Who is "YOUR" President then?


Who is "YOUR" President then?
by Farah Rusta

As Iranians in New York are preparing to "welcome" Ahmadinejad next week, we keep hearing a meaningless slogan: You are not my President. The most natural question that one may ask after hearing this slogan is: Who is your president then? Is he Mousavi? Karroubi? or perhaps you want to see Rezaie as your President? Why are those who are getting ready to protest Ahmadinejad's visit to New York so dishonest with themselves and consequently with the rest of the world? Why do you speak in codes? Are you seriously suggesting that after all the riots, killings and atrocities that took place in the aftermath of the rigged elections, it is still and only the rigged elections that you are objecting to? Were you happy, if the outcome of the election would have been in favor of one of the other three candidates. If Mousavi had won with a landslide and was on his way to New York next week, were you welcoming him with open arms? I am not talking about the Mousavi who only "in words" says he has reformed but not "in deeds"? I am talking about the Mousavi who, as the Prime Minister under Khamenei, presided over one of the most horrific acts of genocide by the Islamic regime of Iran. I am talking about the same Mousavi who was called Imam Khomeini's trusted prime minister? I am talking about the same Mousavi who is still loyal to the constitution of the Islamic Republic, with all its ramifications and implications.


Time and again we are told that this movement is no longer about Mousavi or the rigged elections. We are told that it is about the legitimacy of the Islamic regime in its entirety. Excellent! This is how it should have been right from the start. But then why do they keep reverting to the same empty slogan of "You are not my President!!" Is the presidential seat the only thing that Ahamdinejad has illegally occupied? As a matter of fact pundits had predicted an Ahmadinejad win over his rivals but not with such a huge margin that it turned out to be. Ahmadinejad and the Islamic regime of Tehran have robbed us much more than a Presidential seat by a factor of one million. The slogan that must greet him to New York would better be: "You" Leave My Country.


Recently by Farah RustaCommentsDate
بلبلي خون دلي خورد و گلي حاصل کرد
Jan 10, 2011
عرس مولانا
Dec 17, 2010
What would be your epitaph?
Oct 20, 2010
more from Farah Rusta

First, you are once again

by Siavash31 on

First, you are once again reinterpreting and distorting historical facts. The
suffering and misery caused to millions of people around the world
under the system of monarchy is well documented in history books, not
in hollywood movies. I am sure I don't need to remind you of the atrocities committed by Kings in our own Iran alone not so long ago.

As for the kneeling and hand kissing, you don't
need to go back in ancient times to witness them,  just read Alam's
memoirs too see how the self-proclaimed "Nokareh khanezad" treated the shah and his family.

Secondly, monarchy is not any different from ideological systems. The King needs to create a legitimacy for his dynasty based on some "higher" values. Otherwise, the inherency of Power would not be justified. Thus, all the extravagant titles trying to give the King a Divine status or turning one man into the face of an entire nation; "Zel-ollah", "Roi Soleil" (sun king), "ghebleyeh alam", "alahazrat homayouni", "shahanshah ariamehr".

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi tried so hard to establish himself as the rightful successor of the Hakhameshis. He also called himself the "Father" of the nation and even placed himself between God and the nation; "Khoda, shah, mihan".

Now, when someone in a position of power gains his legitimacy from some "higher" source or value and turns into the "identity" of an entire nation, then criticizing that person is "treason", "unpatriotic", "illegal". And that is against the very spirit of demoracy and it's secondary effects are very similar to that of ideological systems.

Now, having said that and despite all the negative aspects of monarchism, I do believe that even monarchies are reformable for the simple reason that we create our own reality. Nothing is written in stone and people can always interpret and reinterpret the older concepts to adapt them to the needs and realities of their time. And this is a gradual process that is behind the dynamism of history.

Of course that doesn't mean to go back to any form of monarchy after it has been overthrown. That would be absurd. 

About the question of monarchies having been reformed from within or not. Frankly I thought your knowledge of monarchism was more than that. Even in the French Revolution there were serious debates about keeping a constitutional monarchy instead of abolishing the entire system. Have you ever heard of the Jacobin, the Feuillarts and Montagnards? Monarchy in Europe was either abolished or transformed into constitutional monarchy, in a gradual process. And that's what reformism is all about.

Reforms is about shifting the power to the people in a non-violent, non-emotional, non-destructive manner. It is about gradually building up and strengthening the civil society until its can measure up to the power of the state. That's exactly what has happened in Iran and today we are witnessing such organized and powerful protests coming from within core of the society.

We largely owe that to great individuals like Khatami whose main project was the creation of an organized and strong civil society in Iran, despite the fact that he himself was part of the "state". It is so sad that some people in the opposition groups abroad are so ungrateful to him.

I think you have not understood the concept of reforms. You seem to believe that because Mousavi and Khatami are muslims or because they believe in some of the elements and institutions of the I.R, they don't believe in freedom and democracy. As I said before, you are still stuck in the old divisions of political groups of the 1980's Iranian politics. And carry with you all the grudges and animosity of the political struggles in those days. This reminds me of the soccer fans who just care about defeating and putting down the players and supporters of the other team. And that's the only thing they have in mind.

You clearly fail to see that whatever the reformists have done so far was in support of demoracy and freedom. As muslims Mousavi, Karoubi and Khatami could have very well settled with the status quo. But instead they came up with the slogans of "Iran barayeh hameyeh Irania" and "jameyeh madani", "azadieh matbooat", "azadieh bayan".... and are still fighting and paying the price for the freedom of people like you. 

Even Reza Pahlavi seems to have understood this, as his positions have been very constructive so far. But it seems like his supporters are insisting to stand on the wrong side of the path of history.



Farah Rusta

Now I see where the problem is.

by Farah Rusta on

You see  my freind, up until your last few comments I was wondering if what you say is due to your shallow knowledge of the key issues. But after your last two comments it became clear to me that it is not the superficial nature of your knowledge which is the problem but  the real problem lies in your completley convoluted and upside down understanding of such fundamental issues as democracy, theocracy, republicanism and monarchism. In fact, your views on monarchism must take take their roots in watching too many Hollywood movies such as "The King and I" or "the Gladiator" or even "the Three Musketeers!!  You still have such archaic and old fashioned impression of monarchism that you think people should kneel before the monarch and kiss his hand!! And your two questions betray the underlying misconceptions that you have about the principles of modern monarchies in Europe.

The answer to both of your questions is a strong and definite: NO!

Let me make it easy for you. Monarchism is not a political idealogy. Monarchism is not a faith-based ruling system. Monarchism in its absolute form is a traditional/cultural way of governanace in which the sovereignty is in the hands of a the person of teh monarch. Monarchism in ts constitutional form is a system of governance in which the people though their elected parliament are the sovereign. It has nothing to the with the faith or any political idealogy but it guaranttees the freedom of all political idealogies that respect other idealogies and all faiths that respect the existence of other faiths.

