By Benyamin Solomon
I read the Iran Through My Len's response to my post where I challenged that blogger's claim that Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are not the same regarding Iran's policies. Iran Through MY Lens [name of the author is apparently Jaime] admits that I'm right about Mousavi when he was Prime Minister and claims to not be excusing Mousavi for what he did when he was Prime Minister and then whitewashes him:

With that being said, he is correct about Mousavi’s rhetoric against Israel during his premiership and his antipathy, as the sitting prime minister, to Khomeini’s mass executions. Never in my post did I EVER exonerate Mousavi for past actions as an IRI insider, nor did I lionize him as some savior. What I did was show the differences between Mousavi and Ahmadi in the light of how they present IRI foreign policy to the west, and there is a wide gulf between the two.

While this blogger acknowledges that I'm right about what Mousavi did as PM, this blogger still falls for Mousavi's cheap lip service for democracy, freedom and peace. The blogger starts off the post as:

It appears my logic (1+1= 2) does not match up with a townhall.com blogger. What a surprise, considering that the far-right’s broad brush strokes, particularly regarding political Islam and Iran, tend to be completely opposite of my worldview.

In a long blog post this author attacked my refutation of the meme that Ahmadinejad and Mousavi really did not present anything different, as far as policy goes regarding the US. I am told I am an “apoligist” [sic] and a “propagandist” because I was intellectually honest enough to write a post describing what benefit Mousavi offers opposed to Ahmadinejad.

(Oh, and I am vulgar too because I said that people who don’t understand the intricacies of the IRI’s history should “shut the hell up”…. I still do think that…)

Mixing propaganda for the Iranian regime's "reformists" with logic like 1+1=2, are we?  He complains that I called him an "apologist" [not it is just in the title which is "Response to Mousavi apologist"] and that I called this user a "propagandist". Well, if you're not an apologist for Mousavi, you're at least whitewashing him. Jaime complains that I said it was vulgar of him to say "Shut the hell up" to people who point out the fact that Mousavi's and Ahmadinejad's policies are the same. I still say that it was vulgar. Of course, this user accuses me of presenting Islam as scary. When you got nothing to say, this is another good old technique to use. Accuse the opponent of Islamophobia. I'm accused of presenting Islam as scary just because I attack the vicious Valayet-e-Faqih system:

What scares pundits like my detractor is that they see Islam as scary, and think that if it’s stamped velayat-e faqih, this somehow means backwards, anti-western, government. While only focusing on what is different, whether we like that difference or not, what in turn they fail to see is the discursivity of Iranian Islamic history, and the political representations that have been fed through thousands of years of history and interaction with the west and others which has shaped the worldviews of certain peoples, including those of the Islamic Republic, whether reformist, principle-ist, neofundamentalist, or whatever. Therefore even leaders who believe in saving their past ideologies through a reformation of the system from within, through his own republican ideals, cannot actually be a positive player.

First off, I believe that there are peaceful interpretations of Islam. Valayet-e-Faqih doesn't represent all of Islam. It does represent Khomeini's backward interpretation of Islam. I didn't say that Islam is scary. But radical Islam is. We are told that the Iranian regime's "reformists" who believe in Khomeinist Fascism can be a positive player. What "reformation" did they carry out? The "reformists" and "moderates" in Iran's regime were President of Iran from 1989-2005. Yet Iran continued with its terrorism, export of Fundamentalism, oppression on its own people and on enrichment for uranium for the global jihad.  Of course, the Supreme Leader holds more power than the President [the President holds the second most power]. But the "reformists" and "moderates" in Iran's regime were still accomplices to the Iranian regime's export of Fundamentalism, terrorism, enrichment of uranium for the global Jihad and to the oppression that the regime carries out on their people. While President, the "reformists" and "moderates" were accomplices to all of those things.
Claiming that there's a moderate or a reformist who believes in Khomeini's worldview is like saying there's a moderate or reformist Nazi. The "reformists" in Iran's regime aren't real reformists. They're still accomplices for the regime's bloodshed and still continue the regime's terrorist activity, its export of Fundamentalist Islam and its enrichment of uranium for the global jihad. It's true that different factions of the Iranian regime do have disputes, particularly on power. When it comes to the oppressive policies toward the Iranian people and the goal of spreading radical Islam throughout the world, supporting terror and enriching uranium for the global jihad, the regime is united. No one in Iran's regime seriously has a different worldview from another person from the regime. Iran's "republican" ideals are what makes Iran's regime a global threat and oppressive to its own people.
 The post claims:

