The WSJ speaks of demonstrations that recall the 1979 revolution. The London Times writes about insurrection. And all this for a candidate — Mousavi — who puts almost everyone to sleep whenever he goes public, whether at rallies or in debates. The charismatic figure is his wife, who speaks openly of freedom, toleration, and good relations with the West.
What does it all mean? The (for the moment, at least, largely unanswerable) questions are fascinating and important:
– Why hasn’t Supreme Leader Khamenei shut her up?
– Would a Mousavi presidency matter anyway?
– Would Mousavi’s opponents accept his “election” (Iran has circuses, not real elections, and cheating is not only easy but part of the circus)? Or would they take to the streets?
– Would Mousavi’s supporters accept his defeat? Or would they take to the streets? Hell, they have already taken to the streets . . .
Ahmadinezhad seems to be in real trouble, and some of his supporters appear to have rallied round Mohsen Rezai, the former Revolutionary Guards commander.
I have long argued that Iran is a revolutionary country in which most of the people hate the regime and will act to remove it. Is this the moment? Nobody really knows, but when mainstream journalists start talking about “revolution” and “insurrection,” we should pay attention.
If you are interested enough to want more, here you go. (From my blog, in my best prose.)