These monarchies were not reformed through monarchist-reformists but were fundamentally changed by shifting the power to the people.

 What you clearly fail to understand is that a faith-based ruling system, that is advocated by the Islamists like Mousavi , Karroubi, Montazeri and Khatami cannot by its very own nature govern by or for the "rights" of people but instead it is governing the people by the "rules" of religion which are not based on the will of people but on the will of Allah.




This is not at all a

by Siavash31 on

This is not at all a diversion of the debate. I am just trying to show you that the same logic and reasoning that you use to justify constitutional monarchism can very well apply to reformism in Iran. But because of the biases and political grudges that you have against anyone (or any group) who has held an office in the I.R or perhaps anyone who even looks "muslim", you totally reject the idea that they can bring any demoractic change in Iran.

If a system (absolute monarchy) that is synonymous to tyranny and despotism, and whose basic premises and very foundation go against the spirit of democracy and every democratic value, and that has practically proven to be the most damaging political system in human history causing the greatest oppressions, violations of human rights and inequalities for mankind, can be reformed and trasformed to the systems that we see today in Britain, Norway and Spain, why is it so difficult for you to appreciate reformist movements from within the I.R?  Aren't these constitutional monarchies that you admire so much, the reformed versions of absolute monarchies that ruled over Europe with an iron fist for centuries? Weren't these systems transformed from  within partly by reformist politicians and thinkers who were themselves once part of these absolute monarchies?

Unfortunately, people like you who reject and resist the idea of reforms have undeliberately been the closest allies to the despotic forces inside Iran. People like Khatami, Mousavi, Karoubi, Montazeri..etc have been (and are) consistantly attacked by the propagandists of both sides with false accusations, labelings and promises of revenge. And both sides are willing to resort to all kinds of methods and come up with all sorts of weird theories and interpretations of facts to deny the power of reforms and the support of the people for the reformists. For the rest of us, we are confident that we are on the right path.




Farah Rusta

Derailing the Debate

by Farah Rusta on

 Why don't you answer the core question: the hypocrisy of Mousavi and his comrades? You keep derailing the debate by diverting to Reza Pahlavi and Mossadegh or to monarchism and republicanism. You see Siavash you are the one who has such poor understanding of and dogmatic views on monarchism, democracy and the division of accountability in the ruling systems, not to forget the basic tenets of taqleed in Shiism. Also you clearly have a very distorted view of me and my belief system. Again and at the risk of diverting from the main topic let me ask you a few simple questions:

Have I anywhere suggested that the reigns of Mohammad Reza Shah and his father were democratic? Have I ever denied the violation of human rights under the two Pahavi kings? If I have please show evidence. This is the first falsification on your part.

The next falsification is due to the fact that you are forzen in the concept of monarchy as it existed thousand years ago or even during the Pahlavis reign. I am talking abut the concept of monarchy as is practised in the modern European countries. Are the prime ministers and ministers in Spain, Holland, Britain, Nordic and other monarchist countries of Europe "yes" men to their monarch?

Let's see what is you answer to these diversionary questions that you have posed and then we may continue.



Farah Rusta

by Siavash31 on

Do you ever read your own comments? Don't you seriously see the incredible dogma and irony in them? 

You criticize tyranical systems and yet you promote monarchy.

You talk about liability for crimes for anyone who hold a political offices, yet you exempt His majesty shahanshah Ayiamehr for "forgiving" a few of this subjects and not executing them.Y

You claim you have knowledge of shiite laws and make absurd statements about Mousavi having to agree with every decision taken by khomeni (while Aytollah Montazeri himself and many other muslims opposed the executions, I guess you have more knowledge about shiite Islam that Grand Ayatollah Montazeri)

You claim your political analysis is based on facts and not emotions, yet every word you type is loaded with your romanticized and black and white interpretation of history. To you, everyone who has worked in the system in Iran in the past 30 years in evil, and every achievement during that time is a lie.

You criticize Mousavi and Bazargan for being "yes men"(!) yet you are a MONARCHIST!! Meaning that you believe that all people are the King's subjects. You promote a system in which people kneel in front of the Kings and his Royal family.

On one hand you accuse me of providing false statistics about people's support for Mousavi despite the fact that there are tons of video clips and pictures available online showing millions of people rallying on the streets while chanting pro-mousavi slogans and holding his pictures. On the other hand you call the coup of 1953 a national uprising!! despite the fact that the American government itself has apologized for that coup during the Clinton administration and the CIA itself has released the documents regarding its involvement in the coup.

You really need to take a look at your own comments and try to see the contradictions, dogma and biases in your views. 


Farah Rusta

Obviously you two watch too much LA TV

by Farah Rusta on

They say: gol bood beh sabzeh niz afzoodeh shod

Like one comdian was not enough now he has been joined by our resident comic: Qumars Boloorchian who is also my cyber stalker. 

As I said, you two seem to be experts on LA TV stations as you have many interesting stories to tell. I can see why Qumars is hooked on LA TVs (well he needs to earn his living somehow) but you Sia?!!

Anyway. Mousavi is ill-served by your apologies. You are clearly implicating him more than he deserves. You are saying that although he had been a 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th powerful member of the regime he had to continue with his (mis)handling of the economy to serve the country!!! the nose diving and fall of rial against dollar at the beginning and by the end of his term I suppose, by your standards, is one of his economic achievements. Never mind the rising of inflation and paralizing price explosions. No dear the reason that Bazargan resigned and Mosuavi stayed was that Bazargan was a much less of a Yes man than Mousavi was. After all we didn't need an inefficient  builder to run the economy that had been ruined by his supported regime in the first place. Iran was at the peak of its economic growth shortly before Mousavi's regime took power. We didn't need incompetent fools like Mousavi to run the economy.


As for Shiite rules of taqlid to which Mousavi is an adherent and was a follower of Khomeini I suggest you read Khomeini's dissertation first and then we may have something  to talk about and please don't rephrase my words.This is not going to save you.


Now I wait for more double acts of comdey from Q and Sia.



Thanks Siavash! Very well

by Q on

Thanks Siavash! Very well said.

Mr. Khashaki (once known as parkhash) is exactly like the fossilized LA TV announcers or rather the kind in London.


When I read your posts I

by Siavash31 on

When I read your posts I feel like I am watching one of those L.A Iranian TV programs. You are stuck in your own small world of delusions and denials. And you have no intentions to get out of your comfort zone. That's why you are trying to reduce and transform all my arguments into those of your traditional "foes" and then respond to them with a few old cliches.

When did I say that the executions were "justified" because of the crisis??!! I said that in a undemocratic system which also happens to be in a state of post-revolutionary chaos and war, the "prime minister" is not necessarly the second or third most powerful authority in the country.

