هویت ساخته شده در قرن جدید

هویت چیز عجیبیست. ما انسانها  در خیلی از موارد هویت را بدون سوال قبول میکنیم. خودمون را ایرانی، دانشجو، یا فعال سیاسی  مینامیم  اما باید پرسید: این پدیده هویت  چیست و ماهیت آن چیست ؟ 

 به نظر من هویت به شرایط محیط وابسته است. ساموئل هانتینگتون در کتابش «ما کی هستیم؟*» مثال جالبی میزند: 

“Identities are defined by the self but they are the product of the interaction between the self and others. How others perceive an individual or group affects the self-definition of that individual or group...

A female psychologist, it has been argued, in the company of a dozen male psychologists will think of herself as a woman; in the company of a dozen women who are not psychologists, she will think of herself as a psychologist”

هانتینگتون ادامه میدهد که هویت فردی غالبا ساخته خود بشر است و انسانها هم ابعاد مربوط به هویت را میتوان تغیر دهند بغیر از سن خود که تغیر ناپذیر است. 

یک بخش مهم هویت متعلق به ملیت است... اما همیشه این طور نبوده. ۵۰۰ سال پیش آنهای که در درون مرز کشور عراق امروزه زندگی میکردن خدشان را «عراقی» به معنای امروزه نمیدانستن بلکه عرب یا جزء قبیله میدانستن. 

دلیل این است که هویت گروهی مربوط به شرایط اجتماعی است؛ وقتی شرایط جامعه تغیر پیدا کند، آن تعریف قبلی هویت گروهی معنی اش را از دست میدهد. در عراق، به مرور زمان، تابعیت  قبایل ازرش و استفاده اجتماعی خود را از دست داد: جامعه مدرنی که بر اساس شهرنشینی شکل گرفت دیگر جایمطلوبی نبود  برای طریق زندگی  کردن قبیله ای.

مردم که وقتی داخل شهر زندگی کنن و همه نیازهای مادیشان را بتوانن در داخل شهربهش برسند، هیچ دلیلی نمیماند که خودشان را به یک قبیله وابسته کنن  که بر طبق سیستم روستای یا چادر نشینی  عمل میکند. 

پس تعریف هویت یک گروه تنها وابسته به هویت فردی عضو آن گروه نیست. 

سوال اصلی من این است که چگونه تغییرات بعدی هویت در ایرانیان شکل میگیرد... و چرا؟  ما در یک عصر «جهانی شدن» یا (گلوبیلیزیشن) قرار گرفتیم... این چگونه ارزشهای مردانمان را تغیر میدهد؟ مثلا کسی قائل است که ماهواره تاثیر فرهنگی در جامعه ایران نداشته؟ این جز یک مثال کوچیکی است.  

من پیرامون این سوال یک فکرهای کردم، اما کنجکاوم  که شماها چی فکر میکنید؟

-----------------

این مقاله در واقع اولین پستی هست که پیرامون یک موضوع مهم به زبان فارسی مینویسم، امیدوارم خوانندگان گرامی این بلاگ هم مشکلات فراوان فارسی من انتقاد کنن و هم به موضوع اصلی این بلاگ نظر بدن :)

*"Who Are We"

The Quran as a Miracle

[Disclaimer: please don't accept what I say as a necessary representation of Islam, I'm simply writing down my observations as a regular Muslim curious about these topics. Those more learned than me should absolutely correct me if I make a mistake]

We Muslims believe that the major prophets all had signs, or miracles. For Moses, one of these miracles was parting the sea; Jesus could cure the afflicted. For the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), the main miracle was the Quran. As I argue in this post, in my lay opinion, the fact that Allah's last Prophetic miracle was expressed in the form of written language signifies the importance of high culture, intellect, and deep spiritual understanding of religion as opposed to an acceptance of only the physical manifestations of God's supreme authority over this existence (although that is of course important as well).

As a nascent student of Arabic, reading the Quran and trying to dissect it's grammar is immensely beautiful and engaging. Even before I started studying the grammar, the English translations alone would consistently astonish me and speak directly to my being.

However, many people ask how it is possible for the Quran to be a miracle. Aren't miracles supposed to be impossible? I don't see lightening bolts jumping out from the pages. As a kid, I remember often pondering how something so seemingly simple as ink on paper was such a big deal? Why couldn't commanding thunder and winds, for example, as the Prophet Sulaiman had, been the Prophet Muhammad's miracle? Certainly, then, all would believe -- they could see the power of God.

