"The Green Movement Wants or Needs Foreign Support. Dead wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is insulting and patronizing to suggest, as many commentators do, that without foreign help or support the green movement cannot be successful, that Iranians on their own are incapable of commanding their own destiny." (Hooman Majd)

Really? Insulting and patronizing?

It seems to me that recent history is replete with examples of movements like Iran's "Green Movement" failing because of a lack of foreign support.

On October 23, 1956 massive and spontaneous street demonstrations broke out in Hungary to protest the Stalinist Government of Matyas Rakosi. The goal of the demonstrators was to replace the Communist Government with a democratically elected government that respected personal liberties. While large numbers of Hungarians refused to participate in the demonstrations, the best guess is that at least half the nation supported the aspirations of the freedom fighters. The West offered nothing but rhetorical support; on November 4th the Soviets invaded; the movement was quelled and the Hungarians suffered cruel oppression for another 33 years.

In 1968 the famous Prague Spring movement flourished under the leadership of Alexander Dubcek. Thousands of Czechs and Slovaks took to the streets to demand civil rights, freedom and the right to choose their own government. The West offered nothing but rhetorical support; on August 21st twenty thousand troops from the Warsaw Pact nations invaded and the Prague Spring disintegrated into a long, bleak winter of discontent. The Czechs and Slovaks didn't regain their freedom for another 21 years.

Anyone old enough to remember can attest to the fact that the movement for freedom in both Hungary and Czechoslovakia looked remarkably like the Green movement in Iran today. Without Western assistance the freedom fighters in Eastern Europe failed to achieve their aspirations. Most of their leaders were jailed or in some cases executed. Without Western assistance, the same thing could easily happen in Iran.

Perhaps Hooman Majd should also reflect on the fact that had the French not assisted the American Revolutionaries, the American colonies would have certainly lost their war for independence.

Is providing covert or even overt assistance to Iran's Green Movement really such a bad idea?

This time urban population of Iran is fighting for green revolution without seeing that their government is mostly focusing on rehabilitation of rural of Iran.
Orthodox Ahmed is not suiting to modern Iranians who want to copy the west in one side west is aiding handful of angry people in Iran to topple the elected govt and other side providing full support to tyrannical leaders of Muslim countries for their conditional support to US.
West has become paranoid about Muslim leaders and places osama and ahmed in the same level of enmity but keeping strong love affairs to rich and unelected sheikhs of Arab countries.

Its amazing how some pundits are encouraging the US to become involved in the "Green Movement". I doubt whether very many of the same pundits really understand what form this involvement should take especially since it's not evident that the movement wants our help. My impression is that while the "Greens" leaders may be more favorably disposed toward the US than the current government, their goals are focused more on internal issues rather than Iran's foreign relationships. I wouldn't understimate the negative consequences of US support of the movement. How would we feel if a foreign government stated its support and provided aid for a particular party in a US election? Especially if this government had made veiled threats of military strikes and was a long time ally of a state we considered to our main enemy?

Dear Mr. Majd,

Your thesis that at core the Green Movement is striving for civil rights rather than regime change is partially correct. As you yourself state, no one should second-guess Iran/Iranians. That truism also applies to you and the Leveretts.

Opposition activists like Mohsen Sazegara who work in tandem with ‘grassroots nuclei’ in Tehran such as student leaders and neighborhood organizers that operate locally on the ground, would counter that the radicalizing elements you discredit as a minority are in fact a minority growing in number.

While most of your logic is sound and well-informed, some points you make are based on flawed arguments, which I will list in separate posts.

Majd: “The majority still want peaceful reform of the system and not necessarily a wholesale revolution, bloody or otherwise. That's why, in the most recent Ashura demonstrations, for example, large groups of peaceful marchers actually prevented some of the movement's radicalized elements from beating or attacking security forces.”

Counterargument:
The crowd’s prevention of attacks on captured security forces was not by default a mark of their “non-radicalized” views. According to accounts by friends present on the streets that day and witness to such scenes, it was a call to restrain mob frenzy and a call to keep in line with the movement’s defining principle of “nonviolence.”

