Via the article: https://www.rt.com/news/570998-iran-pardon-convicts-protesters/
' Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei, has agreed to grant amnesty to “tens of thousands” of prisoners, among which are people convicted for their role in the recent protests and riots, state media reported on Sunday.
The move coincided with the 44th anniversary of the Iranian Islamic Revolution, which is celebrated in Iran between February 1 and 11.
Those who participated in the protests and riots could have their sentences reduced or be pardoned altogether, as long as they were not accused of espionage, contacting foreign intelligence agents, did not damage state property, and did not injure or kill anyone during the riots, state news agency IRNA said.
Khamenei reportedly approved a request for the pardons that had been made by Iran’s Judiciary Chief Gholam Hossein Mohseni-Ejei. The supreme leader regularly issues similar verdicts on occasion of various religious festivities.
The exact number of those covered by the amnesty has not been revealed, but IRNA reported “tens of thousands” could be pardoned. It is also unclear how many of those were convicted over participation in the protests'
A little ironic considering the bunk claims from Amnesty International that Iran was going to execute thousands of protesters not too long ago. Remains to be seen how far this Pardon will go though .
"organized" is doing a lot of work here
Not really, take organized out if you really want. There is no organic revolution(the term revolution is actually doing the work here) in Iran, let alone one that would actually topple the Islamic Republic.
There's a lot of grassroots support by Iranian libs (Pro- and anti-US), but it's weak and disorganized.
Support for what ? The protests in which a huge chunk if not the majority are simply calling for the removal of the morality police and other aspects of reform rather then full regime change? And then again some of those involved don't even want other aspects of Sharia law in Iranian society to be reformed (even many conservative Muslim women hate the morality police, who have now been taken off the streets). Or what about the huge chunk of Iranians that are irritated and skeptical of the protests in general right or wrong ?
Or the Kurdish separatists calling for and sometimes commiting armed acts and who have been oppressed but also often ready to be used by outside powers ? What are we talking about here ? Yes there are Iranian liberals and even a couple genuine radicals, sure some regular people want regime change especially social media vpn using younger folks . But they are so sooo far from any revolution and some are all too fond of the Great Satan .
Look I believe in secularism and tolerance as well, and I don't like how the Tudeh party and other communist got massacred after 1979 as much as anyone else here.
But reality is a brick wall that tends to cave in the skull of ideology. The reality is (in my naive never been outside of the US view) that there is no "revolution". Let's try to look at reality as brutal as that can be and not just interpret the simulacra.
As Iran has modernized and urbanized since the IR’s founding, support for reform and outright secularization has generally climbed. The thing is that you’re right in that support for regime change, especially when the Great Satan is breathing down their necks, is small. But the caveat is that even the liberal opposition is no exception. They understand what happened in 1953 and that the US would toss Iran into the canal again if given the chance, which is why they refrain from committing wholly to the protests (which, as mentioned, ask for reform but can spiral out of control).
So yeah, support for the protests while lack of support for outright revolution is not contradictory. The pro-US, pro-regime change liberals and monarchist Gusanos are a loud minority who are amplified tenfold.
Completely agree and well said. I should caveat how when I used the term liberals there I was in part referring to Iranian liberals exiled from Iran itself(self imposed or otherwise). Thanks for the perspective though because I never really thought of that concretely or articulated it as well you just did . Cheers!
Of course, glad to talk about It. I’ve been an Iranian-American DC from a young age and visited/lived there enough to speak from experience but yeah, would never have the same insight as a true native (I acknowledge fully that my Iranian family is entirely comprised of libs and, except my Iranian parent ironically, romanticize the Shah).
