Iran Analysis: Rafsanjani's "Finger in the Dike" Strategy

Masoud Shafaee writes at The Newest Deal:

As the Persian Nowruz New Year fast approaches and Iran's post-election crisis enters its ninth month, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani remains as mercurial a figure as ever in Iranian politics. True to his nickname of Kooseh, or "The Shark", Rafsanjani has been paying lip-service to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei while simultaneously signaling (if only tacitly) solidarity with Iran's Green opposition movement. With his reputation as an incredibly calculating figure, it is hard to believe that this contradiction is coincidental. In fact, Rafsanjani's high level of influence in the system may be paradoxically inhibiting him from more closely aligning with the Green Movement.

In many ways, Rafsanjani's position resembles that of the boy who stuck his finger in the leaking dike in Hans Brinker's classic tale.



In the story, the boy's plugging of the hole with his finger was not an attempt to solve the problem at hand, but rather, to prevent an immediate and far more dangerous outcome from occurring. Had the boy gone to fetch help to repair the dike, the levee would have broken and the city would have been flooded. By staying at the dike all night -- not fixing the problem, but preventing it from worsening -- the boy bought time until others discovered him the next morning and were able to make necessary, lasting repairs.

Rafsanjani may find himself in similar circumstances and equally incapable of making a significant move. Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guard have shown no intention of curbing their quest to completely control the Islamic Republic. What started out as a President hand-in-hand with the Supreme Leader (with his undoubted blessing of plans to rig the June election) has grown into something far greater. Only one month after the election, Ahmadinejad publicly disobeyed Khamenei by failing to immediately withdraw Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai as his top deputy after the Supreme Leader voiced his disapproval. A month later, he showed up unannounced in the Majlis parliament flanked by his armed bodyguards. Constitutional rights have been discarded in countless instances. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's statement that "Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship" appears troublingly accurate.

One factor that has arguably prevented a complete takeover of the regime from already occurring is the enormous weight that Rafsanjani carries inside of Iran. A father-figure of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, head of two constitutional branches of government, and a man of considerable wealth and influence, Rafsanjani has in many ways served as a buffer to Ahmadinejad's megalomaniacal ambitions. And while by no means himself a democratizing figure, Rafsanjani's perceived loyalty to the Supreme Leader (and the ruling theocracy) has gone to ensure that he remains a formidable presence in the country's politics, thereby creating space for the Green Movement to breathe, evolve, and grow. Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani's recent remarks labeling "those who want to exclude Rafsanjani" from the system as "irrelevant" speaks of just this clout.

This public backing of Khamenei came as recently as two weeks ago, when Rafsanjani reaffirmed his support for the doctrine of Velayat-e Faqih. “Our focal point is clear and that is the constitution, Islam, the principle of the office of the jurisprudent and supreme leadership,” he said. Statements such as this are far more calculated than simply supporting the Supreme Leader for the sake of winning political capital. Indeed, Rafsanjani is essentially forcing Khamenei to own the very mess that he created. This was just the case when he stated back in December and again earlier this month that the Supreme Leader is “the only one” capable of unifying the country out of the current crisis. While elevating the position of the Supreme Leader with false praise, Rafsanjani’s words actually directly clash with the regime’s official line that there is in fact “no crisis in the country" to begin with.

This obviously does not mean that the Supreme Leader will lead the country out of crisis, nor would it excuse his actions were he to do the unthinkable and actually reverse course and unify the country. Rather, it points to Rafsanjani’s maneuvering within the system. He is not with the Greens per se, but he is taking steps that ultimately help their cause. He is not fixing or replacing the dike; he is plugging the hole until help arrives.

But just as Rafsanjani has been cautious to not stray too far from the conservative camp, he has also been equally cognizant of the need to reassure the Greens that he shares many of their same concerns. His daughter, Faezeh Hashemi, has phrased it less ambiguously,claiming that her father's demands "are the same as the Green Movement." When asked of the possibility of political reconciliation, she went even further, stating that any compromise would be "out of the question" if it did not take into account the gross violation of people's rights. The fact that the Iranian judiciary has now filed charges against Faezeh Hashemi (and her brother Mehdi) for "fomenting riots" in Tehran only adds to the credibility of the Rafsanjani name within Green circles.

