If senior clerics dispute Khamenei’s divine assessment and argue that the Guardian Council is wrong, it is a death blow to the basic premise behind the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is as if a senior Soviet leader had said in 1980 that Karl Marx was not the right guide to economic policy.

If Mr. Zakaria is right, change is happening in Iran whether or not the protests are stamped out by force. Could it be that the spirit of freedom that Mr. Obama has been enunciating is finding resonance in the Middle East? If so, other countries there have more to fear than Iran – and one of them is the world’s biggest supplier of oil.

Here is a more extended quote from an article on CNN, with a link to the full article:

Zakaria: ‘Fatal wound’ inflicted on Iranian regime’s ideology

Editor’s note: Fareed Zakaria is an author and foreign affairs analyst who hosts "Fareed Zakaria GPS" on CNN at 1 and 5 p.m. ET Sundays, and on CNN International 0900, 1600 Buenos Aires l 1300, 2000 London l 2000, 0300 (Mon) HK

…

CNN: As you’ve seen the situation in Iran develop over the last week, what are your thoughts?

‘
Fareed Zakaria: One of the first things that strikes me is we are watching the fall of Islamic theocracy.

CNN: Do you mean you think the regime will fall?

Zakaria: No, I don’t mean the Iranian regime will fall soon. It may — I certainly hope it will — but repressive regimes can stick around for a long time. I mean that this is the end of the ideology that lay at the basis of the Iranian regime.

The regime’s founder, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, laid out his special interpretation of political Islam in a series of lectures in 1970. In this interpretation of Shia Islam, Islamic jurists had divinely ordained powers to rule as guardians of the society, supreme arbiters not only on matters of morality but politics as well. When Khomeini established the Islamic Republic of Iran, this idea was at its heart. Last week, that ideology suffered a fatal wound.

CNN: How so?

Zakaria: When the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, declared the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad a "divine assessment," he was indicating it was divinely sanctioned. But no one bought it. He was forced to accept the need for an inquiry into the election. The Guardian Council, Iran’s supreme constitutional body, met with the candidates and promised to investigate and perhaps recount some votes. Khamenei has subsequently hardened his position but that is now irrelevant. Something very important has been laid bare in Iran today — legitimacy does not flow from divine authority but from popular support.

CNN: There have been protests in Iran before. What makes this different?

Zakaria: In the past the protests were always the street against the state, and the clerics all sided with the state. When the reformist president, Mohammed Khatami, was in power, he entertained the possibility of siding with the street, but eventually stuck with the establishment. The street and state are at odds again but this time the clerics are divided. Khatami has openly sided with the challenger, Mir Hossein Moussavi, as has the reformist Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. So has Ali Larijani, the speaker of the parliament and a man with strong family connections to the highest levels of the religious hierarchy. Behind the scenes, the former president, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, now head of the Assembly of Experts, another important constitutional body, is waging a campaign against Ahmadinejad and even the supreme leader himself. If senior clerics dispute Khamenei’s divine assessment and argue that the Guardian Council is wrong, it is a death blow to the basic premise behind the Islamic Republic of Iran. It is as if a senior Soviet leader had said in 1980 that Karl Marx was not the right guide to economic policy.

Full Article

SPIEGEL INTERVIEW WITH IRANIAN PRESIDENT AHMADINEJAD

‘We Are Neither Obstinate nor Gullible’

04/10/2009

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke with SPIEGEL about what he expects from US President Barack Obama, why America’s new Afghanistan strategy is wrong and why Iran should have a spot on the UN Security Council.

…

SPIEGEL: The new US president, Barack Obama, directed a video address to the Iranian nation three weeks ago, during the Iranian New Year festival. Did you watch the speech?

Ahmadinejad: Yes. Great things are happening in the United States. I believe that the Americans are in the process of initiating important developments.

SPIEGEL: How did you feel about the speech?

