Yesterday quite a few of our regular TMV readers engaged in a lengthy, spirited debate on the subject of the unrest in Iran in the comments section of my column on this topic. It was a topic which our friend Ed Morrissey of Hot Air and I were debating and certainly an important one. In that column, I posed three questions for our readers. Two of them were, who won the election and who will we have to deal with in the future? The answers to those are still unknown. The other question I asked was, who are we supporting anyway?
Some of our readers attempted a deflection maneuver on that one, saying that nobody over here was “taking sides” or picking a winner. However, the protesters in Iran are clearly questioning the legitimacy of the election results and claiming that Mousavi won. When many of our American pundits label the election as “stolen” or “fraudulent,” it’s hard to paint a picture where they aren’t pushing for Mousavi to be the winner. Today, we find at least part of the answer to the question of who we are supporting, and it comes from none other than Ed Morrissey himself.
Did Mirhossein Mousavi play a leading role in the 1983 attack in Lebanon that killed more than 240 US Marines and caused Ronald Reagan to retreat? CQ Politics says yes, calling Mousavi the “Butcher of Beirut”. It serves as a reminder that the man whom the mullahs have suppressed was and perhaps still is of their regime:
Read his entire article and the background information from CQ Politics to make sure you have the full story. I give Ed full credit and high marks for bringing this information to light as soon as he found out, though he was quick to move on and point out that this does not, in any way, “make the uprising in Iran less legitimate.”
At least in part, Ed and I will agree on that. I don’t see anything whatsoever illegitimate about the Iranians protesting. Hell, they can even have a revolution if they like. The key word here, of course, is THEY can protest and/or have a revolution. But before we begin casting stones about who is or isn’t supporting their cause fervently enough, let’s bear in mind exactly what it is that they are looking to achieve.
As I said in my original column, Mousavi certainly doesn’t look like the Iranian Barack Obama. Far from it, as it turns out. Even if the protesters achieve the goals they seem to have in mind, they would be installing a new leader to replace the current president or perhaps the Mullahs and the entire regime. Who would that person be? The “Butcher of Beirut.” A person who has apparently dedicated his adult life to killing Americans, Jews, and who knows who else. The protesters clearly seem to be seeking change, but don’t expect rainbows, unicorns and rousing choruses of “Yes We Can” to wash over the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Are some people not being vocal enough in support of the protesters? I don’t see all that much to get excited about. A few of our readers pointed out in the last column, the reality may well be that they are looking to replace one despotic leadership with another. And as President Obama just finished saying on television as I type this, we don’t need to be a political tool for the Mullahs in all of this. He has condemned the violence by the state against its citizens. He has called for fair, open election results in the dealings of that government with their people. I agree with those points. But I wouldn’t break out the pom-poms and go a lot further.