For anyone who has been enthused or engaged by the opposition movement that emerged after the Iran elections, it's been frustrating trying to figure out what's going on in Iran--with that opposition and with the government. One Tehran filmmaker sent me an email on Sunday expressing his/her own frustration when it comes to understanding the recent moves of the various players.

One of the more interesting--though hardly uplifting-- interpretations of recent events in Iran comes from Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, and author Reza Aslan. In Foreign Policy, they write:

Iran's popular uprising, which began after the June 12 election, may be heading for a premature ending. In many ways, the Ahmadinejad government has succeeded in transforming what was a mass movement into dispersed pockets of unrest. Whatever is now left of this mass movement is now leaderless, unorganized -- and under the risk of being hijacked by groups outside Iran in pursuit of their own political agendas.

The pair explain:

Although successful at first, the discipline [of the opposition movement] has clearly broken down. This should be no surprise -- the movement is by now in effect leaderless. A source close to Mousavi says that the first and second circle of people around Mousavi have all been arrested or put under house arrest. Mousavi himself has limited ability to communicate with his team and his followers. The lack of leadership is visible on the streets, where demonstrators exhibit unparalleled will and courage, but lack direction and guidance.

Indeed, the lack of organization and execution is perhaps the most convincing evidence that the anti-Ahmadinejad movement is completely homegrown and void of any attempt to emulate the velvet revolutions of Central Asia and Eastern Europe. What is driving people to the streets is their sense of frustration and anger -- not a well-devised plan and training in clever nonviolent resistance techniques.

The leadership vacuum does not bode well for the movement's prospects of success, particularly when it comes to attracting those Iranian swing-voters to its side once more. And this creates openings for external meddling -- just not the kind you think.

The two are worried that outside groups--exile outfits or neocons--will try to fill this vacuum or attempt to influence the opposition, if only by tossing around rhetoric that will make it easier for the autocrats to depict the opposition as being whipped up by Iran's external enemies. If the opposition is going to keep going, they contend, it's going to have to continue to win over so-called "swing voters" in Iran. How an unorganized opposition manages to do that they don't say. But it seems to me that a regrouping is necessary and perhaps a long-term strategy has to be developed. Whether anyone is doing that is unknown--thanks to the (so far successful) crackdown of the tyrants of Tehran.

Dana Milbank spanks President Obama and HuffPo's Nico Pitney for conspiring to provide the president a chance to answer a question from an Iranian at Tuesday's press conference. Milbank often is spot-on in his depictions of Washington's follies and foibles, but he may have misguided his outrage on this one.

Milbank accurately notes that the White House gave Pitney a strong indication that he would be called on at the press conference. That does sound as if the White House was planting a question. And here's how Milbank describes what happened:

Pitney asked his arranged question. Reporters looked at one another in amazement at the stagecraft they were witnessing. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel grinned at the surprised TV correspondents in the first row.

The use of planted questioners is a no-no at presidential news conferences, because it sends a message to the world -- Iran included -- that the American press isn't as free as advertised. But yesterday wasn't so much a news conference as it was a taping of a new daytime drama, "The Obama Show."

A bad message to Iran? Oh my. But White House aides, having noticed that Pitney has been live-blogging the Iranian crisis, had asked him if he would solicit a question from Iranians for Obama. This was not exactly the same thing as arranging for a specific question--or even a sympathetic one. Obama didn't know what Pitney would ask, and Ptiney's query, as it turned out, was a tough one. Obama didn't really answer it:

PITNEY: We solicited questions last night from people who are still courageous enough to be communicating online, and one of them wanted to ask you this: Under which conditions would you accept the election of Ahmadinejad? And if you do accept it without any significant changes in the conditions there, isn't that a betrayal of what the demonstrators there are working towards?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, look, we didn't have international observers on the ground. We can't say definitively what exactly happened at polling places throughout the country. What we know is that a sizeable percentage of the Iranian people themselves, spanning Iranian society, consider this election illegitimate. It's not an isolated instance -- a little grumbling here or there. There is significant questions about the legitimacy of the election.

