Revolution in Iran?

[Charles RB]

Of course, having the nasty turn of mind I do, it occurs to me that the most effective thing an agent provocateur could do is to shoot live rounds into the crowd.

And we do know that we've placed armed agent provocateurs inside the Iranian border.

It's unlikely they'd be members of the police and militias though, or that the state would be defending the shootings (as happened with the first lot) after allowing shootings to happen and sending in the Basiji.

[king mob]

Iran have 'banned' their football players who wore green armbands in protest of the election result.

Their gesture attracted worldwide comment and drew the attention of football fans to Iran's political turmoil. Now the country's authorities have taken revenge by imposing life bans on players who sported green wristbands in a recent World Cup match in protest against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's disputed re-election.

According to the pro-government newspaper Iran, four players – Ali Karimi, 31, Mehdi Mahdavikia, 32, Hosein Ka'abi, 24 and Vahid Hashemian, 32 – have been "retired" from the sport after their gesture in last Wednesday's match against South Korea in Seoul.

They were among six players who took to the field wearing wristbands in the colour of the defeated opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, which has been adopted by demonstrators who believe the 12 June election was stolen.

Most of the players obeyed instructions to remove the armwear at half-time, but Mahdavikia wore his green captain's armband for the entire match. The four are also said to have been banned from giving media interviews.

The fate of the other two players who wore the wristbands is unknown. None of the team members were given back their passports upon returning to Tehran after the match, which ended in a 1-1 draw – a result that ended Iran's hopes of qualifying for next year's tournament.

Karimi is one of Iranian football's best-known stars, having played for the German club Bayern Munich. Ka'abi played for Leicester City for several months during the 2007/8 season. Hashemian and Mahdavikia play for the German teams Bochum and Eintracht Frankfurt.

The gesture acutely embarrassed Iranian officials. The team's chief administrative officer, Mansour Pourhiedari, initially claimed the wristbands had been intended as a religious tribute to a revered Shia figure in the hope that it would deliver a victory on the pitch.

Iran's hardline media have since linked the protest to the arrest on Saturday of Mohsen Safayi Farahani, who headed the country's football governing body under the former reformist president, Mohammad Khatami. He is one of several dozen opposition politicians, intellectuals and journalists to have been detained.

Hezbollah, a pro-Ahmadinejad website, accused Farahani, a member of the pro-reform Islamic participation front, of bribing the players to wear the symbols. Farahani was one of several prominent figures accused by Ahmadinejad of corruption during the recent election campaign.

Ahmadinejad, a known football fan, has taken a close interest in the sport's affairs. In 2006 Iran was banned from international competition by the world governing body Fifa after claims of improper interference by his government. The ban was later lifted.

This year the national team coach Ali Daei was sacked, reportedly on Ahmadinejad's orders, after a 2-1 home defeat by Saudi Arabia.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/23/iran-football-protest-ban

[Royal]

You know....The US could use a nice Football team.....

[Charles RB]

Khamenei declares again that Iran won't yield. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8116515.stm)

Iran has also said it is "reviewing" whether to downgrade relations with UK, as diplomatic tensions increase.

Iranian riot police and militiamen appear to have put a halt to protests in the capital, in which official say 17 people have killed.

There are reports that a further rally is planned for later on Wednesday, and there have been calls for a day or more of mourning from Thursday.

The ayatollah, whose earlier command to stop protesting went unheeded, said: "I had insisted and will insist on implementing the law on the election issue.

He added: "Neither the establishment nor the nation will yield to pressure at any cost."


This is a really bad time to play Who'll Blink First.

Iran have 'banned' their football players who wore green armbands in protest of the election result.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/23/iran-football-protest-ban

So now they're fucking up next year's footy chances too.

[Royal]

I know nothing about Twitter, so I don't know how legit this is (Can they really track people down via timezones on Twitter?), but I saw this message via a friend on facebook:


"If anyone is on twitter, set your location to "Tehran" and your time zone to GMT +3.30. Security forces are hunting for bloggers using location/timezone searches. The more people at this location, the more of a logjam it creates for forces trying to shut Iranians' access to the internet down. Cut & paste & please pass it on."

This true. I haven't done this yet, but it's proper camo for important information being passed around. Plus it's better then a DoS attack.

[king mob]

So now they're fucking up next year's footy chances too.

One of the many huge worries about next year's World Cup is what would happen if Iran & the US join North Korea in qualifying & they end up drawn together.Security is going to be bad enough without every crazy in the world being attracted to that.

[the4thpip]

Iran have 'banned' their football players who wore green armbands in protest of the election result.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/23/iran-football-protest-ban

Football is insanely popular there. This might be another tactical fuck-up.

[king mob]

Football is insanely popular there. This might be another tactical fuck-up.

It's potentially a massive fuck up. Football is by far the most popular sport in Iran with Iranians being huge fans of British football in particular. Their national side are heroes, especially those who wore those green armbands as it provided a focal point for those who wanted to see someone in sort sort of authority protest against the result.

[KevinTBrown]

You know, at the rate Iran keeps arresting people and the way people seem to be "disappearing", will there be anyone left to turn off the lights?

[Stressfactor]

A BBC reporter was saying on NPR this morning that the opposition may be "running out of gas". The security forces have succeeded in putting the fear of god into the protestors and, more importantly, the opposition is scattered and communication is difficult even with stuff like Twitter and Facebook and Mousavi doesn't have a political party with a party machine to help him organize people and get everyone on the same page.

[Charles RB]

The big problem is that could lead to lots of little fragmented groups instead of one big one - which could arguably be more dangerous. Small groups are easier to radicalise and start using violence.

[Nick Soapdish]

Hmm.

Last night on NPR, somebody was saying essentially the opposite which really highlights how difficult it is to get a clear picture of what's going on there.

Apparently, the next major action is going to happen after the Guardian Council either endorses or throws out the election results. If it continues, it'll need to move beyond just protests and into strikes.

[Matt Algren]

From salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2009/06/24/iran_photos/)

The pictures you are about to see are not from someone who supports anarchy, he is not even a part of the "DUST" that Ahmadinejad called his opponents. He is just a 17-year-old boy who was supposed to take the university entrance exam within a month before his fingers were broken and the finger webs were cut with a blade. He was arrested violently in the parking lot of a living complex without even taking part in any of the recent activities, and after more than 24 hours he returned home while his face was fully covered with blood and one could only see his eyes. These pictures are taken hours after his return home, his bruised face and broken nose cannot be shown due to his and his parents fear from the security guards. This is a summary of his story:

I was going to link some of the pictures, but I thought better of it. Click through (http://www.salon.com/news/primary_sources/2009/06/24/iran_photos/) for the rest of the story.

[Charles RB]

Apparently, the next major action is going to happen after the Guardian Council either endorses or throws out the election results.

It's already endorsed them. It said the discrepencies weren't big enough to have changed the result.

[Nick Soapdish]

It's already endorsed them. It said the discrepencies weren't big enough to have changed the result.

I didn't know that was official.

I guess something's going to be happening tomorrow then.

[KevinTBrown]

You will have to do your own research on that one.


No, you can't fall back on that here. If someone is asking you to back up an assertion YOU made, than it falls upon *you* to back up what you said, and not the person asking you what you mean.

Just to note this: Sam has been on YABS today, but has yet to chime here in here...

[DavidAllred]

Well, I just watched the full Neda video on a news site. I wish I hadn't. I'm disgusted and angry at the loss of such a beautiful, bright young person. The habitual reference of the Iranian President to these protestors as "dust" or "specks" only furthers my rage.

Praying for that woman's family, and all the others who are being denied life and liberty by a regime that clearly needs to go.

[Adam C]

Well as Roger Cohen (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/24/opinion/24iht-edcohen.html?ref=opinion) notes in his Op-Ed for the New York Times, the original 1979 revolution took a full year to gestate and he contends this is only the first phase:

I said the Islamic Republic has been weakened. Why? I see five principal factors. The first is that the supreme leader’s post — the apex of the structure conceived by the revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini — has been undermined. The keystone of the arch is now loose.

Khamenei, far from an arbiter with a Prophet-like authority, has looked more like a ruthless infighter. His word has been defied. At night, from rooftops, I’ve even heard people call for his death. The unthinkable has occurred.

The second is that the hypocritical but effective contract that bound society has been broken. The regime never had active support from more than 20 percent of the population. But acquiescence was secured by using only highly targeted repression (leaving the majority free to go about its business), and by giving people a vote for the president every four years.

And he goes on to identify other factors, but this is the big thing, the regime's idiotic, ham-handed electoral fraud and subsequent repression has basically killed any legitimacy it may have had or acquiesce it could have counted on and opened the flood gates.

I'd also like to note according to more recent news reports another protest has manifested and even some clerics are speaking out against the regime. In some ways this reminds me not of Iran in 1979 but Bolivia between 1978 and 1982. After a massacre of indigenous farmers leading a protest the military regime of Hugo Banzer effectively lost its base of support and was forced to call elections. Unfortunately the reactionary elements of the military didn't want to let go and repeatedly interfered with coups, culminating in the violent coup of 1980 that installed the corrupt and brutal government of General Luis Garcia Meza. Throughout that time Bolivian civil society kept up sustained disobedience and protests which ended up bringing him down and forcing the military to allow the 1980 congress to convoke and take over. So despite the regime's brutality it's not a given they'll stay in power. There is precedent, and more likely than not Khaminei and Ahamindejad and other hardliners have authored their eventual downfall.

[Corrina]

Time Magazine from last week, with the Iran situation on the cover, has a couple of very good articles about what's going on and background on the election and the candidates.

[Charles RB]

There is precedent, and more likely than not Khaminei and Ahamindejad and other hardliners have authored their eventual downfall.

Even if they stop the demonstrators, I wouldn't be surprised if enough Iranians haven't been radicalised enough to turn Tehran into 60s-thru-80s Belfast. If they're lucky.

The fact that Mousavi could have lost anyway and, if he'd won, would not have changed Iran that drastically makes this even more bewildering. There was literally no need for any of this to have happened.

[Adam C]

Even if they stop the demonstrators, I wouldn't be surprised if enough Iranians haven't been radicalised enough to turn Tehran into 60s-thru-80s Belfast. If they're lucky.

The fact that Mousavi could have lost anyway and, if he'd won, would not have changed Iran that drastically makes this even more bewildering. There was literally no need for any of this to have happened.

Based on my reading of authoritarian states throughout history their own downfall is often caused by a combination of arrogance, paranoia, and the sheer stupidity resulting from either, though I'd say that Khaminei's stupidity in this case is particularly egregious.

[OzBat!]

I'm just amazed at the stupidity of the army and militias, going after random people nowhere near the protests. It's thoughtless acts of violence like this that are turning people's hearts and minds faster than anything else. People in the protests have got to half expect some kind of crackdown. But somebody two blocks away with nothing to do with it? Who expects to get shot or beaten for nothing?

The answer obviously, now, is everybody. Roger Cohen is right, the societal contract is broken, and its the regime itself which did it, hopefully to their own detriment and before too many more people get killed or maimed.

[Adam C]

I'm just amazed at the stupidity of the army and militias, going after random people nowhere near the protests. It's thoughtless acts of violence like this that are turning people's hearts and minds faster than anything else. People in the protests have got to half expect some kind of crackdown. But somebody two blocks away with nothing to do with it? Who expects to get shot or beaten for nothing?

I'm not, but I'd say it's pretty much boiler plate that when authoritarian regimes get panicky they become less and less discriminating with the scope and targets of their repression. And anyone they think is might be the enemy (whether or not they actually are) become fair game if only as an example.

Though that really doesn't explain the utter stupidity of rigging the election so blatantly in the first place.

[Crowforge]

Or not allowing enough time before announcing the results to make it at least look like they counted in the first place.
Id like to say this has shaken my faith in humanity but it actually hasn't, I'm saddened but not surprised. Still, we can do better, I think.

[Adam C]

Also...BURN!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8118139.stm

More than 100 MPs appear to have snubbed an invitation to celebrate Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election win, local press reports say.

All 290 MPs were invited to the victory party on Wednesday night but 105 did not turn up, the reports say.

A BBC correspondent says the snub is a sign of the deep split at the top of Iran after disputed presidential polls.

