Is Mousavi a “changer?”
Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the candidate for President of Iran who is at the center of the current Iranian storm, is an enigma.
Mousavi’s Wiki entry sheds little light on the subject; it deals with the bare bones of his history, which indicate that he was an early mover and shaker in Iranian government—its last Prime Minister before the office was abolished, for example. But Mousavi has been laying low, in the public office sense, for well-nigh twenty years. He has not held any major state office since 1989, and although one could conclude that this indicates his disapproval of the course Iran has taken since then one cannot be sure, or know how deep or how far such disagreement might go.
A late-April 2009 interview in Spiegel isn’t much more informative. The picture Mousavi paints of himself is that of a man who plays his cards very close to the vest (as one might imagine; it probably aids survival in Iran). However, from whatever evidence the interview does provide, he seems mostly interested in economic and cultural reform rather than any change in international policy.
Michael Ledeen thinks otherwise, at least now that events have unfolded that raise the stakes:
…at this point, Mousavi either brings down the Islamic Republic or he hangs. If he wins, and the Islamic Republic comes down, we may well see the whole world change, from an end of the theocratic fascist system, to a cutoff of money, arms, technology, training camps and intelligence to the world’s leading terrorist organizations, and yes, even to a termination of the nuclear weapons program.
I think that, whatever or whoever Mir Hossein Mousavi was five days ago, he is now the leader of a mass movement that demands the creation of a free Iran that will rejoin the Western world…
That seems tremendously optimistic to me. However, I’m always especially interested in the topic of political change, and I know for a fact that such a transformation is possible. This particular one just seems too large a leap for me to imagine, and doesn’t fit in very well with the Spiegel interview. But it’s also not outside the realm of possibility that Mousavi has had some sort of epiphany—or whatever the equivalent is in Moslem terms—that has outraged him and caused him to be more of a reformer than he was before.
There is no question, however, that Mousavi’s earlier public incarnation was in the mold of the mullahs he now appears to be opposing. As Prime Minister, he called for the annihilation of Israel and the death of Salman Rushdie. But the reasons for Mousavi’s retirement from the public scene in 1989 are mysterious (at least, I haven’t found anything yet that sheds light on them), and twenty years is a long time. Was he undergoing a metamorphosis and biding his time? Or was he just biding his time?
We may or may not get a chance to find out, depending on how events go in Iran. As Ledeen says, if Mousavi doesn’t succeed he’s probably in a huge heap of trouble. And at the moment there’s no reason to suppose he will succeed.
But if Mousavi has really reformed (as opposed to just being a “reformist candidate”), he is not alone. Many revolutionaries who are gung-ho in the first flush of a movement’s victory later become disgusted with the wretched excesses that ensue. If Mousavi goes that way, he wouldn’t be the first Iranian to do so—read about Azar Nafisi, as well as the sad and cautionary tale of Sadegh Ghotbzadeh.
[ADDENDUM: Commenter Tim P. alerts me to the fact that Michael Totten is speculating on much the same question.]
Neo,
Michael Totten has an interseting post up on just this very subject.
Myself, I do not know much more than I’ve read in the last couple of days, but I think at this point that any change from Ahmadinejad is a positive change, if only incrementaly.
I hate to be cliche but “only time will tell” and who can but remember the great voice of Orson Wells saying, “Who knows what evil [and I add – or good] lurks in the hearts of men?”
The only thing I know is that it doesn’t seem it will be any worse with Mousavi.
I do agree that the President could have said, “Our support is with the people of Iran – to their right to have a free and fair election where every vote counts.”
Oh wait a second – he didn’t even feel that way about our elections.
I
No, he is not. Different in tone, yes, but all the candidates where vetted and approved by the Guardian Council prior to being allowed to run.
IRA Darth Aggie: Actually, that tells us nothing, although of course it’s true that he was approved by the mullahs, as all candidates must be. The question is whether he was dissembling in whatever he told them, and the way he presented himself, in order to be approved. His subsequent behavior has indicated that, now that the die is cast, he may be revealing his truer sentiments as more of a reformer than they bargained for.
I’m not saying that’s the case. I’m saying it’s a possibility, and whether or not the mullahs approved him is irrelevant in revealing what his true thoughts and purpose are.
We don’t know. We can hope and observe and pontificate, but we don’t know.
Obama’s relative silence on this – compare to Sarkozy- disgusts me but does not surprise me.