Whether Rafsanjani is technically a 'Green' or not, comments posted on his website following his Khobregan [Assembly of Experts] address are unmistakably similar to some of the criticisms coming from the leaders of the Green Movement. Comparing the current crisis to the events surrounding the 1906-1911 Constitutional Revolution, Rafsanjani said that certain individuals, while conspiring against the regime, pretend to be supporting the ideals of the Islamic Revolution. With the proper historical context, his message is less veiled: much like how the country's very first National Assembly collapsed, leading to the coup d'etat of Reza Shah in 1921, the regime faces similar dangers today from those who carry the regime's banner but stray from its ideals. Mir-Hossein Mousavi made a similar assessment when he told Kalemeh in a post-22 Bahman interview that the refusal to listen to the people's demands "is a sign of tyranny and a distortion of the ideals of the Islamic Revolution."

And while "the Shark" has kept a relatively low profile during the last few months  -- at least when compared to the increasingly pointed rhetoric of both Mousavi and Mehdi Karoubi -- his maneuvering within the Islamic Republic's framework points to a strategy to align with some of the more immediate goals of the Green Movement. Just as Mousavi called for the reform of electoral laws in his 17th statement, the Expediency Council  -- a constitutional body which Rafsanjani chairs -- began considering a proposal that would take away the Guardian Council's vetting role, and instead give it to a new "National Election Committee." The committee, not coincidentally, would be under Rafsanjani's supervision at the Expediency Council. It should also be noted that Rafsanjani himself alleged election fraud following his defeat in the 2005 presidential election to none other than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Yet it would be remiss to neglect mentioning that Khamenei ordered the new election plans to be drawn up two years ago. The plans, in other words, outdate post-election developments. Irrespective of their origin, there is no chance that the regime, facing its greatest crisis since its inception, will suddenly decide to make itself more democratic, and inevitably, more vulnerable.

Rafsanjani's intentions should not be seen in an altruistic or nationalist light. If he is indeed scheming to help the Greens, then he is surely being driven in part by his own political ambitions. For this was Ayatollah Khomenei's right-hand man, a two-term (and almost three-term) president, and still the head of two powerful constitutional bodies. He is Iran's de facto number-two. Helping the Green Movement's cause ultimately helps his cause: more power.

While Rafsanjani's current primary concern may be preventing Ahmadinejad from tearing Iran's already-polarized political landscape asunder, that may in time prove to be lead to his grander scheme: he was the boy who saved the city from ruin.

Comments

[Barry]

Interesting ideas here.

But I am wondering a few things. Where does Ahmadinehjads support come from? And what would happen if there was some kind of "clash" between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad? Who would come out on top in that situation ? - and why?

[shangool]

Barry.

AN`s support comes from a hardline faction within the IRGC and Mesbah Yazdi. AN has challenged SL on a couple of occasions, Vice-president, and his speech months back then he said the responsibility of running the country should not be on the shoulders of SL but rather on the president. I think SL will win if there is a clash, Moderate conservatives, the clergy, Raffers and I think also the reformists will side With SL. AN will stand with a few loyalists within the Guards and parliment. In my opinon, SL has given the Guards too much power, he now realizes that his own position will be in jeopardy if Raffers goes away, so SL will try to create a balance without having to fear a military coup from the Guards.

[Publicola]

Barry,

a tentative attempt at a superficial, not (!) well-founded answer
by a non-Iranian dilettante/amateur (!) !

The percentage of all parapolice/paramilitary forces, expressed in percentage of the Iranian population total (74.000.000) is significant and meaningful
(a) with respect to the "security problems" each Iranian government since the fall of the Shah-regime has felt to have to cope with, i.e. the oppression to exert against a reluctant and unwilling population;
b) with respect to securing a high constituency for elections AND violent/cruel measures to be taken)

• The Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution, or Revolutionary Guards, has an estimated 125,000 personnel (0,17% of total population)
• The Basij is a paramilitary volunteer force controlled by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards. Its membership is a matter of controversy. Iranian sources claim a membership of 12.6 million, including women, of which perhaps 3 million are combat capable (4 % to 17% of total population)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_Republic_of_Iran%27s_military

Several vigilante groups are operating in the Islamic Republic today. The three most prominent are listed below:

• Ansar-i Hizbullah (Defenders of the Party of God) is best known for its involvement in the July 1999 storming of a Tehran University dormitory, an incident that sparked the worst rioting in the Islamic Republic in two decades.
• The "Sa’id Imami Gang," composed of Intelligence Ministry operatives and named after the former deputy minister of intelligence, stands accused of murdering a number of Iranian intellectuals and dissidents during Khatami’s administration.
• Fida’iyan-i Islam (Devotees of Islam) attacked a busload of visiting American businessmen in November 1998. They also appear to be linked to the Sa’id Imami Gang.
source:
year 2001
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=31
http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC05.php?CID=1418

To be taken into account are thus all these paramilitary/parapolice forces plus their family members, when talking about the numerical/percentual quantity of regime-supporters within the Iranian population

[Publicola]

Barry,

"what would happen if there was some kind of “clash” between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad?"

