The Digital Difference
As many commentators have pointed out, this is not the first time the Iranian students have protested the repressive regime.
The Iranian government tolerated student-led uprisings in 1999 and 2003 for only a few days before unleashing fearsome crackdowns, sending Basij vigilantes onto campuses, where they flung a few students from the windows; bloodied as many heads as they could with bricks, chains or truncheons; and jailed scores.
Three things seem different this time.
- From 2005 to 2008, mobile phone subscriptions in Iran grew by more than 375 percent. By 2008, six of every 10 Iranians were mobile subscribers. Most of these phones have Internet access. This creates an alternative media channel that the government cannot control
- In 2003 the middle and professional class would give the students tacit support by honking their horns near demonstrations. Now they are joining the demonstrations. This morning there was a mass resignation of the faculty at Tehran University to protest the beating of the students in their dorms last night.
- In 2003 it was a “leaderless” rebellion and so after ten days it petered out. Now there is a leader and Moussavi’s earliest political hero was Che Guevara. He is a street fighter and I don’t think he’s going to slink away without a major confrontation.
Friday’s traditional worship day will be critical. If more moderate clerics declare their support for a new election momentum could be continued. For the Supreme Leader, the way out is to say the recount brought Ahmadinejad below the 50% threshold that would require a run-off election under the constitution.
Thanks for the evolutionary timeline. Hard to believe the new technology is a force that can shake a totalitarian regime.
Fascinating how social networking sites are opening avenues of ‘e-diplomacy’ to these areas:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/world/middleeast/17media.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=twitter%20diplomacy&st=cse
Unfortunately, bullets still trump tweets and it’s hard to imagine that the power elite of the theocratic-military alliance will give way to the will of the people. “OK. You’ve won, here are the keys.” Don’t think so. Hopefully though, the current mass protests, might force the regime to loosen some of their retraints and then once there’s an opening in the dam, no matter how small, then it could be a matter of time before real change happens.
I agree that this one has sustained longer and feels different the previous tries. I also agree that mobile media has given the students tools they didn’t have before. There is a little cause for optimism.
Jon, do you give Obama any credit for this? How about for Lebanon? Neocons have been critical of his cautious approach since thestart of the protests. What do you think of Obama’s response so far?
Great posts these last few days, thanks.
Our leaders might learn from this. There are some who think we need that sort of thing here.
The key to this situation may be the rivalry – and enmity – between Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani. If Ahmedinejad loses the election, Khamenei will be weakened and could end up being replaced by Rafsanjani or some other reformer. For his part, Rafsanjani is known to be supporting Mousavi. If Mousavi loses, Rafsanjani’s star will probably wain.
Regardless of how much the people want reform and more democracy, it appears they are pawns in a power struggle between two old ’79 revolutionaries.
The decisive element is the allegiance of conservative groups that aren’t committed to participation in state power structures.
If hard line elements get isolated they will be outnumbered and overwhelmed.
The most hopeful outcome is that pragmatic conservatives choose Moussavi (who does not frighten them, being one of their number) and convince the clerics to join them for the good of the country.
It relies on leadership to support commitment, so Moussavi (or someone else) has to choose to commit to seeing it through.
It looks balanced on a edge to me, I’m not sure anyone has committed themselves to leading revolution.
Thanks for this good analysis, Jon and everyone else.
I tremble a bit.
These things are disturbing:
1. Thousands of people are taking great risks, seven are dead and the news stories are focused on how great these web toys are.
2. We have a President who wisely says we should keep a distance yet CNet publishes screen shots of the people who are risking their lives tweeting so they can crow about the web toys.
3. The State Department crows about keeping the web toys up thus giving the bad guys the precise excuse the President didn’t want them to have enabling them to accuse the Americans of interfering and inciting the riots.
One really hopes that in all of this crowing someone has put extra security around an office in San Francisco as well as the beefed up servers. This is a very high stakes event and when civilians take a role despite all the corn they see, the crows just quit being civilians.
Mean streets ain’t just a movie, kiddo. Rats in a corner fight for every last bite without too much regard for the health of the crows or the corn. Caveat vendor.
Kudos, len.
“Moussavi’s earliest political hero was Che Guevara” …
I knew there was a reason I liked him
)
Hasta la Victoria Siempre ! El Che Vive !
I appreciate the recent analysis and feedback on the situation in Iran. I’ve taken a complete hiatus from all news media except this blog because I trust its committment to hashing it out in a thoughtful manner.
Valerie, I don’t think it is possible to replace an ayatolla that is chosen for life but I do see that want you cite as a possibility might be a reason for hardening the situation in favor of Ahmedinejad.
As of the 18th the “toys” appear to be largely neutralized, but instructions for each rally are getting through by word of mouth, and pay phones.
And by any means.
God love these guys. The struggle to be free is seldom bloodless but always magnificent. This is when we are most human.