While America bleeds

In a speech at the National Defense University last Tuesday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates accused the Europeans of undermining NATO by refusing to devote to the organization the additional resources it needs to function efficiently and effectively, particularly in Afghanistan.
In addition, however, he lamented the fact that Europe’s current outlook is too pacifist. Last week the Dutch government fell because members of the governing coalition could not agree on prolonging the mission of the 2000 troops currently stationed in Afghanistan. As a result, Dutch forces should be returning home this summer.
Europe’s reluctance to go to war presumably explains its refusal to increase its defense expenditures, the demilitarization of Europe — where large swaths of the general public and political class are averse to military force and the risks that go with it — has gone from a blessing in the 20th century to an impediment to achieving real security and lasting peace in the 21st, he said.
In essence, does real security and lasting peace depend on a robust military and one’s willingness to use it? Today, is peace truly conditioned on one’s capacity to wage war without compunction or inhibition?
As such, have the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan brought us any closer to the realization of Mr. Gates’ stated goal?
The US has been in Iraq for seven years. 4697 US troops have been killed there to date, as well as some 100,000 Iraqis…President Obama promised to withdraw all US forces by late next year. National parliamentary elections are to take place on March 7, and it was widely hoped that the poll would allow all of Iraq’s communities to be duly represented. Iraq could then develop peacefully, thus facilitating the US troop withdrawal. Yet, according to Reuters, the campaign for Iraq's first sovereign vote since the invasion has deepened sectarian divides, rather than healed them, after candidates, including prominent Sunnis, were banned for supposed links to Saddam Hussein's outlawed Baath party. Saleh al-Mutlak, leader of the most influential Sunni party, the National Dialogue Front has been prevented form running in the election, along with 400 other Sunnis.
Suicide attacks have increased of late, and, according to Leila Fadel of the WP, many here say sectarian strife is reigniting.
As such, some are wondering if this is truly the appropriate time to withdraw US forces from Iraq, all we're doing is setting the clock back to 2005. The militias are fully armed, and al-Qaeda in Iraq is trying to move back from the west. These are the conditions now, and we're sitting back looking at PowerPoint slides and whitewashing, a senior American military official told the WP.
Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki’s performance as leader of the Iraqi government, undermined by corruption and incompetence, has disappointed many. The decision to ban all those who may have been connected to Saddam Hussein’s Baath party alienated the Sunni community. Furthermore, 18% of Iraqis are unemployed and two-thirds of those who do have jobs are employed by the state. Foreign investment has been minimal, except in the oil industry. As a result, many Iraqis are disgusted, there are no jobs, just bombings. I will not take part in the election. What did the people we voted for last time do for us? Nothing, one Sunni Iraqi told Reuters.
The political system created by the US in the aftermath of the 2003 invasion, and conditioned by Order No 1, the decision by L. Paul Bremer III, then de facto leader of Iraq, to ban the Baath party, is based on confessionalism. The powerful one-party state having been annihilated by the US military, each of Iraq’s three main communities, Sunni, Shiite and Kurdish now vies for power in order to protect itself and advance its own interests, often at the expense of the others. Distrust and suspicion are so widespread that many perceive the US, however reluctantly, as the only honest broker available. In America’s twilight in Iraq, the imperial role of arbiter, in a system that may yet prove unworkable, still belongs to it, wrote Anthony Shadid of the NYT.
Hence, if the elections are inconclusive and its results not accepted by all major parties, sectarian strife may bedevil the country once again, potentially precluding a comprehensive US military withdrawal.
Should the Iraqi authorities prove unable to prevent the country from sliding into civil war, should they not be ready for the task, to quote Thomas E. Ricks, President Obama would have no choice but to abandon his campaign promise and halt the US pullout. But I think leaders in both countries may come to recognize that the best way to deter a return to civil war is to find a way to keep 30,000 to 50,000 United States service members in Iraq for many years to come, concluded Mr. Ricks.
In short, the Iraq war may be far from over and achieving real security and lasting peace many years away…
In Afghanistan, NATO has been present for…nine years…Over 1000 US troops have already been killed there.
President Obama defined a new counter-insurgency strategy late last year, and the US will be increasing its troop levels by about 30,000 in 2010, reaching 130,000.
