The people offer new hope
Published 4:55 pm Monday, June 15, 2009
Sometimes, as the current election dispute in Iran reminds us, the most effective weapon against tyranny is time. Tyrants tend to overreach, and when they do, they risk an internal uprising that can pose a greater threat to their power than any external invasion force.
It’s far too early to predict what the outcome will be in Iran, but we already know this: hundreds of thousands of courageous Iranians defied authorities by demonstrating peacefully in Tehran on Monday. The route of their march, from Revolutionary Square to Peace Square, reflected in no subtle way the ideological shift they seek.
Many of those marching were young adults, who made up a large share of the support for Mir Hossein Moussavi, the reformist presidential candidate who officials say finished a distant second in Saturday’s voting. Moussavi claims the election was stolen, rigged by forces loyal to the incumbent, hard-line conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
These marchers represent the potential for change in Iran, as did the students who powered the 1979 Islamic revolution. That movement, though, wasn’t peaceful. It included the storming of the U.S. embassy, where hostages were held for more than a year, and led Iran down a defiant path that put it at odds with most of the world, including many of its neighbors. The reformists’ future is of an Iran that’s more open, more transparent, more modern, more engaged with the world.
Evidence that Ahmadinejad and supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei fear that kind of future is seen in the government’s disruption of cell phone and text-messaging services during and after Saturday’s voting, and in restrictions on news outlets, including the apparent electronic jamming of some Western news reports out of Tehran. The world will be watching in the coming days to see how an election inquiry — ordered by Khamenei only after rioting followed his declaration of a landslide victory by Ahmadinejad — is handled.
Iran presents a dangerous dilemma. Its nuclear ambitions, its support of violent, radical groups and Ahmadinejad’s hateful rhetoric make it clear international threat. A nuclear-armed Iran is a frightening prospect, but military action to prevent it is an option few sensible leaders really want to contemplate.
We now know that many of Iran’s people, perhaps a majority, favor a less confrontational path. The rest of the world should be offering encouragement, showing the mullahs who hold the real power that peace and cooperation will serve Iran better than belligerence and isolation.
