Has There Been a Military Coup in Iran by the Revolutionary Guard in Iran?
By Heather Sunday Jun 28, 2009 6:00pm
Wolf Blitzer asks Fareed Zakaria if he agrees with former CIA agent Bob Baer's assessment that there has been a military coup by the revolutionary guard in Iran. Zakaria is not as willing to use the word coup, but does feel that there is some conflict between the clerics in Iran.
As Zakaria points out, the dynamics of those conflicts and the ease with which they can be blamed on American interference is exactly why it was wise for the Obama administration to be cautious with their rhetoric.
BLITZER: One Middle East expert says what we're seeing unfold in Iran right now isn't just a government crackdown, but an actual coup by the country's elite revolutionary guard.
ZAKARIA: Do you think it's pretty clear that the government has the ability to really consolidate power and crackdown on this?
BAER: Fareed, I'm quite sure there's been a military coup d'etat by the Islamic revolutionary corp in Tehran. They're taken over. And the fact that the Basij came out so quickly. They could have only done that on orders from the IRGC. The fact that Ahmadinejad's a former IRGC officer, he has the backing of senior officers. I think what we've seen is a military coup against the old clerical establishment.
BLITZER: Let's bring in Fareed Zakaria to join us now. Fareed, what do you think? You are an authority on this subject?
ZAKARIA: I think that Bob Baer is on to something. I'm not sure I would use the word coup, you know, that strongly, but there is no question what we're witnessing in Iran is the displacement of the old clerical establishment and the rise to power of some new clerics, but mostly a group of people who have much closer ties to the military, to the intelligence organizations, to the police, and to the Basij. So what you're seeing is a kind of consolidation of a pure military dictatorship, losing the trappings of the Islam and the ideology as much.
And by the way, this is very much part of Ahmadinejad's strategy when he is now attacking America. It is an attempt to consolidate power and to move beyond the debate about what's going on in Iran.
BLITZER: Can millions of Iranians, especially young people, women, intellectuals, university students, can they though be brutally suppressed given what's happened over these past last few weeks?
ZAKARIA: Unfortunately, the answer's probably yes. You know, usually people -- the people with guns and money win in the short run. And the Iranian regime has lots of guns and lots of money because of the oil. There is, however, a huge ideology crack in the regime. And that ideological crack is very, very important. And it may be fatal in the long run.
But what the regime now has to try do is to use brute force to win in the short run, and to try to drum up a new ideology. That's why Ahmadinejad is trying to pick on America. That's why he's accusing us interfering. And by the way, that is precisely why President Obama has been very wise in trying to be a little bit cautious, stay out of this fight, not get entangled into it. It powerfully helps Ahmadinejad to be able to turn this into a U.S. versus Iran, tit for tat. Look at what's happening right now. We've stopped talking about Mousavi and we're talking about Obama and Ahmadinejad. That's exactly what Ahmadinejad wants.
BLITZER: One of your reporters, Fareed, from "Newsweek" magazine has been picked up, arrested, or I don't know if anyone's been in touch with him. But give us the latest - tell us what's going on, because I know you're working as hard as you can and your colleagues are to get him out.
ZAKARIA: It's a very troubling situation, Wolf. He's one of 23 at least journalists who have been picked up, arrested without any charges. And what is most troubling about it is this is a guy who has been accredited in Iran, in the Islamic republic of Iran under their laws for ten years. He's a very distinguished journalist. He's been a "Newsweek" correspondent for ten years, a very distinguished documentary, filmmaker. He's won many awards in Iran and outside.
And there seems to be no procedure that was followed. So what we're hoping, and what we have appealed for, is that the regime, the Islamic Republic of Iran follow its own laws, its own -- it has procedures in this matter. We think he is entirely innocent. And we believe - and we have some hope that perhaps he will be released when they see that, you know, he is, in fact, very balanced, very nuanced, very professional.
BLITZER: Have you been able to hear from him? Have you been in touch with him at all?
ZAKARIA: You know, some of this is somewhat sensitive, Wolf. And I don't want to say anything that will get him into trouble. We're trying very hard to get him out.
