Dr. Jalil Roshandel is an associate professor of political science and director of the security studies program at ECU. He is an expert on Iran and the politics of the Middle East, and is the author of Jihad and International Security, and the soon-to-be-released The United States and Iran with Dr. Alethia Cook. A former student and faculty member at the University of Tehran, Dr Roshandel has provided commentary on the current Iranian situation for NBC News and MSNBC. He has been following the events in Tehran through correspondence with former students and extended family members living there. He sat down with us to help explain what is happening in Iran.

Professor Dr. Jalil Roshandel is an expert on Iran and the politics of the Middle East. He is the director of the security studies program at ECU, and a former student and faculty member at Tehran University in Iran.

Can you briefly explain the political system in Iran?
Since the Islamic revolution of 1979, Iran has existed as an Islamic republic. That means that the religious leaders, the clerics, have religious jurisprudence—the final say in any decision that affects the country. According to the constitution, no decision, no political alignment or realignment, no contracts or international treaties can be made without the approval of the supreme leader, the highest cleric. The Ayatollah Khamenei is the current supreme leader, and ultimately he is the ruler of Iran. Under Ayatollah Khomeini, the first supreme leader, Iran had a president and a prime minster. After Khomeini’s death in 1989, the constitution was amended to eliminate the position of prime minister, which just so happened was held by Mir Hussein Mousavi, the presidential candidate who is at the heart of the current demonstrations.

What about the Iranian people, are they as religious as their government?
Not at all! Iranians are not fanatic religious people. Highly educated and looking toward the West, Iranians have satellite television, they have the Internet, they have Twitter. They have all sorts of social connections with the West. They are actually attempting to reduce the pressure coming from the religious minority. But when you dig down deep into the society, sometimes it is even more corrupt, in a moral point of view, than any Western society that you may know for corruption. It is just that there is a facade of Islam covering all sorts of non-Islamic issues behind it.

Can you explain what is happening in Iran right now?
The demonstrations we are seeing now are a response to Iran’s recent presidential election that many feel was unjust. This election began with four candidates, most notably among them the current president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and Mir Hussein Mousavi. From the very beginning of the campaign, people rallied behind Mir Hussein Mousavi, finding in him a new type of leadership. In Iran, 65 percent of the population is under the age of 35. They don’t remember the monarchy, and they hardly remember the first supreme leader, Ayatollah Komeini. And they are absolutely dissatisfied with the way the Iranian regime has treated them during these past 30 years. They see themselves through the most advanced technologies of the West, and because of the existence of huge numbers of Iranian expatriates everywhere in the world, including the United States, they have been exposed to the ideas and ideals of the West. They love the way of life people have anywhere but Iran. So Mousavi has given them hope for change.

But aren’t elections a cornerstone of democracy?
It takes elections to have a democracy, yes. But democracy is more than elections. You need to institutionalize the foundation of democracy. You need to guarantee political process and participation and create an environment of equality for the people, That is what is missing in Iran. For instance, one major aspect of democracy is freedom of speech. There’s a joke in Iran that goes, “There is freedom of speech in Iran. There’s just no freedom after you speak.”

Why do the people think the election was fraudulent?
Because they believe it’s not even close. They believe there is a big, big, big discrepancy between the votes Ahmadinejad is said to have received, and the votes he actually did. The government is saying that Ahmadinejad received 24 million votes to Mousavi’s 14 million. The numbers being circulated from the opposition show 42 million total votes were cast—19 million for Mousavi, 13 million for the candidate Mehdi Karroubi, 5.6 million for Ahmadinejad, 3.7 million for the candidate Mohsen Rezaee, and 400,000 cancelled. These numbers come from someone who claims to have gotten them from the Iranian Ministry of the Interior, even though that office released the “official” statistics. Now, there is no way for me to verify those numbers, but I believe them. To add to the suspicion, Ayatollah Khamenei came out after just 24 hours to congratulate Ahmadinejad. That has never been done before. Normally the supreme leader waits seven to 10 days to confirm an election. Its just another in a long list of abnormalities that have happened to Mousavi during the election.

But if the supreme leader ultimately controls Iran, why are so many people demonstrating against a presidential election?
This election is just one symbol of injustice. There have been so many smaller events in every 30- to 35-year-old citizen’s life to warrant the demonstrations we are seeing today. There is a hidden control system in the society there, wherever you go—in a school, in a high school, in universities, and in every government institution. You have an active government structure and you have a shadow government that is run by the supreme leader’s representatives. They watch you. They watch your family. People have put their hopes in the person of Mir Hussein Mousavi, believing that he would be able to reduce the power of the supreme leader, and reduce domestically, the pressure on the daily lives of the people. Mousavi has promised to do that.

Were there any signs that this would happen?
In 1998 there was a fairly large student riot, which is to some extent comparable to what is happening today. Now, it was fairly limited, involving several Tehran University dorms, but the way the military, and the paramilitary, and the plain-dress people acted was exactly the way they are acting now. That was the culmination of resentment among just students, and as it spilled out onto the streets people came to support them. They lasted several weeks, but eventually it was contained and totally controlled.

Are we witnessing a revolution?
I tend to view this as a pre-revolutionist stage, and it really depends on how things evolve. If Khameini decides to continue without real changes, he will have a hard time. If this is not a revolution, I think a revolution may be on the way. Most Iranians outside of Iran believe that Iran is like fire under ashes. Just wait for a wind, and the ashes will blow away and you’ll see the fire underneath. But I’m not convinced a revolution will happen because there are some differences between today and 1979. I lived through that revolution 30 years ago, and the Shah had already left the country. His whole family was out of the country. He had essentially given up though he had installed a military government to hold power should the revolution fail. It only took six weeks for the old system to collapse. Back then the military government was reluctant to use force against the people. They had nothing to lose by supporting the people, the revolutionaries. But these people today, the clergy at the top, are different. They are still there, and they have a lot to lose. So they will be more ruthless, and more willing to kill people in the streets, as we saw this past weekend. On the other hand, people are not well organized for a revolution.

How will the situation in Iran affect U.S./Iranian relations? How should the U.S. respond?
I think so far the U.S. has done the right thing. We are not doing anything that is unexpected or abnormal, given the history of the relation. We should definitely not go with a military intervention at this point for obvious reasons. Supporting the Iranian people’s natural right to dissent, supporting their rights to a fair election the way we have, is appropriate. Continued relations with Ahmadinejad if he is confirmed, is something that I doubt. I think the United States and Europe should not legitimize Ahmadinejad’s government if he is declared the president. That would put a lot of pressure on President Obama, to recognize him as legitimate. It is probably something to be avoided.

What’s next for Iran?
It is still too early to talk about it, but to be sure, the Iran of today is not the Iran of two weeks ago. And even if Ahmadinejad remains in power, he will have huge difficulty in running the country now that this resentment has emerged for the whole world to see. It will be very hard for them to use the same tactics, the same means of governance.

I was a student in 1978 when the street protests of the Shah began. I took part in them because the system at the time was politically corrupt. A lot of young people were put in jail simply for reading a book. Looking back 30 years ago, I’m seeing the same kinds of emotions in the streets of Tehran, and I’m very emotional myself towards it. I see my students walking in the streets shouting out against the system, so I share a lot of affinity, a lot of attachment to them. I wish them success.

Anyone wishing to learn more about Middle Eastern politics is encouraged to explore ECU’s security studies program.

06-24-09