But I can speak from experience that the situation is far more complex than I see even some anti-imperialist Marxists give it credit for. Color revolutions often are, initially at least, and we shouldn’t dismiss immediately their validity as much as the US tends to hijack them. The Campism I’ve sometimes seen which tries to absolve the Islamist regime completely and dismiss their enemies as “foreign-supported traitors” is something I and a lot of Iranian communists (admittedly, some of us being unwitting tools for imperialists) get annoyed at, since it’s still a reactionary regime which purged and outlawed communism. By all means, people should shoot down at libs calling for blood just like with Russia, but there’s always nuance.
Very interesting and glad to get some insight from someone who is actually within the Iranian diaspora. A shame about your family's perspective but that often happens with family's coming to the states from so called "enemy countries" as I'm sure you know, whether its compensating to not be seen as an outsider, or the reason they had to leave their country in the first place and so on. Immigrants from a targeted country are also a very useful group to exploit for PR and other imperial means ( I know that sounds brash but I think you know what I mean). Yasha Levine has written fairly well about this issue(a Russian Immigrant himself).
At least your family being libs or some form of reactionary makes them "real true Americans" xD (i have lib Zionists family on one side, the other side is conservative although they are estranged to me an most of my other family).
Being a little facetious here but to be honest the American left would be much better with more "campists" in it then what it largely consists of now. But i definitely get your point and agree to an extent, although I think Russia's intervention was done sloppily at first and took too long I think it is justified. I know that is armchair general of me though and isn't important, the important part is being for no more US weapons sent to Ukraine and id ally with anyone of a left tendency to support that.
But speaking of being annoyed by people who are too quick to disregard movements as western plots or "hybrid wars " or "color revolutions"(which to be sure are real and an issue) all too quickly, it was very frustrating when some folks did that about the protest in Sudan a couple years back which had Communists within them(not that a protests movement needs that to be legit of course) but it was just outrageous. Dog whistles that it was a an Israeli plot and all kinds of bullshit. Same with the Red Shirt movement in Thailand which had writers like Brian Berletic ( a white former marine living in Thailand) carrying water for the conservative mostly upper middle class /urban monarchists Yellow Shirts on vague "red shirts are a western plot" grounds and was (still is) brought on various "anti imperialist" "geo politics" obsessed media platforms.
deleted by creator
To elaborate further, my family has roots in the Imperial Iranian Army stretching back as far as the early-mid 20th Century. Not quite in the privileged elite, but definitely educated and relatively comfortable compared to the country at large, which was decentralized and rural for most of its modern history. That said, I'd hesitate to call them "gusanos". Many of them actually live in Iran and, surprisingly, are skeptical at best of the US's benevolent intentions (Unfortunately, this can loop around since some of them believe in the brainwormed conspiracy theories circulating Iranian social media about how the US orchestrated the Shah's overthrow, akin to South Vietnam's Diem). All in all, many of them remember a rose-tinted past under the Shah, even regurgitating some myths ("He was going to develop Iran so we could be like Korea!") when the country wasn't being economically strangled by the West and suffering what it's suffering now, all while the Islamist officials and their families indulge themselves lavishly. The only other exception (aside from my parent) is a grand-uncle who was a high-ranking officer go from practically worshiping the Shah to despising him once he started having troops open fire on protestors in the 70s. So it's not all ideology and there could definitely be seeds for a socialist revolution if the Islamists didn't purge Leftists and salt the earth as thoroughly as they did.
For the Iranian diaspora in general, what you say is generally true. Iranians in particular are self-conscious about being seen on the same boat as Arabs, Indians and (if they live in Western Europe, especially Germany) Turks. Couple this with the fact that, at least in America, Iranian immigrants are among the most educated immigrant groups, so there's this natural tendency towards chauvinism and desire to further distinguish themselves among the "unwashed rabble".
Yeah, could be much worse in my case. Thankfully, despite some those reactionary opinions, my family is largely "just" liberal and vote Dem.
Given that "conservative" Zionists are right now ruling Israel... yeah. I sympathize.
