(Dispatch | Tehran Bureau | 11 October 2009) - Outside of the United States, the news that U.S. President Barack Obama was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize resonated perhaps most strongly with Iranians.

The traditional anti-US groups in Iran, who view any event as an enemy conspiracy toward their country, this time too declared the granting of the award a political move, for what they called “covering up American complicity in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Gaza.”

“Obama pledged to close Guantanamo in three months — so why are the doors still open?” said Roshan. “He promised to withdraw troops from Iraq — instead the military bases were just relocated outside of Iraqi cities. He added a surge in the hell that is Afghanistan. Obama also maintained an ugly silence about the women and children massacred in Gaza. Is this the resume of a defender of peace?”

But Obama’s Nobel weighed more critically with the Iranian opposition.

Most Iranians appeared to favor improved relations with the world prior to June’s tainted election. But judging from an exhaustive reading of the Iranian blogosphere in reaction to President Obama’s win, the mood has shifted. After facing off with Iran’s hardline government in mass protests, and witnessing scores of their compatriots killed or arrested, tortured and raped in detention, refusal to recognize the legitimacy of Iran’s current government was the minimum support many Iranians looked to from other countries.

Out of 155 comments posted on Mir Hossein Mousavi’s official Facebook page in response to the subject of Obama’s Nobel, the majority of views were negative, given Obama’s stance on events in Iran and his engagement policy with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

“I’m sorry that a president who only ‘watches’ the atrocities in Iran, and shakes hands with the coup government, should win a Nobel,” writes Nastaran.

“Why Obama?” asks Aftab. “He is best serving the interests of Wall Street. And his State Department just cut off funding for Iranian human rights activists!”

Weak legitimacy on the domestic front is in fact one reason that the Iranian government now seeks to engage with the international community. It seems that Barack Obama, who demonstrated on numerous occasions over the past year his resolve to improve ties with Tehran (and wrote a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader for this purpose), is not one to pass up the opportunity.

The awarding of the Nobel to Obama has raised a specific concern among the Iranian opposition: Will it prevent the US from stepping up pressure on Iran’s government?

Interestingly, Iranian officials did not voice serious reactions to the news, contrary to custom. Only foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki noted that the honor may have come “too early” for Obama. In other words, if Obama continues along the line he is currently treading with the Ahmadinejad administration, Iran’s government is likely to champion him as meriting the prize.

A large part of the opposition believes that this year’s Peace Prize belonged to a figure symbolizing Iran’s Green Movement, such as Neda Aga Soltan (the young woman shot down in protests) or Mehdi Karroubi (a presidential candidate who bravely disclosed sexual abuse in Iranian prisons). This notion did not escape Obama himself, who referred to Neda without mentioning her name in professing to share the award with “the young woman who marches silently in the streets on behalf of her right to be heard even in the face of beatings and bullets.”

These words gladdened many Iranians — yet others took the omission of Neda’s name as a sign that Obama is still pursuing détente with Iran’s current regime.

“Did he really mean Neda? Then why is he shaking hands with Ahmadinejad?” scolded Shahin.

“Your president is really good and we like him,” a blogger going by the name of “Mr. Chocolate” wrote on FriendFeed in response to “Joe,” “but [the] Nobel prize wasn’t his right, it was Mehdi Karrobi’s right!”

Some of the Iranian opposition did support the Norwegian committee’s choice and consider it an overall advantage for the people of Iran. They agree with what Obama said in his speech — that the award was granted not for his actions so far as president, but for the peaceful goals he envisioned and his executive potential as the President of the United States. Some thus view Obama’s laureateship as an “ethical tightrope,” pressuring him to deliver on his promises of global peace and to prevent war between two countries.

“This great man deserved this great prize. We should not judge exclusively in the context of US-Iran relations!” wrote Banafshe.

Iranians fear that a military strike would further entrench a security climate in Iran and furnish an excuse for the government to purge its political opponents as ruthlessly as it did in the 1980s.

