Arrest of Students and Suppression of Nationwide Protests

One significant aspect of the suppression of the nationwide protest movement is the widespread arrest of student activists. Accurate statistics on the arrests, carried out by the Ministry of Intelligence and the Intelligence Protection of the Revolutionary Guard under the title of 'preventive action,' are not available, with numbers fluctuating between 90 and 140. According to officials from the Ministry of Science, 90% of the arrested students have been released. Although the validity of this claim is still uncertain, previous experiences indicate that security agencies typically arrest a large number of students initially, then release most of them shortly after, while a limited number of student activists deemed problematic by the authorities remain in custody for longer periods. Most of the imprisoned students live in Tehran and are from universities such as Tehran, Allameh Tabatabai, Sharif, Science and Technology, and Polytechnic. In other cities, students from universities like Razi in Kermanshah and Tabriz have also been arrested. This crackdown has provoked numerous protests both domestically and internationally, prompting some members of parliament and officials from the Ministry of Science and university presidents to negotiate with the judiciary and intelligence agencies for the release of detained students. Public opinion and human rights and civil groups have also been active in this area, pressuring for the students' release. It seems that the detention of the remaining students will not be prolonged. The government of Rouhani exhibited a dual approach towards the student movement. On one hand, the Ministry of Intelligence was responsible for arrests and interrogations, while on the other hand, the Ministry of Science and university presidents attempted to negotiate solutions for the students' issues. Some university presidents have been accused of collaborating with security forces. Moreover, the vast majority of officials in the Ministry of Science have had a negative view towards the protest movement, encouraging students to ignore protests and focus on educational matters. However, beyond the human rights aspect and support for the unconditional freedom of imprisoned student activists, the question arises: what is the reason for these widespread arrests and relatively quick releases? To answer this question, it should be noted that among the forces of civil society and political movements within Iran, only the student movement actively supported the nationwide protests. Although the level of student participation in the protests was not high, it had a significant impact, particularly in Tehran, where students joined and supported the demands of protesters at the symbolic entrance of Tehran University, which was noteworthy. The concentration of protests in the capital was also around Tehran University. The supportive actions of students who actively participated in peaceful protests were based on the university's critical role and adherence to the student movement's mission of supporting the people's demands, contributing to its historical social capital. This situation worried the country's security apparatus, leading to a focus on dealing with student activists supporting the protest movement and those who could potentially join the protests. Decisions to confront universities were made in coordination with security sectors under the government and intelligence organizations controlled by the Guardian Council. Another goal was to prevent universities from becoming gathering places and active support centers for the nationwide protests. If universities were activated and gatherings were held, open forums and discussion programs would not only provide a platform for protests but also help expand the quantitative and qualitative aspects of the protest movement, at least prolonging its short-term duration. The crackdown pursued two main objectives. First, students, being the intersection of the political sphere and civil society, due to the strong political nature of the student movement, had the ability to direct protests and mitigate the risk of movements devolving into blind riots and particularly to deter destruction. They became targets to deprive the protest movement of this constructive and strengthening potential. As previously mentioned, among the political and civil forces inside, only the student movement showed the will and desire to join street protests. Typically, in social movements and particularly in spontaneous mobilizations, certain individuals emerge due to their special capabilities in managing gatherings, spreading enthusiasm, guiding protesters, and performing coordination roles. These individuals form field networks and are local and intermediate leaders. Naturally, among the youth and people who gathered en masse in the streets, student activists, due to their organizational experience and collective activities, had a high potential to assume this role. In such conditions, suppressing the protest movement became more challenging. Usually, in the context of movement activities, when the streets become battlegrounds between autocratic power and angry, frustrated people, the balance of fear determines the outcome. The capacity for violence and police confrontations from security, Revolutionary Guard, and law enforcement forces is not unlimited. People are not always in a position of weakness and vulnerability against coercive power. In specific circumstances, a high number of carriers and specific actions can instill unique courage in the people's forces and create fear and instability in the suppressive forces. Consequently, the balance of power gradually shifts in favor of the protesting people, and the suppressive apparatus gradually collapses. The country's security apparatus, aware of this, accepted the consequences and risks of renewed security confrontations with the student movement. However, as always, there is a possibility of errors in determining the specifics, and some of the detainees may not have participated in the protests, whether virtual or physical. The utility of this decision for the regime will become evident in future protests. If the current pause and silence is the calm before the storm, it will yield no benefit other than temporary gains for the government. However, if the period of protest hiatus extends, then the deterrence against the connection between the student movement and the protests of the underprivileged will be a tangible and undeniable advantage for the authoritarian regime. In any case, regardless of what happens in the future, universities and the student movement, like other major social movements and protest actions over the past seven decades, have once again fallen victim to security and authoritarian crackdowns.