The point is...

Submitted by Jeff (United States), Jun 20, 2009 at 17:23

Fay, it is clear to any honest observer that the real power in Iran lies with the mullahs and their unelected guardian council. They decide who can run for president, (also perhaps who wins) and they decide the "tone and policy" of the government.

I think, what Dr. Pipes is saying, is essentially it's better to have a president of Iran who to a degree honestly and accurately expresses and exposes the views of that government. It's simply better to know the truth; it's still the truth, whether we like it or whether we don't. Facts are stubborn; we may as well know them. And President Achmadinejad raises awareness of the facts.

If a more moderate voice were in place, perhaps other moderates could begin to find their voice and begin a chorus of opposition that just might bring about reform.

Wishful thinking. It didn't work when Khatami was president, (just ask the family of Zahra Kazemi) and it won't work now.

Would you have said the same about Hitler if he had had an opponent who was more moderate in tone?

An absurd and irrelevant question. A more relevant question would be, Would you have said the same about Hitler if the German people had an electoral choice between a mouthpiece for Hitler who told soothing lies about him or a mouthpiece who revealed what Hitler really thought? In other words, would you have preferred to know, or not to know?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".