Iran Latest: A Khatami Action Plan?

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Preparing for Thursday

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

This purported letter from former President Mohammad Khatami has just posted on an activist website,"Release Iran". It should be treated with caution: for example, Khatami's call for a daily march to the Bazaar follows earlier Twitter chatter that Mir Hossein Mousavi was proposing the idea. Still, the general lines of the letter correspond with information we have been receiving about the stepping-up of the protest campaign in the next 48 hours:

In the name of God, the Compassionate, the Merciful.

We are no longer going to waste our energy. We have said what needed to be said to the world, however now it’s time to act rather efficiently.

Effective this Tuesday June 23rd, 2009, every morning we shall protest towards the main bazaars of every single city in Iran. Should the revolutionary guards try to avoid the situation, the bazaar will be shut down. Should they don’t react to our protests, due to the mayhem caused by protesters, the bazaar will automatically shut down. Should they try to cut the phone lines around the country, yet again there will be a massive conflict within all the activities, resulting in the bazaar shutting down.

We shall bring our children along, and peacefully continue our protests. No sign boards, without wearing green, we go towards the bazaar with the intention of shopping. However we will buy nothing and we go with the aim of closing down the bazaar. We shall leave no marks or traces behind ourselves, not even showing the victory sign with our hands.

We shall only think of Victory. Should any of the hard liners and oppositions try to cause violence, we shall not interfere or get involved, since we are only there with the intention of shopping freely, therefore no one should fear and everyone should come along. If the revolutionary guards try to use tear gas against us, the bazaar will get shut down again. We should act smart and never ever get involved in any sort of violence.

The death of our youth and people is no good to anyone. Neither the reformists, nor Mr. Mir Hossein Mousavi wants to see your sacrifice and martyrdom, what we want to see is your leadership and cooperation. What we needs is results, therefore it’s your duty to pass the news around and persuade every single Iranian looking for freedom and democracy to join us and follow this plan.

This plan will be very efficient and peaceful, which will result in least number of casualties, deaths or violence. This will bring millions of Iranians to the scene without any bloodshed. Don’t doubt the effectiveness of this plan, be prepared to hear rumors from oppositions about such plans being false. Don’t listen to what you hear, listen to your heart and remember, after all the bloodshed, you now have a massive responsibility on your shoulders, and that’s nothing but victory.

Now that we have so much restriction on our media, every single one of you should act as one. Spread the word around and act quickly.

Good luck.

Iran: Is 2009 an Update of 1979? A Debate in Three Parts

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Preparing for Thursday

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Yesterday, an analyst from BBC Persian Television, speaking on BBC News 24 on Monday, predicted the protests are going to wither and die because of the government’s crackdown and heavy security across Tehran. He also criticised comparisons with 1979. I asked two Enduring America contributors, Steve Hewitt and Chris Emery, "Is he right?"

Is the 1979 Analogy Relevant?

STEVE HEWITT: I agree. Iranian society then was united against the Shah with a strong rallying figure in the form of Khomeini, whereas today it is just very polarized.

CHRIS EMERY: I agree that analytically there is little point in making analogies with 1978-9. Khomeini did not just have a cause or a sense of injustice, as Mousavi has today, he also had a constitutional template for a radical overhaul of Iran's political system and foreign relations developed over years. He also had a far-reaching network for achieving his goals; Mousavi, on the other hand, is improvising.

However, a key point is that the analogy is acting and active INSIDE Iran.

It is also influencing, I think, the State's response to the crisis. The authorities are afraid of the analogy and trying to not repeat the Shah's mistakes (but i think failing). The analogy is not just about wishful thinking by Westerners hoping for an overthrow of the system. Its imagery and psychology is omnipresent on the streets of Iranian cities (with kids who cannot remember it still indoctrinated by the imagery and sense of what the youth achieved in 1979). For example, I think that if there is a general strike, many will feel this evocative of 1978 and this sense of historical momentum will be as significant as any economic disruption.