And so ultimately the most important thing for the Iranian government to consider is legitimacy in the eyes of its own people, not in the eyes of the United States. And that's why I've been very clear: Ultimately, this is up to the Iranian people to decide who their leadership is going to be and the structure of their government.

Obama dodged. He did not state under what conditions he would accept an Ahmadinejad victory, and he did not say whether engaging with Ahmadinejad at some point would be a betrayal of the Iranian opposition. I bet that Iranian was disappointed--if he was able to learn of Obama's response.

Granted, there was something artificial about all this. The White House spurred Pitney to ask a specific sort of question and essentially told him he'd be called on. But, then, there is something artificial about the entire enterprise of presidential press conferences.

Before a press conference begins, the White House decides on the dozen or so reporters the president will call on. The rest of us need not be there at all. And while the White House does not tell journalists they are on this golden list, it's fair to assume that the wire service reporters and the major television network correspondents will be chosen. So about half of the reporters on the list, more or less, have advance notice every time the president holds a news conference. And this list isn't very long, given that Obama usually uses a question as an opportunity to recite, at length, his talking points (as eloquent as they are) on the matter at hand.

At presidential press conferences, there ought to be more spontaneity, more to and fro, and, more important, more questions from a wider range of questioners. (Spin a wheel?) That's the issue, not Nico-gate.
******
By the way, I'm filling in for blogger Kevin Drum for a few days. Feel free to check out my postings on Jake Tapper and Mick Jagger and climate change.

You can follow my posts and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

I'm sitting in the White House press briefing room awaiting a presidential press conference, which has been moved from the Rose Garden to this room. (Why? Too much humidity for the president?) And I'm thinking of a question, just in case.....Will you fight for a public health option by mobilizing your millions of supporters? Will you oppose a cap-and-trade bill that contains a big giveaway to polluters? Are you satisfied with the intelligence you've received on Iran? Have you consulted with any outside-the-government experts on Iran? If so, who? Are you going to be more transparent than the Bush administration and release the White House visitors logs? Forget about smoking, have you been drinking?

It's been a busy day or two for me. I've been blogging and Twittering much about Iran, and a Twitterer in Iran informs me that this blog and the Mother Jones website have been blocked in Iran by the autocrats of Tehran. It's an honor.

And last night, I trekked through woods, brambles, and poison ivy to reach the site of the tragic DC metro crash, which was just a mile or so from my house. I'm obsessive about finding alternative routes to avoid traffic. Thus, I was familiar with side streets that allowed one to get close to the site. Then I had to bushwhack my way to the tracks. I followed a culvert next to the railroad fence for about a quarter of a mile and found a small opening. I crawled through and walked along the gravel, right up to the crash. I snapped several iPhone photos before a cop approached and ordered me to leave. "It's a crime scene," he shouted, and he threatened to confiscate my phone. I quickly scurried up a steep hill next to the New Hampshire Avenue bridge--took a few more photos--and emerged in a cordoned-off area. I was surrounded by police officers and rescue workers. I didn't say anything, kept my head down, and quickly walked off. Here are the pics., several of which were featured on Good Morning America this AM. (A producer found them on Twitter and asked me for permission to use them.) And for a good sum-up of questions raised by the crash, check out JIm Ridgeway's take here.

Now back to pondering queries worthy of a president, just in case.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by here.

It's not that often a Washington commentator gets to talk politics and revolution in Iran on television with a famous movie mogul. I was on Hardball with Mike Medavoy, who helped make the Silence of the Lambs, Apocalypse Now, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, Network, Annie Hall, and many other movies and who recently wrote a book on how Hollywood can help promote abroad the positive aspects of American culture. We didn't get to discuss films. But I pointed out that John McCain could not now get away with joking about bombing Iran and poked Dick Cheney for being one of the demagogic politicians misinforming the American public about what will happen to Gitmore detainees once that detention camp is closed.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.

