- Green was the symbol of Mir Hossein Moussavi's campaign in Iran, but after the controversial elections,  it  became  the symbol of a rather original dissident movement that initially sought to cancel the election results.  Some have even called it Iran's "civil rights movement". How do you assess the "Green movement"?

This movement in Iran is specific in many regards. It is perhaps the only indigenous grassroots movement in the Middle East - or even in the Muslim world - that is primarily concerned with “democracy” and political reform. Iranian protesters are not out-there because of economic reasons. They are not out there because they want bread or because the inflation rate is too high. And they are not out there because they've been encouraged, orchestrated or assisted by any foreign power, like it was the case in the so-called “color revolutions” in Eastern Europe, the Caucasus and the Balkans throughout the 1990s and early 2000s.

Iranians are pouring to the streets by the millions to claim their fundamental political and civil rights, of which they are perfectly mindful. They are fomenting a home-grown organic movement that has a deep understanding of democratic values and pursues political reform with a remarkable determination through non-violent means.  This is a very sophisticated movement that most outside observers never expected to see in a region such as the Middle East. 

I believe that Iran’s green movement is susceptible to have an important impact - not only on Iran’s domestic politics - but also on how the rest of the world would start looking at Islamic countries, the Middle East - and more generally - the so-called “Third world” countries.

- How would Iran’s Green movement change perceptions about the Middle East?

I think that politicians, decision-makers, academics and theoreticians from all spectrum have a lot  of lessons to draw from this movement. Both the Left and the Right - especially neoconservatives - in North America and Western Europe would probably have to acknowledge and reconsider some of their  past misconceptions as a result of this movement. Looking at the world through the prism of “Iran’s green movement” may make them rethink some of their premises and reassess some of their old paradigms.

For example, the Left may realize that it is perfectly possible to have an inborn socio-political democratic movement in a developing country without it being necessarily created, inspired or provoked by Western powers (or “capitalist” powers, to borrow from their lexicon). The Left may finally concede that you can, on one hand, oppose foreign dominance, imperialism, colonialism, and outside interference, and on the other, embrace liberal values, pursue democratic reform and fight for your human rights. The heterogeneous composition of the crowds of protesters may also make the left concede that civil and political rights - such as the freedom of expression, equal rights for men and women, freedom of assembly etc. - are not necessarily the caprices of a particular “westernized” bourgeois class, but rather the inherent need and demand of people from all walks of life.  I believe that the green movement may have helped any sincere leftist observer reconcile all these variables and assess the situation with more clarity, and outside the narrow confines of ideology. In fact, it looks like many leftist intellectuals and associated movements have already begun rethinking their policies and past perspectives in light of Iran’s recent events.

Right-wing thinkers have also something to learn from this. The green movement may reveal to them that the “Free world” (to use their expression) doesn’t have the “monopole on democracy” and that democratization and reform in Third World countries don't necessarily materialize through Western intervention. They may realize that democracy is not an exclusive ideology that History has bestowed upon them to promote through war or coercive interferences in other countries’ domestic affairs. I remember that in the run-up to the Iraq war, some conservative thinkers had argued that by successfully democratizing a Muslim country in the Middle East - albeit forcefully and artificially - they would generate a “domino effect” that would inevitably spread liberalism and democratic values across the Islamic world. This was a far fetched ambition that many of them, including high ranking officials within the Bush administration, sincerely believed they could achieve. Their belief stemmed from the underlying assumption - which they shared with the Left -  that Middle Eastern civilizations are not  mature and sophisticated enough to institute and maintain a real democratic regime by themselves. But today the emergence of a powerful indigenous inborn democratic movement in the midst of the Middle East may have rendered their doctrine completely irrelevant. There is a concrete example before their eyes that clearly demonstrates that the tormented region of the Middle East may very well be a fertile ground for a grassroots, vibrant and authentic democratic movement, without their interference. Neoconservatives are caught by surprise as they see how the people of an Islamic country - that until now was  perceived as a " rogue nation" - is so eagerly pursuing freedom and  inspiring neighboring countries across the Middle East.

