Panel experts discuss Iranian elections, debate growing issues in divided country

A panel of journalists, professors and specialists from across the region debated the aftermath of Iran’s recent presidential election on Nov. 6 in the Samuel Riggs IV Alumni Center. Panelists had varied opinions, but all agreed it is too early to come to conclusions about the divided country.
At the event, panelists discussed the Islamic opinion of Iranian and American relations, the country’s nuclear programs in regards to power and weapons and the country’s overall dedication to following democratic values. Provost Nariman Farvardin said he was pleased with the event’s turnout and the opportunity it gave the university.
“Since the June 12 election the county has endured five turbulent months,” Farvardin said. “This event is a great way to start conversation among students and faculty, as well as all others near and far, about Iran.”
Suzanne Malone, a speaker on the symposium’s first panel and a counselor to private companies on Middle East issues, stressed the separation between divisions of people in Iran.
“The ascension of neoconservatives has broken up the conservative party and given rise to a new moderate party in Iran,” Malone said. “I think it is inevitable that we are going to start seeing erosion within the state structure because of this.”
Malone, however, also warned that it is wrong to allude to history just yet.
“We have to start asking what is next, but it is still very early,” Malone said.
Robin Wright, a writer for The Washington Post who also spoke on the first panel, explained the recent actions of Iranian citizens opposing the latest election.
“They’re going by ‘Green Iran,’” Wright said. “Their artwork, posters and protests are more technologically advanced than any recent movement I have seen in the region over the past 30 years.”
The movement, which is mostly comprised of young Iranians, has been extremely critical of the elite, and their level of civil disobedience is important when gauging the scope of the opposition, Wright said.
“If they ever prevail, this opposition will fall apart,” Wright said. “They share a common disapproval of the current government, but within themselves they have very different views of what a new Iran should look like.”
About half of the students in attendance were young Iranians, who appeared to be thinking along the lines of Wright, applauding many of the things she said about “Green Iran.”
Sophomore business major Andrew Hamilton was not one of those students with an Iranian background, but said he attended the symposium because of an Iranian history class he is taking this semester.
“I definitely understood a lot more than I would have because of the class I’m in,” Hamilton said. “I liked hearing the panelists’ first hand accounts of being in Iran; it was a different perspective than I am used to.
Hamilton also said he felt the event was a little intimidating.
“A lot of the students and other people there had strong opinions,” he said. “At one point, a guy got up to an open mic and verbally attacked the panel. People got really worked up.”
Steve Kull, a director with the Program on International Policy Attitudes, presented polls that illustrated the varied opinions of Iranians following the recent election. In a summation of his organization’s findings, he urged people to be wary of alluding to revolutions when assessing present-day Iran.
“We have to be very careful with what we make of the demonstrations and protest by the people,” Kull said.
Kull believes it is important not to overplay the message of the opposition and question whether their message is truly revolutionary.
“People in 1965 could have looked at the United States and said we were on the verge of a revolution,” Kull said. “We have to really ask ourselves what these demonstrations represent.”