Challenging Conventional Wisdom about Nonviolent Resistance in Iran
By: Free Iran
Many Iranian democratic activists viewed the events that took shape in Kyrgyzstan with excitement, envy and puzzlement. Why, they ask, roughly five thousand demonstrators, who were for the most part violent and armed with AK-47s, succeeded where three million plus non-violent demonstrators have failed in Iran? There are numerous explanations, but, possibly, the most critical one is the combination of the nonviolent strategy of the Green movement and the nature of the regime in Tehran.
Nonviolent resistance has had an exceptional track record in ending tyranny and repression. Some notable examples include the movements led by Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., Lech Walesa and Nelson Mandela. In addition, many of the military juntas in Latin America, Marcos in the Philippines, General Suharto in Indonesia, and the generals in South Korea and Taiwan, among others, also fell as a result of nonviolent resistance.
However, with the exception of the Soviet Union, virtually all of the preceding dictatorships, including the government of the Shah of Iran, were in one form or another, Western-backed dictatorships – a fact which made them vulnerable to Washington’s pressure and Western public opinion. And because of this susceptibility, these regimes ultimately lost their will to use violence and fell. Here is why.
After WWII, the British public for the most part had come to believe that the age of empires was over and had turned inward to domestic issues to such an extent that Winston Churchill lost the election in 1945. Moreover, the British government was under a considerable amount of debt, which made sustaining its empire quite burdensome. Public opinion, debt, and American pressure against maintaining the colonies all resulted in the British to exit from India. Had it not have been for these factors, the British would most likely have used violence to defeat Gandhi and his followers – as they had with previous rebellions in India.
African-Americans played a vital role during America’s civil rights movement, and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s nonviolent tactics were critical for the movement’s fruition, but too often the work of the federal government goes unacknowledged. For instance, President Dwight D. Eisenhower deployed the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 to protect the nine black students when the governor of Arkansas called the National Guard to prevent them from entering an integrated high school.
Other decisive measures by the federal government include: Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas of 1954, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the general support of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations. Had it not have been for the Northeastern whites’ sympathies for the African-Americans, the Southern whites might have continued to repress the African-Americans as they had after the Reconstruction era following the end of the Civil War when the Northern forces left the Southern states.
The white regime in South Africa increasingly came under a great deal of pressure from the US and Western Europe as the public opinion in these countries became more and more intolerant of the racist apartheid laws. Sensing that their regime couldn’t survive without Western backing, P.W. Botha and F.W. de Klerk instituted a number of reforms followed by a peaceful transfer of power to blacks. However, had the whites not have needed the West’s support to remain in power and had Western public opinion not have turned against them, the whites most probably would have used violence to maintain apartheid as they had in the past.
Similar to South Africa, the juntas in Latin America, generals in South Korea and Taiwan, Marcos in the Philippines, and General Suharto in Indonesia, among others, were for the most part Western-backed dictatorships. Once Washington pressured them to reform, liberalize and accommodate the democratic opposition – especially after the collapse of the Soviet Union – these right-wing authoritarian regimes lost their will to use violence and succumbed to the democratic opposition.
In contrast, Washington never placed the same pressure – some would argue any pressure – on its so-called moderate Arab dictatorial allies to liberalize, because in addition to communism, Washington feared the spread of radical Islam in these countries. As such, nonviolent democratic groups have been easily repressed in Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, etc.
The most noteworthy non-Western backed dictatorship that fell by nonviolent means was the Soviet Union and that was primarily because of one man – Mikhail Gorbachev. Gorbachev believed in his glasnost and perestroika reforms and didn’t want to use violence against the Poles or other Eastern Europeans. He thought his reforms could save the communist system without the need to resort to violence. The fall in oil prices plus the economic drain of the Afghanistan war also restricted the options of the Soviets.
Nevertheless, if Vladimir Putin were in charge instead of Gorbachev back in late 1980s, history could have turned out differently. He most probably would have used the Soviet army to crush the Poles’ nonviolent struggle for freedom just as Putin has tried in Chechnya – and as the Soviets had done during the Hungarian revolution in 1956 and the Prague Spring in 1968. (With the Soviet Union gone, the governments of Ukraine in 2004 and Georgia in 2003 had similarly lost their will to use violence.)
