Many of my clients were activists and leaders in their home countries. For me, one of the perks of my job is to hear their perspectives on the issues of the day. In this post, my former client Ali Anisi Tehrani, who is now a political asylee from Iran, gives his opinion of the recently-signed Iran Deal:
In the summer of 1988, the Islamic Republic of Iran drank what then-Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini referred to as a “chalice of poison” when it accepted the terms of United Nations Security Council Resolution 598, which marked the end of the Iran-Iraq War. Despite eight years of brutal fighting between the two neighbors, Khomeini vowed that an end to the war would not be possible unless Saddam Hussein was removed from power. Anyone who lived in Tehran during this time would remember this quote–the message had been plastered across Tehran’s walls–as well as the constant onslaught of Saddam’s missiles. To the Iranian people, defeat was not an option. Khomeini finally relented, but only after military commanders convinced him that victory in the next five years was impossible.
Khomeini justified signing the UN-brokered ceasefire by framing it not as a concession of defeat, but as a necessity to preserve the Islamic Republic and protect the best interests of Islam. Still, it was a stunning and humiliating failure for the regime, which had come into existence only 10 years earlier as a result of the 1979 revolution. Having spent the majority of its young life embroiled in this war, a significant portion of the Islamic Republic’s national identity had developed around the war and opposition to Saddam’s Ba’athist Iraq. Furthermore, given the active support provided to Iraq by U.S. and other Western powers, as well as the West’s long failure to condemn Iraq for its use of chemical weapons, the Islamic Republic’s anti-Western–and particularly anti-American–stance was also strengthened by its opposition to Iraq.
Clearly, the Islamic Republic’s acceptance of the ceasefire was a major blow to the regime’s identity as well as to the authority of Khomeini, its charismatic leader and founder.
The nuclear deal: Another “poisoned chalice”?
Since Iran and the P5+1 signed the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) on July 14, the nuclear deal has occupied much of the world’s attention. Politicians and pundits speculate and opine constantly about the deal. Is it a good deal or a bad deal? Who will truly benefit, Iran or the West? Does it represent the best possible diplomatic move or a huge political mistake? Will it help to stabilize the region or instead enable Iran’s increased meddling in other countries’ affairs? Instead of weighing in on these debates, which deal largely with the politics of current affairs, I would like to analyze the deal from a different perspective, one that takes into account the complex power dynamics within Iran’s totalitarian society and the indirect repercussions that the deal may have for Iranian civil society.
Many in Iran compare the current nuclear deal to the 1988 ceasefire, particularly with respect to the Islamic Republic’s capitulation on a number of its long-held positions. I believe that this comparison can be extended to the ways in which the state has and will maneuver to reclaim legitimacy and authority in the eyes of its citizens in the wake of its many international political compromises.
What to expect next?
In the months surrounding the signing of the ceasefire with Iraq in 1988, Iran executed thousands of prisoners, almost all of whom had no death sentence, nor even lifetime imprisonment, when they were lined up on death row at the Ayatollah’s order. Amnesty International recorded the names of over 4,482 disappeared prisoners during this time. The mass executions compelled some top-ranking clergy to protest. Even Ayatollah Montazeri, Khomeini’s designated successor, challenged the executions to the point that Montazeri was removed.
In what I would argue is no coincidence, the number of executions in Iran has skyrocketed this year. The growth in rate of executions in 2015 is comparable to the years following the 2009 Green Movement, which saw massive protests in response to the fraudulent election that returned incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power. The Green Movement itself, as well as the massive repression unleashed on protesters by the state, received widespread international attention, and served as a major blow to the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy both inside and outside the country.
There are many ways for a state to assert authority, including by exercising power over the very bodies of its citizens or “subjects.” In Iran, this manifests through the deployment of hijab police to enforce laws around women’s dress; through severe punishments for minor crimes; or, through publicly visible executions. In the eyes of the state, this level of control over the bodies of its citizenry is necessary to reestablish the authority and legitimacy that is lost following a compromise on something so critical to the regime’s identity.
For the Islamic Republic, the two dominant narratives underpinning the regime have been confronting the West–namely the United States–and the pursuit of nuclear activities. Iran has adhered to the latter so strongly as to unite much of the world against it. The nuclear deal represents a major blow to both of these narratives, which have long defined the Islamic Republic. The weakening of this dominant ideology fundamentally hurts the legitimacy and authority of the ruler, who must act to mitigate damage to his image. By exercising power over the bodies of its subjects, the totalitarian regime attempts to reclaim power.
It is important to note that such attempts to reclaim power are not necessarily the product of conscious decisions by individuals within the government. Rather they are part of a systemic approach that is inherent to any totalitarian rule, which oversees not only what is visible, but also the feelings and minds of its subjects.
By observing the actions taken by the regime in the wake of the nuclear deal and comparing them to those surrounding the 1988 ceasefire, it may be possible to assess the evolution of the Iranian state and whether it has become more or less totalitarian.
Ali Anisi Tehrani is an Iranian journalist based in Washington, DC. His research is mainly around the theme of civil resistance and political power dynamics. Ali left Iran after the controversial Presidential election in 2009 and studied Digital Media in Sweden and the U.S. He has been living in the United States since 2012.
Hi Jason, I read in one of your previous articles that the local congressman office can be of help to expedite a decision. How can that be done, if I don’t have any emergency or out of the ordinary circumstances as of now. And can it have any adverse effect on my case ? Also can a local church help in this case ? If yes how ? Thanks & God bless you !