While I am nowhere NEAR an expert or scholar of Islam, my opinion is that physical miracles such as parting the sea, while certainly astonishing, appeal only to a very limited conception of God's authority and power. Physical miracles, like all miracles of God, are meant for those who can actually grasp the magnitude and message of what is happening. Their hearts must be open, not stubborn and closed to the idea of being convinced of God's signs. Indeed, God often talks about how he showed miracles to unbelieving people -- at their own request and challenge -- and how even after that miracle had occurred, the people would make up an excuse, explicitly reject what literally happened before their eyes and carry on with their lives.

As this Quaranic story illustrates about the people whom the Prophet Saleh was delivering God's message:

They demanded that Saleh prove that the One God he spoke of was truly mighty and strong.  They asked him to perform a miracle – to cause a unique and incomparable she camel to emerge from the nearby mountains.  Saleh addressed his people asking, if the camel appeared would they then believe in his message.  They answered a resounding yes, and together the people prayed with Saleh for the miracle to occur.

By the grace of God, an enormous, ten month pregnant she camel emerged from the rocks at the bottom of the mountain.  Some of the people understood the magnitude of this miracle but the majority continued to disbelieve.  They saw a great and dazzling sight yet remained arrogant and stubborn. 

Allah repeatedly states in the Quran that his message (and miracles) can only be understood by those who have the  capacity (not only intellectually, but spiritually and mentally, etc. as well) to grasp the significance of the signs of God.

So, why, then is the last Prophetic miracle the Quran? As I see it, at the point in time when the Quran was revealed, mankind had transcended the point in their development where physical miracles alone could provide proof of God's existence. The Quran appeals to the highest faculties of man's mind; the Quran is made for all times and all people... it is God's message directly addressed to his believers of all levels. The Quran is a miracle because it is God's untarnished message directly revealed for all humanity -- it is, in short, a sign of Allah.

It seems to me that Allah, by revealing the Quran, is encouraging us to believe by reading and examining the eternal messages the Quran has to offer. The Quran is expressed in written form: it is the template of the Arabic language and the reason we Muslims hold the Arabic language in such high regard. The Quran is the epitome of written Arabic and lays down the fundamentals of grammar, syntax, and overall structure of the Arabic language.

Allah has provided us with a miracle/sign that is accessible for all who seek it -- rather than a physical act, such as parting the sea which is limited to a very small amount of people during a very short period of time.

Thus, the final miracle is also eternal -- a miracle we can attest to every day, the most accessible sign of God on earth.

From the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush: Rethinking the Region

From the Mediterranean to the Hindu Kush: Rethinking the Region

Rafsanjani on "Sigheh," or "temporary marriage" & "The Bomb," with Mike ...

Excellent interview with Ayatollah Rafsanjani in 1997. Still asking the SAME questions on the nuclear program. Ridiculous.

One of my favorite questions:

MW: "You want the nuclear bomb?"

HR: [casually scratching his eye] "No. What the Americans did in Hiroshima and Nagasaki has had everyone hate trying to get the atomic bomb."

Say what you will about Rafsanjani but he's a master politician.

Shaping the Narrative about U.S. Allegations of an Iranian Assassination Plot

I am very pleased with the back and forth provided through this interview. For once, the interviewer is fair and calm and the discussion is worth watching. The points Ms. Leverett makes are quite apt:

Shaping the Narrative about U.S. Allegations of an Iranian Assassination Plot

Leverett on U.S. Charges of Iran Terror Plot

The Myth of American Exceptionalism - By Stephen M. Walt | Foreign Policy

The Myth of American Exceptionalism - By Stephen M. Walt | Foreign Policy

Should We "Double Down" on Iran? | Stephen M. Walt

Should We "Double Down" on Iran? | Stephen M. Walt

Stephen Walt recently wrote a brilliant article on Iran for Foreign Policy (see above), outlining the failures of US policy towards Iran and "insulated beltway thinking" regarding those policies. His piece is wonderfully written and I agree with probably all of what he says regarding the shortcomings and illogical nature of people like Kenneth Pollack and Ray Takyeh.

Walt discusses the absolute absurdity of the "dual track approach" -- which had also been accurately criticized in essentially the same terms by Mehdi Mohammadi for Kayhan in an article I translated into English, here.

