Telling their story:

I wrote the following email in response to http://counterpunch.com/roberts06192009.html

There are many such articles they should not stay unanswered.

Mr. Roberts,

Young men and women have been killed brutally and all they wanted was a voice not even a vote. Some blow a bomb to have voice and some like these youth the children of my generation shed their blood to have a voice. So when I see articles circulated and ideas are grabbed on as easy explantation for these events by authors whom I had read for many years and whose opinions were close to my heart I feel infuriated.

This situation reminds me of September 11 2001. Right after that terrible event, people asked the most natural question : Why? Why did they do that? Why do they hate us? That question could have led to so many liberating answers but the moment the phrase :They hate our freedom got currency then everyone felt happy because it seemingly fit and there was not to be any more questions.

So is with this Coup d' etat. I choose this word carefully. I do not use the word coup d'etat lightly. The votes were not counted as simple as that and the stage was set for a grab for total power by one faction of IR, and perhaps with the hope to do away with elections all together. That is how I see it and and that is why I call it Coup d'etat. I am not writing this letter to prove anything but to show another perspective and another possible explanation.

Now with events of the last 8 days story, at least among many commentators, has become that Mousavi's supporters were sore losers, they were rich, spoiled, North Tehranis (or Urban) and paid by CIA. Rural people voted for Ahmadinejad who was the great socialist and redistrubted the wealth among the poor. Basically completely believing AhmadiNejad's story and being tone deaf to the story in the other side. And it fits, we have all seen the colour and velvet revolution and CIA did and is doing their best to destabilise Iran and I am sure the idea of velvet revolution in Iran must have been somebody's pet project in Washington. It fits and the judge does not see any need to examine the evidence closer or have a jury to examine the evidence. The verdict is given. The rural part of Iran must have voted for AhmadiNejad, Mousavi supporter's are sore losers and/or paid (manipulated by CIA).

Now I am no fan of velvet revolutions and certainly no fan of bombing countries to freedom. And 10 days ago I would argue that Iran almost had democracy and while I hated AhmadiNejad's ideas I would argue that he had just about enough legitimacy. I was never a fan of regime change in Iran. As matter of fact, I am still not a fan of regime change. But my wishes are completely irrelevant now, Iranians in Iran have to decide that for themselves. I talk about my wishes so that you know my political colours and not confuse me with a supporter of an Iranian Chalabi.

I will tell you my interpretation of facts of which I know a few more than you do. And believe me if I could blame America in any perceivable way I would; I am Iranian and would never pass up a juicy conspiracy theory.

No one will know how rural Iran voted and I am not going to set out to prove anything. Just that some of your implicit or explicit assumptions about rural Iran may not be true.

Urban/Rural Iran is not a blue red divide a la USA and Mousavi and AhmadiNejad are not analogous of Kerry, Bush.

First Iran was Urbanised only in the last few generations. For example in the last 30 years the Urban/rural divide has gone from 40-60 to 70-30 %. This means that family ties between rural and urban Iran are still strong and these sections are not isolated from each other. Second it is wrong to assume that rural Iran automatically will supports stablishment candidate for several reasons(I do not use Conservative/Liberal or Right/Left contrasts because I am not sure they would apply in Iran). One being that rural Iran is not monolithic and it compromises many ethnicities with their own cultures and set of greivences against the central government. In effect, a talk about rural Iran does not makes sense, better to talk about different regions. Second some of these rural areas historically have been more progressive than some Urban centers like Qom and Esfahan (the stereotypes I have maybe absolutely outdated by now). Last Iran has had a relatively egaliterian educations system This means that many families in "rural Iran" will have children in Universities who would supposedly "enlighten" their parents. And Mousavi has his own "rural" credentials because it was while he was prime minister during eight years of war that Iran had the least disparity of income and furthermore he changed the landscape of the rural Iran by taking water, electricity and telephone and roads to the remotest parts. Duties completely neglected by Shah. I am not sure who shall take the credit but he was the prime minister at the time. People still talk about the "golden" years of war economically speaking. And while the protest where everywhere in the country it is inevitable they should start in big cities because big cities are not only the center of power but also give a measure of anonymity to the protesters.