One commenter on another thread a while back had stated that the problem w Obama’s Iran policy stance was that he didn’t have a Plan B. With each passing day the truth of that statement becomes more and more self-evident.
The Spengler columns at Asia Times make a good argument that the Mullahs will continue on their policies of terrorism and the Bomb.
IMHO, about the only thing that would dissuade the Mullahs from the Bomb would be to present them with some scary scenarios, such as precision bombing taking out the IRG etc, action by Israel, taking out their gasoline refinery. Etc. As Obama has apparently taken that off the table, there is no Plan B when the failure of Hopey-Changy applied to Iran becomes evident.
Yes, a good point but revolutions often outpace the figures attached to them. Totten, I think, makes a similar argument if much more cautious and reasoned, as he is.
Now, remember, there’s really no way to tell where this is going. Mousavi, the reformer, is still a major figure of the Islamic Republic, but the movement around him is much larger, and I’m positive that it deserves our support. It’s essentially about democracy, liberty, and not allowing an unaccountable theocratic regime to trump the vote. Basically, what Ledeen said.
Anyways, I do like this blog. I’m sympathetic to neoconservatism even as I’m more on the libertarian left side of things.
I agree with Gringo. We just don’t know a lot about Mousavi and if he has indeed changed. His dedication to Hizb’allah is troubling, and this should convey a sense of his religious dedication. That’s a tough nut to crack.
I’ve been tuning out all the talking head stuff about this topic, because I’m not convinced they know a lot about him. Nor do they seem to understand how power really works inside Iran. Their ignorance is breathtaking at times.
Mousavi is going to have to ride the wave. If the regime can’t control it, neither can he.
The Iranian people will have the bit in their teeth if they win this one.
Having said that, we don’t know what their idea of Iran in the world really is.
Maybe they want a democracy which controls the ME.
Then what?
Neo,
Sometimes people rise to the occasion, and being in the crucible changes them. You’re not the only “9/11 liberal” whose whole philosophy has changed over time. It actually seems to be a fairly common occurance. We can’t know, but we can’t count someone out, not with the earth-shaking events of the past few days.
Remember, other adversaries in the Middle East have turned on a dime after our dedication to democratic principles was proven. I haven’t seen anyone address this yet, but up until Bush’s 2nd Innagural and the 1st Iraqi elections, Walid Jumblatt was a sworn enemy of the US. After those two event, and after US support of the March 14th movement, Jumblatt became the most pro-US figure on the Lebanese scene. Same story, to a lesser extent, with Saad Eddin Ebrahim (I think).
We should at least be doing public outreach to the protestors and their leaders. The resulting actions and statements by the likes of Mousavi would give us a good indication as to where he stands.
It would be wise to remember that at one time a lot of people thought that the Ayatollah Khomeini would bring much needed “change,” and be a much better choice to rule Iran than that hated, anti-democratic, authoritarian ruler and plunderer, the Shah (under whose “harsh” rule Iran was modernizing and westernizing, women had a fair amount of latitude, could wear western dress and get an education, and the Iranian economy was in pretty good shape), and look what that change wrought.*
It may be that having climbed up on the tiger, Mousavi cannot now get off, and will have to ride it to wherever it takes him.
It should also be remembered that there are a lot of other actors in play here–not only various foreign intelligence services, if we are to believe news sources, but a whole host of Muslim terrorist organizations that have a vested interest in seeing to it that Iranian support for their terrorism continues. Then, there are various power centers like the Basiji, the successors to the Basiji from the Iran-Iraq war, during which regular military commanders ordered thousands of children called “Bisiji”–each given a cheap plastic “key to Paradise,” courtesy of the Ayatollah Khomeini, to wear around their neck as they walked–or were driven–in lines through Iraqi minefields to detonate them, clearing the way for more valuable Iranian regular forces to advance. Supposedly a lot of people were somewhat disturbed by all of those miscellaneous Bisiji body parts littering the minefield, and later Basiji’s were told to wrap themselves in blankets to reduce the “litter.”
I am not a fan of “sunshine, little bunnies and lollipops” predictions, and given what has gone on before, I do not think we can really put any limit on the lengths to which fanaticism in Iran might go to or what it might lead to.
* Just before the fall of the Shah Iranian students at George Washington University in D.C. used to hang an effigy of the Shah each day in noisy demonstrations in front of the GW library. I worked with some of these students–many had never seen a book other than the Qur’an, and the female students wore granny shoes and long black socks, were covered head to toe in long woolen coats—with their eyes peaking out from under long scarves, even on the hottest summer days.