Long story short, aside from the fact that the advice Pollack and Takyeh give is just idiotic, hypocritical, and illogical, these men have an absolutely horrifying track record and have innocent blood on their hands. We should not be listening to people who have been proven wrong in the past and have admitted they were wrong... would you re-hire a doctor who almost killed you in surgery and admitted he didn't know what he was doing afterwards?

The Costs of Ignoring Yemen - By Marc Lynch | The Middle East Channel

The Costs of Ignoring Yemen - By Marc Lynch | The Middle East Channel

Interview: Anwar al-Awlaki - Focus - Al Jazeera English

In light of recent claims of killing Awlaki by the US government, here is a very interesting interview of al-Awlaki by Aljazeera dated about a year and a half ago:

Interview: Anwar al-Awlaki - Focus - Al Jazeera English

"How the State Department Came After Me"

Here is a very interesting case that is developing between a current member of the State Department and his freedom to criticize his own organization.

Peter Van Buren spent some time in Iraq and subsequently wrote a piece criticizing some of the ridiculous expenditures, but more importantly, fundamental failures of post-war Iraq "reconstruction." His story was published in Foreign Policy, read here.

Then some controversy ensued, and you can read about Van Buren's response here. It essentially boils down to the State Department's hypocracy in criticizing foreign governments for censoring media while the Department engages in the same practices at home, including intimidating its own employees, threatening them, and stifling innocuous speech just to save some face.

I included, in my opinion, the most eloquent passages from the article  below:

"We have been battered to death with public statements from the Secretary of State on down demanding the rights of bloggers and journalists in China, Burma and the Middle East be respected. While the State Department does not lock its naughty bloggers in basement prison cells, it does purposefully, willfully, and in an organized way seek to chill the responsible exercise of free speech by its employees. It does this selectively; blogs that promote an on-message theme are left alone (or even linked to by the Department) while blogs that say things that are troublesome or offensive to the Department are bullied out of existence. This is not consistent with the values the State Department seeks to promote abroad. It is not the best of us, and it undermines our message and our mission in every country where we work where people can still read this.


I have a job now at State that has nothing to do with Iraq, something I enjoy and something I am competent at. To me, there is no conflict here. I'd like to keep my job if I can, and in the meantime, I'll continue to write. I have no need to resign in protest, as I don't think I've done anything wrong absent throwing a few pies at some clowns and bringing to daylight a story that needed to be told, albeit at the cost of some embarrassment to the Department of State. That seems to me compatible with my oath of office, as well as my obligations as a citizen. I hope State comes to agree with me. After all, State asks the same thing of governments abroad, right?"

اولین پست به فارسی!

به هدف این که نویسندگی فارسی ام را بهتر کنم، قصد دارم  بعضی از پستهایم را در فارسی منتشر کنم. در خواست میکنم که دوستان فارسی زبان نوشتارم (یا 'نویسندگی ام؟' -- فرقش چی هست راستی؟) را حتما ویرایش و انتقاد کنن. متاسفانه تا حالا نتونستم نوشتارم را  زیاد تمرین کنم و خیلی خوشحال میشم اگر تواناییم در فارسی افزایش پیدا کنه .


دوتا  از مشکلهای  اصلی که دارم این است که (۱) وقتی فارسی مینویسم تو ذهنم  گرامر انگلیسی دارم استفاده میکنم، و (۲) لغتها و جملاتی که استفاده میکنم عامی هستن.


!اگر خوانندگان وبلاگم هیچ پیشنادی داراند، خیلی خوشحال میشم

Geopolitical Journey: Iran at a Crossroads

Geopolitical Journey: Iran at a Crossroads

This is a good article to read about an analyst's recent trip to Iran. I agree with most , if not all of what he says about domestic Iranian politics -- mainly that the Islamic Republic has massive popular and elite support and that the Green Movement has always been a constrained force.

He also makes a very interesting point that the region is undergoing a political awakening -- not a religious revival -- and that the uprisings have been limited to the Arab world, thus the term "Islamic Awakening" (thus extending to non-Arab nations as well) may not be apt. This is a quite interesting point and one I would definitely like to engage further in future posts.

The question, at the heart of the matter, is what is motivating these events? Islam, at least nominally, was at the forefront of revolutions and uprisings in the Middle East from the middle to late 20th century including the Islamic Revolution in Iran and Muslim Brotherhood movements in countries such as Egypt, Syria and Turkey.

