As to whether abiding by elections and constitutional laws is liberal or conservative, you are using nomenclature that only makes sense within the overall scheme of “liberal society” such as exists in the modern west. Genuine conservatives in our society want to preserve liberty, and advocate that we abide by laws in order to preserve liberty, whereas conservatives in Iran wish to restrain it and assert that the very notion of a liberal society goes against God, and has only a very limited place in a just, holy world. The Iranian Revolution has an other-worldly sense of justice, not geared towards finding satisfaction in this world, but contemptuous of that very notion, and insisting on imposing sacred edicts upon this world, and abiding by the wisdom of the holy men who are the only true “trustees” of mankind. But they also understand that they have to pay lip service to these notions of democracy and the will of the people, which is why they even bothered to falsify the election. Now they are trapped in a hypocritical double-bind, and have no way out other than crass repression and violence. The liberal notion that the liberty of the people is best decided by the people themselves is at the heart of the conflict here, which is inherent in the very structure of the Iranian Republic, which tries to balance theocracy and democracy. Right now, it seems badly out of balance to many people in Iran.

Actually, yes, it is. The Iranian Constitution allows for the Supreme Leader to override any election, to refuse to seat any elected official deemed unacceptable to him, and to essentially do as he sees fits, so long as the clerical councils back him. The very idea that a set of secular laws and elections should control the country, rather than unelected clergy, is a western, liberal notion, the value of which is on the line in the streets of Iran. Rejecting the wise leadership of Khamenei is a kind of liberal blasphemy that represents a modern, liberal viewpoint considered heretical by those supporting the Supreme Leader.

It’s not wrong for Iran to pursue it’s national interests, just as it isn’t wrong for the US to do the same. No one expects Mousavi to pursue the US’s national interests. But it’s certainly possible to see a way where both the US and Iran can pursue their national interests without getting into needless conflicts aimed at scoring points for domestic political consumption, ramping up tensions to benefit their respective defense and oil industries at the cost of economic tranquility, and just generally behaving like grown ups. If Iran can move in that direction, following Obama’s subtle lead, it’s a good thing all around. And the protesters are actually aware of these things, in a loose way. They sense that it’s time to change, that there are opportunities in the world to change the way their country operates that could benefit them and their relationships. This is why Obama’s hands off approach is so important. No one wants to be led by a nose-ring. They want to make their own way in the world. But that doesn’t mean they don’t see the west as making an attractive partner, rather than an adversary, in creating a modern Iran. Social and economic controls are of course the meat and potatoes issues, but one can’t really separate that from the general westernization/modernization impulse that goes against the medieval theocratic direction.

I’m not suggesting Iran wants to suddenly overthrow its Islamic Republic, but the protesters do want an Islamic Republic that is far more modern and liberal than it is at present. The whole point of that Republic, of course, was to create a Constitutional Theocracy, not a lawless one. And so the general aim is to put the emphasis more and more on the “constitutional” aspect of the equation, and less on the Theocratic. One can see this in a fashion similar to the gradual democratization of monarchial nations. Even England still has an official Church and a Monarch. I’m not saying Iran will ever go quite that far, but it’s certainly possible for their theocratic Republic to become much more liberal, while yet retaining the basic elelments of an Islamic government. And that seems to be what the movement is about. I don’t want to be overoptimistic in the short term, but In the long term, I’d say its chances are very good.

Mousavi’s foreign policy views may not matter at all to the protesters. That was part of my point, which is why Cohen and others who are complaining about Obama’s statement on this point are just wrong. As far as *we* are concerned on foreign policy, the differences between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad are minimal, and there is nothing wrong in acknowledging this. This does not undermine the protesters, and may even bolster the protesters’ cause. As far as they are concerned, the differences between the candidates that matter are on controls on economic and social life. And, yes, this has gone beyond the two candidates and now represents a more thoroughgoing critique of the corruption of the regime, which once again is not related to the policy questions Obama was discussing, but is entirely internal.