Bazargan resigned from the same office because as the prime minister he did not even have the power and authority to free the hotages. There were many forces involved over whom he had absolutely no power. Now, same was true about Mousavi. He was the prime minister during war and did a great job managing the economy and minimizing the damages of war. But there are absolutely NO EVIDENCES suggesting that he had the slightest involvement in what went on in jails. 

About the shiite laws, I'll put my hand in fire that you know much less about it than I do. This is another L.A TV trait the first time I am hearing such a distorted and ridiculous interpretation of shiite laws; claiming that every muslim must agree with every "fatva". That would mean that there are no muslims in Iran who disagreed with the executions, which is of course an absurd statement. 

Now, you want to portray me as a"tudei" or "Ahmadinejad supporter" or whatever old label you are used to throw at your opponents, but that won't get you anywhere. You people (opposition groups abroad)  are already at each other's throat over the NY protests just 2 days after the event. And it has been that way for the past 30 years and I don't expect you to change here on Iranian.com.  Meanwhile the people in Iran are united behind the leaders of the green movement, Mir hossein Mousavi, Khatami, Karoubi..



Farah Rusta


by Farah Rusta on

This is turning into a pointless exchange. You keep making up stories and statistics in an attempt to defend your heros, Mousavi, Khatami, Soroush, etc. and when you are faced with legal and rational evidence you resort to compromising arguments like "at the time of the war one cannot expect the head of government to resign!!" You also mix up too many unrelated issues like lecturing me on my rights to follow or not to follow Mousavi or that Reza Pahlavi, as an 18 year old, was just as responisble for his father's wrong doings as Mousavi is for the crimes of the regime to which he was the head of government!! I suppose by your line of reasoning you are going to extend the same argument for Ahmadinejad and the rape of the arrested protesters or those who were killed on the streets by the government forces! You, by your admission, come from a family background of political activists (I suppose leftist - Tudehi) who used to argue, and obviously still do, that revolutions need blood and wars need blood and under such cirsucmstances when the country is under crirtical coniditions, one has to accpet that certain things can go wrong and no one should be blamed for that. I am sure the monarchists would be happy to use your style of argument and say that during the 1973-75 oil crisis the Shah could not leave the country into the hands of the extremists and therefore had to suppress dissent at any cost!!


I reject all these arguments and, yes, repeat the truth which is:

In the totalirtarian dictatorship of the Islamic republic, the likes of Mousavi and Khatami who headed the administrative/executive side of this tyranny are held responsible (by the interational courts of justice standards as well as by their own Islamic jurisprudence of which you obviously have no knowledge) for the crimes and violation of human rights that took place during their terms of office.  They are not competent or qualified to lead any movment for democracy because they had violated the basic democratic rights of the people in the past and had not done any thing to the contrary to compensate their criminal deeds except by issuing empty worded statemets. 

I am going to end this debate on a funny note by quoting one of your satetments and giving a link in response:

"But to throw such labels as criminal, murderer, fascist, rapist, just
because you don't share the same vision, is just too oldfashion in this
day and age."   


I would like to read your arguments in defense of Ahamdinejad next (LOL).




You keep repeating the same

by Siavash31 on

You keep repeating the same accusations based some general concepts in perfect demoracies and not caring to pay attention to the context in which Mousavi was prime minster and the realities on the ground.

Sure, in a democratic system a prime minister has certain authorities and responsibilities. He/she is responsible and can be held accountbale for any violation of law or abuse of power committed by anyone in his administration. 

Now, in post-revolution, choatic, war time conditions where several forces inside and outside the system are colliding in the most brutal fashion, the rules of accountability are not the same. You can not simply accuse someone of every crime committed in that chaotic environment based on an "official" title they held. In such conditions you have to analyse each case separately and provide evidences of one's direct involvement in a crime. Of course, that is if you don't believe in mass trials and blind revenge. 

Again, so far no one, not even the opposition groups who were the prime
targets of the mass executions of the 80s, has provided a single
evidence suggesting that Mousavi had any degree of involvement in those

Your reasoning reminds me of those who called Khatami a murderer and a despot because decedents were murdered ("ghatlhayeh zanjirei") and jaled and newspapers were shut down while he was in office. Not caring (or not being honest enough to care) that many of those who were killed and jailed were Khatami's supporters and the newspapers that were shut down were reformist newspapers. And not only Khatami was not involved in these crimes but he did everything he could to stop them and bring the criminals to justice. And not only he did not shut down newspapers but he did everything he could to promote the culture of free press and increase the power of the civil society. But I am sure in your fantasies, Khatami too is sitting on the defendent's seat of a mass tribunal and is being  charged for supporting "the system".  

Now, about Mousavi's vision for the future. That's a whole different topic. You are free to agree or disagree with him on what he considers to be the ideal society for the future. But you can not accuse him of being a criminal for believing in a reformed Islamic republic. Just as I can not accuse you of being a criminal for promoting monarchy despite all the sufferings and agony that this system has caused to people in the history of humanity. Mousavi has clearly stated and published his views on human rights and democracy and tolerance and pluralism..etc But you are still free not to follow him as a leader based on your ideological differences. That is your perfect right and no one is forcing you to follow him. But to throw such labels as criminal, murderer, fascist, rapist, just because you don't share the same vision, is just too oldfashion in this day and age.   

About the shah: You wrote: "the Shah never issued a decree (or fatava) to have anyone exed or tortured."

Interesting! So the shah who was an absolute monarch and had an absolute power and control over every single institution in country is exempted from charges of crimes and executions and tortures that happened under his rule because he did not issued any "fatvas"(!!) but Mousavi who was the Prime minister during war time and did not have a fraction of the power and authorities of the shah is liable for the mass executions because he was "part of the system"?!! 

"Reza Pahlavi has already  opend stated that violation of human rights
at any past period and in any regime or government must be condemned."

Reza Pahlavi has NEVER condemned the oppression and the violations of human rights during his father's reign. Every time he was asked the question, he said that he does not want to talk about the past but wants to rather focus on the future. He might have condemned the violations of human rights in general but has never made any specific references to his own father's crimes, even when he was directly asked the question.

He has nothing to apolize for because he had no polotical office during
his father's reign and for al his life before the revolution he was
under the legal age.

Reza Pahlavi was 19 years old and the Crown Prince of Iran when  the revolution happened.  Today, 18 and 19 year olds are dying on the streets to protest the violations of human rights. Many of those who were tortured in shah's jails were not older than him. I think the Crown Prince who was saluted by army Generals and was allowed to fly jet aicrafts and was being "trained" by diplomats to become the next King, could at least take a position when his King daddy was unleashing the SAVAKI henchmen on university students. But again, he did not do so in the past 30 years, why would he have done it back then.

I hope you can see the obvious biases and flaws in your political stands.

Farah Rusta

False assumptions, false conclusions!

by Farah Rusta on

You are still debating this topic from a personal angle.  In doing so you are making, in line with your previous assumptions and guess works which were incorrect, further incorrect assumptions which lead you to more incorrect and false conclusions. By muddying the water you are not helping your case. 