Believe me, I'd rather have more well-intentioned if misguided socialists who ultimately oppose Western imperialism than radlibs and ultras who uphold it. The problem I have is that it feeds into the narrative Libs propagate about us ("Those tankies believe in nothing but America bad!") as well as alienates comrades like the aforementioned Iranian communists. It was disheartening to see one side of Western leftists uncritically parrot Western narratives on Iran while the other did the exact opposite and praised the same corrupt, anticommunist regime which cracks down on anything to the left of nominally-Islamic liberalism to this day.
The same thing sort of happens to dissident Russian leftists who, while they understand that the Russian Federation is the lesser of two evils compared to NATO, are not too fond of seeing other leftists cheering on what is ultimately a Bourgeois war to protect Bourgeois interests, even if NATO's largely responsible. It's just that the Russian Bourgeoisie's interests (not getting encircled and looted by the West) just so happen to align with Russians and the Global South as a whole for the moment.
I can understand why people are quick to do so. When you deal with liberals and chuds who deal in bad faith 24/7 when talking about "freedom fighters" in rival countries (socialist or not), sometimes you just want to throw up your hands and say fuck them all, nuance be damned. But it can blind you to critically analyze the situation and resultingly develop a team sport mentality.
It also applies to historic events in socialist countries. While the protestors in 1956 Hungary and 1989 China were far from being uniformly wholesome socialist movements (like some leftists suggest) and ended up being reactionary-dominated at the end of the day, dismissing it as just that and that the Soviets/Chinese did everything perfectly blinds us to the complexities of the situation.
First off I'd just like to say thank you for taking the time to quote my post at length and go over your thoughts piece by piece. Yes Iran was predominantly rural and very poor especially prior to the secularizing but brutal modernizing regime that came into power from the 1921 coup. Very funny to hear an antidote about the conspiracy's theory's of the Monarchists in your family I've heard of that conspiracy theory myself. I believe even the Shah and those around him thought the US wanted him out of power by the late 70's. Which of course is not true as Iran under the Shah was a crucial satellite for intelligence penetration into the Soviet Union and the fluffy liberal Carter administration held out with his regime until the end.
But I do think you reiterated a common trope that is largely not true.
"all while the Islamist officials and their families indulge themselves lavishly" I remember reading Robert Frisks interview with the First Supreme Leader in his book The Great War For Civilization which took place in the old city of Qom. Along with Qom's almost idealist image of an pre modern pious city it is actually true that the first Ayatollah and his successors lived/live in a very small home, with little material wealth or amenity's. Fisk crudely refers to this as the "...orientel desire to show the poverty of their leaders" but nevertheless there is truth to this observation. Sure by now there are certainly Imams enriching themselves as the regime ages past the more politically charged years right after 79. But MEK and former members ( like your family in the Imperial Iranian Army although it did number in the hundreds of thousands to be clear as a fairly normal middle class profession) and beneficiaries of the Shahs regime use this trope, when in reality it is much more of a self tell then totally true(the Shah and his crony's ran away with billions much like the Philippines Marcos). Much less Iranian officials -especially the Islamist- have lavish offshore wealth when compared to most so called "developing" country's.
"The only other exception (aside from my parent) is a grand-uncle who was a high-ranking officer go from practically worshiping the Shah to despising him once he started having troops open fire on protestors in the 70s. So it’s not all ideology and there could definitely be seeds for a socialist revolution if the Islamists didn’t purge Leftists and salt the earth as thoroughly as they did."