I wonder if those Iranian students thought that they would get the kind of world out of their “revolution” that Khomeini and his kind have wrought.
Wolla Dalbo: Did you follow the links at the end of my post, especially the one about Sadegh Ghotbzadeh? It goes into what you’re talking about—Ghotbzadeh tried to ride that tiger till he got off and ended up executed.
Don’t really know. This is Hope and Change.
We know some thing is going to Change.
We Hope it will be better than what has been.
I don’t know, but we’re certainly overdue for good news.
Mousavi is in the same hip pocket or else he would never have been allowed into a position where he could run.
the country is the doorway from which weapons flow one way and money flows the other between clients.
there are 4 basic theaters at operation here. europe, which suddenly is quiet, as is the other one south america (cept mexico). but two others are hot as fire, middle east and asia. if you want to consider pakistan afghanistan a 5th, then fine.
right now we are overly concerned with a dog and pony show that really has no outcome that would change anything. either the US controls that doorway, or russia does. Russia has controlled it since the fall of the shah and is not going to give it back without a huge fight (or havent you noticed how hot the kitchen got after i said it would? like every burner around the world was turned on at once).
so nothing is really going to come of this unless Mousavi is our boy and has played the others and he gets a seat. but if he isnt ours, then he is there just to set the stage of stagnation as we feel things out and get screwed a few times as we try.
meanwhile, i would take a look at korea and asia.
while we are focused on this meaningless empty hope, we are not watching the game of brinkmanship that is going on.
while everyone here is sure the mullahs and such would nuke isreal (not likely). the loss of north korea is a sacrificial possiblity, where that is not possible with Iran.
we are entering a situation that clausewitz explained starts wars (unlike the bean counter theory of cost benifit brought up a few days ago).
one entity will tell a second entity what it wants, the second entity will refuse to comply and the first one will refuse to back down.
thats the situation right now between the US and Nork Korea, and a sweeter set up cant be asked for.
if economic end of the US was the plan, then they are about to tip us over by creating a situation where the manufactureres cant supply the consumers due to circumstances beyond their control.
the US has now surrounded a ship from Korea. Korea has said it will consider this an act of war.
and if anyone here is a tactical kind of person, they will realize that if Korea does do something, the US will not respond to it because of China being so close.
so kim has threatened that his new missile will be fired in the direction of hawaii on july 4th.
whats happening in Iran is not the 3am test… whats about to happen in the East will be.
we may see a grab for taiwan while we fret over what is probably a huge feint.
more than 5 categories of huge crisis is converging on us at the same time in case no one has noticed.
Sobering thought for a day: Revolutionary Guards are big units, armed to the teeth.
Protesters have no guns. No weapons. Nothing to match the Mullahs’ praetorians.
Who’s gonna win?
Get real.
I am afraid Fred is right, especially in the absence of encouragement for the protesters from the President of the United States.
You’re all free to stick with Ahmadinejad.
(I’m guessing no one will, short of finding Mousavi’s secret and up-to-date diary or something similar where you know what he wants to do, and it is much worse)
Might as will roll the dice. If it gets that far.
Obama should encourage them to take things into their own hands like George Bush Sr. did years ago. That turned out well.
In Iran, of course.
Off topic:
I didn’t say anything about it, but my “home base” blog, Gulf Coast Pundit, took a sudden dirt nap last week.
This is to let everyone know that our new site, Grouchy Conservative Pundits is now open for business.
The site is still under construction but is officially up and running. At the moment they’re using the masthead I designed, although that could change as there were competing designs.
I’ve linked Neo’s posts at the old GCP several times, and if I have any say in the matter, Neo-neocon will be in our blogroll once we get that set up.
Artfldgr said “we may see a grab for taiwan while we fret over what is probably a huge feint. ”
Sometime after the election I thought about what is there to really stop China from doing that with Obama in office? I forgot about that. Thanks for reminding me.
Of course, I was almost certain Israel would go after the Iranian nuke plants between the time of the elections and before Pres Bush left office. So what do I know?
Ahmadinehad is currently in Russia.
I wonder if this reflects a game within a game. Some have claimed that the election was a coup by Ahmadinehad and the IRG to wrest control from the Mullahs, changing Iran from a theocracy into a military dictatorship with shades of theocracy. The IRG has certainly increased its power in the last 4 years.
