Editor’s Note:  It is the custom of this blog to write in an editorial third person.  This post, however, will be written in first person.

Rally for opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi.

The events now taking place in Iran remind me of the summer of 1989.  Attention has been paid elsewhere to the 20th anniversary of pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananman Square in China, but I am reminded of events that took place in Hungary.

Twenty years ago Hungary’s decision to relax border security allowed many East Germans into the country.  In June of 1989 thousands began arriving in Budapest, and once there, occupied the grounds of western embassies seeking an escape from communism. 

By treaty Hungary was obligated to return East Germans to their homeland, but when their numbers exceeded 20,000 by some estimates, pressure from its citizens forced the Hungarian government to open its border with Austria and allow free passage to the West.

Walls that had been erected to keep people under a system of government that had no popular support had been breached and a cascade of events culminated in the collapse of the Berlin Wall by that November.  With amazing speed 40 years of totalitarian government throughout Eastern Europe had ended and millions emerged into freedom.

I am as I have always been, a registered Republican, but in the summer of 1989 I was a democrat moved by the voices of millions demanding democracy and freedom for themselves.  I was 26 at the time, and in my youthful enthusiasm I remember thinking, “I want to help them, and encourage them.  I want them to enjoy the benefits I’ve known.”  Today, 20 years later, I am a democrat again.

Iranian woman voices support for democracy.

Millions in Iran today, like millions before them in Eastern Europe, are expressing their opposition to oppression and reminding us all that every government, whatever form it takes, derives its power from the consent of the governed.

Just one week has passed since the conclusion of what appears to be a fraudulent presidential election.  What a week ago were large campaign rallies quickly evolved first into demonstrations for justice and then protests for democracy.  What a week ago was about moderation and modernization is now about regime change.

Events are moving quickly, just as they did 20 years ago.  Whether events in Iran bring the same rebirth of freedom is unclear.  What can’t be disputed, however, is that a fatal wound to the existing regime has been opened.  Iran may not realize a western-style democracy, but it seems certain now that its theocracy will not endure.

Some Other Observations on Iran:

In his second inaugural address former President George W. Bush acknowledged others’ doubts about the global appeal of liberty, but went on to say, “Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul.”  Could the events in Iran erase those doubts any better?

Former Iranian President Hashemi Rafsanjani was seen as a pragmatist that preferred centrist politics at home, and moderation in Iran’s relationships with other nations.  He was defeated for a third term by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2005.  Today he chairs the Assembly of Experts, which has the authority to select, monitor and dismiss the Supreme Leader. 

This is important because, under the Iranian Constitution, it is the Supreme Leader that has the authority to command the country’s armed forces; to appoint the chief judge, chief prosecutor, and special tribunals; and to control the media.  Ahmadinejad is essentially a figurehead.

Since the election a week ago Rafsanjani has been unseen and unheard.  Now that events have exposed the extent to which the existing regime has lost support among Iranians, he more than most can decide the outcome.  If he pursuades the Assembly of Experts to replace Ayatollah Ali Khamenei with a more moderate leader there is hope that the changes Iranians seek can be secured through more peaceful means.  His actions will be worth watching.

Mir Hossein Mousavi

Mir Hossein Mousavi, the candidate whose election appears to have been stolen, was himself a revlotionary.  Ironically it was with the blessing of the same Ali Khamenei that his followers now so openly oppose that he was chosen Prime Minister in 1981. 

He is credited with effectively managing the Iran-Iraq War and the nation’s economy but after 1989 he withdrew from politics.  Many observers attribute this to dissatisfaction with the establishment.

In a June 20 statement (transcription available at Tehran Bureau) Mousavi said:

 ”If the vast scale of cheating and fraud that has set fire on people’s trust is interpreted as the reason for the absence of cheating [a response to Ayatollah Khamenei’s contention that the difference of 11 million votes between Mr. Mousavi and Ahmadinejad is so large that cannot be a fraud], the republican side of the political system [the Islamic Republic] will be destroyed, which will then prove the claim that Islam and democracy are incompatible. This fate will make two groups happy: One consists of those who, right from the beginning of the Revolution, were arrayed against Imam [Ayatollah Khomeini] and claim that the Islamic government is the dictatorship of the honest clergy [a reference to the ultra-reactionaries led by Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi], and believe that they can take people to heaven by force, while the second group is made of those who, by claiming that they want to defend people’s rights, believe that Islam is against republicanism. The Imam’s [Ayatollah Khomeini’s] great skill was to demonstrate the fallacy of what both groups say. I had decided to run because I wanted, based on the Imam’s path, to neutralize the efforts of those who advocate both thinking.”

His campaign promised a more moderate, less theocratic or ideological presidency, but not regime change.  Nonetheless, whether leading this movement, or being lead by it, he now appears prepared to support such change.

The sincerity or seriousness of this support should not be doubted simply because of his revolutionary roots.  After all, it was the actions of avowed communists like Mikhail Gorbachev and Boris Yeltsin that ushered in reform in Russia. 

It seems to have escaped the attention of the media and other observers that post-election tensions have been between pro-reform Iranians and the government, not pro-reform Iranians and the millions we are told voted to retain the existing government.  This is not yet war, but if it were it would be more revolutionary than civil.  Isn’t that an important observation? 

An injured pro-democracy Iranian.

Yes, there were large pro-government demonstrations after the election results were published, but they soon disappeared.  Why are pro-democracy protesters the only ones in the streets?  Why aren’t citizens in the streets to defend the government?

My own conclusion is that the demand for democracy is deeper and wider than we yet know, and this explains the extreme measures being taken by the Supreme Leader and his government first to disguise it through fraud, and then to crush it through force.

That leads me to my final observation.  The hesitency of President Barack Obama to be seen as meddling in Iran’s dometic affairs is diplomatically sound, but I still feel that an opportunity is being missed. 

In his Cairo address to the Muslim world the president spoke about the freedoms that democracy can bring.  He needs to restate and reinforce those ideas not for the thousands now confronting their government, but for the millions more that have not.  Reassurance from the president may be the impetus reluctant pro-democracy Iranians need to join the fight. 

President Obama should continue to encourage Iranians and others to claim their human rights to free speech, free press, and free assembly, and assure them a more peaceful and prosperous relationship with the rest of the world when they do.