I've heard almost nothing out of Iran in the last few days. Is that because I'm missing it, or is there actually nothing to report now?

Because the administration wants to deal with the current Iranian leadership, and the majority of the media supports the administration, they decided to let the protester whither away, as a non-issue. If they looked to this administration for support or encouragement, they were doomed from the start. The first few hours were critical, and Obama's silence spoke volumes.

Cutting communications during civil unrest is part of dictator 101 class. 

That's pretty much it.

The protests are non-violent and the regime ignores them. They only hope is exposure and that's not going to happen any more.

Non-violent protests only work against moral (or very weak and somewhat moral) governments.

Rafsanjani has publicy announced his belief that the vote was rigged and his support for Mousavi:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran-security7-2009jul07,0,2303204.story

A day after commanders of the Revolutionary Guard warned there was no middle ground in the dispute over the reelection of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the political party of one of Iran's most powerful clerics Monday defiantly issued a statement dismissing the vote.

The statement by the Kargozaran party all but cleared away weeks of ambiguity about the stance of the cleric, Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

Note that some regimes always refer to themselves as "the revolution", despite having been in power for 30 years:

"Because the Revolutionary Guard was assigned the task of controlling the situation, [it] took the initiative to quell a spiraling unrest," Maj. Gen. Mohammed Ali Jafari, commander of the elite military branch, said at the news conference. "This event pushed us into a new phase of the revolution and political struggles, and we have to understand all its dimensions."

It's one of of being both progressive and conservative.

This guy gets it:

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/heres-the-real-message-behind-irans-disputed-election-20090706-daej.html

What we have witnessed in Iran in recent weeks is a military coup conducted through the ballot boxes. Policymakers and analysts have been talking for a long time about the possibilities and prospects of a change of regime in Iran. Well, I have news for everybody — change of regime in Iran has taken place.

The re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second term as Iran's President represents the emergence of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp as a military dictatorship — pushing aside the clerics and mullahs. It's a new Iran in many ways. It's an Iran in which the Supreme Leader, despite what you will read in most of the Western press, is not the real victor in the election. He manipulated the elections in such a way as to have Ahmadinejad re-elected. Now, however, the Supreme Leader works for Ahmadinejad, rather than the other way around.

He is wrong in the last sentence. Khameini does not work for Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad is indeed a loyal follower of the fanatic "Supreme Leader". Islam in Iran has been moving into an extremist direction for many decades before and after the revolution. But Khameini's simple aggressive anti-Semitic "Islam" is a step beyond the more complicated subtle anti-Semitic "Islam" of Khomeini.

The "problem" first the revolution's Islam was that without Khomeini there was nothing that would make it really evil - the originally designated heir of Khomeini, Grand Ayatollah Montizeri was and is a decent, honest and good man - but Khameini's version of Khomeini's dream if worse.

And the revolutionary guard, a bunch of fascists who like simply ideologies, especially when they demonise Jews and promise them Iranian dominion over the Arabs, are now giving Khameini, the "Supreme Leader" the fascist state he needs for his religious fanaticism.

I am wondering whether those who warned the west not to get involved in Iran meant that the west should simply recognise the fraudulent government of Iran.

Perhaps the west should side with the _actual_ regime, i.e. the "Islamic" constitution rather than the "Supreme Leader" and his fascist coup leaders.

If the west wants to get rid of Ahmadinejad, they should send him some "campaign" money, then leak it to the press. We have a "Chicago" politician in office, would be a pity if he just used his extortion "skills" domestically.

How would that help?

You are misreading the Iranian situation, probably due to the way western media are reporting from Iran.

Iranians do not hate the west, or even Israel. They like the west They want reforms.

Before the "Islamic" revolution, Iran was in many ways "more western" than the west.

Ahmadinejad's anti-western and anti-Semitic rhetoric doesn't win him elections in Iran, it just makes him popular in the Arab world. He played the west and the Arab world like the fools they both are. The Arabs think he is a great leader who will rid the world of the Jews and bring about an Islamic empire (which the Arabs don't yet realise they wouldn't rule). And the west thinks that he is representing Iranian opinion and we have to "compromise" with this other culture.