We are told that the Islamic Republic of Iran is just after its interests like the west is and that their interests clash:
The IRI is not black or white. It is not evil nor moral. It is a state, after its own interests, some of which conflict with ours. But in this state system of sovereignty set up for us, we will come into contact with those other states’ interests, and must therefore interact with them. Do we want to deal with an Ahmadi, whom my detractor calls a supporter of genocide, or a Mousavi, who the best my detractor says was the prime minister during Khomeini’s ordered assassination of political “dissidents” 20 years ago plus or who helped begin a nuclear program to balance against Saddam’s Iraq in the 80’s, and has since spoken the language of change, political openness, and realist foreign policy regarding the IRI’s intentions (deep breath…)?

Unlike you, I don't believe that a radical supporter of Khomeini [who was well-liked by Khomeini] will bring political openness, peace with the free world and democracy. He didn't fight for any of them when he was Prime Minister. Why put dissidents in quotation marks? Executing 30,000 political prisoners is not bringing openness or democracy. True, Iran's nuclear program did begin during the Iran-Iraq war. If it was just to balance out Saddam's nuclear program, then why did it continue after the Iran-Iraq war, during the 1990's when the UN inspectors were inspecting Saddam's suspected nuclear weapons sites to have Saddam get rid of any nuclear, biological or chemical weapons and even after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein? The Iranian regime concluded that the only way to "win" the Iran-Iraq war was to use nuclear weapons. The 1990's saw not just the containment of Saddam, but the US even put the MEK [Mujahideen-e-Khalq] on the US State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations [FTO] in order to appease Iran and as a goodwill gesture to then-President Mohammad Khatami.
Iran is neither moral nor evil we are told. So bombing the Jewish community center in Argentina, the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, support for Hezbollah and Hamas and other deadly terrorist acts are not evil? Iran attempted to assassinate Yasser Arafat [I don't like Arafat one bit and consider him to be a terrorist crook as seen by my article] for pretending to have peace with Israel. Since that's the case, what would happen if a Palestinian leadership did arise that is committed to true peace with Israel? How would Iran respond?
Looks like somebody needs to read Iran's constitution, which even includes the goal of spreading radical Islam as part of the regime's duties. The Iranian regime's constitution says:

With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse "This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me" [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world.

What the author fails to note is that Saddam offered a cease fire in 1982 [I consider Saddam as a brutal dictator and his invasion of Iran was a terrorist invasion], but Khomeini refused because he was obsessed with the goal of spreading radical Islamic rule to Iraq [eventually Khomeini did accept the cease fire in 1988]. The population of Iran are filled with nice people. The regime of the Islamic Republic is a global threat.
Iran disrupts the democratic process in Iraq, have public stonings, public executions, a modesty police that harasses women over how they're dressed, and a fatwa calls for killing Salman Rushdie. Iran oppresses its people and exports terrorism and Fundamentalism around the world. Yea, nothing evil about that. We are told by Jaime that that kind of stuff is neither evil nor moral. Iran's "interests" is the spread of Islamic Fundamentalism [Iran supports the Taliban and the 9/11 commission report shows that Iran supported Al Qaeda].
The west's interest is the spread of freedom and democracy. Iran's proxy Hezbollah killed the most Americans before Al Qaeda. Hezbollah and its Iranian backers are responsible for the killings and kidnappings of Americans in Lebanon during the 1980's. Iran killed American soldiers in Iraq. Iran supplied EFP explosives to its proxy groups to be used against the US-led coalition. Yet, the author has the nerve to bring a moral equivalence between Iran on one hand and the west including the US on the other hand.
The post claims that:

This blogger, who identifies with the terrorist MEK group, appears to be an Israeli sympathizer who thinks he is blowing the whistle on ‘radicals’ (even Israel won’t go so far to ‘officially’ work with MEK). These type caught in their echo chambers like to see things in a strictly Manichean fashion, of good vs. evil. This is a strong draw for the simple minds that get locked down, thinking only in dichotomies, failing to see that really everything happens in the middle, not on the fringes. In fact, Israel itself knows this, as through the years, regarding the Islamic Republic, it has acted in several different ways, balancing a realist foreign policy with it’s periphery doctrine, sometimes even selling arms to Iran to help them face Israel’s closer proximity threats, such as Saddam’s Iraq. If of course things were so black and white Israel and the IRI could never have cooperated, as both are supposed to be the complete opposites of course.

Also, before the election this blogger was already whistle-blowing on Mousavi’s early career as prime minister, setting the stage for a new bogeyman since his, and other neo-conservatives, ideological lines requires a bogeyman to uphold this binary, thesis-antithesis model, that helps Israel detract from its own repression of human beings (one doesn’t have to be an “apoligist” to agree with that). In fact prominent AIPAC speakers and Mossad’s chief openly admit that Ahmadinejad is better for Israel’s stance on Iran.

First off, the MEK is not a terrorist group. I do have political disagreements with the group. I "identify" with the MEK because this group has been useful in rolling back the Iranian regime's tyranny and in getting valuable intelligence on Iran. The MEK exposed Iran's nuclear weapons program, gave valuable intelligence on that program, gave valuable information about Iran's bombings of the Israeli embassy and the Jewish community center in Argentina and valuable information on the Iranian regime's terrorist network in Iraq. The MEK are honorable freedom fighters who seek to free their homeland from Iran's Islamo-fascist regime. The new Iraqi government, to appease Iran, was butchering the residents of Camp Ashraf.
Yes, I'm an Israeli "sympathizer". Israel just wants to live in peace and was a victim of rejectionist terrorism and bloodshed. Israel just seeks peace and security, as I will show later. I believe that Israel has every right to live as a democratic Jewish state in peace and security. The author claims we [neo-cons] need a "bogeyman to uphold this binary, thesis-antithesis model, that helps Israel detract from its own detract Israel from its own "repression of human beings". First off, Israel doesn't target civilians. IDF soldiers are trained not to target civilians. The Purity of Arms section of the IDF doctrine says:

The IDF serviceman will use force of arms only for the purpose of subduing the enemy to the necessary extent and will limit his use of force so as to prevent unnecessary harm to human life and limb, dignity and property.

The IDF servicemen's purity of arms is their self-control in use of armed force. They will use their arms only for the purpose of achieving their mission, without inflicting unnecessary injury to human life or limb; dignity or property, of both soldiers and civilians, with special consideration for the defenseless, whether in wartime, or during routine security operations, or in the absence of combat, or times of peace.

The IDF Code of Conduct says:

1. Military action can only be taken against military targets.
2. The use of force must be proportional.
3. Soldiers may only use weaponry they were issued by the IDF.
4. Anyone who surrenders cannot be attacked.
5. Only those who are properly trained can interrogate prisoners.
6. Soldiers must accord dignity and respect to the Palestinian population and those arrested.
7. Soldiers must give appropriate medical care, when conditions allow, to oneself and one's enemy.
8. Pillaging is absolutely and totally illegal.
9. Soldiers must show proper respect for religious and cultural sites and artifacts.
10. Soldiers must protect international aid workers, including their property and vehicles.
11. Soldiers must report all violations of this code.

At America's request, Israel translated the Code of Conduct for how American soldiers should behave in Iraq. As I showed in plenty of articles, Israel's declaration of independence [see the third and second to last paragraph] stated that the Arab minority would be treated equally and that Israel would do her share for the advancement of the Middle East.  One day later, Arab armies invaded Israel. Azzam Pasha, Secretary-General of the Arab league said that the 1948 war was "a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades". The Arab-Israeli conflict is about Israel just seeking to have peace and security and about Israel defending itself from genocidal agression. Iran is one of these threats to Israel. Hishemi Rafsanjani even threatened to use nuclear weapons on Israel. Khamenei thretened to "vaporize the Zionist entity" with a nuclear weapon. Iran is a threat to Israel, the west including America and to the Arab states. The Arab states including Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia, all of which publicly oppose Israel, see Iran as a bigger threat. How do you explain that?
The Iranian threat to Israel is there. Israel finds that a lot these rockets used by Hezbollah and Hamas come from Iran. Iran is not used to distract the world from the question about Israel's imagined "suppression of human beings". The author's hyperlink goes to allegations about a Palestinian family who were allegedly victimized by Israel during Operation Cast Lead. The allegations made by that family are inconsistent, as demonstrated by the following claim made by IsraellyColly:

I am once again left asking many questions.

