Dreyfuss' most recent book was a blistering critique of US foreign policy in the ME. To paint him as a liberal apologist is uninformed.
He actually went to Iran and reported what he saw, whether anyone likes it or not. If you weave together bits of his writing you can concoct a picture of bias.
The writer's confusion is typified by this graph:
In a passage that reveals more about the social outlook of Dreyfuss than it does about Ahmadinejad’s supporters, dripping with contempt for the working class, Dreyfuss compares the participants at Ahmadinejad’s rally to those he found much more likeable at a rally held by Mousavi:
“Instead of ‘Death to America!’ the green-clad Mousavi supporters chant: ‘Death to potatoes!’ ridiculing Ahmadinejad’s practice of giving out sacks of potatoes to his poor supporters. The women at the Mousavi rally are sheathed in scarves, but their stylish hair is visible underneath, they wear attractive makeup and pink lipstick, and below their short outer garments are visible jeans and, in many cases, high heels. At the Ahmadinejad rally, the women—in the thousands—are segregated from the men, and they are dressed head to toe in all-covering black.”
The writer seems to conflate the female style of dress imposed by fundamentalism with proletarian virtue. Of course historically fascist movements have recruited from the working class, among other places. I'd say the writer's zeal to criticize all things U.S. has confused him into blocking with the Iranian fascists. (And what else would you call them?)