BLITZER: Well, good luck, Fareed. We wish him and all of our journalistic colleagues, everyone in Iran for that matter, we wish them only, only the best.
Login or Register to post comments.
I'madinnerjacket has consolidated power.
And they're going after nuclear weapons.
I know that NW's have been speculation in the past.But, is there any doubt now?
As long as Iran is in the hands of this madman and the IRGC.
There will be trouble.
Front page please.
Does anyone believe that this maniac has the best interest of Iran in mind?
It certainly isn't the people of Iran.
"I know that NW's have been speculation in the past.But, is there any doubt now?"
Ajmadinijad is not a magician. He can't snap his fingers and start making nuclear weapons. The US intelligence services came up with a National Intelligence Estimate that said unequivecally that Iran DOES NOT have a nuclear weapons program. Don't believe the BS you see on CNN and Fox, nuclear power is not at all the same as a nuclear weapons program. Right now Iran has enough enriched uranium to make perhaps one nuclear weapon. However to do that they would have to:
1) Re-enrich the uranium. Yes they have enriched uranium but its not enriched to weapons grade.
2) To enrich to weapons grade they have to reconfigure all their centrifuges to do that. The IAEA would see that as would the CIA, even with the limited access they have to Iran.
3) After they reconfigure the centrifuges (which will take time) they will have to do the actual enrichment to weapons grade. That will take conservatively 6 months.
4) Oh, then there's the little matter of an actual nuclear weapon. Weapons grade uranium is the crucial raw material for a bomb but you still need the warhead, something quite complex to build and difficult to test without letting people know you are doing so. Its true that the US and Russia who have been building nukes since the 40's have enough experience and computer technology that they don't need to test and can simulate things via computer. But for a country that has NEVER exploded a single nuke they are going to have to test to make sure it works.
All things consiered if Iran decided today they wanted a nuclear weapon it would take at least a year and the US would have plenty of fore-knowledge.
I understand all that you are saying.
Iran will have the enriched uranium in the not to distant future.
Yes, they will have to re enrich the uranium. But they will have that material to do so.
It is my own belief that they will pursue a nuclear weapon.
Why wouldn't they?
And with the IRGC and this guy as president, why wouldn't they pursue some?
It's a power play. And they're well on their way to getting one.
Yes, it more than likely will take them at least a year to make one. But they're well on their way to doing so. They'll have everything the need.
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if Israel destroyed the facility.
strikes yet again. Sure, why not. They've accomplished so much with their meddling in Iran's internal affairs.
I’ve always wondered what percentage of the Basij are CIA operatives.
Didn't you get the memo?
First I went "Huh?" then I got to Roket and was glad I didn't have my coffee mug in hand.
Keyboard safe!
Since when has the CIA been effective at anything?
So the Coup of Iran by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is funded and orchestrated by the CIA...Do I have that right? Please tell me this is sarcasm.
You find this shit on a Malkin blog not C&L.
It was so absurd I had to do it.
I know, I know. Just think about the CIA being in Iran for a few seconds. In such a closed society. All I can do is shake my head.
8 out of 10 Ayatollahs recommend pepsident .
You know they are CIA because they are the ones wearing the T shirts that have CIA written across the back. Duh
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V71nnjl9jQ
but the rantings of another manic like Ahmindinajad --the runt and his cleric have consolidated power like all historic 'little' men do...behind violence, guns, and brutality!
When this much secrecy is the result---you know there is fraud and fear and a grab for power..Sistani would not meet with the runt when he went to Najaf.. That speaks volumes!
There is fire under the ashes for sure! This is no longer about Mosavi--but about freedom!
seriously
or werent you aware that bush and cheney pretty much fucked all the cia ops in charge of iran
now there may have been a few to assist the protestors....
but do you really think they assisted achmadinijad in rigging an election leading to mass protests...all so he could perform a coup and take total power
thereby placing american interests into harms way?
getting the puppet shah in was one thing
this would be pure insanity
oooops- wrong button
This isn't the work of the CIA. This was cooked up by the British. The Iranians know it too. That is why they have been detaining British diplomats.
They were embassy employees and Iranian.
