Iran Interview: Ahmad Batebi "People’s Movement Will Stay Alive with Knowledge and Information"

A discussion with activist Ahmad Batebi in Washington DC:

Persian2English: To what extent has the Freedom movement in Iran been successful in attracting the Iranian population that supports the government and/or the regime?

Ahmad Batebi: In Iran, there are two groups of people with connections to the government: those who ideologically believe in the system and those who receive benefits and monetary compensation. The former group, who is either brainwashed or is a supporter through family ties, would not join the Green Movement even if they were dissatisfied with the government. They would rather opt for political apathy and inaction. The latter group, however, will join the movement, if their funding is cut. Albeit, they join only as a number. Their effect is minimal.

P2E: Leading to the 1979 Revolution, Iranians living in remote areas were informed of Ayatollah Khomeini’s speeches and revolutionary ideas, even though Internet and satellite did not exist back then. Clerics visited rural areas and preached similarly to the way we receive information via technology. However, today, a lack of independent media creates a gap that is controlled by the Iranian regime. What are the challenges associated with information-spreading and how do we overcome state censorship?



Batebi: The recent political history of other countries demonstrate that a social network is the most effective way to inform and educate. For example, four students can gather in a cafe and share news with each other who will share with the people around them (and then it is passed on to others). The clerics during the 1979 Revolution used these mechanisms of social networking. And yes, now, even though the media is much more abundant, it is censored.

We have to consider the censorship of the Iranian government as ineffective. Censorship exists through satellite (based mainly abroad) and domestic media and on the Internet. Inside Iran, not much can be done about censorship. It is impossible to run a newspaper without it being subject to state censorship. However, the Iranian expatriates can put pressure on foreign governments to facilitate the Iranian people’s access to the mediums of information (i.e., the Internet).

It does not mean each one of us has to set up a media and have people listen to or read it. We should provide people with proxies, anti-filtering software, and VPN so they can choose to access whatever they wish.





P2E: It appears that in the wake of the brutal and widespread crackdown of the June 2009 election protests, a wave of disappointment, pessimism, and lethargy has prevailed over the Iranian society. Persistence of this wave can result in missing a historical opportunity to be on the path to democracy. What approaches do you suggest for revitalizing the hope of society in addition to their drive and enthusiasm? What role can the Iranian Diaspora play in this regard?

Batebi: If any social movement does not achieve its goals in a limited period of time, then its government will become immune to the effects. Consider the student uprising in the summer of 1999. The city was in the hands of protesters for nearly a week. Then, [the regime] cracked down and the uprising cooled off. A few years passed and no action was possible, even on the anniversary of the uprising. This is the case for the Green Movement too: the protests did not blossom because the regime is immune.

Now, what can be done?

We have to consider three issues:

First, we should analyze the environment of the movement. What feeds it? What does its survival depend on? [The answer is] information and knowledge. For example, if the citizens of Tehran don’t realize that people in Tabriz protested the day before, or if Iranians don’t receive messages by leaders like Karroubi or Moussavi, or if they are not informed of the protests that occur outside the UN buildings against Ahmadinejad, then they will continue to go on with their daily lives. This is how the regime stifles the flow of information.

On the other hand, we should remember that the Iranian people are dealing with economic difficulties. They have to fight against the regime and put food on the table at the same time. That is a lot of pressure. Outside Iran, we go to work in the morning and come back in the afternoon to devote our time to the Iranian freedom movement. That is our main concern. However, in Iran, people need to fight against the regime and struggle to make ends meet. they are under much more pressure.

Second, we should create a ground so that the flow of information and knowledge remains constant in society. Second, we have to raise the price the government has to pay for committing human rights violations. In other words, the Islamic Republic should not dare to throw people into prison so easily. We have to establish a strong information network to spread the news of our compatriots from inside to the world.

Third, we have to take new measures such as boycotting any interests the coup d’état government has abroad, similar to the FAO [UN Food and Agricultural Organization] conference in Italy where Ahmadinejad and [Zimbabwe President Robert] Mugabe were not invited to the official dinner ceremony. We also need to stop Khatam-ol Anbia, an (engineering) firm controlled by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, from gaining their interests. This action needs to be taken by Iranians inside Iran.

We should have news regarding Iran in foreign media everyday and thereby influence foreign governments. We have to keep the people of our host countries updated on Iran’s main issues. When people are informed, they urge the media and politicians (to spread the news) and then governments are forced to react. That is how we can achieve a global consensus [in support of the movement].





