The Contradiction of 'Criminal Raisi' with 'Dual Governance Being More Favorable for Transition to Democracy'?

The issue of Iran and Iranians is a non-violent transition from the 'Islamic Republic' to a 'secular democratic republic committed to human rights and justice as the absence of gender, ethnic, religious, and class discrimination and exploitation.' For years, I have written about this issue from various angles (see, for example, these three articles: 'The Solution of the Upper and Lower Classes for the Salvation of Iran and Iranians', 'The Protest Movement of December 2017 and the Written Place of Dispute', 'The Problem of Iran's Transition to Democracy'). Two articles on which type of dictatorship is more favorable for the transition to democracy and 'the historical criminal', 'liar', and 'defeated' suddenly became 'just jurist' and head of the judiciary, were also written in this context. However, it seems that some critics believe there is a contradiction and inconsistency between the claims of these two articles. In this writing, I will attempt to reconstruct and critique several narratives of this claim. First - Foreign Literature Claim: Calling Ebrahim Raisi a criminal and liar is the use of the language of foreign opponents of the regime. Response to the claim: a- Let’s assume this is the case; what is the problem? The truth and falsehood of the claims are important, not the speaker. Has Raisi not committed crimes? Has he not lied in this regard and in other cases? b- At the same time that I named Ebrahim Raisi 'Ayatollah of Massacre' and wrote and spoke about him for a long time, I found it necessary to explain the reasons for this naming due to criticisms. The article 'Explanation of the Titles of Two Prominent Candidates: “Ayatollah of Massacre” and “Gas Chamber General”' not only referenced Ayatollah Montazeri's statements but also explained the relationship of this naming with the process of transition to democracy. In the new article, I have repeated Ayatollah Montazeri's statements again. 'Historical criminal' is the naming and ruling of Ayatollah Montazeri in August 1988 during a meeting with the death committee, not foreigners. In that same meeting, Ayatollah Montazeri also called Ayatollah Khomeini 'bloodthirsty, ruthless, and abusive.' The attendees provided a complete report of the meeting to Ayatollah Khomeini. Second - Theoretical Contradiction Claim: The two propositions 'Raisi is a historical criminal' and 'dual governance dictatorship is more favorable for the transition to democracy' are contradictory and inconsistent. Response to the claim: The two propositions 'God exists' and 'God does not exist' are contradictory. However, the following two propositions are not contradictory: a- 'A dictatorship with dual governance is more favorable for the transition to democracy than a unified dictatorship.' b- 'Repression, murder, crime, and torture are carried out by the extremist part of the government.' These two claims are not even inconsistent. Because the extremists or radicals are the ones who pursue a confrontational foreign policy and a repressive domestic policy. Look at the Islamic Republic: a- 'The Islamic Republic is a non-democratic regime with dual governance: extremists and moderates, elected and appointed.' b- 'Repressions and crimes have been carried out by the extremist forces of the Islamic Republic: Ayatollah Khomeini, Ayatollah Khamenei, Ebrahim Raisi, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, Assadollah Lajevardi, Ali Fallahian, Mohseni Ejei, Moussavi, Sadegh Larijani, Taeb, and...' These two propositions are not only not contradictory and inconsistent, but they are also completely compatible with each other. Political sociologists, political analysts, and Western governments divide non-democratic governments into extremists and moderates. Regarding the Islamic Republic, except for the first six years of Ahmadinejad's presidency, this has been said and is still said. During the reform era, the executive branch, the sixth parliament, and the Tehran city council were referred to as the moderates of the regime. Now, the Rouhani government, the majority of parliament, and the Tehran city council are also referred to as moderates. American and European critics of Donald Trump's withdrawal from the nuclear deal have said and say that he, by this action, strengthened the extremists of the Islamic Republic and weakened moderates like Hassan Rouhani and Zarif against them (see, for example, these three articles: 'Two Winners and Five Losers of America's Exit from the JCPOA. Winners: The Israel-Saudi Alliance, and Tehran's Extremists. Losers: Trump, those opposed to nuclear weapons, Obama, James Mattis, and Europe, Winners and Losers of America's Exit from the JCPOA. Winners: Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Tehran's Extremists. Losers: Rouhani, Iran's economy, and Europe, The Biggest Winner of America's Exit from the JCPOA: Tehran's Extremists. The Biggest Loser: Rouhani and Iran's