Reports: Rafsanjani Has Enough Support to Remove Khamenei
If this report is accurate, it would be revolutionary:
As the Iranian government continues to crackdown on protestors against the disputed re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, behind the scenes there is reported to be movement which, although hidden, could bring an end the reign of the country’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei and Mr Ahmadinejad.
Behind the scenes Khamenei’s arch rival, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani is believed to be working to remove the Supreme Leader and is even reported to be considering abolishing the post of Supreme Leader altogether in what would be the biggest constitutional change since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
If true, Rafsanjani’s plan is revolutionary because Shi’ite doctrine depends heavily on having one successor of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Basically, fundamentalist Shi’ites should believe that Khamenei can do no wrong, for he is the prophet’s successor. Removing him from power and especially replacing him by a council rather than by one supreme leader means that Rafsanjani and the other top clerics have become more pragmatist, and may not even whole heartedly believe in the teachings of Ayatollah Khomeini nowadays.
Although removing Khamenei is incredibly important – for he is one of the worst people and extremist in Iran – it may not satisfy the protesters demands, however. Many of them want an end to the theocratic regime. Modernization and other reforms are absolutely necessary, but may not suffice.
Me thinks Iran could very well follow in the footsteps of the former Soviet Union, with Rafsanjani playing the role of Mikhail Gorbachev.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
The Supreme Leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not considered to be Mohamed successor, and it has been an active debate whether Clerics should rule or not within Islam. This will not be a theological argument, it will be a military/political one since the Revolutionary Guard wants the current leadership to remain and they constitute a virtual state within a state. Constitutionally, Khamenei can be impeached, if he goes there will be no one guarding the ballot boxes. There still remains the issue that I have not heard anyone raise which is that the only reason we know that there was an 85% turnout is that the government said so before the polls closed. I believe they may have posted an inflated number to hide the ballot box stuffing that apparently went on, as suggested by the greater than 100% turnout in some areas. It is also not clear whether other irregularities occurred on that Friday that altered the vote. Therefore, the data within the boxes are suspect to begin with. They will have to hold a new election after any ouster.
Many, but not all. Lots of them like Mousavi because he promises reform, but don’t want a new system of government. Things may change in their attitude as time goes on, but I think these attitudes still prevail among even most reformers.
Iranian poll and politics is an internal matter for Iranians to sort out. there is no role for the western media to use the opportunity to create and fuel crisis in Iran. It is shameful on their part to interfere in the internal matters of Iran. After iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the anti-Islamic terror forces are eager to enter Iran, but these Global state terrorists (GSTs)will learn the last lesson there…(Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal, 26 June, 2009))
Over years now, unfortunately, the anti-Islamic nations led by the USA and UK are harping on non-issues to terrorize Muslims and others only to take full control of energy resources of the Islamic world. Iranian poll and politics is an internal matter for Iranians to sort out. There is no role for the western forces and their nasty media to use the opportunity to create and fuel crisis in Iran. It is shameful on their part to interfere in the internal matters of Iran. After Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, the anti-Islamic terror forces are eager to enter Iran, but these Global state terrorists (GSTs)will learn the last lesson there…(Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal, 26 June, 2009))
Dr. Abdul Ruff Colachal: if the Iranian regime had focused exclusively on the “internal matter” of repressing freedoms in Iran, enriching its domestic and foreign friends, and brutalizing its own people during the last 30 years, the regime could have expected much less foreign “interference.” But since they have been at war with the United States, for example, during that time, violently interfering with the lives of Americans in Iran, Lebanon, the U.S., and throughout the world, perhaps the regime should not be surprised that Americans would take an interest in its fate. Actually, if you take into consideration the two respective nation’s capacities to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries, then it is obvious that Iran has practically maxed out its potential to interfere with U.S. interests, while the U.S. has been relatively “hands off” toward Iran.
Of course, you can play the game of “you interfered first,” but we would end up going back and forth, ad infinitum. Anyway, one way for the Iranian regie to encourage less U.S. interference with its internal affairs would be if they would stop killing our people.
I find this talk of outside interference ridiculous and hypocritical. Ridiculous, because it’s such an obvious face saving tactic – it’s not the Iranian people that are upset, it’s the foreign media and western governments. And after Iran’s heavy support for Hezbollah and Hamas, complaints about sovereignty and self-determination only make me laugh. The Guardian Council and Ayatollah Khameini have lost all credibility after calling the elections the fairest in the history of the Revolution. Maybe they can delude themselves, but no one else is buying it, most especially not the Iranian people.
As I see it, the stakes are about as big as they get. A moderate ISLAMIC Iran will show to the rest of the world that the muslim world is NOT the hate-filled extremist boogey-man the west has traditionally perceived it to be. Hopefully, with peace will come prosperity and an open society, showing to the rest of the MUSLIM world that plural democracy is not antithetical to muslim values (and vice versa), that autocratic regimes CAN be resisted, even defeated (are you paying attention Egypt?!)
Wow, it’s hard to find a less informed author than the writer of this article.
- Comparing Rafsanjani to Gorbachev?
- Khamenei successor to Muhammad?