Some interesting statements from Mousavi’s “external spokesman.” Jonah Goldberg has some thoughts:
It seems to me that this is at minimum a hint that Mousavi would be willing to put the nuke program on the table for negotiation — the complete opposite position of Ahmadinejad. Moreover, it hints or at least suggests that the way Iran meddles in other countries — i.e. financing terrorism, sponsoring terrorist groups etc — would not be locked in stone either. Now, of course, this could all be a ruse. Mousavi is no angel. But, again, these are not things the opposition would want to say if they wanted America to stay out of it. And yes, even if the opposition wants support, that doesn’t mean they’ve made the right calculation. The law of unintended consequences is universal as is the rule of thumb, “Be careful what you wish for.” But Obama supporters and others who think America should do nothing to help the opposition need to at least wonder whether they have a better grasp of the situation than the opposition itself does.
I’m sure they think they do, based on foolish statements by some of their supporters here.
[Update a few minutes later]
More thoughts from Pejman Yousefzdadeh:
Totten believes that it is possible that Mousavi has grown into less of a Khomeini-ist than he was in the past. One certainly hopes so, and I would pick him over Ahmadinejad as the lesser of two evils any day. But that is because Ahmadinejad is truly vile, while Mousavi’s past-at-least-semi-vileness may have been put in abeyance by events. Mousavi’s problem is that he remains wedded to a brutal and vicious regime. The protests he leads only have value and relevance insofar as they demonstrate that at long last, the regime must be swept aside. It’s nice if Mousavi wants to act as one of many vehicles and vessels for the revolutionary change that is so needed in Iran, and Obama was dead wrong to suggest that there is no real difference between him and Ahmadinejad. At the same time, however, it is equally ridiculous to think that Mousavi is the transformational figure that Kleiman thinks Obama is. Indeed, if Mousavi is Iran’s version of HopeAndChange, then the country of my ancestors is in more trouble than I thought.
Yes, let’s hope for their sake that they’ll be luckier than we have been in new leadership.
[Update a few minutes later]
Cracks showing in the regime? Let’s hope so.
I think that the next couple days will tell the tale, whether the Iranian people free themselves of these theocratic monsters, or their power is further entrenched.
If they want our help then of course we should offer it. (Yes, my opinion can and does change as facts on the ground change.)
Remember, Boris Yeltsin was a Communist Party member too
The error in all of these calculations isn’t which side wins, it’s in that we are defining the sides incorrectly.
There are only two sides, the people and the Islamic Republic. The people aren’t siding with mousavi, mousavi is siding with the people. If this is a full bore uprising, I hope that it gets rid of the existing regime, and replaces it, with mousavi only being a token character.
This isn’t about mousavi, this is about people being pissed off by a fraudulent government. All commentators should stop pushing for mousavi, and start pushing for the people.
By siding with a cult of personality, we are actually damaging the very real revolution that could occur.
I don’t see anyone siding with “a cult of personality” — I see people siding with the protesters. Unless you’re talking about our government, and I have no idea who they are siding with, so slippery and non-committal has the Obama administration been about this.
I kinda sorta see President Obama’s motivation for being less-than-motivated on this question.
The thing that comes to my mind is President Bush Senior offering encouragement to overthrow Saddam, the Shia Uprising, and its brutal repression. We are still paying for that one in terms of Iraq. Yeah, yeah, the President kinda meant that Saddam’s generals should displace him, but the fine points of who was to do the displacing and that the role of the US would be limited to the fixed-wing no-fly zone was lost on many in Iraq.
Mr. Obama is faced with a tough call, because if you are going to support the Green Revolution, you need to either go all in or somehow make it clear that the protestors are on their own and need to do this on their own resources and if certain kinds of assistance from the US is not forthcoming it is not as if any were expected. Think also of Eisenhower and the 1956 uprising in Hungary.
It looks like Mousavi is just trying to use the protesters to grab power. I doubt very much that the people will be any better off with him in than they are now.
The Mullahs believe they understand Allah’s will so well that they are only capable of willing what Allah wishes. Just like the Inquisition.
Only an idiot would depend on the support of any country with a democratic process as part of the decision making. Add to the above example of betrayal by the US the abandonment of South Viet Nam when North Viet Nam started a new war and invaded the South, right after Nixon forced an end the the Police Action War.