Whether they approve or disapprove of the news, a point that regularly emerges in conversations with many Iranians is their belief that Iran — perhaps as a perceived threat to global peace — played a role in securing Obama’s Nobel prize.

(Online NewsHour | Part 1 | 28 September 2009) – Iran continued with missile tests for a second straight day Monday, firing mid-range missiles capable of hitting Israel, parts of Europe, and U.S. military bases in the Middle East. Lindsey Hilsum of ITN reports.

(Russia TV – 25 September 2009) - Iran has officially declared it’s running another uranium enrichment plant.  The announcement comes shortly before Barack Obama presented evidence of this previously secret facility to the G20.

(Mike Hanna | Al Jazeera English | 23 September 2009) - Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, launched a scathing attack on Western powers, accusing them of spreading “war, bloodshed, aggression, terror and intimidation” in the Middle East and Afghanistan.  He called for the “awakening of nations” worldwide to counter the “hypocrisy and vicious attitudes.”  Iran’s leader did not directly address the issue of its nuclear programme but called for the “eradication of arms race and elimination of all nuclear, chemical and biological weapons to pave the way for all nations to have access to advanced and peaceful technologies.”

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna reports from New York on the speech that prompted a walkout by several delegations, including the US one.

(Mike Hanna | Al Jazeera English | 23 September 2009) — US president, Barack Obama, outlined his vision of a new world order in which the US would participate fully – during his first address to the UN General Assembly meeting in New York. His vision was rooted on four basic principles: Non proliferation and disarmament, the promotion of peace and security, the preservation of the planet, and a global economy that advances opportunity for all people. Among the speakers that followed was the leader of Libya – Muammar Gaddafi, and the UN secretary-general, Ban Ki-Moon.

Al Jazeera’s Mike Hanna reports from New York on the days events.

Talks between the United States, Iran, and world powers are scheduled for October 1, but analysts are deeply divided over whether gathering around the negotiating table will prove fruitful.

(Greg Bruno | Council on Foreign Relations | 15 September 2009) - President Barack Obama has confirmed a willingness to press ahead with negotiations to try to end the standoff over Tehran’s nuclear program. Talks between the United States, Iran, and world powers are scheduled for October 1, possibly in Turkey (Reuters). And while the Islamic Republic may not be interested (PDF) in dwelling on its nuclear activities, U.S. and other Western negotiators clearly are. “It will be part of that discussion,” White House spokesman Robert Gibbs promised this week. But analysts are deeply divided over whether gathering around the negotiating table will prove fruitful. Iran’s disputed presidential election changed the calculus, these observers say.

For some, engagement remains the best approach. Mohamed ElBaradei, outgoing chief of the UN nuclear watchdog, welcomed the U.S. decision and said only “through dialogue” (AFP) can the crisis be resolved. Chester A. Crocker, a professor of strategic studies at Georgetown, argues that engagement with rogue states has worked before, most recently with Libya (NYT) and the Bush administration. Robert Dreyfuss, a columnist at The Nation, meanwhile, argues the best strategy now is to “table an offer to Iran to allow Tehran to maintain its uranium enrichment program, on its own soil, combined with a system of stronger international inspections. That’s the end game.“

But others worry about acquiescing to a regime seen as illegitimate and fractured since June, when President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a controversial second term. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, has argued for a “tactical pause with Iran” (FB). Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, told the Washington Times that the Obama administration must reconcile how to deal with a discredited regime “while at the same time not betraying a popularly driven movement whose success could have enormously positive implications for the United States.” John Hannah, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, argues that Obama should focus on aiding the Iranian opposition (Weekly Standard) --the so-called “green wave”–and not propping up “Iran’s ruling theocrats and thugs” with promises of dialogue.