Nearly half of the Majlis is snubbing the so-called President elect. Another piece of analysis from John Leyne (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8117801.stm) states that while most of the Majlis is conservative it is also quite hostile to Ahmadinejad and screw things up when he has to choose a cabinet. And Ayatollah Rafsanjani is reportedly in Qom rallying support. Qom's a city holy in Shi'a Islam that's Iran's spiritual capital and the largest centre for Shi'a scholarship so it's likely he's looking to use his position as head of the Assembly of Experts to engage in rearguard action against Khamenei.

[Samuel Catalino]

No, you can't fall back on that here. If someone is asking you to back up an assertion YOU made, than it falls upon *you* to back up what you said, and not the person asking you what you mean.

Actually I can. Do your own research. Look it up yourself.

Of course, if you are subjective in your views, nothing I write here will make any difference.

[Samuel Catalino]

60 or 70 years?

I think that on the whole, our rights have gotten more protection over that time. (Ask anybody that was involved in the civil rights movement. Or a woman. Or a gay.) However, our government's ability to restrict those rights on a whim has also increased thanks to improved transportation and communication.

And heck, back in the 1700s, most of us didn't have rights. Just the rich white males. It's also worth noting that it was overturned so it was (another) hiccup in citizens' rights.

Two steps forward and three back.

You might want to ask all of those people imprisoned unjustly during the all of those wars in the history of the USA.

[Samuel Catalino]

Again, you are being deliberately ignorant when you say that. You have to actively ignore what modern Iran is like and has been like, what the Iranians are saying, what the analysts are saying, and how the regime is reacting in order to claim this.

And you are! Jesus wept.

Not actually.

The analysts were wrong in 1979, so I will just wait and see what happens.

[Samuel Catalino]

Just to note this: Sam has been on YABS today, but has yet to chime here in here...

I get around soon enough.

[Typo Lad]

Open support from the US president would probably be counter productive right now. I was wondering what the heck Simon Peres was thinking when he publicly supported the protesters.

Stirring shit so they can have their war after all?

Not hardly, Paul. Perez is pretty much a Dove these days. It's far, far more likely that he was focusing on using his support of the protesters to gain political capital at home with certain elements and to also show how he can be "sympathetic" to a Non-Israeli cause.

The big problem is that could lead to lots of little fragmented groups instead of one big one - which could arguably be more dangerous. Small groups are easier to radicalise and start using violence.

That's something I was thinking about myself as well. That's part of the Palestinian issue - the cause has fragmented so many times that everyone says they speak for everyone else. Here's hoping we don't see that this time.

Actually I can. Do your own research. Look it up yourself.

Of course, if you are subjective in your views, nothing I write here will make any difference.

Actually, if you were objective, you'd bring evidence. It's subjective debaters who use hyperbole and vague sources.

If you're not ready to cite any kind of sources at all, then you shouldn't be sitting at the big kid's table.

[KevinTBrown]

Actually, if you were objective, you'd bring evidence. It's subjective debaters who use hyperbole and vague sources.

If you're not ready to cite any kind of sources at all, then you shouldn't be sitting at the big kid's table.

And if you note by this: I get around soon enough.

He's not ready for an actual debate. Typical.

[Samuel Catalino]

Actually, if you were objective, you'd bring evidence. It's subjective debaters who use hyperbole and vague sources.

If you're not ready to cite any kind of sources at all, then you shouldn't be sitting at the big kid's table.

I know the drill of debating in message boards, and I refuse to go there with you or anyone else.

Anyone who wants to look for it can find what I mentioned. I am not going to do your work for you. If you were objective, you would have looked. Since you haven't, it is either not that important to you, and if it is not important to you, why should I waste my time?.

[Samuel Catalino]

And if you note by this:

He's not ready for an actual debate. Typical.

Let me know when one breaks out.

[Stressfactor]

I know the drill of debating in message boards, and I refuse to go there with you or anyone else.

Anyone who wants to look for it can find what I mentioned. I am not going to do your work for you. If you were objective, you would have looked. Since you haven't, it is either not that important to you, and if it is not important to you, why should I waste my time?.

I'm Sooooo glad that, back in the days when I was a Teaching Assistant in graduate school, I didn't have you as one of my students. Can you say 'F'? Oh, I would have loved to have seen that... You turn in a 2 page paper and say "I'm sorry Professor Jones but if you want to find out the evidence to support my claims in this paper you're going to have to look them up yourself."

[Nick Soapdish]

Two steps forward and three back.

You might want to ask all of those people imprisoned unjustly during the all of those wars in the history of the USA.

I'm not unaware that people have been unjustly imprisoned in the US history. I even specifically mentioned an example from the last century. However, the rights for Americans as a whole have increased over our history when you include Native Americans, blacks, Chinese, Hispanics, women, etc., among these Americans. And most of the worst examples of the denial of rights happened earlier in our history such as imprisoning people simply for speaking against the government.

[KevinTBrown]

I'm Sooooo glad that, back in the days when I was a Teaching Assistant in graduate school, I didn't have you as one of my students. Can you say 'F'? Oh, I would have loved to have seen that... You turn in a 2 page paper and say "I'm sorry Professor Jones but if you want to find out the evidence to support my claims in this paper you're going to have to look them up yourself."

It's easier to pulls things out of nowhere than to actually provide proof. It makes him far more intelligent that way....



Oh wait.

No it doesn't.

[Samuel Catalino]

I'm Sooooo glad that, back in the days when I was a Teaching Assistant in graduate school, I didn't have you as one of my students. Can you say 'F'? Oh, I would have loved to have seen that... You turn in a 2 page paper and say "I'm sorry Professor Jones but if you want to find out the evidence to support my claims in this paper you're going to have to look them up yourself."

This is not a classroom, and I am not writing papers.

[Samuel Catalino]

I'm not unaware that people have been unjustly imprisoned in the US history. I even specifically mentioned an example from the last century. However, the rights for Americans as a whole have increased over our history when you include Native Americans, blacks, Chinese, Hispanics, women, etc., among these Americans. And most of the worst examples of the denial of rights happened earlier in our history such as imprisoning people simply for speaking against the government.

Please do not forget the Japanese Americans who were taken from their homes and put into concentration camps during World War 2 here in the USA.

[Stressfactor]

This is not a classroom, and I am not writing papers.I don't care. I believe that the classroom prepares you for life. I believe that one doesn't say something unless one is prepared to back it up. It's basic Critical Thinking. If one doesn't have the proof at one's fingertips in a face-to-face conversation that's one thing. But on the internet that's something else. Even if one doesn't have the proof one needs on the internet one should have the good grace to say: "I've got the book at home, I'll look it up when I get home and get back to you."

Typolad, in particular, is a poster who has done this and he ALWAYS gets back to people... and that's one reason why people respect him even if they don't agree with him.

Also, when you say "look it up yourself" how do you know the person is going to find the exact same article you found? Or the exact same data?

Critical Thinking... if you HAVE something you're using for proof then you SHOW it to people. It's also like playing cards. In Poker you don't just get to SAY you have a Full House -- you have to put the cards on the table and SHOW you have a Full House.

[KevinTBrown]

Still waiting for that "proof", Sam. Asking others to "look it up" is not going to work and you ignoring it won't make people forget.

How many of them have actually experienced the freedom of a western democracy? Not to mention that many of the European democracies are not nearly as free as they are advertised.

[Charles RB]

Also...BURN!!!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8118139.stm

Nearly half of the Majlis is snubbing the so-called President elect. Another piece of analysis from John Leyne (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8117801.stm) states that while most of the Majlis is conservative it is also quite hostile to Ahmadinejad and screw things up when he has to choose a cabinet. And Ayatollah Rafsanjani is reportedly in Qom rallying support. Qom's a city holy in Shi'a Islam that's Iran's spiritual capital and the largest centre for Shi'a scholarship so it's likely he's looking to use his position as head of the Assembly of Experts to engage in rearguard action against Khamenei.

Looks like even if the protests stop - and according to Leyne they may be dying down - the damage is done and the knives are out.

With luck, opposition within the government can seize on this and force change so the whole system doesn't collapse.

[Samuel Catalino]

I don't care. I believe that the classroom prepares you for life. I believe that one doesn't say something unless one is prepared to back it up. It's basic Critical Thinking. If one doesn't have the proof at one's fingertips in a face-to-face conversation that's one thing. But on the internet that's something else. Even if one doesn't have the proof one needs on the internet one should have the good grace to say: "I've got the book at home, I'll look it up when I get home and get back to you."

Typolad, in particular, is a poster who has done this and he ALWAYS gets back to people... and that's one reason why people respect him even if they don't agree with him.

Also, when you say "look it up yourself" how do you know the person is going to find the exact same article you found? Or the exact same data?

Critical Thinking... if you HAVE something you're using for proof then you SHOW it to people. It's also like playing cards. In Poker you don't just get to SAY you have a Full House -- you have to put the cards on the table and SHOW you have a Full House.

I don't care either. I don't believe the classroom prepares you for life.

There is a lot of critical thinking that goes on here.

I do not believe in doing someone else's research. If you are really interested in finding said topic, you will look it up. If not, why waste time?

No one is dealing any cards, and I am not playing poker either.

[king mob]

I don't care either. I don't believe the classroom prepares you for life.

There is a lot of critical thinking that goes on here.

I do not believe in doing someone else's research. If you are really interested in finding said topic, you will look it up. If not, why waste time?

No one is dealing any cards, and I am not playing poker either.


Don't expect anyone to take what you say seriously then, because as it is, all it appears than you're doing is talking bollocks and trying to make it look like it's other people's problems that all you talk is uninformed bollocks.

[Charles RB]

I do not believe in doing someone else's research.

No, what you're not interested in is backing up your claims.

You're very interested in trying to blame other people for when you talk unsourced bollocks.

[Nick Soapdish]

Please do not forget the Japanese Americans who were taken from their homes and put into concentration camps during World War 2 here in the USA.

I was about to say that was the specific example that I originally mentioned, but apparently I didn't mention any specific examples. It was just the specific example that I was thinking of. Oops.

However, I haven't forgotten about them - just to specifically mention them. I also didn't specifically mention the Trail of Tears which was over a century earlier and a worse violation of human rights. As has been nearly all of our interactions with Native Americans until the last century (where we merely mistreated them).

I didn't specifically mention slavery either.

And as bad as the Patriot Act has been, it hasn't been worse (than the Japanese internment) for our own citizens and our Supreme Court has thrown out the argument that we can make up new rules for non-citizens. So the precedent on human rights is against what we've done.

[KevinTBrown]

No, what you're not interested in is backing up your claims.

You're very interested in trying to blame other people for when you talk unsourced bollocks.

Bingo.

Very Olney-like, isn't it...?

[Nick Soapdish]

I don't care either. I don't believe the classroom prepares you for life.

There is a lot of critical thinking that goes on here.

I do not believe in doing someone else's research. If you are really interested in finding said topic, you will look it up. If not, why waste time?

No one is dealing any cards, and I am not playing poker either.

No, it's a debate. In a debate, people are actually expected to back up what they say.

For instance, citing the Alien and Sedition Act when talking about how our civil rights have eroded since the days of our founding fathers, even though it's a backwards example since three of those expired and no longer apply meaning that we've regained that right.

[Michael P]

Plus, the Alien & Sedition Acts were during the days of the founding fathers. John Adams himself championed them, and his Presidency was basically torpedoed because of it.

And, of course, they were repealed rather quickly. Prohibition had more of a lasting effect on civil rights.

[solitude]

This is getting boring fast. News covering this more than what is happening in America. Don't people read history, you did shit doing the France Revolution. They asked for your help and we said no. WTF is wrong with yous.

[40footwolf]

I don't care either. I don't believe the classroom prepares you for life.

There is a lot of critical thinking that goes on here.

I do not believe in doing someone else's research. If you are really interested in finding said topic, you will look it up. If not, why waste time?

No one is dealing any cards, and I am not playing poker either.

Burden of the Proof, bruh.

Look it up.

[40footwolf]

ON TOPIC:

Have there been any concrete, well-backed predictions by educated people about how Iran is going to look by the end of all this, from a geopolitical/regular political standpoint?

[the4thpip]

I know the drill of debating in message boards, and I refuse to go there with you or anyone else.

Anyone who wants to look for it can find what I mentioned. I am not going to do your work for you. If you were objective, you would have looked. Since you haven't, it is either not that important to you, and if it is not important to you, why should I waste my time?.

