Lesezeichen
 

Schauprozess im Iran – ein Bilderrätsel

Mohammed Ali Abtahi, der ehemalige Vizepräsident Irans unter Khatami und bekannt als der „bloggende Mullah“, vor dem Teheraner Revolutionsgericht am Montag. Dort wird gegen die führenden Figuren des Aufstands nach den Wahlen vom 12. Juni verhandelt. Man erkennt sie an der demütigenden Häftlingskleidung, die an Schlafanzüge erinnert.

Mich erinnert diese Szene allerdings fatal an die Ikonografie früherer Schauprozesse – wie etwa im Stalinismus und Nationalsozialismus.

Diesen Angeklagten während der Moskauer Schauprozesse der 30er Jahre wurde vorgeworfen, den Kapitalismus einführen zu wollen und darum den Sozialismus stürzen zu wollen.

Vor dem Volksgerichtshof wurden 1944 Mitglieder des Widerstands gegen Hitler abgeurteilt, hier Adolf Reichwein.

p.s. Was Abtahi im Gericht „beichtete“, berichtet Juan Cole auf seiner Website: Abtahi said after the 12 June presidential election, the reformists tried to insinuate the „illusion“ that there was a „fraud“ in the election. Abtahi said that it is impossible to have „fraud“ when there was an 11 million difference between the votes cast for Mir Hoseyn Musavi and that of Mahmud Ahmadinezhad. He said that spreading such ideas showed that some reformist leaders do not know society very well. Abtahi quoted the late Ayatollah Khomeyni saying that preservation of the system is the most important issue for all political groups. He added that thanks to the „strong position“ of the supreme leader, the damage caused by „the elite’s mistakes“ were compensated. Abtahi said that it was better for Musavi to send a congratulatory message to President Ahmadinezhad when he realized that the incumbent president had won the election by a difference of 13 million votes. He added that the political elites made a „big mistake“ by saying that the election was „rigged.“ Abtahi said that from a certain moment onward, the fraud became a „password for riots“ in Iran and criticized Mir Hoseyn Musavi for believing in such „illusions.“

Asked if his current position was under the effect of his imprisonment, Abtahi said the situation in the prison helped him to reach a conclusion about the recent incidents. Abtahi said he had no problems and concerns in the prison and praised his „courteous and polite interrogators.“ He added that his friends who have not been arrested yet share the same idea. He concluded, however they „have not the courage to express the same ideas.“

 

Iraner protestieren weiter

Welcher Mut: Trotz der ankündigung des Regimes, die Proteste mit aller Härte niederzuschlagen, waren wieder Tausende Iraner in Teheran auf den Strassen:

 

Extreme Polizeigewalt im Iran; Ärzte und Krankenschwestern protestieren

Hier sehr verstörende Bilder von Polizisten, die auf einen wehrlosen Demonstranten eindreschen, bis der fast bewußtlos ist. Die häßliche Fratze des Islamofaschismus:

Das Regime kann zwar die akkreditierten Reporter an der Arbeit hindern, aber der eigenen Leute wird es nicht Herr.
Eine Frau hält ein Schild hoch, auf dem zu lesen ist, dass „8 Menschen hier zu Märtyrern geworden“ seien. Ein junger Mann sagt am Ende, er habe gesehen, wie Frauen und Kinder geschlagen worden seien. Er spekuliert, die brutalen Milizen seien keine Iraner, sondern libanesische Hisbollah-Truppen, vom Regime extra für diesen Zweck engagiert (dieses Gerücht macht seit längerem die Runde).

 

Obama muss endlich klare Worte finden

Meint George Packer im New Yorker, dem die bisherigen Äusserungen der amerikanischen Regierung viel zu mutlos sind. Realismus soll kein Fetisch werden, meint Packer, und keine Entschuldigung fürs Zusehen bei einer brutalen Unterdrückung:

I understand that the Administration wants to let the chaos in Iran play itself out without committing to a position that might be rendered hollow by events. I understand and agree with its continued insistence on pursuing a policy of negotiation that’s in America’s interest. I understand that this head-on collision between interests and values is not at all easy to navigate. But “realism” should no more be an ideological fetish under Obama than “freedom” was under Bush. …

In much of the punditry calling for dialogue with Iran, there’s been a strange naivete about the true nature of the regime—a confusion between the sophistication and tolerance of the Iranian people, and their rulers, who have always taken the most brutal measures to hold onto power. Some advocates of negotiation seem to think that the resistance and stupidity have all been on our side—that if only America showed a little respect for Iran, called it by its rightful name of “Islamic Republic,” stopped talking about carrots and sticks (which Iranians associate with donkeys), then Iran’s rulers would be glad to start talking. It turns out that they have more to fear from talk than we do—in fact, at the moment it’s hard to know exactly what they have to gain by it and a lot easier to see what they have to lose. Perhaps they have a keener sense of their own interests than American commentators, so obsessed with America’s own behavior, imagined.

