You have commented 338 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Challenger Mousavi Has Conservative Past
2009-06-17
By JAY SOLOMON

WASHINGTON -- The emergence of Mir Hossein Mousavi as a challenger to Iran's clerical establishment has been cheered as potentially heralding a new moderation in Tehran. But his record also suggests that he would hew to a number of Tehran's more controversial policies. Mr. Mousavi governed as a social conservative while he was prime minister during the 1980s, and remains a committed supporter of the values and clerical system born of the 1979 Iranian Islamic revolution, said diplomats and Iran analysts.
He's certainly not a 'reformer', and more just an ally of Rafsanjani, but he's not Short Round, and if the people can depose one government, they can depose another ...
He was one of the early supporters of Iran's nuclear program, and as prime minister he specifically approved Tehran's purchases of centrifuge equipment from the nuclear black market run by the Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan, according to a 2007 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog.

Many Iran analysts say that while a Mousavi presidency, if it happened, could open numerous new areas for U.S.-Iranian cooperation, serious stumbling blocks would remain. President Barack Obama addressed that distinction Tuesday in an interview with CNBC.

"Although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference in actual policies between [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as advertised," he said. "I think it's important to understand that either way, we are going to be dealing with a regime in Iran that is hostile to the U.S."

Mr. Obama Tuesday also offered support for Mr. Mousavi's supporters. "Something has happened in Iran. There is a questioning of the kinds of antagonistic postures towards the international community that have taken place in the past," Mr. Obama said. Of Tehran's suppressing of protests in response, he added, "That is not how governments should interact with their people."

Republicans who question Mr. Obama's plan to engage in direct diplomacy with Iran are seizing upon the election fracas to demand Mr. Obama denounce the current regime and support Mr. Mousavi more strongly. "He should speak out that this is a corrupt, flawed sham of an election," Sen. John McCain of Arizona said Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show. "The Iranian people have been deprived of their rights. We support them in their struggle against a repressive, oppressive regime."

Mr. Mousavi campaigned on a platform of moderating Iran's foreign policy and improving ties with the U.S., heralding a potential break from four years in which President Ahmadinejad openly sought confrontation over the nuclear question and Israel.

Still, it remains unclear just how significantly Mr. Mousavi could redirect Tehran's foreign and defense policies, short of a recasting of the Iranian political system dominated by conservative supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said U.S. officials. Iran's last reformist president, Mohammad Khatami, regularly clashed with Mr. Khamenei on social, economic and international issues and left office in 2005 with little to show for his progressive agenda.

While serving as Iran's prime minister during the 1980s, Mr. Mousavi was viewed as a competent manager, but politically cautious. This time around, Mr. Mousavi has pledged to loosen the restrictions Mr. Ahmadinejad placed on Iranian nongovernmental organizations, media and women's groups in recent years. These elements of Iranian society have been among the most vigorous in pressing for Tehran's rapprochement with the U.S.

He pledged during the campaign his commitment to Iran's nuclear power, but also held out the potential for direct talks with the U.S. Speaking to Time magazine on Friday, he said there are two elements to the nuclear question: "One is our right to nuclear energy, which is non-negotiable. The second issue is related to concerns about the diversion of this program towards weaponization. Personally, I view this second part, which is both technical and political, as negotiable."

U.S. officials were hoping the potential election of Mr. Mousavi could quickly lead to direct negotiations over the future of Iran's nuclear program. Mr. Obama's aides also seek more substantive cooperation with Iran on stabilizing Iraq and Afghanistan and confronting global threats such as narcotics smuggling and piracy.

A number of U.S. and Western diplomats caution, however, that if Mr. Mousavi were to prevail it could actually help Iran's pursuit of nuclear technologies.

The Obama administration has been seeking a unified international stance toward Tehran. It has been lobbying nations such as Russia and China to support expansive new sanctions against Iran should its leaders not respond to Mr. Obama's calls for direct dialogue.

The elevation of a moderate face in Tehran, as opposed to Mr. Ahmadinejad, could delay action against Tehran if foreign governments decide to give Mr. Mousavi some political space and time, these diplomats warn. In such a dynamic, hardliners in Iran could rapidly push ahead with Tehran's nuclear program.

