Babak Namdar

It seems the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, has finally conceded that America was and in fact continues to support the “reformist” faction against the “hardliners.”

During an interview with CNN the Secretary of State said:

“So, we were doing a lot to really empower the protesters without getting in the way. And we’re continuing to speak out and support the opposition.”

Note, what Clinton means by opposition, is Mousavi, who in turn is part of the “reformist” faction of the Islamic Republic.  “Reformists” and the Iranian opposition are not the same.  We do not believe in reforms from within, and we also don’t believe in doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results either.

Her comments strongly “support” that the State Department in fact financed Mousavi’s campaign and used it’s propaganda arm, Voice America, to mold Mousavi into “the opposition.” Voice of America even dis-invited guests and cancelled programs where the guests or hosts did not belong to the “reformist” camp – so much for being “impartial”.

I probably shouldn’t surprised by State’s policies, after all they can’t even distinguish between a democracy and a theocracy; let alone be able to determine the difference between regime-factions and genuine opposition to the Islamic Republic.

One would think that at a time when the Islamic Republic’s more fanatical faction is seeking to prove that foreign entities are supporting their “reformists” bretheren, that those providing the support would keep quiet about it – but not the State Department. Mousavi is probably somewhere, other then trying to avoid being presecution for treachery, cursing at the State Department.

Her comments about “continuing to speak out” would be much more accurate if it read “continuing to speak out against speaking out”.

It seems the international media are of the opinion that if you’re protesting then you must be pro-Mousavi.

Here are some pictures with their respective captions labelling protests as pro-Mousavi.  There are many more then the pictures I’ve cited here, but this is just to give an idea about the spin media are putting on protests in Iran.  I wouldn’t doubt it if they have pictures from this years July 9 uprising (18 tir) with a caption claiming protests support Mousavi.

Perhaps AFP thinks anyone who is out on the streets protesting against the regime is actually pro-regime… er I mean pro-Mousavi.

Supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi throw stones at Iranian police during a violent demonstration in Tehran on June 20. Iranian opposition leaders have called for the immediate release of hundreds of people arrested in a crackdown on post-election protests and denounced the “brutal attacks” by security forces.(AFP/File)

Supporters of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi run past a burning bus in Tehran. Mousavi plans to unveil a new political grouping which will keep up a protest campaign against last month’s disputed presidential election, an aide said on Wednesday. (AFP/File/Olivier Laban-Mattei)

Again, the same formula is used:

Protester = supporter of regime reformists

A supporter of defeated Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi holds a stone as he stands with fellow demonstrators during riots in Tehran in June 2009. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Wednesday renewed a limited US offer to talk with Iran despite its post-election crackdown and defended the principle of engaging anti-American regimes. (AFP/File/Olivier Laban-Mattei)

How can someone holding the Lion & Sun flag be branded pro-Mousavi?  Mousavi is a creature of the regime, he is by no-means anti-regime having served as the regime’s prime minister.  It is therefore difficult to understand how an icon for resistance like the Lion & Sun flag can be associated with the Islamic Republic reformist to which Mousavi subscribes to.  Difficult to comprehend for you and I, but not for Associated Press.

Demonstrators wave Iranian flags outside the Iranian embassy in Brussels, Saturday June 27, 2009, protesting the outcome of the presidential election in Iran. The demonstrators are expressing solidarity with Iranian opposition leader Hossein Mousavi. (AP Photo/Geert Vanden Wijngaert)

I recently posted a blog entry of a video clip where Roozbeh and I explain how to organize political campaigns in Iran.  An Iranian posted a comment explaining that these “velvet”, “orange”, and other colorful “revolutions” are not possible in Iran, and I completely agree.

To begin with, a revolution means a 180 degree change, however various entities have wrongly attributed the label ‘revolution’ to the various reforms that have taken place in Eastern Europe and else where.

If a political movement is working within the framework of the constitution and electoral laws and they are able to have their preferred candidate voted into office, that is not a revolution.  Rather it’s the electoral process working.  These countries in which these colorful ‘revolutions’ took place did not have a vetting institution for candidates like the Islamic Republic’s Guardian Council.  In addition, these countries’ constitution did not decree that they are the government of God, as the Islamic Republic’s constitution states. Therefore, the relevant democratic institutions and processes existed, very much unlike the Islamic Republic.

As such, the previously- mentioned events that have taken place should really be labeled as ‘reforms’ because there is nothing revolutionary about it.

Just because Iranian reformists were / are  able to have one of their candidates vetted by the Guardian Council, and as a result of the [s]election process the reformist candidate wins, does not mean that this constitutes a <pick a color> revolution.

Establishing a secular republic (by default overthrow of the Islamic Republic) in Iran is a real revolution.

So let’s call those working within the system of the Islamic Republic as what they are, reformists and changes within as reforms, not revolutions.