To be sure, prospects of a successful sit-down appear slim. Iran has repeatedly failed to come clean (PDF) on its nuclear activities in the past. Efforts to push a new round of sanctions through the UN Security Council are likely to increase if Iran fails to agree to a halt in uranium enrichment, which Washington fears is a precursor to a nuclear weapon. Congress, meanwhile, is pushing a measure that would authorize the White House to penalize foreign companies for selling refined petroleum to Iran.

Yet while some analysts support talks and tougher sanctions, others, like former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John R. Bolton, say only the threat of force (WSJ) can prevent an Iranian nuclear bomb. And in that regard, writes CFR’s Micah Zenko, Israel may be prepared to act (LAT) if the United States isn’t.

Additional analysis

Columnist Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal warns that Obama’s strategy is pushing Israel toward war with Iran.

CFR Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh warns that no Iranian interlocutor would be “sincere and serious about solving the issues” on the table in talks due to the tense domestic political situation.

Kayhan Barzegar, a senior research fellow at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, writes in the World Policy Journal that despite divisions among Iran’s political elite, the nuclear program is a source of continuing consensus.

(Dafna Linzer | ProPublica | 10 September 2009) - The Iranian government has told the Obama administration and its Western allies that it is ready to hold “comprehensive, all-encompassing and constructive” negotiations on a range of security issues, including global nuclear disarmament. But the new proposal is silent on Iran’s own nuclear program. U.S. officials have said Iran is stockpiling uranium at an alarming rate and needs to account for unanswered questions about the program. The five-page Iranian proposal, hand-delivered to foreign diplomats in Tehran on Wednesday, has not been made public, but a copy was obtained by ProPublica and is available here.

In the document, titled “Cooperation for Peace, Justice and Progress,” Iran reiterated many of its previous ideas for talks while scaling back specific requests made in previous proposals (PDF). Among other things, Tehran called for an end to hostilities and for talks on issues of specific concern to Iran, such as drug trafficking and security in the Middle East. Unlike previous Iranian proposals, this one does not contain a litany of past grievances with the United States and does not assert an Iranian commitment to advancing its nuclear efforts.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said that “the offer is still being evaluated” by the United States and its allies. “I will say Iran’s proposals have, time and again, failed to live up to its international obligations.” Iran’s offer is in response to coordinated efforts by the United States, France, Germany, Britain, Russia and China to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon.

Iran’s proposal comes as President Obama is facing pressure from Congress to take a harder line with Tehran, and it will likely test his high-profile efforts to engage a country his predecessor once described as a member of an “axis of evil.”

A willingness on the part of Tehran to talk with the United States, 30 years after diplomatic relations came to a halt, could be a boon to Obama’s commitment to diplomacy and his efforts to improve conditions in the Middle East. But the Obama administration worries — as the Bush administration did — that Iran could orchestrate go-slow negotiations to fend off international sanctions long enough to produce the necessary components for a nuclear weapon.

If Obama rejects Iran’s proposals, he is left with few attractive options. He can try to improve the terms of the Iranian proposal, or seek other ways to pressure the Iranians to halt their nuclear program. One option is a new round of tough international sanctions imposed through the U.N. Security Council. Former President Bush pushed for economic sanctions and left open the threat of military action — neither of which convinced the Iranians to halt its program, come to the negotiating table or to level with international inspectors about the genesis and intent of its nuclear efforts.

One European diplomat said that no strategy seems to be having an effect on Iran at the moment. Still, the diplomat said it would be a mistake to proceed with talks based on the current Iranian offer.

“We have to hold firm to our ideals. Now, above all, is not the time to give the Iranians a chance to discuss every issue under the sun. We have to keep focused on the goal, which is to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon,” the diplomat said. The diplomat said European countries were seeking clarifications on the offer but didn’t say whether they were considering a counterproposal.

One U.S. government official who agreed to discuss the Iranian offer on the condition of anonymity lamented that its lack of detail meant “one could read either very much or very little into” the terms.