"If your goal is to increase the international sanctions regime against Tehran, it's much easier to do if the Iranian president is a Holocaust-denying radical," said Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran expert at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a Washington think tank, referring to Mr. Ahmadinejad.
Posted by:Steve White

#4  See also PAKISTANII DEFENCE FORUMS > IRAN'S HIDDEN REVOLUTION.
Posted by: JosephMendiola   2009-06-17 23:05  

#3  
"If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, the strategy of colonialism would face a stalemate because application of an atomic bomb would not leave any thing in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world"
Ayatollah Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani, December 2001

"If they (Jews) all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide."
Hezbollah’s Secretary General Hassan Nasrallah, October 23, 2002

"Our struggle is not about land or water...It is about bringing, by force if necessary, the whole of mankind onto the right path."
Khomeini 1980

"We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."
Hussein Moussawi,
former leader of Hezbollah on Americans

"Death to America!"
De Facto National Motto of Iran


Just as a reminder. Mousavi is apparently an ally of the Rafsandjani faction. He served as Prime Minister under Supreme Leader Khomeini and had a hand in founding Hezbollah.

The safe, conservative assumption on Iran is that all the relevant factions are mortal enemies of the West (especially Israel of course, but not limited to it.)

Mousavi might not actually deny the historical fact of the Holocaust, but he and his allies are as likely as Ahmadinejad to try to complete it.
Posted by: Glese Johnson2746   2009-06-17 19:13  

#2  Hitler vs Ernst Rohm - no lesser of two evils here.
Posted by: Spereck Oppressor of the Weak4379   2009-06-17 15:08  

#1  Iran and a hard place.....

Brothers And Sisters At Arms,

So I'm watching Iran information all over the many blogs and T.V. news that's reporting about the riots happening there. Then I'm thinking, the Resident-in-Chief wants to talk with leaders or the President of Iran without preconditions as he said in one of the many Democratic Debates. Misguided. Yes. Bordering stuck-on stupid. Yes. And not debating on Fox News because of some far-left zealots another stupid choice? Definitely. Why you ask? If you have studied any information on any of the major players in the middle east, besides the terrorist factions/sects/groups, the name of the so-called "moderate" candidate, which I will not even attempt to write or say his name, was the S.O.B. that got Iran's nuclear program started in the first place! Then there is the fool who wants to "...wipe Israel off the map...". No matter what the outcome of those so-called elections, who would you (the White House) want to speak to? How would you even start the conversation? And I'm about sick and tired of hearing that Israel should give up land for peace. Didn't they do that with the Gaza Strip back in 2005? How's that working out for you? The Israeli's left fully constructed homes and apartment buildings, greenhouses with fruit and vegetables going and growing. It was all torn down. What really gets me going is the fact that we are training the "Fatah" faction to do security for a state I don't believe should be anywhere near Israel (heh, that's just how I roll) or within missile range. But "Fatah" used to be called "The Palestinian Liberation Organization", the "P.L.O.", though led by Arafat, was an offshoot of the "Muslim Brotherhood" in Egypt. The dictators in Egypt have been keeping a tight leash on them for a while but Arafat was still able to start the P.L.O. in the sixties. Why are we doing this? I must not get it because I'm a 'Grunt' or something....

I'm all Infantryman however. Some might even call me a "warmonger". I believe if you go to war, it's "clobbering time". Overwhelming forces, after carpet bombing the land. Case in point; the Gaza Strip. The population should not be getting any support from Israel to a populace that voted into power an organization that has in its charter, or like the "mission statement" an American corporation would have to spell what their ultimate goal(s) is/are, Hamas, has it in their charter, and I'm paraphrasing here, "...the elimination of the Zionist/Jewish occupied territories...". I don't remember the exact language, you can look it up, but you hopefully get the point. The general public should pay a severe tole for electing/letting a terrorist group run their 'government'. How's that working for them? Hamas can't even supply basic services. They beg for help from the feckless U.N. There's a clusterf**k of an organization for you. Heh, you folks that didn't want to invade Iraq. I have a couple of words for you: Food for Oil. That was some kind of racket. Wasn't it? Back to the Gaza problem. I think the entire area, and by the way, this should be on the table for Iran as well, they (our government) should begin "carpet bombing" every square inch until the population turns on Hamas in Gaza, and the Mullahs and President of Iran, and surrender "without conditions", so it sends a message to the rest of the dictators and despots around the world "that we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore". An we should use every type of weapon in our arsenal, napalm if we have any, cluster bombs, hellfire missiles, including nukes if they don't get a clue after a few hours of that unleashing of destruction we in the 'west' invented. Now you can call me callous, apathetic towards the people of those two areas, whatever your heart desires. It's my opinion and I gave a little over ten years in our nations military to pay for the right IN FULL.