P2E: In the wake of the election, many people became active in the process of information-spreading. What are your thoughts on this? Are activists doing enough work or should more be done?

Batebi: Spreading the news and informing is different from engaging in serious activities. Sometimes, you write a news piece or you translate it or you upload it on a website. On a scale of 1 to 100, these effort combined are worth 40. We have to achieve 100.





P2E: How?

Batebi: We should have someone in the media who we keep informed [about Iran's news] and who is invited to Iranian events and discussions. We have to force this person to listen. We need to provide this person with the most accurate news for publication. Informing and spreading the news is only part of the job. It is more complicated to oblige the media to cover the news and to take a stance.





P2E: The Iranian people’s opposition to the Islamic Republic is not new. However, after the 2009 election, more people got involved inside and outside Iran. Will you comment on the Green Movement? What is this movement after all? Do you agree with the term “green”? If so, what does Green mean to you?

Batebi: Traditionally, we have always had opposition outside Iran. This opposition was either monarchist, or leftist and socialist, Mujahedin (MKO), or it had ties with the National Front. This is the traditional composition of Iran’s opposition movement, and the nature of their operations is clear-cut.  However, from a logical point of view, our work is useful when it is effective. It is true that there has always been opposition to the regime, but how successful has it been? Has the (traditional) opposition been able to do anything in Iran?  They have not. Their work and conduct has not been right. Their efforts are acknowledged, because they have worked hard, but it has been ineffective. People see and understand this. Moreover, people who are in Iran have a different way of expressing their demands because they are limited, thus their ways of expression are different than the traditional opposition.

During the 1997 Iranian presidential election, many people voted for [Mohammad] Khatami. This vote did not mean that we accepted Khatami and his mode of thought and we believed in his clerical attire. I voted for Khatami. This does not  mean I defended his thoughts or even the reformist movement. The vote was to send a message to the ruling establishment that we want something different than them.

The people’s demands for a civil society that embodies freedom of expression, equality between genders, the rights of children, labour unions, and students was not realized. And with the arrival of Ahmadinejad, the situation deteriorated. Then came the 2009 election where [MIr Hossein] Mousavi (who has a revolutionary background and has worked closely with Ayatollah Khomeini) and [Mehdi] Karroubi (who is in the same boat) were candidates. People voted for them. Again, this did not mean that they accepted Mousavi’s statements and beliefs. People are saying that we do not want what the regime wants, we will go and vote for somebody who is saying something different.

Now, an opposition has formed that has a different structure than the traditional opposition. They are all opposition but they have different forms. And now the Green Movement opposition….

Let me talk about  "green” first.

During the electoral campaign, each candidate camp chose a colour. Yellow was for Ahmadinejad, red was for Karroubi,  and green was for Mousavi.  Since the supporters of Mousavi were greater in number, green became the colour of the opposition movement. We do not necessarily agree with everything, but the Green movement possesses distinct characteristics that is also supported by Khatami, Karroubi, and Mousavi, such as encompassing  all people under its umbrella.

You look and see people in the Green Movement who are secular and some who are religious. They all say, “We don’t want this regime, we want human rights, we want equality between men and women.” It is the first time such a thing has happened. All social movements gradually reach this point.

Now, there are distinguished personalities in the movement like Karroubi and Mousavi who have the ability to mobilize people. Some consider them the leaders, others don’t. I believe they are leaders but just as much as the people. For example, when Karroubi announces that  people should take part in the anniversary of the June 12th election, he is displaying leadership. However, people are taking the lead too.  For example, on Ashura (27 December), nobody called out for the people to come out, but they took to the streets and protested. Thus, everyone is a leader, because everyone is carrying out his or her duties.





P2E: If the Green Movement is defined through Mousavi and Karroubi, then does the Green movement want the Islamic Republic? Some activists oppose green for this reason and opt for the term “people’s movement” instead. Noticeably, the difference in name for the opposition has resulted in a divide within the opposition, even though the main goals seem to be similar. What can we do to eliminate this (divide)?

Batebi: People think that the “Green Movement” and the “People’s movement” are different, but they are the same. You have a democratic movement when a “Green” supporter and a “People’s movement” supporter are classified in the same group. The vitality of the movement depends on these people communicating and finding common ground.

I think if the Islamic Republic is removed, it will be disastrous because we have nothing to offer. Not Mousavi and Karroubi, nor the opposition outside Iran can form a government. They can argue and fight and try to find common ground.