I repeat: this debate is not about me or Mohammad Reza Shah or Reza Pahlavi. This is about Mir Hossein Mousavi and the fact that he is a hypocrite and an ally of the Islamic establishment of Iran albeit in the guise of a reformist. I have not doubt that he wants to have the Islamic state reformed in his own interpration of reform. He does not want the Islamic state removed or replaced by a secular democracy. His past records do not give credence to his present rhetorics. And he has not done anything to prove that he is a reformed person other than talking about it. Above all these facts, even if he denounces his past records and expresses remorse and apologizes to the nation and the victims of the Islamic regime for being the chief administrator of a tyrannical state during its most brutal period, what makes him qualified to be the leader of a secular democratic movement. The best Mousavi can do is to retire to a far away place, where the victims and their famil;ies cannot find him, and writes his "nedaamat nameh" to use your words, for being a major instrument in running the administration of the terrorist state for nearly a decade.   

Now on to a completely unrelated topic. You obviously have not read any of my previous comments on this site hence are making false assumptions and false comparisons and reach false conclusions. So for the record here is my stance on soem of issues you referred to.

During the Shah's reign (post 1953) there were plenty of instances of where violation of human rights took place. The number of these instances were dwarved on a sacle of ten to one by the number of much brutal violations that took place in only the first couple of years of the Islamic state coming to power (see the reports of Amnesty International dated 1979-1981) Neverthe less, I am not defending a single case of execution or an act of torture that took place in that period. Having said that the Shah never issued a decree (or fatava) to have anyone exed or tortured. On the contrary he not only pardonned many people who had acted against him personally or directly but allowed them to reach some of highest post in the government (something unimagiable in the Islamic regime). Reza Pahlavi has already  opend stated that violation of human rights at any past period and in any regime or government must be condemned. He has nothing to apolize for because he had no polotical office during his father's reign and for al his life before the revolution he was under the legal age. Your comparing him with Mousavi is a sign of immense desparation if not political immaturity on your part.



Farah Rusta

by Siavash31 on

The reason why I am talking about Reza Pahlavi is that you do consider him as a political leader, dspite the fact that every reason you name to reject Mousavi's leadership can very well apply to him as well.

In an interview with Michael Wallace, the Shah clearly stated that he does execute marxists in Iran because he considers them as traitors. The interview is available online. Has Reza Pahlavi ever apologized for his father executing people based on their beliefs? Has he every publicly apologized for the SAVAK brutally torturing the Iranian people who opposed shah's views? In 1977 Amnesty international reported that Iran is the worst violator of human rights in the world. It called the treatment of Iranian prisoniers as "unbelievable", "horrific", "inhuman". My own uncle was 21 years old when he was arrested in a student protest during the shah. He spent 3 years in jail and was systematically tortured until he was finally forced sign a "nedamat nameh" (confession). The whipped his feet so much that he urinated blood, they broke his finger, and burned his hand with cigarettes. A young 21 year old student in daneshgah fani!! Has Reza Pahlavi publicly apologized and denounced these crimes? Isn't he the "rightful heir to the thrown"??

You know, the difference between you (as a monarchist) and I, is that you probably approve of the executions during the shah. You probably consider them as "necessary" to save the country from the communist threat or some other justifications. So, it is not that you disagree with political executions and oppression as a general principle, what you are concerned about is who is executioner and who is being executed. Your political stands are not based on universal values and concepts, but on the small political molds and old grudges of 1980s Iranian politics. And that's what makes it really difficult to debate with you. You have a grudge with Mousavi, not because you believe he was involved in the executions, you know very well he wasn't.  Had the Shah committed the same executions in similar conditions, you would probably be the first one defending them.  Shah's tyranny is called "strong leadership", his violations of human rights is called a "necessary move". His submission to foreign powers is called "good strategy". His treason in the coup of 1953 is called "Rastakhiz melli". But the fact that Mousavi did not resign as prime minister during war time to protest the political executions, is called "treason" and "mass murder". You take position based on universal values (as a political tool) ONLY when it comes to attacking your political opponents. But when it comes to supporting your own political party these values are completely put aside, and you become a pragmatic political "realist".

You have to clear your mind first and take off the lenses of dogma and biases before you can reach a realistic conclusion about the green movement.

"As for Mousavi's mourning the death of the victims he only mourned the
death of those who were sympathizing with his movement (like Sohrab)
and he did not even send a message of condolences to Neda's family."

That is just false propaganda. Mousavi did go to Behesht Zahra on Neda's grave with her mother. Were you there?


"Mousavi is the last one to be killed (if at all) after Nedas and
Sohrabs and thouands of other. He is the most dishonrable figure"

I am sorry to say this but it takes a lot of "porooee" to say that. Should he apologize to you for not having been killed yet?? He is walking among the people on rallies and in the most dangerous situations. He was attacked several times so far, the last time being on Ghods day. His wife's brother is in critical health conditions in jail and his entire family is at risk. Which other political leader does risk his life like that? He is saying things IN IRAN that most other political figures do not dare saying even abroad. 


So please don't come up with your ridiculous statistics and observations and assuming that this was all about Mousavi. 

It is not "about" Mousavi. But the great majority of people to consider him as the leader of the movement to this day. Go watch the videos of roozeh ghods.


Farah Rusta

Digression won't help you

by Farah Rusta on

You see Siavash in your desparate attempt to defend your hero Mousavi you try to personalize the debate by dragging and diverting the debate to monarchists or Reza Pahlavi and other unrelated stuff.

Hardly anybody on this site that you choose to comment on thinks that the Green Movement is any longer about Mousavi or whether it was ever about him in the first place. Almost all (apart from your partners) agree that he was just a figurehead that has served its purpose and now must be discarded,  Don't mix up Mousavi with the football players, artists, writers and even that useful dissident called Ebadi. None of these people had a hand in the establishment of the Islamic regime. Mousavi was the third important man in the country for nearly a decade during which the Islamic republic grew its roots, destryed its past and present enemies and hardened its base. Is the responsibility of the prime minister of a country the same as that of the artists or writers or football players or actors and actresses or singers? Please if you want to be funny try harder. 

This debate is not about revenge, it is about justice. It makes no difference if several thousand or several million support him - millions of pepole supported Adolf Hitler. It didn't make him a humane person. He had already written his book and had exprssed hs views about the Jews and the Armenian genocide and how it had escaped the popular conscience.(which he was wrong about). So please don't come up with your ridiculous statistics and observations and assuming that this was all about Mousavi.

As for Mousavi's mourning the death of the victims he only mourned the death of those who were sympathizing with his movement (like Sohrab) and he did not even send a message of condolences to Neda's family. So big deal! As I said please don't bring Reza Pahlavi into this debate as you are clearly having an issue against him. This debate is not about the Pahlavis it is about the Mousavis!!