Last week General McChrystal, the Commander of ISAF (the International Security Assistance Force) who is in charge of implementing the new strategy, launched an attack on Marja, a Taliban stronghold in Helmand Province, in southern Afghanistan, the aim of which is to regain control of the area, and hand it over to representatives of the Kabul government. Afghan soldiers and police would be in charge of security once the battle was over.
Economic reconstruction could then take place, thereby improving the lives of the Afghans living in the vicinity, and hopefully, winning their allegiance.
This exercise would then be replicated in other areas now under Taliban control.
To succeed however, the strategy depends on the ability of the Afghan security forces to protect the area and its inhabitants, and prevent the return of the Taliban once US forces leave.
In order to demonstrate the efficiency and competence of the Afghan army, the latter was to take the lead in the battle for Marja. Statements from Kabul have said the Afghan military is planning the missions and leading both the fight and the effort to engage with Afghan civilians caught between the Taliban and the newly arrived troops, wrote the NYT.
In fact, the US military dominated every aspect of the operation, for Afghan troops revealed gross deficiencies during the campaign. There have been ample examples in the offensive of weak Afghan leadership and poor discipline to boot, concluded C.J. Chivers of the NYT. Moreover, in multiple firefights in which Times journalists were present, many Afghan soldiers did not aim — they pointed their American-issued M-16 rifles in the rough direction of the incoming small-arms fire and pulled their triggers without putting rifle sights to their eyes. Their rifle muzzles were often elevated several degrees high, he added.
The entire strategy of MM. Obama and McChrystal rests on the ability of the Afghan security forces to secure the country and protect the Afghan population. Only then will US troops be able to withdraw, hopefully starting in the summer of next year.
NATO has devoted nine years and several billion dollars to the training of Afghan security forces. Judging from their performance in Marja, the US and NATO are not about to leave the country. Many more years, if not decades, and additional billions will be necessary to train a competent police force and army. Currently, nine out of ten recruits are illiterate….
Yet, we may not have that much time ahead of us.
McChrystal’s campaign to win hearts and minds suffered another serious setback last week.
NATO forces bombed a small convoy of three vehicles, which they believed contained Taliban fighters.
Tragically, that was not the case. Some 27 civilians were killed, including four women and one child, and an additional twelve were wounded. We are extremely saddened by this tragic loss of innocent lives. I have made it clear to our forces that we are here to protect the Afghan people. I pledge to strengthen our efforts to regain your trust to build a brighter future for all Afghans, McChrystal declared after the incident.
The Afghan cabinet was not impressed, the repeated killing of civilians by NATO forces is unjustifiable. We strongly condemn it, it retorted.
For this incident followed another that occurred on February 14, on the second day of the offensive. A US artillery strike mistakenly hit a compound housing civilians, killing ten including five children. We deeply regret this tragic loss of life, McChrystal had then told President Karzai…
Needless to say, these kinds of egregious errors inflame public opinion in Afghanistan, and only serve the interests of the Taliban, reinforcing their claim that there can be no peace and no one will be safe until all foreign forces leave Afghanistan.
In essence, the latest events revealed the fundamental deficiencies of NATO’s campaign in Afghanistan: the repeated slaughter of innocent civilians undermines its moral authority, and thus its legitimacy, as well as the government’s on whose behalf it is fighting, while those forces which could potentially replace NATO’s do not have the competence to do so, and are not about to…
Consequently, real security and lasting peace in Afghanistan is but a distant dream, and NATO’s current war on the Taliban has brought us no closer to realizing Mr. Gates’ objective, nine years after having first invaded the country…
How long will the Europeans and the Afghans tolerate this situation?
Events in Holland demonstrate that the patience of some Europeans is wearing thin.
In fact, it is precisely the war’s inability to solve complex political issues, and the great suffering engendered that fuels pacifism or demilitarization, call it what you will, in Europe and elsewhere.
A nation or a community of nations cannot wage war perpetually.
Enduring conflicts exact a toll both psychological and financial.
