Mousavi behind the attack on Marines in Lebanon?
posted at 12:11 pm on June 23, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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:
He may yet turn out to be the avatar of Iranian democracy, but three decades ago Mir-Hossein Mousavi was waging a terrorist war on the United States that included bloody attacks on the U.S. embassy and Marine Corps barracks in Beirut.
Mousavi, prime minister for most of the 1980s, personally selected his point man for the Beirut terror campaign, Ali Akbar Mohtashemi-pur, and dispatched him to Damascus as Iran’s ambassador, according to former CIA and military officials.
The ambassador in turn hosted several meetings of the cell that would carry out the Beirut attacks, which were overheard by the National Security Agency.
The connection to the attack is direct, according to the man in charge of American operations in the Mediterranean at the time:
“We had a tap on the Iranian ambassador to Lebanon,” retired Navy Admiral James “Ace” Lyons related by telephone Monday. In 1983 Lyons was deputy chief of Naval Operations, and deeply involved in the events in Lebanon.
“The Iranian ambassador received instructions from the foreign minister to have various groups target U.S. personnel in Lebanon, but in particular to carry out a ’spectacular action’ against the Marines,” said Lyons.
Mousavi and his allies, perhaps cognizant that this history would surface eventually, tried applying a little proactive balm on his reputation earlier this week. In a Guardian article defending himself against criticisms that there were few differences between himself and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Mousavi’s spokesman Mohsen Makhmalbaf said that Mousavi previously “knew only Che Guevara,” but now “he knows Gandhi.” It does confirm that the government of Iran has waged war by proxy against the United States as well as Israel for three decades, and that Mousavi participated in that war.
Does that make the uprising in Iran less legitimate? No. In fact, as I’ve written many times in the past week, it just points out the stupidity of the mullahs in fumbling the rigged election in the first place. Mousavi would have played ball had mullahs allowed him to take office — perhaps somewhat less enthusiastically than Ahmadinejad, but still Mousavi would have worked within the system. They’ve practically forced Mousavi to serve as a beacon for the opposition that wants the mullahs out of power, and in doing so actually make Mousavi less important as a safety valve, a loyal member of the ruling class that could mainstream the opposition so as to make it benign to the real power in Tehran. It’s inexplicably stupid, like deliberately throwing gasoline on a fire.
Still, it’s good to remind people in the West of Mousavi’s actions within that ruling class. Perhaps he regrets his actions, and the Guardian statement seems to suggest that, but we’d need to see a lot more than a reference to Gandhi. We need to focus our support on the people of Iran and not Mousavi, and hope that they can soon choose leaders outside of the mullahcracy that has choked Iran for 30 years.
Update: Yes, this could possibly be an “oppo dump,” but that would require us to question the integrity of Admiral Lyons, which I won’t do. I’d trust that he’s telling the truth, until someone proves him wrong.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
Mousavi would not have been allowed to run by the Guardian Council unless he was a supporter of the Velayat-e Faqih, or rule by clerical jurisprudence. As an old time revolutionary, it is likely that he was engaged in nefarious deeds. Mousavi did run by offering to free up the system a little bit, but he mostly aimed at economic reform. While the elites in Tehran and some other places may want freedom and democracy, most Iranians are more likely to have supported Mousavi because he couldn’t possibly mismanage the economy worse than Ahmadhinejad. The usual practice by the Guardian Council is to run one of theirs against more than one reformer who aren’t really out to change the system, just placate people a bit. That way, the reformers split the vote, help elect a conservative, and keep the real proponents of Western-style democracy on the sidelines. The problem with the protests in Iran is that, unlike the Ayatollah Khomenei, they have no real leader and organization in place to take over. Even if Mousavi managed to become president, nothing much would change. Just ask Khatami. Everything he tried to reform was blocked by the Ayatollahs. If there’s any hope for Iran, it’s that somehow the idea that the Supreme Leader is standing in for the coming Mahdi, or hidden Imam, must be shown to be illegitimate according to Shi’a tradition, and the Ayatollahs need to go back to the being quietists by staying out of politics like they used to do. In other words, the Velayat-e Faqih has to be shown to be a con game instituted by illegitimate revolutionaries.
