Iran & Social Media: Dispelling Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (Parsons)

Following our recent posts on Iran and Twitter, including yesterday's contributions by Josh Shahryar and Mike Dunn, Christopher Parsons posts a thorough review on his blog of censorship, surveillance, and social media.

Since the election of incumbent president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world has witnessed considerable political tension in Iran. Protests over the questionable electoral results, beatings and deaths of political protestors, recurring protests by Iranians associated with the Green Revolution, and transmissions of information amongst civil- and global-actors have been broadcast using contemporary communications systems. Twitter, blogs, Facebook, and mobile phone video has enabled Iranians to coordinate, broadcast, and receive information. The existence of Web 2.0 infrastructure has set the conditions under which the Green Revolution operates.

Iran & Twitter: Last Words on The Hell of Heaven (Shahryar)
Iran & Twitter: Myth v. Reality of Security and “Deep Packet Inspection”

The Iranian government quickly recognized the power of cheap social coordination technologies and, in response, drastically reduced the capacity of national Internet links – the government, in effect, closed the nation’s Internet faucet, which greatly reduced how quickly data could be transmitted to, and received from, the ‘net as a whole. This claim is substantiated by Arbor Networks’ (Internet) border reports, which demonstrate how, immediately after the presidential election, there was a plummet in the data traffic entering and exiting the nation. (It should be noted that Arbor is a prominent supplier of Deep Packet Inspection equipment.)

Prior to trying to dispel the Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt (FUD) surrounding the contemporary Iranian ISP-surveillance system that is regularly propagated by the media, I need to give a bit of context on the telecommunications structure in Iran.

Read rest of article....

Iran & Twitter: Myth v. Reality of Security and "Deep Packet Inspection"

The minor storm over Telegraph journalist and blogger Will Heaven's recent posts on social media and the ongoing unrest in Iran, has brought much discussion of the pros and cons of reposting Iranian activists' comments on Twitter and Facebook. To get to the heart of the issue, however, one needs to take a look at Heaven's assumptions regarding Deep Packet Inspection.

On his blog post of 29 December Heaven stated:

It is now thought that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is using Deep Packet Inspection to check Facebook messages and tweets for “anti-regime” keywords. Once this is done, they are able to pinpont the location of online protesters using their IP addresses. Then it’s just a knock on the door and a confiscated laptop for evidence.

But is the use of DPI to punish dissent really this simple?

• Firstly, Heaven bases his comments about the IRG's use of Deep Packet Inspection --- provided by Nokia Siemens Networks --- on a Wall Street Journal article which actually says (possibly after amendment), "It couldn't be determined whether the equipment from Nokia Siemens Networks is used specifically for deep packet inspection".


• In a press release issued in response to the article, Nokia Siemens Networks stated that they have "not provided any deep packet inspection, web censorship, or Internet filtering capability to Iran."


• Nokia Siemens Networks' head of media relations Ben Roome has followed up, for example with this comment in The Huffington Post in which he says that the WSJ "clarified its original report" and re-asserts, "We have not provided any Internet technology, let alone DPI to Iran".


• Further research  turns up a blog post which points out that, with Roome's denial of the original claim, the WSJ article is left to rely on an anonymous Iranian engineer who says, "We didn't know they could do this much ... Now we know they have powerful things that allow them to do very complex tracking on the network" and Bradley Anstis, CEO of an internet security company, who says "Iran is now drilling into what the population is trying to say ... This looks like a step beyond what any other country is doing, including China."  Neither of these comments are anywhere near as specific or certain as Heaven's contention that IRG can search for keywords then "pinpont the location of online protesters using their IP addresses. Then it’s just a knock on the door and a confiscated laptop for evidence." (The blog post raises many other interesting questions and is well worth a read.)

So the question for me is: what does Will Heaven know about Deep Packet Inspection that we don't? He states in his Telegraph article of 29 December:

Using a state-of-the-art method called "Deep Packet Inspection", data packages sent between protesters are now automatically broken down, checked for keywords, and reconstructed within milliseconds. Every Tweet and Facebook message, in other words, is firmly on the regime's radar.

This dramatic conclusion is now based on a single article which was corrected over six months ago after refutation by one of the key actors. Even if this wasn't the case, there is nothing in the article which indicates that Deep Packet Inspection provides the "knock on the door" capability that Heaven portrays.