In light of this, we should ponder Asef Bayat's assertions on "Post-Islamism" and how, as he argues, the current "theme" of Muslim societies has turned away from "Islamic fundamentalism" to focusing on better government and lively civil society. Bayat published his book in 2007, but it seems to be extremely relevant today. Are we in a "post-Islamist" world, and what does that mean? What has taken the place of Islamic revivalism?

Ahmadinejad Coverage

Compare these two stories published on Ahmadinejad's latest UN speech:

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/200679.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44627475/ns/world_news/?ocid=ansmsnbc11

The first is published by Press TV, an Iranian government funded news organization, and the second (which includes a video of Ahmadinejad's speech) by MSNBC, an American corporate news organization.

Same speech, completely different framing by the news organizations. Anyone care to point out the differences? Feel free to comment.

Internal Dynamics

Stratfor has recently published two publicly accessible analyses which intelligently reflect how internal politics affects a country's foreign policy.

The first article is an excellent piece on how the Obama administration has come up short in the domestic politics game and how Obama is stuck between trying to solidify his base and capturing centrists. Essentially, the article states that Obama will be deeply focusing on domestic affairs for at least up until the next election and will be unable to undertake serious foreign policy initiatives as that would take away focus from re-election.

The second analysis, a video, discusses the unique role Ahmadinejad has been playing in Iranian politics and how differing factional alignment in the conservative camp is creating new dynamics and narratives. It raises a lot of good points regarding domestic Iranian politics and the competitions which shape the Iranian polity, namely how weakening clerical legitimacy does not necessarily give space to Reformists, but may instead empower the Revolutionary Guards and the security apparatus.

American Hikers Freed

Press TV reports that the two remaining Americans "hikers" which had been detained for about two years by Iran left Mehrabad airport today.

The New York Times further added that these men are most likely headed to Oman, which probably played a crucial role in releasing them, just as the Omani government had with Sarah Shroud. It's not clear whether these individuals were actually spies are not, their story is a bit shady but the Iranians, for their part, unfortunately played into making this a political case instead of a judicial one. For example, they allowed the mothers of these individuals to visit them in a very publicized manner and allowed this story to take on a "humanitarian" spin, not a legal-procedural tone.

A 'red telephone' between Tehran-Washington?

Shargh, a left leaning paper in Iran published a very interesting story speculating on whether an emergency political hotline would be set up between the United States and Iran (for non-Persian speakers, I apologize for the rough google translation). The article states that American officials, worried about a possible showdown in the Persian Gulf or elsewhere, requested that this hotline be set up.

This is quite interesting (and rational) -- I remember a friend, who was very intimate with this situation, telling me in Tehran that Iranian and US navy commanders in the Persian Gulf were actually on very good terms with one another (even calling each other on a first name basis) and were cooperating quite extensively and thoroughly regarding maneuvers, etc. since both sides did not want any accidents to happen in the highly pressurized atmosphere of the Gulf.

Who thought the men in uniforms would be the ones to extend diplomatic initiatives and niceties?

'Iran’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy'

This is a very interesting talk by Shireen Hunter who talks about Iran's foreign policy after the Cold War. She views Iranian leadership as pretty inept, but more importantly, as ignorant about basic realities. The main point that she makes -- which in her opinion proves that the Islamic revivalist/pan Islamic outlook of the clerical leadership is wrong -- are that Arabs will never like Iranians because they are (1) Ajam (i.e. Persian non-Arabs) and (2) Shia. Arabs are naturally distrustful of what Saddam called "fire-worshiping Persians" and that can never change, therefore why even try? She comes to the conclusion that Iran's natural allies in this region are Israel and the United States and that if Iran wants to prosper it must make peace with Israel, just as the Shah had, and counterbalance against it's Arab neighbors.

Of course, this was before the Arab Spring and the current extreme fallout that Israel has been facing as it must now deal more directly with the people of the region instead of secular westernized elites who had to repress the street in order to keep peace with Israel. However, I don't think she's right on all her assumptions and she's clearly very typically distrustful of Arabs (as a former diplomat under the Shah, what do you expect). Further, I think that Iran should be given credit for acting a lot more strategically than Hunter gives Tehran credit for; surely, a lot of that is circumstantial given America's serious blunders, but a lot of it comes from a strong base and strategic vision from the Bait-e Rahbari i.e. the Supreme Leadership in Tehran.

