I think that may well be the case, as born out by some of your analysis Mohammad. The people may be frustrated, for example, by the economic situation, or at the way Iran is perceived internationally. The anger swells within them, especially among the young people, and they lash out with their votes, or in the streets. However, it they don’t have a clear idea of what it is that they do want, then the chances for new leadership to emerge which will address the needs of the people are slim, because the people themselves don’t have a handle on what their needs really are.

What is called for here, in my opinion, is a charismatic leader who has a clear vision of where the country has to go to meet the needs and aspirations of the people. That vision should be sold to the man on the street, so that the will of the people is in sync with the intentions of the leadership.

Nejad’s political language doesnt seem much traditional radicalism to me really, but either a “new” language, breaking some more taboos and stereotypes of the Iranian political arena and Iranian society. His political way is new, he doesnt copy anybody, but rather other political figures copied his and others’ previous vows in this election. (like using the poverty word or Obama’s vows and ways for example)

Nejad might have a beard, but he kisses hands of his female teacher and he claims to allow women for going to stadium for watching Soccer, appoints not much religious Mashaei and so many ‘tranditional’ Qum’s religious figures -if i dont say 80%- are against him and avoided to congratulate him for his second term of victory.
They’re all paradoxes been neglected with what’s induced in minds about Radicalism. I can not convince myself that he is really following the radicalism of 70s and 80s.

I do not reject the idea that Nejad has had supporters in the rural areas, but am not also sure that all moderate figures have been put aside though. Since average age of Iranians is 27 years old, it might be true that both groups, whether Nejad or Mousavi, attracted the youth generation.

Many “young” educated people voted for Nejad and some of them are not religious at all, nor rural and radical. They are also from the moderates, they dont like the mandatory Hijab, they’re agaist the violence that happened lately and in the past. However they’ve faced some more “radical and stereotypical reactions” from some reformist youth.

They just voted for Nejad for they assume he will fight the corruption and he is the one for the real “change” in the social structure. Now whether right or wrong, We shall wait and see how much they were true..

However, with all dicussions around election, there’s a point that no longer “Tehranis” decide for the rest of Iranians. As a Tehrani woman, with non-persian background, i’ve noticed that Iranian ethnic groups have been under abusement of the Tehrani Persians and they would surrender to what Tehrani culture would impose. Tehran used to decide what people wear, eat and whom they should vote for. (I might write about it in another post)

If we take the idea that election result was fair, it seems that non-tehranis gained their pride to decide on their own.
Before that, we used to predict the result of election from Tehran’s result. But this election showed that Tehran is no longer considered as all Iran.