There are different assessments about Mir Hossein Mousavi’s 17th statement, central to his statement are the five-step proposal raised in order to offer an escape from the crisis. If we consider that the goals of the statement was to provide consensus and if a consensus has been reached by all factions within the government on a way out of crisis in the present circumstances, to what extent is there possibility of such understanding within the government and if yes, what are the mechanisms? Dr. Alireza Namvar Haghighy, political analyst living in Canada says about to radio Zamaneh:

Mr. Mousavi has tried to offer solutions and offer a compromise to pass the violence considering the existing realities in power parties and the social movement created following the elections while achieving the goals of the (green) movement.

The basis for Mr. Mousavi’s work is that he has tried to explain that these demands are according to the constitution and aim to restore its forgotten principals. He has further attempted to show that in the current situation, employing violence is worthless and even arresting the leaders, Mr. Khatami, Mr. Karroubi and Mousavi will not influence the process of the movement. Therefore, he has raised suggestions that they would be willing to accept.

Mr. Mousavi has put forth a criterion that from this perspective, if his opponents and power parties do not accept his suggestions, it shows they are more interested in maintaining their own power and partisan interests rather than in solving the problems of the nation.

Thus, Mr. Mousavi has explained that the suggested principals are within the framework of the constitution, and the government supporters who are strongly against his suggestions have not explained why they are opposed to this plan. Are they opposing the constitution itself or do they feel these principals of the constitution are against the ones that they apply in the society.

In order to achieve consensus  among government parties, the highest position of the government who has the most will and power, the leader of Islamic republic of Iran, should intervene; however, Mr. Khamenei, himself, has taken a side. Does this mean there would have to be another force that must be entered as a mediator and in that case? if so what would that be?

The reality is that among the various parties of factions of power, there isn’t any consensus on this statement. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s government and his supporters are strongly opposed to this plan because if this compromise happens, it would endanger their interests. They want a government that is expanded whose work is not monitored. Their theory is that this government is not accountable neither to supreme leader nor the society, but only Imam Zaman.

For this government the problem of law and freedom mentioned in the constitution is not important. They want their destiny and that of the Islamic Republic to be written together. They believe if their behavior forces the Islamic republic to support them in order to maintain itself, they win the game.

So they try to push the game towards violence and employ methods involving intimidation and threats. For them violence is the first solution not the last.

In other parties, the military leaders who have participated in the war or other people related to the intelligence institutions who have a strategic vision towards Iran, know that Iran is currently engaged in important nuclear negotiations. Two unsafe areas, Iraq and Afghanistan are in its neighborhood and in economic aspects, Iran faces serious problems in its foreign investment in oil and based on these, they believe they must pass this problem with some compromise.

Mr. Rezai represents parts of this views and has welcomed the statement. There are other intermediaries groups that may not be raised publicly, but secretly try to make this compromise happen. It is obvious that a mediator group has to be raised. This intermediate group can try to help get or give [political] points and resolve the problems without violence in the end.

Could the conservative oppositions in the parliament who are against Mr. Ahmadinejad along with Mr. Rafsanjani and the positions within the Council, create this mediator group in expediency council?

It may not be that fast and it depends on several factors. If popular supports from Mr. Mousavi’s statement shape and spread in social networks and media, and on the other hand, if the support takes shape among the religious elite and political and academic groups, these two factors will result in a strong mediator group with more power to bargain or even shape.

Furthermore, this advocacy will cause the power parties to look at the issue with a rather realistic perspective. They once misestimated the electoral social forces wrongly and a social movement has been founded and continued for six months.

If they do not repeat this mistake, I think, compromise as a solution which has not yet been used and has always been denounced in Iran – because it is always considered a collusion by revolutionary parties- could bring a peaceful escape from these events.

Some government and judicial authorities had threaten to raise more violence before the statement of Mr. Mousavi, but it has continued even more intensely within the past two days especially along with Interior Minister, Mohammad-Najjar’s words by calling the protest participants “combative”. Can this be considered a response to Mr. Mousavi statement from the highest state authorities, including the leader? Or is this a continuation of threats that only some Extremist groups are directing?

Extremist groups and supporters of the government are opposed to compromise because if a compromise is made, the main loser will be Mr. Ahmadinejad’s government.

Second, there is this wrong belief in the Islamic republic that giving points and compromising means losing.

While the reality is that if this trend continues the political instability of the society will lead to serious crisis in international, economic and social aspects and these crises could further jeopardize the strategic interests of these groups.

Therefore, sometimes “individuals” do not prioritize their short-term and long-term benefits correctly and this is the main point.