Does Andrew Sullivan Deserve a Pulitzer for Iran?

The Washington Post finally acknowledged today that something was happening in Iran. The New York Times did so late yesterday afternoon with their "Lede" column and Huffington Post decided to give the Detroit terrorism threat a break and covered Iran. But Andrew Sullivan has been there all along and most of the major news outlets--spoken or not--are taking their leads from Andrew's Daily Dish. The cable news networks were ominously quiet. Instead we were treated to Peter King and other Republicans screaming that the Obama Administration were not emotional enough in dealing with the Detroit episode. Other talking heads said that Obama should return promptly from Hawaii--to do what remains the question. But clearly, Andrew Sullivan is keeping his eye on the ball and I agree with him--although other bloggers don't--that we are on the cusp of a world changing event.

Steve Cleamons of the New American Foundation claims Khamenei is the new Shah--forgetting decades of political killings in the Islamic Republic. He added to his article a tweet from former regime apologist Barbara Slavin, who basically said Khamenei is damned if he did--liberalize--and damned if he didn't. I'm soo glad she earns the big bucks.

It's still curious to me why my conservative friends are so silent--as they were with the June elections--on events in Iran. Most of these people either think Israel or the United States should attack--at least the nuclear installations. But the actual fate of the Iranians leaves them cold. Some of this is the mentality we saw at the end of the Cold War that you could not change a totalitarian regime except by force and that in fact the status quo was better than uncertain change. And the other is that despite the unrising, Iran has multiple security forces that we repress and that no change is possible and that the current known agents of change are somehow tainted by their past relationships with the system. After nearly forty years, that's alot of tainted Iranians. Or it may be that real democratic change can not come unless the United States is a major agent in bringing it about. Shame on them!

Whatever the reason the leftwing blogosphere is the only action on the Iranian issue right now. And even they are taking their leads from Andrew Sullivan, who clearly is rooting for our friends there. The fact he has continued to be focused on this issue since prior to the elections warrants some award. Now that the news outlets have severely cut international coverage--it really is about us--not about them, it's time they give out the journalist awards to bloggers.

Today, Tehran arrested a long list of former government officials and opposition figures, including 72-year old Ebrahim Yazdi, the foreign minister from the transitional government and a personality from Mossadegh's party. Running down the list of arrests it's clear that this was strategic--a good many of them would constitute a decent interim government. Maybe the regime's fears go deeper than the outside world widely believes.

The killing of Ali Mousavi, the nephew of opposition leader Mir Hussein Mousavi, has deeper symbolic meaning as he was a sayyed or someone said to be descended from the Prophet. It seems not to be so coincidental that his body disppeared before his family could claim it. Murdering a sayyed on Ashura is bad karma.

There were some light moments in the grim events. Government goons tried to interrupt a dinner of reformist clerics by chanting " Agents of British imperialism! Agents of the BBC!" In one analysis piece I read, the author warned of the chaos that would ensue if the regime were toppled--the MEK would come to power! Well, as Monty Python said, " No one ever expects the Spanish Inquisition!" And the author was an American at that.

In hopes for the future, I say, "Iran is a model of stability" . The last time someone said that all hell broke loose.

Keep it up Andrew.