Answers Come on the Iran Questions
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.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Answers Come on the Iran Questions”
This isn't about Mousavi. This is about the Iranian people revolting against an oppressive theocracy. This is a fight for democracy. The only reason we cheer for Mousavi is because he represents the victory of democracy for the Iranian people.
It must be our fault.
Somehow, when we conservatives write something, it is so poorly worded that no one on the left can understand it. Perhaps someone who knows both the liberal and conservative languages could translate this further explanation.
The right is not rooting for Mousavi per se. When we complain about Obama sitting in the background voting “present” during a historical moment, we aren’t’ thinking that if Mousavi is elected, everything will be OK.
We on the right recognize the importance of the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World, taking an unequivocal stand on free and fair elections. Conservatives recognize, along with the protesters in Iran, that if the world refuses to legitimize the results of an obviously rigged election the stage is set for democratic change. It doesn’t matter who the individual candidate is this time, it’s the principle of real elections and untainted results.
Obama shouldn’t be concerned with the short term aspects of who we’re going to be dealing with and if we are going to be blamed for instigating a revolution. He needs to be concerned with the long term principles of the U.S. standing with any country’s citizens when they are protesting for free elections. When our President is late in condemning abuses and mild in his rhetoric, it leaves the door open for equivocating and gives the people protesting a feeling of “you’re on your own, pal”.
We conservatives are not saying we should threaten, or that we should mass our troops on the border for invasion. We are not saying anything about supporting one individual over another. We are saying that on some subjects, like this one, no one should doubt from the beginning where our President and the people of the United States stand.
I agree with shannonlee. While I see your point about Mousavi, Jazz, it's still perfectly possible and valid (and important) to support the rights of self determination and of freedom of speech for the Iranian people.
As for how that will turn out if somehow Mousavi becomes the elected leader, all bets are off. If a majority of the Iranian voters turned out for him, I don't pretend to know what their motivations were- but I can think of several possibilities which are not all equally bad from our perspective. First, he could represent the 'anything but Ahmedinajad' vote, and it might still be an important first step for the people to prove that they have the power to unseat an unpopular leader. Second, his more radical past might be in the past- I doubt it, but perhaps that's what the voters think. Third, even if he's not changed, the vote seems to be sufficiently driven by young voters that they may not be aware of his past- many of them were probably not alive in 1983.
Of course the fourth possibility is that he is still radically anti-American and antisemitic, and the people support that. Even if that's the case though, the people have the right to choose their own leaders and we should support that right.
I actually DO get what you guys are saying (aside from the ones who are just looking for any stone to throw at Obama and would do so no matter what he said or did.) My point was, and remains, you haven't answered all of the questions yet. As soon as one of you shows me a reliable, documented source showing the true totals of the election, I'll be right in there with you. Do you know the totals? I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone does. Let's go back to my first question… what if the incumbent won? What if he got more votes? He had a lot of support among older voters and in the rural areas. If he actually got more votes, then you're pushing for the overthrow of a “democratically elected leader.” The point about the “anything but Ahmedinajad” vote is a good one, but how about the “we're afraid to vote against Ahmedinajad” vote because they are afraid of repercussions? They still voted.
You don't know what happened. Nobody does yet. And as to the wider consequences, long term, if the good people of Iran decide to democratically elect somebody and they succeed, and that “somebody” turns out to be the Butcher of Beirut, I don't see much profit in my supporting their revolt beyond my current level of support, which remains, “It's their country. Let them handle it.”
The one thing I do NOT want is our new president turning into some sort of Mini-Bush and deciding he needs to be the one to decide what form of government everyone else has or engaging in nation building. It's their business. Let's mind ours and let them mind theirs.
The point though, Jazz, is that for the answers to come we have to side with the reformers/activists/protestors. Yes, I get that perhaps in some fashion Amedinajad did 'win' the larger share of votes, and we don't know that that's not the case even if we still see those results as somewhat illegitimate if the votes were based on intimidation. But we won't even get to that answer- one way or another- if we don't pressure the regime to allow for a more open process.
Jazz,
Have you given any thought to how simply ridiculous your demand “As soon as one of you shows me a reliable, documented source showing the true totals of the election, I'll be right in there with you” is? We will never know what the “facts” are.
We do have information from reliable statisticians that the results as declared are highly improbable. Many of these same people believe that Ahmedinejad would have won, but not by anything like the majority he – and Khameini – claim.
Oh, and Mousavi is no prince.
The only relevant point here is that the elections were rigged. It rally doesn't matter how. Given the likelihood of his victory, it seems rather stupid. But, we always forget the fundamental insecurity of tyrants. They know they're illegitimate, and will always fear a real election.
So, I think the other commenters points are correct. The reason this election was important is that it finally pulled the curtain open. The anger among the urban middle class that was created by rigging the election is long term. And, so is the apparent split among the clerics. Will the Islamic Republic dissolve soon? Obviously, no. And, as long tyrants are willing to attack their own citizens, tyranny will always enjoy some success. But, an important minority of the Iranian population is now aroused. Rebellions require only a highly motivated minority and an apathetic majority.
It seems safe to say that the revolutionary stew has begun to heat up.