We only have one movement and that is the People’s Movement. Some say they are green, some say they are leftists, and some are monarchists or Mujaheds. We cannot have a successful government without participation from all fractions. For example, the Greens should understand that they are not the only “Greens” since all people are included.

By the way, the Green debate mostly occurs outside Iran. When security forces shoot at crowds in Iran and everybody is running away, no one is thinking, “You’re Mujahedin, therefore I will not run away with you.” When someone is shot by a bullet and falls to the ground, people don’t say, “You’re a communist so we won’t help you.” These are the preoccupations of Iranians living outside the country.

We have to think like people inside Iran. For people there, it is not important what our fights are about. People who say we are Green and the movement belongs to “us” just want to distinguish themselves from the traditional opposition. This is wrong. In tomorrow`s Iran, everybody, including Hizbollah members, have the right to form political parties and run for election. If people vote for them, they will be elected. This is democracy!

In order to have a successful movement, it is important to remember that the colour green does not just belong to (the opposition leaders). Mousavi states that we are successful and the movement is alive only when all opposition (parties) are included in the movement.

Iran Document: Karroubi "In the End, the Wiser Ones Will Take Over Iran" (9 June)

Mehdi Karroubi's interview with Rooz Online, published 9 June and translated by Khordaad 88:

Mr Karroubi, you have said before that you expected after Imam Khomeini’s death you will become more isolated by some individuals , who are these individuals ? and Why?

There was difference of opinion and approach among the forces and factions [at that time] . In other words , some had different interpretations of Islam, state and the Islamic republic [than us]. Since these factions were more close to centers of power=;, their views and opinions were more likely to be implemented.

Which groups?

Political groups like Motalefeh Party, Association of Clergy, Association of Religious Teachers. We had differences of opinion that led to discussions and arguments between us. These differences revolved around issues such as , taxation, municipal land, and other issues that were important at the time. However, Imam Khomeini’s support for us or our ideas would set them back. They had also come to understand that Imam preferred our opinions over theirs despite the fact that he had respect for them and he would appoint some of their important members to the Guardian Council.



These differences led to formation of the Expediency Discernment Council . As Dr. Mehrpour mentioned [once], if the Guardian Council had adopted a more open policy toward various issues and would consider Imam Khomeini’s warning, the Expediency Council would not have been formed. But we knew after Imam’s death , those groups will increase their power and presence, and we will become more isolated. And this is what has happened. Using their power through the Special Clerical Court, the Guardian Council and individuals that I do not want to name isolated the Imam’s Path forces.

Are the individuals that you prefer not to name the same people that you have referred to previously and said: “They could not tolerate a party office or newspaper”, “They want [to take control of ] the government to satisfy their own interests", “They engaged in fraudulent activity after the death of Imam Khomeini"?  Who are these people?

They are the same people who run the country now. In the judiciary they are those who order newspapers and offices closed. They are in the Ministry of Intelligence....They are in Basij, IRGC [Islamic Revolution Guards Corps], and among the Friday Prayer Imams. I should also mention that the traditional conservative forces with whom we were friends before despite our many differences have also to various degrees supported these people. Unfortunately, now an entirely new group of people with Ahmadinejad on top and others in lower ranks are leading [the country].

[Previously] you talked about the boat of the state that does not have capacity for 70 million people. In this turbulent sea of politics, is there a chance that this boat will reach the shore safely?

It is obvious that a boat does not have much capacity to manoeuvre even in calm waters. The sea needs a giant ship. And when the sea turns stormy and turbulent , 70 million people should be present to safely guide the ship to the shore. Therefore I think the current situation will not last [for long] and we are eventually forced to return to reforms although we will have to pay the costs.

What do you think the most important issues of the country are?

Losing the trust of the nation, militarizing the society, and deviating from the ideals of the revolution [are the most important issues we face today]. We have reduced ourselves to such a low level that we treat the family of Imam Khomeini with such disrespect [a reference to the treatment of Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, at the 4 June ceremony for his grandfather's death]. They dare tell Mr. Jamarani, who has been organizing ceremonies on this day for Imam for 20 years, to stop organizing the ceremony this year.

Do we have to witness changing the mood of the society to one of fear where tight security and control is imposed every day? Do we have to see forces armed with anti-riot shields march our streets every day? Nothing will work like this. The government should create security not constrain it. The way the authorities define "security’"seems very different [than what it should be]. Despite all, I believe this situation would not last; in the end the wiser ones will take over.

Everyone’s talking about the necessity to reexamine the Constitution. Where do you see the source of the problems in the Constitution? What should be done?

