Coups happen when armies decide they want to run the show. Riots are not revolution. True, the Shah of Iran was removed from power by what started as rioting. But the mullahs used the power of Islamic zeal to destroy the Shah. The Shah also didn’t make things easy on himself by severely abusing the populace, despite the fact that he wanted to cooperate with the West. His abuses opened the portals of revolution. Now though, religion is already in power, and I see little reason to think that anything will change in Iran. The mullahs are there to stay.
I’ve made it clear that I have no tolerance for the Shia Theocrats that run Iran. But I find it irritating that only now, after an election in which no one really knows the true outcome, that some are showing disdain for this regime. US troops died because of Iran, but now that the government tries to stop violent protests, the regime is portrayed as an oppressive regime co-opted by apocalyptic mullahs.
Which it is.
In truth, the anti-riot forces have shown restraint. While thousands protested (and not really all that peacefully), 17 people died. Western nations would not have handled these riots much differently, except of course the media would never have been shut down.
Presidential candidate Mousavi would have been no better. He is an Islamist, plain and simple. Does anyone really think that Mousavi would have cut off Hezbollah’s state funding or stopped providing weapons to Hamas?