You really need to actually learn a bit before posting media bullshit.
So Iran is going thru what the US went thru in 2000.
Why do they ask a hack like Zakaria his opinion? He's just a pundit, what exactly qualifies him to have any authoritative to say about the Middle East.
This is one of the same people who was drumming to go to war with Iraq and the "war on terror" nonsense.
I was amazed to see Bob Baer on CNN so I clicked on the clip (usually never even bother with CNN). Baer is someone that I don't always agree with (he is ex-CIA and was one of their leading experts on Iran) but unlike the hacks like Zakaria he knows his stuff. Of course they have him on for 5 seconds and then the rest is just speculation by some hack whose main qualification is that his name sounds middle eastern.
This was what I was thinking after reading an article shortly after the election that pointed out that both sides were essentially leaderless. Really, Moussavi is not the leader of the protesters, and neither Khamenei nor Ahmedinejad is in command of the Revolutionary Guard and Basij. It seems that Iran is turning not so much into a military dictatorship as into what the French revolutionary government was during the reign of terror: something with nominal leaders but where real power is exercised by military councils without a strict leadership structure, and where the original ideology is replaced with loyalty to the "ideals of the revolution", whatever they are decided to by at the moment.
Who's playing the role of Maximillien Robespierre and who will play Napoleon?
Max Von Sydow and shrubya?
than ,
Ian Holm .
Going on about what reagan would have done, and giving some of the old bush cheerleading he is so famous for?
revisionist history and just plain old insanity.
republicanism is a mental illness!
it have been nice to have had someone like ...oh...I dunno ... VALERIE PLAME keeping an eye on Ol' Eye-Ran for the past few years .... ?
Thanks for nuthin' Bu$h ...
Didn't Fareed cheerlead quite a bit on the lead in to the Iraq war?
This little right wing sycophant can piss the hell off and STFU as far as I am concerned, he's an idiot.
Given his past performance on important international issues it would be best for the safety of the nation and the truth that he never appears on the screen or in print ever again.
There's no actual evidence of election fraud in Iran. See IranAffairs.com which has compiled the claims and counter-claims.
THINK: was Mousavi really such a big threat to the regime that they had to resort to massive election fraud to make sure he lost? No, sorry.
See IranAffairs.com
Iranians aren't buying it.
The very point that Mousavi isn't such a big threat makes the issue stronger not weaker. I agree with you that Mousavi isn't what western media is portraying. Ahmadinejad has been anti-corruption on one hand, but corrupt in another way in the other. I can't see Mousavi changing the Islamic Republic, or stopping the nuclear program. The size of the initial protests was way beyond what could be explained by Mousavi. He is not even that loved by Iranians. The reason for voting for him is not because he is so wonderful, but simply that he was the least bad choice for most. That is a dilemma most western voters should understand.
So if Mousavi wasn't a threat, what was the problem? It seems his "problem" is that he isn't Ahmadinejad.
They weren't chanting for Mousavi though. The rallies weren't for Mousavi. The rallies were for a fair election. By his actions in response Ahmadinejad validated all the doubts voters had. By Khamenei's fast and strong defense of Ahmadinejad he risks public faith in velayat-e-faqih. Why? It is so sad, if he wanted to govern with a lighter touch, he could have just won in the second round, no?
The answer probably is the IRG. But, I also don't see this as a coup like say Honduras. However, the IRG is fast becoming the Pakistan Army. Of course, they don't have Basij in Pakistan. So they are like the Pakistani Army plus the Taliban now in charge. Tehran was suddenly transported to the FATA of Pakistan five years ago. Naturally, they did not respond well, even some who voted for Ahmadinejad.
The Iranians were asked to chose which type of corruption they preferred in this last election. After seeing Ahmadinejad's version, they did chose. And when that was not even given a veneer of respect:
راي ما كجاست
became
مرگ بر ديکتاتور!
Or, as one person put it, something in Iran broke.
That is what the western media is pushing but it looks like that little story is just a load of crap to get the US and other western powers to step in and do what they shouldn't: overthrow the duly elected government of Iran.
