(CNN) -- A photo showing Iranian clerics prominently participating in an anti-government protest speaks volumes about the new face of Iran's opposition movement.
In a blatant act of defiance, a group of Mullahs took to the streets of Tehran, to protest election results that returned incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power.
Whether these clerics voted for Ahmadinejad or one of the opposition candidates is unknown. What is important here, is the decision to march against the will of Iran's supreme leader who called the results final and declared demonstrations illegal.
In the Islamic Republic of Iran, Mullahs rule supreme. They are the country's conservative clerics; the guardians of the Islamic revolution and its ideologies. They're loyal only to God and Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Iranian opposition supporters took to the streets in protest of their candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi's loss in the June 12 presidential elections.
They alleged the elections were rigged. Moussavi asked to annul the results and hold new vote. Ayatollah Khamenei rejected the proposal, backed Ahmadinejad and called on people not to demonstrate or else face the consequences.
When the protests began, Iranian students for the most part, especially women were visible and in the lead. VideoWatch clerics join the protests »
Their numbers dwindled over time. Some blame police and militia crackdown and intimidation.
Social networks swelled with amateur video showing protesters beaten or shot at. Their screams of pain and even death were caught on tape by fellow protesters using mainly cell phone cameras.
Throughout all that, some clerics of the Islamic Republic have spoken up against the stifling of people's right to voice their opinion and in support of new elections.
On his Web site, Grand Ayatollah Hussein Ali Montazeri described government efforts to crackdown on the protests as threatening the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic because it was no longer representing all the people.
Moussavi ally and former president Mohammad Khatami also said in a statement that to "protest in a civil manner... is the definite right of the people and all must respect that."
The graphic pictures out of Iran in the past week have shown time and again, making statements is one thing and taking to the streets is another.
Iranian opposition at the leadership level and in the streets now has new faces, made up of those who had opposing ideologies before the election.
One symbol of that has become a nightly tradition in Iran. Secular or religious, Iranians go to their rooftops every night.. and shout out "Allahu Akbar" -- God is great -- and "down with the dictator."
OK, so with you, it really comes down to diplomacy. Of course, there are different schools of thought on what makes good diplomacy. Some think it works to go nicey-nice. As for me, I'm generally in favor of calling an evil empire an evil empire.
Fortunately, Obama finally heeded McCain's advice and condemned the government of Iran. For that, IObama.
Obama condemns violence against Iran protesters - Yahoo! News
and in the end...... Obama did what McCain was telling him about..... be FIRM with Iran. Shake your finger at Iran
Yahoo only puts up articles written by news wires such as the AP. I agree, though, that you have to take anything written by the AP with a grain of salt. The same goes for the BBC.
You explained who "we" were but you didn't explain why you feel entitled to speak out for the "we" people.
What they say and what they do are not the same thing.
I thought you just said that they aren't interested in having nuclear weapons?
Iranians attacked Americans, with the blessings of their leaders.
If America were to give up all her nuclear weapons before every other country did (with verification), it would be a stupid plan. It would leave America vulnerable to attack.
You didn't say "only" but you said "first".
It makes perfect sense. If the police give up their guns first, they can't defend themselves from the criminals."
So, you agree that the American military do not hate Iran? I want to be sure that I understand you.
How do they differ?
What they say and what they do are not the same thing.
I thought you just said that they aren't interested in having nuclear weapons?
Yes that they repeat dozen of times that they are not interested in nuclear weapons.
I only answered ADers´ hypocrites question over Iran and nuclear weapons.
No, hostage crisis was being attacked by Iranian students and US Embassy bomb by anti-american terrorist group, not Iranian Government.
Éxactly, then not tell other countries to do with nuclear weapons if the USA have one. Leave them alone.
I am trying to make more clear.
If America don´t want other countries own nuclear weapons then they should destory their nuclear weapons first because America start it to tell other countries what to do. It´s okay for America to own nuclear weapon, not okay for other countries which is not right.
That´s why I said that EVERY countries including America has the right to defend/protect their country.
Its about fair.
No, you should read my post more carefully...
I did said IF IF IF ... which mean is IF
Then don´t dictate other countries with nuclear weapons.
wow, Please be honest yourself...
Yes you understood my response post to ADer prefect that it´s about me as an employee for US military base. It´s about me, ADer referred to, not people from American military. Please go back and re-read my response post toward ADer.
Except that's pretty much the sort of speech McCain was telling Obama to make- supporting and respecting the people of Iran while condemning the brutal government.
So you're saying Obama would have been wrong to condemn the government of Iran if they had not first accused Obama of meddling. I can maybe understand if Obama's initial silence were some sort of coherent tactic, but you're saying it's a moral issue, not a tactical one. Why is it a moral imperative to remain silent while a tyrannical regime inflicts brutality on its people for peacefully protesting?