Every constitution has its own faults. I have said this many times. There is only one book without mistakes, and that’s the holy book, Quran. As Muslims we believe in that. It is possible that a non-Muslim becomes critical of Quran. [No book is perfect, and] it is for this very reason that Imam [Khomeini] allowed the possibility to reexamine the constitution. It is a common practice in the whole world to change the laws according to the most recent conditions and needs of the day. However, even if this constitution is acted upon [in our society], many of our problems would be resolved.

According to the existing constitution, the head of the judiciary is chosen by Supreme Leader. Does this process interfere with the independence of the judiciary branch? Do you not see any contradictions in this process?

At the time, those who created this process did the right thing. But right now we are degrading this law with our actions. Keep in mind that this process was not always like this, and later changed to become as such. Early on, five people constituted the leadership of the judiciary branch. Two of them were chosen by the Supreme Leader and three of them were chosen by a group of judges in a free and competitive election process. The problem right now is that the judiciary branch cannot act on its own and is taken over by the security officials.

What is the main demand of the Green Movement, and what can it be?

This movement that manifests itself through calm, nonviolent protests that takes the form of civil disobedience is created out of the insult and dissatisfaction that resulted from different elections.

Which elections?

The 7th and 8th parliamentary elections and the 9th and 10th Presidential elections. All the dissatisfactions piled up until it exploded after the 10th Presidential elections. This movement is originates from the hearts of people; it is a self-evolving movement. It is a movement that was created over the structure of force that the authorities created for people.

What are you after in this movement?

We are looking to see the full enactment of the Constitution: that we can have a free and sound election,and benefit from free political parties and newspapers; that students are free [to express what they want]. What we are looking for is that no one chooses the destiny of people for them. Accordingly, I believe that if even the current Constitution is enacted, despite the criticisms, many solutions would unfold. But unfortunately, some even don’t abide by this law. Those in power right now act despotically out of their own interests.

To achieve victory, how should the Green Movement move on from here? Wouldn’t the current process gradually degrade the movement? What must be done? What can be done?

Discontent and defiance in the nation will continue. Though people are more conservative in expressing their discontent, they are just waiting for the right moment to express themselves. This does not weaken the movement but the government. With regards to ways that the movement can proceed: first, people’s presence is the most important and critical thing for this movement or any other movement. Second, the movement cannot be after instant success; what comes easily goes just as easily.

The movement must be lively, it must reach out to people and strengthen its grass-root support. The gentlemen are presenting an untrue depiction of this movement to the public. They say this movement is against your religion and culture. They are publicizing this movement as a threat to national security and claim it will bring about a similar situation in Iran as is present in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must fight off these false publicized accusations while spreading our own messages to widest possible audience.

We are after security, peace, and calm for the country. We are loyal to this country. We are fighting dictatorship and fascism. We want to establish the rule of law. Thus evangelizing, organizing, and staying in touch with each other are important. The government is quite sensitive to these activities as it has confronted them in many occasions. This is a great testament to the effectiveness of these activities. So, despite what they might say, I don’t think the movement is diminishing,-; it is in fact growing.

What did Mehdi Karroubi think of the future in 1989 and how does that compare to the way events have been rolling out?

We thought the revolution would bring about mutual respect for every person and her/his ideas and rights. We wanted the revolution to bring about equality and respect for Islam. But that did not happen.

In those days, people were in with the government, they knew everything that was going on. That’s because we realized our legitimacy came from people’s approval. We wanted to be a role model and a leader in the world and tried hard to reach these goals. Of course some of the blame lies with us and some with others.

The fact of the matter is that in the beginning of the revolution, there were some violent struggles. Parts of the country stated independence and invaded central government’s military bases. Azarbayejan, Gonbad, Khozestan, and Kordestan were amongst those regions. The late Mr. Taleghani and Mr. Foroohar traveled to these regions to speak to the people and try to resolve the conflicts. After that, assassinations of the country’s intellectuals and leaders started: Martyrs Motahari, Beheshti, Ghazi, Tabatabaie, Mofateh, and many others.

In those day, secret shared homes were created by the armed militants and violent confrontations started taking shape. The war against Iraq started as these conflicts were still ongoing. When the presidential headquarters and political party headquarters of a country are blown up by internal anti government militants, it is obvious that the country is headed towards radicalism. In any case, they didn’t make it possible to achieve the goals that we had; we missed the chance. In those years, after the bombings, we had the worst situation in the Parliament. Government officials were under pressure by the war, internal conflicts and assassinations, and the country’s management…. These were difficult times. Those who created the internal conflicts did a great injustice to this country.

