Western media excited about ‘new Iran revolution’, but polls tell a different story about protests

By Sharmine Narwani

Data from two foreign polls tell a very different story about protests in Iran. The economy is tough, but a majority of Iranians back their government's security initiatives and reject domestic upheaval.

On November 15, angry Iranians began pouring onto the streets to protest sudden news of a 50% fuel price hike. A day later, peaceful demonstrations had largely dissipated, replaced instead by much smaller crowds of rioters who burned banks, gas stations, buses and other public and private property. Within no time, security forces hit the streets to snuff out the violence and arrest rioters, during which an unconfirmed number of people on both sides died.

Western commentators tried in vain to squeeze some juice out of the short-lived protests. “Iranian protesters strike at the heart of the regime’s legitimacy,” declared Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution. France 24 asked the question, is this “a new Iranian revolution?” And the LA Times slammed Iran's "brutal crackdown" against its people. 

They grasped for a geopolitical angle too: protests in neighboring Lebanon and Iraq that were based almost entirely on popular domestic discontent against corrupt and negligent governments, began to be cast as a regional insurrection against Iranian influence. 

And despite the fact that the internet in Iran was disabled for nearly a week, unverified videos and reports curiously made their way outside to Twitter accounts of Iran critics, alleging that protestors were calling for the death of the Supreme Leader, railing against Iran’s interventions in the region and calling for a fall of the “regime.”

Clearly, the initial protests were genuine – a fact that even the Iranian government admitted immediately. Reducing petrol subsidies on the cheapest fuel in the region has been an issue on Iran’s political agenda for years, one that became more urgent after the US exited the Iran nuclear deal last year and began to tighten the sanctions screws on Iran again.

To try and understand Iranian reactions in the past twelve days, let’s look at two opinion polls conducted jointly by the University of Maryland’s Center for International and Security Studies at Maryland (CISSM) and Toronto-based IranPolls in the immediate aftermath of the 2017/2018 protests/riots - and in May, August and October 2019, when the US “maximum pressure” campaign was in full gear. 

What leaps out immediately from the earlier 2018 poll is that Iranians were frustrated with a stagnant economy - and 86% of them specifically opposed a hike in the price of gasoline, the main impetus for protests this November.

Ironically, this month’s gasoline price hike was meant to generate upward of $2.25 billion earmarked for distribution to Iran’s 18 million most hard-hit families. In effect, the government was softening the fuel subsidy reduction with payouts to the country’s neediest citizens.

The 2018 poll also lists respondents' single biggest woes, ranging from unemployment (40%), inflation and high cost of living (13%), low incomes (7%),financial corruption and embezzlement (6%), injustice (1.4%), lack of civil liberties (0.3%), among others.

These numbers suggest the 2018 protests were overwhelmingly in response to domestic economic conditions– and not over Iran's foreign policy initiatives or "widespread repression" that was heavily promoted by western media and politicians at the time. 

The same Suzanne Maloney quoted above on this month’s protests, insisted in a 2018 Washington Post article:“The people aren’t just demonstrating for better working conditions or pay, but insisting on wholesale rejection of the system itself.” 

In fact, in the 2018 poll, only 16% of Iranians agreed with the statement “Iran’s political system needs to undergo fundamental change,” with a whopping 77% disagreeing. 

Like protests this month in Iran, the 2017-18 demonstrations also morphed into small but violent riots, and Iranian security forces hit the streets to stop the chaos. But in the aftermath of those events - and despite endless foreign headlines about the "brutality" of the security reaction - Iranians overwhelmingly sided with their government's treatment of rioters.

Sixty-three percent of those polled in 2018 said the police used an appropriate amount of force, and another 11% said they used “too little force.” Overall, 85% of Iranians agreed that “the government should be more forceful to stop rioters who use violence or damage property.” 

This Iranian reaction must be understood in context of Iran's very insecure neighborhood, region-wide terrorism often backed by hostile states and a relentless escalation against Iranian interests after Donald Trump became US president. His "maximum pressure" campaign has only worsened matters, and Iranians consider themselves in a state of war with the United States - on constant guard against subversion, sabotage, espionage, eavesdropping, propaganda, border infiltration, etc.

Earlier this decade, the US military declared the internet an "operational domain"of war, and cyber warfare has already been widely acknowledged as the future battle frontier in conflicts. Iran was one of the early victims of this new warfare, when the suspected US/Israeli Stuxnet virus disrupted its nuclear program. 

