Movement or Rebellion; Examining Possible Scenarios in Iran's Events

Although the terms movement and rebellion are somewhat used interchangeably, it is important to pay attention to the deeper differences between the two words to gain a closer understanding of the current conditions in Iran. Depending on various perspectives, these differences may be minor or significant, but perhaps by looking at historical instances of a rebellion or a movement, clearer concepts can be reached. Rebellion - The terms 'rebels' and 'rebellion' are relatively new and cannot be equated with the term terrorist, as the tools and goals of rebels differ from those of terrorists, although both challenge the prevailing order or the legality of the government through violence. The use of the term 'massacre' versus 'murder' and 'terror' are similar words whose comparison can help clarify the similarities between rebellion and its distinction from 'movement.' The Peasants' Rebellion in England in 1381 is a suitable case that clarifies the historical roots and application of this term. England in the second half of the 14th century was in a specific situation that bears some resemblance to today's Iran. Deep and widespread discontent stemmed from various factors: heavy taxes, the dire living conditions of the lower classes, and political tensions that had begun about 40 years prior. The reason for the imposition of heavy taxes was the tension that arose between England and France since the beginning of the Hundred Years' War, which subsequently created instability and contradictions within the ruling class and weakened the country economically. However, the government's efforts to collect unpaid taxes from the people led to a confrontation and rebellion that quickly spread everywhere. The rebels demanded a reduction in taxes, an end to the unjust system of serfdom, and the removal of high-ranking officials close to the king, especially from the courts. Compare this brief description of a short period in English history with the 40 years of recent history in Iran; the hostility that has arisen with the US and the West, taxes, rising prices, and tariffs that have acted as the latest provocation for the people. The rebels, who included a wide range of peasants, small artisans, and local officials, were incited by radical priests and entered London on June 13, 1381. The rebels initially caused significant destruction in some places and squares in London, burning buildings, libraries, and even legal texts, and killing anyone associated with the government. They killed Lord Simon Sudbury, who was once the Archbishop of Canterbury, in the Tower of London, and then attacked Lord Robert Hales, who was known for imposing and collecting taxes, beheading him. The rebellion spread to other areas, including the region where Cambridge University is located, and several royal officials were killed in the rebels' attack. One can compare the social origins of the English peasants and the causes of their rebellion with the spectrum of those who have revolted in Iranian cities, where the middle class and intellectuals among them are negligible and limited. On the other hand, compare the incitements that led to the rebellion in England with the sermons and provocations of fundamentalist clerics and individuals like Ahmad Alamolhoda, the Friday prayer leader of Mashhad, and the fundamentalist spectrum against the government. The next day (June 14), the then 14-year-old king (Richard II) met with the rebels and agreed to almost all their demands. The king's agreement with the rebels provided enough opportunity for the Mayor of London, William Walworth, to arm his men and disperse the rebel forces, bringing the capital under control. Following this incident, Richard II was able to break all the promises he had made after restoring order in London. Richard II managed to mobilize about four thousand forces and executed at least 1,500 of the rebels within six months (by November). To align this section with what is occurring in Iran, one should not rush. It is still too early to present an accurate picture, as no movement for agreement and reconciliation has begun, and the limited mechanism that has been employed is more of a display of power than repression, which is itself a result of historical experiences. However, history should not be easily overlooked. When the government succeeds in restoring power, ruthless repression continues, as seen in the suppression of the Green Movement following the events of the 2009 elections, which persisted for eight years thereafter. Movement - While in the general sense, the term movement shares similarities with rebellion, upon deeper examination, the two words do not overlap; although one could argue that a rebellion may turn into a movement or a movement may turn into a rebellion. In any case, a movement typically refers to an initiative within aligned and like-minded groups in society that seek to expand their shared values, aspirations, and ideas on a broader scale and ultimately realize them. In the process of actualizing these ideals, a movement can utilize the rebellious potential of segments within society and can also incite it. Just as if a rebellion lacks a purposeful and intellectual backing, it can be absorbed into the ideas of a movement in a calculated manner or can be misused against an intellectual movement. What is currently unfolding