On Friday Heaven described the Iranian regime's use of DPI as "prolific" but linked only to his article of 29 December, which in turn linked to his blog post of December 29, which linked to the WSJ. Perhaps Heaven knows far more about Iranian use of DPI than he has up to now revealed, but so far he is repeating a a single, hazy assertion as fact.

UPDATED Iran & Twitter 101: Getting The Facts Right --- A Response to Will Heaven

UPDATE 8 January: Will Heaven will not give up --- he has made another attempt, informed only by anecdote, distortion, and speculation, to justify his campaign for silence on Twitter about #IranElection.

I will break my own vow of silence (see comments below), regarding any discussion of and thus further publicity for the thoughtless and indefensible in Mr Heaven's "analysis", to say this:

@WillHeaven: You insult those of us who use #Twitter wisely and, hopefully, effectively. You insult @persiankiwi, & you insult the people of #Iran. If you have any decency, stop.

(P.S. Maybe you can be of use writing about #uksnow.)

---

Josh Shahryar writes:

Waking up every day and being a journalist is a very conflicting job. Sometimes, you read the work of other journalists who’ve written responsibly and with full knowledge of the subject matter and you feel proud of who you are. Other times, people write things that make you want to just sit there and mourn the fact that he or she belongs to the same profession as you.

Last week, in the online edition of Britain's Daily Telegraph, Will Heaven critiqued the people who have been active on Twitter for the cause of Iran --- some now for almost 200 days --- under the headline, “Iran and Twitter: the fatal folly of the online revolutionaries”.

Don’t get me wrong, Mr Heaven has freedom of speech on his side. But every now and then, I take the liberty to use the same right to point out where fellow journalists for filling the internet with assertions that misrepresent the truth and "analysis" that blatantly insults not only our intelligence but also our characters. I think Will Heaven fits that bill quite neatly.

I am simply going to reply to Mr Heaven's paragraphs one by one in order. I have not changed any of his words, and I will address him directly.

HEAVEN: As young men and women took to the streets of Tehran on Sunday to confront the Revolutionary Guard, another very different protest sprang to life all over the world. This one didn't face tear-gas or gunfire. And its participants didn't risk prison, torture or death. It took place on 2009's most trendy website: Twitter.com.

Well, now, how about the risk of having your family imprisoned, tortured or killed? Did you know that dozens of social media activists have families in Iran and dozens more have received e-mails from the Iranian government telling them to stop or else their families would face serious harm? Did you know that Fereshteh Ghazi (@iranbaan), another activist who writes about prisoners, has family in Iran? Did you know that Isa Saharkhiz, the father of the most active of the Twitterati, Mehdi Saharkhiz (@onlymehdi), is in prison and being tried in connection with the protests?

I think everyone would agree that even if these people aren’t personally facing imprisonment, torture and death, they might deserve a moment of recognition for persisting in their reporting when their families facing the same peril. If you don't choose to join recognition of them, at least pause and include these facts before you wag your finger at their supposed security.

For Twitter enthusiasts, this has been a bumper year. With a new online tool at their chubby fingertips, they've helped to change the world. Or at least, that's what they think: the so-called Iranian Twitter Revolution recently won a Webby award for being "one of the top 10 internet moments of the decade".”

Chubby fingertips? Nice use of the stereotype that portrays all geeks as being overweight. This here is just a direct and far from original insult. I’m not sure how you manage to call yourself a journalist and use such degrading language to get your fictitious points across.

As for the Iranian "Twitter Revolution", that is a creation of the mainstream media who are ignorant of what is going on inside and outside Iran.

If the protests in Iran are turning into a revolution, social networking websites had very little to do with it. The reason why the site are getting kudos is because they helped people bypass the failure of the mainstream media to cover the events in Iran and get informed about what was really happening on the streets of Tehran as well as shore up outside support for the cause.

Get this straight; it was the failure to provide timely and accurate news regarding the events in Iran that forced the citizens of the world to step up and help educate people about the courage and perseverance of the Iranian people and the brutality and inhumanity of the Iranian government. You can whine all you want, but you, if you are representing a responsible "traditional" media vs. a supposedly tangential and irresponsible social media, have failed. And the fact that you failed does not give you the right to attempt and devalue the work of others.

Let me tell you why I find that deeply troubling. There has been no revolution in Iran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has held on to power after a rigged election. Meanwhile, protests continue to be violently suppressed by government forces and unregulated militias, with human rights groups saying that at least 400 demonstrators have been killed since June. Dozens of those arrested remain unaccounted for, and many of those set free tell of rape and vicious beatings in Iran's most notorious prisons.

