Who Are the Recipients of Karroubi's Letter?

Mehdi Karroubi's open letter to Hassan Rouhani is a significant political event with undeniable consequences. The former Speaker of the Third and Sixth Majlis, after enduring five years of house arrest and numerous restrictions, has bravely responded to the leadership's attacks and called for a public trial in accordance with Article 168 of the Constitution regarding political crimes. The importance of Karroubi's letter lies both in its content and its timing. This letter demonstrates that Mehdi Karroubi firmly stands by his positions regarding the electoral fraud in the 2009 presidential elections. The main audience of Karroubi's letter is not the President, but indirectly addresses Khamenei and the core of the Green Movement. He has more explicitly accused the leadership of authoritarianism and self-will, implicitly stating that ambition and thirst for power have so overtaken the core of power that 'they do not set limits for their desires and have sacrificed the wealth and children of this nation for their grand ambitions in the region.' Karroubi has redirected the unseemly accusations against the symbolic leaders of the Green Movement back to the leadership and defenders of the integrity of the 2009 elections, announcing his readiness to defend himself in a public trial to clarify which side of the dispute over the 2009 elections are the true revolutionaries and which are the unworthy. Karroubi's letter is also a wake-up call to the Green Movement to remember their political and civil responsibilities and to use the new political atmosphere after the parliamentary elections to revitalize the Green Movement, planning and organizing appropriate actions to break the siege. His written stance also serves as a morale booster for the Green Movement and motivates its supporters. The letter has particular significance in several areas. Firstly, as expected, he has raised demands beyond just lifting the house arrest or freedom. For him, the demand to lift the house arrest is not the main issue; rather, he seeks to prove the legitimacy of his positions from 2009 and, beyond that, to end the deviation from the ideals of the revolution, restore the rights of the people, and fight against oppression and autocracy. He has acted in accordance with what he sees as his religious and national duty, fully aware of the dangers this letter poses and the potential to obstruct the path to lifting the house arrest. This approach highlights the conceptual and methodological differences between the Green Movement and the moderates. Karroubi believes in civil resistance against the authoritarian actions of the leadership and its aligned forces and does not reduce the level of problems to Ahmadinejad's government. He also warns that pragmatism in the face of the oppression of power holders and collusion with them leads to dire consequences. While Rouhani's and the moderates' approach is based on cooperation with the leadership and avoiding direct confrontation with him and the main power institutions, even the new approach of reformists and their efforts to build trust with the leadership and downplay differences significantly diverges from Karroubi's recent written stance. Karroubi's strong emphasis that one should not remain silent in the face of oppression and his warning to the elites that their delay and negligence will have heavy costs for the country and the people starkly contrasts with the conservative positions of Seyyed Mohammad Khatami. Karroubi has made it clear that his vote was tactical and that he sought to bring the ballot box to strengthen the republic aspect of the system with a realistic approach. However, he maintains his strategic positions and believes that solving the country's problems requires structural reforms. Although this stance initially indicates the failure of the policies of house arrest, restrictions, and harassment by security forces and the dominant power, which could not psychologically wear down the symbolic leaders of the Green Movement, the situation does not end there. Karroubi's letter is also somewhat of a crisis for Rouhani and the reformists. They and the forces affiliated with the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist share similar positions in overcoming the protests of the 2009 elections and closing that case. The reformists and moderates are primarily seeking the freedom of Mousavi, Karroubi, and Rahnavard within the framework of an agreement with the leadership and the judiciary. However, Mehdi Karroubi is demanding the realization of the Green Movement's demands and proving its legitimacy, resulting in appropriate political changes to compensate for the injustices. The main and short-term outcome of Karroubi's letter is the revival of the Green Movement's case. Another point of contention is the definition of the level of conflict with power. The moderates, Rafsanjani's circle, and the reformists are trying to reduce the level of problems to Ahmadinejad and the Steadfast Front. While Karroubi sharply attacks Ahmadinejad and points to the destructive actions of the ninth and tenth governments, he considers the autocratic behavior of the leadership, as his supporter, to be the root cause of the problems. Among the high-ranking officials of the Islamic Republic after Ayatollah Khomeini's death, Karroubi is one of the few who has openly and without conventional niceties criticized the performance of the leadership and the ruling system, condemning their policies in Islamic countries for sacrificing people at the altar of individual ambitions. Now, the confrontation between Karroubi and Khamenei has entered a new chapter. Rouhani, just as he lacks the necessary authority and will to solve the problem of lifting the house arrest, is unlikely to take a step towards establishing a public trial. Of course, the authority to establish a public trial lies with the judiciary. The leadership had previously made it clear that if a trial were held, a death sentence would be issued for the symbolic leaders of the Green Movement, and the house arrest was considered a concession and privilege for them. This claim serves as a cover for hiding the regime's limitations and, at the same time, indicates the impracticality of judicializing the cases of Mousavi and Karroubi. Now, the concern over the widespread repercussions of the aforementioned stance is pushing the regime and the security and military sectors close to Khamenei towards a policy of silence and increased repression against Karroubi. Social pressure is currently not on them, making it unlikely that they will take any specific action in the short term; rather, they will try to intensify the pressure of house arrest and destructive movements by extremist principlist media to force Karroubi into silence. However, the continued passivity of Rouhani will not be without political costs for the moderate government, especially in the 2017 presidential elections. Although in the current stagnant political atmosphere, the expectation of an effective response from society in the short term is far from reality and the likelihood of its realization is low, Karroubi's letter has significant potential to facilitate and accelerate the organization of community-centered activities and resistance against despotism and the denial of intermediate views in the medium term. Karroubi has shown over his five years of house arrest that he is more prepared than ever for the leadership of structural reforms. In the current fragile balance of power and the enduring gap between the government and the nation, his will to push for changes beyond just the composition of the parliament and the executive branch poses a tangible threat to the authoritarian forces and conservative reformism. It would not be incorrect to say that the consequences of his letter also lay the groundwork for the impeachment of Khamenei. The contents of Karroubi's letter indirectly accuse the leadership of ambition and deviation from fairness, piety, prudence, justice, and violation of the Constitution. These accusations conflict with the necessary conditions for the Supreme Leader. His courageous letter deserves recognition. At the same time, some of its contents are open to criticism. Contrary to his view, which may stem from pragmatism, the problems of the country and the deviation from the ideals of the revolution did not begin in 2005. Far greater catastrophes than those that occurred in 2005 and 2009 had previously occurred, especially in the 1980s. In fact, the problems of the country began the day the foundation of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist was laid. If the elites had not remained silent and complacent in the face of oppression and injustices from the very beginning, today Iran and Iranians would not be in the current disordered and regressive state. By borrowing the enemy and infiltrator from Khamenei's rhetoric, he has directed this accusation towards the advocates of nuclear adventurism and indifference to the destructive consequences of sanctions. While based on existing observations, such an allegation is unfounded. These views have had and continue to have serious supporters among some of the regime's forces since the beginning of the revolution. The opinions of the Supreme Leader, both past and present, are based on advancing Shiite-centered Islamic fundamentalism and embracing the costs of it, including international isolation and extensive damage to the country's economic structure, have pushed the regime towards confrontation and hostility with the established global order. Attention to these issues, which form the secondary dimensions of Karroubi's letter, is important, but should not overshadow its main orientation, which is based on the virtue and usefulness of standing against the structure and behavior of despotism.