Very interesting and I'm sure as the regime became more desperate and reverted to more and more extreme brutality's in the face of such massive discontent lead by charismatic ideologues, some within the military and intelligence sectors fell out of love with the Monarchs rule. Its also worth pointing out that at the same time the Shahs last ditch effort with the White Revolution alienated the middle classes. And there were Communists taking part in 79( US de classified cables between Washington, its diplomats and intelligence agents show some even raved about "far left" and "crypto communist" allied with an behind the Mullahs).I digress though for it needs reiterating that it would be near impossible to overstate the savagery of the Shahs regime. SAVAK(kings secret police) was the equivalent in many ways to the Gestapo and I mean that explicitly. SAVAK was controlled by a man very close to the monarch named Col. Nimatullah Nassiri and at one point employed up to 60,000 agents. It is a credible estimate that at times SAVAK had up to a third of the the Iranian adult male population either as agents or as occasional paid informants often used for blackmail. They included diplomats , civil servants, actors , writers, mullahs , oil executives, workers etc. There is little reason to go over the specifics of the brutality of the torture done by this octopus, but suffice to say even Amnesty International referred to the King Of Kings as the "worst torturer on the planet" [paraphrase].
Why do I bring this up? While yes outlawing left party's , killing the communist and others who had even helped their revolt "salted the earth" , why were so many executed after the Revolution? Simply religious fanaticism? Well yes that's part of it but not really a satisfying answer. A Machiavellian attempt to solidify power? I don't think so. I think much of it was having trials for who they saw as agents of this regime of torture, they viewed the Shahs evil as extending through secularism(Iran's 20th century modernizing regimes were anti Islam to the extent of banning Hijabs at one point). So suffice to say the earth was salted from the start. And the 8 year genocidal war executed by Iraq and the United States right after salted it more. It will take even more decades for this trauma to heal and for secular politics to not be tainted in the eyes of many Iranians.
And look man lets be real. Liberals, reactionary's and fail son spooks are always gonna call us "tankies" and other kinds of slurs. There is no appeasing these people, there is only convincing them to turn or accept they are the "enemy" if you will. Again I don't see many leftist praising the regime of the Islamic Republic. And again I don't even think it is really "corrupt" outside of generalizing pedantic's as anti communist and illiberal that it indeed is. And there just aren't many Iranian "communist" around to have solidarity with although yes we could do better. The uncomfortable fact is that Iranian Marxists in terms of a movement are often rubbing shoulders with the MEK. Which is a self proclaimed "Marxist-Leninist" cult as I'm sure you know.
And I'm not going to mince words but ill try to keep it short because my friend I think we are on opposing sides of the barricade here. Yes, It would take an ignoramus to not understand that Russian communist's know that the Russian Federation is a "lesser evil" compared to NATO, the child of Nazis and The Empire that lives to balkanize and rape and destroy their [Russian's of various ethnicitys] entire society. Who are these leftist cheering "bourgeoisie interest"? Are you saying Russia's very survival in this current moment is just in the interests of the Russian "bourgeoise"? That it is just "bourgeoise" interest to fight Nazis? That it is just "bourgeoise" interest to not be ethnically cleansed by a coup regime and have homes and schools in Donbass not be bombed as they were for 8 years ? That it is just "bourgeoise" interest to have a multi lateral world system? That the Africans and Iranians cheering on Russia finally fighting back against this imperial monster is just "bourgeoise" interest? Should I go on? Are the people who voted in Crimea to be apart of Russia and away from a society that hates and abuses them and does not develop their infrastructure just "bourgeoise" interests? No, I am sorry my friend I draw the line here, again we are on opposing sides of the barricade.
Even the way you fraise it: "It’s just that the Russian Bourgeoisie’s interests (not getting encircled and looted by the West) just so happen to align with Russians and the Global South as a whole for the moment."
Okay id put it differently but even if that's how you want to articulate it, then we should side with what aligns with the interests of the Global South regardless. Accident of selfish actors or not. In regards to the "protestors in 1956 Hungary and 1989 China" I have already gone on too long so I will just say yes obviously there's complexity's and nuance and those are tragic events in many ways but I once more draw the line in the sand, those were cases of Socialist states fighting back for survival against reactionary's especially in the case of Hungary, for with Tiananmen many were just students who wanted some reform yes but it was lead by provocateurs and spiraled way, way out of control very quickly.
Lastly I will simply say I appreciate this exchange and it really gets the juices flowing to have these kind of in depth back and fourths I hope your day is awesome!