So don't tell me that Twitter and other online networks have improved the situation in Iran. It's deluded to think that "hashtags", "Tweets" and "Twibbons" have threatened the regime for a second. If all the internet could muster in a decade was smug armchair activists and pontificating techies, we may as well all log off in the New Year.

Again, Twitter has not improved the situation in Iran; it has improved the flow of news about that situation to the outside world. It has helped mobilize activists outside Iran, protesting across the world, to pressure the international community into taking action against the Iranian government.

If you had followed the news or understood what you have read, you would have known about the 25 July protests where thousands of people gathered in more than 100 cities around the globe in support of the Iranian people’s struggle for human rights. There have been dozens of protests in dozens of other cities since then; I attended one just a week ago. These protests have served to both inform the public and to pressure governments to deal with Iran’s repression of its citizens more harshly then they might have otherwise would have.

This would not have been possible if social networking websites had not connected people and informed them about what was going on inside Iran since, frankly, I see the mainstream media's primary interest in Iran as the nuclear energy program.

Your ignorance does not change the facts on the ground.

Here's the other thing "social media experts" will forget to tell you: dictatorships across the world now use their own tools to hunt down online protesters. In Iran, for instance, the government controls the internet with a nationalised communications company. Using a state-of-the-art method called "Deep Packet Inspection", data packages sent between protesters are now automatically broken down, checked for keywords, and reconstructed within milliseconds. Every Tweet and Facebook message, in other words, is firmly on the regime's radar.

As a result, the crackdown in Iran has been easier than ever before. Once the Revolutionary Guard intercept a suspect message, they are able to pinpoint the location of a guilty protester using their computer's IP address. Then it's just a question of knocking on doors – and confiscating laptops and PCs for hard evidence.
Sadly, when this happens, those outside Iran cannot always absolve themselves of responsibility. If you're an internet user in Britain who communicates with an Iranian protester online, or encourages them to send anti-regime messages over the internet, you could be putting their life in danger.

Here’s a bit of education in anti-filtering software. There’s a software called Tor –-- similar to Freegate --- that allows people to connect to the internet without fear of Deep Pocket Inspection tools. You can figure out that someone is using Tor with DPI, but you can never find out what they’re sending. Our "chubby-fingered" friends were intelligent and passionate enough to get that into Iranian hands as early as June. And that’s not all. Net activists have already created several new anti-DPI softwares that have already reached Iranians and are being skillfully used by a select few to get information out. With these, the government can’t even figure out if someone is using anti-filtering software or is connected straight up.

If this had not occurred, you would not get all the videos, pictures and information readily available within minutes of protests in Iran.

Just because you do not know about these things does not mean they do not exist or they do not work.

And contrary to what you claim, no one actually has to encourage Iranians to communicate information about their country to the outside world. They do it themselves. They feel a need to help the world understand what is going on in their country and not have to read fear-mongering articles on the mainstream media about how Iran is going to bomb Israel and there would be World War III and such. What the techies have done is help them access the software that allows them to do it without fear of getting arrested.

There's nothing wrong with spreading awareness outside Iran, but it's horribly naive to think that supporting illegal activity in a foreign country has no ethical dimension. It's equally foolish, of course, to kid yourself that you're on the front line.
For the Iranian authorities, the detective work often doesn't have to be remotely hi-tech. As Evgeny Morozov recently noted, it is now possible to calculate a person's sexual orientation by analysing who their Facebook friends are. Sure, it's a quirky news story in Britain, but terrifying for gay people living in countries such as Iran, where homosexuality is outlawed.

Illegal activity? What illegal activity? Iranians are granted the right to take to streets and peacefully protest by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Just because the government is overstepping Iranian law does not mean you have to go out of your way to accommodate their will to hammer home your fallacious arguments. As for your assertion that helping Iranians spread the word about the situation is wrong, well, maybe you should know that freedom of expression is a universal human right. No country’s laws can infringe upon that. None.

I’m not sure you know that Facebook and Twitter are officially banned in Iran right now. People in Iran who are using the two applications have created accounts specifically to disseminate news and information, not for dating. Even if the government finds those accounts, it will not be able to trace them back to their owners because of new software.

Perhaps Barack Obama was one of the first world leaders to realise that social media have their limits. In March, on the feast of Nowruz (the Farsi New Year), he posted an online video in which he addressed the Iranian people and their leaders directly.