Let me guess:
You put words on paper and in places where people can feel comfortable on the plus or negative side?

[Samuel Catalino]

Let me guess:
You put words on paper and in places where people can feel comfortable on the plus or negative side?

Wrong! Next?

Back to the revolution...

[Samuel Catalino]

No, what you're not interested in is backing up your claims.

You're very interested in trying to blame other people for when you talk unsourced bollocks.

Who am I blaming Charles? I just wrote that people need to look for themselves.

[Samuel Catalino]

Plus, the Alien & Sedition Acts were during the days of the founding fathers. John Adams himself championed them, and his Presidency was basically torpedoed because of it.

And, of course, they were repealed rather quickly. Prohibition had more of a lasting effect on civil rights.

Actually, his Presidency was torpedoed by going for the peace with France which split the Federalists, and George Washington dying at the end of 1799 did not help Adams either.

Actually, two off those A & S expired, one repealed and one is still enforcable..

[Samuel Catalino]

Bingo.

Very Olney-like, isn't it...?

Actually no. If you met him, you would know. I suspect you never have.

[Samuel Catalino]

No, it's a debate. In a debate, people are actually expected to back up what they say.

For instance, citing the Alien and Sedition Act when talking about how our civil rights have eroded since the days of our founding fathers, even though it's a backwards example since three of those expired and no longer apply meaning that we've regained that right.

Two expired, one repealed and one in force. And I am not going to cite a source for that either.

[Samuel Catalino]

Back on topic...

Have the mullahs been overthrown yet?

And the President of Iran is saying that the current President of the USA is as bad as the last one.

[KevinTBrown]

Still waiting for you to back this statement up with more than just mere words, Sam:

How many of them have actually experienced the freedom of a western democracy? Not to mention that many of the European democracies are not nearly as free as they are advertised.

Whats the matter? Can't find it or were you just making things up?

[Nick Soapdish]

Two expired, one repealed and one in force. And I am not going to cite a source for that either.

True, I misspoke because I don't care too much about the distinction since it was a couple of centuries ago. And hey, at least you provided an actual example instead of a vague claim and recommending that others research it for you.

I am still intrigued by your claim that we've been losing freedoms since the Founding Fathers and the example that you chose to prove that included the broadest abuse of authority (nobody can criticize the government) and was from the Founding Fathers themselves.

I don't really understand why you are continuing to ignore tremendous progress in rights enjoyed by everybody but the rich white males.

[Nick Soapdish]

Whats the matter? Can't find it or were you just making things up?

I wouldn't worry too much about it. He also acknowledged that the US also isn't as free as advertised and has been arguing with me about the steady attrition of rights since the Founding Fathers.

[Samuel Catalino]

True, I misspoke because I don't care too much about the distinction since it was a couple of centuries ago. And hey, at least you provided an actual example instead of a vague claim and recommending that others research it for you.

No problem. I have misspoke myself a number of times, and hope I did not come off as a smart A to you. That is not my intention.

My intention was to show that so soon after the rights were put into place, the eroding began, that was the first thing that came to mind.

I am still intrigued by your claim that we've been losing freedoms since the Founding Fathers and the example that you chose to prove that included the broadest abuse of authority (nobody can criticize the government) and was from the Founding Fathers themselves.

I don't really understand why you are continuing to ignore tremendous progress in rights enjoyed by everybody but the rich white males.

The Founding Fathers copped out a great deal with the issue of slavery, and what the hypocrtical part of the whole thing was counting each slave as part of a fraction

To throw out a few other things....other than suspension of the writ of H C. depriving people of their liberty, and four dead in Ohio, up to checkpoints 100 miles from the border of the USA, and to see a white male get tasered, and the you know what beat out of him...and did I mention there is a suit going on about that.

Yes, we have come a long way. Stanford v Scott yielded to Plessy v Ferguson which got to Brown v Board of Education, yes, that is the good part, but there is a lot that has gone the other way, and the Patriot Act and Homeland Insecurity sure does not look good to me.

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Back on topic...

Have the mullahs been overthrown yet?

There have been no overnight revolutions, globally, the past few days. :eek:

What's this world coming to?

[Samuel Catalino]

There have been no overnight revolutions, globally, the past few days. :eek:

What's this world coming to?

Let's keep waiting so that I may be proven wrong. :eek:

[Charles RB]

News covering this more than what is happening in America.

Why, what's happening in America that's as important as a regional power and Western antagonist in an unstable area having a challenge to its regime?


Have there been any concrete, well-backed predictions by educated people about how Iran is going to look by the end of all this, from a geopolitical/regular political standpoint?

There's a number of predictions IIRC but no concensus yet - there's too many factors that might come into play (like strikes).

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Let's keep waiting so that I may be proven wrong. :eek:

How long are you willing to wait, Sir Catalino?

[Samuel Catalino]

How long are you willing to wait, Sir Catalino?

Six months from the past election, sir.

[Nick Soapdish]

No problem. I have misspoke myself a number of times, and hope I did not come off as a smart A to you. That is not my intention.

My intention was to show that so soon after the rights were put into place, the eroding began, that was the first thing that came to mind.


They didn't have them before hand either even ignoring England because some of the colonies were fairly repressive about religion. So you're talking about a period of time from about 1791 to ... well, 1791 if you count the whiskey tax that unfairly penalized poor people by taxing them at a higher rate and was part of Hamilton's desire to advance federal authority. It actually preceded when the Bill of Rights went into effect and wasn't repealed until 1803.

1798 if you wait until the Alien and Sedition Acts.


The Founding Fathers copped out a great deal with the issue of slavery, and what the hypocrtical part of the whole thing was counting each slave as part of a fraction

To throw out a few other things....other than suspension of the writ of H C. depriving people of their liberty, and four dead in Ohio, up to checkpoints 100 miles from the border of the USA, and to see a white male get tasered, and the you know what beat out of him...and did I mention there is a suit going on about that.

Yes, we have come a long way. Stanford v Scott yielded to Plessy v Ferguson which got to Brown v Board of Education, yes, that is the good part, but there is a lot that has gone the other way, and the Patriot Act and Homeland Insecurity sure does not look good to me.

Most of the instances that went the other way were instances where the government attempted to broaden its authority and did so momentarily before the courts or legislature threw it out.

And when government employees get convicted for abuses of power, I don't think that those instances can count as an example of the government's increase in power and the attrition of civil liberties.

But most importantly, I think that the examples that you're glossing over are huge steps towards greater liberty. Things like freeing over 10% of the population from outright slavery, expanding the eligible voters to well over double, the expansion of rights to those same classes greatly outweighs the government's warrantless wiretapping.

Even the expiration of the Sedition Act was a big step towards freedom. That was much more egregious than any of the provisions of the Patriot Act.

There have been a lot of hiccups along the way, but IMO it's absolutely ridiculous to say that most Americans have fewer rights now than they would have immediately after the Revolution as "two steps forward, three steps back" would imply.

[Samuel Catalino]

They didn't have them before hand either even ignoring England because some of the colonies were fairly repressive about religion. So you're talking about a period of time from about 1791 to ... well, 1791 if you count the whiskey tax that unfairly penalized poor people by taxing them at a higher rate and was part of Hamilton's desire to advance federal authority. It actually preceded when the Bill of Rights went into effect and wasn't repealed until 1803.

1798 if you wait until the Alien and Sedition Acts.

Advancement of federal authority erodes state's freedoms and this culminated in the US Civil War. The ending of slavery was a good thing, but the erosion of other freedoms once enjoyed by states gave way to increasing power of the federal government.


Most of the instances that went the other way were instances where the government attempted to broaden its authority and did so momentarily before the courts or legislature threw it out.

And when government employees get convicted for abuses of power, I don't think that those instances can count as an example of the government's increase in power and the attrition of civil liberties.

But most importantly, I think that the examples that you're glossing over are huge steps towards greater liberty. Things like freeing over 10% of the population from outright slavery, expanding the eligible voters to well over double, the expansion of rights to those same classes greatly outweighs the government's warrantless wiretapping.

Even the expiration of the Sedition Act was a big step towards freedom. That was much more egregious than any of the provisions of the Patriot Act.

There have been a lot of hiccups along the way, but IMO it's absolutely ridiculous to say that most Americans have fewer rights now than they would have immediately after the Revolution as "two steps forward, three steps back" would imply.

The egregious thing about the Patriot Act is I feel like I am going through Checkpoint Charlie in three different places when going through the airport. And what happens to people getting stopped by the Border Patrol a hundred miles from the border really disturbs me. So do beatings and tazering of people going through this Border Patrol checkpoints. And Tazering sure seems to be cruel and inhumane to me.

Another major attack of freedom which continues was the imposition of the federal income tax. I never knew of any confiscatory policy that gave freedom, do you? Maryland v McCulloch pretty much summed up what taxes were.

[Adam C]

Who am I blaming Charles? I just wrote that people need to look for themselves.

*EEEEEHHHHHHTTT!*

It's an elementary fact of any argument, whether its professors debating over academics and truckers debating over sports while drunk off their arses that the burden of proof falls on one making the argument. This isn't even academics, it's basic common sense and anyone would have the same reaction if you've used similar debating tactics.

Granted I'm probably skeptical since I already looked up a great deal on Iran and the issues surrounding the election and didn't see anything supporting your unfounded claims so I don't care to do your work for you.

[Nick Soapdish]

Advancement of federal authority erodes state's freedoms and this culminated in the US Civil War. The ending of slavery was a good thing, but the erosion of other freedoms once enjoyed by states gave way to increasing power of the federal government.

The egregious thing about the Patriot Act is I feel like I am going through Checkpoint Charlie in three different places when going through the airport. And what happens to people getting stopped by the Border Patrol a hundred miles from the border really disturbs me. So do beatings and tazering of people going through this Border Patrol checkpoints. And Tazering sure seems to be cruel and inhumane to me.

Another major attack of freedom which continues was the imposition of the federal income tax. I never knew of any confiscatory policy that gave freedom, do you? Maryland v McCulloch pretty much summed up what taxes were.

We've been off-topic for a while and it might just be quibbling over the wording so let me just ask you point blank.

Do you feel that Americans as a whole enjoy fewer rights today than they would have immediately after the passage of the Bill of Rights?

[Christopher Cross Is God]

Six months from the past election, sir.

Your patience is tantamount to that of the Gods themselves.......I am humbled in your presence.

[Samuel Catalino]

We've been off-topic for a while and it might just be quibbling over the wording so let me just ask you point blank.

Do you feel that Americans as a whole enjoy fewer rights today than they would have immediately after the passage of the Bill of Rights?

That is a very difficult question for me to answer, being that I did not live during that time.
You ask me how I feel about that, and to be honest my answer is yes, I do feel as a citizen of the United States, there has been an erosion of our liberties over the period of time.

[Nick Soapdish]

That is a very difficult question for me to answer, being that I did not live during that time.
You ask me how I feel about that, and to be honest my answer is yes, I do feel as a citizen of the United States, there has been an erosion of our liberties over the period of time.

I simply judge by the laws that were in place at the time, compared to what laws, rulings by the court and constitutional amendments have happened since then.

And I have absolutely no doubts. There is no way that I can see how treating half of the population as second class citizens without even the right to vote and treating others such as the Native Americans even worse and enslaving most of another race as being remotely comparable to income tax and the provisions of the Patriot Act. All of the other problems that you mentioned (except the Alien Enemies Act) were found to be illegal so have those liberties back.

So I guess that we're done here.

[Samuel Catalino]

I simply judge by the laws that were in place at the time, compared to what laws, rulings by the court and constitutional amendments have happened since then.

And I have absolutely no doubts. There is no way that I can see how treating half of the population as second class citizens without even the right to vote and treating others such as the Native Americans even worse and enslaving most of another race as being remotely comparable to income tax and the provisions of the Patriot Act. All of the other problems that you mentioned (except the Alien Enemies Act) were found to be illegal so have those liberties back.

So I guess that we're done here.

Strong points for slavery and the way Native Americans were treated, but millions of unborn children have been deprived of their rights since 1973. Second amendment rights have eroded (somewhat restored in one aspect due to Supreme Court ruling last year I believe), free speech eroded with McCain Feingold, and more against religion coming.

Nice chatting with you.

[Charles RB]

US denies involvement: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8120217.stm)

The White House has accused Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of seeking to blame the US for unrest following Iran's disputed election.