Nonetheless, I think Hunter makes a lot of unfortunately good points that have to be dealt with even as the region is changing so rapidly and unpredictably. Namely, her assertion that big powers don't like mid-range powers and that Iran has a basic set of strategic realities it has to recognize before it can implement sound foreign policy, not to mention the centuries long Arab-Ajam situation. But these are important questions that have to be asked and debated on a consistent basis if they are to be understood correctly.

Leverett Interview

This video and article concisely summarizes where the United States and it's Middle East policy stands today, 10 years after September 11th.

10 years and one day after

A decade and one day after the events of 9/11, it is now clear that it wasn't U.S. arms or the example of a "free, democratic" Iraq that spurred the most monumental of changes in the Middle East -- as Bush Hawks so eagerly used to assert. Instead, it was the people of the region, acting of their own accord, that shook the grip of dictators in the Middle East and struck fear into their hearts. And it was long overdue. As Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu put it "the future [was] delayed."

What Davatoglu meant was that the Middle East was in a state of obvious disequilibrium; the political systems that ruled over the ummah, especially the Arab world were not natural nor fit for the times. In a region with probably the most youthful population in the world, how is it possible for aging octogenarians to rule over the same people with static, unresponsive policies? Did anyone really think Mubarak -- or more accurately, what Mubarak represented -- would last? What was his stake to legitimacy?

More importantly, did anyone think this completely implanted political system imposed on arbitrary borders created after the first world war and based on notions of the liberal nation-state but which morphed into kleptocratic autocracies and defied over a  millennium of Muslim political thought would be anything but a hiccup in the continuous history of the region?

Davutoglu, a historian at heart, declares in March of 2011, at the cusp of springtime, that "we are going through a natural flow of history. Why? Because there was a need for change...

There were two abnormalities in the last century in our region. The first abnormality was colonialism. And the second abnormality was the Cold War, which divided the societies, the countries, which divided our region. The first abnormality, colonialism, in the 1930s, 40s and 50s, divided the region into colonial entities and separated the natural links between tribes and communities... The countries [which] were divided because of the Cold War - South Yemen, North Yemen. Those countries who lived together for centuries became enemies to each other, like Turkey and Syria... Now it is time to naturalise the flow of history. I see all these processes as a delayed process... This is a paradigmatic shift. This is a natural flow of history. Everybody must respect this will of the people."

Thus, my biggest hope is that the flow of history is naturalized, as Davutoglu puts it. The region is not used to such foreign implants, and the changes which happen have to be organic and natural. From the bottom up, so to speak. The Muslim world and it's scholars, or ulema, to their credit, had tried to foster notions of unity and Muslim brotherhood from Islam's conception to the brink of the first world war. It didn't matter that you were Egyptian or Indian, as long as you were Muslim, you should be judged on your piety, not ethnicity. (although it didn't always work out that way). It didn't matter that Turks ruled over Arabs as long as the Turks were justly holding the banner of Islam and resisting against foreign powers, they were legitimate in the eyes of many Muslims. This mentality is not a bad one; it doesn't obsess over borders that much. As one of my professors said in Tehran, the borders before the age of nationalism were political borders, they were not social ones. My dream is that these social and cultural borders open up and that the Arab Spring can usher in dialogue between societies which had previously been rudely interrupted by the West.

"What is the future if this is the past? The past was the abnormality. The present change is a natural flow of the history and our future is our sense of common destiny. All of us, we have the common destiny."


Video streaming by Ustream

Winning Coalitions

There is a very interesting interview Charlie Rose has with Hosni Mubarak in 2000 (below). The most interesting thing Mubarak states is when he is talking about Syria's Assad: Mubarak states that Assad cannot give land concessions to Israel for peace and that even if we assume Assad is a dictator, he cannot act unconstrained. Charlie retorts by saying "but he can do whatever he wants." "No!" replies Mubarak, that's an assumption Westerns always carry. Assad may be a dictator, Mubarak continues, but he rules the country through his party, and while those forces are hard to see, he has to ultimately be answerable to them... unfortunately for Mubarak, he learned this the hard way when the Army forced him from office.

Academic Imperialism - Seyyed Mohammad Marandi

A wonderful talk by Dr. Marandi on the effects of cultural hegemony and Eurocentrism. As someone who just came back from Iran a week ago, I can say that Dr. Marandi is dead-on with his analysis... it's not just Europeans who think their standards are superior, it's Iranians too, and that's the most damaging aspect of it all.

