> You ignored my point that the regime is not Ahmadinejad, and whatever
> his personal virtues, he lacks the resources to deliver on his populist
> agenda and is subordinated to a wretched power elite. What's with these
> Hobson's choices? It's either imperialism or some jazzed- up mullahs?
========================
Actually, I do think it unfortunately comes down to a Hobson's choice of
"either imperialism or some jazzed-up mullahs".
Doesn't the issue for the left boil down to whether or not to support the Iranians and the Islamist movements, warts and all, in their confrontations with Israel and the US? I think they deserve support strictly out of respect for the principle of self-determination and non-interference, and I'd be surprised if you and most others on the list did not feel likewise.
Their political character is a secondary consideration. I'd describe these movements as populist, much like those in Latin America, except that they are more parochial and socially conservative because of their religious underpinnings. For this reason, they're much more alien to the left than are the secular and socially liberal Latin American movements, and why most leftists bristle when Ahmadinejad is compared to Chavez.
With all due respect to Yoshie, then, I think her focus on the domestic policies of Ahmadinejad and the Islamists is politically misguided. It provokes unnecessary controversy which typically detracts from rather than assists in winning support on the left for the Islamist resistance to US and Israeli aggression. It reminds people of what they DON'T like about these movements rather than inspiring support for them.