On the Israel-Palestine issue: If two countries reach an agreement,  what would be your position?

We might have an ideal position in our mind, but we should realize that Palestine belongs to Palestinians, so if they reached an agreement that they find pleasing, we should congratulate them.

Iran is facing detrimental quandaries in its foreign policy, if you were in charge what policy would you adopt regarding the following issues: the US?

I believe that,with the exception of Israel, we should have relationship with all other countries. Despite everything that has happened between Iran and United States, I think we should reestablish the relations without neglecting Iran’s dignity and independence. Unfortunately Iran-US relations have become a domestic political discussion in Iran. When one side agrees to normalizing relations , another side opposes and vice versa . It has become an internal quarrel between different streams.

Relations with China and Russia?

We have normal relations with both countries now, and I agree that we should. I travelled to both countries when I was head of the parliament numerous times in order to expand our political and economical relations. Russia is our neighbour, therefore we should maintain our relations. I should mention though that states only seek their own interests in relations with other states. Having relations with another country should be based on benefits [that we seek].

Nuclear issue?

We should become more transparent We should negotiate, we should defend our rights, but we should also make [our intention and conduct] more transparent.

The human rights file?

The human rights are those rights that belong to all people. These rights are undermined today in many countries. For example, in Palestine, these rights are completely ignored by the Israelis. In our country too, on some issues these rights are undermined. We must not abuse human rights like a political tool.

What I believe is that we cannot take human right issues very seriously for one country, and then ignore them completely for another one. One obvious example of the latter is the human rights issue in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.

If we divide the history of Islamic Republic into different periods, from Mr. Karroubi’s perspective, which period would be closest to the ideals of the Islamic Revolution and which period was the furthest from them?

Naturally every revolution is closest to its ideals at the very early state. I have said this many times. In every revolution, radical moves and abrupt reactions break out due to inexperience and immaturity. I can say this confidently: most of those who act radically now are those who acted in a radical way back then. The first decade was one of ideals. We gradually entered a different atmosphere that concluded in what we see right now. I believe the worst conditions are what we have right now.

And last question: What is your greatest wish today?

I wish for governance of people, denial of outsiders’ interference, and insiders’ despotism. I wish for health and prosperity of this nation, for the greatness of Iran, development of our country. I wish for rise of pride for Islam and enactment of its rules. I don’t believe in imposing our perspectives; I don’t mean interfering with private lives of people. What I mean by wishing enactment of rules is enactment of ethics in the society, enactment of justice, and keeping the dignity and respect of people.

The Latest from Iran (9 June): Paying Attention

2030 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that the head of Mir Hossein Mousavi's campaign in Babolsar has been arrested.

2000 GMT: A Friendly Notice. To all journalists riding the two-dimensional bandwagon on Twitter & Iran, treating cliches like "Twitter Revolution" as if they were the core of meaningful analysis, I'm not going to respond for the moment --- this is a made-up dramatic revelation, which recurs every few months and does not get to the heart of what social media has meant in the post-election crisis. Best to let it serve as tomorrow's chip paper.

But if you keep it up, I may change my mind....

1900 GMT: Mahmoud Snaps Back. President Ahmadinejad, who has had post-election encounters with dust (read his "victory speech") and insects (see video), worked both into his response to the UN sanctions resolution: "These (U.N.) resolutions have no value...They are like a used handkerchief that should be thrown in the dust bin. Sanctions are falling on us from the left and the right. For us they are the same as pesky flies....We have patience and we will endure throughout all of this."

NEW Latest Iran Video: Obama Statement on Sanctions...and Rights (9 June)
NEW Iran Analysis: What’s Most Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions)
NEW Iran Analysis: 4 June “The Day the Regime Will Regret” (Verde)
Iran Election Anniversary Special: The Power of the “Gradual”
Iran Special Report:The Attack on Civil Society (Arseh Sevom)
The Latest from Iran (8 June): Tremors and Falsehoods

1855 GMT: Back to 22 Khordaad. BBC Persian reports on the increased security presence on the streets of Tehran on the eve of 12 June,the anniversary of the election.


1725 GMT: President Obama has just made a statement about Iran in the aftermath of the UN vote on sanctions. We've posted the video.

Here's the quick read: Obama proclaimed that the sanctions were the "most comprehensive" Iran has faced, said that the UN resolution sent an "unmistakeable message", and spent most of the rest of the time justifying the position on sanctions in connection with his policy of "engagement": "We recognize Iran's rights, but with those rights come responsibilities. Time and again the Iranian Government has failed to meet those responsibilities."