Polls from before the election and now after are showing that while there are some discrepancies that in all likelihood Ahmadinejad did in fact win by the margins reported.
Put up link to polls after election please? Does it include polling organization and methodology used?
And I think short of a small fringe people in Iran, I can't imagine anyone wanting the US in there. After Afghanistan and Iraq, who in their right mind would?
No, something in Iran broke. This doesn't mean they want the west there though, or to be the west. Absolutely.
I suspect the source for your pre-election polls is this:
http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft...
With a sampling of only 1000 data points by phone, with a very high refusal to answer rate.
But regardless:
""The current mood indicates that none of the candidates will likely pass the 50
percent threshold needed to automatically win; meaning that a second round
runoff between the two highest finishers, as things stand, Mr. Ahmadinejad and
Mr. Moussavi, is likely. In the 2005 Presidential elections, the leader in the first
round, Hashemi Rafsanjani, lost to his runner-up, Mr. Ahmadinejad, in the
second round run off—though an incumbent has never been defeated in a
Presidential election since the beginning of the Islamic Republic.""
Is an important part. Also on that study, support for a democratic election process (not to be confused with a democracy in western terms) was 77%. Support for Ahmadinajad 34%.
The election results not going into the second round, with the fast call for Ahmadinejad with such a high percentage did not pass the "smell test" on the ground. Especially with the thinking that this election, like last time, would be a two round affair. This is why people, including some who voted Ahmadinejad! went out on the streets. Remember, the chants were not for Mousavi.
Though, I agree completely that the US should not step in here.
You really need to read around some more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...
So far the discrepancies found don't even come close to changing the outcome so it is pretty clear the the election, while flawed, is the will of the people.
Sorry you don't like that, but then most Americans don't.
Look at it this way, you wouldn't like the other guy that much either.
He's no pro US lets disarm and toe the American line kinda guy like you keep hoping he is.
The sole source for their article *is* the study I linked above. It was done prior to the election.
There is no valid post election poll, and with the current crackdown I wonder what the refusal rate would be for a random phone poll asking who you voted for? That was why I wondered if you knew of one I did not. Guess not.
You need to read your sources sources, especially when it is the Washington Post. Not quite what they used to be.
Cynicism, we are the new borg.
Also from the source used as the one and only source cited by the post:
"A close examination of our survey results reveals that the race may actually be
closer than a first look at the numbers would indicate. More than 60 percent of
those who state they don’t know who they will vote for in the Presidential
elections reflect individuals who favor political reform and change in the current
system."
At this point, I don't think anyone knows the will of the Iranian people.
Media bullshit as you put it above, is still media bullshit.
And you seem to have swallowed the western medias cup of shit nicely.
What I am saying is that there is a better than even chance the Ahmadinejad actually did win with a larger margin than that seen in the US 2008 elections.
I know you don't like that, you've made that much abundantly clear.
But you liking it or not doesn't really mean anything.
It seems a lot of people in Iran might agree with you as well, and they are going to get bashed around for it.
It looks like things are quieting down already anyway so what the west wants is a moot point. No revolution, not regime change (wouldn't have been with the other guy either) and no real change in policies (same thing, the other guy wouldn't have been the Wests good buddy either).
Actually I agree that not much would be different with Mousavi. Support for people the west doesn't like would be strong, nationalism still strong, and actually Mousavi would have been harder to sanction making it more likely that Iran would have gone nuclear under him (which he supports). I also, until the crackdowns, I thought it quite likely Ahmadinejad would win, but, in a second round just like last time. I did not really care though if Ahmadinejad or Mousavi won.
And, I don't think this is over. Could crackdowns have been successful in stopping protests? Yes. But something is different now. With demographics, this will only become a stronger pressure. Where it will lead, and next appear I have no idea. I hope the west doesn't do something really stupid like trying to arm Iranian Kurds, or invade, in the meantime.
And Iranians aren't just getting bashed around for it. Iranians are dying for this opinion. This is important to them, not me. Massive restrictions on press and martial law, now this, this, gets my attention.
Iran is not happy.
China is not happy too btw. They are watching.
Login or Register to post comments.