There is no need to use the Shiite rulings to prove Mousavi's involvement in the crimes of the Islamic Republic. His very existence as the Prime Minitser is evidence of his submission to the wills and wishes of the dictatorial system. He was not appointed prime minister because of his critcial views of Khomeini. He was appointed because of being a trsuted member of the family of the regime followers and servants. And he did follow and approved of their fatavs and decrees - including Khomeini's decree to execute the inmates.Even in the most liberal and democatic systems in the world every member of the ruling government is collectivel;y responsible in the actions of that establishment . If they are not in agreement with their system's decison or activities, they can resign and critisize their government. Much more so is in a dictatorship as in the IRI  in which all members of the ruling regime, and particularly their prime ministers and presidents are responsible for their regime's actions. If you can't understand such a simple and basic principle then you must re-evaluate your understanding the the dictatorships and democracies.

Mousavi will not condemn the executions as he was fully in agreement with them - otherwise he should have resigned.

 And as for Khadkhoda and the deh analogy, I suggest you to use this anology as it makes more sense; Mousavi (taraf) freedom (deh) and leadership (kadkhoda). He is no Hor as Hor has this much honor to be the first one to be martyred for his past betrayal of Hossein. He did not declar himself as the leader of the Hossein supporters. Mousavi is the last one to be killed (if at all) after Nedas and Sohrabs and thouands of other. He is the most dishonrable figure.

See this blog about his defense of the lsamic system in a letter to Motazeri and maybe you can learn a thing or two.. //iranian.com/main/blog/fred-38

I have all the time in the world to have you educated on this issue (as long the cyber space allows me). 



Farah Rusta

by Siavash31 on

1- "What you described as your evidence is based on guess work and assumptions not facts"

I see. So, millions of people filling the longest street of Tehran all the way from the North to the South all wearing green, chanting pro-Mousavi slogans and holding his pictures before the elections, is "guess work"?! And millions of people rallying from Enghelab to Azadi square all chanting pro-mousavi slogans and claiming their votes back after the elections, is a subjective "assupmtion"?!

Are you doubting your own eyes and asking for more "proof" and "evidence"? I think you are greatly in denial. 

Your position would sound much more reasonable if you say that you don't agree with the majority of the Iranian people about Mousavi and wish they did not support him. But to deny the obvious truth as it hits your in the eyes, and claim that people share your views about Mousavi against all indications, reminds me of Ahmadinejad denying his unpopularity by calling the massive protesters "Khas o Khashak" or Azhari claiming that the slogans against the shah are "recorded tapes". 

2- "You are clearly not well versed on the Islamic and Shiite laws..."

If the best case you have against Mousavi to put him on trial is that he is a Shiite muslim and thus an accomplice to all the crimes committed by Shiite clerics,  then I am afraid you're not going to be taken very seriously. And I guess you must have more knowledge about Shiite laws than Ayatollah Montazeri who condemned the executions of the 80s against your version of Islam.

3-"Mousavi was an integral element of a tyranny called the Islamic
Republic at its darkest years. They executed Hoveyda for far less
involvement in the Shah's administration..."

Ok now the true motivation behind your political analysis is surfacing; it is all about blind revenge: "They" executed an innocent person from us, so we're justified in doing the same to "them". Anyone who was part of that "system" has to be punished, no matter what they did or did not do. I remember a few years ago the Iranian national soccer team had come to Canada for a game and some of the monarchists and MKOs were chanting slogans against them calling them "traitors" for playing for the "system" and wearing their "flag"! The same mentality extends to Iranian artists, filmmakers, journalists, intellectuals, and even the human right activists and Nobel peace prize winners, and political activists who are now being tortured in jail. In other words, anyone who has ever accomplished anything in the past 30 years in Iran in the "system" or has held any public office. And it doesn't matter what they did, as this type vengence is totally blind.  

4-If one has been supporting a despotic regime then it makes no sense for
one to claim democratic credintials only based on one's words and not
one's deeds.

I don't know what else you mean by "deeds". The man is on the streets rallying with people and risking his own life for God's sake. Which other political leader in the world goes to the cemetery along side with the victims's families to mourn the death of those who have been killed in the government's jails and on the streets by the its police officiers??  He has published 12 bayanieh in 3 months, each exposing the crimes of the regime and shaking its foundations more than the other. Karoubi has made the cases of rape and murder in Iranian jails into headline news of all news channels and papers around the world. Tell me, which other "opposition" leader has done a fraction of that?? What has Reza Pahlavi done in the past 30 years other than sending a "Norouz" or "Avaleh Mehr" message to Iranian once a year, and wishing that the "next year" we will all be Iran a free and democratic Iran??? What concrete action has he taken in this past 30 years with all the money and connections he had, expect going from that restaurant to this restaurant in Maryland and Paris and Las Vegas, and getting an online degree from the internet?? Come on, take the dogma lenses and try to see things more cleary for once.

5- "Finally If I have supported the acts of violence comitted by the 
leaders of the past, be it monarchs or mullahs, then I do not have the
right to lead a democratic movement or be part of it unless I pay my
dues. Do you know the story of Hor?"

Yes, I do know the story of Hor and Emam Hossein (if you are referring to same story) but the moral I get from it is not the value of "confessing" but that of "forgiving", even the most horrible and destructive acts of treason. In the case of Mir Hossein Mousavi he has not committed any crimes but it seems like some people are  really insisting on revising history or even digging into the Shiite jurisprudence books and their various interpretations to find a way to associate him with some crimes. :)


6- "By the way show us an evidence of Mousavi's codemning the massacres."

The mass executions of the 80s is a case that needs to be investigated and analyzed in depth in a free and democratic environment. I feel very uncomfortbale when people use this tragedy as a political tool to attack their political rivals (or discredit a movement) by falsely associating them to this crime.

The fact that Mousavi has not publicly condemned the mass executions does not mean that he approves of them or was part of them. Maybe one day when the time is right he will do so. Acting on purely emotional grounds is not always the best option.

7-That may reduce the intensity of the sentence on him :)

Taraf ro too deh rah nemidadan, mikhast kadkhoda ro bebineh. In the case of the monarchists not only they want to see the "kadkhoda" but also want to put him on trial :) 

Farah Rusta

Guilty as charged!

by Farah Rusta on


  1. What you described as your evidence is based on guess work and assumptions not facts. No one claims that the election was boycotted but Iranians are three things by nature: Poets, Politicians and Statisticians. You have two out of three of these attributes.
  2. You are clearly not well versed on the Islamic and Shiite laws and Sharia
  3. Mousavi was an integral element of a tyranny called the Islamic Republic at its darkest years. They executed Hoveyda for far less involvement in the Shah's administration than Mousavi has been in the IRI. 
  4. If one has been supporting a despotic regime then it makes no sense for one to claim democratic credintials only based on one's words and not one's deeds.
  5. Finally If I have supported the acts of violence comitted by the  leaders of the past, be it monarchs or mullahs, then I do not have the right to lead a democratic movement or be part of it unless I pay my dues. Do you know the story of Hor?