We see this kind of decay in all kinds of authoritarian regimes, where the leaders like Khamenei and Ahmadinejad equate themselves with the goals of the country (rule by the righteous), and in so doing act in a most unjust and morally repulsive manner. As long as the people remain supportive of the main purpose of the regime, and it produces favorable results, this can be tolerated, if only out of fear. But when it crosses the line and blatantly comes off as power-grabbing for its own sake, with no deiscernable favorable results for the country, a revolt can be provoked. The problem here is one of legitimacy and trust, and having made their stand, the government cannot back down without falling down. Khamenei cannot just say, sorry, I stole the election, but I thought I could get away with it, and after all, I’m the Supreme Leader, so it’s more important that people think I can do no wrong than admit to doing wrong, so we’re all just going to have to live with the result.That’s not how Supreme Leaders think or act. They never admit anything. But the people just aren’t that stupid. Everyone knows what they did, and they just can’t pretend otherwise. So we have a movement in response to a government that has shed it’s illusions of democratic legitimacy, and shown itself to be merely another authoritarian power machine, and Mousavi only matters in that he’s the most visible symbol of that lack of legitimacy.

It doesn’t much matter what Mousavi himself represents, policy-wise, except to the degree that he represents the visible symbol of the corrupt and power-mad regime which has unwittingly exposed itself as such. It’s true he’s only a moderate reformer, not a revolutionary, but the circumstances have moved beyond his control, because the corruption in this case undermines the legitimacy not just of Ahmadinejad, but of Khamenei himself, and even of the whole system that gives such people so much unaccountable power. So now Mousavi is in the position of having to advocate even bigger reforms than he did before the election, some kind of increasing democratization of the government. At the very least, it would seem to point towards replacing Khamenei with a more liberal cleric, and then proceeding with some kind of reform path which would prevent future governments from stealing elections like this. I don’t think Mousavi wants a genuine revolution, and that’s probably a good thing, in that Iran probably needs much more time to make any transition towards full democracy. The success of this uprising shouldn’t be measured in terms of an end to theocratic government in Iran (which would probably involve horrible bloodshed, but by a more liberal, more openly democratized theocracy. Mousavi has a role to play in that, regardless of his past. And it would be a very positive thing, nothing to sneer at either.

If “many of his most earnest backers” refers partially or entirely to Andrew Sullivan, I think it’s a bit off to say that “personalities are once more taking center stage.” Personalities always take center stage for Sullivan.

Last year, when he was minimizing the power of the Iranian presidency, it wasn’t that he was wisely putting Ahmadinejad’s outlandish rhetoric and behavior in its proper context. Sullivan was enamored of Obama and therefore his instinct was to examine Iran in ways that were favorable to Obama.

But what seemed personally appealing about Obama during the campaign (measured, temperamentally conservative, etc.) doesn’t jibe with Sullivan’s romantic worldview and operatic temperament. It doesn’t translate into the large-scale social, political and geopolitical changes Sullivan consistently advocates. So now that we’re seeing the temperamentally conservative Obama in action Sullivan’s displeased with the results on multiple fronts.

Hence his newfound interest in the odiousness of Ahmadinejad and the nobility of the Iranian president’s enemies. The arguments are utterly inconsistent but Sullivan’s personality,style and approach have not changed.

For another example of this, consider Sullivan’s arguments in favor of war in Iraq and, subsequently, in favor of immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Even in advocating withdrawal he was blithely arguing that, hey, maybe what Iraq and the broader region need is a hideous sectarian bloodbath to precipitate some sort of Islamic Reformation. He was advocating opposite policies (”Send troops into Iraq!”/”Get troops out of Iraq”) but his general approach (”let’s shake things up big-time and see what happens!”) was identical.

Duck duck goose.

But that you choose religious authorities. Which normatively suggests Mousavi is right up your alley. He’s the religious purist.

Hence your concern and flag waving. “Why chose this religious believer who is identical to the mafia pugilist who’d take his place”.

And of course you are right.

But why wedding yourself to the position that anti-establishment blood in the streets is conflated with this fanatic?. Oh because we have to. He is the Great Leader. He’s Religious. So we have to.

No we don’t. Mousavi understands it is not a movement based on love for his history of personal actions. Whether cynically or something else he’s riding the public wave based on something else.

Indeed. But you insist it must be. In the absence of any reality than that Daniel must triple, is it double?, perhaps octuple now, whatever double down on it.

Mousavi cynically rides the waves. He’ll lose the curl he desires to shoot and will be caught up on the rocks. He’ll play the next part because history and legacy demands he should.

This is how historic authority is built. You seem to misunderstand that legacy is not God-mandated so much as God cultivated.

So stop it already.

Luther backed secular rulers when they slaughtered peasants who had risen in rebellion. Good choice.