With extreme caution, the demonstrators in Iran are moving toward attacking the country's leading religious figures and the political system that was established by the founder of the Islamic Republic. Except for some extreme nationalists, the demonstrators have not, until now, voiced the slogan of abolishing wilayat al-faqih (clerical rule). Their calls for replacing the country's Supreme Leader have been modest, and this is not to be expected from their own leaders, [in the opposition]. These figures all took part in building the existing regime: Mohammad Khatami, Hossein Mousawi, Mahdi Karroubi, the recently-deceased Ayatollah Montazeri, and Hashemi Rafsanjani (if we count him among the opposition). They all belong to the ruling post-revolutionary political class. They all allied against Bani Sadr and Mehdi Bazargan and others who held power after the victory of the revolution. They all took part in cementing the existing regime. Montazeri was proud that he came up with the term wilayat al-faqih. His book on the subject remains one of the most important references. His exclusion from the post of Supreme Leader and the selection of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei put Montazeri in the opposition. He was its leading figure, because of his religious standing, and not because of his reformist proposals. However, the opposition that is protesting in the streets of Tehran continues to lack a program that unites it. It is a mixture: of clergymen who believe in wilayat al-faqih, those who have been excluded from decision-making, atheists, royalists, the Mujahideen al-Khalq, Aryan nationalists, and those linked to foreign powers. There are also some “bazaar merchants”. It is a mix of political currents and figures that greatly resembles the revolutionary mix of the 1970s, with one important difference. In the 1970s, Khomeini had a clear program of action. His goal was to establish an Islamic republic, whose intellectual and theoretical foundations he had set down, instead of dictatorial rule that combined Persian chauvinism and a western orientation. The Shah lived in isolation from his people. The religious types were against him, and so were the Communists, and the merchants. It was easy for Khomeini, because of his religious standing and his program, which responded to people's feelings, to move the street. The slogan “Allahu Akbar, Death to the Shah,” which was repeated from the rooftops, had a magic effect. Today, the opposition is borrowing the same slogan and replacing the Shah with Ahmadinejad (there is no Shah and there is no Khomeini in the opposition). Some of the opposition transforms the slogan of the 1970s revolution, “Independence, Freedom, Islamic Republic,” into “Independence, Freedom, Iranian Republic.” There are nationalist slogans, such as “We are Aryans, No Religion with Politics,” or “No Gaza, No Lebanon, I Sacrifice my Soul for Iran.” There are many different chants, due to the diverse spectrum of demonstrators, who are not bound by a single objective, or a single leader, as represented by Khomeini in the past. Neither Mousavi, Khatami nor Karroubi plays this role today. However, despite all of this, we cannot take the demonstrations lightly. They are an important indicator of the transformation of Iran's public, especially since the division touches the religious institution and the ruling class. The division appears to be small at this juncture but it could evolve into something more dangerous, if the regime opts for a confrontation. This will have repercussions for the region as well. Iranians are on the move, and everyone is waiting for the endgame. The demonstrations have also served as a truce, an opportunity for the outside world to catch its breath. The demonstrations have given Israel and the US a bit of a comfort zone, as they seek to escalate their confrontation with the Islamic Republic. Washington sees the recent unrest in Iran as a significant transformation, which might force Tehran to turn its focus inward, or change its policy in the region. The US will negotiate with Iran from a stronger position; Washington will not be obliged to divide influence with Tehran in Iraq, or elsewhere. The US hopes that the opposition triumphs. And the Jewish state is no longer in a hurry to commit the stupidity of a military strike, which it has been threatening. Waiting is now the order of the day.
