What's the Color of "Orange Revolution" in Islamic Country?

After recent presidential election in Iran and victory of Mahmud Ahmadinejad, disorders started in the capital of the state; supporters of the lost candidate Mir - Hussein Musavi using force contacted police, there's blood and human victims.

Skirmishes happened can be considered, on the one hand, as paradox in the newest history of Iran as present political opponents clashing each other are actually two wings of Islamic revolution which smoothly landed 30 years ago on the place of ancient Persia, of the revolution when people headed by Shiite clerics dethroned Shah mode. On the other hand, violent June events in Teheran by their scheme of development are very much alike the beginning of a number of "color" revolutions in CIS countries when some hot political heads adopted, following, obviously, personal material reasons transatlantic propaganda experience on "democracy establishment".

Three decades ago, on the eve of revolution today's contenders together amicably recognized the main axiom of the Shiite sociopolitical doctrine - about unconditional perversity of exploiter society. After the death of Ayatollah Khomejni in 1989 his colleagues and religious-political successors established and for 20 years had been strengthening Islamic board in Iran. Therefore eccentricity of the critical situation which appeared last week in Iran causes rather serious questions on the reasons of "national revolt" in the country being actually uniform religious community.

This community inherently cannot become arena of social or religious fights of coreligionists for some change of the state foundations as people as a whole elected and supports Islamic form of the government. One street picture stick in memory: Iranian girl swinging right hand tries to hit the policeman with her bag, while her left hand holds a scarf covering her hair - not to let it fall from the head. Here you are Islamic democracy ...

By the way, religious leader of Islamic republic Ayatollah Ali Hamenei, calling fellow citizens to order, resolutely named last elections and M.Ahmadinejad's victory as the sample of religious democracy, he noticed that the results of elections were "political earthquake for enemies of Iran and a holiday for its friends ...".

A.Hamenei condemned intervention of the USA into internal affairs of Iran: "Remarks of official American figures concerning human rights are unacceptable as they have no idea what are human rights after what they did in Afghanistan, Iraq ...".

I wanted to talk more detailed being recently in Baku with employees of press-service of embassy of the United States in Azerbaijan on that theme and also about policy of the USA on Southern Caucasus, Middle East, about interaction of the American, Russian and Azerbaijan diplomats. My telephone "demand" was accepted, I was promised to be called back but the meeting failed to happen; obviously they didn't like the questions or didn't want to give fair answers ...

It is clear that certain external forces strenuously force conditions in Iran, give out provocative rumours, for example, that the candidate for president M.H.Musavi who lost elections is about to leave Iran being afraid of prosecutions and arrest. But even M.Ahmadinejad's opponents deny such gossips. So, former ambassador of Iran in Azerbaijan Afshar Sulejmani who was plenipotentiary of M.H.Musavi believes that nobody is going to arrest his chief: "What is the reason of his arrest?! What illegal did he make?"

The Western mass-media extremely inflate the scales of the protest of the Iranian opposition being not aware of the simple fact - both M.Ahmadinejad's supporters and his opponents are components of religious system of the state administration in Iran, systems where everything could be solved not by secular heads but the spiritual leader of the nation who is represented today by Ayatollah Ali Hamenei. It was he who already before declaration of the results of elections officially congratulated M.Ahmadinejad publicly on the victory, having thus showed to society personal preference.

If to draw indirect analogy to political realities of Russia, our "Ayatollah" is Vladimir Putin whose word is the law for every branch of power including for president D.Medvedev. Nobody talk about it in the Russian Federation, but everybody knows who is the real head of the Russian state.

... situation which developed now in Iran can really become aggravated not as a result of opposition of supporters of the working president and "democrats" from Musavi's camp but because of possible provocation from outside special services of the West of separatist actions of Azerbaijani; about 30% of population of this country are made by ethnic Azerbaijani. If agency of CIA of the USA to overthrow the mode of Ahmadinejad will effectively involve ethnic factor in the Iranian Azerbaijan, it would inevitable evoke disorders of Turkmen and Kurds living in Iran who from the very beginning were against political mode spread by Islamic revolution.

In their turn, possible excitements of Kurds in Iran can go further to Syria, Iraq, Turkey where intensity between the governments and Kurdish minority was always present. In a word, destabilization of state of things in Iran will cause such chain reaction that one wished it had never happened - even to monarchy of Persian gulf and the Russian Caucasus. Therefore, the stronger will be the shake of hands of the heads of the Russian Federation with the presidents of Iran and Azerbaijan, the less chances the USA would have to provoke universal conflict which can turn back tragedy for all peoples of Southern Caucasus, the Central Asia, Near and Middle East.

From editorial board: To tell you the truth, aspiration of many authors and participants of our forum to refer discontent of people to situation in the state, including political, to intervention of "powers of darkness" of world imperialism, Zionism and CIA. Including those cases when influence of foreign agency cannot touch masses by definition as, in particular, in Iran - it's monolithic enough society, at that extremely closed one, where open work of foreigners is carefully supervised. It is enough to recollect recent imprisonment of two American journalists who tried to shoot something on the Iranian border.

How is it possible to imagine that CIA provoked hundred thousand Iranians including representatives of political elite of the country to which, undoubtedly, the former prime minister of the country Musavi belongs.

Why not to see something obvious behind events in Teheran - discontent of the overwhelming majority of citizens (70% of Iranians are younger than 30 years, it's young and mobile society) with the created theocratic system? We are not talking about Islam - protesting attack police shouting "Allah Akbar!" - we are talking about more modern form of government where spiritual authorities do not order each citizen what colour of scarf to carry and how to relieve oneself.

Oleg Sultanov very accurately noticed similarity of the role of Ayatollah in Iran with our "spiritual leader" (with the difference that ours, obviously, believes neither in god, nor in devil). Does it mean that discontent with mode in Putin's Russia, including mine, is motivated by world Zionism and CIA? So, when sooner or later citizens of Russia overthrow this mode, one would search for a hand of "dark forces"?

There are also other analogies speaking about importance for the Russian Federation of the event in Iran - it's "Brigades of Basidzh", progovernmental formations which are responsible of the most part of the blood which was spilt those days. There's striking resemblance with our "Nashi", "Young Guards of Edinaya Russia" and "Rumol", only our domestic "brigades" are not armed by knifes, brass knuckles and scraps of the pipes. Whether it takes long to arm?

This essential element of the events in Iran, presence of brigades of the progovernmental murderers on the streets guards most of all. Will we justify their actions also by struggle with "Zionism and CIA"?

Iran really is a stronghold of Antiamericanism in the east. But supporters of Musavi are also Antiamericanists, as well as their opponents, only statements of Ahmadinejad objectively play into the hand of the USA and the Americans are objectively interested in preservation of exotic mode in Iran. It happens so because in case of its change by more adequate, more flexible and less exotic mode, the USA will have new problems. There is an impression that Ahmadinejad plays with the West at a kind of virtual give-away - Washington needs a fright to keep high military budget while the Iranian president willingly gives such fright to his virtual opponent.

Musavi, most likely, will not play the role of the fright. The USA will at once have problem with nuclear arms of Iran - without the application about immediate blow on Israel future Iranian nuclear forces are simply deterrent weapon. That is they are not the reason for escalating of military potential. ABM loses its justification and so on.

Did you say something about "agents of the West"?...

Аnatoly Baranov, editor-in-chief of FORUM.msk

Send by mail

Print