Moderates). Third - Moral Inconsistency Claim: The two main propositions are morally inconsistent. That is, based on the proposition that 'a dictatorship with a schism (dual governance) is more favorable for the transition to democracy, civil society activities, and preventing war', it has been concluded: a- The work of moderates in a dictatorship is not only not considered immoral, but their existence is necessary for those outcomes. b- Crimes and repressions are the work of a part of the extremist forces of the dictatorship. Thus, moral inconsistency occurs. That is, moderates must work with criminal extremists. Is it morally justifiable for moderates to work with criminals? Response to the claim: a- Governments, analysts, and all international human rights organizations rightly call repressions and crimes the work of the extremist part of the regime. Nevertheless, human rights organizations and democracy advocates report human rights violations and try to expose the names of criminals as much as possible. In the recent case, Amnesty International in December 2018, in a detailed report naming Ebrahim Raisi, Mostafa Pourmohammadi, Ali Neyri, and others as direct perpetrators of the 1988 massacre, stated that the Islamic Republic commits 'crimes against humanity' by concealing the fate of the executed prisoners. Sarah Leah Whitson, the director of the Middle East division of Human Rights Watch, said: 'It is disturbing and frankly terrifying that Ebrahim Raisi will oversee justice and accountability in Iran. Raisi should be investigated for very serious crimes [the massacre of thousands of political prisoners in the summer of 1988], not be the one investigating them.' Iranian human rights defenders and democracy advocates repeat the same. b- Engineer Bazargan went to Paris before the revolution and met with Ayatollah Khomeini. Upon returning to Iran, he told his colleagues that Khomeini was a dictator. Nevertheless, he accepted his appointment as Prime Minister. The pressure from the leftist atmosphere and the extremist forces of the regime was such that he resigned after the occupation of the U.S. embassy. However, members of the Freedom Movement and forces later called national-religious not only participated in the Revolutionary Council and the Assembly of Experts but also ran for the first parliament and were present in it. They also ran for the second parliament and the presidential elections, but the Guardian Council disqualified them. Mohtashami Pour (the then Minister of Interior) obtained that famous letter from Ayatollah Khomeini against the Freedom Movement in 1986 to prevent their candidacy. Ayatollah Montazeri, although he stood against the crimes of Ayatollah Khomeini, did not resign until he was dismissed. His very high position allowed him to be informed of the secret repressions and to stand against them. In other words, Bazargan, Sahabi, Montazeri, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, Mohammad Khatami, etc., did not consider their actions morally unjustifiable. Even if others consider their actions immoral, they themselves did not have such a perception. p- Democracy advocates, as opponents of the Islamic Republic and those who seek to pave the way for a non-violent transition from the Islamic Republic to a secular republic committed to democracy and human rights, pay costs for their activities. Moderates in the regime also pay a cost for working in a dictatorship - in public opinion. However, their work - due to their functions - is morally justifiable. In other words, one cannot condemn all moderates who have worked or are working in dictatorial systems with a general moral judgment. Fourth - Political and Practical Inconsistency Claim: When opponents of democracy call extremist forces criminals, it becomes practically difficult for moderates to work. One cannot say that moderates should have a part of power to keep breathing spaces open, and on the other hand, speak in a way that denies the possibility of these forces remaining. In other words, one cannot consider the presence of moderates in a dictatorship necessary for its positive outcomes, and on the other hand, by calling extremists criminals, close the way for them to work. Because, in fact, there are only two options: the interaction and compromise of moderates with extremists or the grappling and confrontation of moderates with extremists. Response to the claim: a- In the real world, politicians are not trapped between a zero-sum and a hundred-sum choice. They are not caught in the grip of 'either interaction and compromise' and 'or grappling and confrontation.' In practice, a combination of these two, with varying degrees, occurs in various issues. Real politics in democracies is the same. Donald Trump calls Democrats anti-American, anti-Israel, socialists who want to make America like Venezuela, and traitors to America. Democrats also call him a racist, sexist, pathological liar, a child who does not intend to grow up, stupid, narcissistic, and a traitor to America (in relation to Russia), a healthy horse that Vladimir Putin rides, and... Their disagreements led to a 35-day federal government shutdown that caused $11 billion in losses. There is a possibility of another federal government shutdown ahead, as there are fundamental disagreements between the two parties over the new budget. Yes, this is the reality of politics. If the meaning of contradiction and inconsistency is this type of conflict, this is the essence of existing politics (the reality of politics). b- 40 years of experience of the Islamic Republic is a testament to this claim. Interaction and compromise have occurred alongside power struggles and elimination. Extremists have always eliminated their moderate rivals, but moderates have always rebuilt themselves and appeared in a new form within the system. In last year's electoral competitions, Hassan Rouhani told Ebrahim Raisi that your only record from the beginning of the revolution until now is execution and imprisonment. Moderates in the regime do not necessarily have to go to war with extremists. However, this war has occurred and continues to occur in the real world. Moderates should tell extremists to let the truth of the past be revealed so that future generations can be freed from violence, but figures like Ebrahim Raisi and Mostafa Pourmohammadi take pride in executing God's decree regarding political prisoners in the summer of 1988 and believe they deserve rewards. Ayatollah Montazeri was aware of Ayatollah Khomeini's illness. Many told him to be patient for a while; when he dies in a few months, you can run the country according to your views. But Ayatollah Montazeri said: 'I cannot sleep at night because of the crimes. They intend to kill several thousand people.' Everyone told Ayatollah Montazeri not to stand against the 'Imam' and not to confront him, but this confrontation was and is a necessity of the structure of the Islamic Republic. p- Democracy advocates outside the government are active in civil society and the public sphere. When they call Ebrahim Raisi, for example, 'Ayatollah of Massacre' and 'criminal', they do not create practical problems for moderates. On the contrary, in the last two elections, their revelations significantly helped the victory of moderates. Moderates in the regime cannot do much without the social pressure of democracy advocates. t- Opponents in Chile called General Pinochet a bloodthirsty coup plotter. In South Africa, they also referred to the ruling regime as an apartheid and repressive regime. However, after the opponents managed to empower the people against the powerful government and forced the government to submit to negotiations, then they changed their language for bargaining and transition to democracy, giving and taking concessions. But before this stage, they called criminals criminals. The most important demand of the opponents in negotiations was the holding of free elections leading to the transfer of power from rulers to opponents. Of course, in the event of victory in elections. They democratized the constitution after winning. Fifth - The Unified Governance of Extremists Every political agenda has consequences. One political agenda leads to a devastating war, while another political agenda leads to peace and peaceful coexistence. Anyone who presents any political agenda must also pay attention to its practical consequences. If someone says: 'a- The Islamic Republic is a totalitarian regime. b- The Islamic Republic is building an empire in the Middle East. c- There is no internal way to pass through this regime. d- Paralyzing sanctions are also ineffective,' what is the logical and practical conclusion of these premises? Can any conclusion other than prescribing military action against Iran be drawn from these premises? Hence, it is said: 'The people of Iran want the regime of the Islamic Republic to be changed by the U.S. government.' One political agenda is that all moderates and reformists leave the government, do not participate in any elections, so that the government completely falls into the hands of extremists and becomes unified like North Korea. What is the practical consequence of this political agenda that lacks contradiction? This is exactly what the 'Trump-Netanyahu-Bin Salman triangle' needs. When Mohammad Javad Zarif resigned, Netanyahu triumphantly said we got rid of him. The article 'Chalabi-izing for Iran, Responding to Their Own Issues, Not Our Issues' explained that Trump, Netanyahu, and Bin Salman are caught in complex internal issues. Their common enemy is Iran, and they may see war with Iran as necessary to solve their internal problems. Hundreds of high-ranking American and Israeli officials and analysts have confirmed this claim. Michael McFaul - U.S. Ambassador to Russia during Obama - wrote on March 1, 2019, in the Washington Post that the Trump administration is seeking regime change in Iran, and Trump may launch a military attack on Iran to win the 2020 election. Senator Tom Udall and Senator Richard Durbin...