NNtrancer on June 23, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Doubts? You oughta go read what the founding Fathers said about democracies… which is why we were created as a Republic… not a Democracy.
As to Mousavi, he was SELECTED to run by the very system he is now protesting agains… it would be like McCain dis’n the Republicans… oh… wait…
I mean, come on… only a third world banana republic could get away with registereing more votes than there were voters… oh… wait…
I mena… come on… no one would rig an election… cough… cough.. Joe kennedy…
Romeo13 on June 23, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Be careful who you vote and throw rocks for.
Fletch54 on June 23, 2009 at 2:36 PM
Again, the support of the protesters does not equate to support of Mousavi or Rafsanjani.
It’s the support of people who want democratic representation, and are not getting it, and are willing to fight and die for it.
MadisonConservative on June 23, 2009 at 2:41 PM
I want a debate that will change hearts and minds. I have hope we can take back the Senate in 2010.
LOLOL…You’re an Obama worshipper…I knew it!
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Yes, some of the trolls have been having “trouble” with this concept. I guess we should try to understand it from their point of view. They are clearly confused. This is the first time in how long that they haven’t supported a “revolution.” I guess it just wasn’t fascistic enough for them.
Upstater85 on June 23, 2009 at 2:44 PM
The monarchy is the only legitimate government Iran has at the moment. The current Shah is big into democracy and secular government, as a transitional government it would be close to ideal.
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 2:45 PM
Few people over here are supporting Mousavi himself…obviously it’s the people of Iran that voted for him that we support.
George Bush planting two democracies on both of Iran’s flanks (along with ours and Allied militaries as well) is easily one of the greatest geopolitical moves in history…just wonder if the Marxist historians and political scientists will ever admit that?
We can hope that this democracy thing is catching.
Dr. ZhivBlago on June 23, 2009 at 2:47 PM
It would only work if that is what the Iranians want and I don’t see that being possible so long as the Supreme Council has so much power. Transitional governments don’t work if the outgoing regime doesn’t want to be replaced or share power. Governments in exile don’t work unless there is a groundswell of support within the nation.
Personally, what I would like to see is Iranians in exile, the ones who left before the Shah fell, to be the intellectual braintrust that crafts and funds some sort of reformist movement that can start abroad and be transported to Iran.
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 2:56 PM
That statement could as easily be applied to all the morons who voted for Obama.
highhopes on June 23, 2009 at 2:57 PM
It certainly could, but even if they were the targets of government brutality, I’d stand with them, even believing (as I do) their leader to be a huge detriment to the country.
I’d like to think everyone here would, and yet some don’t want that same courtesy extended to Iranians?
Esthier on June 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM
The only way the mullahs are going to be overthrown is through force. If the Shah comes out with a government in exile and a viable transition plan, would the army, which seems to be sitting on the sidelines, throw in with the protesters? Maybe. I don’t see the army moving just to replace one regime stooge for another regime stooge.
Unless someone shows up with real leadership chops, I don’t see regime change in Iran’s future. Certainly Mousavi isn’t the guy. The Shah, he could be the guy.
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 3:07 PM
Which approach will more likely win a conservative majority in the Senate? Your approach?
Or, one like Ronald Reagan, who reached out to the oppressed of Eastern Europe, while speaking forcefully against the tyrants brutalizing them? If we follow your genocidal approach, we will never govern, nor should we. I make many mistakes, but I’m doing my best to promote the Reagan approach toward a conservative victory. In this thread, you have been posting in a manner that will result in another victory for Obama worshipers.
