie's vision lead to the marginalization of Iran's clerics, but it would also make it far less likely that Iran could exert influence in Egypt, Bahrain, Lebanon, Palestine and continue to call the shots in Iraq. Without the clerical establishment, Iran would have no religious or moral authority to interfere in these countries, where Iran seeks to extend its political influence in the name of Islam. This is definitely bad news for the United States and other Western governments, which worry that Iran will succeed in extending its influence in the Arab world, particularly after the Arab uprisings.

While this is a downside to Khamenei's triumph in the power struggle, his victory has preserved a system the West might not understand but one that so far remains somewhat predictable. Such is the state of affairs inside Iran's regime that Khamenei and the conservatives the United States once called "hard-liners" are now a safer bet than the wild card that is Ahmadinejad.

Geneive Abdo is the director of the Iran program at the National Security Network and the Century Foundation and the editor of insideIRAN.org. Arash Aramesh, a researcher for the program, contributed to the article.

AFP/Getty Images

EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, IRAN
 

MELISA

1:42 PM ET

May 10, 2011

why west thinks Khamenei is better than Ahmadinejad?

Thank you for saying the truth. West prefers Khamenei's power than Ahmadinejad's. You know better that both clerical system and Revolutionary Gaurd are in hands of Khamenei. So my question is why West prefers Khamenei?

 

COMETLINEAR

1:13 PM ET

May 11, 2011

Anti-Israel trolls

The one constant in this Universe.

 

COMETLINEAR

1:20 PM ET

May 11, 2011

In Foreign Policy, stability is often favored over change

The blogger's point is that the West prefers the predictable, normal scenario of Khameini over the unpredictable scenario of Ahmedinijad's radical new policies.

We pretty much know the consequences of Khameini. We do not know what an empowered Ahmedinijad would be like, and this entails risk.

 

DICKERSON3870

2:55 PM ET

May 11, 2011

SPEAKING OF "THE ONE CONSTANT IN THIS UNIVERSE"...

...ISRAEL SUPPORTS THE REPRESSIVE, AUTOCRATIC/THEOCRATIC REGIME IN SAUDI ARABIA!
SEE - "Arab winter: Israel has urged US to intervene to prop up Saudi monarchy" ~ Philip Weiss, Mondoweiss, 05/01/11

FYI: Americans ought to know they are now also to be politically obligated to defend the House of Saud. From the Wall Street Journal, Ted Koppel carries the water from Jerusalem: "The Israeli government is so concerned that America's adversaries may miscalculate U.S. intentions that it is privately urging Washington to make it clear that the U.S. would intervene in Saudi Arabia should the survival of that government be threatened."

SOURCE - http://mondoweiss.net/2011/05/the-only-democracy-israel-has-urged-us-to-intervene-to-prop-up-saudi-monarchy.html

 

STEVE_M

6:52 PM ET

May 10, 2011

Weighing the future

The West must support the shift from theocracy to democracy. This aligns with the history of Europe as the power of the Church waned centuries ago. There will be growing pains and power struggles, just like in Europe, but this serves everybody's interests in the end.

I'm not saying that Iran is ready for real democracy and Ahmadinejad is a risk, but it's better than having a lifelong office of "Supreme Leader" which can be ran as a quasi-cleric.

Call me out on this if I'm wrong, but less power exerted by Islam on its people should lead to a similar effect as the decline of the power of the Church. While we still have Christian elements in war, Christianity is no longer a driving force for war. We haven't fought a crusade since. That could be one change to speed the decline of popular support (and recruitment) for Islamic terrorist groups.

 

SAM FROM CALIFORNIA

8:27 PM ET

May 10, 2011

Israel& Sunni Arabs

Didn't Mashaei say that Israelis were Iran's friends?

It kind of goes against the narrative of Ahmadinejad as the "next Hitler" if Mashaei is really running the show. I remember it was the clerics who had to shut him up.

