Mir Hossein Mousavi is a moderate only by comparison with Ahmadinejad. Mousavi was a key figure in the original Islamic revolution and served for a long time as prime minister under the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. He is as committed to the nuclear program as Ahmadinejad. His very modest relative social moderation does not extend as far as allowing women to choose their headdress.
No real moderate, much less a liberal, would have been allowed to run for president.
But Mousavi lacks Ahmadinejad's dedicated, universal extremism and wild rhetoric. The mullahs chose Ahmadinejad's extremism and wild rhetoric. That decision is telling.
The worst thing in responding to an event such as the Iranian election is not to face up to it. The worst example of this, so far, is the anonymous US administration official quoted in The New York Times to the effect that the election result would facilitate negotiations between Washington and Tehran because - get this - Ahmadinejad would feel under pressure to accommodate moderate public opinion. Weasel words such as that give appeasement a bad name.
Yes. There wasn't much difference in substance, but the whackjobs that pull the strings wanted the raving lunatic.
Yet the very acts of protest on behalf of Mousavi have changed him. The Guardian Council believes very firmly that you are either with them or against them. Mousavi is now against the council, and if he has to ride a wave that destroys the regime in order to live through this crisis, he may do just that:
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. And yes, the wheel could turn again, this revolution could one day be betrayed, all kinds of surprises no doubt await the Iranian people. Yes, but. But today, there is a dramatic chance of a very good thing happening in Iran, and thus in the Middle East, and therefore in the whole world.
World events are only history when it is written down. During the events, our actions or inaction determine how that history will be written.
Look, this probably won't break our way, since the regime could be strong enough to beat down the protesters. Even if the election of Ahmadinejad is overturned, Mousavi might not be any better in the long run. Even if the current system of mullah control is overturned, we might get something just as bad (the downfall of the Shah didn't lead to a better government, remember).
But if nothing changes, very bad things will happen when the nuts get nukes. And the current form of the regime is unlikely to get kinder and gentler. I'd like a change. Or a chance for change. Change at least provides hope for Iran.
Will we watch others write a history that we won't like? Or will we dare to "meddle" so that the history of the region has the potential of taking a turn for the better?
UPDATE: Krauthammer covers the major points I've been making the last several days. I guess he's on the Rove distribution list, too.