Loxodonta on June 23, 2009 at 3:13 PM
You have not yet addressed the apparent contradiction in your desire to have no Iranian die, yet that the only good Iranian is a dead Iranian. I hope your problem solving skills are more advanced than simple avoidance. All it would take would be a simple statemnt that you misspoke, then we can leave it alone.
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 3:16 PM
Which Shah are you speaking of?
AprilOrit on June 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM
This is State Run Media propanga designed to prop up the current Iranian Regime and to smear Mousavi along with all those who want democracy in Iran. This is part of Iran’s psych ops as a number of Iran experts have concluded.
Remember to keep your eye on the big picture. A Free Iran is in the best interests of the US and the World (except for the despots).
sarahpalinfan99 on June 23, 2009 at 3:22 PM
whoops –
Exactly, no is no different or no better than the other one.
AprilOrit on June 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Shah is dead. And while his son seems like a very pleasant man, I don’t think that many Iranians are going to go for a return to what they overthrew in the 1970s. Just because they don’t like the mullahs doesn’t mean that they want to bring back the Shah. It seems to me that the Reformers main assertion is that Khamenei and Dinner Jacket have become as oppressive as the Shah. The tactics they’re using (shouting from the rooftops and having silent marches in memory of the martyrs) are right out of the Iranian Revolution playbook.
Yes, apparently this is a hard concept for people to grasp. The French sometimes vote for anti-American politicians, but that doesn’t mean we’re against democracy in France. We should be in favor of the protesters because it is always important to be pro-democracy and in our strategic interests to have a more moderate regime in Tehran even if that regime doesn’t become our best friend.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 3:23 PM
This is the same State Run Media propaganda that tells the public all Conservatives are extremist right wing fanatics who want to shoot or kill those who disagree with them.
Don’t fall for the lies and smears against Mousavi. Support democracy and freedom for the citizens of Iran.
sarahpalinfan99 on June 23, 2009 at 3:25 PM
I would suggest that if Mousavi and Rafsanjani end up winning now, then the system would have sort have been proven legitimate. Khamenei made a huge strategic blunder by cheerleading for Dinner Jacket and then doubling down in his Friday sermon. The protesters were burning his picture in effigy on Saturday.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 3:27 PM
His Imperial Majesty Reza Shah II
It was the same islamic thugs that overthrew the Shah as are running Iran today. Also, the Shah did a lot of great things for Iran, like women’s rights, a good economy, and good relations with the West. If he comes in as a reformer and with a transition plan towards a secular democratic system, one would think a lot of folks would welcome that.
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 3:38 PM
I thought you meant his dead father.
AprilOrit on June 23, 2009 at 3:41 PM
I remember the demonstration against the Shah as he lay dying in NY Hospital. He was a horrible man according to many Iraqis kiving here in NY at that time.
Exile and death
The Shah traveled from country to country in his second exile, seeking what he hoped would be a temporary residence. First he went to Egypt, and got an invitation and warm welcome from president Anwar El-Sadat. He later lived in Morocco, the Bahamas, and Mexico. But his pancreatic cancer began to grow worse and required immediate and sophisticated treatment. He was offered treatment in Switzerland but insisted on treatment in the United States.
On October 22, 1979, at the request of David Rockefeller, President Jimmy Carter reluctantly allowed the Shah into the United States to undergo medical treatment. This act was extremely unpopular with the revolutionary movement, which had been angered by the United States’ overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mossadegh, and years of support for the Shah’s rule. The Iranian government demanded the return of the Shah to Iran to stand trial; the American government refused to turn him over.[49]
This resulted in the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, and the kidnapping of American diplomats, military personnel and intelligence officers, which soon became known as the Iran hostage crisis. According to the Shah’s book, Answer to History, in the end the USA never provided the Shah any kind of health care and asked him to leave the country.[50]
He left the United States on December 15, 1979, and lived for a short time in the Isla Contadora in Panama. The new government in Iran still demanded his and his wife’s immediate extradition to Tehran. A short time after the Shah’s arrival, an Iranian ambassador was dispatched to the Central American nation carrying a 450 page extradition request. That official appeal greatly alarmed both the Shah and his advisors. Whether the Panamanian government would have complied is a matter of speculation among historians.