Then, in one of the eight minutes of the statement, having declared,"These sanctions are not directed at the Iranian people," Obama switched from nukes to rights. He noted this Saturday's anniversary of the election, "an event that should have been remembered for how the Iranian people participated with remarkable enthusiasm but will instead be remembered for how the Iranian Government brutally suppressed dissent and murdered the innocent, including a young woman [Neda Agha Soltan] left to die in the street".

It was a bit awkward for the President to link back to uranium and sanctions, and he did not help by throwing in the spectre of Tehran's War of Terror --- "Actions do have consequences. And today the Iranian Government will face some of those consequences. Because whether it is threatening the Nuclear Non-Proliferation regime or the rights of its own citizens or the stability of its own neighbors by supporting terrorism, the Iranian Government continues to demonstrate that its unjust actions are a threat to justice everywhere".

However, at least for one moment, "Iran" was seen in more than the one-dimensional image of a nuclear weapon.

1720 GMT: Rafsanjani Watch. Former President Hashemi Rafsanjani's office has released a letter which, in the eyes of Deutsche Welle, criticises the Supreme Leader's silence over President Ahmadinejad and implicitly acknowledges fraud in the 2009 election.

1620 GMT: Sanctions. The UN Security Council has voted 12-2, with 1 abstention, for new sanctions against Iran over its nuclear programme.

The relatively limited measures include restrictions on transactions with Iranian banks, asset freezes on Iranian individuals and companies, and an expanded arms embargo on items such as attack helicopters and missiles.

Turkey and Brazil, who recently signed an agreement with Iran on procedure for talks over uranium enrichment, were the two countries who voted against the resolution. Lebanon abstained.

1605 GMT: Karroubi Watch. Al Arabiya has just published an interview from May with Mehdi Karroubi. Topics covered include the rise of the Green Movement, party politics, accusations of prison abuse and torture, Government mismanagement, and Ahmadinejad's foreign policy. Karroubi also offered this in anticipation of 22 Khordaad (12 June), the anniversary of the election:

We promise and give assurances that no incident will occur. I am certain that if a march is held, paramilitary forces will attempt to turn it violent, but our people are wise, and politically mature enough that even if certain individuals come chanting radical slogans, the people have the ability to control the scenario and confront them. However, if authorisation is not granted for demonstrations, we will then decide what to do; but it is currently not possible to say much.

1545 GMT: On the International Front (Mahmoud Stays Home). On Monday, Iranian state media were trumpeting that their internationally-esteemed President would be showing his strength, in the face of Western pressure, by going to the Shanghai Expo in China.

Today, Agence France Presse says that Ahmadinejad plans to stay away from the Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting to snub Russia and China for supporting the US-backed sanctions resolution in the United Nations.

1120 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Amnesty International has launched a new campaign, "One Year On: Stop Unfair Trials". Cases include journalists Abolfazl Abedini Nasr, Hengameh Shahidi, Emaduddin Baghi, Shiva Nazar Ahari and Ahmad Zeidabadi, student activists Majid Tavakoli and Mohammad Amin Valian, and Zia Nabavi of the Council to Defend the Right to Education.

1015 GMT: The Nuclear Discussions. A piece of news that slipped under the media radar....

The International Atomic Energy Agency has announced that it has received replies from France, Russia, and the US to the Iran-Brazil-Turkey declaration on procedure for uranium enrichment talks.

No details were given beyond the note, "Attached to each of the letters was an identical paper entitled ‘Concerns about the Joint Declaration Conveyed by Iran to the IAEA’."

That, however, indicates co-ordination between the three governments. And the timing of the IAEA's statement, together with the lack of substance, indicates that it is happy to let the news be overtaken by today's sanctions vote in the UN.

0955 GMT: Reflecting on The Year. Journalist Masih Alinejad has offered her recollections and analysis in an extended video interview with Voice of America Persian.

0935 GMT: A Signal for the Week? Hamshahri features the colourful cover identifying the bad guys in "Sedition '88".

0930 GMT: Intimidation of Kurdistan Businesses? Human Rights Activists News Agency reports that, following a general strike on 9 May to protest executions, members of bazaars across Kurdistan have been summoned and threatened by government authorities and the businesses of others have been sealed.

0800 GMT: What is the Green Movement? An interesting interview with Fatemeh Sadeghi, a former professor at Tehran University, who argues that the Green Movement is not the opposition of the "secular" against the "religious".