The analogy maybe be false, but that doesn't mean it is insignificant. The Vietnam analogy in Iraq was false but was an undeniably important cultural and historical lens in which many Americans viewed the imagery and reporting of events there. It mobilised opposition. My Lai = Abu Ghraib, Tet = Falluja, language such as "quagmire" and "stay the course"....

Is the Current Regime Vulnerable?
HEWITT: Interesting points, especially in terms of the government’s response. But how can you measure the forces that you describe? And what about the millions who support the government and [President] Ahmadinejad? Where do they fit in the equation?

EMERY: You can't measure those forces (you couldn't in 1978-9). However, there are certain signposts from the past that will increase momentum to the point of critical mass. I mentioned a general strike. Another significant signpost would be if elements of the regime's security forces refuse to fire on the people and join the demonstrators, though we are miles away from that (bar a few reported isolated incidents).

I think you have hit upon the other point. The Shah, because of his own paranoia and managerial style, shrunk his power base to a very small few. He even used to meet his ministers and military leaders one at a time to discourage any unity; he was obsessed about being ousted by the military). He had deliberately weakened outside institutions and alliances. He also alienated all sections of Iranian society; even the North Tehran bourgeoisie mostly hated him. The whole system was reliant on him.

Now, the notion of an Islamic Republic is defended by the Guardian Council, Expediency Council, Revolutionary Guard, Majlis [Parliament], Presidency, Judiciary, and of course the Supreme Leader. It is defended even by Mousavi, Khatami, and Rafsanjani! There may be human rights activists and Iranian intellectuals centred on this issue, but there is not an intellectual culture proposing a complete political alternative, as in the example of Ali Shariati.

This is why we won't see a similar revolution. That's not to say, however, that the analogy won't be acting upon a movement that may radically shake up the political establishment but not bring down the Islamic Republic.

Myths and Chinese Models?
HEWITT: And what about the regime deploying powerful myths of its own, such as US and British interference in Iranian affairs? I think in the long run the regime is finished having destroyed its credibility by stealing the election, but in the short term the protests will fail just as they did, using another historical analogy, 20 years ago in Beijing.

EMERY: I think that's a reasonable assumption. However, the question is how the regime modifies its style. Some have suggested that the authorities have the Chinese model in mind. They are going to normalise relations with the West, invest in technologies such as nuclear power, end sanctions, and aim to make Iran as prosperous as possible. They reason that the problem is simply a lack of economic opportunities for the young. They hope to distract the youth with materialism whilst creating a wider base of vested interests not wishing to challenge the regime in the future.

Iran: An Eyewitness Account of Monday's Demonstration

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Preparing for Thursday
Iran: 2+2 = A Breakthrough? (Mousavi and the Clerics)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

Via a discussion list on Iran, we have received the following from a Tehran resident:

I cannot sleep and not write this.

Today in Haft-e Tir [7 Tir Square], there were so many members of basij that they outnumbered the demonstrators 3 or 4 to 1. They were less focused on women. This must be related to the murder of poor Neda. And this was also why whenever they got hold of a man, women would surround them and shout don't beat him, don't beat and they would turn and anxiously say we didn't
beat him. It was astonishing. They explained; they talked.

But they didn't allow us to congregate; they kept telling us to walk and the crowd walked quietly for 2 hours in the circle (meydaan) and spontaneously gathered in whichever area they were not present. About 2000 of us were walking around the circle and only shouting Allah-o Akbar until they were forced to disperse us with tear and pepper gases. I thoughtpeople's patience and persistence was great, although there were also many bad scenes and I cried.

They arrested a whole bus load of people. There were many intelligence folks in the crowd too. They would point to a person and the basijis would arrest that person. There was no one from Sepah [Revolutionary Guard] and the police was obviously sympathetic to the crowd. I swear some of the Basijis were only 14 or 15, or at least what they looked like to me. On the other hand, women are playing an amazing role in the streets; both in terms of numbers and effectiveness..

