The assumption that the Iranian theocracy is unchangeable leaves no room for any possible opposition groups to work together. After the revolution of ’79 and the power struggle within the undefined system, the Iranian people and political groups have become more divided for not wanting to be the pawns in yet another revolutionary movement, unless there are some power guarantees. Unfortunately there are no guarantees.

Essentially the issue goes deeper than normally is discussed. There are no unifying ideologies and/or attractive movements that are supported by the Iranian people. The experiences of the last revolution have put a bitter impression that will not vanish for a long time.  Unlike the last revolution, the majority of Iranians are not satisfied with the change for the sake of change alone. They want to make sure that their possible work or struggle won’t be taken to another undesirable direction.

One can claim that the people are not revolutionaries. One of the most important ingredients of any revolution would be the passion for an idea. The passion currently is absent and most people seem gloomily content with the way things are. Of course these are not facts and there are no numbers to prove my claim, these are sheer assumptions based on a showing of facade.

If the assumptions above are correct then what are the best methods to promote a more open and free governance?  What can be the unifying factors for that change in Iran?

The Iranian society is begging for modernity and acceptance. The dilemmas that most Iranians are facing are twofold. In one corner stands the government in front of the society that wants to move along with other developed nations; in the other corner is the other nations that turn their backs to Iranians. The predicaments of many countries towards Iran have been based on the political power struggle to gain an advantage in the regional geo-political riches than the Iranian plight for freedom.

Most Iranians have come to that realization that they are alone in their battle to reach their desired state of democracy and freedom. They do not trust the West and therefore feel closer to their government as their sole protector. This social conclusion is comprehensible.

The ethnocentrism is well and alive in all corners of the globe but no culture is superior to the other except that geography is the determinant of unique social behaviors.  In Iran and her unique culture is based on her geography and history that values the national growth based on their own evolution. Iranians seem proud from a history that was advanced, Iranian, and independent.

In Iran today the society wants to pull the strings and direct the government. Unlike many neighboring states whose system stands for modernity, in Iran that mission has been transferred to the people. A closer look at the changes with the Islamic Republic provides the similar convincing layouts that the government is a few steps behind the masses. Equally the society has been shaping itself faster than the system could follow; yet the system is also forming itself based on some social demands, in a very slow pace.

The Islamic Republic has not brought forth the odium of the general public, as has been portrait in the Western media. Many people still assume the possibility of change within the system to a milder and less socially strict version. There are certainly diverse factions that exist inside the government to support such a claim.

The most important concerns of the Iranians are based on economy rather than politics. As many have mentioned in their analysis about Iran (and I concur), the sanctions have been the protracted reason for the Iranians to reach better social standards.

Currently Iran is a land that stands in the middle line of traditions and modernity. The society values her tradition because they realize the changes of time could vanish what they are accustomed to, just as they value the contributions that modernity brings forth. Many parts of the country are arguably conservative and in line with the ideas of the Islamic Republic yet they are not resistant to change, if that change is not dramatic. The same can be said for the government. We should not set that pace but instead let the Iranians themselves continue on that journey.

One simple method to assure the fair and sound thinking is to analyze any scenario independently.  One of the greatest flaws in examining the Islamic Republic has been the packaging of the system as one singularity. Granted that the constitution designates a greater power to the leader, but to say that there is one individual or group with the greatest power in the country is a mistake. As mentioned earlier, the country and its government have changed and they are variable and not constant. This perhaps has been the greatest misconception amongst the Iranian Diaspora that has lead to their failure to cope with the Iranian system.

The better way for the Iranians Diaspora is to help the Human Rights inside the country, and promote the anti war, anti sanction policies in their inhabitant countries.  This strategy needs to be carefully constructed so that it won’t fall into political traps or empty slogans. If the structure of the strategy is not well defined, similar to the current condition, its effectiveness will never be realized.

The flow of the accurate information about Iran to the outside world will help the Iranian people, their political posture, and of course peace and security around the globe. We need to stand firm against the powerful organizations that benefit from destabilization in the region. United, we can neutralize their plans and win peace.

We need to realize the possibilities and work closely to reach the most efficient utility while remembering at all times that our struggles are twofold.