The history of civil unrest in Iran since the inception of the Islamic Republic in 1979 points at an ever-increasing discontent among the general population in Iran. Whether this is an existential threat to Iran’s regime has a lot to do with what the ruling class may decide to do with the current unrest. There is a substantive difference between this one and all the others. One may argue that this upheaval is a natural culmination of the preceding ones which were left unresolved and followed by more forceful repression.
To more objectively digest the situation in Iran it might be advised to have an open mind about the classification of the protesters. I believe that representing this conflict as class warfare between the haves and have-nots is a fatal mistake on the part of some sectors of the progressive left, since this approach dismisses the accumulated, rightful grievances of a large segment of the Iranian citizenry.
Harsh treatment and labeling of those who risked so much of themselves by pouring into the streets of Tehran after the election results will not serve any political purpose other than to alienate this population, the result of which may generate such an intensely divisive environment that it could easily lend itself to being conquered by worrisome political forces, both inside and outside Iran, lurking opportunistically to join forces with the protesters and misdirect the thrust of their discontent.
I do not believe that, at this juncture, the protesters are aiming at the dismantlement of the regime, nor do they have the necessary public support or much needed political organization. Prolonging this situation by inaction or dismissive reaction, together with repressive measures on the part of the ruling class, could likely lead to the gap in these needs being filled with hegemonic support.
I base my argument on my own direct observations in Iran during this ordeal, having stayed abreast of reports from outside Iran as well. I wish I could claim the thoroughness of these observations based on a godly omnipresence. Since I cannot, I do not intend to generalize, but I do intend to offer perspective.
I landed at the Imam Khomeini Airport in Tehran at around 2:00 am on Friday June 12, 2009, the morning of the Iranian Presidential Election. I spent most of my evenings in the streets of Tehran to have a first hand account of the protests and goings-on. I was on Valiasr Street the Saturday after the elections and witnessed some of the disruptions. I was also present at Mr. Ahmadinejad’s celebrating speech on Valiasr Square.
The crowds at the square and its surrounding streets, including Karim Khan, Valiasr (both North and South), Keshavarz Boulevard, and even the alleyways demonstrated overwhelming support for Mr. Ahmadinejad. There were people from all walks of life with no apparent overrepresentation of one or other socio-economic class.
This is not to suggest, however, that the “silent march” of the opposition after the supreme leader’s Friday Prayer speech was in any way less significant in comparison. I know of people who voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad but who also participated in the march to show their discontent and disagreement to Mr. Khamenei’s threats and dismissive stance. I know of families in which parents voted for Mr. Ahmadinejad but their children voted for the opposition. However, those same parents participated in that decisive march to support their children. This march stretched from Imam Hossein Square in far Eastern Tehran to Azadi Square on the opposite pole.
When the protesters were forced out of the streets in somewhat bloody repression, the show of discontent moved to the rooftops of the houses. At exactly 10:00 pm every night people started chanting “Allah-o Akbar” in the darkness and anonymity of their houses, mirroring the kind of solidarity that ousted the puppet monarchist regime in 1979.
Again, these are personal observations, but in my opinion, important pieces of the puzzle forming a picture of today’s Iran. The political, socio-economic and inter-generational realities are complex (as usual), and not done justice by taking a very strict, uncompromising and one-dimensional approach. An upheaval of this magnitude deserves a much more, although cautious, open-mindedness and inclusiveness.
The progressive left has every right to be vigilant, even suspicious, when Western powers unequivocally support a movement, but this does not have to take paranoid dimensions. This will only serve to alienate an otherwise sympathetic middle class to the plight of the deprived, the marginal, and the voiceless.
One should give support and momentum to the movements of struggling people while staying in tune with the geo-political context and implications. It is on the difficult and worthwhile task of reconciling these two that we should focus our energy because, after all, both tasks are essentially concerned with one thing: what is best for the people in Iran as one of many struggling peoples in the world.