Mousavi is guilty as charged for being an integral part of a tyranny. Even if he has not killed or ordered the killing of anyone just by being an instrument in etablishing and sustenance of a terrorist state is  enough to covict him for crimes against humanity in an international court of human rights, as it happned to the Nazi criminals in the Nuremberg trials. And I am sure hundreds of thousands, perhaps a few millions used to support those criminals even after they had fallen from power. This did not mean that they were innocent. It spoke more about the people who supported those criminals than the criminals themselves. 

By the way show us an evidence of Mousavi's codemning the massacres. That may reduce the intensity of the sentence on him :)



Farah Rusta

Dear Ben Ross

by Farah Rusta on

Thank you for takeing such deep interest in this blog and its extensions. In answering your question I need to clarify a few issues first:

  • You are perfectly right in saying that monarchism is not a political idealogy but a cultural and a traditional institution. This is precisely why I blieve that we need a free-from-politics institution to protect and preserve the long term intrests of the country without party political interference. And this is the main reason that parliamentary monarchy is still adhered to in some of the most culturally civlized and advanced European countries like Sweden, Noraway, Denmark, Spain, Holland  and of course Britain, Not to forget Japan and Burma in Asia, I brought these exmaples to show you that parliamentary monarchies in which the soverign is the parliament and not the monarch  are not archaic and defunct systems but conversely they are protectors and gurantors of a balanced democracy in which party politics can be checked against the national interests of the country.
  • Iranians are not known for their collective decision making. The only time in recent history that they made a collective effort was when they brought Khomeini to power.  I believe that their salvation is not in waiting for a savior but is in changing their conditions for the better free from a singular leadership be it Mir Houssein Mousavi, Kahtami or Reza Pahlavi. I am sure that they cannot achieve this but I cannot content myself to a compromise disaster in the name of Mousavi or Khatami who have blood on their hands. 
  •  Return to the Constitution of 1906 does not necessarily exclude the resumption of a Republican system. As you have menrtioned in your comment, a constitutional assembly approved by the parliament can change the ruling system to a Republican one.

Mr Ross, I can assure you that I can live happily with a democratically installed Republican system in Iran as long as the rights of humans, meaning the nation, are upheld and protected. My only regret would be that Iranians have abondoned a tradition of two thousand years old.  





by javaneh29 on

It is pointless to attempt any further conversation with you on this. If you want to live with your delusions about Mousavi then its your choice and I can leave you with that. 



Farah Rusta

by Siavash31 on

How do I know that 85% of the population participated in the elections? Well, that's a social fact. I was there in Iran, I was there when about hundreds of thousands (or according to some estimations over a million) people filled the entire 18 km of Vali-asr street from Tajrish to Rah-ahan in support of Mousavi before the elections. I was there when people gathered every night in the main city squares to chant pro-Mousavi slogans. I was there when the entire city was submerged in an athmosphere of euphoria and hope. I was there when people waited 4-5 hours in front of polling stations to vote despite the hot whether. I was there when the same people rallied from Enghelab to Azadi (and estimate of 3 million people) after the elections claiming their votes. Anyone who claims that people "boycotted" the elections or the participation was low is just fooling him/herself or is so out of touch with the realities of Iran that it is not even funny. Even the foreign news agencies who had representatives in Iran approved the 85% turn out.

Secondly, the idea that all Shiite muslims are inherently despotic is just a superficial and absurd statement , especially coming from someone who supports "Monarchy". It is just as superficial as saying that all monarchists have to bow to their King and his family and follow every single one of his orders like good subjects without ever daring to question them. While in truth many monachists (constitutional monarchists) do believe in the role of democratic institutions and such superficial stereotypes do not apply to them. Even Reza Pahlavi himself seems to have quite moderate and democratic views despite the fact that he,as someone who claims to be "heir to the thrown", has never publicly denounced the oppressive nature of his father's regime and the horrific crimies committed by the SAVAK. 

But of course, it takes an open mind to be able to look beyond the political molds and see the essence of someone's views. It is seriously time to heal this ill mentality that generates false and baseless accusations solely based on superficial observations and political rivalry. 

Thirdly, you have failed to bring a single evidence proving Mousavi's involvement in the political executions. Just some vague generaizations and false assumptions about Shiites having to agree with their "Imam"'s fatvas!  I have said this before, wth a similar reasoning as yours, I can accuse YOU of have having blood on your hand for being a monarchist and supporting the most despotic and tyrannical political system there is. I can accuse you of being an "apologist" for a system that has created the Agha Mohammad Khans and Naserdin Shahs and caused so much suffering, deaths, lootings and torturings not just in Iran but all over the world. 

As for him being Prime minister at that time. Again, please answer thesequestions: Did Mousavi have the authority and power to deal with political prisoniers and take such decisions as executing people?? Or where there countless other forces involved? Should he had resigned as Prime minster in protest to the exectutions while we were at war with Iraq?  Please try to put things in their context rather than just trying to destroy someone's reputation because he has gained too much popularity for your comfort.


Farah Rusta

Judging by your bogus statistics ..

by Farah Rusta on

it is immaterial on whose side the burden of proof is because you will come up with more cooked up stories anyway. I am talking about the claim of 85% turn out at the voting stations and the follow up claim that they mostly voted for Mousavi!! Is this by the regime's account or did you find an independent source that has been kept secret so far? 

You see Siavash, I am beginning to think that you are, how shall I put it, very puritanic. You think that Iran under the combined administration of Khamenei and Mousavi was something akin to Switzerland or Sweden in the same period. In your reply to Javaneh you are even questioning the despotic nature of Mousavi's religious beliefs!! Did you know that when a Shiite muslim follows his Imam he is accepting all his decrees and fatva's. Now it so happened that this Shiite muslim was the chief administrator, i.e. the Prime Minister, of the very system that the same Imam has established and under which he has issued decrees and fatvas? One such decree was for the mass execution of the prison inmates of the same regime in which Mousavi was the prime minister. Unless you claim that Khoemini was a champion of human rights, and Iran under Khomeini (and Khamenei) was not a totalitarian dictatorship, then the officers who served to run his system particularly the office of his Prime Minister and his President are guilty of aiding and abetting the chief despot, Khomeini, to run his despotic rule.

Mousavi and Khamenei were the intergral part of the same despotic regime that they helped founding it a few years earlier. You are not helping your hero, Mousavi, by this line of defence. Mousavi has never said a word condeming the massacres that took place while he was in office nor has he disavowed his allegiences to the Constitution fo the Islamic regime. The reason he has not been arrested yet is preciely for the same reason.