The official described it as “a very Persian opening gambit to offer such a big picture,” just as a new round of sanctions was being considered. The official also noted that the Iranians had refrained from taking a critical or angry tone in the proposal but said that the Obama administration doesn’t want to waste time pushing for talks that won’t yield results.

The official said the administration would now need to decide whether “there is enough here to justify meeting the Iranians face to face.”

Until now, the United States has refused to do so, saying it will not discuss the issue until Iran suspends its nuclear work. Iran has rejected that condition and continued to push ahead, enriching uranium that could be used either for a bomb or to fuel a nuclear energy reactor.

Iran has long maintained that its large-scale efforts to enrich uranium, begun two decades ago in secret and with illicit help from Pakistan, were intended to provide the oil-rich nation with an alternate energy source.

A seven-year investigation by U.N. nuclear inspectors has unearthed reams of evidence that point to Iranian efforts to conceal the nature of the program. Iran has refused to answer some of the inspection agency’s most pressing questions and has denied inspectors access to key individuals who could shed light on the program’s roots.

U.S. intelligence estimates cite evidence that Iran was working on a covert nuclear weapons program until 2003 and note that any peaceful nuclear program of the size and scale Iran is constructing could be diverted for weapons use if the country makes that decision.

In past talks with the Europeans, Iran sought to negotiate the terms of its enrichment capabilities, but once it faced international sanctions, it abandoned that approach and declared that it would move ahead with a full-scale nuclear energy program.

Iran’s latest offer does not depart from that strategy. It is also similar to past proposals in that it begins with a flowery recitation of Iran’s view of the world and its place in it. One half of the proposal is a preamble that borrows, in part, from themes included in Obama’s April speeches on nuclear disarmament and Middle East peace. It also emphasizes Iranian national sovereignty and takes a veiled swipe at critics of Iran’s contested June presidential election.

The second half of the proposal outlines three broad areas for discussion, including political and security issues, international issues and economic issues.

While there is no mention of Israel, the political security section wades into the prospects for resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The proposal welcomes efforts “to draw a comprehensive, democratic and equitable plan to help the people of Palestine to achieve all-embracing peace.” Iran’s long-stated policy has been to reject Israel’s right to exist.

The Iranian offer also seeks talks on issues that have become increasingly problematic for Iran’s national security, such as drug trafficking, illegal migration and organized crime. Iran has long struggled to stem the flow of drugs and people entering its borders from Afghanistan and now from Iraq.

The Iranian proposal includes seven items for discussion under the theme of international issues, including “putting into action real and fundamental programs toward complete disarmament and preventing development and proliferation of nuclear, chemical” and biological weapons.

Iran, and many other developing nations, sees a double standard when Western countries, chiefly the United States, demand a halt to nuclear programs while maintaining large weapons stockpiles. Obama sought to address those concerns in his April speech when he pledged to work toward universal disarmament and a nuclear-free world.

Leila Zand, Peace with Iran co-founder and FOR Iran Program Director, argues that the demands of the protesters in the streets are part of a larger, 103-year struggle by Iranians for both internal freedoms and autonomy from foreign interference.

(Leila Zand | FOR Peace | 13 August 2009) – When the opponents of Mr. Ahmadinejad announced the possibility of fraud, supporters of the three presidential candidates poured into the streets and demonstrated against the “fraud.”

The basic question was “where is my vote.”  Many believe the demonstrations were the largest since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.  Tehran City Hall estimated the number of demonstrators at around 3 million.  One particular and important element in the demonstrations was the nonviolent way Iranian youth showed their opposition to the result of the election. It was amazing to see how intelligent these young people are.  3 million people in the “silent rallies” in the streets of Tehran invited one another to keep quiet.  Slogans like “my silence is stronger than your gun” were not skeptical. They showed growth and maturity in these young people.

The response from the government was unfortunate–especially after the first Friday prayers, during which Ayatollah Khamenei refuted the claims of the opposition, claiming  “ there was not any fraud,” that “ the idea of fraud is coming from foreigners,” “any demonstration is illegal and if anything happened to demonstrators in the streets the responsibility is on themselves,”  and that he “support[ed] Mr. Ahmadinejad.”