Well-justified question !

[Barry]

@PUBLICOLA

Hmm - how to "justify" a question?????

I guess I raised this thought as a question - because there is another thread elsewhere that hints that SL may be lessening his support for AN. IF this is so and IF the lessening of support was to reach a point whereby SL and AN were to become quite alienated from one another, then what could be the possible outcomes.? These possible outcomes would in my view be strongly determined by what support each player has.

Barry

[Sasan Kermani]

With all due respect, I find the article very naive and amateurish. While the creator of Enduring America has a PhD in American history, he will not pass a freshman level history test regarding Iran or its politics. I honestly do not know where to start to point out the flaws in the article. Here are a few
1. The “finger in the dike” is story about sacrifice. It is story of a child who beyond superseded expectations and showed exceptional decision making skills when faced with demise of the entire town and its citizens.
On the other hand, Kosseh is a selfish, money/power hungry politician who is trying to have his cake and eat it too. As we Iranians say, “be naalo be mekh mezaneh”. There is not an ounce of scarifies in what kosseh is doing and the only skin he is trying to save is his own.
2. Hilary Clinton statement is 30 years late (intentionally). How do you think Mullah’s Republic has stayed in power this long? Are you suggesting a politician as smart as Hillary Clinton just came to such realization, or that political analysts around the world just discovered this? With your PhD you have to do better than that.
3. All the talk about Khameneyi, Ahmadinejad, and other politicians sound like whole bunch of Blah, blah, blah, and is not worth my time or any readers time to read opposing argument about it.
4. Having said what I mentioned in 3, I do admit that the so called factional or individual fights / political posturing are part of an orchestrated effort on behalf of all the players in Mullahs republic to ensure some (if not all) will have a stake in the future. This is the classical 20th/21st century remedy which politicians have come up with; to preserve your power become your own critic/enemy. In the battle between “you” and “you”, “you” will be victorious. Yes, “you” will lose and that will crunch the thirst of people who want to see “change”. But the winner will be “you” as well. “You” have preserved and retained your power. It may have a different face or name, for example, Khomeyni (leader of revolution, man of god), Khameneyi (the hardliner/dictator/vali-e-fagh), Rafsanjani (kosseh, the moderate), Khatami (the reformer), or mussavi (the savior).

Thanks a lot for nothing; you have now ruined the reputation of the hero of classic story by comparing him with Rafsanjani (way to go).

[Jack]

Sasan Kermani:

A few points if I may. In the first instance, this article is by Masoud Shafaee. I don't believe that he is "the creator of Enduring America. This distinction, it is my understanding, is jointly held by Scott Lucas and Mike Dunn. In addition, Mr. Shafaee does not hold a PHD in American history. Rather, he has a law degree from Washington College of Law at American University. As someone who frequently writes for both English and Farsi publications, I would wager a fair amount of money on the proposition that Mr. Shafaee would do quite well on a "freshman level history test regarding Iran or its politics".

regarding your primary substantive point, which I take to be that Raf is just trying to maneuver n such a way as to save his own skin should the greens prevail. I don't think that Mr. Shafaee is in dispute with that position. He is not attempting to ascribe altruistic motives to Raf. he is simply positing that Raf is building a record so that, if the greens prevail, he can point backwards and say "look what I did to save the city". I think that you are taking the point of the analogy a step too far. He is not equating Raf with the beloved hero of the dike story on every level. it is a question of the difference between strategy and motivation.

[Arshama]

When reading the comments to Mr Shafaee's analysis, I asked myself, why Raffers sticks his finger in the leaking dike (while other influential politicians don't). Instead of lengthy explanations I would like to offer a little story, which goes like this:

Once upon a time there was a huge barren country, owned by a wicked old man and his beadles. One of these beadles wore a shiny halo, another wore glasses and all of them beards, except for one. This wicked old man had built a huge dam to protect his lofty, luxurious mansions and magnificent gardens at Lavasanat from his subjects, earning a living by driving cabs, getting temporarily married 50 times per week, selling pills and powders for sweet dreams or comparable useful occupations.

Everything was alright and life was fine, until the day that the wicked man and the halo-man decided to cheat the subjects, who got angry. Suddenly a Sea of Green poured into the streets. (As you probably know this part of the story already, I will pass on).

As the Sea of Green continued to push relentlessly against the crumbling dam, the wicked old man got frightened and asked his beadles, but all of them were too scared and offered him to send their bearded servants instead, some of them black-dressed with shiny helmets, some mounted on fast red cycles and some in plain clothes.