It is not uncommon to have military coups take place when Fearless Leader is taking some trip abroad.
Is it possible that someone planned to have Ahmadinehad outside of the country in order to have a coup while he is gone? Perhaps a counterstrike by the Mullahs, or a faction of the Mullahs. Apparently big things are supposed to be happening during Friday prayers. If there is a coup, we will find out by then.
Or: Russia has some plans associated with Ahmadinehad. I am reminded of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. There was a Marxist takeover of Afghanistan in 1978, which did not go over very well. The Afghan government requested aid from the USSR. The USSR finally responded with aid in the form of 100,000 troops, but decided that if they were going to commit those troops, they were also going to install someone in the government they preferred. The USSR brought along Babrak Karmal with their invading troops, who had been in exile as Afghanistan’s Ambassador to Czechoslovakia, to be President.
Dubcek got sent to the USSR after the USSR invaded Czechoslovakia in 1968. I am just speculating, but it seems strange to me that Ahmadinehad made a trip to Moscow when he did.
One scenario: Ahmadinehad returns in triumph after a massacre at Friday prayers stops the rebellion.
Are the Russian using the Iranians, or are the Iranians using the Russians?
“Are the Russian using the Iranians, or are the Iranians using the Russians?”
They are using each other. There is a context for Ahmadinejad’s visit to Moscow. Both countries have been coordinating with each other for years now, and it got ramped up after the Russians lost their proxy in Baathist Iraq.
Whatever they are doing, it is very, very bad for us.
I think Iran is further along the nuclear weapons’ path than many realize. The NK missile tests, I think are for the Iranians, who intend to have the nukes on them as they buy them from NK.
Very, very awful things are coming. And Obonga’s going to need a diaper change while it’s happening. This is going to be an object lesson for our people and for American Jews, who have stabbed their Israeli brethren in the back too many times. Way too many times.
Asia times let out why the norks are so bold. it has to do with a document that he signed with south korea telling them they are under our nuclear umbrella.
It’s over. I just read in a LJ [by a Russian wife of an Iranian man]: Rahbar had announced that he supports the results of the election (i.e. Ahmadinejad) . “I will not hold the police responsible for their actions if the demonstrations by the opposition will not stop. If the riots will continue, I’ll speak much stronger”. She adds: he means that as an Islamic leader he’ll authorize jihad against oppositioners. All my Iranian acquaintances conclude that now the country will be calmed down – until Ahmadinejad makes another mistake “.
Here’s a must read:
Why the US Wants to Delegitimize the Iranian Elections
By Paul Craig Roberts
Uhm Leroy,
Can you provide a link?
Tim P: Googled .
Why the US Wants to Delegitimize the Iranian Elections
By Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/opinion/?id=32808
I’m not as concerned with Mousavi as I am for the activists fighting on his behalf. We hear reports of hired thugs getting ready to perform a Tiannamen style crackdown. Mousavi’s visibility would make it too problematic to execute him.
It looks like Khamenei is putting his foot down and warning the demonstrators of reprisals if they don’t disperse. I can’t wait to see what happens. This is history we’re witnessing.
Paul Craig Roberts – whoa. Did you know he’s a 9/11 “Truther”?
I found that article disturbing. First of all, it’s based on a faulty premise – that the U.S. wants to delegitimize the Iranian election results. It seems to me the Obama administration is bending over backwards to avoid doing anything of the sort.
As for demonizing Ahmadinejad, he definitely doesn’t need the U.S.’s help there – he’s pretty demonic all on his own. No one makes him utter outrageous Holocaust denial speeches packed with threats against Israel and the West. And it’s definitely not “demonizing” the guy to take exception. A wingnut’s a wingnut, 100%.
Putting this aside, I bet most people in the U.S. would have sighed and shrugged their shoulders over Ahmadinejad’s “victory” in Iran, were it not for the police brutality and violence following the vote. That’s an outcome no civilized country should let pass without comment.
Leroy, I choose not to waste my time reading any more 9/11 truther garbage.
I don’t do business with them.
I don’t read material from them.
I don’t hold them in high regard.
I would not be a friend of theirs.
They have a mental disease. They are unable to process fact and logic.
Same with leftists in power.
The CA legislature passed tax increases. They’ve been in effect two months. For those two months tax receipts are 33% less than last year at this time.
They are idiots who do not understand they are only hurting the CA economy even MORE.
Same with anybody who thinks they can ‘reason’ with the Iranian leader. They are an idiot.