The return of the shah, sans jewels

Martyr-making and arrests in Iran only create more problems for Khamenei

An Iranian opposition supporter covers his face with a bloodstained hand during clashes with security forces in Tehran on 27 December 2009. Photograph: Getty Images

The wave of arrests that erupted in Iran yesterday marks the latest move by a government determined to silence growing opposition despite the spiralling political crisis in which it finds itself.

However, it seems that the arrests, along with the killing on Sunday of eight protesters, including a nephew of the Reform presidential candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, will instead make martyrs out of mere men. The developments are also catalysing a movement that increasingly sees the regime of the Islamic Republic's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in the light of the former, much-hated shah.

Ali Mousavi's death is especially significant, given that the violent crackdown on Sunday's protests in Tehran coincided with the Shia holiday of Ashura, a mourning event that remembers Iman Husayn, a grandson of the Prophet Muhammad martyred in the year 680. Mousavi's body has since been seized, a move that analysts in Tehran have suggested is an attempt to prevent demonstrations from forming around his funeral.

Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, a former member of Iran's parliament who is currently a visiting scholar at the University of Massachusetts, told the New York Times:

Ashura is a very symbolic day in our culture and it revives the notion that the innocent were killed by a villain.

Similarly, Juan Cole, president of the Global Americana Institute, remarked:

For the regime to create a member of the Mousavi family as martyr on Ashura was most unwise. Shiite Islam even more than traditional Catholicism thrives on the blood of martyrs.

The arrests have only served to further villianise the regime. At least seven leading opposition activists have been arrested, including the opposition politician Ebrahim Yazdi, a foreign minister after the revolution, and three aides to Mousavi, prompting bloggers to label yesterday the "Iranian Night of the Long Knives".

More critically, Ayatollah Khamenei's legitimacy, already damaged by his support for Prime Minister Ahmadinejad's re-election in June, has been hardest hit by the government's decision to repress. Although he still commands the loyalty of the Revolutionary Guard, new hatred for him has sprung up among Iranian elites and the opposition is now more unlikely than ever to back down.

Writing on his website, the Iranian film-maker Moshen Makhamalbaf was one of those who denounced Khamenei for Sunday's violence by comparing him to the the shah (translation taken from the New York Times):

I am so sorry that I fought against the shah when I was 17. He left the country when he realised that people no longer wanted him. But you are resisting until everyone else leaves the country.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke (all of which he denies), but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reported in the Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.