The Trials of Mossadegh, Morsi, and the Fear of Trial for Green Movement Leaders

Iran and Egypt have many similarities. Without equating the social and historical status of Mohammad Mossadegh, Mohammad Morsi, and the leaders of the Green Movement (Mousavi and Karroubi), one thing unites these four figures: coups. According to history, the legitimate government of Mossadegh in Iran and the legitimate government of Morsi in Egypt were both removed from power due to military coups. The claim of the Green Movement leaders, who have been under house arrest for over five years, is that a military coup also took place in the June 2009 elections. Videos released by General Jafari, the commander of the IRGC, and General Moshfeq provide sufficient evidence for such a claim. Despite the similarity that all these leaders were ousted by coups, what distinguishes the fate of the Green leaders from that of Dr. Mossadegh and Mohammad Morsi is that both the government resulting from the 1953 coup against Mossadegh and the government resulting from the 2013 coup against Morsi established courts and tried them. More importantly, these trials were conducted publicly and with media presence. In 1953, shortly after the coup in Iran, the judicial proceedings against Mohammad Mossadegh began in a 'public' military court. The charges against Mossadegh in this court, which was covered by domestic and foreign media, were 'attempting to overthrow the monarchy' and 'coup against the constitution.' Interestingly, the military court acquitted Mossadegh of all the mentioned charges. The only charge that the court found him guilty of was his defiance of the king's order to dismiss him from the premiership, for which he was sentenced to 'three years of solitary confinement.' After three years of imprisonment, by the king's order (not by the court's ruling), Mossadegh spent the remaining 13 years of his life under house arrest in Ahmadabad village until he passed away on March 5, 1967. Only two weeks after the ousting of Mohammad Morsi, the former president of Egypt, the Egyptian prosecutor announced his intention to prosecute him on charges of 'treason,' 'killing opponents,' and 'disrupting the economy.' This announcement came at a time when many of his staunch supporters were demanding his return to power through street protests. Nevertheless, the Egyptian judiciary had the audacity to hold his first trial just six months after his ousting on November 4, 2013. Thus, shortly after his ousting and imprisonment in an unknown location, the transitional government of Egypt sought to clarify his legal status by filing charges against him. Over five years of delay in the trial of the Green leaders has passed since March 2011. Despite their explicit and repeated demands for a trial, no court has been established for them. Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic has labeled these individuals as 'leaders of sedition' and has gone so far as to have Ayatollah Khamenei compare them to traitors like 'Talha and Zubair' and, in another instance, called them 'ignoble' and demanded their apology. (A group... illegally and dishonorably... harmed the country... why don’t they apologize? Khamenei - July 28, 2013) Such a reactive response from a regime with all its power against two imprisoned leaders can only be explained by 'fear' of a major scandal being revealed. The trial of Morsi and the refusal to trial the Green leaders highlight the depth of the scandal that the trial of the Green leaders could entail. Below is a comparison of the judicial behavior of the Egyptian government and the Islamic Republic regarding Mohammad Morsi and the Green Movement leaders: 1- The decision to prosecute Morsi was made while he was legally the President of Egypt, and the government that filed the lawsuit considered itself a 'transitional government.' Now compare this courage of the Egyptian transitional government with the Islamic Republic, which claims to have a broad popular base but does not dare to prosecute individuals who never held an official presidential position (like Mohammad Morsi). 2- The decision to prosecute Morsi was made only six months after his ousting. During these six months, Morsi's supporters never remained silent, and the atmosphere in the country remained tense. Compare this with the more than five years of house arrest of Mousavi, Rahnavard, and Karroubi, during which absolutely no judicial decision has been made regarding them, while the repressive apparatus of the Islamic Republic has managed to confine their supporters to their homes and hold the 2013 presidential elections in a calm atmosphere. Nevertheless, the Iranian judiciary does not have the courage to prosecute those accused of overthrowing the regime. 3- Following Morsi's ousting, the Egyptian army officially took responsibility for his imprisonment and has always emphasized that he is being held in suitable conditions in a luxurious organizational house. Compare this with the imprisonment of the Green leaders, for which each judicial and security institution has evaded responsibility, providing contradictory information regarding the decision-making body. Sometimes the responsibility for this imprisonment is attributed to the Supreme National Security Council, sometimes to the Ministry of Intelligence, sometimes to the IRGC, and sometimes to the judiciary. Moreover, according to Mr. Karroubi's children, he was deprived of access to news, fresh air, and sunlight for months during his house arrest, resulting in serious harm to him. 4- According to the official announcement of the transitional government of Egypt, Morsi's imprisonment was based on 'temporary rulings.' Thus, it was not the case that his imprisonment was entirely without judicial ruling. Now compare this with the house arrest of the Green leaders, which is completely devoid of any judicial ruling. Despite Morsi's complete quarantine, at least once on July 30, 2013, Catherine Ashton, as a senior foreign official, managed to meet and talk with him at his place of imprisonment. 5- During Morsi's imprisonment, there have been no reports of insulting treatment towards his family members. In contrast, during one of Mousavi's children's visits with their parents, one of Mousavi's daughters faced insults and physical assault. 6- In the indictment against Morsi, issues such as 'treason,' 'killing opponents,' and 'disrupting the economy' are mentioned, but there has never been a report that General Sisi or any Egyptian official insulted Morsi. Now compare this with Khamenei's behavior, who called the Green leaders 'ignoble' and demanded their apology. Comparing judicial behavior in three coups: a) Regardless of the establishment of a 'military' court, which had no legitimacy in addressing Mossadegh's charges (and was protested by Mossadegh), the Iranian monarchy allowed the judicial proceedings, the right to have a lawyer, public trials, etc., for Mossadegh. The independence of the court was such that the judge acquitted Mossadegh of all serious charges that could have led to a death sentence. Media access to court sessions was so extensive that the text of the late Mossadegh's defense and images of the trial are recorded in history. b) If we compare the judicial behavior of the coup plotters against Morsi with the judicial behavior of the Islamic Republic, we will see that there is a slight rationality among the Egyptian coup plotters to not violate Morsi's civil rights, even if only superficially, based on the rulings of the Egyptian court. This slight rationality is not seen in the judicial behavior of the Islamic Republic. c) More regrettably, if we compare the judicial behavior of the Islamic Republic with that of the Iranian monarchy under the current laws of the country, we reach the question: if the legal rights of the Prime Minister and the Speaker of Parliament of this regime and candidates of the 2009 presidential election (who passed the Guardian Council filter) are so blatantly violated, what else might they do to others?