The US replied one day after Mr Ahmadinejad was sharply critical of President Barack Obama for condemning Iranian violence against protesters.

Tehran's leadership has accused foreign governments of fuelling the protests.

...

In Washington, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said Iran's president was attempting to deflect attention from events at home.

"There are people in Iran who want to make this not about a debate among Iranians in Iran, but about the West and the United States.

"I would add President Ahmadinejad to that list of people trying to make this about the United States," Mr Gibbs said.

...

Despite the increasingly pointed rhetoric, the substance of the Obama policy towards Iran remains unchanged, says the BBC's Richard Lister in Washington.

The US regards its main priority as addressing Iran's nuclear programme and its support for militant groups, and Mr Obama has made clear repeatedly that the offer of talks with Tehran is still on the table, our correspondent adds.

The G8 reacts:

The Group of Eight foreign ministers, meeting in Italy, said they "deplored" the post-election violence in Iran.

In a statement, they urged Iran "to respect fundamental human rights" and settle the crisis "through democratic dialogue and peaceful means".

...

"We deplore post-electoral violence which led to the loss of lives of Iranian civilians," the statement from the meeting of G8 foreign ministers in Trieste said.

"We call on the Iranian government to guarantee that the will of the Iranian people is reflected in the electoral process," it went on.

The BBC's Duncan Kennedy in Trieste said it took many hours of discussions to find the right choice of words acceptable to all the ministers.

The strength of the wording was more muted than some had hoped for because of opposition from Russia, who said Iran should not be isolated.



And the voting was totally honest, really guv:

Earlier, Iran's Guardian Council said it had nearly finished examining the allegations of vote-rigging and had found no irregularities.

"We have had no fraud in any presidential election and this one was the cleanest election we have had," the electoral body's spokesman, Abbasali Kadkhodai, told the Irna news agency.

"I can say with certainty that there was no fraud in this election."

The BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Tehran says the comments are yet another sign that the Guardian Council's definitive verdict about the alleged election fraud - due on Sunday - will be a formality.

[Charles RB]

The doctor who treated murdered bystander Neda Agha-Soltan speaks to the BBC. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8119713.stm)

And John Simpson on the growing divide within the government and security services: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8116825.stm)

For reasons best not explained, I've come to know a former member of the Revolutionary Guards really well.

He's done some pretty dreadful things in his life, from attacking women in the streets for not wearing the full Islamic gear to fighting alongside Islamic revolutionaries in countries abroad.

And yet now, in the tumult that has gripped Iran since its elections last week, he's had a change of heart.

He's become a backer of Mir Hossein Mousavi, the reformist candidate who alleges fraud in the elections. He's saved up the money to send his son to a private school abroad, and he loathes President Ahmadinejad.

He's not the only one.

I had to leave Iran last Sunday, when the authorities refused to renew my visa. But before I left, another former senior Revolutionary Guard came to our hotel to see us.

"Remember me," he pleaded. "Remember that I helped the BBC."

I realised that even a person so intimately linked to the Islamic Revolution thinks that something will soon change in Iran.

The first big change is that nowadays in Iran, even when you meet an official you can't necessarily tell which side they're on.

It's as if the fabric of the Islamic Revolution itself has been torn; so much so that individual government ministers, civil servants, Republican Guards, senior military men, and all sorts of others, have taken sides, reflecting a power struggle at the very top.

You can see this reflected on the streets in all sorts of ways. In the protests, for example, where the crowds were bold enough to protect our BBC team from secret policemen. ... In one memorable incident, a group of street demonstrators actually chased away a man in plain clothes from the once-feared state security.

They felt brave enough to do it because they know that many within the state system itself are actually backing Mr Mousavi and the protests.

After we were ordered to leave Iran, we went around to the Ershad, the Islamic Guidance Ministry, which supervises foreign journalists.

We expected to be scolded and intimidated. But, in fact, the body language of the person who spoke with us was bizarrely apologetic.

The official said we could stay in the country a little longer and "do our shopping" - a code for our work.

This was accompanied simply by a warning not to get arrested by the police.

It's not just about President Ahmedinejad and his challenger Mir Hossein Mousavi.

It's about two much bigger characters, locked in a confrontation that the rest of the crisis reflects.

On one side is Ayatollah Khameinei, the arch conservative who keeps the Islamic revolution together. On the other, a cynical figure who has made a pile of money since the revolution: former President Ali Akbar Rafsanjani.

Mr Rafsanjani is one of the few people in Iran who could stand in open opposition to the Supreme Leader because, as his friends are fond of claiming, he first installed Ayatollah Khamenei - who wasn't considered a particularly distinguished theologian at the time.

For almost a decade, this worked to both men's advantage.

Then in 2005, Mr Rafsanjani made the disastrous mistake of standing for the presidency a third time. His former protege was by now powerful enough to turn against him.

The public were sick of the corruption they associated with Mr Rafsanjani. They stayed away from the polls in droves, handing victory to the Supreme Leader's new favoured candidate Mahmoud Ahmedinajad.

With a rather grim warning:

Mr Rafsanjani remains every inch a man of the Islamic Revolution.

Today he operates from the shadows using the wealth he has amassed, rather like a Russian oligarch.

But while the idealistic young people rally behind the slogan: "Death to the Dictator," I am not fully convinced that a Rafsanjani Iran necessarily offers the more open form of government they are risking their lives for.

Both sides in this struggle are strong believers in the Islamic Republic.

It may change, but it isn't finished. And the great mass of people who've taken part in the demonstrations could find themselves just looking on from the outside, as they did before.

That said, the way the protests have gone and with government fractures that big, if Rafsanjani just seizes power and carries on as normal, what stops the mob turning on him?

[Tobias March]

The 'cleanest'? So what about the other ones then :smile:

[Charles RB]

And the Beeb talks to someone who DID vote Ahmadinejad: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8118279.stm)

On domestic policy, I voted for him because he supports people in Tehran. He does this by trying to improve life for people not in Tehran, so that they can find jobs in their own villages and cities and not move to the capital.

On foreign policy: Iran does not accept Israel and as a consequence there has been no positive sign from Europe or the US in the past 30 years. Mr Ahmadinejad talks straight and frankly to these countries with whom we are never going to have a relationship anyway.

I was hopeful at first with President Obama, but now I am disappointed.

Presidential problems are internal issues and no country should meddle in another's affairs. France, Germany, Britain and US have ignored this rule.

Seeing that we are unable to have good relations with Europe or the US, Mr Ahmadinejad has tried to create relationships with Asian and African countries instead. This is good for Iran.

Of course, there is a lot yet left to be done and we expect him to do more.

What the supporters think of protestors:

I believe there has been no fraud at all and that other people trust him as much as I do. I work in central Tehran and have seen the protests.

I think several key players are creating trouble for their own purposes. [Former president Akbar Hashemi] Rafsanjani lost the presidential election to Mr Ahmadinejad four years ago and was publically accused of corruption by him during the campaign.

Because of this enmity between the two, I think Mr Rafsanjani calmly decided to show there was fraud. I think he stopped trouble-making after the supreme leader's speech last Friday [19 June] because he knew the world was watching him.

[Former president Muhammad] Khatami is another of the ones creating protests in Iran. I think the reformists chose Mir Hossein Mousavi as a front for their campaign because he had been out of politics for a while and would not remind people of the reformists' problems.

I think foreign countries are stirring trouble too. Why is a country like Italy opening its embassy's doors for protestors? Why are Germany and Britain giving visas to protestors so easily? Why are all these countries suddenly supporting Iranians at this time?

Everybody has the right to protest, so long as it is peaceful and not harming or killing innocent people. It's not fair that Mousavi is sending innocent people to the front line, he should come out and lead, rather than send them to be killed or hurt by police - or themselves.

I don't like the police treatment of the demonstrators.

Iran should give more freedom to its people and support them more. But we must remember that we are still under sanctions.

That's an interesting bit - he doesn't think there was fraud, he doesn't like the reformist politicians, and yet he still thinks the police are being too brutal.

[beetlebum]

[Ignores thread drift] First of all, I just wanted to say, what is so scary about the fact that 2/3 of Iran's population is under the age of 30? In that region, in Arab countries specifically, it's been estimated that the youth make up to 70% of the Arab population; people between the ages of 0-24 comprise 55.7%.

There are some reasons to be concerned though; unemployment rates in the region are amongst the highest in the world. The average for the Arab states is nearly 25 percent, according to UN data, and reaches 40 percent in some countries.

Arab children and adults are relatively well-studied populations; but in between, young men and women aged 10-25 are not well-studied.

Lack of employment + ignorance leads people to eventually find outlets to vent their frustration.

(And yes, I realise Iranians are Persian, but I was just commenting on that region as a whole.)

And besides, I figure it's the restlessness of the youth that led to this current uprising, and I actually find that intriguing.

Second, I know some are criticising Obama for his refusal to get involved in this. There have been comparisons made to Reagan, and his response to the Solidarity Movement in Poland.

While it is admirable that Reagan supported the Polish people by calling their mass demonstrations "thrilling", and even going as far as to halt negotiations on a long-term grain-sale agreement, and allowing the Polish ambassador to defect, there are, however, some stark differences between the two scenarios.

In Poland, Solidarity had a membership of 10 million that represented 80% of the workforce, in Iran though Moussavi has huge support, clearly the supporters don't have the same representation as Solidarity did.

Not only that, but given the history of Western meddling and colonialism in the region, outright support for the demonstrators would be seen as a repeat of history, whereas the US had no such history or hang-ups in Eastern Europe.

As I said in another thread, the only way I could see the US intervening in this is if the government repeated what happened in Ukraine during the Orange Revolution: monitoring election results and sponsoring NGO's.

But for the most part, I'd prefer if we stayed out of it and just offered a few comments on the situation.

[Tobias March]

Solidarity got royally screwed by the West. I admire Obama's restraint on that level, calling on self-determination to be the only possible solution.

It really is. As Jon Stewart said - in reference to America - there is no 'magic wand' that can be waved that will somehow make this better.

[Samuel Catalino]

Any more news on this?

[Charles RB]

The Basiji are raiding Iranian homes. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8122263.stm)

Human Rights Watch has accused Iran's volunteer Basij militia of carrying out night-time raids, destroying property in private homes and beating civilians.

The New York-based group says the raids are an attempt to stop the nightly rooftop chants against the government.

It also says satellite dishes are being confiscated to stop people from watching foreign news.

...

After being banned from taking to the streets, opposition protesters in Tehran have been chanting anti-government slogans from their rooftops and balconies in the last few days, starting every evening at 2200 local time.

But Human Rights Watch has now complained that members of the Basij militia have been raiding houses to stop the protests.

"Witnesses are telling us that the Basijis are trashing entire streets and even neighbourhoods as well as individual homes trying to stop the nightly rooftop protest chants," said Sarah Leah Whitson, Middle East director, in a statement posted on the group's website.

Videos have also been posted on the internet of the aftermath of the raids, showing damage to satellite dishes.

A man interviewed on the video - which the BBC did not shoot, but which appears to be authentic - said he could not complain to the police because they too were involved in the violence.

[Paul McEnery]

The Basiji are raiding Iranian homes. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8122263.stm)

Yeah, but let's not forget that the guy who heads Human Rights Watch was the guy who spread the lie about Saddam leaving babies in incubators out in the streets in GW1.

[Charles RB]

As the article says though, Iranians seem to be backing these claims up.

And the Basiji have already done raids - more of them isn't unbelievable.

[Adam C]

Yeah, but let's not forget that the guy who heads Human Rights Watch was the guy who spread the lie about Saddam leaving babies in incubators out in the streets in GW1.

On the other hand the thugs of an authoritarian regime raiding homes to terrorize dissidents is pretty much S.O.P.

[king mob]

Iran have arrested British embassy staff for allegedly helping with the protests.

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, has angrily refuted allegations that Iranian employees of the British embassy in Tehran played a role in the post-election protests of the past two weeks.

In the latest in a series of spats between the two countries, Iran detained eight or nine local embassy staff for playing a "significant role" in the unrest, which has seen serious clashes between demonstrators and security forces.

Miliband, speaking from a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Corfu, said the government was "deeply concerned" at the arrests. "This is harassment and intimidation of a kind that is quite unacceptable," he said. "We want to see them released unharmed."

