While like most Americans, I am horrified by the violent suppression of protests in Iran, I am a little less quick to jump on the Mousavi bandwagon than some. First of all, we don't even know that he won. Sure, there are a lot of "irregularities" in the vote, but just because he seemed popular, that doesn't mean he won. For one thing, he is very popular with the young and more technologically adept, so we are much more likely to hear Twitters from them than from country folk who are more likely to support Ahmadinejad.
Interestingly, in the other thread
GreNME pointed to an analysis of the official results by
Chatham House. It says about this:
Whilst many commentators have suggested before and after the recent
Presidential Election that Ahmadinejad is very popular in rural areas, and that
this explains his high levels of support, the data from the 2005 Presidential
election does not support this contention. Rather, it confirms that what support
Ahmadinejad did gain in 2005 was mainly from urban and suburban areas.
For another thing, I'm a little distressed by Mousavi apparent willingness to let his followers be killed in the streets. He has not come out and told people to protest peacefully. Indeed he seems very pleased by what has happened.
As others already commented: he has repeatedly called for peaceful and non-violent protests.
While he's saying a lot of the stuff we like to hear, let us not assume for a minute that he is going to be our great friend, or that any enemy of the ruling regime in Iran is a friend of ours. We made that mistake once before with Saddam Hussein. Are our memories really that short?
Mousavi certainly will remember: he was PM during the Iran-Iraq war.
In foreign affairs, surely Iran and the US (or Europe) will have different interests, but Mousavi - or for that matter, nearly anyone - will be an improvement over Ahmadinejad's hostile and vile rhetoric. In internal affairs, he'll own it to his supporters to respect openness and human rights.
Secondly, while I am no supporter of Ron Paul, I do think it is wise to move cautiously here. It is safe to condemn the brutal suppression of the people, but it is not safe to actively cheer against the government of Iraq. Remember that when all is said and done, they are likely to still be in power, at least for a while. It is important that we not burn any bridges here by supporting a coup.
And even be careful with what you're saying as it may backfire on those you want to support. That Congress motion was a bit careless. See the result of Obama's cautious statements and Brown's fire and brimstone - it instantly earned the UK the "most evil" title.
Remember how that endeared Chavez to the US. Dictators are bad, but they are worse when you have no leverage against them.
Or how well destabilizing the Sandinistas worked. Foreign coup attempts don't work in the long run, and they certainly don't work in bringing democracy (see Iraq).
Let us hope that he is up to the task. I feel a lot better with him at the helm than I would have if it were still Dubya, but any number of things could go wrong.
Me too. But it's up to the Iranian people to get the government they want.
But that being said, I am quietly rejoicing that Iran is starting to throw off the bonds of religious oppression. While I lament the loss of life, I certainly have seen situations where more innocent people died, and for a stupid cause than I have (so far) seen here.
Thus far, the body count (a couple of dozens as reported) is remarkably low for a revolution-in-progress.
Fareed Zakaria, a commentator I have a lot of respect for,
thinks this is the beginning of the end for the Mullahs. He made what I thought was an apt comparison.
Good article!
The religious class that has, up until now, run the Iranian government behind the scenes since 1979 has now been openly exposed, ironically by their own stupidity, as being nothing more than thuggish theocrats thirsty for power.
They always ruled openly, not behind the scenes. And there have always been conservative and reformist strands. Until now, in the end they always drew one line, but the conservatives have now overplayed their hand and now one-by-one the reformist clerics call their bluff.
I do not know why people seem to think that the popular uprising represents a rejection of theocracy: is it not true that at the last election there was increased support for the religious and conservative strands? I might be wrong about that but it was my understanding.
In the 2005 elections, IIRC, there was quite a support for reformists in the first round. Ahmadinejad's victory in the second round then was also quite a surprise, extrapolating from the first round-results.
And I cannot understand the quote in Zakaria's article where he says
Something very important has been laid bare in Iran today --- legitimacy does not flow from divine authority but from popular support.
Who should know this better than Iranians? their theocracy was established in that way in the very recent past and I very much doubt they have forgotten
Khamenei has said the the official results were a "divine assessment". The people on the streets don't trust those results. Half a dozen ayatollah's don't either. Khamenei had to backpedal and agree to an inquiry. In short, Allah was wrong with his numbers. That's very significant.