All of it is rubbish. Iranians are not like that.

Ahmadinejad lost the elections because he could only offer what Arabs but not Iranians wanted to hear. The regime cannot even find enough Iranian followers to beat up protesters and had to import Arab terrorists from Hamas and Hizbullah to do it. (Currently Hizbullah are attacking student dorms of some polytechnic university, which I found interesting because the same thing happened to me in 2006 when Hizbullah attacked my student dorms while I was a summer student.)

Forget what the media tells you.

Ahmadinejad was popular some years ago in the big cities. Then he turned out to be a violent fanatic who cares more about Arab popular opinion of him than about his own country. In spite of what the media say Ahmadinejad was never popular in the country side. (What are they thinking? In Iran the country side is Kurdish and other non-Persian vilages. They don't like any Persian ruler.)

Anyway, it is a common misconception that people in big cities are more progressive and educated than people in the countryside, one that liberals (from big cities and feeling smart) like to propagate too. But the truth is that people in big cities are simply confirming to society. In a progressive forward society like the US, big cities are progressive. But in Iran they are not.

In the middle east big cities are the source of violent hatred for the other and especially for the west and for Jews. Big cities have easier access to government and terrorist propaganda. More "education" creates more people who "know" how evil the west is and how Jews kill babies all the time.

In reality the countryside in the middle-east is very much like the country-side in the US and Europe: people are religious, conservative, and NORMAL. They are not fanatical extremists, because that is an invention of the cities.

And if you are in Egypt you will easily find that hatred for Israel and Jews is very common in the big cities but not a typical feature of Bedouin villages. Israeli tourists typically visit Bedouin towns. The Bedouins, much maligned by city-dwellers, are actually very forward-thinking people. They are very conservative, absolutely religious, but also more tolerant than the city-dwellers and open-minded enough to co-exist with almost everyone. (They are also typically blamed for terror attacks by the Egyptian government. But they are not actually the part of Arab society that produces terrorism.)

And in Iran it is similar. The Kurdish and other villages are not Ahmdinejad's supporters. Kurds didn't vote for Ahmadinejad, even though the official "results" claim that 70% of them did. 2.5 million of the 4 million Iranian Kurds are Sunnis. What are the chances that they voted for a Shia extremist who considers Sunni Islam heretical and forbids the practice of it? Think! The media don't think about this.

We are the Iranians. They are our kind of people. They are open-minded, progressive, educated, and tolerant people. They would make excellent Americans if not for the fact that their society is much older and was ahead of everybody else when it came to those attributes for thousands of years. (So it is fairer to say that Americans would make good Iranians, if you work a bit on yourself.)

The "Islamic" revolution was a historic accident. What Khomeini claimed it was supposed to be and what he made it have little in common. That is why he had to fire his designated heir, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri. Montazeri did not agree with where the revolution went but did agree with what it was supposed to be.

By recognising Ahmadinejad the west basically did what everybody said it shouldn't do: choose sides. But why on earth did the west have to chose Ahmadinejad's side???

I was being facetious... didn't mean for you to take it seriously and write a big explanation, sorry.

It's OK.

I have to tell people this. Lots of misconceptions about Iranian in the world. Have to use the best opportunitites to do what I can to clear things up.

Letter of Iranian Scholars to the UN Secretary General:

/individualfreedoms.blogspot.com/2009/06/letter-of-iranian-scholars-to-un.html

Also check out the cartoons on the site!

Why do they call it "Friday Prayers" when it is really an event where political speeches are held?

My guess:

Rafsanjani has the votes to remove Khamenei from power and Khameini knows it.

Khamenei controls who speaks at the so-called "Friday Prayers", so the fact that Rafsanjani spoke must meen that Khamenei allowed him to speak (or, in official terms, invited him to do so).

The only way Khamenei would do that is when he knows that he has more to gain from letting Rafsanjani speak than to prevent the speech.

