Iran intelligence minister sacked

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran intelligence minister sacked

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has sacked one of his ministers, a day after he was forced to cancel the appointment of his vice-president.

No reason was given for the sacking of Intelligence Minister Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie.

Meanwhile, the culture minister quit, saying the government was weakened.

The president is due to announce a new cabinet after he is sworn in for a second term in 10 days' time, following a disputed election victory.

Amid the turmoil, Mr Ahmadinejad's office also denied reports that three other ministers were sacked.

One of those reported dismissed, Culture and Islamic Guidance Minister Mohammad Hossein Saffar Harandi, said he was resigning because of the confused reports.

"Unfortunately due to the recent events which shows the esteemed government's weakness, I will no longer consider myself the minister of culture and will not show up at the ministry as of tomorrow," he said in a letter of resignation carried by the Fars news agency.

Click to expand...

With some protests still going, the apparent infighting, is the end in sight for this tyrannical regime? Thoughts?

tlmorg02 said:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | Iran intelligence minister sacked



With some protests still going, the apparent infighting, is the end in sight for this tyrannical regime? Thoughts?

Click to expand...

I don't think the people of Iran have enough support to topple the regime, not yet anyway, but I definitely think they can make a dent. The biggest problem is that the leaders of the Iran have a monopoly on guns and an advantage in that they have no problems with overkill to end demonstrations.

LaMidRighter said:

I don't think the people of Iran have enough support to topple the regime, not yet anyway, but I definitely think they can make a dent. The biggest problem is that the leaders of the Iran have a monopoly on guns and an advantage in that they have no problems with overkill to end demonstrations.

Click to expand...

With that, I agree. The question is though, will the growing showdown between Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs aid the downfall of the current system? Or, is this just a blip on the radar, soon to be settled?

Either the end of the Islamic Regime that leads to Democracy, or the start of a Military Junta.

With that, I agree. The question is though, will the growing showdown between Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs aid the downfall of the current system? Or, is this just a blip on the radar, soon to be settled?

Click to expand...

The rift in the ruling regime that has emerged is due primarily to a conflict between two contending classes within this regime, representing two different positions on how to move forward in the management of the economy. The current rulers, Khamenei and Ahmedinejad, and their allies represent a desire for further privatization and further opening up of the economy to private investment. Over the past couple of years, there has been more privatization than any other period since the 1979 revolution. The other camp, that includes Mousavi and Rafsanjani and their supporters, would like to continue to have the economy managed through the state.

This rift has been simmering for decades, and has finally heated up to the point where it has boiled over. There has been a qualitative change in this process, whereby there is no returning to a period of "unity" between these two factions. At this point this conflict must be resolved in some form or another; we are currently seeing it being basically dragged out, as either side does not want to make a decisive step in one direction or another. With the protests going on and the outpouring of mass discontent, an open war within the regime would push it to the breaking point and it would collapse under the immense pressure of the conflicts being played out. So what we are going to see for some time is the continuance of the anti-privatization bloc (Mousavi/Rafsanjani, et al.) to call for their referendums and new elections and basically stay verbal enough to voice their discontent without actually making a decisive break with those to which they are opposed (Ahmedinejad/Khomenei, et al.). Only when this is unsustainable - either from the point of view of the conflict within the regime, or from the point of view of the conflict between the regime and the Iranian people - will we see any significant movement on this issue.

Of course the position taken by some leftist organizations of supporting Ahmedinejad/Khomenei, et al. by claiming they are "anti-imperialist" is ludicrous, given the above information, and shows the ignorance of such groups of the history of Iran and the situation there.

tlmorg02 said:

With that, I agree. The question is though, will the growing showdown between Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs aid the downfall of the current system? Or, is this just a blip on the radar, soon to be settled?

Click to expand...

I think the showdown immediately weakens both sides, but can't be sure if it will help the democratic movement, way too many variables, Israel could be a factor though, if the mullahs do something stupid and threaten that country at the wrong moment.

To further illustrate my point, I'd like to quote this article:

IPS said:

[IPS] With the historical Friday Prayer sermon given by former president and current chair of the Council of Experts and Expediency Discernment Council Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani on Jul. 17, and the riposte by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei three days later, lines have been drawn in unprecedented ways in Iran.

It is now clear that the Islamic Republic’s ever-present political frictions and cleavages can no longer be managed in ways they have been in the past, either through behind-the-scenes lobbying at the top or selective repression or some combination of the two.

