3 hours ago
A deep and painful inquest is under way inside Iran as politicians, academics and the security establishment try to come to terms with what has been described as a catastrophe after the violent protests and their even more violent suppression by the security forces.
The shape of the debate taking place in the heavily censored society is emerging, as selective newspapers and Telegram channels slowly open up to international audiences after the protests – which some estimates suggest could have left more than 30,000 dead – that have stunned many Iranians.
Fissures are appearing across politics, society and diplomacy, suggesting Iran may be entering a more unpredictable period than a phase of repression by the dominant security establishment.
Calls are being made for an independent external inquiry into the death toll, for speeding up the reopening of the internet to save businesses on the brink, and for the government to shift its stance on foreign policy.
There is also deep concern that economic shock therapy and sanctions are driving food inflation close to an unsustainable 200% annually, with the stock market and the rial under severe pressure.
Few deny the severity of the tragedy that has befallen Iran, even if they disagree about its cause and scale. Politically the crisis is especially deep for the reformists as they have held the presidency for 18 months and initially described the protests as legitimate.
Mohammad Fazeli, a reformist sociologist, wrote on his Telegram channel: “Iran’s history will be entangled with this event for decades, buried under the rubble of this catastrophe.
“But in these days, beyond the grief for those thousands killed and wounded, a deep sorrow has gripped my entire being. I have no doubt that dozens of others like me have sunk into this same grief and bewilderment. The grief and misery of ‘We failed’.”
Criticism of the security services, or their claim that only 3,000 people were killed, is starting to appear. Many commentators attribute the protests to a loss of hope and the now 50-year generation gap between many protesters and Iran’s ageing leadership.
Ahmad Zeidabadi, a reformist journalist and former political prisoner, argued: “Only a professional report from the UN’s independent jurists can serve as the final arbiter of the contradictory narratives about this national tragedy. Rejecting such a request on the part of the Islamic Republic would be a historic mistake.”
The head of the Reform Front, Azar Mansouri, also implied the truth had not yet been revealed, promising: “We will not allow the blood of these dear ones to be forgotten or the truth to be lost in the dust.”
Fatemeh Mohajerani, the chief government spokesperson, at a press briefing on Tuesday referred to the need for two inquiries into specific episodes during the protests. In the past, the security services have rejected all such investigations.
Iran’s vice-president, Mohammad Reza Aref, has also demanded explanations from the ministry of culture as to why the reformist newspaper Ham-Mihan was shut after it published two articles covering the bloody outcome of the protests.
Those calling for a free press claim Iran is being squeezed between unwatchable state propaganda television and anti-government UK-based satellite channels.
The University of Tehran student association in a statement said it was “stunned and bewildered as to what has befallen us”, and said the perpetrators should not be allowed to escape the burden of responsibility.
Few senior figures have yet called on the Iranian leadership to offer the key diplomatic concessions the US requires on the nuclear file. Dr Javad Salehi, a US-based Iranian economist, pointed out in the Iranian press the direct link between Iran’s global isolation and its economic backwardness.
He said: “The only effective measure in the short term to improve the country’s economic situation is to resolve hostilities in the field of foreign policy.”
Faizullah Arabsorkhi, a former commerce minister and political prisoner, said foreign policy was at the root of the lack of economic growth. “The authorities must change policies and change the way they deal with the world. The Chinese themselves advise Iran to solve your problems with America.”
For those inside Iran contemplating another foreign attack, the question is whether a second assault – either direct or through a blockade – will lead to the kind of nationalist revival that occurred last summer.
The government would doubtless try to engineer it, and there are many Iranians who liken their current sense of lost sovereignty to 1941, when the country was occupied by Russia and the UK.
Many of them cannot stomach the hypocrisy of the US condemning Iran’s failure to manage its economy when US sanctions are the bedrock of that failure.
But there is also deep disillusionment at the failure of the government to take the chance to set a new course after the 12-day war last June.
The recent calls in the street for the return of the shah may have been an act of desperation but they were also a sign that some now feel the source of their salvation lies abroad.
Abolfazl Ghadyani, the 80-year-old jailed political activist, called the suppression of the protests a crime against humanity, saying: “Ali Khamenei’s personal instruction was to put the rioters in their place.”
The order revealed “his endless hostile vindictiveness and the desire for revenge against the Iranian people. The scale of the crime was unprecedented in 100 years.”
He added: “Khamenei is like a drowning man who resorts to any means, but salvation is impossible for him. These moral vices that are his essence will no longer serve him.”
From the perspective of the security services such criticism affirms the need to keep the internet suppressed. But in a sign of the tensions over the issue, government members made clear the security services were to blame for the internet shutdown.
