Daniel Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and fellow at the Hoover Institution. He took a few questions today about the situation in Iran.

Q: Were you ever really “rooting for Ahmadinejad”?

A: Oh yes, I wrote a piece specifically titled “Rooting for Ahmadinejad.” The kernel of the piece argued that “whoever is elected president, whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, will have limited impact on the issue that most concerns the outside world — Iran’s drive to build nuclear weapons, which Khamene’i will presumably continue apace, as he has in prior decades. Therefore, while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it’s best that he remain in office.”

Q: I gather you’ve gotten some Internet grief?

A: Yes, I’ve never had a view of mine get so much attention in the blogosphere. The Left seemed to conclude that it had a “gotcha” quote here, one so self-evidently absurd that merely to quote it indicts my intelligence and good sense. Of course, they made their case easier by distorting my argument, presenting it that I prefer Ahmadinejad because his presidency would be harder line — something I never said.

Q: Should we worried about Mousavi prevailing? Is he up for the job? Could he be dangerous?

A: I now favor Mousavi’s reaching power, as I recently wrote in “Ahmadinejad or Mousavi?” My change is due to the startling events in Iran in the week since the election [which] have transformed Mousavi from a hack Islamist politician into the unlikely symbol of dreams for a more secular and free Iran.”

I cannot vouch for Mousavi’s being up for the job, but he has a reputation for steeliness. I doubt he will prove more dangerous than the ruling crew.

Q: Is there any hope these protesters prevail?

A: While their overthrowing the regime remains remote, it has suddenly become a real possibility. However this drama turns out, at the least it has weakened the mullah’s regime internally and lessened its appeal internationally.

Q: If they don’t, is Ahmadinejad weaker or can he recover?

A: It is hard to imagine Ahmadinejad recovering his former strength.

Q: What does it mean for the future of Islam in Iran that Khamenei isn’t being listened to?

A: Not only is he not listened to by the street protesters — but he is also being defied by some members of the regime elite, threatening a splintering that could become permanent and even fatal.

Q: What do you find most surprising/revealing about this post-election crisis in Iran?

A: I am taken aback by the nearly complete absence of Islam in the discussion. One hears about democracy, freedom, and justice, all of which do play a role, but the key issue is the Iranian population’s repudiation of the Islamist ideology that has dominated its lives for the past 30 years. Should the regime in Tehran be shaken by current challenges, this will likely have profound implications for the global career of radical Islam.