Until the current crisis, politicians like Rafsanjani who have defined the political centre in Iran have always sided with the security establishment because of their preeminent concern for the survival of the Islamic republic.

But, on Jul. 17, Rafsanjani made clear that, beyond his longstanding disagreements with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the direction of Iran’s domestic and foreign policies, he now believes that the approach taken by the government and security establishment in addressing the post-election crisis threatens the very survival of the system.

Recalling the vision of the Islamic Republic’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Rafsanjani insisted that “without the people, there is no Islamic rule… The title of Islamic Republic is not used as a formality. It is both Islamic and a republic. They have to be together… If it loses its republican aspect, [the Islamic Republic] will not be realised. …[W]ithout people and their vote there would be no Islamic system.”

That another former president, Mohammad Khatami, followed Rafsanjani with his own unprecedented call Saturday for a national referendum on the legitimacy of the election also signaled the crisis has moved to a new stage.

The inability of the Ahmadinejad government to put an end to or manage street demonstrations and elite dissent is matched by its intransigence in finding non-violent ways to address popular anger over the results of the election.

Click to expand...

Emphasis mine. Surprisingly to those that haven't followed Iran closely over the past few decades, it is Ahmedinejad and Khamenei and their supporters who are the reformists here - supporting a campaign of privatization and an overall outlook that cannot occur underneath the current despotic regime - and it is Mousavi and Rafsanjani who are conservative, fighting this threat to the Islamic Republic and to nationalization of industry, which is in their collective interest (keep in mind that it was under Mousavi that many of these nationalizations took place and it is what made Rafsanjani a billionaire).

I think a huge crackdown and mass arrests are soon to come.

Khayembii Communique said:

To further illustrate my point, I'd like to quote this article:




Emphasis mine. Surprisingly to those that haven't followed Iran closely over the past few decades, it is Ahmedinejad and Khamenei and their supporters who are the reformists here - supporting a campaign of privatization and an overall outlook that cannot occur underneath the current despotic regime - and it is Mousavi and Rafsanjani who are conservative, fighting this threat to the Islamic Republic and to nationalization of industry, which is in their collective interest (keep in mind that it was under Mousavi that many of these nationalizations took place and it is what made Rafsanjani a billionaire).

Click to expand...

While it goes against the grain, after all the negative news I have seen in the past few years regarding Ahmedinejad and Khamenei, this information you present, if true, leads me to the conclusion that:

Ahmedinejad may be the least terrible of two terrible options, sad though that is. If only the current leadership were less oppressive.
Why is there no third option out there for the people of Iran? Are they simply mis or uninformed regarding the situation? Or is there actually support for a third option, which is suppressed by the two "competing", but connected sides (and if this situation, as reported by KC, doesn't remind anyone from the US of something...)

Now, admittedly, I have not checked your info to verify it.

But it seems plausible.

Why is there no third option out there for the people of Iran? Are they simply mis or uninformed regarding the situation? Or is there actually support for a third option, which is suppressed by the two "competing", but connected sides (and if this situation, as reported by KC, doesn't remind anyone from the US of something...)

Click to expand...

The events of the past few months more than confirm that there is indeed a third way. The Iranians demonstrating out in the street are not actually just supporting Mousavi; they are opposing the dictatorship of the current regime. The opposition group (led by Mousavi) is simply attempting to capitalize on this to gain support by making populist statements.

Of course, the people of Iran will never be truly free from repression until they do away with the government of big capital entirely, both democratic and dictatorial.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization_in_Iran"]Here is a wikipedia[/ame] page on the privatization process. However, I would be extremely wary of what is posted on wikipedia, as since the election it has been incredibly manipulated to attempt to portray some as holding views they do not hold, and commonly links to secondary sources which usually source the state media, which obviously is an unreliable source for, say, determining the policies advocated by Mousavi.

So what we are going to see for some time is the continuance of the anti-privatization bloc (Mousavi/Rafsanjani, et al.) to call for their referendums and new elections and basically stay verbal enough to voice their discontent without actually making a decisive break with those to which they are opposed (Ahmedinejad/Khomenei, et al.).

Click to expand...

This is actually not correct completely. Mousavi/Rafsanjani/Khatami, et al. are not actually entirely anti-privatization. They stand to support privatization of certain sectors, but not all, of the economy, whereas Ahmedinejad/Khamanei are in support of full privatization of the Iranian economy.

Also, for some reason I've been typing Khomenei, when I was referring to Khamanei.

Sorry for the confusion. I'm not completely knowledgeable on this issue, and am just passing on what I know as I discover it. :doh