Doesn't the unrest in Iran really feel like tradition against modernity?

Doesn’t the unrest in Iran really feel like tradition against modernity, rather than the people versus the authorities?  Isn’t that really why so many world leaders are worried about the crackdown and condemning it?  It also seems like a battle about human rights. 

Still, the dispute surrounding the re-election of President Ahmadinezhad hasn’t stopped him from attending the SCO in the Ural Mountains and securing cooperation on economic and humanitarian goals with Russia.  Speaking at last week’s summit, President Ahmadinezhad said that “America is enveloped in economic and political crises, and there is no hope for resolution. Allies of the United States are not capable of easing these crises.”

This while the EU, which has extensive trade ties with Iran, has thus far been reluctant to use economic leverage over the election protests. Germany has responded to Iran’s accusations that the EU is meddling in Iran’s domestic affairs by demanding that international laws be upheld.  Still, last week, Britain decided to freeze 1.6 billion pounds in Iranian assets in England as a gesture of support for human rights in Iran.

This has led the foreign affairs advisor to the Ayatollah Khamenei, Ali-Akbar Velayati, to call London’s move “hostile” and “unprecedented.”  He said that it contradicts London’s repeated claims of supporting human rights in Iran and that the frozen assets “belong to the people not to particular individuals.”  Iran asked the second and third secretaries of the British embassy to leave Iran on Monday.  Then, Gordon Brown expelled two Iranian diplomats.

Hezbollah has rejected the post election violence in Iran as a simple protest against the results of the poll and that it was orchestrated to destabilize the Islamic Republic. Hezbollah’s Deputy Secretary General Sheikh Naeem Qassem is certain that the situation in Iran will soon return to normal, according to Press TV Iran. Qassem said that Hezbollah has nothing to do with Iran’s internal affairs and that they don’t side with anyone.  Of course, talk of destabilizing the Islamic Republic of Iran causes hardliners to crackdown.

Now the Iranian government has ordered the family of Neda Agha Soltan out of their Tehran home after they circulated pictures of her death. 

And Ahmadinezhad is questioning the tone that the US president used after Obama said that he is both “appalled and outraged” at the post-election violence.  The Iranian president has pronounced that these are the kinds of things that former President Bush used to say. Still, it seems rather than react to this criticism, a more proactive stance for the US President might be to not address President Ahmadinezhad’s choice to merge the present with past events instead of choosing to take the opportunity to acknowledge the international concern within the context of the present situation. That present situation includes a large Iranian population and an opposition faction that want to promote friendlier relations internationally.

Without a doubt, few indicators point toward Iran making a break from its past in how it handles protests. In the past, protestors, like labor union protestor Mansour Osanloo, have been examples of ‘that’s what social and political activists get’ for seeking justice. 

Since Obama is interested in working a policy of engagement with Iran, Iran’s interest in becoming a prosperous country should be acknowledged given its deep economic ties with the EU,  while emphasizing that a respect for international law is equally as important as prosperity and is achievable. 

It is my observation that surges of patriotism and religious sentiment occur when people feel that they need something to believe in, and that these occur in conjuncture with the weighing of the countervailing urges toward modernity and tradition. The Iranian people want dynamism in the face of Iran’s immobility on human rights issues.  Hopes that the re-elected President would be more willing to approach the international concern about this matter as it pertains to the elections with less vitriol have been crushed. 

It’s still possible that in August, Iran’s President will be willing to talk to international leaders as a representative of the people and see that he is standing on an Iranian internal struggle between modernity and tradition.  While he may blame the outside for this struggle, the Ayatollah and the more pragmatic clerics might be able to acknowledge that the influence for this struggle is from within. 

However, in the past, Ahmadinezhad has stated that Islamic society should be free of class struggle and has stated that is a typical affliction of “infidel” societies. Ahmadinezhad is a strong supporter of self-sufficiency or “khodkafai’i.” Most Iranians actually want to pursue trade and see it as a noble pursuit, while Ahmadinezhad has insisted that Iran cannot preserve its Islamic purity unless it reduces its dependence on foreign commerce. 

The degree of motivation among Iranian leadership to see how tradition and modernity can live side by side depends on whether or not they deem it is possible post-election or whether the mere existence of these two forces will continue to cause increased tension in internal relations within Iran and lead to more conflict.  Some Iranian leaders may wish that this internal struggle would simply disappear, but in reality, it is there. It seems more of a sign of the times that the Iranian people want a more liberal society that is tolerant of traditionalists who want a strict adherence to religious principles, but is not so oppressively constrained by it.  The political will of the Iranian government and the social will of traditionalists in society, if aligned, can meet the diverse interests and needs of Iranians, while acknowledging international law as it protects human rights.