It would be better for Western countries, Israel, and Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late Shah of Iran, to let Iranian reformist supporters of Mir Hossein Mousavi deal with their “defeat” at the hands of the regime and the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution. There is no weapon more powerful for Ahmadinejad and those who support him and allowed him to achieve this very doubtful “victory,” than for Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak to consider Ahmadinejad's election “bad news,” or for Reza Pahlavi to call on the world to “support Iranians in their struggle for freedom, human rights, and democracy,” as he put it. Reformist Iranians do not need foreign support. They need to be left alone, to wage their battle for democracy with its own weapons, i.e. domestic weapons. The big accusation that Ahmadinejad made against his rivals is that they sought support from the outside world, only because this outside world called for respecting the will of Iranian voters. Ahmadinejad went as far as to say that “forces hostile” to Iran were behind his rivals' campaign. With his customary “modesty,” he considered his “victory” as one of Iran against all of these hostile forces put together. We should remember that the forces that oppose Iranian electoral fraud are not opposed to the Revolution or the concept of wilayat al-faqih. They have been long-time leading members of the Islamic Republic, when Ahmadinejad's name remained unknown in Iran and abroad. These figures held key posts in the state, from the prime minister to the head of the Shura Council to the head of the Republican Guard. Thus, when the president of the Iranian regime goes as far as to accuse men of this caliber, from within the ruling institution, of seeking foreign support, this indicates the dangerous chasm separating Iran's two competing sides, as well as the dimensions and impact of this perilous conflict on the future of the regime itself. The slogans that are being heard in the Iranian street these days, such as “Death to the Dictator,” a reference to Ahmadinejad, were heard in the past only against America and the late Shah during the Revolution. Certainly, the intifada that the street is witnessing today reminds us only of the contradictions of those days. Influential political and religious parties have never joined forces against a so-called “election,” despite the Supreme Leader's endorsement of the results, like we are seeing today. A word of congratulation from Ayatollah Ali Khamenei to Ahmadinejad should have decided things and muted the voices of the opposition. Instead, we have heard the voices of former President Mohammad Khatami, the Chairman of the Expediency Council, Hashemi Rafsanjani, and election candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi reject this call; they have called for holding the election again and not respecting the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad; they are confronting the Interior Ministry's call for them to refrain from demonstrating. If this is not a division within the regime, between leading figures of the Islamic Republic, then what is it? The “Iranian Obama” did not arrive in office thanks to people's votes, as it should be. However, preventing him from taking office has opened up a profound fissure in the foundations of the regime and the blind trust that it expects from its citizens, which is actually subservience to decisions from on high and refraining from expressing opposition or refusal, especially in front of the international media. Certainly, the Iranian regime finds itself in a predicament. It is one of ignoring popular will, not only during elections, but also over the past years. The regime failed to notice that more than two-thirds of its citizens did not experience the Revolution and did not take to the streets to defend it. Thus, they do not feel the need to support the slogans of the Revolution, irrespective of the means. These people are trying to improve their standard of living and manage their lives in the way that they hear other peoples of the world are doing. They believe that domestic concerns and problems, in a rich country like Iran, should win out over trying to support foreign powers and interests. Therefore, Mosavi's campaign slogan was attractive to them, and “his defeat” sparked popular anger that has been unprecedented since the Revolution. Nonetheless, it does not help them, in their difficult battle, to see foreign forces extend their hand to exploit their opposition.