In the end he asked the beardless men to do something, and that's how this valiant defender made up his mind to stick the finger in the leaking dike.

The rest of the story is still uncorrected, but I can tell you already that the Sea of Green will continue to push against the dike day by day and finally break it.
On that fine day the barren land will be watered again, the subjects will become citizens and the wicked old man with his bunch of beadles will be washed away...

You may say I'm a dreamer, but probably I'm not the only one ;-)

Arshama

[Anthony]

Sasan Kermani, only certain exiles who dont regularly read news coming out of Iran call Iranians regime "mullah republic". Who is amateur/naive now?

[Sasan Kermani]

To Jack,
Thank you for clarification of who the responsible party for that poorly written article was. It actually makes me feel better to know Dr. Lucas did not have anything to do with writing it. But he needs to put someone a bit more seasoned as an editor so every garbage does not get published as political analysis. It makes me wonder whether this was by design to divert attention from where the problem lies or just a poor editorial staffing. In any case, dear readers, please redirect my previous comments in my last post to Mr. Shafaee who evidently is the author of the article.
To you, Dear Jack
The main point I was making (#4 in previous post) is far from what Mr. Shafaee said, and are different like night and day. At best this article was a distraction (even if I say Mr. Shafaee and you who came in his defense knew of my point in #4 in previous post). Who cares what Rafsanjani did or does any more. Anyone who cares about the tactics one or the other one of these mullahs engage in is missing the big picture. There is no way to democratize the so called "Islamic republic".
Are you happy now (I called them Islamic Republic)?
Do you approve of the term?
Once the change comes, it will be fundamental. I pray that will be sooner than later, but reality on the ground points in a different direction, and I do not see any change (for better) any time soon.
Regarding your second posting, this is rather interesting, someone named jack calling me exiled Iranian. Well, dear Jack you just made a jack… out of yourself. I came out of Iran at WILL and 2 years after I served during Iran-Iraq war. I think you were somehow trying to hint that I am somewhat less Iranian, or advocating monarchy, or even have lost touch with my country or my people. Fact is I have been back to Iran several time since I left. But unlike some Iranians who live abroad and go for vacation (and show off) to Iran, the purpose of my visit was only to visit my family. The only time I spent outside of our house was a 2-hour visit to my old aunt (customary), and another time when I visited an orphanage. So you really made a jack… out of yourself by going there.
More than 80% of Iranians are Muslim, and regardless of what the world, you and I think of that or feel about it, there is that sense of comfort and salvation and solace they feel when they view themselves as believers and they are not ready to replace it with what some 2-cent intellectual sitting in a foreign country thinks they should believe in (be it another religion or just a different hanger like nationalistic pride to hang their hat on).
Out of respect for my people and their belief in Islam, I chose the term Mullahs Republic. I am NOT sorry if it seems outdated to you or may be it reminded you of Monarchy seekers (or may be even Mujahedin-e-khalgh). That is your problem, not mine. To be respectful to my people, I did not wish to associate my peoples’ religion and belief with the inhumane and disgusting treatment in the hand of Mullahs, hence I named the regime like it should be, Mullahs Republic. In the hind sight, Mullahs Monarchy would have been more suitable name as they do have a king figure. Disassociation of Mullahs from Islam should be one of the first initiatives taken toward unifying Iranians without making them feel they are betraying their god. Such disassociation will go a long way in freeing Iranians from the bondage as well as those disagreeing with them out of harm’s way.
After all, those who are killing Iranians are themselves Iranians, yet doing so by order of mullahs (not order of god or Islam) and that is an important distinction to make. Once individual knows it is not godly (or Islamic) to kill his own brother, I am willing to bet that more than half of them resist such order. The rest do not deserve the title of Iranian as they have committed treason against their own people.
Iranians need a lot of healing and learning and reprogramming. The last thing they need is for some cheesy 2 cent worth analysis of their internal affairs. This reminds me of that song that goes like “hit the road jack, don’t you come back no more, no more…”. I do not mean that literally, you are entitled to your opinion and definitely entitled to stand by it and publish it.
But know that you and Mr. Shafaee are missing the mark by a million mile if you still think “Rafsanjani is positioning himself so that regardless of final winner he would stand to gain”. He is just trying to accomplish what I said in # 4 in my previous post, which is 1000 times more cynical.