Many believed that this was a green light to authorities to crack down on the demonstrators.  The opposition had hoped not to see that kind of reaction from their Supreme Leader.  The Supreme Leader, who is characterized as the “kind father” of the nation and the “ultimate voice” in disagreements among different groups, shouldn’t take sides. His support of Mr. Ahmadinejad that Friday disappointed many. This time Ayatollah Khameini’s voice couldn’t be “the last and ultimate.”  Demonstrations continued and expanded to other cities.  I have seen videos from Isfahan, Shiraz, Kermanshah, Mashhad, Tabriz, Rasht and, of course, Tehran.

The question is still there:  What do these people want?

Do they want their vote back?  Are they still chanting “where is my vote?”

That was one of the basic and first questions. But there were more questions, after the government’s reaction to the demonstrations became violent, and the killing of some like Neda Agha-Sultan became universally known.  Unfortunately some,  like Sohrab Arabi and Mohsen Ruh-al-Amini, have been killed under severe torture.  This bloody response from the government changed the question from “Where is my vote?” to “Where is my friend?” and later to “Death to the Dictator!”

“Where is my friend?” is not the only reason they are still in the streets.   Perhaps a glance at the contemporary history of Iran can give us some idea what these people want.

In 1905, during the reign of Mozafaredin Shah, demonstrations took place in Teheran and soon expanded to other cities.  Demonstrators wanted a parliament for the first time in Iranian history (and interestingly for the first time in all of Asia). The Shah eventually gave in and signed the “Right of Constitution” on August 1906.

Mozafaredin Shah died shortly after the first parliament started its work and was automatically replaced by his son Mohammad Ali Shah.  The new Shah was opposed to the Parliament and Constitution.  In 1907, with the political and military support of Russia and Britain, he ordered the bombardment of the Parliament.  But the people’s desire for freedom and a constitution and their continued opposition made him flee the country and leave the throne to his son Ahmad Shah.

Ahmad took the throne at age 14 and became Shah with a working parliament.  During the Russian Revolution of 1917, the newborn Soviet desire for Iran made Britain nervous.  Having a weak Shah in an Iran where oil had recently been discovered was a nightmare for Britain.  They picked a strong colonel to take the throne instead of a weak Shah.  In 1925, Reza Khan took the throne through the direct intervention of the British.

During Reza Shah’s reign, Parliament didn’t have much power.  Elections were not fair and free and dictatorship was running the country.  During World War II, although Iran didn’t publicly take sides, the Allies used Iranian land facilities.  However, Reza Shah secretly wished victory in the Germans camps.  So the Allies decided to take the throne from him, as simply as they had handed it to him.   In 1941, the Allies, with the leadership of Britain, gave the throne to Mohammad Reza Shah, the late Shah’s son.

Mohammad Reza Shah held the same policies as his father regarding elections and Parliament – especially a null and ineffective parliament, which was just there, like window-dressing.

In 1953 intellectuals and political leaders of Iran had had enough of dictatorship and started a democratic movement.  They wanted an effective parliament and a new system with less power in the Shah’s hand.  The movement started in the political capital Tehran and immediately spread to all other towns.  Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, a promoter of the national oil movement, took leadership.  The movement had the common dreams of every Iranian since 1906 of free and fair elections and a society free of dictatorship.  The Shah fled the country and the movement was victorious.  But the triumph was short-lived.   Again with foreign intervention, the dictator came back to the country and people took their silence home and just continued to dream.  The dictator this time had the support of a new colonial power, the United States.

Iranian people dreamed for many years and much blood was spilled for their dream of democracy.  It took them years to be successful and get the opportunity of having authority over their own country, without a domestic dictator or foreign colonialism. The 1979 revolution was a triumph of the people’s movement and their desire for democracy since 1906.

