Me? A Reformer?: Iran's Mir-Hossein Moussavi might be surprised by his characterization in the Western press as a "moderate" and a "reformer," especially in the United States of Amnesia, where he was once reviled as a radical anti-American. (Mardetanha/Wikimedia Commons)
Would the real Moussavi please stand up?
Mir-Hossein Moussavi is the reformists’ leading candidate and challenger to incumbent Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the 2009 Iranian presidential election (scheduled for Friday). Moussavi is not well known. But to call him a moderate is an overstatement.
As Iran’s prime minister during the Iranian Revolution’s most formative years (1981-1989) he was a hard-liner closely allied with then-president Ali Khamenei, the current Supreme Leader, and a “firm radical,” as The Economist described him in 1988. Still, Moussavi’s 20-year absence from Iranian politics and his recent emphasis on moderation has the West, and young Iranians, beguiled.
It's an indication of how desperate many Iranians and most non-Iranians would like to see an Iran free of Ahmadinejad. But in our eagerness to see past Mahmoud, we may be missing the essential point about Moussavi: he's Ahmadinejad's ideological twin.
References to Moussavi as a “reformer” and a “moderate” have been oddly reflexive in the Western press, and particularly the American press. The characterizations are at best premature, and likely outright fabrications—unless Moussavi himself has disassembled his ideology and reconstructed it of more moderate parts.
That seems unlikely.
Moussavi's more patrician tone and sharper intellect distance him from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and seduce a young generation that never knew his radicalism and apologies for terror and bloodshed. But his policies and ideology, his faithfulness to the Islamic revolution, his economic policies, and his anti-Americanism are all of a piece with Ahmadinejad’s. His election to the Iranian presidency may signal a change in tone, but not a change in policies.
Read my complete profile of "Mir-Hossein Moussavi, Iran's Radical Turned Reformist."
See Also:
- Profile: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
- Profile: Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's "Supreme Leader"
- Profile: Iran's Mohammed Khatami, Reformist Cleric
- Who Rules Iran? A Primer on the Islamic Republic's Power Structure
- What's a "Supreme Leader"?
- How Should Obama Deal With Iran?
Comments
You have no idea about what you are talking about. Even your facts are wrong. Mousavi was always at odds with Khamenei when Khamenei was president and Mousavi was prime minster. He was a prime minister during Iran-Iraq war and his job was to focus on putting food on people’s table while the rest of Iran’s leaders were focusing on the war (An imposed war by All so called “moderate” Arabs and “civilized” west againt Iran). Coming out of that war and lasting 30 years there is no way Iran’s world view will change by any leader. But some leaders such as Mousavi will bring some domestic economic and social changes in Iran than others. For western mentality (both people and govenments) a “progressive” or “moderate” government in the middle east means one that accepts Israel as is, and follows the dictates of Israeli edicts issued by Washington. Any such government would by its nature be a dictatorship like Saudi or Egyptian govenments. Anyways it would be nice for you to focus a little bit why people in the middle east don’t accept Israel as is. And unless that is fixed no matter who is called radical or moderate there is bound to be a clash between west and east. Popular democratic govenments are creeping in the middle east and Iran is leading them and at that point the “enlightened” west will have to deal with people who believe and know what they are talking about.
I guess I have no idea what I’m talking about, but I also guess Mousavi had some idea what he was talking about, which is why I quote him liberally in the profile, where he makes clear where he stands–in his own words.
I’m not sure what Israel has to do with Iran though, or why you’d obsess about Israel, though that’s always been the question with Iran and its clients, Hezbollah included. Israel is the easy whipping boy, a cheap, sordid way to focus people’s attention on anything but their own problems (and the problems imposed on them by their own leaders).
You’re quite wrong to assume that I don’t “focus a little bit [on] why people in the middle east don’t accept Israel as is.” I do that plenty. But I also show how those same people can be motivated by bigotry and narrow-mindedness, and how they apologize for violence and repression in their own countries. How nice it would be if we started cultivating our own gardens before lobbing grenades, verbal and otherwise, at those of our neighbors.
As for Mousavi, all I can say is: we’ll see. His record certainly doesn’t flatter him, or your nostalgia-tinted view of him. I’d like nothing more than see a “moderate” Mousavi. God knows the Middle East can use moderation in excess.
What Iran really needs is a military coup d’etat and/or a complete overthrow of the whole bloodsucking regime of the Ayatollahs that has taken over this once modern and progressive country since the nasty Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Until and unless that happens, all legitimate presidential candidates are approved by the Islamic Government (the only politocal party allowed in Iran)… so the whole system will unfortunately remain intact, regardless of who is behind the wheel. The president won’t make much of the difference… It’s the theocratic regime that has to pack up and leave some space for the opinions of the real people.
As prime minister 1981-89, Moussavi countenanced the 1989 massacre of dissidents, leftists and secularists. He pleaded ignorance of it at first, and later said the massacres were “necessary” (over 10,000 people tortured and killed). The recent Geoffrey Robertson report gives the details. Why has the media not exposed the truth about Moussavi?
It always bemuses me when the terms like “hardliner” and “moderate” are used. All politicians go with the mood of the people they think might elect them. They say different things to different audiences and especially in a country as complex as Iran.
There is not that much difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi. Both have said similar things against Israel and both also like to talk about dialogue with the West if the West treats Iran as an equal. Both also condemn corruption and both have often contradicted themselves.
Both are politicians. Yes, the new Mousavi is different to the old one because he has a different audience now. No Iraq/Iran war, no excitement about a new revolution but instead a wearied population tired to government corruption and greedy elitism.
Iran’s regime was a lot more “hardline” during the 1981 to 1988 period than at any other time in its history. Much moreso than now. War with Iraq radicalised it and, like with all wars, this was when most attrocities were committed. Also, it was the era when Khamenei was clearly his way to the top first as president and then as supreme leader after Khomeini died.