in Iran is nothing more than a rebellion that has occurred on a large scale due to the dissatisfaction of various segments of society. This rebellion, while stemming from the deep-rooted discontent of the people, lacks the necessary ideological organization and leadership to be termed a movement. Nevertheless, the occurrence of one of several scenarios below is likely, but it is still impossible to speak with certainty about any of the scenarios, and one should not dismiss other unforeseen forms. For example, consider a situation where potential forces within an authoritarian system are lowered to rebellious and anti-value groups through the creation of false incentives within society, or even mobilized in the form of thugs against an intellectual and rival movement. This form of artificial fertilization and the purposeful creation of rebellious forces can be observed in the attacks of thugs during the Green Movement and in the historical events of the last hundred years in Iran. In the past decade, the Green Movement during the 2009 presidential elections is the closest example of a movement that sought to create change from within, successfully mobilizing like-minded and aligned groups in a short time and competing with the opposing candidate by creating human waves to realize the aspirations of the movement. Without delving into the foundational ideas of both sides in the elections, it should be noted that the Green Movement had a program and goal for change from within and replacing the existing order with the desired order of the movement, and this distinguishing feature separates rebellion from movement. At least at the outset, a rebellion has no goal other than destruction, while a movement pursues a goal but may ultimately utilize the destructive power of a rebellion to achieve that goal. The existence of potential power and force to realize the goals of a movement is essential, but if the goal of the movement is change from within, there is no need for immediate destruction, and this can be done over time in a manner that does not lead to the destruction of infrastructure, while a rebellion may quickly lead to the destruction of the infrastructures that a society needs most. Are the recent protests a rebellion or a movement? - Considering the definitions above and taking a deeper look at what has occurred in Iran over the past few days, it can be said that what is unfolding in Iran is nothing more than a rebellion that has occurred on a large scale due to the dissatisfaction of various segments of society. This rebellion, while stemming from the deep-rooted discontent of the people, lacks the necessary ideological organization and leadership to be termed a movement. Nevertheless, the occurrence of one of several scenarios below is likely, but it is still impossible to speak with certainty about any of the scenarios, and one should not dismiss other unforeseen forms. At the same time, due to the lack of sufficient reasons and evidence, assessing the success or failure of all these scenarios is not currently feasible. 1 - Free Riding - It may suddenly and unexpectedly be possible for a group or faction within the political spectrum inside or outside Iran to take leadership of this rebellion. Such a situation is the worst-case scenario, as it would require external support for survival, resulting in Iran becoming another Syria. 2 - Emergence of New Leadership - It may be possible for an individual or group within society to take leadership by sidelining others and even advance to the level of national leadership. Such a transformation would be nearly impossible without military support. 3 - Military Coup - The entry of the military can take two forms: first, to strengthen the existing regime through repression and consolidation of religious leadership; second, in the form of removing religious leadership and bringing military leadership to power in its collective form. The military structure in Iran makes the possibility of a coup by a powerful individual or a military dictator almost impossible. However, there is a possibility of a collective movement by a group of military personnel. 4 - Changing the Color of Existing Leaders - As mentioned regarding the historical Peasants' Rebellion in England, it is also possible for the existing regime to reach an agreement with the rebels and, after controlling the situation, proceed to eradicate and eliminate them. 5 - Possibility of Becoming a Real Movement - This is the desirable transformation of current events, but given that there is no consensus on a political alternative, and on the other hand, the middle class and productive sectors of the country are not present on the scene, and signs of support for such a movement from any individual or specific ideology cannot be predicted. Although the rebels have moved from economic demands to political demands, such demands cannot be achieved in the absence of a clear leadership, and the existing political system typically resists them in any way possible. The sum of these factors fuels chaos and despair regarding the transformation of the current situation into a desirable one, but perhaps more time is needed to observe a specific scenario with a higher probability of occurrence. Unfortunately, until then, the energy and wealth of Iranian society, as well as the lives of people who demand nothing but their basic rights, are being wasted.