The anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, February 11, is commemorated in Iran as a day to recognize the Iranian people’s stand against all forms of dictatorship. That day 31 years ago was one of the bloodiest of the Iranian uprising that toppled the Pahlavi dynasty and its dictatorial regime. This year, the government expects massive popular protests to erupt as Iranians continue to hijack official government holidays to demand their rights and demonstrate their frustration with the disputed June 2009 election that put Mahmoud Ahmadinejad back in office for another four years.
In a recent interview on his website Kalameh, Mir Hossein Mousavi, one of the main speakers for the opposition movement, discussed how elements of dictatorship have not been eradicated from the Iranian power structure, even after the Islamic Revolution. Mousavi stated that a theocratic totalitarianism is the darkest form of dictatorship man has seen in history, hinting that the “revolution” has not reached its goals and is therefore incomplete. He went on to say that people should be the decision makers in their social and political journey and not the unelected officials who are currently in charge.
Mousavi’s remarks, coming at a time when tensions are at their highest level between the Iranian government and the Iranian people, are a unmasked call to stand up to the status quo. One could go a step further and interpret his comments as a suggestion that a revolution remains in progress as the anniversary of the Islamic Revolution approaches. Mousavi said “the “revolution is not completed because dictatorship still exists.”
niacINsight - The Blog of the National Iranian American Council (NIAC) 
Very deep and powerful interview. It puts to rest the IRI-manufactured fantasy of the typical IRI apologist that Moussavi, Karroubi and other opposition leaders are backing down. Here is the continuously updated translation of the interview:
http://www.sidewalklyrics.com/
Well duh Moussavi. The dictator and the little henchman are still in power.
The interview is an excellent sort of taking stock of the present political concepts of the “green” democratic and social movement, assessing some past, but momentous events and features (which might be interpreted as a way of dealing with issues having arisen since the movement’s post-election beginning) :
The Iranian revolution under Khomeini, its contents, methods, outcome and results have to be scrutinized, put to the test, if not questioned;
military and armed forces are not to be fought via military or terroristic means, but must somehow be won over (example of the Shah-military quoted);
the existing political scene can and must be won over by the social and political movement (the “Greens”)
the “green” movement is a new type of movement: it is not a separate political party to be identified as such, but a broad political and social movement which develops independently of any supposed leader-figures via broadly-based democratic discussions, ideas and decisions;
the movement’s clientele are all Iranian citizens, but in particular the disadvantaged lower social classes supported by the intellectually and creatively active spectrum of the population;
the “green” movement is constitutional and one of its main political weapons is its insistence upon the observance of the constitutional rights, rules and regulations, in other words and in particular:
• the freedom of the press
• “habeas corpus”,
• court trials deserving that name
• questioning of the death sentence
• freedom, justice and a (an Islamic) republican system
• social justice as part and parcel of political freedom
• the strict observance of the Montequieuan separation of the powers of the the legislative, the executive and the judiciary force
• religion not to be (mis)used and/or instrumentalized by the executive power(a cautious approach towards the separation of state and church/religion)
• forcing and pushing back the unconstitutional infringement of the legislative and judiciary power by the security and military forces
• strengthening of the reliability and stability of the various administrative institutions within their constitutionally fixed functions
• the strict adherence to the constitution does not foreclose any future consensual amendments to the constitution