Majd: “Although accurate polling information is not available …”

Counterargument:
Precisely for the reason of lack of reliable statistics, it’s safe to say no one can hedge bets on what percentage of the population is in fact still pro-Velayat Faqih or not. The “regime demise” question (Islamic Republic nezaam or system as it exists today) essentially boils down to the question of the survival of this central tenet of its theocratic structure. No one can claim to estimate the number of Iranians who still consider Khamenei a legitimate ruler -- and by extension, the validity of the office he occupies.

Majd: “The green movement's leaders recognize that any radicalization on their part will only bring down the state's iron fist.”

Counterargument:
Very true. The moderate "war of attrition" waged by the Reformists has been effective so far, while direct challenge to Khamenei could provoke harsher retaliation.
Then again, why would the hardliners react with “militant paranoia” (Hamid Dabashi’s coinage, or in Majd's words, their “schizophrenic” reaction) and install a police-state climate if they were not afraid of the remote possibility of threat to the regime’s survival? Why indeed, would the possibility even be verbalized at Friday Prayer sermons by pro-Khamenei clerics? Such radical accusations cannot be publicly stated for the sole reason of justifying a crackdown: it reflects a deep fear on the part of hardliners of this likelihood --especially with the 1979 precedent to look back on.

Majd: “That doesn't mean, though, that they would not look to replace Khamenei should it become apparent that he is an obstacle to the regime's stability.”

Counterargument:
If, as Mr. Majd suggests, the IRGC or Assembly of Experts ever act to remove Khamenei, the entire institute of Velayat-Faqih will be forever transformed. You cannot impeach “the Hidden Imam's deputy on earth” and expect to fill the position with the same “highest authority” legitimacy it was formerly vested with. At best, if this position manages to survive the Green Movement, it will be demoted to a “spiritual figurehead” status, like Queen Elizabeth with a turban.

Majd: “That doesn't actually mean that some form of compromise isn't possible.”
Counterargument:
Compromise is possible -- if the famously stubborn Khamenei is willing to back down and does not view this as a repeat of the Shah's weakness in caving in to offer too little, too late.

In the case that compromise does take place, if the outcome fails to satisfy the body of the opposition who shed blood on the streets, such a deal may not necessarily quell or halt the movement. Opposition supporters (who look to Mousavi as their "symbolic leader" just as they considered Montazeri a "spiritual leader"), may view Mousavi as a sell-out if the terms of his compromise do not measure up to the demands that the movement has suffered to achieve. Already, the movement has often surpassed Mousavi's "leadership" to act of its own collective accord -- if they don't like the compromise, the movement has demonstrated its potential to continue with or without Mousavi.

Majd: "Some Iran observers say the green movement is leaderless and argue that a headless movement will ultimately fail. And yet we're still hearing chants of "Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein!" at every protest. That's Mousavi."

Counterargument:
The war cry "Ya Hossein, Mir Hossein" is Mousavi –as a symbol. Just as the color green is symbolic. Mousavi himself denies that his role offers anything beyond symbolic leadership. In his official statements he clearly declares several times that he does not wish to be "rahbar jonbesh" ("movement's leader”) and instead vouches that he “follows" the people and reiterates time and time again “the people are the leaders.” In truth, the network spawned by the opposition is leaderless and self-evolved in comparison to the Khomeini model.

Majd: "The Green Movement Wants or Needs Foreign Support."

This assessment is 100% correct. Iran's Green Movement is wholly homegrown and self-evolving and is in no way indebted to any external influence.

Scholars are already calling it “the world’s first post-modern rebellion” – an innovative, network-based, technology-empowered movement that does not conform to “velvet” models seen in past instances of transition to democracy.

The Green Movement is a peaceful civil campaign that marks a new phase in Iran's 100-year project for determining its 'ideal' representative government. From transition to constitutional monarchy in early 20th and quasi-democratic republic in late 20th, the Iranians are attempting to transition to and define a new form of government in the 21st century.