Miliband said he believed nine local staff had been detained, although some had since been released. "We have protested in strong terms, directly to the Iranian authorities, about the arrests that took place yesterday.

"I think it is very important that I discuss this with my EU colleagues later on this afternoon. All European countries have made clear that they want to stand together in standing up for the diplomatic principles that are important for our diplomatic activity all over the world.

"At the moment our top priority is the position of our locally-engaged staff who we want to see released unharmed and back to work."

State-run Iranian TV and the semi-official Fars news agency gave no details. But one report said the arrested people were members of the embassy's political section and that one was brought back to his apartment later on Saturday as computers and documents were seized.

The Iranian staff include a highly-regarded senior politicial adviser whose job is to keep the ambassador and colleagues abreast of the Islamic republic's complex internal politics.

"We are still concerned about a number of them who have not been released," said Miliband. "These are hard-working diplomatic staff and the idea that the British Embassy is somehow behind the demonstrations and protests that have been taking place in Tehran in recent weeks is wholly without foundation."

The news from Tehran came after days of attacks on Britain by the Iranian authorities and media, who have singled it out for encouraging unrest after the presidential election on 12 June, in which the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was declared the winner.

The British embassy is in a sprawling compound behind 10ft walls on Ferdowsi Avenue in central Tehran. It has scores of local employees. Harassment or intimidation by Iranian security forces are common. Arrests are not.

Last week, as protests continued over the "stolen" election, Iran expelled two British diplomats - the embassy's second and third secretaries - in protest at what it called their "undiplomatic" approach. That prompted the retaliatory expulsion of two diplomats from Iran's London embassy. The families of British embassy staff have left Iran.

Iran's foreign minister, Manouchehr Mottaki, warned that Tehran was considering downgrading ties with Britain. The intelligence minister, Gholamhossein Mosheni-Ejei, has said some people with British passports were involved in violence.

The Greek-British journalist and Guardian contributor Iason Athanasiadis, also known as Jason Fowden, has been detained. The BBC correspondent Jon Leyne was expelled last week.

The opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi alleges massive fraud in the election, saying he is the rightful winner, not Ahmadinejad.

Iranian politicians and media are continuing attacks on Britain. On Friday a senior hardline cleric, Ahmed Khatami, lashed out at Britain in a nationally televised sermon. "In this unrest, Britons have behaved very mischievously and it is fair to add the slogan of 'down with England' to the slogan of 'down with USA,'" he said. Ominously, Khatami also called for the execution of what he called "rioters' leaders".

The previous week, the regime's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, lambasted Britain as the "most evil" country.

The MP Parviz Sarvari told Fars on Saturday: "The nation's tolerance for Britain's hidden policy of interference is over. There would be a crushing response. An independent and powerful country like Iran would not allow any other country to interfere in its internal affairs. Unfortunately, Britain is continuing its espionage-centred and deceitful approach."

Iranian-British relations have long been dogged by mutual suspicions and resentment but have worsened since the war in Iraq and Ahmadinejad's presidency. Iran's nuclear ambitions and support for Hezbollah and Hamas have kept the regime at odds with Britain, the US and other western countries. January's launch of BBC Persian TV infuriated the Iranians, whose harassment forced the closure of the British Council offices in Tehran.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/28/uk-embassy-tehran-arrests

[Eternal Torment]

Is it possible for the government to stop the protests now? I hope they can't.

[Charles RB]

Iran have arrested British embassy staff for allegedly helping with the protests.



http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/28/uk-embassy-tehran-arrests

Now THAT'S escalating things.

Interesting that they're arresting British embassy staff for this and not Italian embassy staff, who are actually instructed to help wounded protestors.

[Charles RB]

EU ministers are threatening collective action if the embassy eight aren't freed (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8123261.stm).

And in the Iranian government:

The BBC's Jeremy Bowen in Tehran says there is much politicking taking place behind the scenes, and that the five-day deadline for the Guardian Council to return its verdict may be extended.

The powerful former President, Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has broken his silence on the election dispute.

Mr Rafsanjani, who heads two important organs of government, praised a decision by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to give the Guardian Council time to examine complaints by the three defeated candidates.

"This valuable move by the Supreme Leader in order to attract the people's trust towards the election process was very effective," Mr Rafsanjani said, according to Iranian news agencies.

"I hope those who are involved in this issue thoroughly and fairly review and study the legal complaints," he said.

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi has not backed away from his claim that the election result was fraudulent, and has refused to support the Guardian Council's plan for a partial recount.

Mr Mousavi has been calling for a full re-run of the vote, but said on Saturday that he would accept a review by an independent body.

However the Guardian Council has already defended President Ahmadinejad's re-election, saying on Friday that the presidential poll was the "healthiest" since the Iranian revolution in 1979.

[king mob]

Iran have released five British embassy officals who were arrested.

Five out of nine local staff from the UK embassy detained in Tehran have been released, Iranian officials say.

Iran's media earlier said local employees at the UK mission were held over their role in protests against June's disputed presidential election.

UK Foreign Secretary David Miliband has dismissed the allegations as baseless.

Separately, Iran's top legislative body began a partial recount of the poll - a move rejected by defeated opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

"Out of nine people, five of them have been released and the rest are being interrogated," Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Ghashghavi said at a news conference, state television Press TV reported.

Iran's Intelligence Minister Gholam-Hoseyn Mohseni-Ezhei on Sunday said "the British embassy played a crucial role in the recent unrest both through its local staff and via media", Iran's Irna news agency reported.

"We have photos and videos of certain local employees of the British embassy, who collected news about the protests.

"The embassy sent staff among the rioters to direct them in order to escalate the riots so that the rioters could file fabricated reports about the [rallies] to the world from various locations," the Iranian minister added.

Britain has protested strongly over the arrests, which have now been been confirmed by the BBC. Mr Miliband described them as "harassment".

The British foreign office has not said what the four staff still in custody do at the embassy, but the BBC understands that one of them has the job of reviewing local news sources and keeping abreast of political developments, our Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen in Tehran says.

He says that none of the nine who were detained has dual Iranian-British nationality.

Despite the releases, the fact that some employees are still being held means the issue remains a serious problem for the UK, our editor adds.

On Sunday, the European Union warned Iran that "harassment or intimidation" of embassy staff would be met with a "strong and collective" response.

Iran has repeatedly accused foreign powers - especially Britain and the US - of meddling after the 12 June election.

The poll was won by a landslide by incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but his opponents said the victory was achieved by massive fraud. Some 17 people are thought to have died in subsequent street protests.

In the fallout from the crisis, Tehran has expelled two British diplomats and the UK has responded with a similar measure.

However, Mr Ghashghavi said on Monday that "there is no plan at the moment to close any embassy or downgrade ties with them".

Some 17 people are thought to have died in street protests after the disputed presidential poll, which the opposition complains was rigged.

At least 1,000 opposition supporters are reported to have staged a noisy rally outside a mosque in Tehran on Sunday evening before it was broken up by police and militia.

Riot police used tear gas and clubs to disperse the crowd outside the Ghoba Mosque, Iranian eyewitnesses said.

The report could not be independently verified because of reporting restrictions on foreign media.

Poll verdict due

In a separate development, Iran's state TV said the recount had started on Monday in the capital Tehran as well as in the provinces.

Iran's Guardian Council has offered to recount a random 10% of the votes from the election.

The process was expected to be completed later on Monday and the result would be announced shortly afterwards, al-Alam television said.

But Mr Mousavi insists the poll was rigged and therefore should be annulled.

On Sunday, Mr Mousavi met members of a committee set up by the Guardian Council to examine the disputed poll, Iran's semi-official Fars news agency reported.

It said Mr Mousavi was expected to present his proposal on the issue, without giving any further details.





http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8123579.stm

[Charles RB]

At least 1,000 opposition supporters are reported to have staged a noisy rally outside a mosque in Tehran on Sunday evening before it was broken up by police and militia

So there's smaller protests, but they're still going on.

[Sean Walsh]

Interesting that they're arresting British embassy staff for this and not Italian embassy staff, who are actually instructed to help wounded protestors.

A radio report yesterday said that Iranian officials were citing "British history in the Middle East," in addition to the spying crap, as a reason for arresting them. Considering the EU's open outrage at Iran for all of this, it's surprising Ahmadinejad did this.

Shows he's still grasping at straws, even with the majority of protesting dying down...

[Charles RB]

Some of the UK embassy staff are going to put on trial, with the Guardian Council claiming they made confessions. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8132397.stm) Other EU countries are considering withdrawing their ambassadors.

From the same link:

Meanwhile, the governor of one of Iran's biggest cities, Shiraz, has denied reports that a number of sealed ballot boxes in its main library contained votes from last month's election.

Ebrahim Azizi said the boxes were from previous polls and that the interior ministry had ordered they be archived there.

Earlier this week, an Iranian journalist posted pictures on the internet of several ballot boxes sitting on the floor of the library.

-

Iran's also reported to have unblocked text messaging: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8131095.stm)

Reports from Iran say that SMS text messaging services have been unblocked for the first time since disputed presidential elections.

However, Iranian news agencies say there are still technical problems.

Text messaging and social networks were widely used by protesters in mass rallies following the election.

Defeated opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi this week called on the government to end its interference in phone networks and the internet.

Correspondents say texting has been restricted since 11 June - the day before disputed elections which saw the controversial re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The lifting of the restrictions has been reported by a number of Iranian news agencies monitored by the BBC, including Tabnak.ir, a conservative website believed to be associated with former Islamic Revolutionary Guards commander Mohsen Rezai.

...

parliamentary deputy Mostafa Kavakabian told the Farda News website that the blocking of SMS services had caused great damage to Iran's economy. He asked the Iranian parliament to investigate.

[Charles RB]

And some views from Iran: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8131056.stm)

Afshin, Tehran, via instant messenger
SMS text messaging is now back. A friend forwarded me a message he was sent, trying to scare him off posting on Facebook or the internet. It said: "This is the first and last warning!"

I was arrested on 22 June. There were lots of militia on the street, waiting for the crowds. It was a silent protest, but they didn't let people gather.

When they saw I was carrying a camcorder, they arrested me, took me to a side street and started hitting me.

They didn't talk, they just beat with their batons. Then they put me in a van, with hands tied and blindfolded.

There were lots of us in that car, lying on top of each other. It was really suffocating, really hot.

They kept me in for six hours, beating me, before releasing me. They took my ID cards, my camcorder, my money and cellphone.

Although the city is calm, the hearts of the people are not. They are looking for an opportunity to come again on the street and shout for their rights.


Hussein, 38, Qom, via email

Not a lot of people are shouting from the rooftops anymore. After the Guardian Council declared Mahmoud Ahmadinejad the official winner most people stopped chanting.

Everything is back to normal and there are about 85% less police and army on the streets.

I voted for Mousavi because I wanted more freedom for my sisters and female relatives.

But after the protests I realised I should have voted for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad because those 17 and Neda - may she rest in peace - would have never died if he'd won.

The supreme leader and the Guardian Council which I support would never have been challenged and criticised, and from now on I will support the Ayatollah and the current government.

Mir-Hossein Mousavi should be punished for the trouble he caused. That's what people have started saying in Tehran.


Ali, Tehran, via email

Most of the shouting from the rooftops at night has been coming from the rich and middle class areas of Tehran. There's much less, if any, from the poor areas.

On Monday I was in Niavaran Park, a very expensive area. I heard people shouting 'Allahu Akbar' as you wouldn't believe!

Afterwards I wondered if it's because the rich have satellites and can watch foreign TV, so they are influenced by that. But the poor don't have satellites and just watch the normal government TV.

On Tuesday night, after the Guardian Council confirmed the election results, I didn't hear anyone shout from the roofs in Tehranpars, my district of north east Tehran.

Please don't forget that many people like me don't shout 'Allahu Akbar' because they don't agree with the words. The current government came to power on that slogan in 1979.

In the Metro the police always used to sit in their office. Nowadays they are right in your face as you approach the escalators. It's quiet but it's not normal.

My friends tell me that if I see IR TCI, or IR-TCI on the screen of my mobile where the the network provider is normally displayed, that means it's being monitored by the government.

I think they record everyone's calls and then when someone is arrested they go and listen to them.

[Samuel Catalino]

Is it possible for the government to stop the protests now? I hope they can't.

I am sure the leaders in Iran saw the Chinese Communists template.