After that event, the Shah again sought the support of Egyptian president Anwar El-Sadat who renewed his offer of permanent asylum in Egypt to the ailing monarch. The Shah returned to Egypt in March 1980 where he received urgent medical treatment but nevertheless died from complications of non-Hodgkin lymphoma on July 27th, 1980, at the age of 60. Egyptian President Sadat gave the Shah a state funeral.[51]
Mohammad Reza Pahlavi is buried in the Al Rifa’i Mosque in Cairo, a mosque of great symbolic importance. The last royal rulers of two monarchies are buried there, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi of Iran and King Farouk of Egypt, his former brother-in-law. The tombs lie off to the left of the entrance.
AprilOrit on June 23, 2009 at 3:46 PM
So, are you saying the best way to completely delegitimize the whole Supreme Leader/12th inman concept is for Ahmadinejad to win, now that Khamenei has stepped on his holy appendage in front of the whole world? That would undermine the whole system more than merely letting the Rafsanjani/Mousavi team take the prize, which of course won’t happen now that the election results have been verified?
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 3:50 PM
It is necessary to question the integrity of all those who’s words have the effect of trying to throw the baby out with the bath water.
MB4 on June 23, 2009 at 4:01 PM
I’m not sure it matters… it certainly didn’t matter when former Irgun terrorists were elected to Israel’s highest office and the past actions of certain Northern Irish Assembly members had to be overlooked when they received popular support.
It can only be a good thing when criminals leave their past occupations as terrorists and theives and join the bandwagon of law abiding, civilized people. It is a reminder, however, that the battle in Iran is primarily being fought over a split in the elite. It remains to be seen if the split will carry over to the majority of the Iranian population who live outside cities and who don’t have a formal education.
It is all to easy to look at Iran, Iraq, and other Middle Eastern nations and focus too hard on the elite conveniently forgetting the masses and the role they play.
lexhamfox on June 23, 2009 at 5:02 PM
If he wasn’t such a bastard Iran would not be ruled by the thugs they currently have. The Shah was an ass and not at all a good leader. The benefits of his rule were enjoyed by a small part of the population. I knew one of his cousins and saw the life of incredible wealth and priviledge she led in Europe. She was a distant cousin and had mansions in several cities and made use of the family’s assorted personal 747’s from time to time. He was no reformer. Remember SAVAK? Yeah… the kind of rule that took place after the Revolution was worse but the Shah’s rule directly contributed to what Iran is now and not unlike the way the Czars behavior invited the Bolsheviks in.
lexhamfox on June 23, 2009 at 5:10 PM
Like Bill Ayers?
Perhaps it started that way. Now, it’s a battle over the concept of a Supreme Leader who speaks as a divine being heading the government.
It certainly won’t happen if the mullahs continue to select the candidates to run for office.
a capella on June 23, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Looks like Mousavi may have used up all of his chits with the gov’t. Report is that the gov’t newspaper has called for his arrest, but a protest for tomorrow is confirmed.
http://twitter.com/persiankiwi
Lou Budvis on June 23, 2009 at 5:33 PM
As lexhamfox mentioned, the Shah was only slightly better than the mullahs. The only difference between them is that the Shah was less crazy than Dinner Jacket and Khamenei and decided to exile was better than fighting to the death.
Oh, I meant that the system has completely been delegitimized. It’s just going to take a few months for them to realize. I’d suggest that things will probably go quiet for awhile now and flare up again at the end of July. (Talk about another idiotic move… scheduling Crazy’s “inauguration” ceremony around the 40 day mourning period time). I’d think that Rafsanjani will act around then.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 6:06 PM
The Shah was a reformer, and did far more to improve the lives of the Iranian people than these mullahs ever did. But he was an anti-communist in an area filled with communists and with a border with the Soviet Union, a secularist in an area filled with islamic fanatics, and was pro-American in an area which hated America.
