Commenting on Iran's opposition movement, Fareed Zakaria makes the following observation:
The comparison of Iran's Green Revolution to the velvet revolutions of Eastern Europe is mistaken. In 1989 dissidents had three forces on their side: nationalism (because communism had been imposed by force by a foreign power), religion (because communism repressed the church), and democracy. The Green Movement has only one: democracy. The regime has always used the religiosity of the people to its advantage, but it has also become skilled at manipulating nationalism.
I think Zakaria is on to something here, although there are some nitpick retorts one could make: the Green Movement was perhaps "hyper-nationalist," because it was appealing to, as they might argue, a revolutionary spirit betrayed by Khamenei; The founders of the revolution, including even Khomeini, were not strong believers in the nation-state, so perhaps appealing to nationalism isn't as important as appealing to the revolution and Khomeini's legacy, which the Greens have done; The more "religious" figureheads during last summer's unrest were, perhaps, with the Greens, as Ahmadinejad and Khamenei arguably represent a more "secular" form of Islamic governance; etc.
Setting those items aside, I think Zakaria does a good job of summarizing the systemic problems with the Green Movement, though I don't really see a time when making nationalistic appeals - that being, an appeal to Khomeini's legacy and the revolution - will ever serve the movement's purposes. As Karim Sadjadpour recently noted:
In order to continue to recruit disaffected members of the traditional classes and create as big a political tent as possible, they will be forced to defend Khomeiniâ??s legacy against attack, even among their own supporters. At the same time, however, rather than praising the late cleric and alienating their largest and most vibrant constituencyâ??the youthâ??they should avoid mentioning Khomeini as much as possible. No matter how you slice it, Khomeini can never be a credible or inspiring symbol for a movement that purports to champion democracy and human rights.
In short, Khomeini has become the third rail of Iranian politics. Thus, turning their grievances into a referendum on Khomeini's legacy might not be the best route toward revolution and reform in Iran. This will be a delicate tightrope walk for the Greens, one which would only become harder with American interference.
Washington's words and deeds will almost always serve the purposes of the regime in Tehran, which is why the U.S. should quietly wish the Greens luck and move forward with a new plan for Iranian rapprochement.
(AP Photo)