[the4thpip]

split within the clergy appears to be widening:

A group of clerics in Iran has called Iran's presidential vote invalid, contradicting official results.

The pro-reform group's statement pits it against the top legislative body, which last week formally endorsed the re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

(...)

The pro-reform clerics group said in a statement that the top legislative body, the Guardian Council, no longer had the right "to judge in this case."

In a statement to the press, the Assembly of Qom Seminary Scholars and Researchers said some members of the Guardian Council had "lost their impartial image in the eyes of the public."

"How can one accept the legitimacy of the election just because the Guardian Council says so? Can one say that the government born out of the infringements is a legitimate one," it said.

The Guardian Council is an unelected 12-member council made up of six religious leaders, appointed by the supreme leader, and six jurists.

The statement is further proof of a split at the top of Iran's establishment, correspondents say.

They say that in particular, it was an act of defiance against the country's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The group said the Guardian Council had not paid "attention" to the complaints lodged by the defeated candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, and urged other clerics to back them in calling the election and the new government illegitimate.

On Saturday, Mr Rafsanjani - an influential figure in Iranian politics and a prominent backer of Mr Mousavi during the election - met with the families of some of those who have been detained.

It was the first time he had spoken publicly since the election. He told the families that nobody with a "vigilant conscience" could be satisfied with the current situation.
(...)

A BBC correspondent said that Mr Rafsanjani appeared to be hinting that a process was going on behind the scenes, which might resolve the current crisis.



Full story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8134904.stm

[Charles RB]

When CLERICS are taking stances like that, you know the crisis is going to carry on and on...

The protests have mostly ended but they've done damage that can't be reversed. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8134484.stm) Notably:

The opposition leaders remain vocally defiant. The only way to silence them would be to arrest or kill them.

That would make them heroes and martyrs to their millions of followers, as well as dramatising, for all to see, the magnitude of the system's internal crisis.

Their defiance, flouting the clearly stated views and wishes of the Supreme Leader, carried a step further the process of demystifying his authority that was an inevitable consequence of his openly taking sides in the dispute.

Also:

Caught unhappily in the middle are numerous other influential figures and forces, many of them to the right of centre in the political divide.

Many important conservative figures not connected to the reform movement, such as Parliament Speaker Ali Larijani, former Speaker Ali-Akbar Nategh-Nouri, and former Foreign Minister Ali-Akbar Velayati, are no fans of Mr Ahmadinejad.

Neither is the powerful and wealthy, two-term former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is widely believed to have worked strongly against Mr Ahmadinejad during the election.

Very few of the Qom-based Islamic clergy, who are supposed to be the backbone of the system, have openly supported or congratulated the president on his re-election victory.

A number of very senior liberal-minded clerics have outspokenly denounced what has been happening, including Ayatollahs Montazeri, Sanei and Taheri.

Ayatollah Khamenei's clerical credentials were already questioned by some when he was appointed Supreme Leader in 1989.

As a side note, this is also costing Iran some of its regional sway:

Tehran's current self-absorption may have some dividend for Mr Obama, who, on 4 July, got an exceptionally warm Independence Day message from President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, with a verbal invitation to visit Damascus.

Syria has a long-standing strategic alliance with non-Arab Iran, mainly based on shared hostility to their mutual neighbour Iraq under Saddam Hussein.

But after four years of tension, Washington is sending an ambassador back to Damascus and relations are slowly warming.

Syria is not going to break with Tehran in a hurry. But chaos in Iran would certainly make it easier for Damascus to slip quietly into other relationships.

[the4thpip]

I am sure the leaders in Iran saw the Chinese Communists template.

http://i286.photobucket.com/albums/ll102/the4thpip/Forgotpoland.png

[Charles RB]

Another protest - riot police tear gas it: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8141873.stm)

Iranian police have fired tear gas at hundreds of demonstrators who defied government warnings that any fresh attempt at protests would be "smashed".

The marchers were heading towards Tehran University to commemorate the 10th anniversary of student unrest.

All gatherings have been banned in a crackdown on mass protests that erupted after the disputed election of 12 June.

The BBC's Jon Leyne says the opposition is trying to put momentum back into the campaign against the vote result.

Our correspondent says there were also a number of smaller demonstrations in other Iranian cities.

They were organised to mark the anniversary of protests in 1999 between pro-reform activists and the loyalist Basij militia.

Small student-led groups have commemorated the event every year since then.

According to AFP news agency, between 200-300 protesters chanted "Death to the dictator".

A witness told Reuters news agency the marchers had also shouted in favour of defeated presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, who says last month's vote was rigged.

But the numbers of people involved appear to have been a fraction of the hundreds of thousands who took to the streets last month

According to AP news agency in Iran, mobile phone text messaging services were down for a third day on Thursday.

A similar cut-off took place after the election, in a move thought to have been aimed at thwarting protest organisers.

In a separate development, another member of Nobel Peace Prize winner Shirin Ebadi's rights group was reportedly arrested in Tehran on Wednesday.

Mohammad Ali Dadkhah is said to have provided legal representation for some of the hundreds of people detained since the election.

Abdolfatah Soltani, also a lawyer and member of Ms Ebadi's Human Rights Defenders' Centre, was detained last month.

[Charles RB]

Analysis of the methods being used to crush dissent. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8143279.stm)

As well as:

It has also become increasingly clear that the Revolutionary Guards are crucial in the crackdown.

In a weekend news conference the head of the guards, Gen Mohammad Ali Jafari, came out publicly for the first time and announced that the guards had been given the task of controlling the internal security situation.

"This event pushed us into a new phase of the revolution," he said ominously. "We have to understand all its dimensions."

In other words - the Revolutionary Guards are in control.

That is the culmination of a trend that began as long ago as 1989, when Ayatollah Khamenei succeeded Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic.

Lacking the religious credentials, or the charisma, of his predecessor, Mr Khamenei built up a power base in the Revolutionary Guards.

Since Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was first elected four years ago, commentators have seen an acceleration of that trend, with the guards now assigned multi-billion dollar contracts to help secure their loyalty.

As much as two years ago, some western diplomats were talking about a slow and silent military coup taking place. The power of the clergy has been steadily diminished.

So it should be no surprise that many senior ayatollahs and many members of parliament - the majlis - are deeply uneasy about what is going on.

For the moment, opposition and government have reached deadlock.

Public resentment means that even now, sporadic protests are continuing and there is a sense of burning anger amongst many Iranians about the election and what happened afterwards.

Even now, enough protesters gathering together on the streets could potentially overwhelm the security forces, or at least make them increase the use of force in ways that could be counter-productive to the regime.

But there is no clear strategy on how to achieve that.

At the same time the government faces the possibility of further challenges to its legitimacy, from the clerics and from the parliament.

Consolidating power is going to be difficult.

For the foreseeable future this is going to be a government that relies on force or the threat of force. The Islamic Republic will look much more like a traditional military dictatorship.

Ideally for them a new foreign threat might emerge. Already the government has tried to portray the protests as instigated by the West.

But President Barack Obama makes an elusive enemy.

On Thursday US forces even released five Iranian diplomats held in Iraq, removing a long-running sore between the two countries.

It is still possible that Mr Ahmadinejad's government will restore order and appear to rule as before.

There is no doubt he has a hard core of several million intensely loyal supporters, including members of the Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia.

But the Islamic Republic has been badly damaged, already change has begun, and it is hard to see how it will end.

[Charles RB]

Human rights campaigners claim that hundreds more are dead than official statistics show. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/hundreds-feared-dead-iran-clashes)

[CYOTI]

Thats already a given since the basij were carting off the dying and dead in the hospitals when the protests were at their full fury.

[CYOTI]

I am sure the leaders in Iran saw the Chinese Communists template. No this is clearly based on the russian/oil caliphate models. They dont really need the people since most of their support/revenue comes from the oil.

[Charles RB]

Clashes again as cleric Rasanjani speaks up: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/17/iran-hashemi-rafsanjani-islamic-republic)

Iranian riot police used batons and teargas today to break up defiant protests after prayers in Tehran, where Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the country's most powerful clerics, warned that the regime was "in crisis" and urged a release of prisoners detained in post-election unrest.

Rafsanjani, a bitter rival of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, broke his month-long silence to issue a stark warning that the Islamic Republic had lost popular support. His carefully crafted address stopped short of directly attacking Khamenei or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose victory in June's presidential poll has been widely denounced as a fraud. But its message was still strong.

"Today is a bitter day," Rafsanjani declared from the pulpit at Tehran University's sprawling prayer ground. "People have lost their faith in the regime and their trust is damaged. It's necessary to regain people's consent and restore their trust in the regime. Everyone has lost."

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the moderate former prime minister who says he won the election, sat in the front row with other VIPs as Rafsanjani spoke. Mehdi Karoubi, a reformist cleric who was also a candidate, was there too — and was jostled by thugs afterwards.

Tens of thousands of Mousavi supporters, many wearing the green wristbands that became the symbol of his election campaign, packed the prayer ground, the stage for a peculiarly Iranian combination of religion and politics, prayer and agitprop. Rafsanjani's first sermon since the disputed election was keenly awaited but was not broadcast on state TV. Foreign media access is now severely restricted. The mobile phone network was again completely blocked to disrupt communications between demonstrators .

"Doubt has been created [about the results]," Rafsanjani said. "There is a large portion of wise people who say they have doubts. We need to take action to remove this doubt. Where people are not present or their vote is not considered, that government is not Islamic."

This passage needed little decoding: Khamenei and the guardian council, a clerical body which supervises elections, have declared the contest free and fair, dashing hopes of a re-run. Still, Rafsanjani – often accused of sitting on the fence – did not call outright for an annulment.

His words were repeatedly interrupted by slogans from the rival camps as well as by whiffs of teargas fired by security forces and which drifted in from the surrounding streets. Hardliners chanted the traditional "death to America" while opposition supporters countered with azadi (freedom) as well as "death to Russia" – a reference to the government's ties to Moscow.

The chanting died away only after the speaker urged the crowd "not to contaminate the position and the sanctuary of Friday prayers". Rafsanjani wept as he spoke of prisoners, and of the Prophet Muhammad as one who brought justice, and a man who "protected the rights of all those under his rule" – more thinly-veiled criticism of the government.

"Rafsanjani's main message was for Ayatollah Khamenei," said the analyst Baqer Moin. "Rafsanjani wanted to tell him, 'You'd better be humble and try to find a way out of the current crisis.'"

The crowd at Friday prayers is usually made up extremely conservative government loyalists. But many Mousavi supporters were young women wearing the loose hijab head-covering shunned by the devout. Some had green-painted fingernails.

"This was not a normal Friday prayer," said Fariba, a 24-year-old student. "The regime has killed people and we have got more united. They have not silenced us. Ironically, I thank Ahmadinejad for making us unite against him."

The crackdown on the media was only partially effective. An unprecedented number of videos posted on YouTube on a single day showed masked protesters starting fires in the streets, or handing out flowers to policemen.

Teargas was fired at Mousavi supporters on their way to prayer but clashes with police and basij militia intensified afterwards. At least 20 people were arrested, witnesses said. Among those detained was Shadi Sadr, the prominent women's activist and human rights lawyer.

And for some fun, here's the Guardian printing an editorial by Martin Amis on Iran (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/17/martin-amis-iran) and a rubbishing of his editorial. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/17/iran-martin-amis)

[Charles RB]

Thirteen convicted terrorists have been executed: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/iran-terrorism-executions-analysis)

On the face of it, there was no link between the mass execution and last month's disputed presidential election, in which Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won a second term. But these and other recent judicial killings may be designed to intimidate at a time of unprecedented unrest and uncertainty about Iran's future.

...

Late last month, 20 drug traffickers were hanged en masse in Karaj, west of Tehran. In all, at least 177 people have been executed so far this year, compared to 246 in 2008.

Analysts believe this spate of executions is meant to assert the regime's authority amid the worst unrest Iran has seen since the 1979 revolution. Official figures say 20 people have been killed since polling day on 12 June, though unofficial estimates put it at between 60 and 100.

Still, forecasts of a Tiananmen-style crackdown have not materialised, with the authorities apparently understanding that mass bloodshed only fuels popular anger. But intimidation – the creation of a Saddam-style "republic of fear"– is a different matter.