I think you would benefit from a little tuition on the Shiite rules of taqlid, among other things like the difference between a dictatorship and a democracy



Javaneh29 You are calling

by Siavash31 on


You are calling Mousavi a "religious despot" based on what facts exactly? People have the right to believe in whatever religion they want, being a muslim does not make him a "religious despite". Mousavi's wife has written over 25 books on women's right and she is one the most respected women right activist and scholars in Iran, even among the most secular ones. We need to have an open mind on people and avoid sticking labels to them just based on their appearance. I have never seen Mousavi hold any undemocratic or dogmatic position. 


Farah Rusta, You are

by Siavash31 on

Farah Rusta,

You are the one accusing Mousavi of being involved in the mass executions in the 1980s, the burden of proof is on you. The fact that he was Prime minister at that time does not mean that he had the authority to stop the executions and you know that very well. You know very well that there were many other forces involved and Mousavi had no control over them.

Mousavi was Prime minster during war at a time when Iran's yearly oil revenue was 7 billion dollars and 4 billion of it was being spent for the war. Mousavi held an office at that time in which he could exercise his knowledge and management skills. And he did it in the best possible way. He managed to run a country in crisis and keep the inflation and the unemployment at the lowest rate. When his mandate was over he left politics an did not come back until recently. Which is very rare in Iranian politics as no one ever wants to leave power. 

Again, you know full well that he is NOT a supporter of Vellayat-e faghih. No one has harmed this concept more than he has since the revolution. Today Khamenei is not afraid of Reza Pahlavi and the L.A "Persians" nor of the Communist Kargaris, nor of the MKO. But he is scared to death of Mousavi, as he has not even dared to arrest him depiste the open defiances and the all out war that he and Karoubi have launched on him and his regime. 

As for the constitution, he has declared time and again that some parts of it needs to be changed (implying the velayat faghih) but he also points out to the illegals actions of Khameni's camp based on the same constitution. That does not make him a criminal of any sort.

Now it is up to you prove that he was involved in the mass executions. You have to factually prove that he had the authoity and power to execute political or to stop the exections. Otherwise, you owe an apology to him for falsely accusing him of such serious crimes.





Dear Farah Rusta

by benross on

Sadly, there are no prospects of a champion emerging either from within the country or from the opposition outside (I say this despite my credentials as a monarchist - with socialist leanings). So what is the solution, you may ask. The solution, in my opinion, is by taking the movement out of the hands of any particular group or leadership. No one should be allowed to claim the movement to his or her own credit (or even color). This movement needs a collective leadership from across the political srectrum otherwise it is doomed to go the wrong way.


Dear Farah, you do realize that your solution raises more questions than answers. I fully understand the intention. But in practicality it will turn out to be something like green movement. Collective leadership is not very far from what Moosavi describes as 'each Iranian one quarter' (sétaad).

The question remains, no matter how -if at all- this collective leadership is established, that what the outcome would be? what is the alternative?

Being a monarchist is not a political stance per se. It is now, in today's context. I get to it later. But as a general understanding, monarchists are affiliated to a culture and tradition, not a political stance.

Recognizing the one and only constitution of the history of modernity in Iran, and as a result, recognizing Reza Pahlavi as the inhabitant of Monarchy in Iran, is not necessarily being monarchist. It is taking a political stance for recognition of certain values and social and historical achievement in the painful history of modernity in Iran.

We can be united under these principals:

1- The only legitimate document of progressiste movement in Iran is the monarchic constitution

2- Iranian people should have the right to choose this constitution versus the IRI constitution.

3- Once the constitution is returned and restored as the legitimate constitution of Iran, the election of a constituent assembly must be prepared to define the new and modern constitution of Iran.

I didn't formulated in a professional manner but you got the idea I suppose.

Now dear Farah, you tell me why you can't see that 'collective leadership' that you have in mind be created under these three principals and more importantly, what kind of 'progressiste' they are, those who can not fit under these principals. This is not a rhetorical question. I really do want to know who can be progressiste and not fitting in this concept.

mostafa ghanbari

What you have in your hand is the result of your bargain

by mostafa ghanbari on


In any game the final result is important; and thus wise players focus all their senses and merits on the last beat; they never get attracted and impulsive by the marginal issues.And of course the game of life is not a matter of joke; the losers in this game will gain nothing other than sorrow and shame.

My dear brothers and  sisters, let's accept that we have not been good players in the game of life-whatsoever. Let's accept that we have been fretful and impulsive players who have not been able to work out our problems and flaws in a proper manner.

Thirty years ego  our country was just in need of ten years to turn into a completely dynamic and prominent country; but our indisputably stupid attitudes ,as a very vigorous factor, were added to the sinister factors of a fake God, a fake religion, a fake leader and  world powers to derail and push us to the descending  path of regression and degradation. Our infatuation with the fake leader( KHOMEINI) and his fake religion, is not something that we can deny; lest we forget those dark days in which we bargained the future of our children over the unbelievably stupid love for the so-called divine leader and his religion. Lest we forget those days.

Therein, it is really amazing, and somehow  dangerous, to hear that some of us  still believe in figures who have already been examined in different fields!! Surely these type of figures and their defunct ideas are just good enough to lead us to the hell. Adding to this, the mind-blowingly strange issue of the suitable ALTERNATIVES, I have to think of preparing myself for committing a nice suicide! What the hell is this :'' Mousavi is the only other choice at the moment, who else are the people on the streets going to shout for?'' or this one: '' Iwould have prefered mousavi to  Ahmadinedjad'' What the hell is going on in our minds?? In that God-forgotten  country there are  great men and women who can run  the  whole world; it is true; it is not exaggeration. And why we should always prefer the bad to the worse!!? Why we should pick up the bad to avoid the worse!!? We are undeserved inheritors of the most sifted  human civilization which is  still running in the blood of this world. We should not be so submissive and spiritless.

I beg you pardon for my harsh language.

And to the Dear Miss Rusta, I should say, I highly respect you; I hail that subtle mind of yours.




by javaneh29 on

Perhaps it is a fantasy  that there might be someone better ( and by better I mean someone with no religious axe to grind, someone with the people in his or even her heart... a politician not a religious despot ) to lead Iran than Mousavi, I would prefer to name it as 'a hope'. If Mousavi is all there is, which seems to be case, then Mousavi is better than Ahmadinejad. However there is nothing wrong with having hope that we do not have to settle for less than we deserve.

Of course you are right. No one else has the support Mousavi has because there is no one else, as yet. Again I say that IF there were, Mousavi would be abandoned.

I live in hope someone will emerge  because Mousavi's connections with the Islamic republic continue to exist. His past activities can not be dismissed so easily from my thoughts  and Im afraid history will repeat itself .. and again Iran will get what it didnt bargain for. How many times does this have to happen ? 




cleansed society, cleansed mind

by benross on

What the supporters of green movement inside Iran (with its specific interpretation) don't understand and are not willing to understand is that the opposition outside the country didn't even exist if those thoughts representing that opposition could survive inside the country. And I'm not talking about existing openly in public discourse, but even physically for those who were carrying those thoughts.