With riot police and armed militiamen beating and, in a few reported cases, killing unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Iran’s cities, for the Obama Administration to continue parsing equivocal phrases serves no purpose other than to make it look feckless. Part of realism is showing that you have a clear grasp of reality—that you know the difference between decency and barbarism when both are on display for the whole world to see. A stronger American stand—taken, as much as possible, in concert with European countries and through multilateral organizations—would do more to improve America’s negotiating position than weaken it. Acknowledging the compelling voices of the desperate young Iranians who, after all, only want their votes counted, would not deep-six the possibility of American-Iranian talks. Ahmadinejad and his partners in the clerical-military establishment will talk to us exactly when and if they think it’s in their interest. Right now, they don’t appear to. And the tens of millions of Iranians who voted for change and are the long-term future of that country will always remember what America said and did when they put their lives on the line for their values.

Das Problem bei einer stärkeren Einmischung der USA ist meiner Ansicht nach dies: Man liefert die Opposition noch mehr der Regierungspropaganda aus, sie sei vom Westen ferngesteuert und verfolge die Interessen der Feinde Irans.
Den Punkt zu treffen, an dem man sich von dieser Rücksichtnahme frei machen sollte, ist schwer. Man will ja nicht noch zusätzliche Vorwände liefern, die Unterdrückung zu forcieren.

 

„Es war ein Staatsstreich“

Der berühmte iranische Filmemacher Mohsen Makhmalbaf – ein Vertrauter Mussawis – vergleicht die Ereignisse im Iran im Gespräch mit Rooz Online mit dem Coup gegen Mossadegh von 1953:

Rooz: What do you call this event?

Makhmalbaf: This is more than just election rigging. People are shocked and resemble those of 1953 when a coup against nationalist leader Mossadegh took place. Then too people expected Mossadegh to win, but they lost him. Today people are in a state of shock, and I call this a coup d’état. This is more than just rigging. We must all say in unison: There has been a coup. This coup is of course not in favor of a dictatorship because what is important is that people have succeeded in pushing back dictatorship to the wall and so the state has been forced to forsake its legitimacy for dictatorship. Until this event, Iranian people and the world believed that in comparison with such countries as Iraq during Saddam Hussein which was a dictatorship, Iran had a relative democracy. People said that even though there are things like a clerical leadership, Guardian Council etc in Iran, the very fact that we can elect someone like Mohammad Khatami instead of an Ahmadinejad shows there is relative choice and election. Today however with this event, we have completely returned to the 1953 situation.

Mohsen Makhmalbaf Photo: iranchamber.com

Rooz: What is the future?

Don’t you see the weakness of dictatorship? Do you see the fear that dictatorship has from this expose? Do you see that people have identified the dictatorship after 30 years? This was the victory of our people which in fact was accomplished with minimum cost. Today, we must maintain this unity. They still can put pressure on leaders that have emerged from people. They can push Mousavi into his house but they cannot imprison 70 million people, or kill them. One cannot ask 70 million people to forego their natural and basic rights. Especially as the international society is moving towards peace. Prior to this, there was the threat of an American attack and that was used as an excuse to militarize the country. But with a new president in the US one cannot use that argument and excuse any more, and we cannot be frightened with that. No one can militarize the country any longer. The military is not to suppress the nation.

 

Where is my vote?

Die Frage aller Fragen im Iran. Mit diesem Logo liefen viele heute auf den Demos herum. Manche riefen auch: „Ahmadi, wo sind Deine 24 Millionen?“ Angesichts der Masse von Menschen auf den Strassen – nicht nur in Teheran, auch in den anderen Zentren der Islamischen Republik wie Kerman, Schiraz, Maschhad – eine schlagende Formel.

Die Islamische Republik ist zwar ein tyrannisches Regime. Aber weil sie aus einer breit getragenen Revolution hervorgegangen ist, die immer noch die Legtimationsgrundlage darstellt, darf sie das Volk nicht verlieren. Das unterscheidet Iran von unfreien Gesellschaften der Region wie Ägypten oder Syrien, in denen solche Szenen, wie wir sie dieser Tage sehen, undenkbar wären.

Auch heute Nacht wieder waren die Allahu akbar Rufe zu hören über den Dächern. Für die Regierenden muss das schauerlich klingen – denn mit diesen Rufen hatte auch Chomeinis Revolution gegen den Schah begonnen.

Für morgen ist zu einem Generalstreik aufgerufen.

p.s. Hilfreiche Websites: Andrew Sullivans Blog (in Weltmeisterform!) und Tehranbureau.