It is a central theme of the regime's narrative that the post-election trouble has been fomented by foreigners, with Britain and the BBC (whose new Farsi TV service is especially disliked) singled out for blame. It is a measure of how bad things look from Tehran that Mohsen Rezaei, the former commander of the revolutionary guard - and, alongside Ahmadinejad, the other conservative presidential candidate - warned on Monday that the republic was in danger of collapse. "The US and Israel plotted this disintegration to weaken Iran and make it surrender through sanctions or attack," Rezaei said.

Iranian state media also routinely accuse western governments of backing terrorists. Usually the subject of such accusations is the banned Peoples Mojahedin, supported by Iraq during the Saddam Hussein years. Jundullah is presented as another example: "Clear confessions made by the defendants show that they and their commander are directly supported by the US and receive military, educational and financial aid from the USA," local TV reported.

The interior minister, Sadegh Mahsouli, – an Ahmadinejad trusty – had no hesitation in blaming "Americans and Israelis, not Sunnis or Shias" for the Zahedan mosque bombing.

[Charles RB]

Ganked from the politics thread, http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090729/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_iran_election

Iran's leadership faced sharp criticism Wednesday from top clerics and even conservative supporters over prison abuses, including detainee deaths and the brutal beatings of protesters arrested in the post-election crackdown.

In a move likely to anger the opposition, officials announced the first trials will begin Saturday, with the prosecution of around 20 protesters. They include some accused of sending images of the unrest to the media.

Top pro-reform politicians will be tried later for allegedly ordering riots, officials said. The opposition has said detainees were tortured to extract false confessions for the courts.

The bodies of several young protesters have been turned over to their families in recent weeks, all showing signs of beatings or other abuse while in custody, according to pro-opposition Web sites, citing accounts from relatives. Among them was the son of a prominent conservative, which has brought a wave of criticism from the camp that generally backs the government.

Opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi and his allies were planning a ceremony Thursday in the sprawling Behesht-e Zahra cemetery outside Tehran to honor those who died in the fierce suppression of the protests. Supporters also plan rallies in various parts of the capital — raising the likelihood of new clashes with security forces.

Putting further pressure on Iran's leadership, several top theologians harshly condemned the crackdown — a significant show of anger from the Islamic republic's spiritual patrons.

One of them, outspoken dissident Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, derided an order by the supreme leader this week to close Kahrizak prison, where at least one detainee was killed. "Can the government deceive people by closing a detention center and blaming all the faults on a building?" he said in a statement Wednesday.

"What benefit does the government gain from the crisis, except angering the majority of the people and weakening the Islamic republic?" he asked, demanding the prosecution of those responsible for abuses.

Another senior cleric, Ayatollah Asadollah Bayat Zanjani, said: "We are witnessing sorrowful acts committed in the name of the regime and under the banner of God that bring pain to the heart of all supporters of the Islamic republic."

Montazeri, Zanjani and two other clerics who have spoken out against arrests this week are among the "marajeh-e taqlid," or "objects of emulation," the highest theological rank in Shia Islam. They do not hold political positions but have powerful spiritual authority.


One told of being held at Kahrizak prison on Tehran's southern outskirts since his arrest in a July 9 protest.

"We were at least 200 people in one room, and everyone was getting beatings with sticks. The groans filled the place ... The walls were all bloody," he wrote. At one point the guards turned out the lights and beat the prisoners for a half hour in complete darkness, said the protester, who said he was released on Monday. He listed the names of six prisoners he believed died during the assaults.

As in other prisoner statements, he wrote anonymously because he had been warned not to speak of his detention. His and the other accounts could not be independently confirmed.

Another released prisoner said he was taken to a police station and beaten, and then police lay him and others in a bathroom, their legs tied up behind their backs, and forced them to lick a toilet.

In one of the most recent prison deaths, the family of 24-year-old Amir Javadi Langroudi was told last weekend to come to a Tehran hospital to pick up the body of their son, also arrested during the July 9 demonstrations, Langroudi's father said in a letter posted on opposition Web sites. The body showed signs of abuse and torture, the Web sites reported.

Authorities have not addressed specific claims of abuse. On Wednesday, police chief Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam acknowledged one death in custody, but suggested it was due to a meningitis outbreak. He indirectly admitted some wrongdoing by police, saying, "If we do not observe the law, some in the public will ignore the law, too."

"In cases where damages were caused by the police, I have ordered officials to give compensation," he said.

The clerical leadership has taken some steps to try to defuse the anger. On Tuesday, 140 detainees were released from Tehran's Evin prison, and authorities are promising to free more. A day earlier, Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ordered the closure of Kahrizak.

But even conservative politicians said that was not enough. Two influential lawmakers, Ali Mottahari and Ahmad Tavakkoli, said those responsible for deaths and abuse should be prosecuted.

The upcoming trials are likely to further anger opposition supporters. The state news agency IRNA said the "around 20" defendants whose trials begin Saturday have been indicted on charges ranging from carrying weapons and attacking police to "sending images of the unrest to the media of the enemy."

IRNA said that the defendants included some who had contact with the Mujahedeen-e Khalq — a dissident group of Iranian exiles — and members of the Bahai faith, which has been banned in Iran since the 1979 Islamic revolution and whose followers are often targeted by the government.

It said a later phase of trial would include those "who ordered the post-election unrest," a reference to opposition politicians.

The parliament commission official, Farhad Tojari, suggested two of the foremost jailed pro-reform politicians, Mostafa Tajzadeh and Behzad Nabavi, would face trial. "Their crimes are of a security nature and very significant," he told the ILNA news agency.

[Charles RB]

BBC News top banner is reporting that some of the mourners are allegedly being arrested.

Also: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8175764.stm)

Shia Muslims traditionally mark 40 days after a death in a ceremony called the Arbayeen.

Opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi had asked the interior ministry for permission to hold a memorial service in Tehran's Mosalla mosque, an aide to Mr Mousavi said.

When permission was refused, a statement on the website of Mr Karroubi's political party said they would instead visit the graves of protesters at a cemetery south of Tehran on Thursday.

"The offices of Mehdi Karroubi and Mir Hossein Mousavi announce that the two will go to the graves of those dead in the recent incidents along with their families and pay their respects," it said.

Correspondents say a large number of people are expected to go to the cemetery in support of the two leaders.

Iranian authorities have banned all opposition protests following post-election violence.

Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad is pissing off his own allies and losing Cabinet ministers: (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/8171384.stm)

With the row over Iran's disputed election still bitterly dividing the country, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is now in a new dispute with fellow conservatives.

It is an argument every bit as heated as the election row, and potentially even more damaging to the president.

Just over a month after the election, Mr Ahmadinejad provoked fury amongst his fellow conservatives by promoting one of his vice-presidents, Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie, to the post of first vice-president.

The job would make him the president's second in command, the man who would take over if Mr Ahmadinejad was run over by a Tehran bus.

As Mr Ahmadinejad must have known it would, the appointment infuriated conservatives.

Mr Mashaie had already angered the establishment by suggesting that Iran was friends with the Israeli people, even though he shared the Islamic Republic's hatred of the state of Israel.

For days Mr Ahmadinejad rode the storm, ignoring behind-the-scenes hints that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei was not happy with the appointment.

Then, finally, a letter from Mr Khamenei was broadcast on state TV, calling for Mr Mashaie to go.

The president had to succumb. But the row is now having more lasting damage.

On Sunday it was announced that Mr Ahmadinejad had sacked his intelligence minister, Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie, after what sounds like a heated argument in a cabinet meeting over Mr Mashaie's appointment.

At one point it was reported that four ministers had left the government. That was denied.

Later, the Minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance, Mohammad-Hossein Saffar-Harandi, announced he had resigned.

It was said that Mr Ahmadinejad had not accepted that resignation, but as of Monday the situation remained unresolved.

Mr Saffar-Harrandi said the row over Mr Mashaie had weakened the government, and that is one of the more polite comments from within the conservative camp.

The conservative newspaper Tehran Emrouz described it as a "chaotic" day for the government.

Another conservative paper, Khabar, published the headline: "Dismissal - the consequence of objecting to Ahmadinejad".

MP Ali Motahari called on Mr Ahmadinejad to "control his nerves" and accused him of intentionally bringing tension to the country.

But Mr Ahmadinejad seems determined to provoke even those who should be his allies.

He immediately appointed Mr Mashaie as his chief of staff and one of his closest aides.

There is also a new job for Ali Kordan, the former interior minister who was impeached by parliament after falsely claiming to possess a doctorate from an institution he quaintly called the "London Oxford University".

Mr Ahmadinejad's behaviour may seem counter-productive, but it is completely in character.

When in a corner, he likes to come out fighting. Compromise is not a word in his vocabulary.

But the reasons behind the row itself are harder to pin down.

In one version, Mr Mashaie is disliked by conservatives for his relative "moderation" in saying Iran was friends with the Israeli people.

Another analysis has it that conservatives are worried about Mr Mashaie's links with the controversial sect the Hojjatieh, members of which believe in the imminent return of the so-called hidden imam, the Mahdi, in an apocalyptic scenario.

Certainly Mr Mashaie has been seen as a very powerful influence on Mr Ahmadinejad.

The argument may also indicate unease amongst conservatives over the disputed election itself.

There are many in Iran who see Mr Ahmadinejad's re-election as a coup d'etat, in which the real winners were the Revolutionary Guards.

That worries even some dedicated supporters of the Islamic Revolution.

Guidance minister Mr Saffar-Harandi, for example, is not someone who could, by any stretch of the imagination, be called a moderate.

Mr Ahmadinejad has managed to alienate many fellow conservatives, figures like Ali Larijani, who now holds the powerful position of speaker of parliament.

The parliament, or Majlis, could be the next scene of confrontation.

Soon, Mr Ahmadinejad is expected to be sworn in for his second term in office. The planned date keeps changing, indicating possible arguments behind the scenes.

Afterwards he must name his new cabinet to be approved by parliament. The present row shows that Mr Ahmadinejad is not likely to propose compromise candidates, and parliament is unlikely to give his nominees an easy ride.

Deadlock over the appointments could even lead to Ayatollah Khamenei being obliged to introduce some form of emergency powers, which would only further weaken his position.

Indeed, according to a strict reading of the constitution, the government would need a vote of confidence from the Majlis even to continue in office if the latest departures mean that more than half its members have been changed during Mr Ahmadinejad's first term.

Parliament has already shown it can cause big trouble for the president.

According to one member, 200 MPs - a majority - have written to Mr Ahmadinejad asking him to "correct his behaviour so that he follows the leader's opinion seriously".

Parliament has also set up a committee to look into the condition of detainees arrested in the post-election crackdown.

As much as Mr Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei try to assert their power, it becomes clearer that they have become prisoners of their own constituency, right-wing conservatives.

Already there are whispers about possibly impeaching the president.

The key of course would be the position of the supreme leader, who would have to authorise such a move.

Either keeping or ditching Mr Ahmadinejad could be almost equally damaging to Mr Khamenei.

[Nick Soapdish]

Mr Ahmadinejad's behaviour may seem counter-productive, but it is completely in character.

When in a corner, he likes to come out fighting. Compromise is not a word in his vocabulary.

No wonder he and Dubya just didn't get along.

[Charles RB]

More trials going on, with former government officials on trial. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090826/wl_nm/us_iran_2)

Also:

Former President Mohammad Khatami said on Wednesday trial confessions by moderates accused of fomenting post-election unrest were made under "extraordinary conditions" and were invalid, an Iranian news agency reported.

At Tuesday's trial, the fourth since June polls denounced by moderates as fraudulent, senior reformer and Khatami ally Saeed Hajjarian was reported as saying he had "made major mistakes during the election by presenting incorrect analyses."

"I apologize to the Iranian nation for those mistakes."

A prosecutor demanded maximum punishment for Hajjarian who is accused of acting against national security, a crime which can carry the death sentence.

"These confessions are invalid and have been obtained under extraordinary conditions ... such claims are sheer lies and false," Khatami, who backed the main moderate candidate in the election, was quoted as saying by the ILNA news agency.


Now a former President saying this, I'd have thought, will have some impact.

[Charles RB]

Iran's still having political issues, including violence: (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090918/wl_nm/us_iran_6)


On Friday, Iranian security forces clashed with supporters of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi and arrested at least 10 of them during annual anti-Israel rallies in Tehran.

Thousands of supporters of Mousavi, wearing green wristbands or shawls, were among crowds marching in the "Qods Day" rallies.