Now this new generation, which was supposed to be the result and pride of social cleansing carried out by the likes of Soroosh and Moosavi, is coming expecting us to be a subservient of the same criminal thoughts which cleansed us out of the country in the first place.

The new generation didn't turn out to be that pride of Islamic regime cleansing project that was supposed to be. But it still has a lot to learn about the roots of its existential malaise which was not provided in a cleansed society discourse.

Paying attention to the nature of this bogus election process that they were grown up with, and not comparing it with the election in a secular society which doesn't cleanse any idea, is a good start.

Farah Rusta

Did you say "hijack" Siavash?!!

by Farah Rusta on

First you are not being truthful (putting it politely). You not only defended Sorush's right to express his opinion (which by the way nobody contested that right) but you also defended his past records in academically purging the universities of undesirable elements to the regime and then re-opening them. Second, on the question of my charges against Mousavi, if you have any evidence to the contrary please do not hide them. Let us all see it. Was he not the Prime Minister under whose watch some of the most heineous acts of genocide by the Islamic regime took place? Was he not publicly hailed as the Prime Minister in whom Khomeini had full trust? Has he ever publicly disassoicated himself from the constitution of the Islamic regime which upholds the principle of Velayate Faqih?

Please prove me wrong if you can. Otherwise, an apology is in order.




Farah Rusta, Javaneh29

by Siavash31 on

Farah Rusta

Well, when you try to portray me as a "fanatic Soroush supporter" because I said that he has the right to express his opinions whether we agree with him or not, then how can I expect you to be honest about Mousavi and not accuse him of all sorts of nonsense?


The idea that people would chose someone "better" if they had the oppotunity, can apply for every politician and leader in the world at any time and any place in history. If Americans had a "better" (whatever that means) choice than Obama they wouldn't have voted for Obama. But he happened to be the best choice at that time in history. Same can be said even about Nelson Mandela. This is strong argument that you are making.

Today, Mousavi is the best choice for Iranians and people truly do recognize him as their leader. The idea that people have "moved beyond" him is certainly not true for those who live in Iran. It is of course the fantasy of the opposition groups abroad who all wish they could hijack the movement from Mousavi and become the leaders of the movement. But the reality is that none of them has a fraction of Mousavi's support and popularity in Iran.

Farah Rusta

May I chip in?

by Farah Rusta on

Allow me to thank you all for your valued comments, whether agreeable or disagreeable. Here is my take:


Ms Javaneh

I found your line of thinking very clear and without trying to push a political agenda. This is not to say that there is anything wrong with having a political agenda but it is very refreshing to see an argument free from political sound bites. You mentioned the important question of absence of an alternative or a champion. I fully agree. Unfortunately, it is under such conditions thaf Iranians have always gone for the worst available choice. The example of Khomeini is the most striking. One of the negative sides of the Shah's rule after 28 Mordad 1332 was that no viable politician was allowed or was willing to put a step forward. As a result and out of total desparation as well as opportunism, the populace went for the most backward of all alternatives. You may say that the situation today is different as Mousavi is not as backward as Ahmadinejad. I am afraid the experience of his "reformist" predecessor and his mentor, Khatami, proved that these regime-originated pretenders are only reformist in words and not by action.

Sadly, there are no prospects of a champion emerging either from within the country or from the opposition outside (I say this despite my credentials as a monarchist - with socialist leanings). So what is the solution, you may ask. The solution, in my opinion, is by taking the movement out of the hands of any particular group or leadership. No one should be allowed to claim the movement to his or her own credit (or even color). This movement needs a collective leadership from across the political srectrum otherwise it is doomed to go the wrong way. Do we really want to hear, a few years down the line, this old and lame excuse that the movement was stolen by a wolf in sheep's clothing?

Mr Rashidian

Thank you for your informed contributions. Arrest of Ahamdinejad can be the most potent message to the dictators or their side-kicks. I guess if he set foot in France, he would be arrested on Holocaust denial charges but not in the US of President Obama. Even under the right wing Bush administration both A-N and Khatami got away with murder when they paid a visit here.I can't see any chance of his arrest this time round either.


Thank you for reminding us and our friend Siavash that the (Green) Movement is far more than Mousavi and the rigged elections or who is the rightful president. Sadly, I don't think he is going to accept yours and indeed my points of view. I only need to add that my "accusations" agaisnt Mousavi are not based on made up evidence or my opinion. All the point I have made are factual and public knowledge and I would welcome any one coming up with counter evidence. The point is that  some of us try to deceive themselves by ignoring the crime by association. Amir Abbas Hoveyda was summarily tried and executed for far less charges that can be brought agaisnt Mousavi by the very regime that Mousavi help founding it. Can any one believe that the third most powerful man in the country, after Khomeini and Khamenei, was not associated with or had any knowledge of the massive massacre of the prison inmates in the 1980's?


Judging by your fanatical support of Soroush in another blog, I am not surprised of your support for Mousavi and insisting that he is the rightful president of Islamic regime and the leader of the movement. I guess you mut be among those supporters of Mousavi who is sincere with himself :) Thanks nonetheless. 




by javaneh29 on

Mousavi is the only other choice at the moment, who else are the people on the streets going to shout for?  But  it's going to need someone far  stronger than Mousavi to overthrow Ahmadj. and his posse of noose holding bandits. Mousavi is just not up to the mark. Lets face the truth here. Firstly Mousavi shots from the same hip and If  it was EVER going to happen, it probably would have done by now. 

The green movement is a blanket cover all opposition that includes ardent Mousavi supporters as well as those who want something better than Mousavi. It might have started with Mousavi ( as he was the only one offering anything better at the time) BUT it has moved on way beyond him. We all want something better than we have at the moment for Iran and Id rather have Mousavi than Ahmad too, although I wouldnt trust him.

I say again that if a new viable candidate came on to the scene, Mousavi will be forgotten in a flash. 

I dont think anyone here is trying 'to poison the green movement'. 



to DM

by Siavash31 on

Mousavi himself has never claimed that the Green movement was "about him". The green movement is about claiming some fundamental rights that we, as a nation, never had.

But Mousavi is the rightious President of Iran and the leader of this movement. And millions of Iranians do recognize him as both. Anyone who denies that is just closing his/her eyes on the obvious truth.

Just take a look at the street of Tehran for God's sake. People are chanting Mousavi's name, they are holding up his pictures, they are spreading every letter and bayanieh that we writes. And don't tell me that they are "using" him or that they are just chanting this slogans because they can't really say what they truly want! They ARE openly and courageously stating what they want; they are stating that they don't want Khamenei, they fearlessly chanting "death to the dictator" in front of Basiji and Lebas shakhsi thugs. And they are also stating that they want Mousavi. Why do some people insist so much on twisting reality and see it only the way they want it.