So far, the Iraq and Afghan wars have cost the US $965 billion…
The nation is deeply in debt, and the deficits are rising (currently at about $1 trillion per year). Last month, the Senate authorized the US government to increase the debt by an additional $1.9 trillion. As a result, the current national debt rose to $14.3 trillion, or the equivalent of $45,000 per American, men, women and children included…To continue to function, the US is currently compelled to borrow forty cents for every dollar it spends…
Beleaguered by an unprecedented economic crisis that has increased the nation’s deficits and debt, leaders in Washington seem unable to initiate the reforms needed to restore the nation’s finances.
The endless health care debate reinforces the perception in the US and elsewhere that the nation is paralyzed and incapable or unwilling for purely partisan reasons to pass any meaningful legislation. In Washington, and particularly in the Senate, the very concept of compromise no longer holds any value. It is akin to surrender and thus repudiated, for moderation is now an electoral liability.
Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana, recently announced that he would retire from the Senate because brain-dead partisanship prevents that august body from accomplishing anything useful…
I used to think it would take a global financial crisis to get both parties to the table, but we just had one. These days I wonder if this country is even governable, G. William Hoagland, a former adviser to Senate Republican leaders told the NYT. In this context of paralysis, gridlock and exacerbated partisanship, can the US succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan what it has failed to achieve even at home in Washington, that is to say instating effective and sound government?
The astute Tom Engelhardt posed this relevant question:
Why does the military of a country convinced it's becoming ungovernable think itself so capable of making another ungovernable country governable? What’s the military’s skill set here? What lore, what body of political knowledge, are they drawing on? Who do they think they represent, the Philadelphia of 1776 or the Washington of 2010, and if the latter, why should Americans be considered the globe’s leading experts in good government anymore? And while we’re at it, fill me in on one other thing: Just what has convinced American officials in Afghanistan and the nation’s capital that they have the special ability to teach, prod, wheedle, bribe, or force Afghans to embark on good governance in their country if we can’t do it in Washington or Sacramento?
Consequently, could it be that it is al-Qaeda and not Mr. Gates, which has conceived an effective strategy to achieve its goals?
Since the First Gulf War, one of Bin Laden’s principle objectives has always been to evict the US from the Middle East and Muslim world.
Paradoxically, the September 11 attacks were designed to goad the US into invading Afghanistan in order to achieve its strategic defeat and its eventual withdrawal from the region. Christian armies invading Islamic lands could only bolster al-Qaeda’s claim that the West is at war with Islam, and that it is every Muslim’s duty to wage jihad against the crusaders. The subsequent invasion of Iraq, heaven sent as far as al-Qaeda was concerned, only further validated this contention.
That Bin Laden knew the US would retaliate in Afghanistan is evinced by the fact that his followers assassinated Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the Anti-Taliban resistance (after having fought the Soviets for ten years) who would have been a key ally in any US campaign in the country, two days before, on September 9.
During the Soviet occupation (1979-1989), the Afghan resistance had bled Russia for 10 years, until it went bankrupt and was forced to withdraw in defeat, Bin Laden declared in a videotape in 2004. So we are continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy, he added.
Michael Scheuer, formerly of the CIA who headed the Bin Laden unit at the Counterterrorist Center between 1996 and 1999, wrote the following in 2008, Bin Laden has long described a three-fold strategy for driving the United States out of the Muslim world: (1) contribute to the forces creating domestic political disunity in America; (2) act and encourage other Islamists to act in a way that spreads U.S. military and intelligence forces to the point where they lack reserves and flexibility; and (3) bleed America to bankruptcy. Obviously, al-Qaeda has been successful on the first two points and today bin Laden is staring into the face of an entirely serendipitous opportunity to contribute to economic disaster in the United States.
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are contributing to the realization of objective number three…
Concerning point number one, the latest Christmas Day attack spawned a bitter partisan debate concerning the handling of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab. Many on the right were incensed that a foreigner could benefit from the protection offered by the Constitution, and thus blasted the Obama administration for having authorized the FBI to read the suspect his rights (during his Senate campaign, Scott Brown declared, some people believe our Constitution exists to grant rights to terrorists who want to harm us. I disagree). Attorney General Eric Holder concluded that there’s a desire to ignore the facts to try to score political points. It’s a little shocking.
