On June 12, 2009, Iran's now infamous elections were held where hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad allegedly won with 62% of the vote. What resulted was a momentous period of time where Iranian dissidents voiced their opposition to the results and to the government itself, against all odds and at great personal risk.
On June 7th, 2010, Foreign Policy Magazine published an eight-part series called "Misreading Tehran: Leading Iranian-American writers revisit a year of dreams and discouragement." It was written by mainstream journalists criticizing what were common assertions during the post-election events: that Twitter was leading a "Revolution," that the regime was about to collapse, that the Green Movement would change everything by using technology to democratize democracy, and that Westerners could sit in their offices and homes and make a difference, 140 characters at a time. None of these things, according to some critics, were true. And so the conclusion must be that the Green Movement disappeared or has become insignificant since last summer. Technology (Twitter, social networking, new media, ect.), therefore, cannot really democratize a revolution. According to the media, all of the promise of post-election Iran has been lost.
But the critics saying these things, mainstream journalists, are really commenting on how mainstream journalism, for a brief moment, copied, hurried to catch, and commented on new media sources such as Twitter and various blogs, and how they themselves got it wrong. While many of these writers have very critical things to say about the new media's role in these events, they are really criticizing their previous belief systems surrounding the new media and the Green Movement.
They neither understood then, nor understand now, the true significance of the so-called and misnamed "Twitter Revolution," or the grander significance of the Green Movement, or the real story in Iran.
Revolutions are not won in a day. The American Revolution was the product of over 100 years of philosophical thought, and several decades of discontent (the Stamp Act is passed in 1764, and by 1765 Patrick Henry is already a famous speaker), followed by several years of open rebellion and acts of defiance (Boston massacre in 1770, Boston Tea Party in 1773), and at least a year of open warfare (from Lexington Green to Breed's/Bunker Hill), all before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the opening chapter to a formal war that lasted more than ten years. The "in-between" times were marked by backroom leadership, dinner table debate, church pulpit protests... democracy in an incubator. The idea that the Green Movement would be successful in a few short months is ridiculous, the product of the unbelievable promise and inspiring courage of the Iranian protesters crashing headlong into the ability for technology to spread the echoes of their "shot heard round the world" in an instant. Looking back, these hopes were naive, and the condemnation of their disappointment profoundly arrogant.
Dr. Scott Lucas, an adjunct professor at an Iranian university and Professor of American Studies at the University of Birmingham (England), sums it up succinctly:
Prize fights are settled within 15 rounds of three minutes each; the quest for civil rights is not. The election, after all, was just the public apex of a larger, ongoing climb for political, economic, and social recognition, respect, and justice. The Green Movement, as significant as it would become, did not displace the movements for women's rights, student rights, labour rights, legal rights, economic rights, religious rights, and the rights of Iran's many ethnic groups. (Indeed, one of the ongoing, "deeper" issues of this past year has been how the Green Movement -- if it is more than a symbolic entity -- interacts with the activism of these other movements.)This post-election contest, which rested upon years of discussion and challenge within the Islamic Republic, was always destined to be a marathon and not a sprint.
Twitter wasn't the story last June, and it certainly isn't today. Twitter was always a tool for getting news out more than it was for getting news in (though its ability to get news to supporters on the streets has also been dismissed too easily). But the REAL story is that for the last year, a fledgling democratic movement has moved from the shadows, where it has been hunted for decades, and into the limelight. And then back out of it, which also doesn't matter. The movement has matured and grown, even though (like anything in an incubator) it has often struggled and foundered.
And what are the results of the struggle of the opposition movement in Iran? Not failure. Externally, the movement has inspired Hillary Clinton (with the direction of some of the State Department's staffers, and perhaps our letters to them), America's foreign policy has evolved from the false dichotomy of "invade or ignore (Bush)" to one of fostering developing democratic movements through the use of technology and a "Three Cups of Tea" outreach process to people in Iran, Sudan, Cuba, Venezuela, and China. This process will take while, but internally, as a direct result of the Green Movement, the regime is getting weaker. There are now serious divides inside the Iranian regime. As unemployment mounts, inflation rises, the problems mentioned above go unresolved, and as the internet outreach of those who still care about the Green Movement continues, the future of Iran may be a successful revolution.
The most painful part of the media's quick dismissal of the opposition to the Ahmadinejad/
Khamenei regime is this: Those of us who follow Iran, who have contacts within Iran, and who spend hours a day following the news there, know that the movement is actually gaining ground. We see signs that the regime is showing cracks in its armor. But we also see the bravery and sacrifice of the Iranians dissidents, men and women whose names never make it to the media.
