As the demonstrations against Friday’s rigged elections rage in Tehran, Mir-Hossein Mousavi – who finished second to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with 33% of the vote – has arisen as the symbol of Iran’s insurgent pro-democratic movement. But Mousavi hardly deserves this recognition. Indeed, far from being a liberal “reformist,” Mousavi owes his rise within Iranian politics to the very “tyranny” that he now claims to be fighting against.
An engineer by training, Mousavi began his involvement with Iran’s revolutionary regime as a clerk for Islamic Republic Party Secretary-General Ayatollah Mohammed Beheshti. Through this high-level connection, Mousavi became editor of the Islamic Republican Party newspaper, which emerged as an influential force for hardline positions during the early years of Ayatollah Khomeini’s reign. In this vein, Mousavi’s newspaper opposed releasing the American hostages, and further served as a platform for the regime’s theocratic dictates – for example, the ban on playing chess.
Following Khomeini’s removal of President Abolhassan Bani-Sadr and the execution of Bani-Sadr’s allies in June 1981, Mousavi joined the new government as Minister of Foreign Affairs. Only four months later, the parliament affirmed Mousavi as Iran’s fifth prime minister – a move that The Globe and Mail interpreted as signaling Tehran’s desire to “expand its world role and ‘export’ its Islamic revolution.”
In this regard, Mousavi didn’t disappoint. During his premiership, Iran founded Hezbollah – a Shiite terrorist group based in southern Lebanon with active cells scattered worldwide. For Mousavi, Hezbollah became an important theocratic weapon: in the aftermath of Khomeini’s infamous fatwa against author Salman Rushdie, Mousavi called on Hezbollah to “take the necessary action,” thereby sending Rushdie into hiding. Mousavi’s government further played a central role in planning the violent 1987 Mecca demonstrations, in which Iranian activists sought to destabilize the Saudi regime and recruit Muslim worshippers to their militant cause.
Moreover, on virtually every major issue of U.S.-Iranian contention, Mousavi assumed a confrontational approach during his eight-year term. Beyond his strong opposition to renewing relations with the United States, Mousavi created Iran’s chemical weapons program – catalyzing a deadly naval standoff between Iran and U.S.-backed Arab Gulf states during the late 1980s. Most alarmingly, a recent International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report stated that Mousavi’s government purchased centrifuges on the black market in 1987, thereby jump-starting the nuclear program that remains at the heart of international concerns regarding Iran today.
Although twenty years have passed since Mousavi last held office, there is little evidence that his views have changed. Indeed, during his 2009 presidential campaign, Mousavi vowed not to bend on Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capabilities, declaring, “We have to have the technology.” Mousavi’s political biography further suggests that, as the LA Times reported, Mousavi will continue Iran’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah.
For these reasons, those supporting Iranians’ fight for fair elections should not be fooled by Mousavi’s symbolism. His reserved tone and sudden populism mask a dark history of religious fanaticism, support for terrorism, and perpetuation of authoritarianism.
14 responses so far
1 balconesfault // Jun 16, 2009 at 12:10 pm
Thanks. Sadly, I’ve seen none of this depth in the “Green Wave” mania found in the traditional media, or even in most blogs.
Another point of reference for why the US needs to tread lightly at the moment. It is important that we be seen as supporting the democratic process … but not as championing any specific candidate.
2 MFarmer // Jun 16, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Fortunately, this is not about Mousavi.
3 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:53 am
I think your misleading on the point. Both men are so close in the way they will lead that any comparisions are nil but one man was cheated in the minds of the people and THAT is the only issue. The suppresion of their VOTE is what has lead to this our pouring of will from the people.
The 2 men involved? Not the issue.
4 mlindroo // Jun 17, 2009 at 9:13 am
BTW, it seems Andrew Sullivan is about to go totally bonkers! He certainly thinks Mousavi is radically different, but I don’t quite see any good reasons to believe that.
MARCU$
5 MFarmer // Jun 17, 2009 at 12:24 pm
“Both men are so close in the way they will lead that any comparisions are nil but one man was cheated in the minds of the people and THAT is the only issue.”
No, THAT is NOT the issue. Besides, you have no idea what’s in the people’s minds. Neither do I, but from reports, the election fraud was the impetus that let out years of frustration with totalitarianism. People are probably rebelling for diverse reasons. Do you really think all this about one man, Mousavi? Really? They wouldn’t be making this much ruckus just for one man who is no different than the other, knowing the Supreme Leader is in charge.