The US military has set up war rooms of servicemen dedicated to manipulating social media and advancing US propaganda interests. The British army has launched a "social media warfare" division, its initial focus, the Middle East. Israel has been at the online propaganda game forever, and the Saudis have recently invested heavily in influencing discourse on social media.

It should therefore come as no surprise that the Iranian government shut down the internet during this crisis. Expect this to become the new normal in US adversary states when chaos looms and foreign information operations are suspected.

The western media themes of corruption, violent repression, popular rejection of the Islamic Republic and its regional alliances have been consistent since the 2009 protests that followed contentious elections in Iran. They flared up briefly in early 2011, when western states were eager for an “Iranian Spring” to join the Arab Spring, and became popular narratives during 2017-18 protests when social media platforms adopted them widely.

This November, those narratives sprung to the surface again. So let’s examine what Iranians thought about these claims in October when CISSM/IranPolls published their latest, extremely timely survey.

Iran’s regional military activities

Sixty-one percent of Iranians support retaining military personnel in Syria to contain extremist militants that could threaten Iran’s security and interests. Polls taken since March 2016 confirm the consistency of this view inside Iran, with a steady two-thirds (66%) of respondents supporting an increase in Iran's regional role.

Asked what would happen if Iran conceded to US demands and ended the US-sanctioned Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) activities in Syria and Iraq, 60% of Iranians thought it would make Washington demand more concessions - only 11% thought it would make the US more accommodating.

Moreover, the October 2019 report says negative attitudes toward the United States have never been higher in CISSM/IranPoll's 13 years of conducting these surveys in Iran. A hefty 86% of Iranians do not favor the US, and those who say their view of the US is very unfavorable has skyrocketed from 52% in 2015 to 73% today.

They could care less that Washington has sanctioned the IRGC and its elite Quds Force Commander Qassem Soleimani, who is the most popular national figure of those polled, with eight in ten Iranians viewing him favorably. If anything, a hefty 81% of Iranians said the IRGC’s Mideast activities has made Iran “more secure.”

As for the IRGC’s role in Iran’s domestic economy – a favorite subject of western foes who cast the military group as a malign and corrupt instrument of the state – today 63% of Iranians believe the IRGC should be involved “in construction projects and other economic matters,” as well as continuing their security role. In times of crisis, they're viewed as a vital institution: the IRGC and Iranian military scored top points with the public (89% and 90% respectively) for assisting the population during crippling floods last Spring, which displaced half a million Iranians.

Economy and corruption

Seventy percent of Iranians view their economy as “bad” today, a figure that has stayed surprisingly consistent over the past 18 months, despite the imposition of US sanctions last year. The majority blame domestic mismanagement and corruption for their economic woes, but a rising number also blame US sanctions, which is possibly why 70% of Iranians prefer aiming for national self-sufficiency over increasing foreign trade.

Asked about the "impact (of sanctions) on the lives of ordinary people," 83% of Iranians agreed there was a negative impact on their lives. Oddly, since the US exited the JCPOA, economic pessimism has dropped from 64% in 2018 to 54% last month-mainly, the poll argues, because Iranians feel the US can't realistically pressure Iran much further with sanctions. Accordingly, 55% of Iranians blame domestic economic mismanagement and corruption for Iran’s poor economy versus 38% who blame foreign sanctions and pressure.

The blame for much of this mismanagement and corruption is pinned on the administration of President Hassan Rouhani, whose favorability numbers dropped under 50% for the first time, to reach 42% this August. Fifty-four percent of Iranians think his government isn't trying much to fight corruption.

In contrast, 73% believe the Iranian judiciary is much more engaged in fighting economic corruption, up 12% since May.

On the economic front, it appears that Iranians have largely been disappointed by the promises and vision of this administration, which could benefit its Principlist opponents in upcoming parliamentary elections. The fuel tax hike two weeks ago was a necessary evil and a brave move by Rouhani, despite the mismanagement of its public rollout. Unfortunately, Iranians, who have railed against subsidy removals for years, are unlikely to be forgiving anytime soon.

On the political front, Iranians appear to be largely in lockstep with their government’s foreign policy and military initiatives, viewing the IRGC’s activities – domestic and regional – very favorably, and supporting Iran’s involvement in neighboring Iraq and Syria, both for security reasons against terrorism and because they believe in an active regional role for Iran. In terms of support for their leaders, a majority of Iranians view favorably the IRGC’s Soleimani (82%), followed by Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif (67%) and Judiciary Head Ebrahim Raisi (64%), which covers an unexpectedly broad spectrum of political viewpoints in the country.