Reformist former president Mohammad Khatami took part in the rally, but was attacked by hardliners and had to leave after his robe was ripped and his turban fell to the ground, an ally of Khatami who accompanied him told Reuters.

The state news agency IRNA said Mousavi and reformist cleric Mehdi Karoubi, both defeated candidates in the disputed poll in June, had also been forced to leave the rallies after being attacked by "angry people."

You can tell Ahmadinejad is in trouble and needs to rally domestic support asap, cos once again he's talking shit about Israel.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised the stakes against Israel by describing the Holocaust as a lie, just as world powers are trying to decide how to deal with the nuclear ambitions of an Iran in political turmoil.

"The pretext (Holocaust) for the creation of the Zionist regime (Israel) is false ... It is a lie based on an unprovable and mythical claim," he told worshippers at Tehran University at the end of an annual anti-Israel "Qods (Jerusalem) Day" rally.

"Confronting the Zionist regime is a national and religious duty."

Ahmadinejad's anti-Western speeches and comments on the Holocaust have in the past caused an international outcry and isolated Iran which is at loggerheads with the West over its disputed nuclear program.

The hardline president warned leaders of Western-allied Arab and Muslim countries about dealing with Israel.

"This regime (Israel) will not last long. Do not tie your fate to it ... This regime has no future. Its life has come to an end," he said in a speech broadcast live on state radio.

His fresh comments came ahead of his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly next week and before Tehran attends talks on October 1 with major powers worried about the Islamic Republic's nuclear strategy.

It's possible he'd have said the exact same thing even without the crisis, but I'm betting otherwise. This is blatant "ignore the election, LOOK AT THE SCARY FOREIGN PEOPLE!" populism.

[Charles RB]

The revolution is pretty much crushed right now - and Iran is now more oppressive, with internal fears that a quiet coup has taken place: (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/the-fear-factor-a-year-after-the-green-uprising-iranians-are-no-closer-to-breaking-free-1958568.html)

If showing affection in public was the indication of a happy society, then the signs from Iran would be encouraging. At the outdoor tables of a restaurant near the base of the snowy Alborz mountains north-west of Tehran, a young couple is not exactly canoodling, but his arm is stretched behind her shoulders and she's resting her head on his neck. The parks in the centre of the Iranian capital too are full of youthful couples holding hands, the odd pair even kissing with impunity as they stroll in the April sunshine.


A springtime of free love in the Islamic Republic? Hardly. Not, in any case, for the election protesters on death row, or the political prisoners whose lawyers claim they have been dosed with sedative drugs before their trials. The atmosphere has not been as oppressive for years, so a little steam needs to be taken out of the pressure cooker: let the young hold hands, and they'll think less about their stagnant lives or demonstrating in the streets. That, at any rate, is one local interpretation I am given.

Iranians have a penchant for polite ambiguity. This time there is polite clarity. I can apply for interviews, but it will be a waste of time. More tellingly, I am warned that no amount of paperwork will protect me if I am detained by an "irregular" branch of the security or intelligence services while interviewing members of the public. Is this perhaps an indication of the internal struggles that are said to be raging?

...

It takes me a while to understand why so many people reach silently for their mobile phones, only speaking when they've removed the batteries. "Even among ourselves, we don't talk about the political situation now. You get into a shared taxi and the music is turned up loud immediately," says one who returned from exile to support the 1979 Islamic revolution. "People are scared. We have memories of the Savak."

The last time I was here, in spring 2009, people were fired up about the impending election. They openly attacked the government's mishandling of the economy, the rampant corruption. Even conservative girls in chadors were openly rude about the President. Ahmadinejad was "a joker", "a clown", "a big puppet".

In the 10 months since the poll, the prevailing atmosphere has grown queasy with fear and suspicion. Months of arrests, detentions, harsh sentencing, forced confessions, reports of people being raped or beaten to death in detention, and televised show trials have cast such such fear that some Iranians have begun comparing the atmosphere to the one that prevailed in the Iraq of Saddam and the Baath party.

Under the returned President Ahmadinejad the internal clampdown on "enemies of the regime" has been stepped up. Sons of pillars of the establishment have been arrested. TV economists, blogging clerics, even internationally acclaimed figures like the film maker Jafar Panahi have been jailed. Two of those arrested during the protests have been convicted as "ringleaders" and hanged, nine more are awaiting execution. A purge of liberal academics is believed to be under way in the universities.

The Savak were the Shah's feared secret police. Suspected enemies of the despotic monarch were fried alive on electric plates in their torture chambers. Nobody felt safe, people were terrorised just by the notion that anyone, even their best friend, could be a Savak spy. And anyone could be held and tortured even if they had done nothing wrong, just to spread fear.

Nobody is suggesting yet that things are as bad as in the final days of the despotic Western-backed Shah. And whether Nokia mobile phones can really be used as conversational bugging devices (mobile phone calls and texts are routinely monitored) seems unlikely. But the powerful Revolutionary Guards Corps, an elite parallel army, controls the Ministry of Communications. And many believe that the Guards mounted what was in effect a coup during the election. If people fear they are being listened to, the effect could be as chilling as it was in 1978.

The Basij, a volunteer youth militia controlled by the Revolutionary Guards, administered much of the brutality to the street protesters. They number at least a million, and are hated. The wife of a friend went to help her 18-year-old daughter buy a new jacket. "We searched for something that would make her look ugly. The last thing you want is to enrage the Basij by looking attractive." "Attractive" is code for provocative, and these days only the foolhardy would seek to provoke.

The police-state atmosphere sits oddly with the urbanised familiarity. Parts of Tehran could be Germany, or Belgium. The efficient air-conditioned metro puts London's Tube to shame. On the surface, things look normal.

But the political landscape has undergone a transformation since the election. The checks and balances built into the complex architecture of the state, which used to give Iran a plurality of voices and power centres, have it seems, given way to something more sinister.

Since the disputed poll, power has tightened around a radically hard-line troika: the Supreme Leader, the President and the elite parallel army, the Revolutionary Guards. Parliament, parts of the clerical establishment and even the judiciary have, according to insiders, lost ground. Some of the clergy in Iran's holy city of Qom are horrified by the repression they believe is dragging the values of the Islamic revolution into disrepute. But more is at stake than the survival of the Islamic state. The struggle between the regime's elites is also about who will control the spoils of an oil economy worth billions of dollars.

Neither the vice-like grip of the Revolutionary Guards over the economy, nor the widespread public disgust that this mob-like power provokes, is discussed by the Commerce minister. The Guards are thought to control at least a third of the economy, owning vast conglomerates and banking empires, with front companies abroad which will be an extremely difficult force for the West to topple. Their activities reach into everything, from imports of bootleg vodka to exports of Persian cats.

One Iranian I am introduced to has an uncle who served in the Revolutionary Guards having previously been decorated for his service in the Iran-Iraq war. This uncle is no genius – he never finished High School, the family say with disdain. But now he lives "like a king, a millionaire from exporting stone to Lebanon. The stone quarries and all other mining activities are controlled by the Guards, so the uncle doesn't have to be a great businessman; there's no competition.

From the "roof of Tehran" (Bem e Tehran) there's a spectacularly panoramic view of the vast concrete capital in the valley below. Today, the air is unusually smog-free so you can almost see in the windows of the apartment towers. You can also see satellite dishes everywhere.

There is a strange irony about these illegal links with the outside world. On the one hand they give Iranians access to another reality, a welcome change from the worthy one-note fare on offer from state television. And satellite TV is what many in the West assume will tip Iran into a velvet revolution. Yet the dishes symbolise something that may help explain why, despite the fear and loathing, the sorrow of the poet, the young cleaning lady, the language student and millions like them, Iran is not at the tipping point.

The government accuses channels like BBC Persian, Euronews and Deutsche Welle of encouraging sedition. So why not seize the dishes and prosecute the owners, I ask one householder. "Well sometimes they jam the foreign stations. But the dishes are part of the game," he explains. "They turn a blind eye, allowing us to infringe the law, because then you are compromised, you are drawn into a kind of compact. It makes you less likely to raise a fuss about bigger things because you've been allowed to get away with a transgression. That is the game they play with us." It's like allowing young people to hold hands in public, or subsidising the price of bread: it takes steam out of the pressure cooker.

Inflation might be running at 20 per cent and it is common to have to work two jobs. The average salary for a graduate in an office job with years of experience is $300 to $400 a month. Internet access is filtered and slowed, your mobile phone is probably tapped, you can't travel abroad much, but it's not a failed state, even after 30 years of sanctions.

While life is hard economically for millions of Iranians, for the workers in car or china factories who reportedly have not been paid for weeks, for many of the middle classes, it's not yet bad enough to risk challenging the status quo.

Thanks to generous subsidies paid for out of oil revenue, gas and electricity are almost free. Food staples are still relatively cheap and petrol is subsidised. Education is free and health provisions good. As long as you challenge nothing, you can even negotiate some decent perks and live a reasonably satisfactory life shopping in Tajrish, where the stores sell slinky dresses, hair extensions and a lot of nail varnish.

"The Shah made the mistake of not making allies, he failed to keep people satisfied. That was the lesson the revolutionaries learned," one beneficiary of the largesse admitted.

[Charles RB]

As for opposition:

In a few weeks' time, the first anniversary of the election comes around – and the anniversary of Neda's death. The elderly cleric Mehdi Karroubi who came last against Ahmadinejad in the election has since emerged as a courageous figure and is calling on supporters to mount a renewed assault in the streets. But anti-government forces are a broad coalition, from women's rights activists to labour unions to students and journalists, to old-style political reformists. Despite all the social networking, the tweeting and YouTube information streams, they appear leaderless and drained of impetus. Their last show of strength was on the anniversary of the revolution in February.

The ongoing ill-treatment of political prisoners (some detainees were, alleges Karroubi, raped or tortured to death in the aftermath of the vote) caused profound shock and disgust. This issue is now turning into a political faultline under the regime. Last week, a group of political prisoners sent an open letter to the Grand Ayatollahs in Qom, claiming they were being subjected to "physical, sexual and psychological torture".

The letter said they were warned that if they hired independent lawyers they would be given heavier sentences. Some former prisoners allege they were given up to 12 anti-depressant drugs a day. More significant even than the allegations, is that the complainants went over the head of the Supreme Leader.

"Don't let some individuals, who call themselves the unknown soldiers of the hidden Imam (the agents and interrogators of Intelligence Ministry), and who have caused us all these sufferings, damage you, your religious teachings and our hope. Is there anyone who would answer to the cry for help of us, the oppressed?!" their letter pleaded.

Ahmadinejad and those hardline elements may have the upper hand for now. But the President may well face an internal challenge from pragmatic conservatives and factions of the clergy. Western hopes that this could usher in regime change would be misplaced. The challenge would come because one branch of the elite believes a competing section has mismanaged things badly and represents a threat to the survival of the revolution.

It is also worth remembering that neither Karroubi nor Mir Hossein Moussavi, both under virtual house arrest (Moussavi uses Facebook pages to disseminate his messages) ran on a ticket of radical reform, let alone dismantling the Islamic Republic. They have recently spoken of toning down the "green slogans" because they go beyond demands for a return to the values of Ayatollah Khomeini.

While I'm in Iran, the reformist former President Mohammed Khatami, who once enjoyed the popularity of a rock star is stopped from travelling abroad. The fear apparently, is he could become a Khomeini-style leader in exile capable of rallying the protest movement and destabilising the regime. But even the travel ban has not, as some supporters hoped, provoked him into an open confrontation with Ahmadinejad.

The secular-minded now look to the West and maybe to the destabilising power of economic isolation. But here too lies a trap. It gives the hardliners and the forces of violence a further reason to point and say, this is a Western plot and you are the agents of foreign powers – and thus a pretext for more repression.

And nobody thinks that those who have divided up the economic spoils, the vast sums of oil money that power gives access to, will give it up easily.

"Just now, they spread rumours against themselves," a source tells me. "They whisper of change, that something is happening soon. Perhaps Rafsanjani [the reformist cleric and former president] has a plan. He is orchestrating something that will challenge the hardliners."

Why would they brief against themselves, I ask. "Because it dampens down activity," she explains. "After all, If you're a life prisoner you dig a tunnel, but if you think you're going to be out in six months, you do nothing, you just wait."