> some iranians wants reconciliation with the west; some want to keep on
> chanting death to america, some want something in between. some want
> the u.s. to come save them from their theocracy, which would have been
> the dream of the student radicals 1998-2001.
Yes, the protests are so far not "coherent". Which is a good thing, if you ask me. To me, it indicates that no one has yet taken control of them and directed them toward a fulfilling a single ideology. Even though a good number of them are protesting on behalf of Mousavi, even he doesn't control or own it, and as a not insignificant number of other protesters are calling for the end of the whole Islamic revolution, it's clear that part of the movement far exceeds Mousavi's goal. The protests for now are able to tolerate people with many different goals without subsuming any of them. This complicates the outside observer's trying to discover what they want. Also a good thing.
> I suspect you, yourself, would not want to hear
> about student protestors who want to invoke the state, a secular
> state, to protect them against the vagaries of theocratic, petty
> tyrants.
Yes, I know this is true, and I don't deceive myself that this is in any way an antistatist protest. But if that were my criterion, I would never like anything. I find what's going on in Iran exciting, and inspiring, anyway.
> I mean, i have no problem asking, "what do they want?" but what the
> real problem is is that the question is always being answered through
> the fantasy of what people want the iranian people to do for them.
It occurs to me now that "what do they want?" is probably the wrong question, with its implication that "we" can divine the consciousness of others, speak for them, etc. Maybe a better one is: "what are they doing?" which at least implicates the investigator in the process.