There is no serious opposition for the Iranian regime. But at the same time it is also practically difficult to organise open and transparent opposition for the regime, or the leadership or even the sort-of-elected government while Iranian semi-democracy does not tolerate opposition. Any person or group openly acknowledging to oppose the regime or the system would risk serious threats to their lives, liberties and reputations (through cooked-up allegations in the media), for themselves and even their families.

However there is some sort of an empowerment of the people in Iran. Iranians can choose between one Islamist and another. There are moderate Islamists and there are hard-line Islamists. Hard-line Islamists control the country, control the armed forces, the media and also the channels through which they can block true and undesirable moderates from gaining any significant political and social positions. These are authoritarian tactics that have allowed a regime which has usually had a small minority backing among the Iranian electorate to stay in power for so long.

Of course in case there were more free and open elections the situation would have been a very different one already.
We can also refer back to the beginnings of the 20th century when Iranians started their immature struggle toward something they thought was democracy. The rest is history. Even during the early post-Constitutionalism years Iranian democracy was a very imperfect one (understandably, like any other start-up affair) but the free Majlis (Iranian parliament) of the time was not much different from the one we have today; mullahs (Shia clerics) were probably even more numerous (proportionally) than they are in Iran's current parliament.

So, the fact of the matter is that Iranians, even when freely allowed to choose their representatives, prefer akhoonds, mullahs, Islamists, or whatever one may call them. Is there anything wrong with that? If you ask me, yes, there are a lot of things wrong with choosing clerics to administer and rule your country, because they will inevitably mix their religious duties with their newly appointed administrative duties, which are best given to professional politicians who are normally more competent in getting practical things done. Clerics are also best outside the immediate political arena so that religion stays clean of dirty politics.

But who can argue with the facts? Iranian people, through democratic means, chose clerics to represent them. This showed their devotion to Shia Islam, and also probably their fear of what they have often perceived as neighbouring threats to their relatively unique (Shia Islam is practised by a small minority of the overall Muslims and they are surrounded by Sunni Muslims and Christians who are far more numerous) Shia identity.

What would Iranians choose today, at this very historical moment, in case they had the chance to freely elect their representatives? I doubt they would choose so many clerics any more as they did during the first years of Iranian democracy in the early 1900's. Even in the current Iranian parliament, as mentioned earlier, there are fewer seats for clerics. But this is not the result of any secularisation that has taken place within the Iranian society but the public conclusion that clerics are lousy admnistrators or politcians. Iranians are still pretty much devout Muslims. Iranians have always been lazy in their religious practises, ignoring timely prays or even very often fasting properly, but they do regard their Shia credentials with utmost respect and they still do uphold their religious beliefs though with the same pragmatism that has long characterised Iranians.

So in case there was a real chance for Iranians to freely elect whoever they wanted, these same Iranians would most probably (I bet on it, so I would say definitely) choose representatives who would openly be devout adherents to Shia Islam, or more commonly viewed as Islamists. However I very much doubt that the vast majority of Iranians would prefer an Islamist hardliner who would rather work toward the creation of the right atmosphere for the appearance of Imam Mahdi rather than a moderate who would work toward the creation of the right atmosphere for more jobs, improvements in the lives of ordinary Iranians, economic growth and prosperity, better education, better health-care, better transportation, better environment and all the other earthly affairs that are the daily concerns of Iranians who struggle to make a decent living for themselves and their families.

Hardliners would lose the public backing in front of moderate Muslims because no matter what, people in general, wherever they live, are happiest when they are best served from an earthly point of view. People would always support a public administrator, or a ruler, who would succeed in providing stability and prosperity but at the same time protecting the values they believe in, which in the case of the average Iranians, is the values of Islam, Shia Islam.

This being the reality, the opposition groups, especially those inside Iran who have the best moral grounds to act, should forget about their monarchist, secularist, left-ist, right-ist, or even Persian-ist, Aryan-ist, National-ist or other types of something-isms and stick to the same old Islamism, but its more moderate version, and build a coherent, united and powerful front to be strengthened in time, giving possibly one or two charismatic leaders who could gain some significant popular support from ordinary Iranians and beat the hard-line extremist ideology. Life in Iran for opposition groups, even for the Islamist ones, is not easy. But it is possible.

There are already signs that individuals who oppose the oppressive policies of the regime, like Shirin Ebadi, but who do not call for the overthrow of the regime or popular revolt, are tolerated. The problem of the opposition is its incoherence rather than the brutality of the hardliners. There are still too many day-dreamers who are calling for extremism to tackle extremism.

There are still too many who are calling for revolution, secularisation or the restoration of monarchy while there is close to no desire among the public for such transformations. Opposition needs to get its act together and take pragmatic measures in order to gain popular support. This will take time though and the best way to hasten this progress is to reach the conclusion that Iranians are indeed Shia Muslims and those opposing the regime who dislike Shia Islam are always free to move to other countries where the populations are less concerned about religion. Iran is not that place yet.