I am not sure that I wrote that – my opinion is that the Congress offices are basically useless and they do not help expedite a case. Generally, without a good reason (illness, family member in danger in the home country), there is no possibility that a case will be expedited. As for the local churches – Catholic Charities usually can give advice about benefits or maybe recommend an attorney, or in some cases represent you. Most cities have a Catholic Charities office, and they help anyone, regardless of religion. Take care, Jason
Yosuf,
Hi Jason, my case in Pending since Oct 2013 and still no interview. I see Arlington office is still stuck in August for past 4 months. Any idea what month are they interviewing now and how long it might take for my interview. Thanks
We are starting to see some movement there, so hopefully they will advance through September and October soon. Take care, Jason
Dear Jason,
Thank you very much for your kindness and for all the answers you give us all. We so appreciate your help! Can you please answer my question also? Thank you so much!
My family and I applied for asylum in Aug 2014 in New York State, if I understand correctly our case is in Newark asylum office, we were not invited for the interview yet and while we still wait we would like to move to California or Washington state from New York. We really seek your wise advise if this is a right thing to do right now??.. Will this slow things down and stop the clock if we move to another State and move our case to San Fransisco Asylum Office? Will it make us to wait even longer and is it true that SF Asylum office is like the slowest and the procentage of people getting asylum is very low? We will so wait for your answer before we make any desision with the move. Thank you again so very much! All the best to you today and always
The slowest office is LA, not San Fran (see here: http://www.uscis.gov/humanitarian/refugees-asylum/asylum/affirmative-asylum-scheduling-bulletin). I do not know about whether they are better or worse than Newark, as I have not had cases there (I do have some pending – but no interviews yet). We have had good luck in Newark, but I’ve had probably less than 10 cases there. As for slowing things down, normally, a move would slow things down, but with affirmative asylum cases, it is unclear to me – we have had clients move and get interviews sooner than expected. So I am not sure. I am afraid this is not helpful to you. From my point of view, since these cases are so slow nationwide, I think you just need to live your life and deal with the case when it comes up – if you need to move, you should move, but obviously that is up to you. Good luck, Jason
Of all the possible downsides to the Iran nuclear deal, “more Iranian dissidents executed by their own government” was not one that had occurred to me.
If the deal prevents a war, more murdered prisoners are probably the lesser evil, both for Iranians and us. We could easily reach 4,482 innocent dead from the collateral damage on the first day of bombing, even before Iranian sleeper cells started slaughtering people. But will the deal really prevent the war? I wish I knew.
Speaking for myself (not Ali), I am cautiously optimistic – the main point of the deal was to reduce Iran’s nuclear capacity, and it seems this should be accomplished. Whether it will make Iran have a more responsible government over the long term, we shall see.
Hi Jason,
My case has been expedited, and the interview is scheduled for next week after waiting two and half years. Would there be a difference in the types of questions when a case is expedited or normally scheduled? Would it be more adversary? I applied from Seattle.
Wish me good luck and some solid advice.
Thank you so much for what you have been doing to help persecuted people from their own country.
We have had several expedited interviews and there has never been any difference in the questioning or the case. In fact, the officer may not even know that the case was expedited. As for advice, there is too much to give here. If you do not have a lawyer, you might want to consult with one beforehand, just to help you prepare for the interview. Also, make sure you submitted all evidence in advance according to the rules of that office (our office requires evidence to be submitted at least one week before the interview) and bring copies of all your original documents. Good luck, Jason
Thank you so much for the info. I do have a lawyer, and he is going to prepare me for the interview; I had a very short notice though since it is expedited.
I was trying to get a letter from counseling professor from my school now. Do you think he would accept the letter at the interview? I am just curious.
Again, thank you so much!
It depends on the asylum officer – most do accept a few documents if you bring them to the interview, but they do not have to accept them. Good luck at the interview, Jason
Dear Jason
Is there any update about Arlington office ??
Still slow – We are getting interviews there now and again, but not as many as we might hope. Take care, Jason
.
Hi Jason, sorry to bother you again, first I need to tell you that for renewing the eac, I tried it online this year and it came back in 45 days, vs120 days when I filled it by paper and check last year,
Second my Q is, I’m waiting for my court in April 2017, and I have a chance to apply for disability for my spouse, will this weaken my case? Since I’ll be receiving social security disability?
Thank you
Thank you for letting me know. Maybe we will try it online. I am just old fashioned, I guess, and I am prefer paper. As for the SS Disability, as long as your spouse is being honest and not committing a fraud, I do not think it will affect the case at all. Take care, Jason
Thanks a lot
HI Jason
Is there any updates about Miami office? Which month are they interviewing. ?I’ve been waiting for 2 years for an interview. How long could it take..do u have any idea?
You have to look at the asylum bulletin. I think Miami is moving very slowly at the moment. I keep hoping things will speed up, but so far, we have not seen a lot of movement at most offices. Good luck, Jason
wow
Dear Jason:
Sorry for disturbing you again. I filed my I-765 application on Aug,10, 2015. They updated the case status today and sent request for additional evidence. I wonder why it takes so long to update my case? how long it will take them make decision on my case again after receiving my additional evidence?
Also, we received additional evidence request for my family members and we sent it October, 6th. How long it will take them make a decision after receiving additional evidence request?
I don’t know why it takes so long on our case. Normally it takes one month to get a card or approval.
This is our first I-765 application and bases on pending asylum case.
Thank you so much for quick reply.
Whenever there is a request for evidence, it cause a delay, so it is not unusual that you would wait for some time. Once they have the evidence, the decision often comes in a month or two. It sounds like you are already past two months, so I do not know what the problem is. You might want to call USCIS to check the status, or make an InfoPass appointment and go there in person to ask. Good luck, Jason