It signaled the launch of "YouTube diplomacy", one commentator gushed. But, like the Twitter Revolution, it has achieved very little – Iran remains determined to become a nuclear power, and America is still described by the regime as "the Great Satan".

The jab at YouTube diplomacy is another creation of those in the media who know little about what is going on during protests on the streets in daylight, even with video evidence at hand, but who are more than ready to scare the hell out of everyone by proclaiming that Iran will get the ability to make a nuclear bomb soon. Your own retreat into that nuclear shelter, under cover of the ludicrous and unfounded accusations about the movement inside as well as outside Iran, is only an addition to that evasion.

So what can we do? Well, perhaps that’s a question for 2010, because the internet, combined with “offline” networks, probably can encourage openness in dictatorships. But before we work out how, let’s first drop the self-congratulation.

What can you do? You can actually report after researching the subject you are about to write on. You can find sources inside Iran to get some real news out. And you can stop hurling insults like poisoned candy.

Finally, we don’t need to self-congratulate ourselves. The media does it for us quite neatly. I will point you to just one article about the Twitter Revolution published a few days ago in one of Sweden’s largest tabloid newspapers, Expressen:

Today Mousavi's Facebook page [a page run by activists from outside Iran] is a more secure source of news than Al-Jazeera and the BBC, while micro-blogs and websites like the dailyniteowl.com and rahesabz.net [both websites that use direct information from tweets and Facebook] offer sympathizers as well as media consumers, fast, reliable news [about Iran] that traditional newsrooms cannot provide.

That is just one out of hundreds of articles that have been published about the worldwide effort to help get the reality on Iran’s streets to people around the globe through social networking websites like Twitter, Facebook and YouTube and through microblogs.

I understand your frustration at having to keep up with citizen reporting. But that does not give you the right to so flagrantly distort facts and insult a mass of people that have devoted their own time without any monetary compensation to helping their brothers and sisters in Iran.

Next time, if you’re going to write on this subject, please, inform yourself about the many terms you used and try to show the real picture.

Latest from Iran (7 January): Radio Silence?

2155 GMT: Hmm.... Looks like the homepage of Iran's Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance has been visited by a hacker.

2150 GMT: Are You Listening in Tel Aviv? The Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, has pretty much slapped a public restraining order on an Israeli attack on Iran. He told the Washington Institute of Near East Policy that Iran was "on a path that has strategic intent to develop nuclear weapons and have been for some time" and "that outcome is potentially a very, very destabilizing outcome"; however, he continued:

On the other hand, when asked about striking Iran, specifically, that also has a very, very destabilizing outcome....That part of the world could become much more unstable, which is a dangerous global outcome.

(Here's a surprise: Iran's Press TV is already featuring Mullen's words.)

Iran: The “10 Demands” Manifesto – Soroush Speaks
Iran & Twitter 101: Getting The Facts Right — A Response to Will Heaven
Iran & Twitter 101: Rereading A Tale of Two Twitterers
Latest Iran Video: Football’s Back…And It’s Still Green (6 January)
Iran: Hillary Clinton on Engagement & Pressure with Regime of “Ruthless Repression”
UPDATED Iran: The 60 Forbidden Foreign Organisations
The Latest from Iran (6 January): Distractions

2125 GMT: An Iranian blog has published pictures of those trying to attack Mehdi Karroubi in Qazvin tonight (see 2025 GMT).

An Iranian activist has posted a summary on Facebook, claiming about 200 plainclothes "thugs" gathered outside the house where Karroubi was staying. The police tried to prevent a confrontation as about 500 people looked on; however, according to the activist, there were Revolutionary Guard commanders amongst the would-be attackers. When Karroubi was leaving, his car was pelted with eggs and broken bricks.

2120 GMT: Deutsche Welle publishes a story mentioned by one of our readers earlier today. The Iranian Government has declared that "defaced" banknotes will not be considered as legal currency as of 16 January. The announcement is clearly aimed at the widespread movement of protest by putting Green slogans on the currency.

In response, the opposition has declared that 17 January will be a day of protest with massive circulation of the "Green" banknotes.

2039 GMT: 99% Support is Not Enough. Peyke Iran reports that Hojatoleslam Ruhollah Hosseinian has resigned as a member of Parliament because there has not been "100% support for Ayatollah Khamenei". Hosseinian is considered a fervent supporter of President Ahmadinejad, whom he has served as security advisor. He is also a former Deputy Minister of Intelligence.

