The Iranian Obama? Hardly!

Twenty years ago, the newspaper I worked for was blown up by terrorists for demanding that American bookstores show enough courage to carry The Satanic Verses, by Salman Rushdie. The Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader of Iran, had issued a fatwa calling on all good Muslims to kill Rushdie and his publishers. Khomeini's hand-picked Prime Minister - a man who publicly upheld the death sentence against the brilliant author - was none other than Mir Hussein Moussavi, darling of western bloggers and media types who have somehow confused his faction's struggle for power in the totalitarian theocracy with a grand moral movement for democracy and social change.

Call me a cynic, but I'm not buying.

But then again, I walked through the ashes of The Riverdale Press offices and felt the fear of my colleagues and their families - all because we had defended Rushdie's right under the First Amendment to sell books in the United States.

From what I can see, campaign promises aside, Moussavi is just a slightly more palatable version of the current political frontman the governing religious council supports as President. While his campaign - and the disputed results - may encourage the liberal minority of students, his administration would be as beholden to the Iranian theocracy as his predecessor's is. Sure, the unrest might lead to real societal upheaval in Iran, but it might not. And that change certainly won't be captained by Moussavi.

A highlight reel from recent reporting is worth reviewing. Here's CNN's bio:

In 1988, author Salman Rushdie released his fourth novel, 'The Satanic Verses,' which Iran said insulted Islam. The country's supreme leader called for the death of Rushdie. And Moussavi, in a radio broadcast, said the order would be carried out.

Moussavi told the Financial Times in April that he would not halt Iran's uranium enrichment program if he were president. "No one in Iran would accept suspension," he said.

More from Time.com:

Iranians seeking an alternative to Ahmadinejad's truculence have latched onto Mousavi with little concern, it seems, over the fact that in the 1980s, the gray-bearded 67-year-old was at the heart of a regime that executed dissidents, took U.S. hostages and launched a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie.

And some reporting from Foreign Policy:

His liberal detractors emphasize that the Mousavi government oversaw the mass execution of political opponents in 1988, and say he has been largely silent on human rights violations since. They also point to his support for Khomeini's fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the British author of The Satanic Verses. Mousavi's mindset is often characterized as a throwback to the early years of the revolution, when Islamic economics, shared sacrifice, and self-reliance were the political norm.

Yet this is the leader so many in the wired west have rallied behind. Here's more lyrical praise from Andrew Sullivan, who really ought to know better:

The next generation is desperately trying to prevent the Islamist monsters from genocidal war, economic immiseration and the hideous abuse of a great faith. I keep associating it with the Obama movement - the art, the youth, the desire for change, the innovative use of inormatio technology, the yearning to avoid a clash of religion if we can avoid it.

Please.

Comments

[Shava Nerad]

I rather wish people were glomming onto the possibility of election fraud, rather than championing one of, what is it, seven candidates? There's no clear win here, and people are suffering -- but it's more poignant a demonstration of a community that had been told -- is still being told -- it is a strong free democracy -- and they're finding out that the engine of democracy may be hacked.

The characteristic of a strong democracy is the peaceful transition of power. I've wondered how many of the recent elections we've had were ceded, not because the winner won, but because the declared "loser" ceded gracefully for the sake of avoiding civil unrest.

[Tony Alva]

Re: your comment from FB... I'm well aware that this guy is no saint, and he is another council henchmen, but I think you're missing the 'good' part of what's happening over there and that is PEOPLE are standing up in direct defiance of the regime. If nothing else it's a flex of muscles that we've not seen in a long time. I think that's what I'm optimistic about. My Iranian friends feel the same. The council cleared the board of ALL reformers before the election season started, so we know who all the candidates are. No, this guy the bum you write about, but if all things being equal, perhaps a new guy who isn't calling for the destruction of Israel and hosting holocaust denying conventions will probably make things a little bit better for Hillary don't you think? I can understand the personnal perspective you have here, but don't let it cloud the fact that the Iranian PEOPLE are discovering what bums they have running thier country, and are letting them know it at great risk to themselves. It may not result in any huge reform, but it's a start...

[Buddy Stein]

After reading your posts on Facebook, I commented on the post of one of my former students, who was celebrating what he called the revolution in the streets of Teheran, calling his attention to the info you've posted here. His response? Rooting for Moussavi was like voting for Kerry. See where lesser of two evil politics has taken us?

[bruce]

Tom, I am in the camp of people who feel that the "mass movement" means something. There are many examples in history of progressive mass movements with rogues of various types as leaders.

My understanding is that his wife is a trailblazer, Iranian style, something of an Iranian Hillary.

One issue that has not been resolved: was, in fact, the election stolen? If it was, I don't see how such a massive fraud and conspiracy (how many thousands of people must have taken part in counting the paper ballots) could remain covered up for long. So far, I have seen no evidence that convinces me that it was stolen, other than that so many people in Iran believe it was, which, I admit, is a form of evidence.

[Tom W.]

Election fraud of some sort - outright theft, padding the win total etc - does seem likely to me. Some of the patterns simply don't add up. But you're right Bruce, no hard evidence yet.

I don't think that mass rallies are - prima facie - automatically a good thing. I mean, we weren't around for the 30s, but I've heard it was no picnic. The cynic in me is saying some of this is cleverly manufactured and there's a whole other ballgame being played behind the scenes.

Plus, huge holes in reporting - what about the other cities outside Tehran? So little reporting from inside the crowds?

Buddy - I was accused of being "buzz kill" for pointing out Moussavi's past. There is absolutely no sense of proportion - or irony, for that matter.

[Brouhaha]

"Buddy - I was accused of being "buzz kill" for pointing out Moussavi's past. There is absolutely no sense of proportion - or irony, for that matter."

*grin*

That wasn't for pointing out his past, even though you did it in six consecutive posts. :-) It was for failing to see the forest for the trees.

I said the same thing about Ralph Nader, even though he wasn't entirely wrong about Gore's lack of historical leftist bona-fides in 2000. He was dead wrong that the two candidates were basically the same. IMO, you need to focus on the big picture, that this is an historical moment, not just point out the fault lines in what is clearly an imperfect candidate.

[Tom W.]

Well, Brou - somebody has to - we can't all be the happy Twitter mob, thrilled with our glorious pop culture moment! It's occasionally worthwhile to scratch the surface...

PS - wasn't just you btw, I got that all over - I took yours as ironic in nature...

[Tom K]

Did they ever solve that case? Or are you writing in a degree of certainty, after-the-fact, to enhance the drama and newsiness? I'm not sayin', I'm just askin'.

According to the Times, "Bernard Stein said he was skeptical of the Rushdie connection". See http://www.nytimes.com/1989/03/02/nyregion/despite-bombing-paper-is-published.html

The Times even suggested, bizzarely enough, that Bernie thought the bombing was as likely provoked by the paper's criticism of Israel.

The Grey Lady's coverage also doesn't quite jibe with your statement that "the newspaper I worked for was blown up" (putting aside by whom). Bombed, yes. Blown up, not quite. But you were there, I wasn't, and I am, as ever, open to the possibility that the Times got it wrong.

[Bernard Stein]

Don Terry of The Times interviewed me for that artice the day after the bombing. Once the investigation progressed, and especially after the FBI played the tape of the 911 call claiming responsibility and saying The Press was bombed because of my editorial defending Rushdie, I became convinced that that was the motive--as die the FBI. The newspaper wasn't "blow up," it was burned down. The damage was so severe that it took until September for repairs to be made and for the community to join us in celebrating the newspaper's return to its building on Broadway.
Bernard L. Stein