In light of these numbers, it is fair to say that there is no “second revolution” on Iran’s horizon, nor any kind of significant rupture between government and populace on a whole host of key political, economic and security issues. Foreign commentators can spin events in Iran all they want, but so far Iranians have chosen security and stability over upheaval every time.

*Poll numbers in this article have been rounded up or down to the nearest unit.

Sharmine Narwani is a commentator and analyst of Middle East geopolitics. She is a former senior associate at St. Antony's College, Oxford University and has a master’s degree in International Relations from Columbia University. Sharmine has written commentary for a wide array of publications, including Al Akhbar English, the New York Times, the Guardian, Asia Times Online, Salon.com, USA Today, the Huffington Post, Al Jazeera English, BRICS Post and others. 

(Source: RT)

Some important points about recent unrest in Iran

* By Mohammad Ghaderi

It is not possible to trace recent events without considering the key factors influencing them.

Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA and re-imposition of economic sanctions on Iran in May 2018, Trump and his security team, who have adopted extremist approaches, expected that the Islamic Republic would surrender and would collapse within a few months.  

Since May 2018 that Iran has let its guard down and adopted “active resistance” policy against U.S. “maximum pressure” campaign, the scene of confrontation between Iran, the United States and its regional and extra-regional allies completely changed in favor of Iran.

The course of events in favor of Iran was so pervasive that even the most radical U.S. think tanks were forced to admit the failure of the maximum pressure strategy against Tehran.

 When Trump failed to make Iran give up, contrary to his regional allies’ opinion, tried to reach Iran to gain reputation, but his plan did not work out due to Iran’s rejection. 

Trump’s unstable political situation on the eve of the 2020 election along with his unpredictable behavior, caused joint Israeli-Western-Arab think tanks put a plan against Iran on its agenda. The costly plan, with its complicated design, aims to create insecurity inside Iran. It uses the fourth generation, warfare model. 

Recently, there have been reports that some countries have launched a joint plan to make Iran insecure and unstable. By studying the information provided by a neighboring country’s intelligence agencies and also through investigating Ruohollah Zam, such an event was expected to happen. 

Reforming gasoline prices seemed inevitable and predictable. The reform prepared the ground for the enemies to launch a war against the Iranian nation under the pretext of “the right to protest”.

Gasoline price hike and concerns over rising costs of goods and services, which are unbearable for the majority of people, led to a natural, acceptable and peaceful reaction by the people of different classes of society. But, Iran’s foes exploited people’s legitimate demands and completely derailed them. 

According to initial intelligence calculations and assumptions, the plan of creating “insecurity from inside” was expected to be launched in late 2019 or early 2020. Due to the intelligence blows dealt to some opposition groups over the past few months coupled with increased public dissatisfaction over gasoline price, the enemy decided to carry out the plan earlier.

The economic, security, military and media aspects of the recent war against the Iranian nation strongly confirm the idea that the recent violent incidents in various cities were preplanned. 

The U.S. has imposed economic sanctions on Iran to frustrate and infuriate people and then has accused the government of being incompetent to deal with the sanctions’ consequences. 

The next step in conducting the plan was to train and organize riot groups and spread them to some parts of the country, where protests were likely to be formed against the government.

The media outlets that fueled the recent riots had the mission to lead and magnify the unrest and portray it as a public move to create human rights sensitivities in the world. 

The rioters were focused on cities around the capital rather than Tehran because these places are more vulnerable to unrest. The rioters were also trying to create insecurity in important energy and economic centers such as Bandar Mahshahr, Imam Khomeini Port, Bushehr, Asaluyeh along with refineries and power plants. The move shows that the rioters intended to create a complete deflation in the country. They also sought to overthrow the government by undermining critical infrastructure and disrupting the export and import process. 

In this context, the plan to attack military and police stations was carried out with the aim of increasing the number of victims and finding access to weapons. 

Although many riot groups were already equipped with illicit weapons, efforts to obtain weapons owned by the armed forces would increase fatalities. 

On the other hand, arresting Rouhollah Zam, the admin of Amadnews Telegram Channel also affected the failure of the recent riot. During the unrest, the channel was not able to launch psychological warfare and lead the rioters. 

One of the important issues that need to be considered in dealing with the recent crisis is the role and function of the Internet.

Since the daily life of most Iranian people is dependent on the internet, the foes assumed that Iran would either not block the internet to prevent further discontent or it would face widespread protests and enormous economic damages. 

