Something important is happening in Iran. There was a vote. The official results don’t mesh with unofficial polling. Two parties claimed victory—one of which we like a whole lot more than the other. Now there are riots and accusations of fraud. How do we fit all these facts into a story?
One story is so appealing it is hard to resist. After years of a hostile foreign policy, Obama reached out to the regular people of Iran. Or perhaps people who didn’t trust democracy saw the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Or perhaps people were just sick of the hard-liners. So the forces of reform, led by the youth, mobilized. They scared the hard-liners, who rigged the results. Unwilling to quietly let their dreams be dashed, the reformers with a popular mandate, took to the streets.
But I’m making the connections in the way I want to make them. I can tell another story too. Iran’s reformer—who has some skeletons in his closet—gained a surprising amount of popular support. Of course, those enthusiastic supporters, like Ron Paul’s supporters, are great at being visible, but not-so-great at being a majority. Or perhaps Moussavi was a Howard Dean with vastly over-estimated support. When the election came, Ahmadenijad won handily—and the rioters and protestors are merely another anti-democratic force willing to use force to subject their will on people regardless of any popular mandate. And any calls to support them are simply calls to support a favored minority over the popularly elected government.
I could combine the stories in any number of ways. I don’t know what is happening. Should I temper my opinions in recognition of my lack of objectivity or should I throw caution to the wind and cheer for the people I hope are the people I want to cheer for?
