There are several things in Vali Nasr’s article at Atlantic contrasting the 1979 revolution in Iran with the late demonstrations there with which I disagree or found confusing. What I found confusing was that he uses “Tehran” in at least three different senses and you’ve got to pay careful attention to distinguish his intention. He uses it to mean the physical place, the people of Tehran, and, puzzlingly, to mean the present Iranian regime. So, for example, in this passage:
But it’s not just fears of a Jacobin uprising that have kept Tehran quiet; it’s also Rouhani’s political promise. Rouhani won presidential elections twice, in 2012 and 2015, both times owing to his popularity with urban middle classes—and his firm hold on Tehran’s vote. The protests showed that he is not popular with the poor, but that Tehran’s middle-class urbanites don’t share the same degree of dissatisfaction. If stability depends on Tehran, then the protests have only strengthened Rouhani’s political position.
It’s not entirely clear what he means. His first evocation may refer to the regime while the second obviously refers to the people of Tehran; the third refers to the place. If the first use refers to the place or the people, it’s incorrect. There were large demonstrations in Tehran. I have no idea what he means in his fourth use. You can see why I found it confusing.
I also don’t think he’s looking at the most important difference between the 1979 revolution and today. The Shah was just one sick old man. He didn’t have the heart to kill enough of this own people to put down the revolution. The present regime is a group of successful revolutionaries, some old, some middle-aged who will put down a revolution without hesitation.
However, I agree with this:
There will be no radical shifts in the offing. There will be resistance to change, but inevitably, the larger debates now are about how to achieve greater economic growth. Those debates will not point to a clear path, but with the protests fresh in everyone’s mind, Rouhani will have the advantage. The protests did not topple the Islamic Republic but it may have more firmly set it on the course it embarked on when it elected Rouhani president in 2012.
If you think these demonstrations are the beginning of a new Iranian revolution, you’ll be disappointed. If there is a second Iranian revolution in the foreseeable future, it will be a good couple of decades from now and it will be anticlimactic.
