As Iran marked the 31st anniversary of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, amidst reports of clashes between opposition supporters and police, authorities disrupted the flow of information by preventing journalists from covering opposition activity, drastically slowing internet service in Iran, and shutting down text messaging services, according to a report by the International Press Institute.

Iran’s renewed moves against the media coincided with the launch of IPI’s World Press Freedom Review 2009 – Focus on the Middle East and North Africa.

The report noted, “The government of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has long implemented some of the world’s most repressive policies towards the media. This year, however, Iran became the leading jailer of journalists in the world, imprisoning over 100 reporters and bloggers in the aftermath of the disputed elections.”

Reacting to Iran’s latest efforts to disrupt the flow of information, IPI Director David Dadge argued, “No amount of censorship of the world’s media can prevent information from escaping and the Iranian government would do well to reflect this reality rather than acting as if information can still be controlled and blocked.”

Link TV also remarks that in an attempt to stifle freedom of expression, the opposition turnout was dwarfed by huge crowds at the state-run celebrations in the center of Tehran waving Iranian flags and carrying placards declaring the "US and Britain the brothers of the devil", and "Down with Israel."

As Iranian state-controlled television beamed images of rallies supporting the regime in different cities, several Western and Arab television networks were reporting clashes between protesters and security forces in Tehran, Mashhad, Esfahan, Ahvaz, Shiraz and Tabriz.

A video posted on YouTube, showing an Iranian security official pummeling an unarmed demonstrator, was rebroadcast on several media outlets without confirming whether the video was shot recently or during the events surrounding the 2009 presidential election.

Following in the footsteps of China, Iranian authorities blocked access to Google and other internet service providers. SMS messages were interrupted, and internet communication was brought to a halt.

Three major international broadcasters operating in the region, the BBC, Deutsche Welle and the Voice of America, have also recently accused the Iranian regime of "deliberate electronic interference" in their broadcasts.

Columnist Roger Cohen of The New York Times recommends targeting the censors in Iran, imposing sanctions and promoting greater freedom of expression by bolstering Iran’s opposition movement as well as weakening the Revolutionary Guards’ stranglehold on society and the economy.

Richard R. Verma, an assistant secretary for legislative affairs at the State Department, wrote to Carl Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, informing him that the State Department had asked the Treasury to waive certain sanctions on Iran relating to the export of technology.

It is currently illegal for Microsoft to offer MSN Messenger in Iran. “With respect to Iran, human rights and free speech efforts have been made illegal under federal law!” said techie Austin Heap, “Sanctions are deterring people from doing things to help.”

Cohen further argues that the US is shooting itself in the foot by putting greater restrictions on technology imports to Iran as they could serve American interests, especially in the hands of the opposition.

White House officials argue that their strategy of engagement has been a form of pressure, remarks David Ignatius for The Washington Post. According to him, today’s Iran is “far more divided internally; it has lost much of its legitimacy within the Muslim world, with the regional balance of power tipping the other way for the first time in years; and it is more isolated internationally, no longer able to count on Russia as a reliable patron.”

Ignatius goes on to argue, “In dealing with Tehran, the United States should place a series of different wagers -- betting on Iranian democracy in the long run.”

Helle Dale of The Heritage Foundation recommends using the tools of American public diplomacy in the service of pro-democracy movements and regime change in Iran, particularly through US broadcasting programs, such as Radio Free Iran.

Dale advises that its programs’ funding should be “generously increased,” targeting radio rather than the television. She points out that the television is a medium that is vulnerable, due to the visibility of satellite dishes in Iran. “Internet is also clearly sensitive to government control and interference, as is cell phone serve, which makes them vulnerable,” Dale adds.

Yet, Dale notes that today in the media era, it is impossible to entirely control the flow and content of information, and that the US government should continue to work with Iranians abroad by setting up pro-democracy websites through third party organizations.

“The US government should announce that regime change is official US policy, which will certainly lend moral support to Iranians under severe pressure at home,” she concludes, favoring stronger pressure and threats in dealing with Iran.

The Green Movement, led by Hossein Moussavi, demands the removal of Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Mousavi also seeks to support the opposition, although “prospects for regime change have seemed to me less likely over time rather than more likely,” notes Marc Lynch for Foreign Policy. The internet may or may not have played a decisive role in fueling the Green Movement, but either way, the regime is now prepared to shut it down when necessary.

Lynch believes, “The Iranian regime is more unpopular and less legitimate than ever before -- but just don't see it as especially vulnerable at the moment.” He consequently agrees with Obama’s decision to refrain from supporting opposition movements in Iran, indicating the limits of American influence.

Lynch concludes that eventually sanctions and negotiationsare the only tools left in the US arsenal in dealing with Iran, greatly limiting the possible scope of results.