1. How come in the Australian version, the IDF soldiers who shot the palestinians were on a balcony of a house they had taken over, and shouted for the palestinians to pull over, yet in the B’tselem version, the soldiers were “about 300 meters from al-‘Atatrah Square” and fired without saying anything?

2. How come in the Australian version, Nabeela Abu Halima and Omar Abu Halima were shot, but not so in the B’tselem version in which they managed to run away?

3. How come in the Australian version, a man was shot through the arm because he refused to strip naked, but in the B’tselem version, there is no mention of this?

Yes, Israel did give arms to Iran during the 1980's. I think that Israel was wrong to do so, even though its policy toward Saddam's Iraq was right. Israel was right to bomb the Osirak nuclear weapon reactor. That did benefit Iran's people and regime, since Saddam was going crazy with using chemical and biological weapons on Iranian civilians and on innocent Iraqi Kurds and Shiites.
Though Israel did give arms to Iran, was Khomeinist Iran ever allies with Israel? No. The Iranian regime still created Hezbollah in order to destroy Israel and to turn Lebanon into a radical Islamic expansionist proxy state of Iran. Iran still supported terrorism against Israel even then, as the 1985 Hezbollah program calls for the destruction of Israel. Israel didn't view the Islamic Republic of Iran [IRI] as an ally, but as the lesser of two evils to Saddam's Iraq. As I said, I disagree with Israel's policy then. But the Israeli government didn't view Iran as an ally. Since Khomeini took power, the Iranian regime has been [and is] dedicated to Israel's destruction. I'm "blowing the whistle" on radicals, since I am exposing Mousavi. Jaime admits that I'm right about Mousavi's policies as Prime Minister. No real evidence has come out to "prove" that Mousavi would behave differently if he was President than he behaved when he was the Prime Minister. Yes, I was exposing Mousavi for who he was before the "election".  We neo-cons don't need " a bogeyman to uphold this binary, thesis-antithesis model". We neo-conservatives see threats toward America including the one from the Iranian regime and expose them. We're demonized for it by many propagandists including Mr. Iran Through MY Lens. We neo-conservatives just understand that a radical supporter of Khomeini [who was well-liked by him] is not that much better than Ahmadinejad and that his policies are the same as Ahmadinejad's. We Neo-cons are the victims of character assassinations because we have hard proof to back our claims. Mousavi's record as Prime Minister is even confirmed by my pal Jaime.
Jaime accuses me of looking at the world simply "in a strictly Manichean fashion, of good vs. evil". We look at the world as it is. If the regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran is not evil, I don't know what evil is. It's totally unbelievable that this user thinks that the IRI is not good or evil, especially considering the fact that the regime is oppressing the heroic pro-democracy demonstrators. One of the demonstrators they killed was Nada, who then became a symbol of the demonstrators and their aspirations for a free and democratic Iran, not to put Mousavi as the Supreme Leader's puppet instead of Ahmadinejad.
The user claims that Israel doesn't officially cooperate with the MEK. I won't deny that. Israel has no official policy on the MEK. The MEK cites the Iranian regime's threats toward Israel as a reason to oppose the regime. We only look on the fringes because we take a good hard look at Mosuavi is what Iran Through MY Lens claims.
Iran Through MY Lens claims that Ahmadinejad benefits Israel, based on what some AIPAC speakers and the head of the Mossad allegedly stated. True, the Iranian regime's threats toward Israel are more easily seen with Ahmadinejad as President. But with Mousavi as President, Iran would still represent the same threat toward Israel that it did [and does] with Ahmadinejad as President. The world can see it easier with Ahmadinejad as President. Netanyahu praised the protesters and their goal of freeing Iran from the radical Islamic regime.
Iran Through My Lens complains:

So really it wasn’t that my blog post was somehow too light on facts or that I truly am a Mousavi “apoligist”, it’s that he already agrees with the Israeli hardline (read: AIPAC) view that has worked in the past under Netanyahu: Get US policy makers focused on the Iranian “threat” and the Palestinian problem will take a back seat.
(It should be noted that this view of continuing the status quo regarding Palestinians falls flat on actually realizing a peaceful and legitimately safe existence for Israel and its people, while I do understand that a long, awful history of antisemitism makes it understandably hard to discuss this subject in a calm or dispassionate way, I believe that safety and security of Israel actually hinges on a new emphasis on finding solutions rather than bringing the scenario even closer to actual apartheid.)

The Israeli "hardline" and I agree that the threat of Iran must be taken care of in order to help reach peace between Israel and the Palestinians.  If a Palestinian leadership that's committed to peace with Israel arises, Iran and its proxies will do all it can to spoil it. As I stated, Iran attempted to assassinate Arafat for pretending to want peace with Israel [Arafat violated all his commitments he signed at Oslo]. That was while the "reformists" and "moderates" were President.
The author believes that Israel is moving closer to Apartheid. Israel is no where close to an Apartheid state, since Arabs and Jews have equal rights. Israel tries making territorial concessions and it results in an increase of terrorism. From 1995-1996, when 98% of the Palestinian people were no longer under Israeli rule, terrorism on Israel increased. That terorrism included suicide bombings. as a result, Israelis voted for Benjamin Netanyahu, the so-called hardliner. The Israeli voters were right that Netanyahu did bring security. Israel left Gaza. Gaza turns into a terrorist base. Rocket attacks increase. And now, since June 2007, Gaza is ruled by Hamas, which is the Iranian-supported terror group that rejects Israel's right to exist.
Peace is a very nice idea. Israel should not make premature withdrawels. If she does so, then the territories Israel left turns into a base for rejectionist terrorists, as it happened with Gaza. The terrorists then brag that their "resistance" forced the Israelis out and escalate the terror war on Israel. On the fall flat hyperlink, the author takes you to an article by John J. Mearsheimer, the notorious propagandist who believes that the Israel lobby has control over the US, which is a miniature version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, which states that all Jews have a conspiracy to dominate the world.
The author claims:

And if said blogger can find anything fanatical this supposed radical, artist and architect, turned reluctant politician has actually said or done since Khomeini’s charismatic authority ruled the days of the early revolution (the last 20 years!), please present them. As I showed in my legitimate Patrick Tyler Wa-Po article which he doubted (doesn’t townhall.com pay for you people to have LexisNexis or something to look these old articles up?) even then Mousavi did not sanction adventurist foreign policy, such as that desired by Ahmadi.

There is no evidence that Mousavi changed. He never expressed remorse over his terrorism and repression he was an accomplice to when he was Prime Minister. As someone who used to work for him said, today's "reformer" is yesterday's terrorist. As the author knows, Mousavi vows to continue Iran's nuclear program, which he helped to start when he was Prime Minister. During his 2009 Presidential campaign, while travelling to Iranian universities, Iranian students chanted,"Death to dictator" and asked Mousavi about his role in executing 30,000 political prisoners. Mousavi dodged the question. He wants to hide the past that I and Iran Through MY Lens knows about. Mousavi never changed. He still serves in the same terror regime. He served as the chief adviser for Mohammad Khatami. The book "Myth of Moderation:Iran under Khatami", which was published just after Khatami became president, said that Mousavi "is an advocate of the most fascist internal policies, enmity
to peace and a proponent of export of terrorism. Moussavi is a strong
supporter of state-controlled economy and many bloody explosions,
kidnapping and other terrorist crimes in Lebanon were carried out
when he was Prime Minister".
Mousavi was friends with and chief advisor of a President who praised Assadollah Lajevardi, the notorious executioner and torturer in Iran and who said that female singers shouldn't sing publicly [so much for feminism and gender issues when leftists cuddle up with guys like Khatami and other radical Muslims]. Both Khatami and Mousavi supported the fatwa that called [and calls] for the execution of Salman Rushdie. There is no evidence that either of these radical Muslims changed their view on Khomeini's fatwa that calls for executing Salman Rushdie.
We are told that "even then Mousavi didn't have an adventurist foreign policy". But Mousavi created Hezbollah and was a big time accomplice when it came to the regime's terror activities in Lebanon. He was an accomplice to the 1983 Marine barracks bombing. Mousavi was an accomplice when it came to the regime's terrorist activities and he never changed. Rather than give evidence, the author likes to look at Mousavi's deception and his cheap lip service for peace, freedom and democracy. I didn't deny that the letter that was allegedly written by Mousavi exists nor did I deny that the Washington Post reported on that letter. It may exist. I didn't see it. I didn't express doubt. I didn't see the alleged letter nor did I see the Washington Post's report of it. But it still doesn't take away from the fact that Mousavi was involved in the Iranian regime's terrorist activity including its creation of Hezbollah in 1982 and its bombing of the US marine barracks in 1983.