Was there corruption? Sure, but nothing out of the ordinary – the so-called Palestinian leadership stole far more, and it wasn’t even their money. Did he have secret police? Yes, but again, every regime in the middle east and Eastern Europe had them too, if anything even more brutal.
The only thing the Shah did, was trying to bring Iran into the modern world, and his only mistake was counting on Jimmy Carter’s America to be as good an ally as Iran was to America. If there is any chance to overthrow these bloodthirsty mullahs and get another pro-Western secular regime in Iran, it will have to come through the Shah and the army.
But it’s a moot point, Obama would never support an Iranian government in exile, hell he won’t even uninvite the mullahs for 4th of July hotdogs. Another golden opportunity for America, the Iranian people, and the rest of the world, has been wasted by the pantywaist in chief.
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 6:22 PM
For those of us paying attention, this is not news. But for everyone else, the inconvenient facts that expose these “freedom-fighting revolutionaries” as the islamofascists that they are, will be ignored by the indignant greeniacs who are embarrassing themselves with their cute little solidarity campaign.
It’s fallacious to say you side with the people, but not the (extremist) cause they are fighting for. It’s like saying you support the troops just not their mission; or worse, being outraged if Hezbollah (or the like) lost an election and being one with the Hezbollah supporters who were “cheated.”
It’s a messy situation that has few good guys, and lots of bad, and it’s foolish and dangerous to think (and act) otherwise.
jjraines on June 23, 2009 at 6:25 PM
The Shah rolled in money that should have been used to promote the things you say he did. the simple truth is that a small number of Iranians benefitted from his regime and most did not. How many leaders in the Middle East had 747’s for personal use? Even his sister had her own 747. That’s not a little corruption just like we see everywhere else in the Third World. The SAVAK were absolutely brutal and ruthless. Secularist… he thought he was a God King along the lines of Xerxes and you can look at the parades he held to see that. There was nothing remotely approaching democracy in the Shah’s Iran. If you were friendly to the regime you would have an excellent job no matter how untalented you were. The regime was rotten and I don’t blame the Shah personally since he was so far removed from what the reality was. I find it funny that you blame Carter for the Shah’s demise. Once of the conditions that the Shah had for the US setting up vital listening posts along the Iran/USSR border was that the CIA was absolutely prohibited from any info gathering on Iran. Carter’s big mistake was in agreeing to that. It is the main reason the US was so blindisded by the Revolution. The Iranian regime kept insisting it had a grip when it didn’t. You think the Shah was protecting the West from communism? Are you for real? The Tudeh Party wasn’t wipted out by the Shah.. it was wipted out by the Mullahs. So it was the mullahs who eradicated the Iranian left that you feared so much. Go on… applaud them. I’m familiar with a few of the Iranian groups in exile that you refer to and none of them should be allowed to form a government there. In fact some of them are quite rightly on the list of known terrorist groups. It will be up to the Iranians who stayed and remain in Iran to fix the country. They still adhere to democratic values in spite of the Shah and the current regime. That you think the Shah is a reformer is so ridiculous…. he reformed nothing for the public at large while a small minority were allowed to live very very well.
lexhamfox on June 23, 2009 at 6:59 PM
What’s the difference. Iran has it’s terrorists, and so do we. Obama might be more despicable then Irans terrorists.
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 7:04 PM
Wrong answer Ed. I’ve been trying to tell everyone all of this all danged week. Yes, the uprising is illegitimate. It’s a distraction, a smoke and mirrors deception. The Iranian people are nothing more than pawns for their rulers.
This uprising is a Potemkin village. It’s not as large or as popular as it is being portrayed to be. It exists to serve a single solitary purpose. And you, like 99.999 percent of those commenting on it have fallen for the distraction.
