What Transpired at the Meeting with the Leader?

Simultaneous with his directive regarding “refraining from premature election campaigning”, Mr. Khamenei was the first to expressly step into the campaign and, in a meeting with Mahmud Ahmadinejad and his cabinet during the “Week of the Government” said, “Work as if you have another five years to work; in other words imagine that this year and the next four years are under your management purview. Take this attitude, and, work, plan and take action from this perspective. Do not take the view that this is the last year of the administration. No.”
If this is not a statement in support of Ahmadinejad then what is it?

In another meeting, while expressing his support for the work of Ahmadinejad’s administration, Mr. Khamenei listed him as “being active, expanding the revolutionary and Imam’s [reference to ayatollah Khomeini] dialog and being in touch with the public”.
Is this too not support of Ahmadinejad?

What about these remarks. “Appearing at Science and Industry University in Tehran, the leader of the Islamic Republic fervently supported President Mahmud Ahmadinejad. In his remarks the leader called the President “revolutionary, committed, efficient, active and brave,” adding that he was ‘a good example of a well trained person from Science and Industry University.’”
And is this not supporting Ahmadinejad?

These are just a few examples of statements in support of someone, and many more exist.

Perhaps support has a different meaning that we do not know. So let us now look at the flip side, i.e. opposing some one. What does the following remark mean if not opposing Mr. Khatami? “Comparing the ninth administration and the two preceding terms of Seyed Mohammad Khatami, Ayatollah seyed Ali Khamenei said that Mahmud Ahmadinejad’s administration completely stopped the dangerous trend of Westernization and falling on traditional values which were permeating in the decision-making centers of the country.”

Or here is another one: “If weak and gutless authorities like Shah Soltan Hossein, are found among state officials, that is the end of the regime and the Islamic Republic, even if people are brave and prepared; because coward and weak leaders turn even brave nations into weak ones.”

Or look at this one. “Some did not believe in the Imam right from the beginning or developed problems with the revolution half way on its way. Which is why with their animosity with the Imam [a reference to ayatollah Khomeini], they have now embarked on destroying the ninth administration [of Mahmud Ahmadinejad].”

In addition to supporting words, there are plenty of actions too in this regard. But it appears that the conflict is simply over words and definitions, and not substance, i.e. political definitions. The issue is with the statement that when Mr. Khatami has made about “expressing his regret and disappointment that people say that the leader has determined who must be the next president.”

And there is more. “Mr. Khatami expressed some of his concerns and views to the leader of the revolution who issued his guidance while acknowledging some of the mentioned issues. The leader of the revolution also said that Mr. Khatami was a distinguished personality adding that his standing must not be damaged. He further said that he does not recommend any person to take part or not take part in the forthcoming elections. If Mr. Khatami does participate and wins, or if anyone else wins the race, he shall work with the new president through deliberation, as he has in the past.”

So the real question comes down to this: If Mr. Khatami and others truly believe that this statement is true, then he must provide an explanation as to why was it that during his two terms as president, the “deliberation” that is mentioned to be a practice had led to multiple crises which Mr. Khatami himself explained to erupt once every nine days.

On the other hand, if he does not believe this to be the case, i.e. the captain has a different tune, then why does he and his allies not talk of the key players in this game? When the public does not seem to even have the right to know what took place between him and the “absolute leader” [reference to Vali Motlaghe Faghih], how can they be expected to believe that the very few words that have been handed over to the public demonstrate that Mr. Khatami’s desires and conditions to stay in the race have been met?

In short, in the absence of real news, shattered reformists who have no choice but to remain silent, voters cannot be expected to be convinced that they can vote to others.

When former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi remains tight-lipped, Abdollah Nouri insists on his silence, ayatollah Khoeiniha makes only annual remarks, etc can one rely on the few messages from a phoenix?

I remember in the days of the ancient regime, after the Iran Novin and Mardom – both of which were viewed as government parties – parties were annulled, a new party the Rastakhiz (i.e. Resurrection) was proclaimed on orders of the Shah, which soon split into two wings: Construction, and, Progressive. The leaders of both wings of the party too were selected on the basis of gestures. Soon, the Iranian state television aired a round table debate participated by the leaders of the two wings to talk about their views. I was a Keyhan newspaper political reporter then and was invited to the discussion. I spent an hours researching at Keyhan’s archives before the session, going over the interviews and statements of each wing leader. But I saw no difference between their words or messages. Sentences appeared different in structures and word order but the messages and meaning were the same. And they couldn’t be. At the session, I raised this issue and asked what was really different between the two factions when even their sentences had to look similar. That was at a time when everybody knew that real differences did exist among state authorities. But because of lack of democracy, these differences could not be openly raised until they finally erupted in revolt from the streets and alleys.

So the question remains: Mr. Khatami, what did really take place in your meeting with the leader? To enter the presidential race, you had had set the condition that the public had to stay cooperative just as had the state officials. Did this take place? Will it take place? You said that about the meeting is in contradiction with realities as we know them. So what must be done about this inconsistency? What is your proposal? The leader will “deliberate” regardless of who comes to power, you or Mr. Ahmadinejad.

If the answer to this question is a no, then let them take the field and grab the presidency because by doing this they accept to play the role of a joker [in a pack of cards]. After all, if there is anything they can do better it may be playing that game.