The author claims that the IRI direction was hijacked from the vision of the "moderates" and "reformists":

If you believe, as many do (including me more and more as I realize the IRGC and the Mesbah-Yazdi ideology have completely hijacked the direction of the IRI from the ever-rationalizing revolutionary founders Rafsanjani, Mousavi, Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, etc., etc.) that the IRI is dead-set on acquiring a nuke, then you should feel more comfortable with a pragmatist than a radical to try and balance against this.

The "ever rationalizing revolutionary founders Rafsanjani" and Mousavi. Please. They're not rationalizing. On Rafsanjani being "ever rationalizing" tell that to the Argentinian authorities who have him on arrest warrants for his role on the bombing of the Israeli embassy in 1992 and on the 1994 attacks on the Jewish community center. Rafsanjani played a role in those attacks, which were approved and directed by Ali Khamenei.
Iran Through MY Lens, you know well about the terror activities of Mousavi and his role in executing 30,000 political prisoners.
It's true that during the 1979 revolution, many Iranians hoped for democratic change after the Shah was overthrown. It can be said that Khomeini hijacked the revolution, depending on what position you take. But to say that the IRI direction was hijacked from Mousavi and Rafsanjani is just a ridiculous claim.
Rafsanjani and Mousavi are part of the Valayet-e-Faqih system that was set up by Khomeini. As I said, Rafsanjani called for a nuclear attack on Israel. On Montazeri, I will not say much. I don't think that the IRI was hijacked from his vision either. He may [or may not] br a bit better than Khomeini, for at least he denounced the execution of 30,000 political prisoners, which Mousavi was an accomplice of. Montezari was oppressed by Iran's regime. Having nuclear weapons in the hands of the regime's "pragmatists" is as bad as having it in the hands of a "radical". The "pragmatists", like the "radicals" will use nuclear weapons for the global jihad. As stated, Rafsanjani, the so-called "moderate" called for a nuclear attack on Israel.
The author complains that:

Mousavi is trying to reconcile his view of the Islamic Revolution with that of the issues he believes were starved out of the system by power and greed, rather than via its natural progression, and he sees a pragmatic foreign policy as one important point.

Mousavi's "pragmatic foreign policy" included the founding of Hezbollah in 1982 and the bombing of the US marine barracks in 1983. Some "pragmatic foreign policy". Mousavi's foreign policy is not "pragmatic". It's the same foreign policy of Khomeini, Khamenei and yes even Ahmadinejad. What ideals does Mousavi supposedly believe was "starved out by power and greed"? We don't know. Mousavi had the third highest position and was a favorite by Khomeini, who even backed him during disputes he had with Ali Khamenei, who was then President.


The author concludes with this point:

Seems pretty easy to me (and most serious analysts on the right and left)… And thankfully the current administration, though I cringed at Obama’s calling of Mousavi and Ahmadi the same, has realized this bankrupt neocon line should sit on the sidelines for awhile.

Now, back to actually trying to understand and truthfully analyze the complexities of the Islamic Republic.

