|PDMI Arash Irandoost|
Either, Ms. Aghdashloo is out of touch with political situation in Iran by believing that Mir Hossein Mousavi could have been the one to bring freedom and democracy to Iran , or she is simply being disingenuous. Her comparison of Mr. Mousavi known as the Butcher of Beirut to Dr. Martin Luther
King is indeed an affront to the world community and African Americans.
Dr. King, At 33, was pressing the case of civil rights, at 34, galvanized the nation with his “I Have a Dream” speech, at 35, won the Nobel Peace Prize. At 39, he was assassinated, but left a legacy of hope and inspiration.
Ms. Aghdashloo and her so-called Green allies will be hard pressed to name any of Mousavi’s “heroic” accomplishments. They simply do not exist.
A group of Iranians aided by the American left and liberal media have been trying to portray Mousavi as the true leader of the Iranian opposition or the so-called green movement. This assertion has long lost traction among the Iranians. As I described in my previous article “The Many Shades of Iran’s Green Movement” Iranian demonstrators had bypassed Mousavi and used him as the pretext to show their disgust with the Islamic Republic including the man himself Mir Hossein Mousavi who abandoned demonstrators once he realized the very survival of Islamic Republic is at stake. Mousavi’s role as the leader of the Green Movement officially came to an end when he formed a new social front called the “the Green Path of Hope.”
Ms. Aghdashloo naively or intentionally ignores Mr. Mousavi’s past and proceeds to compare him with Dr. Martin Luther King in lockstep with another Mousavi comrade Mohsen Makhmalbaaf who lived in Iran till recently and knows Mousavi only too well and deceptively compares him to Gandhi to cover up Mousavi’s anti-American and pro Marxist proclivity.
References to Mousavi as a “reformer” a “moderate” and more recently a “hero” are designed to mislead. The characterizations are outright fabrications. Before Green leaders are allowed to continue their deceptive practices and cheer Mousavi and call him a hero, they must be reminded of Mr. Mousavi’s bloody past.
Mousavi provided financial support to Mr. Khomeini during his exile and was nicely rewarded as Iran ’s Prime Minister during most of the 1980s a time when the IRI fanatics were ruthlessly wiping out internal opposition groups and waging a terrorist campaign against the United States . Indeed, Mousavi literally has Iranian and American blood on his hands.
As Iran ’s prime minister, 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. His reserved tone masks a dark history of religious fanaticism, support for terrorism, and perpetuation of dictatorship.Mousavi’s years as prime minister were marked by many controversial policies-support for the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a place on Hizbullah’s leadership council, a defense of the taking of American hostages. Mousavi was intimately involved in the creation of Shiite militia Hezbollah in 1982 and during his term as the prime minister almost certainly had a hand in the planning of the Iranian backed truck bombing attacks on the U.S. embassy in April 1983 and the Marine Barracks in October of the same year. Mousavi directly worked with Imad Mughniyah, the man personally responsible all of the Iranian-planned terrorist attacks carried out by Hezbollah.
Mr. Mousavi has consistently favored state controls over the economy rather than the free-market policies and Iran ’s business class does not like him. Mousavi neither likes nor trusts Americans. He opposed warming relations with the U.S. Mousavi, like all other IRI leaders, is opposed to suspending the country’s nuclear-enrichment program.
Mousavi’s more refined tone and sharper intellect distance him from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Seduced young generation of Iranians are not privy to his radicalism and apologies for terror and bloodshed. But his ideology, faithfulness to the Islamic revolution, economic policies, and his anti-Americanism are akin to Ahmadinejad’s. Mousavi, for obvious political reasons might have signaled a change in tone, but never a change in ideology and policies. As they say: A pig with lipstick is still is a pig.
Mousavi31None of this is to exonerate the other Islamic Republic’s leaders. Mahmud Ahmadinejad served in the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Iranian paramilitary force responsible for most of the terrorism against the U.S. Mehdi Karroubi, like Mousavi, was deeply involved in Lebanon in the ’80s and was a patron of Mughniyah’s.
The Green outside but Red inside” watermelon, greeners” prefer to forget Mousavis past for very obvious reasons. Mousavi and his so called Green allies, perhaps cognizant that his past history would surface eventually, are applying a little proactive balm on his reputation. But at the very least, it should be a reminder to misguided and delusional Ms. Aghdashloo that when it comes to political leaders, there are simply no good choices within the Islamic Republic.
People like Mousavi, Karuubi, and Khatami are deeply loyal to the ideals of Khomeini and were themselves leaders of the 1979 revolution that resulted in the creation of the current political system. They think that the current constitution has enough tools in it to allow the system to reform itself. But that is foolhardy, since 31 years of Islamic Republics blatant lies, ineptitude, corruption, torture, rapes and killings should serve as a clear sign that Islamic Republic can not be reformed and regime change is the only viable option!
Even if Mousavi had come into office following the June 12 presidential election as Ms. Aghdashloo and her so called green allies hoped for, he would not have challenged the political order. Mr. Mousavi advocates “the full execution of the constitution and a return to the Islamic Republic’s original ethics (Khomeinism). He demands “Islamic republic, not a word less; not a word more.” I will leave it up to readers to interpret what that truly means.
Those who have blindly joined the so-called Green Movement are strongly advised to examine Mousavi’s past before they continue to prop him up as a hero. Types of Aghdashloo are advised to seek a more long-term solution and throw their support behind the people of Iran . Having lived through the Islamic republic tricksters, they have come to believe that Islamic Republic and democracy are not compatible. There is no room for public in Islamic Republic. Iranians will eventually choose leaders outside of it. It is just a matter of time!