A Hole in the Wall of the Fortress

The Supreme Leader saw worrying signs. Daily protests accuse the authority of rigging the presidential elections. Pre-election debates hung laundry that would’ve better remained unrevealed. Candidates accuse Ahmadinejad of internal economic failure and of causing the country’s isolation on the international level. A number of clerics refrained from congratulating the president on his victory. There are indications of divisions amidst some circles of the religious institution. Young men go up at night on rooftops and chant “Allahu Akbar” (God is the Greatest). These are the same chants that shook the pillars of the Shah’s regime three decades ago. He saw the young men themselves flow to the Tehran squares during the day without permission and raise “Where is my vote?” signs.

The Supreme Leader heard worrying talk. The oil revenues Ahmadinejad promised to bring to the table of Iranian citizens didn’t arrive. Inflation and unemployment rates increased. International sanctions harmed the economy. Ahmadinejad’s discourse while addressing the world was a source of concern and provocation instead of being convincing. The authority tried to contain embarrassing scenes. It curbed the movements of journalists and cameras. But it discovered that the world has indeed changed. A small mobile phone is enough to reveal the state of the streets, the capital, and the country.

The sons of the revolution have the right to compete. There’s no harm in them bickering sometimes and in the ballot boxes easing tensions. But the sons have to abide by the strict rules of the game. They should compete under the predetermined ceiling and bicker under the robes. They have no right to make a hole in the wall of the fortress that could turn into a window through which winds, questions, and doubts will be infiltrated. Great fortresses are hidden by a small hole.

There are other reasons for concern. Revolutions need hot or tense demarcation lines. A climate of confrontation is a prerequisite for the prolongation of unity. A feeling of being besieged is necessary for keeping the ranks together and delaying all difficult questions. The revolution’s safety prevails over questions regarding its actions. The safety of the line is more important than numbers. Concern over the revolution keeps its public alive or fiery. It is why Barack Obama’s appearance appeared to be confusing. He addressed Iran with respect and called its regime by its name. He said that his country isn’t planning to topple the Iranian regime and doesn’t want to dictate its conditions or impose its values. He kicked the ball into the Iranians’ court. He offered the open hand policy instead of holding a dialogue with fists and threats. Obama’s discourse is embarrassing to Iran and others because it aims at cooling the demarcation lines.

The absence of confrontation lines weakens the reasons behind constant mobilization. It returns the game to the inside. It facilitates questions of citizens on prices, job opportunities, quality of education, conditions of institutions, and the good use of budgets. It allows the question on the relation with the world to be asked again; on the relation with its economy, culture, scientific and technological revolutions, and the language of dialogue inside and among its societies. They do not object against a strong state, but they also want it to be modern. Scenes from the world and experiences of others are available to them through a small device that links them to the corners of the global village.

The Supreme Leader is entitled to feel worried. The reason isn’t Mir-Hossein Moussavi. The problem lies in many of those who were born after the revolution. They didn’t witness the birth pangs and don’t consider that guarding the ashes is more important than the questions of the future. The nuclear dream isn’t enough to quiet them. It is why they grab every opportunity to demand the revolution to reconcile itself with the new era and facts. It is why the Supreme Leader has interfered. He announced his inclination to Ahmadinejad and addressed a warning to protesters. He reminded everyone of the rules of the game and threatened those who violate them. He will not allow for the infiltration of winds. He will not allow for a velvet revolution. After his discourse the security apparatus will act without leniency. The Supreme Leader is the first guardian of the revolution.

Nothing gives the impression that the Iranian regime is threatened. Ahmadinejad’s popularity isn’t illusionary. But what is certain is that the protests have tainted the image. The question is: Can the revolution listen to the people and what will it conclude? Two decades ago the Chinese authorities repressed the Tiananmen protests. They saved the regime and stability but hastened to wage the battle of prosperity in the era’s language after it discovered that Mao Zedong’s keys do not correspond to the new times.