Men like Farzad Kamangar, "a 34-year-old teacher and social worker, who was charged with Moharebeh (taking up arms against God), convicted and sentenced to death in February 2008, after a seven-minute long trial in which 'zero evidence' was presented." Then, there are men like journalist and human rights defender Emadeddin Baghi, who has been arrested and is lavishing in poor health in Evin prison for daring to report the brutal crackdown of a ruthless dictator.
That doesn't include the (at least) 48 protesters who died in the streets, and the four more who were tortured and killed in prison, for speaking their voice of discontent. It doesn't include the 388 who were executed last year, or the 34 protesters who have been sentenced to death for speaking against their government, or the 17 Kurds charged with "moharebeh" and tortured to confess, just because they are vocal leaders of a hated minority.
Or Neda.
But the blood on the street means something. It means that the regime is sometimes forced into backing down. It means that some clerics are no longer afraid to question the authority of their government.
This is the real tragedy of the media coverage of Iran. Not only did they misrepresent the boat, and then miss the boat, but they missed the significance and importance of the boat. What we're talking about in Iran is a movement that could bring peace between Israel and Iran, unsanctioned trade between Iran and the rest of the world, and the replacement of one of our greatest enemies with a potentially great friend, without a single bullet being fired by the United States. Not only that, but the success of the Green Movement would be the first step in the victory against human rights abuses everywhere, abuses which stifle the democratic process and thus deny the rest of the world the next generation of peaceful neighbors.
By demonizing Iran for its nuclear program, the media has created a bugbear that has encouraged the warmongers and distorted the truth in the Middle East. These same pressures have forced Obama to risk destroying with his feet what he has built with his hands. The coverage of the Green Movement in Iran was a chance to break that narrative, and by having to retract a reckless, sexy story about social media, the news agencies have now reverted to their radioactive news cycle by dismissing the best hope for change in the region, and beyond.
Human rights violations have hampered democracy in Iran, and with it the best chance for hope and change in the Middle East. The media wants to dismiss this, because long and complicated stories don't sell. War sells. Nukes sell. But I'm not buying.
The success of the democratic movement in Iran cannot be measured in Tweets, in newspaper stories, in rallies attended (or not attended) by reformists, or even in protesters. It must be counted in the desire for freedom and peace. As such, the strength of the Green Movement in Iran is countless, and growing.
James writes for Dissected News, where he will be live-blogging the anniversary of the elections in Iran starting at midnight tonight.
Follow James Miller on Twitter: www.twitter.com/dissectednews
Umm, forgive me if I'm stuck in reality, but Wikka as the state religion as we had hoped? I don't know about anyone else, but that comment seems rather silly. Wikka was never going to be a state relgion according to Obama and the United States has no official religion. Consult your Constitution for proof.
Analysis: 22 Khordad (June 12): What happened in #Iran? http://bit.ly/cUEJiE
Revolutions are not won in a week, a month or a millennium if there is no fertile ground for the seed.
The Iranian people overwhelmingly support Iran's right to develop nuclear techology, and that's not very green. They also overwhelmingly support a genocidal end to the State of Israel. Creating a nuclear wasteland is not that Green either.
http://nbyslog.blogspot.com/2010/06/iranian-islamism-dont-ever-assume.html
If not, remember that Iran (which has the next highest population of Jews in the region) doesn't have a problem with Jews, but rather with the type of Zionism that needs to suppress others rights to reach its goal.
The average Iranian only cares about nuclear technology from the perspective that it is Iran's right to have it if they want to. Iranians do not like to be told what they may or may not do. Who does? In reality the average Iranian is far more concerned about the cost of living in Iran, which I can assure you is very high.
But for you to say that Iranians "overwhelmingly support a genocidal end to the State of Israel" shows me you're confusing the Iranian people with their government. Please don't do that.
And if you really think the green color of the opposition movement has anything to do with ecology or recycling or melting icecaps, then you have been living in a cave. And no, I'll not bother clicking your link.
Your only interest in the Green Movement is that it might lead to an Israel-friendly "regime".
That's about as likely to happen as for Israel to become Iran-friendly.
When is the last time you expressed concern for the 'brave people of Egypt" or of Saudi Arabia?
That there are still greens who show up now and them protesting, and that these protests do not end up in rioting, shows that the Iranian government did not take the opportunity that the riots gave them to do a blanket purge, but instead concentrated on the violent element.
And given the resonance with the last time a democracy was overthrown in Iran (the use of 'protesters' to make it appear that someone who had popular support didn't), that shows a high degree of maturity in the system.
BTW, knowing a bit of history, I also know that relying on a technology that has poor penetration, and is heavily skewed to one demographic for your information can lead one to conclusions that have no real basis in reality. When the medium used filters for those who have proficiency in a language other than the native Farsi, the message that comes from that medium will naturally be skewed towards the views of that group, and if that group is not reflective of the majority, projecting those views on to the majority leads one astray.
