I’m not sure why Obama’s statement discredits the protesters, or even Mousavi. What Obama said is that, in relation to American international interests, such as Iran’s nuclear program and support of international terror groups like Hizbollah, the two candidates aren’t much different, and the US would have to pursue the same policies and negotiations towards either. It seems perfectly sound and true. It also puts pressure on Mousavi to clearly differentiate himself from Ahmadinejad on these kinds of issues, if he really does want to say that he will pursue different international policies. It’s quite possible that a more democratic and just Iran will still continue to pursue policies that are against American interests and international stability. In which case, what have the protesters accomplished that actually helps America, or the world?

Thanks. I’ve been impressed by President Obama’s discernment in standing for the Iranian’s human and civil rights without endorsing either candidate. But I was flummoxed when he said there wasn’t much difference between the 2 candidates. For the reasons you describe, it probably is true, but to me, Obama’s statement seemed like a punch in the stomach to people marching in the streets. It sounded like he was saying that their cause is meaningless. He is so precise in his statements that I thought he must have been tired & made a mistake, meaning that it would make no difference to our foreign policy. Still it seemed extremely out of character. Even knowing he’s wily, I didn’t catch the reasoning. Now it makes much more sense. It surprises me how willing he is to take political hits when he decides to take a stand.

The original Islamic Revolution and the Republic instituted in 1979-80 did not include a Supreme Leader. That was a much latter innovation of Khomeini’s, in 1988 I think, shortly before his death, to keep reformists from gaining power. So it stands to reason that if reformists regain power, one of the first things they will want to reform is the SP position. So when Mousavi is advocating a return to the original principles of the Islamic Revolution, he is arguing not for a return to the pre-election status quo, but to the pre-1988 status quo, even the general 1980 status quo. I think this is important to acknowledge when evaluating Mousavi’s rhetoric about affirming the original principles of the Islamic Republic.