However, with the internet shutdown, the National Information Network (NIN) was able to meet people’s minimum needs in various aspects. 

Of course, some alternative communication ways were also provided for the agitators, which effectively led to the identification of many elements of the unrest by the intelligence agencies.

On the other hand, the remarks by Leader of the Islamic Revolution who prompted the real protesters to separate their way from the rioters, public protests against the rioters, arrest of some ringleaders as well as the internet shutdown helped end the crisis within 48 hours. 

The quiet and hasty return of Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier to the Persian Gulf is also one of the interesting events that indicates foes’ hope for the success of the hostile plan. 

* Author: Mohammad Ghaderi , Tehran Times editor in chief 

U.S. stupidity is usually, as now, followed by worse stupidity

By Martin Love

NORTH CAROLINA - It is enough to make a rational, sentient person ill to witness Mike Pompeo telling Iranians he is “with” them, as he did again recently. Excuse me but I hope Iranians are not so deluded to imagine for a second that the U.S. government under Trump gives a gnat’s ass about their welfare. And yes, the U.S. is cheerleading the apparent outbreak of protests in Iran, allegedly over the price hikes in the cost of Iranian gas to consumers.

Come on, Iranians, one must insist from afar, all must realize that the entire thinking, feeling, free world, the world that abhors U.S. cruelty and economic sanctions, stands with Iran and yes, that includes standing with the leaders of the Islamic Republic provided they maintain their cool as they oppose U.S. and Zionist imperialism and sanctions?

Understand that, citing several examples among many, the U.S. is not “with” the people of Bolivia or Venezuela or Hong Kong or any other country UNLESS U.S. government and corporate bidding is done completely, even if it means the cancellation of any real “democracy”. Realize that the U.S. was proclaiming after the coup d’état in Bolivia that “democracy” had been restored to that country, which is a miserable and sad joke since the new self- proclaimed, non-elected president is a blonde, non-native floozy. Seventy percent of Bolivians have been disenfranchised just like over half the people living west of the Jordan River, the Palestinians, have been long disenfranchised and attacked (for over 70 years).

Iranians, any smart outsider must think, need to hang together and remain tough. This is not the time to be fearful nor is it a time for disunity. I say the U.S. government under Trump is cutting its own throat. True, the cutting may be far too slow as too many worldwide from Hong Kong across the Middle East to Cuba to Bolivia to Chile and many other places suffer under U.S. or proxies’ policies, but those policies are so draconian and wrongheaded that they cannot stand for long the world’s scrutiny.

One glaring example was Trump’s unilateral decision this week to declare that Zionist “settlements” on stolen land in the West Bank and the Golan are not “illegal”, that henceforth because his Administration says so, they are perfectly legal. Of course the U.S. does not get to decide unilaterally what is legal or illegal internationally. Extant, long-established international law, established over decades by many countries and legal scholars, does. A pinheaded cretin knows this. Some have opined that there will never be peace in the Mideast with this latest outrageous Trump declaration.

From afar one reads of protests in Iran against the gas price hikes. But one also reads that there are protests against protests over the hikes in Iran, like in Zanjan.

The knee jerk, ignorant reaction of many in the West is to wonder why Iran with so much in petroleum resources can’t continue to subsidize inside Iran? Well, first, one must note that Iran can’t “print” fiat “money” willy nilly like the U.S. does with its Federal Reserve Bank, which is not “federal” at all. The alternative is the printing of extra money but without any increase in productivity. This merely would cause even greater inflation, which is currently running at over 30 percent in Iran. Inflation hurts the poor, students and others on fixed incomes the most, and especially affects goods imported in to Iran.

One explanation comes from an Iranian friend who is not currently living in Iran. He claims that the price hike was reasonable and was aimed and freeing some funds for redirection to the very poor in Iran who are suffering the most from U.S. sanctions, and also to try to stop corrupt individuals in Iran from taking advantage of formerly the almost free gas in Iran by smuggling. He adds, however, that such radical pricing moves might better be discussed months in advance and before implementation to obviate discord and shock, and the suddenness of the implementation this month was in error. (But of course it’s impossible to foresee what specific issues will arise under sanctions well in advance. The government must be able to respond quickly, as necessary.)

One thing Iranians, despite the pain, can absolutely rely on: The Trump Administration and the U.S. generally look increasingly foolish and even stupid with recent moves. Such stupidity may be sustainable for a while, but not forever. The world is disengaging as fast as it can from U.S. diktat and imperialism. This ultimately bodes well for Iran.