0750 GMT: The Post-Election Abuses. Abdul Ruholamini has resurfaced to declare that those responsible for the abuse and killing of detainees in Kahrizak Prison must "pay for their deeds".

Ruholamini, the campaign manager for Presidential candidate Mohsen Rezaei, is the father of Mohsen Ruholamini, who died in Kahrizak last summer. The case was instrumental in bringing the abuses to light and pressing the Supreme Leader to close Kahrizak. Ruholamini had gone farther in public statements at the start of 2010, declaring that high-ranking officials must take responsibility for the crimes, but had been silent in recent months.

Ruholamini may have been prompted to his statement by the news that the trial of 12 people over the Kahrizak case has finished behind closed doors.

0745 GMT: The Events of 4 June. Another perspective, complementing that of EA's Mr Verde, on last Friday's developments at the ceremony for Ayatollah Khomeini comes from Hamid Farokhnia in Tehran Bureau.

Tehran Bureau also features a review by Muhammad Sahimi, "The Green Movement at One Year".

0740 GMT: Parliament v. President (and Supreme Leader). It seems that Ayatollah Khamenei's intervention --- calling for Parliament-Ahmadinejad co-operation and threatening the Majlis with new "oversight" --- may not have been an overwhelming success.

Key MP Ahmad Tavakoli, an ally of Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani, has commented in Khabar Online that the Constitution is written for people to cooperate, not to fight. So far, so good for the Supreme Leader.

But then Tavakoli re-asserts, "The Government has no right not to implement the laws from the Majlis."

0715 GMT: On a day when "Iran news", for most non-Iranian media, may be dominated by the passage of the US-led sanctions resolution in the UN Security Council, we set out priorities with two analyses: Scott Lucas declares, "What's Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions), and Mr Verde looks at "4 June: A Day the Regime Will Regret".

One US outlet shares our attention to the internal: Newsweek notes last Friday's events, with the shout-down of Seyed Hassan Khomeini, under the (over-blown) headline, "Iran's Hushed-Up Civil War":

For his part, Supreme Leader Khamenei did little damage control, even though he has worked hard to present a united front for Iran’s leadership, knowing that discord suggests vulnerability. He took the stage after Khomeini and asked the crowd to act in a more appropriate manner. But that was it. No defense of Khomeini and no rebuke to the crowd. With the anniversary of the contested election just days away now, Khamenei has been trying to manage a delicate balancing act between quieting and frightening the opposition—and sending mixed messages in the process.

In another warm-up for 12 June, the anniversary of the election, Zahra Rahnavard gives an interview to the Italian paper La Republicca. Beyond general criticism of the Government and the declaration, "I hope to shed the last drop of my blood in the cause of freedom and democracy," she focuses on key issues:

The demands of the women in Iran are twofold: 1) National demands such as freedom, democracy, the rule of the law, freedom of political prisoners, right to individual freedoms; 2) Elimination of discrimination and strengthening of cultural rights, women's rights and equal rights under the law.

....Democracy is not possible without women and without paying attention to the demands of women.

Iran Analysis: What's Most Important Today? (Hint: Not Sanctions)

We begin today with a special analysis from Mr Verde of last Friday's events, which become more rather than less significant with the passage of time: "4 June: The Day the Regime Will Regret".

Keep that, and the internal developments in Iran, in mind today as the international politicians and press run amok with the story of Iran's nuclear programme and the world's sanctions. After months of spin and manoeuvre, the UN Security Council will convene this morning in New York to adopt a US-led resolution for stricter financial measures. The Americans are now confident they will get passage, with Russia and China giving assent --- Washington is putting out the line that it will be a 12-3 vote with no vetoes.

Iran Analysis: 4 June “The Day the Regime Will Regret” (Verde)

The economic reality is that, to get Moscow and Beijing on board, the sanctions package has been diluted so much that the measures are marginal. (As EA has noted regularly, the behind-the-scenes effort to get foreign companies to disinvest from Iran is far more significant.) Politically, however, this will be the platform for tough-guy --- and tough-woman --- posturing with claims, "We have been vindicated."



The US and its allies will intone that this shows the world now realises the seriousness of Iran's threat. Russia and China will say very little, and what they say will be very guarded: we have supported the sanctions but the primary path to resolution should be diplomatic discussions. Turkey, which will probably vote No, will use that move to bolster its emerging claim as a defender of negotiation rather than punishment and, thus, as a country able to work both with the big boys like Washington and the smaller nations seeking recognition and respect.