If you have the intelligence to ask the single most important question the answer is self evident.
Why would Iran’s leaders put this much of a risk on the table as a distraction?
The answer is frighteningly horribly obvious.
BECAUSE THEIR FIRST NUCLEAR BOMB IS FINISHED…
It’s design was tested in North Korea just a few short weeks ago.
doriangrey on June 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM
doriangrey on June 23, 2009 at 8:24 PM
OMG… you mean Iran has a three kiliton nuclear device? Start digging everyone.
lexhamfox on June 23, 2009 at 8:28 PM
You are utterly clueless as to what damage a 3 kiloton nuclear weapon can do aren’t you. Think of it like this… Detonated in Time Square at 3pm on a typical Friday afternoon, it would kill just a little over 2 and a half million people.
Detonated at 3pm on a Friday afternoon in Tel Aviv and it would start a full scale nuclear war that will probably kill around 1 billion people.
doriangrey on June 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM
Never fear, we have that, “almost a god” as our President.One quick Obama speech and they’ll be drinkin’ the Kool Aid too.
Jeff from WI on June 23, 2009 at 8:35 PM
So instead of spending the people’s money on personal jetliners, the mullahs spent it on developing nuclear weapons, that’s nice. Instead of repressing terrorists and being an ally of America, it’s now the #1 terrorist exporting nation and is activly killing American soldiers in Iraq, great.
The Iranian people alone are never going to overthrow the mullahs and get build anything remotely resembling a secular democratic society without a legitimate leader with the backing of the army. Like it or not, the only legitimate leader left is the Shah, if he could have gotten the army on his side is an open question.
What is certain is that, this go around, the mullahs have won. Iran will continue to be a rogue terrorist nation which will soon have nuclear weapons, and the people will suffer repression, economic hardship, and likely will be dragged into a war with Israel.
But that Shah sure was a bad guy, boy oh boy.
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
Well, I never heard that before, but it sounds uncommon nonsense.
Cheshire Cat on June 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
If that happened, it would be really easy for Khamenei to reunite the country. If there’s one thing that the Iranians hate more than the mullahs, it’s the Pahlavis.
I trust the Mossad on this one. Iran is still a few years away from the bomb. However, I do hope that the U.S. is still trying to interdict parts.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 8:47 PM
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 8:38 PM
The Shah is not the answer and they will NEVER accept him back. He was never ‘legitimate’ in the first place and his installation is the primary reason why they hate the US. Remember the Iranian Air Force were the ones who armed the public during the Revolution. They went against the Shah as did much of the Army. It was SAVAK who helped the Shah and his family escape with their billions. Sort of like Idi Amin.
I’m not arguing that the current regime in Iran is good or nice. I am disputing your absurd argument that teh Shah was a great guy and we should have saved his worthless regime or even worse, reinstall that fictional monarchy on the peacock throne again.
lexhamfox on June 23, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Sorry…but this is what I was talking about…
jerrytbg on June 23, 2009 at 9:00 PM
It will be even more sinister if Mousavi was involved in this from the beginning.
I guess we’ll be finding out soon enough. Scary.
moonsbreath on June 23, 2009 at 9:03 PM
One thing the protesters in Iran don’t want is American interference in their country. Thats why Obama didn’t go crazy about denouncing the elections. Average Iranians don’t trust us after all the past history between our countries. Mousavi’s another hardliner who wants nuclear power, and would be a pawn to the Mullahs. Anyone who uses this crisis as another excuse to attack Obama is just a fool, with little grasp of the history of the region.Even John Bolton said you can’t encourage Iranians to take to the streets, and not be responsible if they get slaughtered. Better to have mass peaceful protests until the country comes to a grinding halt.
athensboy on June 23, 2009 at 9:07 PM
There’s a line between encouraging people to demonstrating and harshly condemning Neda’s murderers and not inviting Iranian diplomats to the 4th of July Barbeque. I’m sure the master of smart diplomacy could figure this one out.