UPDATED Iran: Who Was "Neda"? "A Beam of Light"

The Latest from Iran (23 June): Preparing for Thursday
Iran: Who Was "Neda"?

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS- SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED

UPDATE 1115 GMT: We are posting the video of Al Jazeera's interview with Neda Agha Soltan's fiancee, Caspian Makan.

After we posted our profile yesterday of Neda Agha Sultan, the young woman killed on Saturday by a paramilitary Basij and now a symbol for the Iranian protest movement, Borzos Daraghi of The Los Angeles Times offered details.

Neda was 26, the daughter of a Government worker and a housewife. The second of three children, she was studying Islamic philosophy, but her hope was to become a tour guide. She was taking Turkish-language courses and visited Turkey for the first time two months ago. She loved music, especially Persion pop; she was an excellent singer and was pursuing piano classes.

According to friends, Neda was far from a revolutionary. She believed in the Islamic system of Iran; however, she was angered by the outcome of the Presidential protest. So, against the advice of her friends, she attended demonstrations. Last Saturday, her group was stuck in traffic east of Azadi Square on Karegar Street, where security forces were trying to disperse marchers. They got out of the car to walk around. Moments later, after being seen on film walking with a man in a blue shirt (now said to be her music teacher), Neda was struck by a single bullet.

Who was Neda? The music teacher said on Sunday, "She was a person full of joy. She was a beam of light."

The US and Britain: The Attack of the Nanny State?

Two weeks ago, the US Senate approved legislation empowering the federal government with sweeping powers to oversee tobacco products. In essence, Uncle Sam will regulate matters such as the amount of nicotine in a cigarette, not to mention how the cigarette is packaged, signed, and marketed. After 50 years of warnings from the surgeon general, Big Tobacco has finally succumbed to a smoking President. Now, if only the National Rifle Association would fall at the feet of a President with a smoking gun, maybe we would get some sanity over the interpretation of the Second Amendment's "right to bear arms".

I have to declare an interest. Not only am I a reformed smoker – I was a 60-a-day man back in the 1970s, but I am also a trustee of a cancer charity. Therefore, you will not find me defending the rights of the tobacco industry or cigarette smokers. In fact, on a trip to Australia some ten years ago, I welcomed the typical Aussie frankness. The message on a packet of their cigs was to the point: “Smoking Kills”.

However, will Americans be asking a bigger question? Do they want a nanny state, where risk taking is minimized to cover obtuseness, as the government seeks to protect the citizen from everything that they, not the citizen, considers potentially dangerous? Will tobacco regulation be the thin end of the wedge?

In Britain, The Nanny State by Robert Huntington examined the almost obsessive nannying of the Tony Blair and, briefly, Gordon Brown Governments. Huntington writes scathingly about the chief proponents of the movement and argues that bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive, with its army of "five-a-day [fruit and vegetable] coordinators" and "smoking cessation officers", are merely a bunch of conmen who have seized a slice of the Treasury's cash reserves without doing anything productive in return. Huntington argues that nannying is ultimately dangerous, as freedoms are continually eroded while funds and resources are increasingly wasted.

One wonders whether the freedom issue over tobacco legislation might reach the Supreme Court and, if so, if the legislation be rejected towards the end of Obama’s first term. In the economic sphere, I have been astonished at the acceptance by mainstream America of the Federal Government’s takeover of the banking system, a move that is socialist from any viewpoint and attacks the norms of American business freedom and ideology. In the social sphere, will the Obama administration be tempted to make further inroads into American life on the basis of safety?

The proposed healthcare legislation will get a much harder ride in Congress than the new tobacco laws, where I am sure Republican objections to charges of nannying will find support in some Democrat ranks. And, fortunately for the US, separation of powers prevents the executive from ramming through unwelcome legislation. Nevertheless, Congressmen might look at the British experience before they decide to get carried away with petty regulations, passed in the fervour of “we know better than you.”