IRAN - The Liberal/Traditionalist Split.

Whether both sides can maintain such prudence remain to be seen. The domestic challenges facing the regime are getting more complicated, and public opinion - especially that of the youth - is getting more impatient. Just as there are hardliners who wish to go back to the basics of the Khomeini doctrine, there are the liberals who wish to abandon the fundamentals of the theocracy and change Iran's outlook completely.

This is despite the fact that the theocracy's revolutionary zeal has mellowed over the years and the focus is turning steadily in favour of good governance. Yet the division among those who hold the traditionalist viewpoint and those who are regarded as liberals is deep, and covers virtually every aspect of policy - from foreign affairs to socio-economic issues ranging from education to whether or not satellite dishes must be permitted. These divisions are evident on a day-to-day level as the hardliners constantly try to prevent the liberals' policies from being implemented, and the latter continuously try to find ways to get around the obstacles put up by the traditionalists.

One example of this constant tug-of-war earlier this year was the jailing of MP Hossein Loghmanian. He was jailed because it was ruled that he insulted the traditionalist judiciary. But Khamen'i, who is himself regarded as being closer to the traditionalists, was obliged to pardon the MP after Speaker Mehdi Karroubi, seen as among the least confrontational of the liberals, walked out of parliament in protest. Numerous other MPs, ministers in the Khatami cabinet and other officials linked to the liberal faction have come under pressure via the judiciary - which is seen as being a traditionalist stronghold.

The intensity of the tug-of-war has heightened after every loss at the polls suffered by the traditionalist side. Thus, after the defeat in the parliamentary elections of 2000, a tough campaign against the liberals and pragmatists was begun and still continues. By March 2001, it involved the closure of pro-reform publications, imprisonment of influential journalists, curtailing of the powers of the parliament (Majlis) which is dominated by the reformists, and the arrest of prominent liberal, reformists and student activists charged with "plotting against the regime". This prompted President Khatami, just ahead of his presidential election campaign, to warn on March 20 that "opponents of reform are threatening the country's future: Those who do not understand the nation's genuine and historical demands for freedom, independence, and progress, those who sow the seeds of hatred and violence have chosen an ill-fated journey.... The Iranian nation will say no to them all".

In the current geo-political environment, with expectations high of an American assault on Iraq over the coming year, the major point of difference between the traditionalists and the pragmatists is over policy towards the US. The hardliners prefer not to have anything to do with Washington, and this viewpoint has been strengthened in recent weeks by supportive comments from Supreme Leader Khamen'i - although he had quietly authorised the Supreme National Security Council (SNSC) to study the feasibility of a rapprochement with the US. Hardliners have already moved to undermine the SNSC committee assessing Iran's options for an engagement with the US.

The liberal reformers, on the other hand, believe that if a dialogue with the US is initiated before an assault on Iraq, all Tehran would have to do is stay on the sidelines, watch the US-Iraq game being played out, and pick up the pieces. They argue that ideologies and religious fanaticism have no place in today's world, and point to the fate of the Taliban. Rather, they believe the only way to render the US harmless is through ideas which can have an impact on the democratic mindset of the American empire. They point to the powerful notion of a "dialogue of civilizations", which President Khatami proposed when he first took office in 1997 (see News Service No. 19).