Posted by
mgraves on Thursday, June 25, 2009 9:06:39 PM
Does anyone else find it interesting that Mir Hossein Mousavi suffers no consequences for his part in the protests in Iran?
Considering Mousavi would have no power to change anything in Iran--even if he were a responsible statesman, and not an apologist for a terrorist regime--whether or not he were president, it seems interesting that the West holds him up a brave statesman and the protesters seem to look to him for inspiration.
The most likely scenario is that the mullahs got the president they wanted--an irresponsible madman who makes them seem positively moderate in comparison; the people get to let out some steam (and see the futility of their actions); and the terrorist state gets to identify the non-state-sponsored agitators and kill them or imprison them.
Perhaps it is a touch conspiratorial, but it makes sense.
1) The position of President of Iran is powerless and serves only to put a democratic face on the mullahs' desires. As the position is powerless, it makes sense for the mullahs to ensure that the person who fills the position is one who puts the best face on them, or their ambitions. In the 1990's the "moderate" Khatami was president--he started Iran's nuclear program.
The major powers had go-along-get along leaders who were content with the status quo. Nothing was done to upset the applecart in Iran and Iran was free to put on a moderate face, while pursuing nuclear weapons and regional hegemony (their traditional adversary, Saddam, was hemmed in by a dying sanctions regime and US/UK fighters patrolling no-fly zones covering 2/3s of Iraq).
Ahmadinejad was sworn in as president of Iran in 2005--after the toppling of the Taliban and Saddam, the cowing of Libya, and the resurgence of Lebanese nationalism--when the mullahs needed a man to make them look rational and moderate. Boom--a madman coming right up. Not just any madman either--one credibly alleged to have been involved in the takeover of the U.S. embassy in 1979-1980.
2) Something to the effect of 70% of Iran's population is under 30 years old. The vast majority of Iranians are too young to remember the revolution, the Shah, or the turmoil of late 1970s Iran. The unemployment rate of Iran is 12.5% (according to the Iranian government); inflation is 28% annually; and underemployment among the educated is rampant. Iran is country that is forced to import refined petroleum products, despite being one of the leading producers of petroleum in the world, as an example of Iran's economic inefficiency.
Rallying the people in opposition to the "Great Satan", et cetera can only go so far. External scapegoats when internal problems are evident and obvious do not have the same ability to direct revolutionary passions outward, as do external scapegoats where news flow is tightly controlled (as North Korea or in the former Soviet Union).
In order to control a youthful citizenry under such circumstances a villian is needed; an outlet is needed to burn off passions. Ergo, an obviously fraudulent election. An opposition candidate who faces no repercussions for his agitation.
3) Lastly, what terrorist state would not like her opposition and potential domestic adversaries to identify themselves publicly? The brutality of the Iranian response eliminates the next generation of leaders, as well as demoralizes the "b" squad, who might otherwise step up to replace those murdered by the regime.
This entire fiasco is exactly what the mullahs' ordered. The feckless and incoherent response of the leader of the "Great Satan" is merely icing on the cake.