And Iran's leaders will use the UN measure to their own advantage. Three days before the anniversary of the 2009 election, they will tell their people that this proves the hostility of foreign powers --- the same foreign powers who tried to undermine Iranian democracy by supporting the opposition movement and "regime change". They will insist that the vote in New York reminds those in Tehran, Shiraz, Tabriz, and Ahwaz that they cannot let up in their defense of "Iran" (i.e., the Supreme Leader, the President, and the Government).

In other words, they will use the nuclear-sanctions fuss as their saving distraction. It will be upheld over the arrests, sentences, and executions that continue and, in recent days, escalate. It will be given priority over the political disputes --- on the economy, on President Ahmadinejad's battle with Parliament over legislation, on the treatment of Ayatollah Khomeini's grandson --- within the ruling establishment. It will be the shiny object held high so Iran's people can look away.

So, as the ink is spilt and trees die today for the rhetoric over the UN sanctions decision, the important spin-off will not be on any claimed effect on Iran's centrifuges and uranium. It will be this: will the political theatre 6121 miles away take over the stage in Tehran? Or will it be set aside --- not by Iran's leaders but by others --- for other, more significant shows?

Iran Analysis: 4 June "The Day the Regime Will Regret" (Verde)

Mr Verde writes for EA:

When the history of this post-election conflict is written, the events of Friday, 4 June 2010, may be as significant as last year’s Qods Day and Ashura. They may be even more important.

The regime is trying to pretend that there is no crisis of confidence/legitimacy and that the post-election protests are over. But last Friday, at what was supposed to be the commemoration of Ayatollah Khomeini's death, President Ahmadinejad was still talking about last year’s elections and the Supreme Leader was still threatening former (and possibly even current) regime officials –-- this time with execution. Seyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of the Ayatollah, was shouted down during his speech.

Events like the 4 June commemorations are planned well in advance, tightly controlled, and well-choreographed. We can therefore dismiss with great confidence any suggestion that the hecklers were ordinary people acting in the moment. They were thugs organized by regime officials.

Whatever the true intentions of the organizers,these events have and will continue to damage Ayatollah Khamenei. The reason?

There are two possibilities: either the thugs were organized on the order of Khamenei, or the heckling was carried out without his permission.

If Khamenei was kept out of the loop, then he is losing his grip on the Islamic Republic. When a group of regime thugs can barrack Hassan Khomeini with impunity right in front of the Supreme Leader and the world media, when Khamenei cannot even control his audience for a few minutes during an important ceremony. how can one expect him to have control over the actions of other regime officials? (Which, looking backward, raises the question: how can the Supreme Leader claim so confidently that there was no fraud during the June 2009 elections?)

If the thugs were carrying out Khamenei’s orders, then the Islamic Republic is gripped by such a dangerous crisis that its highest official is forced to sacrifice the reputation of his regime in an attempt to embarrass and humiliate another regime insider. If this is the case, then Khamenei’s warm embrace of Hassan Khomeini after the latter’s abandoned speech also points to the nasty, duplicitous personality of the Supreme Leader.

In either case, the events of 4 June have provided a rallying point for Khamenei’s detractors within the regime –-- whose numbers, by the way, seem to be growing by the week. It not only Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, but alsoother reformists and even principlists like Ali Motahari have used these events as an excuse to criticise Khamenei personally.

If the intention of the regime's show on 4 June was to weaken the opponents of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad, the scheme appears to have backfired.

One may argue that the Supreme Leader is trying to wipe out any reference to Ayatollah Khomeini and replace Khomeini’s legacy with his own. The problem is that, since last June, Khamenei’s reputation as a religious and political leader has been damaged. He has not been able to make repairs and all high-profile regime manoeuvres, including last Friday, have brought more damage.

Let’s not forget that the June ceremonies were cut back from 3 days to 1 day this year; despite all the preparations the numbers attending were far less than what he regime had claimed and hoped for; 15 Khordaad (5 June), the day which marks the beginning of the uprising in the 1960s that eventually led to the 1979 Revolution, was completely forgotten this year.

Ayatollah Khomeini is the main pillar of the Islamic Republic. The regime owes its existence to him, and all of its officials claim his approval for their ideas and actions. doing. His burial site, where the 4 June ceremonies were taking place, is similar to the shrines of Shia Imams. The failure of regime officials to capitalise on this --– and by their actions disrespecting his memory –-- points to serious problems within the Islamic Republic.

In February, I mentioned that, because of the crisis in the Islamic Republic, the regime will be forced into display that will come back and haunt them. Add the events of 4 June to that growing list.