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.

Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Hopes of an anti-Brexit party are illusory, but Remainers have a new plan to stay in the EU

Stopping Brexit may prove an impossible task. Remainers are looking to the "Article 49 strategy": reapplying for EU membership. 

The Remain campaign lost in the country, but it won by a landslide in parliament. On 23 June 2016, more than two-thirds of MPs voted for EU membership. Ever since the referendum, the possibility that parliament could thwart withdrawal, or at least soften it, has loomed.

Theresa May called an early general election in the hope of securing a majority large enough to neutralise revanchist Remainers. When she was denied a mandate, many proclaimed that “hard Brexit” had been defeated. Yet two months after the Conservatives’ electoral humbling, it appears, as May once remarked, that “nothing has changed”. The government remains committed not merely to leaving the EU but to leaving the single market and the customs union. Even a promise to mimic the arrangements of the customs union during a transition period is consistent with May’s pre-election Lancaster House speech.

EU supporters once drew consolation from the disunity of their opponents. While Leavers have united around several defining aims, however, the Remainers are split. Those who campaigned reluctantly for EU membership, such as May and Jeremy Corbyn, have become de facto Brexiteers. Others are demanding a “soft Brexit” – defined as continued single market membership – or at least a soft transition.

Still more propose a second referendum, perhaps championed by a new centrist party (“the Democrats” is the name suggested by James Chapman, an energetic former aide to George Osborne and the Brexit Secretary, David Davis). Others predict that an economic cataclysm will force the government to rethink.

Faced with this increasingly bewildering menu of options, the average voter still chooses Brexit as their main course. Though Leave’s referendum victory was narrow (52-48), its support base has since widened. Polling has consistently shown that around two-thirds of voters believe that the UK has a duty to leave the EU, regardless of their original preference.

A majority of Remain supporters, as a recent London School of Economics study confirmed, favour greater controls over EU immigration. The opposition of a significant number of Labour and Tory MPs to “soft Brexit” largely rests on this.

Remainers usually retort – as the Chancellor, Philip Hammond, put it – “No one voted to become poorer.” Polls show that, as well as immigration control, voters want to retain the economic benefits of EU membership. The problem is not merely that some politicians wish to have their cake and eat it, but that most of the public does, too.

For Remainers, the imperative now is to avoid an economic catastrophe. This begins by preventing a “cliff-edge” Brexit, under which the UK crashes out on 29 March 2019 without a deal. Though the Leave vote did not trigger a swift recession, a reversion to World Trade Organisation trading terms almost certainly would. Although David Davis publicly maintains that a new EU trade deal could swiftly be agreed, he is said to have privately forecast a time span of five years (the 2016 EU-Canada agreement took seven). A transition period of three years – concluded in time for the 2022 general election – would leave the UK with two further years in the wilderness without a deal.

A coalition of Labour MPs who dislike free movement and those who dislike free markets has prevented the party endorsing “soft Brexit”. Yet the Remainers in the party, backed by 80 per cent of grass-roots members, are encouraged by a recent shift in the leadership’s position. Although Corbyn, a Bennite Eurosceptic, vowed that the UK would leave the single market, the shadow Brexit secretary, Keir Starmer, and the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, have refused to rule out continued membership.

A group of Remainers from all parties met in the Labour MP Chuka Umunna’s office before recess, and they are hopeful that parliament will force the government to commit to a meaningful transition period, including single market membership. But they have no intention of dissolving tribal loyalties and uniting under one banner. A year after George Osborne first pitched the idea of a new party to Labour MPs, it has gained little traction. “All it would do is weaken Labour,” the former cabinet minister Andrew Adonis, a past Social Democratic Party member, told me. “The only way we can defeat hard Brexit is to have a strong Labour Party.”

In this febrile era, few Remainers dismiss the possibility of a second referendum. Yet most are wary of running ahead of public opinion. “It would simply be too risky,” a senior Labour MP told me, citing one definition of insanity: doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

Thoughtful Remainers, however, are discussing an alternative strategy. Rather than staging a premature referendum in 2018-19, they advocate waiting until the UK has concluded a trade deal with the EU. At this point, voters would be offered a choice between the new agreement and re-entry under Article 49 of the Lisbon Treaty. By the mid-2020s, Remainers calculate, the risks of Brexit will be clearer and the original referendum will be history. The proviso is that the EU would have to allow the UK re-entry on its existing membership terms, rather than the standard ones (ending its opt-outs from the euro and the border-free Schengen Area). Some MPs suggest agreeing a ten-year “grace period” in which Britain can achieve this deal – a formidable challenge, but not an impossible one.

First, though, the Remainers must secure a soft transition. If the UK rips itself from the EU’s institutions in 2019, there will be no life raft back to safe territory. The initial aim is one of damage limitation. But like the Leavers before them, the wise Remainers are playing a long game.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 17 August 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Trump goes nuclear