If there is one thing successful revolutionaries hate, it's a mass movement. The "people" are a useful device for seizing power. Elements of the populace—bused in at the state's expense!—can be stage-managed to reinforce the message that the Leader is in charge. But under no circumstances can they take to the streets en masse to speak for themselves. This would run counter to law and order. Revolutionaries just love order.
This logic goes hand in hand with a brutal contempt for the masses themselves. Iran's president made as much clear the other day, when he referred to the hundreds of thousands protesting as merely "dirt and dust" (khas o khashak).
Still, even in today's Iran, that's a tough piece of mud to sling at your opponents. In a country whose revolution was made in the name of the "down-trodden" (mustazafeen) today's rulers should avoiding saying hurtful things that recall the arrogance of yesterday's despots.
Ahmadinejad's allies know this. Indeed, some of his friends worry that he sounds like the late Shah of Iran. In an effort at damage control, one hard-liner warned that the "dirt and dust are those who attack university campuses and students and commit crimes there."
Supreme Leader Ali Khamanei made a similar point when he presided over Tehran University Friday prayers. After declaring the presidential campaign "finished," (and calling protesters "idiots"), Khamanei cautioned the basij or mobilization forces to follow the law (rahe qanoun).
The last thing the regime wants is a massacre. The trick is to beat protesters to a pulp but avoid a public blood bath. Towards this end, over the night of June 20 Tehran was flooded with basij, ready to do their vigilante dirty handiwork—out of the limelight and offline, in the alleys and streets of the city.
What can be done? Other than surrendering, the opposition's only option is to flood the streets and squares with millions, thus forcing Iran's leaders to choose between shooting thousands or giving in. But this will be horribly risky. Having read the tealeaves, the regime will do everything it can to prevent a repeat of the very scenario that helped make the Islamic Revolution possible thirty years ago.
What can our leaders do as they watch these events unfold? President Obama and his advisers understand that if the White House is seen as endorsing the protesters, it could undercut the authenticity, effectiveness and most of all unity of Iran's democratic movement.
Rather than fall into this trap, the administration should join with world leaders in an international show of support for the human rights and dignity of the Iranian people. Declarations of global solidarity should not only come from Western leaders, but also from leaders of Muslim majority democracies such as Indonesia, Turkey and Pakistan. They must say loudly and clearly that it is Islam itself that is suffering under the boot of Iran's unrelenting "Islamic" regime.
Such a common stand will not stop Iran's rulers. But it will put the international community squarely on the side of Iran's down-trodden, who, by denying Khamanei's emerging dictatorship whatever shred of legitimacy it still clings to, will one day be ready to resume their struggle for democracy.
Daniel Brumberg is an associate professor of government and director of democracy and governance studies at Georgetown University. He is also a senior nonresident fellow at the Project on Middle East Democracy. His work focuses on political, social and economic change in the Middle East and wider Muslim World.
