The Path and Challenges of Lifting the House Arrest of Symbolic Leaders of the Green Movement After 4 Years

Last week, during the memorial ceremony for Mohammad Khatami's sister, attendees supporting the symbolic leaders of the 2009 protests once again chanted 'Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein.' The house arrest of Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi, and Zahra Rahnavard, the symbolic leaders of the 2009 protests, has entered its fifth year. For reformists in Iran, should lifting the house arrest be a means or an end? What are the paths and challenges to lifting the house arrest? Three guests in this week's program respond to these questions: Ahmad Montazeri, son of the late Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, Mojtaba Vahedi, former editor-in-chief of Aftab Yazd newspaper (now in Washington), and Saeed Barzin, sociologist and political analyst in London. Mr. Montazeri, we have entered the fifth year of the house arrest of Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Karroubi, and Ms. Rahnavard, and this is the fifth time you have participated in a roundtable discussion on this issue. How effective do you think the efforts and correspondence from people like you and the opinions expressed by people like Ali Motahari, a member of parliament, and the unofficial mediation of some clerics and other institutions have been in ending the house arrest over these four years? Ahmad Montazeri: It is clear that the house arrest has not been lifted, but it has been successful in that it has shown that it is a national demand and has been widely discussed; from this perspective, it has succeeded, and the ruling authority has no logical response to justify this house arrest. This indicates a failure. Essentially, when the revolution occurred, such discussions were not supposed to arise, where critics and well-wishers are deprived of their freedom and imprisoned for expressing their opinions. As time goes on, it becomes clearer that this Islamic Republic is failing, as Ayatollah Montazeri stated towards the end of his life, that it is neither a republic nor Islamic anymore. The more time passes and the more correspondence there is for lifting the house arrest without a positive response, it becomes evident that the people's demand, the representatives of the people, and public opinion hold no value, and this is a failure of the revolutionary goals that were supposed to be realized in 1979. It is not about the will of one person, and anyone who opposes it is deprived of freedom and suppressed. Of course, the house arrest has succeeded in silencing them, but this is not a victory. This is a failure because the revolution did not occur for one regime to be replaced by another. The values that were supposed to be revived have faced defeat. Mr. Montazeri, however, the opposing side says that this house arrest occurred when a year after the 2009 protests, these leaders wanted to enter a new phase on January 25, coinciding with the Arab Spring, which qualitatively was another stage, and the same revolution that you are concerned about could have faced problems. Do you account for their concerns in any specific way? Ahmad Montazeri: If we are talking about the rule of law, these movements and demonstrations that do not disrupt Islamic laws and are not armed are free according to the constitution. The leaders of the Green Movement wanted to express this demand and ask the people to hold a peaceful demonstration. In response, the opponents could have done the same and asked the people to respond in a demonstration and neutralize it. But this did not happen. It was one-sided, and the peaceful legal movement of these gentlemen was suppressed, and their house arrest prevented its continuation, which is again a failure; to come before the rule of law and impose personal interests instead of the rule of law. Mr. Vahedi, the issue of house arrest is important as an identity marker for both the protesters against the government and the government itself. In these four years, what strengths and weaknesses do you think the government's opponents have had in advancing the demand for lifting the house arrest? Mojtaba Vahedi: Perhaps it can be said that the biggest success for the protesters and critics, even those who do not believe in the Green Movement or reformism, those who have some form of criticism and protest against the government, is that the government has shown its instability and fear. You mentioned the statement made by the gentlemen, and they said this house arrest occurred when a year and a bit had passed since the Green Movement, and the Arab Spring or what they call Islamic Awakening had occurred, creating concerns. If a government makes such a statement, it admits that its condition is similar to that of the toppled Arab regimes, which feared any movement. For the protesters, this is the biggest success. When a government is forced to make such an admission, or if this admission is a lie to cover up an illegal act, as Mr. Montazeri pointed out, or if it is the truth. Either way, if the government has to admit that it has lied, this is a success for those who have not been able to prove its lying until now. If they do not believe that the Islamic Republic's conditions are similar to those of unstable and dictatorial Arab regimes, they were forced to prevent calls for gatherings and subsequently put the symbolic leaders of the movement under house arrest; this is an admission that their situation is like that. This is the biggest success. However, I would like to point out one thing. Mr. Montazeri mentioned that the government has ignored the people's demands. The ideologue of this revolution and this Islamic Republic, according to Mr. Khamenei, is Mr. Mesbah Yazdi. Mr. Mesbah Yazdi explicitly states that people have no right to transfer their rights to anyone else. People who have no rights do not have the right to protest. Therefore, from the government's perspective, this point that I, Mr. Montazeri, and you have pointed out is irrelevant from the perspective of a government whose ideologue is Mr. Mesbah Yazdi. The last point I want to make is that the government has repeatedly stated that the events of December 30, 2009, ended the sedition. If the sedition has ended, the fact that they still have people under house arrest for the crime of sedition without trial, according to their own claims based on a necessary resolution of the National Security Council, means that the sedition has not ended. This means that the lie they created about the government rally on December 30 indicates that they know it was a show and had no effect on the stability of the government or the weakening of the opponents. Mr. Barzin, someone who thinks differently from Mr. Vahedi and Mr. Montazeri from the faction of the government that believes in continuing the house arrest can say what happened that, contrary to the views of many protesters of the Green Movement who chanted that if anything happens to Mousavi and Karroubi, Iran will face a catastrophe, the government managed to confine these three individuals without incurring very high