Either that, or this Mashaei fellow is as devious as the clerics say.

Perhaps this has to do with the issues in the Islamic world. Does Ahmadinejad want to pursue a more aggressive line in the Arab uprisings? Perhaps the old clerics want to take it slow, while Ahmadinejad and pals want to confront the old Arab states head on while they are weak?

Anyway this is all speculation, it's an opaque state.

 

S KUMAR

8:35 AM ET

May 11, 2011

Short-sighted policy

Fully agree with Steve_M's comment.

In short-term , it might benefit US to support Khameni, but, I think, the US should support democracy over theocracy in Iran.
Even though what will happen is difficult to predict, but by supporting Khameni, who knows, there might be another Pakistan in the making.
It is in everyone's interest, long-term if not immediate, that religion is kept at a long distance from governance. Ahmedinajad, though a bit of a lunatic, is a much better choice than religious mullahs.

 

THE GLOBALIZER

12:12 PM ET

May 11, 2011

Rooting for conflict.

Each undermines the other, drawing eyes away from reformers. It's a win-win so long as it continues, and both will be damaged in the long-term.

 

DICKERSON3870

2:37 PM ET

May 11, 2011

Regarding "Rooting for Khamenei", BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR!

FROM AN ARTICLE BY JAMSHEED K. CHOKSY, foreignpolicy.com, 11/24/10:
"…Ordinary Iranians have been the inadvertent beneficiaries of all this political gridlock. Ahmadinejad has used social liberalization as a way to shore up his support over the past year — by encouraging women’s involvement in politics, demanding that youth be free to date and wear clothing of their choice, and similar actions, much to the chagrin of theocrats and parliamentarians. The public has enjoyed greater personal freedoms as a result. Of course, that may only be a temporary reprieve...”
SOURCE – http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/24/is_this_really_the_end_for_ahmadinejad

 

KILGORE_NOBIZ

3:57 PM ET

May 11, 2011

Why root for Khamenei indeed

Not so sure it's a matter of rooting for one guy over the other as it is a matter of wanting to make sure the nutjob doesn't wind up ruling a nuclear power. We in the west shouldn't even pretend to understand Iranian politics, but it seems clear to pretty much everyone that Khamenei, as far as ruling Islamic clerics, is a rational actor. He's relatively pragmatic and has junked the terror-based tactics that were so prevalent in the 80's in favor of soft power tactics like building mosques, dams, and radio stations. These are things we understand, and while very effective, are not necessarily dangerous. Plus there is that old saying about the devil we know.

 

BUBBLE BURSTER

7:27 PM ET

May 11, 2011

OK, let me see if I am getting it right...

...so the clerical regime is more effective due to its soft power and ability to appeal to Arab Shi'a, allowing it influence in Iraq, Bahrain and other countries. A Iranian nationalist regime would likely be less effective at this because it would spark Arab (Iraqi, Saudi, etc) nationalism and the transnational appeal of Shi'ism would decline.

So it is clear then, in the name of stability lets support the effective regime that is handing us our a**es on a plate in the region. And we should oppose the regime that would alienate everyone in the region, thus reducing Iran' s influence...because it is more unpredictable.

Seriously, a predictable loss is better than an unpredictable possibility for a win?!?!

 

HASSAN ZAL

3:03 PM ET

May 12, 2011

Wrong Again

An erroneous and misleading analysis, which is not backed-up by evidence. Mashaie wants to pursue Iran’s national interests, re-establish ties with the US, and get rid of the mullahs. He has even expressed respect for the people of Israel. Are these inimical to the interests of the West? The writer asserts, without further elaboration, that Ahmadinejad has strong support among the upper echelons as well as the rank and file members of the Revolutionary Guards. Where is the evidence?

 

The Middle East Channel offers unique analysis and insights on this diverse and vital region of more than 400 million.

Read More

Enter your email address to get twice-weekly updates from the Mideast Channel:

Delivered by Constant Contact