6 Bulldoglover100 // Jun 17, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Have a problem with assimulation and accomadation there MFarmer?
LOL You have reinerated what I posted.
1. The reports from Iran are all over the net if your attempting to educate yourself and the signs these people carry say “Make MY Vote Count” and “Where is MY Vote” so I think I’m pretty close to base when I say this is the issue.
2. Mousavi had to go through the interview process just as Ahmadinejad did and had to pass in order to be able to run for office.
3. I refuse to deal with someone who refuses to read an article before commenting as you have done. ALL the ways these men are close in thought is listed above.
4. Do us all a favor and don’t reproduce.
7 ottovbvs // Jun 17, 2009 at 4:24 pm
Sorry totally off topic but I have to laugh. I see someone has pulled the piece about Republicans needing to embrace women. I thought that was the problem.
8 midcon // Jun 17, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Yeah, I noticed that as well. I guess they forgot about the Bohemian Club. Or maybe someone has gotten the message about trivialities.
9 krove // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:08 pm
“Sorry totally off topic but I have to laugh. I see someone has pulled the piece about Republicans needing to embrace women. I thought that was the problem.”
along those lines……..
Wonkette says.
We knew there had to be a paying off some 19-year-old boy aspect of this dull John Ensign story, and here it is: A Republican committee paid Nevada Senator John Ensigns illicit girlfriends son $5,400 during the SAME EXACT TIME Ensign and the lady were humping. This teen-ager was given the dirty GOP money for research policy consulting, which is even more bogus-sounding that our business expenses. ALSO: Our friends at the Las Vegas Gleaner inform us that Ensign was putting his peen into this lady before he was legally separated from his wife.
From the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
John and Darlene Ensign were separated from April to July 2008, the senators spokesman, Tory Mazzola, confirmed Tuesday evening.
That would indicate the affair began five months before the couple separated and ended a month after they got back together.
AND ADDITIONALLY: Ensign is the star relief pitcher for the GOPs fancy baseball team performing right now at Nationals Park, and he didnt show up for the game. COME ON DUDE IT IS FOR CHARITY STOP BEING A DICK SO MUCH.
There are about nine other bubbling mini-scandals in this oh hell its June, well take it scandal of the year, so go to the aforementioned Las Vegas Gleaner and learn every detail, hurry! [Las Vegas Gleaner
10 krove // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Please can we have a nice juicy John Ensign “Family Values ” Thread.
11 krove // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:15 pm
comment of the day on Ensign.
“I was worried there, because a GOPer politician in an illicit heterosexual affair with a consenting adult, sans bondage equipment, stray animals, diapers or any of the other usual Republican sex scandal accouterments, thats just not right. Ah, but now we add bribery and nepotism too, well that restores my faith that god is in her heaven and all is right with the world.”
12 MFarmer // Jun 17, 2009 at 5:26 pm
“Have a problem with assimulation and accomadation there MFarmer?”
Have a problem with spelling Bulldog?
“LOL You have reinerated what I posted.”
I assure you — I did not reinerate anything.
“1. The reports from Iran are all over the net if your attempting to educate yourself and the signs these people carry say “Make MY Vote Count” and “Where is MY Vote” so I think I’m pretty close to base when I say this is the issue.”
Yes, they are pissed off at the fact that a totalitarian government rigged the election, among all the other things they are pissed off about regarding a totalitarian government
“2. Mousavi had to go through the interview process just as Ahmadinejad did and had to pass in order to be able to run for office.”
Yes, that’s why he is not the issue. Thanks.
“3. I refuse to deal with someone who refuses to read an article before commenting as you have done. ALL the ways these men are close in thought is listed above.”
I refuse to deal with anyone who assumes I didn’t read the article. I did. So, nah-nah-nah.
“4. Do us all a favor and don’t reproduce.”
Now we get to the substance. You are a formidable Bulldog.
13 danbmil99 // Jun 17, 2009 at 6:58 pm
I agree with the article, but what we really should talk about is how someone as seemingly aware of the facts as McCain could make such patently partisan and irresponsible comments about Obama being soft on terror or whatever he said. He knows it’s crap, everyone with a brain knows Obama is doing exactly the right thing — but it’s OK to backbite him because the left wasn’t nice to Bush? is tit-for-tat the way conservatives express their love of Country?
Please, let’s cut the hypocrisy, and stand behind our commander in chief when he’s dealing well with a very tough situation.
14 MFarmer // Jun 17, 2009 at 7:00 pm
And, for heaven’s sake, let’s please not make it about Obama.
You must log in to post a comment.