Mr. Roberts this story is not about America. Americans are neither heros nor villains of this story. This is a purely Iranian tale. Some humility will go a long way.

One question, for 30 years Iranians have suffered under this government. Many of us changed allegiences very soon after revolution when the first wave of repressions started. We kept quiet because Iran was in a war, because we were afraid and because we never knew how many of us there really was. We showed our discontent in small ways, pouring into the streets was unthinkable.

Why do you think all of sudden people risked everything and poured into the streets? Rumour mill is very alive in Iran and even before any killings and brutality happening Iranians must have imagined the worst. There were rumours about Hamas and Hizbollah killers among riot police. In spite of all the real and imagined threats they risked everything and poured into the streets, and alas reality proved much worse but that is another story. So why now? Here is my take on it: for the first time they were sure of their numbers, this time it was not about establishment and non establishment, reform or no reform but about sense and none sense. Maybe because it was obvious who lied about the price of cheese on national TV, under whose presidency Iran had unheard of oil revenue and cannot tell the nation what he did with the wealth, the list of ineptitudes goes on. It must have been obvious so obvious that they got angry. They had asked for so little and given so much. They had asked for so little, a Mousavi presidency would change so little and that was denied them and then they were insulted with the figures. Maybe if they had published some closer results or AhmadiNejad had won in the second round nothing would have happend but insult was added to injury and that was the last straw.

I feel ashamed to entangle myself with an almost academic discussion when the proof is so self evident when you see the sheer numbers. Not to accept them as the manisfestation of the will of the nation is almost willful ignorance if not the arrogance of let us not believe the natives. Many Iranians will not explain anything because they will not think there is anything to explain, it being so obvious. If over one million risk their lives when threatened by the interior minister something is afoot.

And what if the results were completely accurate, as one protester put. That means 34% voted for Mousavi. This 34% have no share in power, have no say in their destincy nothing, even if they were 90% and Mousavi would been elected. Where is their voice?

What about the other charge that they are all bunch of rich or middle class urban and westernised kids so what? And what a middle class! What courage, what dignity and what grace. If only everywhere the middle class would stand up for what they beleive as they do. And Mr. Roberts they are not just middle class, among them are poets, writers, philosophers, doctors, professors, lawyers, human right activisits and yes some clergies. What is a nation without its artists. What is a nation who has silenced its poets and philosophers? What is a nation without its soul?

Mr Roberst they are not fighting about democracy, democracy is a too distant dream. I would not presume to know what exaclty they are fighting for but I can make a guess at what might have motivated them having lived in that atmosphere myself. It could have been joy of life, sound of laughter,or just having the luxuary of eating cheese with their piece of bread or maybe they wanted to take their God back from the monopoly of supreme leader. Each one of them has their own set of motivating factors but this fight is more fundamental than just a fight for democracy. This is a fight for life and all that make life meaningful and we all feel it in our guts. Even to all of us Iranians outside who are glued to our computers it is painfully obvious and I pray that we are wrong. We know each day that they have to go back to the streets. Yes they are some who may have made a profession of wishing for revolution and cheering people to their deaths. We do not cheer we watch in silence knowing in our guts what has to be done, not knowing what we would have done in the same position and wishing the painful wish that they have the courage to do it to go back to the streets. And alas I wish it was an abstract idea that I would gladly tell them to go back to their home because no idea is worth a young and vibrant life. We are not cheering but we are not telling them to please stay home because home is not safe anymore.

Why are they in the streets these supposedly middle class? Because, Mr. Roberts, the figures themselves were a clear threat. Why announce the unbelievable figures where they could have acheived the same aim with subltler methods? Because with the announcement was the thinly disguised threat to the people that you are finished. We had given you a lowly voice and we are taking it back, and we shall do away with all that. This is the explicit threat with it was the implicit threat that we will do as we wish from now on. The figures themselves were the announcements of a "regime Change" if you will. Iranians understood this maybe not in so many words but they understood it well and they went to the streets.

Mr. Roberts this story is not about America, this is Iran's fight for survival.