To my friend, Arshema
If you don’t dream it you never achieve it. Most if not all great leaders throughout history have been dreamer and optimist. Iran will be free, free of bondage. From now until then it is up to me and you as Iranians to keep the dialog going so we can learn from one another. The worst atrocity of a totalitarian regime is not monopoly of power or even killing of oppositions. It is their prevention of people from educating themselves about system of government and the available political players. Hence, when they are gone, people do not know of what to do and who they are trusting. Please, keep the dialog between Iranians on. I loved your story. Especially the analogy that you used about the finger in the hole is not to save the village, rather to keep the sea of green out to water the deserted land. I hope Mr. Shafaee sees your use of the story appropriately and do a rewrite.

[Sasan Kermani]

Once again I was wrong, It was Anthony who questioned my choice of terminology for the current government in Iran. So my remarks regarding that matter is for you my dear AN(thony).

[Barry]

@Arshama

Thank you for your fine allegory.

It reminds me a little of the Medieval Christian Morality plays - which were very popular.

But tell me more about this - "getting temporarily married 50 times per week". As a man, it sounds very interesting and appealing to me - but I am not sure that the concept could be sold to the women of my country. In these matters, and others, they rule the roosters roost here. :)

Barry

[Jack]

To Sasan:

I relent before the power of your well organized logic. Your cogent use of the language to support such a clear and convincing argument finds me unable to stand against its overwhelming force.

Jack.

[Sasan Kermani]

To Jack
Is that sarcasm, crying, or whining? You are not relenting to anything; you just prefer to be prisoner of your own ignorance. Go study a bit more about Iran before jumping with your head in defending childish and naive take of your friend as a political analysis of events in Iran.
What are you, 16?

[Arshama]

Dear Sasan,

Thank you for your kind words and strong remarks, but you should not get angry by such an analysis. After all we Greenies want to practise dialogue (tamrin-e modara, as regretted Mohammad Mokhtari called it), and EA is IMHO one of the best places to do so.
And then, Scott apparently loves to confront us with provocative articles from time to time in order to prompt vivid discussions like this ;-)
I am really pleased about your interpretation of my humble story, or rather allegory. This is just what I wanted to express. sabz bashid ...

@ Barry

Thank you for your compliments. It is surely an allegory, with some elements of a Medieval morality play perhaps, in any case it came spontaneously to my mind.
“Getting temporarily married 50 times per week” is a sarcastic allusion to the exclusively Shiite practice of "sigheh" of course, which has been changed into a legalised form of prostitution in this holy IR. Perhaps someone should ask Zahra Rahnavard's opinion on this issue, a blatant example for the double standards of these hypocritical mullahs, propagating stoning of an adulteress, while they sexually abuse helpless and impoverished women. Disgusting!

Arshama

[Jack]

I wish I was 16. Then I could get a driver's license.

[Sasan Kermani]

To Jack
That is what I figured.

Dear Arshama
I was not angry at Dr. Shafaee for what he had to say or what Jack added subsequently. A free lance writer, who gets published a lot, is most probably a smart one who wants the publications pay for his valued articles. On the other hand, free lance writer who gets no publication of his writings, needs to stop writing and do some more reading and observing.
As Iranians, we read the story used as inspiration for this article. It taught us about sacrificing self for the betterment of your people and country. I guess Mr. Shafaee missed school that day.
But to misuse such a heroic story and to draw parallel between the hero of that story and Rafsanjani just takes the cake.
Every election for past 30 years we have been promised better tomorrow only to be let down afterward. These mullahs and their cronies have played the good guy bad guy too many times. For someone else to put fuel into that fire is not only unconscionable, but also scary. My experience is that, say it once and it is your opinion; say it often and it is your conviction; but say it often and have (so called) intellectual repeat it and it becomes a fact.
For past 30 years (every 4 years) Iranians have been promised a better life only to be let down. They have rewrapped the same old garbage and put a new bow on it and we have been fooled. To give relevancy to the actions of traitors like Rafsanjani and keep obsolete, burned out politicians like him is a disservice to people of Iran. I apologize to all readers if I used less than appropriate language to make my point. But, I am proud to defend the right of my people to know the facts about Mullahs and their cronies. While the new movement for freedom in Iran identifies itself as green, Mullahs wish to own the rainbow, so they can even take the green movement hostage.
Mullahs have sold us their garbage with a twist of "reformer", "moderate", "man of God" every 4 years for past 30 years. They are like salamander changing color to match its surrounding not to fit in, but to fool people. Now they are trying the color green! Watch out!

[Masoud]

Just a clarification: I was not paid for this or anything else that I have written for my blog. Thank you.

[Sasan Kermani]

Dear Dr. Shafaee
After careful conisderation of my comments, I owe you an apology for some of my comments regarding your article. While I still very much think the case I made in #4 of my first post is closest to reality, you have every right to see the issue from your prospective and make your case.
Dr. Sasan Kermani