It is as yet unclear if this will entail a reformed version of the Islamic Republic or Western-style 'democracy'. The one thing that is clear, based on the momentum of the movement since its inception in June 2009 until now in January 2010, is that the Green Movement is likely to "win" before the year is out. What that will mean is anyone's guess, but the political clock is ticking for the Islamic Republic in its current form. (FP readers will judge in January 2011 if this forecast was correct.)

Mr. Majd wants the Green Movement to "play nice". It should have a recognized leader, preferably one with a pedigree of participation in the Islamic Republic (and its crimes). It should not fight back while being beaten and gassed and shot at.

Mr. Majd will snatch at any straw to depict the movement this way. Mir Hosein Musavi is the movement's leader. Of course he is. They keep calling his name! But this shows a willful misunderstanding of Iranian politics, with its external (zaheri) and internal (bateni) sides. Of course the movement will beat its breasts behind Mir Hosein Musavi, it needs the cover and he will provide it. But there is a tacit understanding that this can only go so far and that Musavi cannot actually impose his leadership in any real sense of the term. Mr. Majd confuses form and content in Iranian politics because the form is more attractive than the content...

We can see how this worked very vividly in the Ahsura demonstrations. These were not Ashura mourning processions in any sense of the word--people cheered, whistled, and generally carried on. The reformist demonstrators were no more motivated by Musavi's leadership than by mourning Imam Hussein.

Mr. Majd affects to see a struggle within the movement between an insignificant revolutionary wing which calls for a secular state and a civil rights wing which wants to preserve the Islamic Republic and all its institutions. The revolutionary minority fights back against the repressive forces while the civil rights activists repudiate them. But this is completely belied by the facts. Even Musavi has not denounced resistance against the repressive forces. The street-fighters have been hugely popular with the demonstrators. And although a few hot-heads have given fallen basijis some broken bones, many more have been protected from the crowd's wrath by more level-headed protesters.

Mr. Majd seems to me more concerned that the anti-government demonstrations not challenge the structures of the system of which he himself was and is a part and which he himself supports--or, as he coyly puts it, does not oppose. He can return to the the Court and resume his position as adviser to the Crown.

[The green movement leaders] are also cautious because they know that if movement leaders call for regime change rather than reform and adherence to the Constitution, they will only have proven the government's assertion that the movement's goal all along has been to topple the system.

Iran is very unique among nations. It has a Constitution - and it is a repressive authoritarian state. Thus, reforms will have to be within the confines of the Constitution, or else the state will crush them. You don't have to like it, but you should admit it.

Good article. I doubt that a nation so rooted in Islamic law could do a 180 turn overnight. But honestly, anything that makes a country like Iran more liberal is a good thing. A more left-leaning government would make relations with Washtington turbotax deluxe much easier. And an Iranian regime that is spending time taking care of civil turmoil has less time to deal with international affairs, a good thing for the West.

While many of the points made by Mr. Hooman Majd are very valuable, it appears that there is also information contradicting some of them, probably due to the fact that the Green Movement is a mixed bag composed of an extremely wide variety of currents of politics, so no Green Movement supporter's view is likely to encompass all aspects of it. The most important contradiction (given the current conjuncture in the US-Iran conflict) concerns the question of whether "The Green Movement Wants or Needs Foreign Support."

From the Wall Street Journal yesterday, one learns: "The Obama administration is increasingly questioning the long-term stability of Tehran's government and moving to find ways to support Iran's opposition 'Green Movement,' said senior U.S. officials. . . . In recent weeks, senior Green Movement figures -- who have been speaking at major Washington think tanks -- have made up a list of IRGC-related companies they suggest targeting, which has been forwarded to the Obama administration by third parties" (Jay Solomon, "U.S. Shifts Iran Focus to Support Opposition," 9 January 2009, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126300060937222569.html).

What do the other leaders and participants of the Green Movement think of the "senior Green movement figures" speaking at "major Washington think tanks," making up a list of Iranian companies to be targeted for sanctions, and reportedly passing it on to the Obama administration? Is that really in the interest of the Green Movement? More importantly, is that good for Iran overall? Would it not be better for both the Green Movement and Iran if Mr. Mir-Hossein Mousavi, for instance, publicly condemned those allegedly "senior" Green Movement figures for calling for so-called "targeted" economic sanctions?