Part of the reason I'm not affiliated with Democrats or Republicans at this time, I am a registered Independent that is a conservative and have traditional values. When Reagan, the beloved of some people on the right of politics, pulled out of Beirut after our barracks there got bombed, we should have sent an overwhelming force to eradicate the lot of them. Instead, Reagan turned tail and ran, pissed me off. Bush, Sr. blew it with me after "Read my lips, no new taxes". Bush, Jr. had me for a while until he signed the McCain/Fiengold bill and even thinking about giving amnesty to illegal aliens in our nation. I DON'T CARE WHY THEY CAME HERE. They didn't respect our laws to begin with, stealing identities to work and allegedly paying taxes (bologna), or working under the table for indentured servant wages. Slaves, getting money, but slaves none-the-less. And they aren't/weren't paying taxes people.

The Democrats; got us into Viet-Nam for starters, though to fight against communism, a noble cause, but J.F.K. got us in there. The best thing he ever did, besides Marilyn Munroe (sorry, but I couldn't resist), was to create The U.S. Army's Special Forces, and bestow on them the distinction of their signature headgear; the Green Beret. L.B.J.? Are you kidding? Carter; who is all Anti-Semitic, all the time, though I joined the U.S. Army despite him before he became the man he is today, I thought like the rest of my Brothers at Arms with me in Basic Infantry School that we would be part of the first wave to get our people (the Hostages) back from the Iranians and since some of us were going to Airborne School right after Basic. Our D.I.'s gathered the Airborne candidates at one point and basically told/warned us we just might be part of the "Tip Of The Spear". Scary, but thrilling at the same time. A real mission. Our nation had the moral authority and "high ground", liberals love to say our government must have before we even defend ourselves. But they have no clue we [in the military] were/are taught the credo to "never leave a man on the field or behind". There were active duty Marines among those hostages. And everyone of us wanted to go get them back. That incident should have been enough to declare war. I reported to the 82nd Airborne Division after Airborne School (which kicked my butt but I made it among the 60% that finished the course)in December of 1979. And while there, we all waited and waited and waited, but no "green light" came. Then came the botched rescue attempt that made our military look like the Keystone Cops around the world. Thanks Jimbo, now go back to your peanut farm and just shut the F**k up you feckless coward. And while still in office he wrecked our intelligence services with cutbacks. And "B.J." Clinton, oh my God, as the girls in California say, not only did he do more to reduce our intel services and the troop levels of each service, he didn't, like all those before and after him, put a security wall, triple fence, mine field, cow field or dog field on our southern or northern border when Osama Bin Hiden declared war on us in the early nineties and (1) wasn't taken seriously and (2) blew several opportunities to nab his a**; and then (3) sent the cops to do a soldiers work after the first bombing of the World Trade Center in New York. The terrorist were just plain stupid for sticking around long enough to get caught, tried, then jailed, but one of their lawyers, whose name escapes me at the moment, she was taking coded messages from one of the terrorist (the Blind Sheik) and passing it along to his buddies on the outside. Besides the illegality of that, and in my opinion, a treasonous act, she should have been jailed for longer than approximately 3 years. She should have been put on 'Death Row' for that! She helped get people killed in the middle east, but that still doesn't make it alright!

All that's happening now, electing a socialist to the Oval Office, cutting defensive budgets right when things are heating up around the world and the the Resident-in-Chief bugs out of an agreement for anti-missile batteries in Poland and a radar system in another "allies" country. And then gets scared of a threat from the ruins of the U.S.S.R. of pointing nukes at western Europe? He is not impressing me what so ever. I wonder if those that voted in the novice have "buyers remorse" yet. I could be wrong though....

In the meantime,

watch your six.

Phoenix

P.S. This was originally posted on my blog at warriorlegacyfoundation.org on June 15th,2009. It's amazing that logical speculation can be seen and addressed by anyone and discussed similarly on a completely different web site. Viewers should collate these two opinions seriously and come to their own conclusion. If you have the opportunity, check them out the web site I mention above or try the website I list to find me and my blog. You may have to create an account but sign up is free and you might find a whole lot of like-minded folks out there. It's open to people that have never served in the military but support the military, so don't feel left out! And all the services are represented...
Posted by: Old Paratrooper   2009-06-17 00:49  

00:00