National security, constitutional rights have become a partisan issue in Washington, undoubtedly to the delight of Bin Laden. Controversies weaken a nation’s resolve, and sow doubt concerning the administration’s ability to protect the homeland.
As for objective number two, that same Christmas Day attack led the US to deepen its involvement and invest additional resources in Yemen, where Mr. Abdulmutallab received training from the local al-Qaeda branch (al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula).
The front in the war on terror is widening, demanding ever-increasing resources to neutralize the extremists.
As for the bleeding of America, is not the process already under way?
The US spends over $700 billion a year for its defense or nearly half of the world’s total…The nation is heavily indebted.
How long can the US sustain such a heavy military burden?
How effective have its military campaigns been?
Have those billions been spent shrewdly, wisely?
Have they furthered the security interests of the nation, and made it more secure?
There does not seem to be any end in sight to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unless the US decides to withdraw, regardless of the consequences.
We are not there yet, but the day will come when that is the only viable option left, for these wars cannot be won, and the allies we have chosen (al-Maliki and Karzai) are incapable of achieving anything resembling our definition of victory… Not surprisingly, they are looking after their interets, not ours.
America’s belligerent strategy of waging war to impose a Pax Americana on the planet’s most volatile and dangerous regions is failing.
War should not be thought of simply as one policy option upon many to promote US interests. And yet, conventional wisdom now has it that war should be an option always on the table. This is lunacy!
On the contrary, it must only be considered as a last resort, when the very existence of the nation is at stake.
Neither NATO nor the US currently faces any existential threats, certainly not in Iraq or Afghanistan. As such, war should never even have been considered as a viable policy option…These complex challenges demand more thoughtful, constructive solutions.
It is time to reverse course, for war only begets suffering, death and untold destruction. Nothing ever good comes of it, and certainly not real security and lasting peace.
In fact, it is delusional to imagine that it can lead to either. For what can war but endless war still breed, wrote the poet John Milton…
The time has come to promote our genuine values, peace, justice, democracy and progress.
This is what we should be contributing to the derelict regions of the world, and not death and mayhem.
(the photograph can be found here)
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　
　

What's next?

The lump in my throat is choking me. We had so much hope for this day which unfortunately was ruined, one young protester said, following the 22 Bahman events.
The Green Movement had urged its supporters to demonstrate against the regime on February 11 (22 Bahman), the anniversary of the founding of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979.
The inability of the movement to perturb significantly the official commemoration, which included a speech by President Ahmadinejad, dismayed many of its supporters, and has led to much soul searching and second-guessing, I think a failure has triggered debates and tactical analyses that have been needed for a long time now. It seemed like a lot of people were tired of being brutalized and continuing to go out into the streets, one protester called Sania told the NYT.
What went wrong?
Firstly, the movement lacks coherent and effective leadership. Though MM. Mousavi and Karroubi have bravely attempted to encourage and speak for the opposition, both were, until last June’s fraudulent presidential election, regime insiders considered sufficiently ideologically pure to run in the election, hence prominent members of the establishment.
To this day, they defend the Islamic Republic and oppose the authorities, because they accuse the latter of having betrayed it. They have no plans to do away with it, merely to adhere to its principles, both democratic and Islamic, which the current authorities are now subverting.
As such, they lack credibility with many opposition supporters, particularly the young, and those who seek to establish a republic, and not resurrect the Islamic Republic founded by Ayatollah Khomeini and that has degenerated into an authoritarian, police state.
Their inability to propose a clear and viable strategy to confront the regime has undermined their authority and legitimacy, if we had a strong charismatic leader we wouldn't have marched in the streets dazed and confused yesterday. I see the opposite side as the winner today. A temporary winner. ...We don't have a central command. We were like a broken chain, thrown all over, one young university student told AP the day after 22 Bahman.
It should be said however, that the authorities have done their utmost to hinder the opposition’s efforts to organize itself effectively, even the hardliners recognize the importance of organization and, hence, expert organizers. This is exactly why Behzad Nabavi, Mostafa Tajzadeh, Mohsen Aminzadeh, and Mohsen Mirdamadi, political activists for decades who have proven to be excellent organizers, have been jailed since soon after the election. In fact, according to Nabavi, their arrest warrants were issued a few days before the election, one analyst wrote.
Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Shirin Ebadi defended the leaders of the movement, arguing that they have done as much as they could do, and that is that they have given the people the courage to express their demands. They’ve inspired the people to go to the streets and make their demands heard, she told AP.
Yet, Mousavi and Karroubi need to organize the movement into a coherent organization and articulate a set of fundamental objectives, and a strategy to realize them.
Opposition followers need inspiration no doubt, but also clear directives. It is the leadership’s responsibility to provide them.
Defective leadership, in turn, produced faulty strategy.
The huge demonstrations that followed Ahmadinejad’s fraudulent election victory led to brutal repression and mass arrests.
As such, opposition leaders have been reticent since last summer to mobilize their followers, fearing a major police crackdown.
As a result, they have attempted to hijack official gatherings organized by the regime, and transform them into vast anti-government demonstrations: Quds Day in September, 13 Aban in November (commemorating the takeover of the US Embassy thirty years ago), Ashura in December, for instance.
The Green Movement’s tactics have thus been predictable thereby facilitating the task of the security forces. Clearly rattled by the opposition’s success at mobilizing its supporters last December, and aware of its intention to renew the feat at the next official commemoration, 22 Bahman, the security forces had plenty of time to prepare, all the while pursuing its policy of intimidating political opponents through arrests and executions.
Not surprisingly, opposition protesters were overwhelmed by the vast security presence. Its Trojan horse tactic whereby demonstrators reveal the green apparel they were concealing under conservative, conventional garb at the appropriate signal failed. Their inability to identify other opposition supporters in the crowd led to confusion and hesitation.
There was also a lack of coordination between various factions of the movement present in the streets.
The Iranian Diaspora played a significant role as well, helping fuel expectations that the 22 Bahman events would deal the regime a potentially fatal blow. There were talks about "over 3 million opposition forces" attending the rally. I think this is a perfect example of where the virtual world and the expat community circulate their visions of sugar plum fairies on TV stations, and thus have become liability to the movement. When you raise expectation above the real capacity of a movement , that only results in disappointment and despair, one blogger recounted.
If modern means of communication clearly helped the opposition develop and mobilize, Facebook Tweeter and YouTube are not sufficient to sustain a political movement.
What is paramount? A galvanizing message, and the militants willing to take substantial risks to disseminate it. It is not technology per se that has the power to change the world, but rather the motivations (both good and evil) of the people using it, wrote Luke Allnut, Editor-in-Chief of RFE/RL’s English-language website.
Emboldened by its clear victory over the opposition, the regime is not about to alleviate its pressure on all those who question its legitimacy.
The struggle is far from over, however, and a regime that felt compelled to mobilize all of its resources to stifle the opposition and ensure it would not spoil its commemoration is clearly worried about the future.
The Green Movement is still very much alive, but needs to reinvent itself, and regain the initiative. It is a vibrant, dynamic movement. Its strategy and tactics should reflect that.
There is no doubt that the future belongs to Iran’s youth, which yearns for democracy and justice.
As one nineteen-year-old student told AP, he and his friends will remain reformists until the end of our lives.
(The photograph above of the 22 Bahman events is by Abedin Taherkenareh EPA)
　
　
　
　

It's a defeat, for now

Could they repeat last December’s feat?
Did the Green Movement still possess the necessary momentum and stamina to transform the regime’s commemoration of the thirty-first anniversary of the Islamic Revolution on February 11 (22 Bahman) into a significant anti-government demonstration, thereby further destabilizing the regime?
Last December, hundreds of thousands of Iranians fearlessly marched in the streets of Tehran and other cities to denounce the regime’s confiscation of power.
The security forces killed at least ten people, including Mir Hussein Mousavi’s nephew, Ali.
This time, both MM. Mousavi and Karroubi called their supporters to seize the opportunity offered by the 22 Bahman events to protest anew.
The authorities, clearly anxious to prevent the opposition from displaying once again its prowess and vibrancy, warned potential protesters that they would be firmly dealt with, we are closely watching the activities of the sedition movement and several people who were preparing to disrupt the 11 February rallies were arrested. If anyone wants to disrupt this glorious ceremony, they will be confronted by people and we too are fully prepared, Esmil Ahmadi-Moghaddam, the Tehran chief of police said.
