Ahmadinejad Is Not The Issue

Foremost I would simply like to point out that I realize Ahmadinejad likely wasn't legitimately re-elected in Iran, but under their political structure the presidential seat is almost powerless, and the policy implications of his rule are negligent at best. Nevertheless, I applaud the outrage over the political corruption and election fixing, surely I consider this a major transgression and recognize the strain it puts on a nation where many strive for legitimacy, peace, and acceptance only to be overshadowed by a menacing figurehead, who despite the medias oft-misquotes, is still a fear-mongering-hate-artist who deserves a life of imprisonment. The real point of this blog though is to explore the quintessential question of, who really runs Iran? It is easy to cast a sole figure into the role of devil, as was done from Bin-Laden and Hussein to Hitler and Stalin and so on and so forth, in this case Ahmadinejad is the face of horror, but my understanding is that he has been sorely miscast for the role. The most important factor in understanding Iran is that their government, while they do hold elections, is not a true democracy, they are more or less a strict Islamic theocracy. What the BBC classifies as a "network of unelected institutions controlled by the highly powerful conservative Supreme Leader" is the pillar of "government" by which all decision making must run through, and while Ahmadinejad may or may not line up with them on certain issues, he -nor any of the elected parliament members- really matter, it seems, because regardless of their efforts, even if they were in favor of change (mild or radical), I have serious doubts as to whether or not they would fly. Basically, my contention is that if Mir Hossein Moussavi were not [potentially] cheated out of office by a rigged election, it doesn't even really matter one way or the next. If you want change, change the system. That's just one mans humble opinion though.