costs. Do you see any miscalculations in the assumptions of opponents like Mr. Vahedi or Mr. Montazeri? Saeed Barzin: Of course, both sides made mistakes. There were losses for both sides. I will refer to the mistakes of some reformist groups according to your question. In my opinion, the biggest mistake was allowing the social conditions to become polarized. Even before the election day, there were signs that conflict and violence were on the way. The warnings given by both sides, Kayhan newspaper, Sobhe Sadegh publication, and the Revolutionary Guards sent dangerous and negative signals. They threatened with repression and violence. These signals were ignored, and there was a naive optimism. The same naive optimism we saw in the Arab Spring allowed developments to gradually accelerate and then swept both sides away. Another mistake was that the reformists misjudged their own capabilities and power. They thought they could turn the situation around both on the streets and in political institutions. This misjudgment was also about the power of the government forces and the government's repressive power. Governments like Iran, Egypt, and Syria do not set limits for repression. If necessary, they would flatten Tehran Pars and Narmak with barrel bombs. This was another big mistake. The third mistake was that they did not foresee the radicalization of the street movement. They thought they could control and manage the protests and demonstrations, coming and going quietly. This was the mistake we have seen over the past few years in the Middle East that reformists and moderates made. They thought they could manage street movements. But they only opened the way for radicals and extremists. Now Iran was fortunate that the balanced forces on both sides were stronger and managed to stabilize the situation; otherwise, we could have had a scenario like Syria and Egypt. In any case, these factors led to a lack of a precise strategy, and they could not pursue their long-term and short-term goals with flexible tactics, and all of these were miscalculations. Mr. Montazeri, in the past, you have warned with a reformist view to the leader and other influential figures in the government to create conditions for lifting the house arrest of Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Karroubi, and Ms. Rahnavard by choosing different behaviors. Considering Mr. Barzin's criticism of the strategies of many reformists, if you were to give advice to the government's opponents with your specific reformist perspective to facilitate lifting the house arrest, what actions would be appropriate, commendable, and effective that opponents could use to achieve better and more results than what has been achieved in these four years? Ahmad Montazeri: I think continuing the reformist methods, that is, asking the authorities and repeating that and distributing letters with signatures and specifications and repeating it everywhere so that it is not forgotten. Other than this, we do not know any other way because we want reform. We are not for overthrowing, and I think the government is making a mistake in this path. It is true that it has deprived these three gentlemen of their freedom, and at their age and health condition, it will have an impact on them. But the main damage is to the regime itself. But now Mr. Mousavi, Mr. Karroubi, and Ms. Rahnavard, every day they are under house arrest, they are actually issuing a statement about why they were deprived of freedom. Did we act against the constitution? Did we ask for anything other than election and goodwill and kind words? The government is suffering the most damage, and the more it is clarified and disseminated, including the services you provide and the roundtables you hold and discussions you have, it is effective in lifting the house arrest. Because we are reformists, we do not know another way. We just insist on our rightful and legal rights. You noted the part that Mr. Barzin mentioned that the street protests could have posed threats similar to those seen in the Arab countries after what was called the Arab Spring? Ahmad Montazeri: Yes, all of these were losses for the nation that were suppressed in this way, and individuals were imprisoned. Now, as an Iranian facing foreigners, I truly feel ashamed that one of my compatriots has suppressed another compatriot for expressing an opinion and beaten him with a baton and arrested him, tortured him, and later killed individuals under torture. This is a great loss, and it would have been much better if it had not happened. But this was not predictable. At least my friends did not predict it, and they did not think that a peaceful protest would receive such a harsh and violent response. Now Mr. Barzin is correct. If sociologists and political experts had come and predicted, perhaps things would have been handled differently. But this good faith was not there towards the country's authorities and even the armed authorities that such a suppression would occur that it would not be open to dialogue at all. Every time I see these families that have suffered losses, including a few of them at the memorial for the father of Sattar Beheshti, the cases they recount truly cause embarrassment that in the name of the Islamic Republic, they brought down on these young people. But in my opinion, this was not as predictable. Mr. Vahedi, you mentioned in response to the first question that the admission of instability is a success for the opponents. But at the same time, it means that you are not reaching the results you want despite your opponent's resistance. I do not know how acceptable this definition is for you that if we want to apply it, this house arrest may be interpreted as a failure. Now I have a question: there are factions and groups in authoritarian governments that sometimes have interests in defining political competition within the framework of security threats and consequently resort to security repression. On the other hand, opponents who are averse to compromise or dissolution sometimes have this apocalyptic view that the worse the situation gets, the better it is, and actions like lifting the house arrest are a safety valve and delay fundamental change. Do you not think this perception has turned both house arrest and lifting it into a win-lose game from both sides? Mojtaba Vahedi: One of the most important issues raised after the elections was to prove whether there are factions in the government that seek violence and radicalize the issue or whether it is the will of the government. I believe it has been proven that it is the will of the government. That is, Mr. Khamenei is at the forefront of these movements. No one can deny this. Perhaps aside from other issues, one of the cries that Mr. Khamenei raised on June 29, 2009, in Friday prayers was why they called our beloved president a liar. Today it has been proven that not only is Ahmadinejad a liar, but his superiors are also liars. You might say, well, this has not destabilized the government. I say it has destabilized it. If a government falls or is forced to make some concessions, it shows that the opposition is gaining ground.