We haven’t had much to say about Tehran. We’ve been staying away from the drama, as sad as that might be, and avoiding pointing out the inevitable truth regarding the fight over regime change in Iran.
Today, Diana West took the lid off and let the facts fly. She says it much more succinctly than we could.
…it becomes unavoidably clear the post-election conflict isn’t a struggle between tyranny and freedom — the epic narrative we’ve been hearing in absolute, non-contestable terms. The worst thing that could happen next, at least for the absolute, non-contestable pundit-ocracy, is that it becomes clear we’re looking at an intra-Islamic power struggle that has nothing to do with liberty and justice for anybody.
She’s exactly right. This is a “theocratic power struggle between rival mullahs”. The sock puppets are Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Mir Hossein Mousavi, but the real deal is the battle between their bosses. Ahmadinejad answers to Ali Khamenei; Mousavi to Rafsanjani.
Ms. West says this reality ought to be enough to chill the enthusiasms of those who think this has anything to do with freedom or democracy. It is about another Islamicist regime change:
Amazingly, the thought that there might not be a pro-West horse to ride here doesn’t enter the collective media mind, from Left to Right. Such unbraked credulity reflects the media failure to deal competently with any non-Western aspect of Islamic society. They instantly project their Western selves onto everything every time.
But that’s what we do every time. It’s always about us; perhaps a reflection of us, lost in the fantasy of gazing too long into Narcissus’ pool. Instead, Ms. West has some advice to commentators and enthusiasts:
– – – – – – – – –
It would seem advisable to feel one’s way into this story, particularly after picking up on the mullah-versus-mullah action, along with a few choice highlights of “opposition” candidate Mousavi’s resume. Mousavi (who defended the seizure of American hostages taken from the U.S. embassy there in 1979) served as the Ayatollah Khomeini’s prime minister (and is believed to have had a connection to the 1983 attack on the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut), reportedly initiated contact with Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan to launch Iran’s nuclear program, and, as John Bolton recently pointed out, “is fully committed to Iranian terrorism.” (So much for the Wall Street Journal’s uncontested mention of Mousavi’s “mercy Islam.”) In a recent Al Jazeera interview, Mousavi revealed his opinion of Ahmadinejad’s genocidal intention to “wipe Israel off the map.” Mousavi said: “From the beginning, I objected to that phrase.”
She has much more information. In fact, that’s the point of her essay. She did her homework on Mousavi and found what was under the rocks, something that other commentators don’t seem to have been willing to do.
Tehran isn’t changing anything, except perhaps for the worst. Read the rest of her essay. She exposes Mousavi’s “vision”.
Anyone remember 1979?