Bill Keller's "Unfinished Business" | Stephen M. Walt

Bill Keller's "Unfinished Business" | Stephen M. Walt

Signal Blocked

Yesterday, I was woken up by friendly cops in Tehran. They were calling my apartment's "iphone" i.e. phone that is connected to the front door of my apartment building.

Buzz... Buzz... Buzz...

"Hello?"

"Yes, Hello, good morning we're from Tehran's law enforcement you have to come down, we have to talk to you."

Insert expletive. What had I done? I hadn't gotten in any street fights, stolen anything, or bought drugs/alcohol... I think.

I opened the door to a friendly cohort of 20-30 somethings. The lead officer shook my hand as one of his men took a digital photo of the front door, me included.

"Hello young man, we're here to investigate whether your building has dish satellites."

Whew. My unit didn't have satellites, but my heart was still racing. The officers came in and had to climb 4 flights of stairs only to find that the door to the roof was locked. I didn't have a key, so they clipped the lock open, went to the roof and exclaimed Allahu-Akbar!

They proceeded to bend the 6-7 or so satellites on the roof (in a 10 unit building). What's surprising here is that my apartment is located in what is considered "lower Tehran" where the people are supposed to be more religious, conservative, and lower income than upper Tehran where women's scarves tend to be looser, and people more educated and Western. Satellites are supposedly for Westernized Iranians who watch bad movies and foreign media propaganda.

This morning, one of my neighbors woke me up at 8 am after banging on my door for probably 5 minutes. I knew what was coming, but I opened up anyway.

"Sorry did I wake you?" She asked, clearly not caring if she had. She then went on to attack me for probably 5 minutes asking why I opened the door for the police. As if you have the option just to ignore law enforcement.

"You did a very bad thing," she told me.

So much for stereotypes.

A Thumping Heart

It's midnight in Tehran and I am listless as I look around me. This is the city whose thumping heart beats in every corner and alleyway, the city which devours traditions. The smell of the smog fills my nose as I watch the heavy crowds push and pull against one another, not realizing that they are, in essence, only pushing and pulling against themselves.

I had seen these streets not too long ago, but it was different then. I had seen crowds then too, but they had been marching. I remember the chants, the broken glass, the bite of tear gas, the alcohol swabs and garbage bin fires.

It may be midnight in Tehran, but I can still sense the fog. It is everywhere. I cannot predict what will happen 10 feet ahead of me.

I arrived back to Tehran Monday morning from Mashhad, one of the country's main religious centers and host to the shrine of the 8th Shiite Imam, Imam al-Reza. The city attracts millions upon millions of pilgrims annually, and Arabic speakers fill the streets around the shrine. Iranian shop owners, or bazaaris, easily switch back and forth between Persian and Arabic. Mashhad is a wonderful example of what a regionally cosmopolitan yet deeply religious city could look like. The city's diversity and mix of people of different backgrounds gave this blogger hope of what a future Middle East could one day become as well, where historical relationships between the region's diverse peoples could once again become fluid and prosperous.

Within the shrine itself, Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami, a Friday prayer leader in Tehran and influential figure among the traditional political clergy, delivered a typical speech within the courtyard emphasizing the importance of Velayat-e Faqih, or Guardianship of the Jurispudent. A stark reminder that the Islamic Republic's religio-political legitimacy is far from depleted. This clerically inherited and innovative worldview which roots it's legitimacy in anti-hegemonic and conservative/religious discourse is still the most powerful political force to be reckoned within the Islamic Republic.

Of course, the innovation of this worldview is constrained by the fact it is in power. It is not as free to engage in revolutionary politics to the degree to which it would like, but it is still, nonetheless, quite successful in achieving many of it's mission statements: creation of an anti-hegemonic axis in the Middle East and the promotion of Islam both socially and politically within Iran.

The biggest legitimate challenge to this view comes not from the outside, but from within -- from the Islamic Left in an attempt to better achieve what they believe the Islamic Revolution was all about. However, the Reformists did not advocate regime change; instead, they wanted reform from within the framework of the Islamic Republic and never formally opposed the Supreme Leader, although some Reformist elements did eventually choose this route, they were never the majority and the Islamic Left of Khatami never denounced the Islamic Republic.

And so, despite the presence of a significant and very important opposition movement within Iran, there is extraordinary support for the fundamentals of the Islamic Republic at both a popular and elite level... it only takes one trip to Mashhad to figure that out.