The revolution of 1979 succeeded through the efforts of all Iranians of different groups and various ideologies: Islamists, Marxists, Islamist-Marxist, and atheist alike.  They used the same three-part slogan, “Isteghlal, Azadi, Jomhurie Islami,” or ” Independent – Freedom- Islamic Republic.”   (There is a whole argument in the last part of the slogan which needs to be discussed in a different article.)  Any political group, large or small, who shared the dream of having a country free of despotism and colonialism was part of this movement. They all shared a dream which had had its beginning in 1906, and which had been destroyed – literally – by the Russians and the British. A dream that bloomed in 1953 and was destroyed again, this time by the US and Britain.  A dream, which finally came true as a beautiful flower and could give the freedom that Iranians had sought for decades.

The success of the Revolution was immediately followed by Saddam Husain’s invasion of Khoramshahr, a city in the south of Iran.  Saddam enjoyed covert international support from the United States and Europe.  The destructive war continued for 8 years.  Iranian solders were busy taking care of borders and defending the country, families in the cities were learning how to use shelters and how to defend themselves in case of a chemical bomb attack.   Bombs that were sold to Saddam by the US.  At the same time, in Tehran, politicians were choking the different voices, shouting off any opposition, anyone who was questioning the new government.   Shortly after the revolution the dream was gone again.

This time people had learned their lesson -  they didn’t want to change everything from bottom to the top and vice-versa.  They wanted to fix what they had, they didn’t want to destroy it.  They wanted an evolution – change from within.  They knew they didn’t have much time: They didn’t want to lag behind in the world. The Iranians didn’t want a Western democracy.  They didn’t want foreigners making decisions for them.  They wanted to take their future in their own hands.  So, based on the Iranian constitution (with all its far and less) they started a reform from within.

In 1997 the reformist movement with the leadership of someone from within the system, someone who knew the history and the pain of Iranians, officially began its existence.

In an amazing election in 1997 Mr. Khatami took the Office of Presidency in Iran.  In 2001 he won a second term as well.  Although he had the support of 80% of Iranians, mostly youth and women, whose rights had been abused in the past, he couldn’t do as much as he promised.  The conservative wing of the government who controlled the vital branches of the Iranian government and enjoyed non-election (and sometimes long life) appointments were against many of Mr. Khatami’s policies and made many difficulties for him during his presidency.

Many observers say that Iranian society became open during Khatami and never went back to old ways, pointing to the relaxed rules about women’s Islamic cover as an example.  But the Iranian desire for freedom and democracy is not bound in a woman’s hijab.  Since the Revolution of 1979, Iranians have asked for a free media, free political parties, free parliament and free elections.  They have asked for an open and modern economy, for foreign and private investment. They have asked for equality between men and women, freedom of religion, freedom of pen, speech and work based on the Human Rights constitution of the United Nations which Iran is a signatory.  At the same time, they have asked for the independence and sovereignty of Iran.

During the 8 years of Mr. Khatami, Iran was not successful in reaching its goal.  But during the presidency of Mr. Ahmadinejad, although he stayed firmly in front of pressure from US, EU and Israel, but  many of Iranian people’s desires and dreams -domestically- have been totally lost.

In June 2009 Iranians participated in an election to rekindle the dreams of the revolution of 1979: to have independence, freedom and republic.  And they voted to fix the problems from within and in a non-violent way.

They began their silent demonstrations with “where is my vote”, a single slogan with 103 years of history behind it.  Now they are in the streets, they know what they want as much as what they dont want.  They are aware of their history, they are mature and intelligent.  Now they don’t want just their “vote” but rather all the rights they lost or that were taken away from them either by despotism or colonialism.  Now they are asking only for what they deserve and what they have been asking for 103 years.

National Public Radio – August 3, 2009

By Mike Schuster

Despite the harsh police crackdown in Tehran, Iran’s opposition movement continues to bring thousands of protesters into the streets to challenge the government.