That lead to the rather embarassing situation for a newspaper, who predicted the outcome of an election to be a major landslide one way, because they only sampled those rich enough to have the telephone, and the other candidate won
Tehran consists of the City and the suburbs. In the city specially north part of the city among rich higher class who became rich with inflated real estate prices, Mousavi had a 2 to 1 support. These higher class citizens are the ones with Iphones and laptops and were recipient of Twitter revolution!
Ahmadinejad supporter in Tehran are from suburbs and poor lower class citizens living in suburbs and south. These poor people are resilient and primary beneficiary of Ahmadinejad social reforms!
Western media who established contacts with people in Iran through Internet, have the impression that Iranian support for the regime is non-existence.
The situation is exasperated by Iranian living in US being mostly the first and second generation of revolution exiles.
It was a shock for western media that on the anniversary of the revolution millions and millions of people demonstrated in support for Ahmadinejad and in which Greens were not able to protect their leader Mousavi to even join the demonstration.
I have seen the video on that day that Ahmadinejad were surrounded by millions of people and shook hand with them, while Karoubi and Mousavi needed police protection to flee angry demonstrators.
No amount of support from west can revive Green movement as a source to topple Ahmadinejad. The Green supporters are well and alive living in Tehran, but they are no threat to Islamic Republic of Iran anymore!
It is NOT 1990 or 2000 - those days are gone and something bad happend to the "new world order" aka american century"
Honestly, no one is listening (actually, no one smart) what you or neocon or neolib are talking.
Stephen M. Walt:
"My point is that we often forget that we have been dealing with an Iran that is much less powerful than we are, and much weaker than it would have been under more effective leadership. Those who press for "regime change" in Iran assume that this would produce a government whose policy preferences were more in line with ours, and that the major conflicts that now exist between Tehran and Washington would quickly evaporate. Maybe so, but it might also produce a more effective and capable government that could defend Iranian interests more effectively, even when they clashed with ours. "
Also MEK has a habit of assassinating Americans, which they have tactically denounced to get financial help from US.
US relationship with Iran was sealed in 1953 when US removed democratic elected goverment of Iran with Ajax operation arranged and financed by CIA!
Any goverment in Iran will show hostility toward US to gain popular support!
This is from nationalist point of view!
From religious point of view Muslims around the world see Palestinians suppressed by Israel which is supported by US and EU.
Add this fact also to the mix and you will get jet fuel in ME if Iran become unstable!
And is the subversion and infiltration plotted under Petraeus, is that another "cup of tea"?
And the funding of Jundallah?
"US expands covert military operations: officials"
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5ig4mAKtqxikYpB42qeWOpBGxLHJg
Ultimately, Iranian problems will be solved by Iranians, as surely as American problems will be solved by Americans.
So, yes, there is nothing new here, other than liberal use of the term "regime" - quite unnecessarily, I might add.
A propaganda technique similar to calling the occupiers of Palestinian land "settlers.
Or the use of the term "homeland" by the Cheney-Bush fascists, who must have decided that we were not quite ready for 'Vaterland'.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5iZpb6-h8xD7mHnRKGUBW_WWE9WYg
"Sanctions are not correct if they harm the population, but those that have been voted recently are related to military issues and people's lives are not restricted by them," Ebadi said of the UN sanctions voted this week against Iran's nuclear programme,
Those who want unrestricted civil liberties (all but the bare fringe think they have democracy) are just as likely to want nukes as the rest (and a lot more likely than the devoutly religious, who view nuclear weapons as unholy).
And the failure of the sanctions to have all that much effect on Iranians makes the country that pushed for them (the US) look weak (the 'toughest sactions yet' will turn it into the butt of many jokes), and likely engender a feeling of pride amongst Iranians (defeating a superpowers efforts has to be something to make a businessman or engineer feel pride)
Then ask the question yourself.
Would, after time and time again punishing a country for being big and dark and scary, punishing a country despite it being part of the priviledged group add some credibility, or not?
“Statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.” – Mark Twain
Haven't you been paying attention to how the United States government operates? The lies about Vietnam, the lies about Iraq - the lies about Mexico in 1846 for god's sake?
The Iranians dared to overthrow the tyrant that the U.S. installed over them and, well, the D.C. cowboys aren't going to let them get away with that one, just the way we cynically bombed the Iraqi civilian infrastructure bought with the oil wealth nationalized out of American corporate hands by the Ba'athists.
There is a wolf loose in the world today, and it is not Iran.
Iran's Press TV channel is to broadcast a documentary on the country's latest presidential election that was held on June 12 last year.
The Real Fake by renowned Iranian director Nader Talebzadeh that will be aired by the English language channel on Sunday (12:00 am) provides realistic insight into developments in Iran before the election and the incidents after that.
The documentary seeks to resolve ambiguities that foreign audience may have about the presidential election.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=130059§ionid=351020101