President Barack Obama continues to walk a fine line on Iran. At Wednesday's press briefing, Robert Gibbs noted that Obama shares the "international concern" regarding Iran's flawed--or stolen--presidential election, but that it's up to Iranians to choose their own leaders. That is, he's not going to denounce Ahmadinejad or support Mousvai--and make it easier for the autocrats of Tehran to brand Mousavi a puppet of the Great Satan. Meanwhile, this gripping, historic moment continues.

I'm fortunate to be part of a listserv for experts around the world on the Middle East and Near East. Some are in Iran. Many have contacts--including friends and family--within Iraq. These listserv participants have been providing a good flow of news and views on what's transpiring in Iran. On Wednesday night, one member in Iran provided this "Tehran Update":

DEMONSTARTIONS INSPIRING. The discipline and self-control of demonstrators over the last several days, even after fatal violence on June 15th, was inspiring to watch and to be in! When an AN supporter appeared, they were confronted not with boos or hisses, but with a silent sea of hands in the air with the v for victory sign. I was proud to be there. One of the reformist clerics just before his arrest said "I have only just now realized how far behind our supporters we actually are." Of course the pro-electoral recount side are outflanked organizationally: without an organization or means of communication or accessible leaders it's not clear how much further the demonstrations can go. No objectives can be discussed or developed, and no planning can be coordinated. One cannot even tell if communications - such as the printed flyers yesterday, apparently from Mousavi, telling people NOT to demonstrate - are genuine or not. But then consider what is being achieved despite all these disadvantages! And it has become clear that this election struggle can have very wide implications for the entire political system.

RIOTS. Last night (night of June 17th) there was pitched battle in Gandhi street between ordinary youth on the one hand coming off the peaceful demonstration around Vanak Square and Basiji's on motorcycles on the other. The latter were smashing car windows and attacking people. It was good thing I was wearing sneakers! I was able to drive home after midnight when things had calmed down. There was an ambulance near Vanak Sq. apparently loading three people with gunshot wounds. There were hundreds of riot police sitting and standing in Vanak Sq. The pattern seems to be attack the stragglers on their way home late at night when its dark.

WHAT'S AT STAKE BEYOND THE ELECTION. One thing at least is about who will count as persons deserving respect in the nation. AN's victory speech was full of ominous - and historically all too familiar - references to his opponents as trash, flotsam and jetsam (Khas o Khashak) and dirt, who have to "submit" to the undifferentiated undivided will of the "nation." Interestingly the state TV yesterday has begun a more subtle and effective
strategy of inclusion: reminding everyone that all candidates were regime-approved and so are part of the family, and drawing a line between all candidates on the one hand and the forces of disorder on the other. This reflects a slight but significant distinction between AN and the Leader as well as the up till now latent struggle between them. AN wavers continuously on whether the "nation" is equivalent to the entire population (70 million), all those eligible to vote (46 million), all those that did vote (40 million), or only those that voted for him (24 million). He clearly leans to the last definition. The Leader, for obvious reasons, is wary of permitting the boundary of "we" to be drawn minimally exclusively around AN's supporters. But he is perhaps caught between the two. In sum, a big part of what is driving people is the outrage of being so openly insulted and dismissed, whatever the election results. Even by AN's official count, his opponents are still fourteen million people.

COMMUNICATION BLACKOUT INCREASING. As of this morning, all TV signals in my neighborhood are blocked. Some e-m gets through if one is using Outlook but not via a web-based e-m. No web site page is opening, although different parts of the city experience different degrees of access. So no access here to twitter. I am told the jamming of satellite signals use especially strong beams able to "jam" all satellite signals. I don't know the technology and I am worried about and its affect on us especially small children. We live right next to a communications ministry tower so apparently get the full blast. Mobile communications switched off throughout the day - when there is a demonstration beginning, and turned back on about an hour ago about midnight here. So no texting. Last night on Iranian state TV in an interview with the Guardian Council representative viewers where asked via ticker on the bottom of the screen to send in comments by text message. Someone called and said, "no text service is possible". The message was removed.

Elsewhere I've written about Tehran's war on satellite dishes.

You can follow my postings and media appearances via Twitter by clicking here.