Rafsanjani spoke to calm down the protests, not to bring freedom.

In the mean time protesters have surrounded the interior ministry.

Protesters shout "marg bar yomurieh eslami" ("death to the Islamic republic").

Rafsanjani is definitely trying to stop a revolution!

The protesters are now burning Russian flags and are chanting "Death to Russia" ("Marg bar Russia").

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7M4bYlg4hpg

This is so embarrassing for the Iranian regime, It's funny.

"No... we would have to order them in. We have Israeli, American, Danish; but no Russian."

(Note that the Iranian protesters are not the anti-America crowd, even if Obama still doesn't understand the difference between a dictatorial regime and its population.)

I think it is notable that more and more Iranians on Twitter use the imperial flag of Iran (the Shah's flag) to symbolise their struggle.

Also: Ahmadinejad's message to his "voters":

http://friendfeed-media.com/b18c2b98cf0b6820d27080e343f9e01f1236ade2

Some recent tweets from Iranians:

"Vote is meaningless, God has spoken"

"Allah wants you to be happy, Islam wants you to die"

"Russia suffocated their people in the name communism, even now, a one man show after 75 years"

"Russia has never been a friend to Iran, Putin enjoys our suffering"

"Along the way, you will see a lot of defections from security agents to our side. They are afrd"

"80% of govt security would defect to people if they thought they would get away with it"

From Twitter:

Gossip in Iran: It is Revolutionary guards that set the policies for the leader and not the other way round!

That would explain why the "Supreme Leader" didn't allow Ahmadinejad to kiss hand at the inauguration ceremony. Everything is falling apart for the mullahs, including big bird.

Also note that there have been reports that the plane crash that killed 168 people in northern Iran was due to the presence of bombs in the plane on route to Hizbullah in Lebanon. The protesters know and they are not happy.

I few things I have noticed while reading Iranian tweets on Twitter:

1. Many users display the imperial flag, not the current flag.

2. Several users have mentioned that the Shah's family should be compensated.

3. Many users are upset about the anti-Jewish position of the Iranian regime and demand change.

I want to be an optimist.

It seems far-fetched now, but a return of the Shah's son to power in Iran to be king and emperor of a constitutional monarchy that ensures freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and equality of the sexes is closer now than it was since 1979. A constitutional monarchy in Iran is likely to renew the ancient pact between Iran and Israel and take its place among the great powers of the world.

A constitutional monarchy in Iran, equipped with Israeli weapons and know-how, will restore Iran to where it belongs.

And in a few years we won't discuss whether Germany, Japan, India or Brazil "deserve" a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, but we will discuss Iran's permanent seat.

A modern constitutional monarchy in Iran, equipped with Israeli weapons and technology, with access to Israel's intelligence and Israel's connections world-wide until it develops its own, will surpass all other local powers and compete with India for super-power status.

So much could change.

If the Shah returns.

This is still going on.

Protesters are now actively attacking the regime's murderers and are interupting executions. (Iran executes homosexuals and regime critics.)

This is what Tehran looked like over the weekend during Ashura.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/2009/12/ashura-demonstrations.php

But the regime is starting to make mistakes:

Security forces reportedly opened fire against demonstrators and even killed the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi – and they did it during Ashura. There are few things “supreme guide” Ali Khamenei could have done to enrage religious conservatives and harden them against his regime more than this. As one demonstrator put it, “killing Muslims on Ashura is like crucifying Christians on Christmas.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/totten/206381

Why on earth do western governments still recognise the Iranian regime???

Reuters are trying to rescue what increasingly seems like a lost cause:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20091230/ts_nm/us_iran_rallies

Hundreds of thousands of government supporters rallied across Iran on Wednesday, swearing allegiance to the clerical establishment and accusing opposition leaders of causing unrest in the Islamic state.

These are of course people who got free metro tickets from the "authorities" and who don't expect punishment for voicing their opinion.

Without the support of the western media, Iran's government would have fallen a long time ago.