2025 GMT: Karroubi Visit and Qazvin Clashes. A lot of chatter about Mehdi Karroubi's trip to Qazvin, 165 miles northwest of Tehran. Saham News reports that there were clashes when  the home of Hojetoleslam Ghavami, where Karroubi was staying, was attacked.

2000 GMT: Iranian human rights groups report that student leader Majid Tavakoli, detained after his speech at the 16 Azar (7 December) protests, has been tried and sentenced in Revolutionary Court.

Tavakoli, given permission to contact his family for the first time since his arrest, said he was charged with insulting the Supreme Leader, insulting the President, and gathering and spreading propaganda against the regime. The trial was held behind closed doors, and Tavakoli remains in solitary confinement in Evin Prison.

Iranian authorities attempted to humiliate Tavakoli by distributing his photograph in woman's hejab, prompting the protest "We Are All Majid".

1950 GMT: Fasih Yasamani was hanged on Wednesday.

Yasamani, in prison since 2007, was accused of belonging to the opposition party Pajvak,
an armed Kurdish group. The evidence against Yasamani were his confessions, which he claimed were obtained by torture.

The 28-year-old Yasamani is the second Kurdish citizen executed since the June election. Ehsan Fattahian was killed on 11 November.

Iranian human rights groups claim that there are 17 other political prisoners on death row in Kurdistan.

1945 GMT:Ashura "Mohareb" Trials? Islamic Republic News Agency reports that five of the protesters on Ashura (27 December) will be tried in Revolutionary Court.

There has already reportedly been a trial of demonstrators. The distinction in this report is these five will be charged with "mohareb" (a war against God), a crime which can be punished by death.

1730 GMT: Radio Silence Indeed. Because of complications of site outage and my commitments in Beirut, we've been limited in updates today. I'll be here about 1930 GMT to go through the day's events.

1005 GMT: Missing. The husband of student activist Bahareh Hedayat, has told Rooz Online, "We have no information about her." Hedayat was detained at the end of December.

1000 GMT: A Petition with Caution.
An interesting story out of Australia....

After the resignation of an Iranian diplomat in Norway in protest over the Government's handling of the post-election conflict, Iran Solidarity in Melbourne has posted a petition asking Iran's Ambassador to Australia to give up his post.

There's a note on the petition, however, which points to fear as well as activism: "***READ BEFORE SIGNING*** UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD ANYBODY USE THEIR REAL NAME WHEN SIGNING THIS PETITION."

0625 GMT: Tantalising --- but True? One claim, and it is only a claim at this point, to note: Maziar Bahari writes in Newsweek: "Sources close to conservatives say that some leading figures are now pressing [Supreme Leader] Khamenei to dump [President] Ahmadinejad in order to preserve his own position."

0620 GMT: Possibly the quietest period in Iranian politics since June, even in chatter amongst our Internet sources.

Speaking of those sources, we have two special analyses this morning. Josh Shahryar offers a detailed response to a recent article ridiculing the role of social media in the post-election events in Iran. And I flash back to late June with "A Tale of Two Twitterers".

We'll be on limited service today because of conference duties. Please keep sending in news and comment, especially if situation picks up later today.

Iran: How Outside "Help" Can Hurt the Green Movement

Josh Shahryar writes for EA:

Today 36 members of Iran's Parliament tabled a bill ensuring that anyone designated by the courts as a "combatant" be executed within five days. The bill seeks to amend an existing law that states that anyone who "tampers" with public opinion, a clause used mainly these days to indicate calling for protests or joining them, can be designated as a combatant. Iranian protesters are being accused of treason and for attempting to stage a "velvet revolution" even when all they are demanding is the rights granted to them by the Constitution.

While observers inside and outside Iran may be baffled by the claims of such a revolution, the Iranian government has some cause. There may be no facts for a foreign-instigated regime change; however, some outsiide the country --- both "foregin" and Iranian --- may give the regime the pretext to prosecute peaceful protesters.
A current case surrounds Amir Abbas Fakhravar, a US-based Iranian student activist – who has lately been making the rounds in the Western media as one of the supposed insiders of the Green movement. I do not wish to doubt his story of how he was arrested multiple times in Iran, nor do I wish to question his credentials as a bona fide activist fighting for human rights in Iran or his status as a student leader. My concern is that the statements he is making may hurt the Green movement’s cause in Iran, spreading disinformation and ignoring key facts.

Consider his statement in 2007 to the website WorldNetDaily:

Noting 72 percent of Iranians are under 30 years of age, Fakhravar contends many young people are prepared to join the opposition. “We have the ability inside,” he said. “This is the silent army inside Iran, and we need the media to encourage them. American policy should trust us. We could do it.”