Furthermore, the regime’s campaign of intimidation and arrests continued unabated.
According to the International Campaign for Human rights in Iran, some 1000 have been detained in the past two months, with journalists a target of choice. Forty-eight are currently in jail, more than in any other country, according to Reporters without Borders.
Last week, five protesters were prosecuted and could face the death penalty should they be convicted. Mohammad Amin Valian, a twenty-year-old student, was charged with Moharebeh or enmity against God, a capital offense, for having thrown rocks and shouted hostile, anti-government slogans during a demonstration. He also happened to be a particularly active member and organizer of the Central Council of the Islamic Student Association…
Two protesters were recently hanged and nine other are currently awaiting execution after having been condemned to death by the regime.
In order to dissuade all anti-government activity, the regime is cynically manipulating the Islamic legal code to eliminate those who have been brazen enough to question its legitimacy. By doing so, it has also revealed its fundamental moral bankruptcy, exploiting Islamic law to preserve its monopoly on power and the perquisites of power, referring to holy principles to protect its earthly prerogatives.
Indeed, Moharebeh can only be invoked against those resorting to armed resistance, the condition of armed activity is essential in charging someone under Moharebeh and the person must have carried out effective actions. If these conditions are not present then the charge of Moharebeh cannot be applied, Abdolfattah Soltani, a Tehran human rights lawyer told the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran. The regime is clearly counting on arrests, show trials and executions to eradicate the opposition movement.
Massive crowds attended the official commemoration. Hundreds of thousands, including many originating from the provinces, filled Azadi Square to hear the speech of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, they bussed in as many people as they possibly could from many towns and locations and depositing them at Azadi Square, surrounded by and escorted by thousands of officers. I have even seen them rounding up people myself, Mehdi Karroubi’s son, Hossein, told Tehran Bureau.
A young Tehran journalist corroborated this version of events, huge numbers of people were bussed in to Tehran from rural areas and given free food, he wrote in The Guardian.
In his speech, Ahmadinejad once again affirmed that Iran was now a nuclear state, and that it possessed the capacity to enrich uranium more than 20% or even 80%, nearly the level necessary to produce a nuclear weapon. In fact, last week, he ordered the country’s nuclear industry authority to begin refining its uranium supply from 3.5% to 20%. When we say that we don't build nuclear bombs, it means that we won't do that because we don't believe in having them. The Iranian nation is brave enough that if one day we wanted to create an atomic bomb, we would announce it publicly and would create it, Ahmadinejad also said. If he denied that Iran was currently in the process of manufacturing nuclear weapons, he clearly stated that that position could change if need be. This is a decision belonging exclusively to Iran, and no one else.
As such, he defiantly told the West that we are not afraid of you…
It is no accident that the nuclear issue dominated the speech. Ahmadinejad knows that 55% of Iranians are in favor of a nuclear energy program. It is a matter of national pride, a non-negotiable issue for most Iranians.
As such, and, by reactivating the nation’s enrichment program, is Ahmadinejad seeking to provoke a crisis with the West in order to unite the nation against Western meddling and thus undermine the Green Movement?
In any case, and although loud speakers had been strategically positioned to prevent this very occurrence, shouts of Death to the Dictator could be heard during the speech. Yet, efforts by the opposition to hijack the event clearly failed.
This time, the authorities were well prepared.
In order to prevent the various and disparate groups of opposition supporters from coalescing into one massive, fearless and uncontrollable whole, the authorities took effective measures. Thousands of security forces seized control of Tehran the day before to ensure the official commemoration would go smoothly.
The scale of the crackdown is becoming clear. The security forces were lining up next to each other in rows eight men deep along the routes of the official rally, wrote The Guardian.
Security forces sealed off the site of the official rally, Azadi Square, all the side roads leading to Enghelab and Azadi streets are cordoned off by anti-riot police, Basiji militiamen and plainclothes security officials, some holding cameras, a witness told the LAT.
Azadi Square being off limits, demonstrators were able to gather near Enghelab and on Vali Square, where they clashed with the paramilitaries.
Witnesses reported seeing Revolutionary Guards and Basijis firing into the crowd.