Ackerman’s great take on what Mousavi offers:

The west has nothing to fear from Moussavi’s restorative attempt to reconcile Islam and republicanism in and of itself. Obviously the Iranian government has its interests and desires and we have ours, and they can conflict. But Moussavi’s rhetoric, in this important speech at least, is not filled with the anti-western demagoguery that marked Khomeini’s and marks Ahmadinejad’s. The opposition movement is not a movement of “liberals” in the way that some inwardly-focused American writers lazily imagine. But that doesn’t mean that the reformist syncretism that Moussavi offers adds up to an effort that western liberals, intellectually, can’t support. What it means is that Iranians are working to redefine their Islamic Revolution, not abandon it, and do so in a way that favors openness and justice and freedom.

The "bankrupt neo-con line" where there isn't appeasement toward America's totalitarian enemies should be in the sidelines for a while claims the author. I disagree. Neo-con foreign policy is based on fact.

I can "understand the complexities of the Islamic Republic". The regime only allows their guys to run in the Presidential elections in the first place. The Supreme Leader is the dictator. Dictators don't like being challenged. The claim that the Supreme Leader would allow a real moderate or a real reformist run is absurd. The regime's guys have different faces, but the same policy.  The author claims that it seems pretty easy for him and those on the right and left, as well as the Obama administration, to understand that the "neo-con line should sit in the sidelines". I oppose Obama's policies and believe that he should've condemned the regime's oppression of the heroic demonstrators sooner than he did. But his claim that Mousavi and Ahmadinejad have the same policies is an accurate remark that needed to be made. The post ends with what Ackerman said. Apparently, Ackerman needs a history lesson on Mousavi. He should come see this blog Iran Monitor and see the documentation about Mousavi that shows that he isn't what the media says he is.

Ackerman has a distorted statement. The real opposition to the regime wants to have democratic change, not just a change of the face of the puppet of the Supreme Leader.  The demonstrations aren't about making Mousavi President. They're about having democratic change.

Ackerman should see what Mousavi did as Prime Minister and his role during the execution of 30,000 political prisoners. Mousavi could've turned to Jaime and Ackerman to get some answer about his role in executing 30,000 political prisoners, since he wasn't able to answer. Freedom, democracy and peace can't coexist with the system Khomeini set up, especially with a constitution that calls for imposing that system around the world. That's like saying you can reform the Nazi system Hitler imposed. That system also can't coexist with freedom, democracy and peace with the free world. Both are expansionist.

There is no such thing as a moderate proponent of Valayet-e-Faqih. That's like saying there is a moderate Nazi. In claiming that I am someone who "identifies with" with the MEK, the author's hyperlink on "identifies with" is where I praised what the MEK leader Massoud Rajavi said on Khomeini. Rajavi's remark that "Khomeini's reactionary ideology is based upon ignorance and repression. When struck with the rays of awareness, it melts like snow" is accurate. Khomeini is one of the biggest terrorists that the world has ever seen. Iran can have freedom and democracy or follow Khomeini's intolerant vision. Most Iranians want the former. Mousavi and Ahmadinejad want the latter.

Though not liking the apologist label for Mousavi, this author excuse him, even while confirming the dark truth about his past as Prime Minister and claiming not to excuse him for it. Mousavi is a terrorist. Iran deserves a real democracy, not just a fake reformist to be the Supreme Leader's puppet. Iran Through My Lens can apparently see a very different Iran from reality. In his distorted view, Khomeinism can coexist with freedom, democracy and peace. In the real world, it can't. Khomeinism is a form of radical Islam. To radical Islam, peace with the non-Muslim world is where non-Muslims are treated as second-class dhimmis in their caliphate. While understanding Mousavi's behavior as Prime Minister, it is amusing that Jaime seems to fall for Mousavi's deception and his cheap lip service for peace, democracy and freedom. Many gullible analysts in the west may not understand Mousavi's past and fall for his deception. But for Jamie who does, it is even more pathetic of him to fall for Mousavi's lies. If I was to choose between the MEK or Rafsanjani, Khatami, Mousavi or anyone else from the Iranian regime, I'd choose the MEK any day. And yes, unlike my last post refuting you, this post is long.