Mehdi Jami on Mousavi’s 17th Statement: Mousavi’s Statement on the Day of Ashura – The Last Option Before Collapse
Without doubt Mousavi’s statement on the Day of Ashura was voice of reason in [this] chaos of irrationality and ignorance. The chaos that is instigated by domestic Taliban and their disciples and supporters. The domestic Taliban is tempted to continue until the last one in opposition is eliminated and feels the lust of having the power of destruction. It knows that at the end of the road there could only be complete annihilation and defeat but it desires to destroy you even at the cost of destroying itself.
Against this crowd who have surpassed civility, morality, virtue and fairness and who in a complete show of political lumpenism only seek to shed the blood of those opposed to them , Mousavi yet again recounts his virtues and those of the green movement with demure and calmness and invites them to a fair contest. Not only he doesn’t give them any reason to make an excuse by his denouncing any cooperation with foreign agents and notorious [political] groups but he also places a mirror in front of them so they know that beating people, running them over and obstructing means of dialogue will only lead to more radical actions and domestic riots.
I have heard from here and there that this statement was sign of Mousavi’s fatigue or his compromise with the system. Mohsen Rezaie  has similar thoughts according to his latest statement. Some say the fact that Rezaie has arrived in the scene is a sign that Hashemi [Rafsanjani] is behind these events; [That] it is a complete scene for compromise. But I see these [chain of] events differently.
First it should be said that compromise is a different name of politics. Compromise is reflection of reason, especially when it is done transparently and for benefits of people. We can see this in Mousavi’s statement and this is not bad at all. He himself has said that what is essential is to live not to struggle. Life continues. The struggle is to rid life of it is ties and excesses. Struggle cannot continue for eternity. That is how we once thought for eight years and at the end we were forced to concede. This mistake should not be repeated again. There should be a window open for dialogue. All before it is too late.
Second, to say compromise means to concede to the rulers is wrong and unfair. Would a person who says in his statement that he is prepared for martyrdom make concession [to state]? Would he, who is willing to give up his own rights but stresses peoples’ rights compromise? When someone speaks of another person’s wrongdoings in his face and reminds him of consequences of his ignorant methods, what credit does he see in his opponent to motivate him to ask something from him? What more does a person who can bring millions to the street seek? to compromise and surrender this power? Why would someone who in the past seven month spoke with wisdom and consideration suddenly feel tired and stop pursuing his demands?
Compromising with negative connotation is what Mousavi’s opponents accuse him of. These people either try to tarnish Mousavi’s image or are radicals who are have gone beyond the movement’s leader and simple-mindedly want to resist until the last minute and carry out another revolution.
I think Mousavi should be trusted. There is no reason to take back our vote of confidence in him. In the past seven month he has raised our conviction in the vote of confidence we gave him. Now we should allow him to propose the topics of negotiation based on the best reasoning possible.
All five suggestions that he proposed as a solution to this crisis are valuable. He wants the opponent to agree on reforming election laws against the power of greens; to release [political] prisoners and rehabilitate them; to enforce freedom of press and media and most importantly to recognize the right to assembly, protest and form parties and groups. These are very important. He brilliantly places all the ideas for a government favored by people in front of the opponents. If they follow that’s even better. But if they don’t they have wasted the last option. He [Mousavi] is still taking steps in the framework of reforming [the system].
Apparently the first clause of his proposals has made some people think or in the case of Mohsen Rezaie desire that they can highjack the statement according to their benefits. But what is the meaning of first clause?
Mir Hossein says that the government does not have any credibility by itself; it is rather the support of the Leader (Ayatollah Khamenie) that has kept it in place. He says that should be stopped and the Leader should allow political mechanisms decide the fate of the government. He knows that it is because of these supports that parliament is powerless against the government and various supervisory and investigative bodies cannot carry out their tasks. He wants the government to face the parliament and judiciary as it really is without the support of the Leader. He wants the Leader to sit aside and let the government be questioned and challenged.
Mir Hossein seeks that the Leader’s power and lack of accountability does not shelter Ahmadinjead and his clout [from their mistakes]. Mir Hossein’s main problem is with the government that acts as an agent of the Leader and [therefore] enjoys political immunity. Mir Hossein wants this immunity to be removed. In other words Mousavi says to the Leader that he should refrain from interfering in day to day matters. He tells the Leader that to [truly] lead he should avoid supporting one specific faction [in the system].
Mousavi clearly believes, like most of us, that this government is incompetent. By asking the government to be accountable and asking the leader to remove its support, he paves the way for legal means of removing the government. Essentially he wants to resolve this issue in the parliament instead of streets. The result is the same. When he says: “if it is competent and just, it should be able to answers to the concerns of the people and the parliament. If it is dishonest and incompetent, the parliament and the judiciary branch should react within their constitutional powers.” He has means something very clear. Like him, we, Hashemi Rafsanjani, Larijani  and Rezaie all know that the government is inefficient and incompetent. He simply says that the leader should remove his unconventional support for the government and let the parliament decide the fate of the president who was installed in the office. He suggests and predicts that Ahmadinejad will be sacked based on political ineptitude. This can result in another election.
For someone like Mousavi who is committed to the constitution and its unrealized capacities, a man who does not intent to carry out a revolution, this is a prudent proposal. If this suggestion along with his other four requests is not implemented, there would be no other scenario but subversion of the system. His proposal [to the crisis] like any other proposal is a win-win [strategy]. Unless the opposite side chooses to engage in a win-lose situation.
You might tend to think that it is impossible for people who have intentionally insisted on monopolizing the power all these years to agree to these requests. But as the last option, in order to avoid increasing the costs, undoubtedly it is worth a try.
 Mohsen Rezaie is the senior member of the Expediency council that is currently under direction of Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani, the prominent Iranian politician and a former president. Mr. Rezaie was also one of the defeated candidates in the controversial June 12 Election in 2009 who stopped his criticism towards cases of fraud after the supreme leader ayatollah Khamenie called the election sound and the results final. Prior his involvement in politics Mr. Rezaie was in charge of the revolutionary guards, a role that he had for a long time since the Iran- Iraq war during Ayatollah Khomeini’s time.
 Ali Larijani is the current head of the parliament. His brother Sadegh Larijani heads the judiciary branch of power. Both brothers are close allies of the supreme leader, although Ali has some outspoken disagreements with some the policies of Mr.Ahmadinejad’s government.