A young woman identified as Leila Zareii by The Times was reportedly killed. The regime resorted to its usual tactics and the security forces acted swiftly each time they encountered groups of opposition demonstrators, using truncheons and tear gas abundantly. Paintballs were also employed to identify troublemakers, and facilitate their identification and arrest later on.
This time however, the regime had additional resources, having recently acquired Chinese anti-riot armored cars equipped with water canons, and helicopters.
Countless protesters managed to meet in Sadeghiyeh Square: there, to the north of Azadi, a large gathering of protesters could be seen defiantly confronting security forces with chants of «Death to the Dictator» and «political prisoners must be freed», while waving green flags and placards and moving closer toward Azadi Square, an eyewitness told the LAT.
As he was leaving his vehicle, Mehdi Karroubi was assaulted with pepper spray by paramilitaries who were clearly awaiting his arrival. The entire area was filled with Basiji from the provinces. NAJA, the law enforcement agency, had a strong presence as well. For about six minutes, a violent attack took place, a witness told Tehran Bureau.
I was in Sadeghiyeh and though people were not holding up any symbols, I think most of them were against the regime because they wouldn't respond to the official chants from the loudspeakers. The security forces attacked the crowd violently, with cables, batons, and gas. Where I was, I can say that the 22 Bahman celebrations did not take place. I saw a small gathering of regime supporters and even they were dispersed by the police.
The people were beaten and I even saw some seriously injured individuals. That's what happens when you're attacked with chains. But no shots were fired, recounted another.
Basijis also attacked Mousavi’s wife, Zahra Rahnavard; opposition supporters were able to spirit her away from the scene.
Zahra Eshraghi, Ayatollah Khomeini’s granddaughter and her husband Mohammad Reza Khatami, brother of former president Khatami, and both opposition supporters, were arrested and detained for over an hour by the security forces.
Mousavi was prevented from even joining the demonstrators by the paramilitaries.
Clashes occurred in numerous other Iranian cities including Mashhad, Esfahan, Ahvaz, Shiraz and Tabriz.
Although thousands of brave Iranians filled the streets to challenge the regime, many Green supporters were clearly disappointed, everyone we have spoken to so far this morning has said about the same thing -- in a word or two: "A big anticlimax," "defeat," "An overwhelming presence from the other side". People were terrified, one source told Tehran Bureau.
There were 300 of us, maximum 500. Against 10,000 people. It means they won and we lost. They defeated us. They were able to gather so many people. But this doesn't mean we have been defeated for good. It's a defeat for now, today. We need time to regroup, one participant told AP.
It's pretty clear that Greens everywhere will feel demoralized... The overall feeling is one of disappointment, another concluded.
On the other hand, the authorities were jubilant, the massive turnout of the nation shocked the central command of the arrogant front, including the US, England and the Zionist regime, declared the deputy chief of staff of the armed forces, Major General Gholam-Ali Rashid.
Raja News, a pro-government website, declared that the 22 Bahman commemorations was a great defeat for the opposition.
The people of Tehran repelled Mousavi, Karroubi, and Khatami from their crowds, added Fars News, a news agency with links to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Lacking leadership and a strategy, the opposition movement clearly displayed its deficiencies last Thursday. In its current state, it is in no position to alter the status quo now favoring the regime, since it is still there and thus controls the security forces and all other state powers, notably the ability to manipulate at will the internet and all mobile and text messaging services, the opposition‘s chief means of organization and communication.
As such, the movement must strive to display more imagination and flexibility.
One obvious rigidity of the protest movement in Iran is its tight attachment to important days of mourning or celebrations. This gives the regime advance warning to prepare for confrontation and also time to recoup and deal with opponents in between waves of protests, wrote Mardo Soghom of RFE/RL.
The opposition movement’s predictability renders its repression by the authorities that much easier. They should not fall into that trap. Keeping the authorities guessing as to what their next moves will be and where would be more effective, but demands leadership…
Yet, one victory for the regime does not entail the demise of the democracy movement.
Now may be the time for the movement to produce its own leadership at last and a set of clear objectives as well as a strategy and timetable to meet them. Where does it want to lead the nation and how?
We, in the West, should do our utmost to encourage and support them.
(the photograph above is by EPA)