Ahmadinejad: Ambivalent. Some passages were new, while some repeated well-known positions. I thought it striking that Obama attached such high value to the Iranian civilization, our history and culture. It is also positive that he stresses mutual respect and honest interactions with one another as the basis of cooperation. In one segment of his speech, he says that a nation’s standing in the world does not depend solely on weapons and military strength, which is precisely what we told the previous American administration. George W. Bush’s big mistake was that he wanted to solve all problems militarily. The days are gone when a country can issue orders to other peoples. Today, mankind needs culture, ideas and logic.

…

SPIEGEL: You are constantly making demands. But the truth is: Your policies, Iran’s disastrous relations with the United States, are a burden on the global community and a threat to world peace. Where is your contribution to the easing of tensions?

Ahmadinejad: I have already explained this to you. We support talks on the basis of fairness and respect. That has always been our position. We are waiting for Obama to announce his plans, so that we can analyze them.

SPIEGEL: And that’s all?

Ahmadinejad: We have to wait and see what Obama wants to do.

SPIEGEL: The world sees this differently, and we do too. Iran must act. Iran must now show good will.

Ahmadinejad: Where is this world you are talking about? What do we have to do? You are aware that we are not the ones who severed relations with America. America cut off relations with us. What do you expect from Iran now?

…

Ahmadinejad: We don’t want to exact revenge. We merely want the Americans to correct their course. Do you truly see any signs that this is happening?

SPIEGEL: Yes, we do. George W. Bush declared Iran a member of the Axis of Evil and he threatened Tehran, at least indirectly, with regime change. There is no longer any mention of these things under Obama.

Ahmadinejad: There are changes in the choice of language. But that isn’t enough. For the past 30 years, Germany and other European countries have been under pressure from the Americans not to improve their relations with Tehran. That’s what all European statesmen tell us.

…

Ahmadinejad: We speak very respectfully of Barack Obama. But we are realists. We want to see real changes. In this connection, we are also interested in helping correct a faulty policy in Afghanistan.

SPIEGEL: What do you propose to do?

Ahmadinejad: Look, more than $250 billion (€190 billion) has been spent on the military campaign in Afghanistan to date. With a population of 30 million, that comes to more than $8,000 a person, or close to $42,000 for an average family of five. Factories and roads could have been built, universities established and fields cultivated for the Afghan people. If that had happened, would there have been any room left for terrorists? One has to address the root of the problem, not proceed against its branches. The solution for Afghanistan is not military, but humanitarian. It is to the West’s advantage to listen to us, and if it does not, we wash our hands of the matter. We are merely observers. We deeply regret the loss of human life, no matter whose lives are lost. This is just as applicable to Afghan civilians as it is to the military forces that have intervened.

SPIEGEL: That doesn’t sound at all like you have any interest in helping the Americans and NATO fight the Taliban. Obama is placing more emphasis on civilian reconstruction, but he also believes that radicals who seek to stand in the way of this reconstruction must be dealt with militarily.

Ahmadinejad: I am telling you now that Obama’s new policy is wrong. The Americans are not familiar with the region, and the perceptions of the NATO commanders are mistaken. I am telling you this as a trained teacher: This is wrong. As far as the $250 billion is concerned: If the money had been spent in America, perhaps it would have solved the problem of unemployment, at least in part. And perhaps there would be no economic crisis today. [Emphasis added. Ahmadinejad here displays a lack of understanding of the magnitude of the American economy ($15 trillion annual output), the size of the current economic downturn, and the amounts of money already committed to addressing the problem (many times $350 billion). Roylat]

…

Ahmadinejad: If a technology is beneficial, everyone should have it. If it is not, no one should have it. Can it be that America has 5,400 nuclear warheads and Germany has none? And that we are not even permitted to pursue the peaceful use of nuclear energy? Our logic is completely clear: equal rights for all. The composition of the Security Council and the veto of its five permanent members are consequences of World War II, which ended 60 years ago. Must the victorious powers dominate mankind for evermore, and must they constitute the world government? The composition of the Security Council must be changed.

SPIEGEL: You are referring to India, Germany, South Africa? Should Iran also be a permanent member of the Security Council?

Ahmadinejad: If things were done fairly in the world, Iran would also have to be a member of the Security Council. We do not accept the notion that a handful of countries see themselves as the masters of the world. They should open their eyes and recognize real conditions.

Full Article