Just last week, several thousand came out to commemorate those who have been killed since the protests erupted after Iran’s disputed presidential election in June.

On Monday, Iran’s Supreme leader formally endorsed President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second term.

More protests are expected this week when Ahmadinejad is inaugurated on Wednesday.

In a matter of weeks, the opposition movement has transformed itself from a campaign for a presidential candidate to a broader movement challenging the leaders and the foundation of the Islamic republic.

Protest Has ‘Life Of Its Own’

After a lull, the protest movement appears to be gaining strength again, says Hamid Dabashi, professor of Iranian studies at Columbia University.

“It is precisely because the ruling elite of the Islamic republic is conscious of the snowballing effect of these demonstrations that they are cracking down on them so severely and violently. And I’m absolutely convinced that it will continue. This is no longer just in reaction to the presidential election. This has assumed a life of its own,” Dabashi says.

What the opposition movement wants is not entirely clear. The chant, “Down with the dictator,” dominates the demonstrations. But there is a certain ambiguity to that, which seems to suit protesters of different political stripes.

The sentiment could be directed against Ahmadinejad, but also at Iran’s supreme leader himself, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, which would be a more profound challenge to the foundation of the Islamic republic, says Farideh Farhi, an Iranian specialist at the University of Hawaii.

“I think it has ultimately been directed at the supreme leader precisely because he has chosen to take responsibility not only for the fraud that occurred during the election, but also by threatening violence after the election and actually implementing violence after the election,” she says.

No Clear Leader

It is also not clear who is leading the opposition movement, if anyone. Ostensibly, defeated presidential candidate Mir Houssein Mousavi is its leader, but his actions have been severely restricted. He rarely appears in public and is confined to posting his views on Web sites.

Some of Iran’s prominent political figures, such as former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and former President Mohammad Khatami, have attempted to set specific goals for the movement, but with little real impact, says Mehrzad Boroujerdi, a professor of Middle East studies at Syracuse University.

“Politicians of the ilk of Rafsanjani and Khatami are trying to see if there is any middle-of-the-road type of a solution, either by calling for a referendum or by asking for the release of political prisoners. I don’t think that this is going to satisfy the citizenry any more, and it seems to me that that ship has already left the port,” he says.

It has been a season of political surprises in Iran, beginning in May, just a few weeks before Iran’s June 12 presidential election. Overnight it seemed, hundreds of thousands of people were turning out to support Mousavi, the reformist candidate. He chose green as the symbol of his campaign, and people all over Iran began wearing the color.

Violence Galvanizes Instead Of Deters

On June 13, officials announced that Ahmadinejad was re-elected president — by a seemingly improbable two-to-one margin, no less. And the green movement began its rapid transformation into an opposition, surprising everyone, Farhi says.

“Most people did not expect this kind of popular outrage. Furthermore, they did not expect this popular outrage to persist,” Farhi says.

The violent methods used to try to crush the movement further fueled the outrage. In one cell-phone video, posted on YouTube in late July, a helmeted policeman shoots at demonstrators with a rifle. A man in plainclothes also shoots at the demonstrators with a pistol. One protester falls and a half dozen come to his aid. The people making the video shout at the demonstrators, giving them directions on where to go to get away from the police.

Despite the violence, thousands are still turning out to challenge the government. They don’t number in the millions as they did back in June. But there are still many women, older people and some poorly dressed protesters to supplement the young men — largely from the educated middle class — who are taking the worst beatings.

The demands of the opposition remain vague, but that could change. Repression often breeds radicalization, which could lead to new surprises in the astounding political drama that still has Iran in its grip.

On Saturday July 25, people around the world have the opportunity to support the people of Iran in their struggle for democracy, freedom and basic human rights by attending rallies in dozens of cities around the world.

For more information on the over 100 cities joining the worldwide day of action, please visit, www.united4iran.org. See the United4Iran YouTube video.