Precariously, non-violent resistance hasn’t worked in non-Western backed dictatorships or semi-dictatorships which maintained their will and ability to use violence such as China, Cuba, North Korea, Tibet, Burma (Union of Myanmar) and Lebanon.
Tiananmen Square is the ultimate symbol of such misplaced hope in “people power.” Despite all kinds of international sanctions, the regimes in North Korea and Cuba continue to rule over ever poorer people who, thus far, have been unable to bring about change. Dalai Lama with his worldwide following hasn’t been able to set his people free from the Chinese occupation. Aung San Suu Kyi, winner of the Nobel Peace prize in 1991, is still under house arrest and has been for the majority of the past two decades. Lebanon’s Cedar Revolution failed to achieve its main task of full Lebanese political independence from Syria – as Syria (and Iran) still has considerable influence in Lebanon.
In short, non-Western backed dictatorships, like the Islamic republic of Iran, with the will and ability to use violence (or Western-backed ones so long as America supports them) do not seem to be too vulnerable to nonviolent resistance.
This is not a pleasant conclusion for Iran. As such, to frame the Iranian people’s struggle for freedom along the same lines as the preceding nonviolent success stories – that were mostly Western-backed – is misguided. Context matters and makes all the difference.
Khamenei is no shah. He is not nearly as susceptible to Western public pressure as the shah was. He is also no Gorbachev. He doesn’t want to be a reformer. He has the will to use violence.
Moreover, having once been a revolutionary himself, he is well aware of all of shah’s mistakes, as well as those of Gorbachev’s. He has anticipated the standard nonviolent tactics and has prepared countermeasures, including: the closing down of virtually all the NGOs, severely limiting the activities of those allowed to remain open, not permitting any independent trade unions, shutting down all means of communications at critical times, demonstrating overwhelming force at decisive junctures to intimidate the people as well as the opposition, and not compromising under pressure, among others.
For the Green movement to succeed, the Green leaders and the US need to recalibrate their strategies. Although chipping away at the regime’s will to use violence is necessary and needs to be continued, ultimately, this tactic would likely prove to be not sufficient. Instead, the Green leaders and the US need to focus on strategies that would undermine the regime’s ability to use violence.
Number one on that list is to cut off the regime’s oil income.
As important as the plight of women, students, journalists, minorities, etc. are, for the Iranian people to become free – and for even these groups to achieve their goals – the only group that matters, at least initially, is Iran’s workers, especially the oil workers. The Green leaders need to focus much, much more on convincing Iran’s workers – and the working class in general – to join their cause in order for the Green movement to muster enough resources to start oil strikes.
The US, meanwhile, needs to begin unilaterally sanctioning any insurance and shipping company that assists the regime in selling Iran’s oil, among many other steps. The Chinese and other buyers of Iran’s oil could be guaranteed to have their oil needs met by extra production from Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. This way, world prices wouldn’t necessarily need to rise and China’s economy wouldn’t be harmed.
Oil income is the Achilles’ heel of this regime. Strikes by the oil workers and unilateral sanctions by the US could help burn the candle of the regime’s oil income from both ends. Without its petrodollars, the regime would be hard pressed to pursue its nuclear development, interfere in Iraq and Afghanistan, finance radical organizations, project its influence throughout the Middle East, buyoff supporters-for-rent, and hire goons to repress the Iranian people. America needs to focus more on the source of this regime’s strength, its oil income, and not so much on its tentacles. Without its oil income, the regime may even collapse and the Iranian people may – at last – achieve freedom.
Free Iran: As a supporter of the Green movement and its nonviolent resistance strategy, I didn’t enjoy my own analysis and conclusion. I wish I could have believed differently. But I am afraid this essay is something the Green leaders and supporters need to consider. Hope and believing that we have history and justice on our side do not suffice. I welcome your comments and feedback. You can email me at info@irannewsdigest.com. Thank you.