I would add that the Green movement is also an antithesis to those doctrines that asserted that “free elections” and democratic systems in Islamic countries are not necessarily a desired option, as people in these countries are allegedly much too prone to get influenced by populist  and extremist  religious ideologies.  Proponents argued that free elections in the Middle East would inevitably give rise to fundamentalist groups such as HAMAS, the Taliban or Alqaeda as their ideals are inherently more compatible with people's beliefs. In fact the election of HAMAS in 2006 had somehow validated their assertion that an "unsupervised" electoral process in this region would most likely boost extremist groups and legitimize them with the people's vote. I think the green movement may have affected this perspective as well.

The authenticity of this movement is self-evident for the millions of people participating in it and for anyone slightly familiar with Iran’s history and political culture. This movement is the continuation of a hundred year old struggle for democracy that has always had an eye on nationalist principles and Iran‘s independence. Any sign of foreign involvement in any movement in Iran would be enough to kill it instantly. Had this movement been a product of Western machination, it wouldn’t have lasted more than a week. Besides, those who allege that this movement is guided by foreign intelligence services know full well that Iran’s  security apparatus is well too alert and sophisticated to allow a "remote controlled" social movement to take place and challenge the system. Moreover, I don't believe that there are any intelligence services in the world that is competent and efficient enough to figure out, infiltrate and manipulate a complex political establishment  like Iran's to this extend. This movement is as Iranian as it can get.

It is important to stress that "freedom" - and consequently democracy as a system that guarantees freedom - are very valued in Iran's culture and even religion. In Iran’s political culture it is widely believed that "democracy" is the best protector of national interests as unaccountable authoritarian systems are believed to be prone to make unfair concessions and trade our national resources with foreigners in order to insure their own survival. As former Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan had noted a few decades ago, the History of Iran is a constant reminder that “internal despotism paves the ground for foreign dominance”. So, for those who know Iran from inside, the emergence of this movement is only natural in this context, as it also has historical precedents.

- What are those precedents?

The Iranian collective memory vividly remembers the numerous unfair concessions made to the British, American and Russian governments, or even to their private nationals, during eras when its rulers governed with complete unaccountability. Iran’s collective consciousness is still wounded by treaties such as the Treaty of St. Petersburg which was signed in 1907 between Britain and Russia, without even the knowledge of the Iranian government. According to the terms of this treaty, the two superpowers had agreed to divide the sovereign state of Iran into three zones – British zone in the south, Russian zone in the north, and a narrow neutral zone serving as buffer in between. Iranians still remember agreements such as the D’Arcy Agreement that granted a British private citizen the exclusive right to prospect for oil in Iranian territory for a period of 60 years, in exchange of a moderate annual sum versed to the King. The Anglo-Iranian Oil agreement is yet another one of such unjust contracts signed by our unaccountable rulers that deprived Iranians for years of their national resources. Iranians also remember humiliating laws such as the 1964 “Capitulation law” that granted American citizens full judicial immunity on Iranian soil. All these injustices had to be responded to. And "Democracy" was the answer.

The conviction that “despotism paves the ground for foreign dominance”  is what made Iranians the trailblazers of constitutionalism in the Middle East over a century ago.  It is the same conviction that made Iranians attempt to nationalize their Oil industry against the will of all colonial powers and their domestic agents in 1951; It is this same conviction that drove them to revolt against a 2500 year old brutal monarchy in 1979, with the hope of instituting a political system founded upon transparency and democratic principles embodied in the motto “Liberty and Independence”. It is also - among other things - the same mentality that drove Iranians to elect Mohammad Khatami in 1997, as his opponents were perceived to be much more apt to make  secret deals behind closed doors with the U.S - or other Western powers as the Nick Brown episode confirmed, -and act against our national interests. And today, it is this same conviction that is making  us Iranians fight once again against those foreign and domestic forces that wish to repossess our hard earned “right to vote” and reverse every reform instituted during the past decades.  Today, the green movement ought to be understood in this context. It is not only a pro-democratic movement that wishes  to improve the people's quality of life inside Iran, but also a movement that understands democracy as a barrier to unjust foreign influence and duress. Today the green movement fears that a return to an absolutist unaccountable system would once again subject our country to blatant foreign exploitation - especially Russian exploitation - and ultimately to their dominance as it has it the past.

I believe that a movement rooted in History and partly founded upon such nationalist principles - and I don't use the term nationalist  in the chauvinist sense here - cannot in itself be a product of what it fights against.