Illinidiva on June 23, 2009 at 9:13 PM
Never said the Shah was a nice guy, just that he was miles ahead of the mullahs, in every conceivable way, and the Iranian people, and the world, would have been far better off under the Pahlavi dynasty.
I’d also add that his son does seem to be a genuine nice guy, and has been working toward human rights and a true representative system in Iran while in exile. I disagree with the Iranian people rejecting him, he’d have some support as part of a transitional government, especially with the army. And without the army, there will be no regime change.
I also note that while you run the Shah down, you really have no alternative to him, except to magically think the mullahs away. Magic thinking won’t oust them, real bullets and real bayonets will be required.
Rebar on June 23, 2009 at 9:19 PM
nah..Mousavi was of the wrong tribe…
How about he didn’t want to go along with the ending of elections…truly centralizing power cause the masses were waking up…and the mullahs couldn’t have that.
I think that’s called a coup…;)
jerrytbg on June 23, 2009 at 9:32 PM
oops…I didn’t see this thread…ah ha…we have the same sources…;)
jerrytbg on June 23, 2009 at 9:49 PM
athensboy on June 23, 2009 at 9:07 PM
Obama could, at least, disinvite them to the BBQ.
Disturb the Universe on June 23, 2009 at 9:56 PM
I’m hearing on twitter that Mousavi has been arrested.
And that more clerics are turning against the gov’t.
B Man on June 23, 2009 at 11:48 PM
Wouldn’t being a mullah mean that you adhere to the Muslim teachings? If that is the case, just what is going to be the difference between dinner jacket, Mousavi, and the mullahs?
Even moderate Muslims treat their women like 3rd class citizens and still don’t like the Jews or Arab Muslims for that matter.
csdeven on June 24, 2009 at 12:08 AM
Well he’s either under some sort of house arrest (likely) or he has no idea what to do next (also likely). What happens on Wednesday will tell the tale.
And apparently, Rafsanjani does have enough clerics to get rid of Dinner Jacket and Khamenei, but they have no idea what to do next.
Illinidiva on June 24, 2009 at 1:06 AM
This battle is cousin vs cousin. Give Debbie Schlussel credit for calling the information no one wanted to hear. What kind of leader Mousavi would be matters less than he will be a different leader from the incumbent.
So Mousavi orchestrated the attack on the sleeping Marines in Lebanon. That is Lebanon, not Iran, which makes it a terrorist attack and not a wartime attack. This does not mean he would be a worse leader than Ahmadinejad. Putin was former KGB and look how he turned out. heh
What it means as Schlussel expressed, is the guy is not Paul Revere. The rage of the protestors is real however. Their obvious humger to have one man, one vote is universally understood to be a desire for justice and that is revealing of the inner good all men understand. I want them to have justice.
Would Mousavi be a more useful leader for the West to deal with? Interesting consideration. He masterminded the Lebanon attack on the sleeping Marines, so he comes with a different perspective of who are the good guys. He cannot be as much a nutter as Ahmadinejad.
In any case, it will still be the islamic republic whomever wins. I doubt Mousavi could stop the bomb program if the clerics disagree, but he could quiet the student revolution by interceding on behalf of incremental freedoms. He could help the mullahs continue their reign
entagor on June 24, 2009 at 3:30 AM
If I remember correctly wasn’t Ahmadinejad involved with the taking of the 52 hostages for 444 days in Nov, 1979?
Eagles Dominion on June 24, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Check out the book The Devil We Know: Dealing with the New Iranian Superpower by Robert Baer. The Iranian will never feel regret for anything they’ve done, they will only justify it as necessary for the time being. Baer speaks arabic and farsi and interviews countless people in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East who say that if need be, they would easily make the choice to go back to their old ways of martyrdom.
jimsarr on June 24, 2009 at 3:00 PM
It is like voting for Kang over Kodos.
V-rod on June 24, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3