His most recent article, published in the New York Daily News, is more of the same:

Months before the 2009 presidential elections, they decided to use the mullahs’ own tactics against them – and to seize and own all of the icons of the Islamic Republic and give them a new identity….So when there was massive fraud in Ahmadinejad’s reelection, the people were ready.

The planning of all those years planted the seeds; the brutality provided the spark. The Green Movement finally gained a complete identity with powerful symbols – even with its own martyrs.

If you haven’t followed the news from Iran, these statements don’t really stand out as dangerous. But they are fuel for the inferno that the Iranian regime is stoking for the Green Movement.

Consider the 2007 assertion of "silent army" from 2007. There is little evidence to suggest that three years ago, Iranians were readying to take to the streets. On the other hand, such an assertion allows the Islamic regime to detain people for supposedly planning protests for two years. An unsupported claim can be conclusive evidence for this regime.

The second statement is even more damning. So month before the election, people were ready to take to streets. For what exactly? The protests did not start as a backlash against the oppression of the regime, but because of perceived fraud in the election. How could one know in December 2008 that the results would be manipulated and thus plan for millions to march to overthrow a regime?

In the New York Daily News article, Fakhravar gives further credence to the government’s claims of a "velvet revolution" against the regime.

What we are witnessing on the streets of Tehran and other cities is nothing short of a revolution –-- a carefully orchestrated, years-in-the-making attempt to overthrow a corrupt and repressive regime and replace it with something fundamentally more free, democratic and secular.

So, yes, there is a "velvet revolution", according to Fakhravar. As Mir Hossein Mousavi continues to hold out that this is not an overthrow of the Islamic Republic, Fakhravar claims exactly that. (The course of events may transform this movement into a revolution, but at the moment, it is a demand for reform. Wishful thinking is not going to alter that.) How can we blame the Revolutionary Guard for claiming that Iran faces "regime change" in the face of this publicity?

And so the supposed "velvet revolution" takes over the public stage. The Washington Times writes:

Amir Abbas Fakhravar, 35, a former student leader who spent several years in prison in Iran and now lives in the Washington area, said contacts are taking place on Facebook and Skype and that activists plan to create a “revolutionary council” of about 15 people inside and outside Iran to lead the “Iranian Green Revolution.”

And here’s an interview from FrontPage Magazine:

FP: So where does the leadership come from?

Fakhravar: This movement doesn’t have a leader, but things like Facebook help. We use social media to help organize events inside Iran. For instance, we are planning a demonstration in February to coincide with the 31st anniversary of the Iranian revolution. Earlier this year, I was giving a speech before Congress and I said, “Iranians don’t want a war. All we need are cell phones, cameras and computers.” Some of the Senators laughed at that. But it has happened. We are close to a cyber revolution in Iran.

The first important point is, whether the West likes it or not, Mir Hossein Mousavi and to a large extent Mehdi Karroubi are the leaders of the Green Movement. Yes, I agree completely that these men have a dirty past. I also agree that under them, it would be almost impossible to ask for a completely secular society, but too bad. That’s just what it is.

Fakhravar’s opinion does not change the fact that when Mousavi or Karroubi join the protests, they are welcomed like leaders. Neither does it change the fact that people openly chant Karroubi and Mousavi’s names during protests even when they are not present. And it does not explain green graffiti exalting Mousavi and Karroubi on Tehran’s walls.

As for a revolution by Facebook, most social networking websites are banned in Iran. Their usage inside Iran is extremely limited and only possible through the use of anti-internet filtering software. It is not realistic to expect hundreds of thousands of people to come out on the streets simply because Iranians abroad are posting information for them on websites that they cannot even access. The "Twitter Revolution" may mean that social networking media can be used by people to quickly inform each other of news, but it is not currently a tool to organise demonstrations. That is one reason why protests are planned weeks in advance.

I have no wish or desire to question Mr. Fakhravar’s credentials or his intentions, but his statements about the Green Movement are, at the least, inaccurate, and he does not seem to know or acknowledge important facts about the current situation in Iran.

While the second error can be neglected, the first will be used by the Iranian regime to persecute peaceful protesters by the Iranian regime. If people like Fakhravar really care for human rights and democracy, they would spend some time studying what is going on inside Iran and then make informed and undamaging statements.

Iranians are already facing enough peril. Let’s not make it harder on them.