Musings on non-violence and Iran

These past few days i've been watching/reading quite a bit on Iran. Also, last night I watched Gandhi w/ my mom as I thought it a travesty she had never seen it (it made it's debut in '82->few years before me haha). I got to thinking about Gandhi's concept of "Satyagraha" which has been loosely translated to mean "passive resistance". This is not a proper translation as it has been compared to translating "light" as "non-darkness" Basically, it is only takes a passive form b/c it espouses self-restraint. One may be more familiar w/ Thoreau's concept of "Civil Disobedience"-which Gandhi read.

I am doubful, per usual, but I wonder if something like this would work in Iran? The Islamic Republic of Iran is no more brutal than the British were, if not less so(the Amritsar Massacre comes to mind as well as the brutal put-down of the march on the Dharasana Salt Works). There was the misunderstanding that those who practiced this concept of non-violent resistance were cowards-quite the opposite is true. I know that I most certainly would not be able to to march peacefully-not raising a hand- as a group of men wielding steel-tipped clubs beat the shit out of me. I am def. the kind of person who when hit, hits back.

I also think of Dr. King Jr. (who based a lot of the Civil Rights Movement on Gandhi's writings) when he said "returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."

I guess the main issue here is how far are both the oppressed and the oppressors willing to go? How many people have to die before one side gives in? Many, many, Indians and African Americans died in their struggle. How many Iranians have to die before there is a change there? How many Czechs had to die before the Moscow Protocols were signed?

Of course there have been failures like China in 1989 in not only Tiananmen Square(Beijing), but also in Shanghai, Nanking, Hunan, and Hong Kong. These protests were very violently put-down and nothing changed. Had the people continued, who knows what would have happened? It is such a great sacrifice though.

The main goal of non-violent resistance is to shame the oppressors for using violent force against it until they grow weary of all the violence. The down-side is that it takes a very courageous and strong solidarity. One person could ruin the whole movement. I for one know that if I were demonstrating and I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqGx_aI-Ng

I would react violently. Does this kind of thinking that people like Gandhi encourage ask too much of people? Does it require too much bloodshed and sacrifice? Is it fair to say that there are ideals that people should be willing to die for, but not to kill for? Also, with Moussavi M.I. A., will the protesting stop- do such movements require a strong leader? Feel free to share your thoughts.

As an addendum:
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I was confused about who the Basij was, and how they differed from the Revolutionary Guards, the army, and the plain ol' police. Upon further insomnia-inspired research, I figured it all out and assigned my family members their appropriate spots:

-Basij- My parents would be great candidates for this group. Though it comprises mainly of indoctrinated young(sorry mom) thugs, they would fit the bill because of what vigilantes these folks are. These religious zealots mainly join for the benefits they can recieve(my parents are religious for the "benefits" of an afterlife) and are responsible for cruelty towards those who are guilty of any infraction against the Koran( My parents also feel the need to judge based on a Holy Book)

-Artesh (Regular Army)- My youngest sister fits this bill. Very non-political and relatively unreliable. The Artesh's main responsibility is to guard the borders and military service for 2 years is manditory.

-Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard)- Gina would be great for this. Their loyalty to the Revolution and the regime is unwavering. They were created after the 1979 revolution because the fledgling government did not trust the military for protection. This groups is given a lot of independence as they are an extremely devoted and trustworthy.