TEHRAN is a tinderbox after government paramilitaries started shooting, killing at least one protester, following a huge public rally against last Friday's disputed re-election of President Ahmadinejad.
Tens of thousands of supporters of defeated presidential candidate Mirhossein Mousavi defy a government ban by marching in downtown Tehran.
Members of the Basij, a force of young Islamic hardliners, killed one demonstrator and wounded several more when their building was attacked as tens of thousands of protesters dispersed from a rally against election fraud held in defiance of a government ban.
In another incident a witness told The Times how she watched from her car as riot police on six motorbikes opened fire on youths walking under a bridge after the rally. “The riot police started shooting them with big guns,” she said. “It wasn’t like the films where there is just a small hole — the shooting was blowing off hands, limbs. It was terrible, terrible.”

An Iranian photographer, declining to be named, told AFP that the incident in which a man was killed occurred in front of a local base of the Basij volunteer militia, which was set on fire. The dead man had been shot in the head.

Pictures of the incident showed armed men, wearing helmets and in civilian clothes, pointing guns at the crowds from the rooftop of the base. The photographer said the protester was killed by shots fired by the armed men.

Gunfire was heard in at least three other districts of the Iranian capital. The Ministry of the Interior was rumoured to have authorised the use of live ammunition as the regime struggled to maintain control. Supporters of the defeated candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, fought running battles with the police and Basiji, who have flooded into Tehran.

Mr Mousavi emerged from hiding for the first time since the election results were announced to address the rally. He told the crowd packed into Azadi (Freedom) Square: “God willing, we will take back our rights.”

Newly emboldened, the protesters brought out their green ribbons and bandanas and chanted: “Mousavi we support you”, and “We will die, but retrieve our votes”. The show of strength boosted Mr Mousavi’s supporters, who have called for another rally and a general strike today. Demonstrations have also been reported in the cities of Esfahan, Shiraz, Mashad and Ahvaz

The Iranian regime showed its first sign of alarm when Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, who at the weekend hailed the result as a “divine assessment”, instructed the Guardian Council of 12 senior clerics to investigate allegations that the election was rigged. However, the move was seen widely as a ruse to buy time.
The regime’s violent response to the biggest political crisis in the Islamic Republic's 30-year history has triggered a growing international backlash. Gordon Brown warned Iran that the way it responded to legitimate protests would affect its relations with the rest of the world. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, expressed concern at “what seems to be state violence against its own people”.

President Obama said he was “deeply troubled” by the violence, and Ban Ki Moon, the UN Secretary-General, urged the regime to respect the “genuine will” of the Iranian people.

That's the trouble with theocracy, if you claim divine right to rule and that god assents to your reign, then you have to right at least about all the big things all the time.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 16^th, 2009 at 1:49pm:

That's not accurate.  The value of a theocracy is that the religious authorities determine what truth is, and what "truth" can be disseminated through official organs.  It doesn't even matter if this conflicts with facts, as people can either be made to believe in lies, to self-censor, or to be apathetic.

In fact, the West arguably functions today as a bizarre secular theocracy wherein the "truth" is determined by the universities and media, which exhibit a disturbing uniformity of opinion much of which conflicts with reality.

In the world, one has to be aware of the flow.
Currently, it is a howling gale against dictators, esp islamic ones.
Democracy and freedom of speech has rarely been more valued.

If the "truth" turns out to be false, they need only to proclaim it endlessly and find new variations of this "truth".  At the same time the bar for disproving this "truth" can be continually raised while vigorous speech against this "truth" can be criminalized.  Society's elites will in turn internalize this false "truth" while those who challenge it will be ostracized and seen as weird outsiders.  This is exactly how the West functions, why would they be any different?  We just have a different set of "truths" and are a bit more sophisticated about the whole thing.

Most people in the world are poor, ignorant, and stupid, so it doesn't look too good for your prediction.

And by the way, which of these was Oliver Cromwell?