Analytic evidence strengthens the view that Iran’s security apparatus may have put “revenge” against the student movement on its agenda.
This notion is rooted in the events that have been taking place in Iranian universities since two weeks ago when the Persian language media first reported the “The victory of Karaj Tarbiat Moalem University students” (Teachers Training college in Karaj) regarding their demands for better living conditions, after their 10 day hunger strike.
When news sites were still busy publishing their commentary and analysis of the success of activist students in using their powerful method of civil protest, another event shocked the country as the media reported the Zanjan university sexual harassment incident (in which a university vice-president reportedly attempted to have sex with a woman student as condition to resolve a disciplinary action against her). This one too came like a bombshell. Immediately after the incident, numerous versions of a short video (that was filmed by other students as they stormed the office of the un-named university official and which show him attempting to establish a liaison with a woman student) appeared on You Tube, freely accessible by the public. What followed then were large demonstrations and sit-ins demanding the removal of the official who was indeed dismissed for his conduct. It was clear that after their first “victory” at
It is apparent that such repeated success can promise even larger triumphs for the student movement in future, which is the optimistic side of these recent events. But the events can also lead to serious warnings and reactions by powerful extreme-right-wing groups inside the government in the form of well-known tactics. Tactics that can simply be termed as “vengeful deterrence”.
It appears that “vengeful deterrence” is a recurrent practice of the extremist right-wingers in situations when the student movement crosses well-defined official red lines. One such red line is taking away the initiative from government officials at universities. The best example of the government’s exercise of this practice took place in June 1999 when, on the eve of a major government crackdown on independent and liberal media, extremists saw it necessary to impose shocking and disproportionate force to suppress a student protest against the closure of a newspaper. The extremists’ aim was to be instructive and teach the student movement a lesson, as a means to prevent future protests against the closure of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc newspaper that would follow.
The most recent government crackdown on the student movement was too a response to the atmosphere that it created in the December of 2006 as the president was delivered a speech on the campus of Polytechnic University on the occasion of student day. At that event, student took unprecedented control of the proceedings through their protests and questions. That was followed by revengeful measures on behalf of the extremists whereby many university activists were treated violently, to the dismay of the academic community.
Such confrontation with the student movement takes place within a specific security policy in which if explicit security red-lines are crossed, they are followed with severe revengeful acts of punishment of the perpetrators. The analytic premise of the practice is very clear: If those in authority succeed in turning the fate of those who first cross the special security red lines into an unforgettable lesson for others, there will be less likelihood that the red lines will be crossed in future, and the costs of confronting future trespasses will be diminished for the regime.
In confronting the student movement, this practice has specified analytic elements when exercised by the government: Some extremist analysts believe that the potential that the protesting student movement has is very dangerous because of the study body of the country that numbers into millions, their dispersion across the country (including even the smallest towns), and the impact that the group has on other social groups (at least on their own family members and relatives). Therefore, the regime must at any cost prevent students from feeling encouraged in their drive to force government officials to retreat.
Based on this view, it is easy to predict that the success of student activists in imposing their will and demands on government officials at academic institutions, such as the Teachers Training college and Zanjan University (where the students boldly took the initiative into their own hands), would result in a backlash by extreme right-wing officials who would plan an “instructive” counter-attack against the student movement.
Hopefully such a reaction will not come. But from an analytic perspective, one must not negate it altogether. We hope that by being alert and preventive measures, the student movement will be able to pass the next few weeks and months with minimum turbulence and costs.
one must not forget that one aspect of “security” cases is the image that they carry for the groups that advance such issues. Therefore, before fake charges take to the news-media and become public, those who have had a hand in arresting the students must be weakened. Otherwise, after the severe charges are made public, repeated and are tied to the image of the actors, even the intervention of the head of the judiciary (as history demonstrates) cannot be of much help to the detainees.
How can we tell the judiciary officials of Iran that according to law juveniles can stay alive and continue to live with appropriate and suitable punishment? How must one make this request from the judiciary a public and wide-spread demand and point out that killing a juvenile who has not wholeheartedly committed an act does not solve any of the real problems facing the country?
it is easy to predict that the success of student activists in imposing their will and demands on government officials at academic institutions, such as the Teachers Training college and Zanjan University (where the students boldly took the initiative into their own hands), would result in a backlash by extreme right-wing officials who would plan an “instructive” counter-attack against the student movement.Hopefully such a reaction will not come. But from an analytic perspective, one must not negate it altogether.
This is the reason that the moment imprisoned students step out of prison, it becomes clear to every one why they were put behind bars: for simply criticizing the president. It becomes instantly clear why they were subjected to interrogations and what questions were asked of them. These are the events that portray the image of this country. Students, social activists and journalists are certainly not on the list of those that dent this image. The publication of the arrest of students because of their criticism of the president brings forth a caricature image of Mahmud Ahmadinejad which does not match the claims that he made at Columbia University or the image that the regime strives to present about its standing.
There are at least 70 young people on death row who at the time of their arrest were under the age of 16. In the past 12 months, Iranian organisations claim that 80 feminists have been arrested and 20 of them have been sentenced from three to five years in jail. A total of 54 journalists have ended up in prison, several were released without trial after serving jail time, while others remain behind bars. In the past 12 months, 34 newspapers and magazines, among them the feminist magazine Zanan, have been shut down.
