Like everyone, I've been following the events unfolding in Iran. And thinking about them. Most of what I would say has already been said, likely better, by others. In sorting out my arguments for why the Neoconservatives are wrong, and why what's happened will be significant regardless of the outcome. I've been forming a kind of more generalized theory of 'moderate' revolutions.
To give the short version, the great mistake and fallacy of Neocon thinking is their hard-line approach to everything. Foreign hard-liners should be met with an even harder American line. Since we're the 'biggest and strongest', we should win. Or so the theory goes. A more nuanced, creative and pragmatic position is, in their view, not only a counter-productive sign of 'weakness', but it also wreaks havoc with the absolute moral certitude they find so appealing.
Their great mistake, illustrated by what's going on in Iran (regardless of outcome), is that in setting one extreme versus another, hence excluding the possibility of a 'moderate' revolution, i.e. one spearheaded from 'within the system'. Which is often not only possible (something neocons would prefer to deny) but also often the most probable turn of events. My arguments are under the tab..
What I'm talking about
To begin with defining what I mean by a 'moderate revolution', perhaps it's best to give an example of the alternative - which Iran can also provide. The 1979 Iranian Revolution was not, ultimately, moderate at all. One relatively extreme and corrupt form of government was thrown out, and replaced with an entirely different one. None of the revolutionary leaders had had any place in the Shah's regime. Other examples would be the Russian Revolution (Communism replacing another corrupt monarch). The Chinese Revolution (replacing Nationalism) and the Cuban revolution (replacing a corrupt dictator).
The alternative to a revolution, when a regime falls out of favor with the people, is reform. And there are a good number of countries (e.g. the UK) which have become democracies, not through revolution, but through the long process of reform.
But the 'reform' option isn't one if the regime is too extreme; if the leadership has many hard-liners of its own. So you get a situation as we see in Iran right now. A popular uprising, but one that is not advocating destroying the system outright, but reform. The enemy is not the government, but the hard-liners within government. A 'moderate revolution', as I'm calling it. If successful, it can quickly bring about radical reform - even beyond that of the moderates who served as leaders!
Communist Europe
Just to give some examples: Hungary 1956. The reform-minded Communist leader Imre Nagy was kicked out of office by the hard-liners in his party, on orders from the Kremlin's hard-liners. This sparked the Hungarian Revolution, which ended up overthrowing Communism entirely - which was more than Nagy had bargained for. Famously, he started an speech to the masses who'd returned him to power by addressing them as 'Comrades', and was promptly booed by his own supporters. It was only external military intervention in the form of Soviet troops, that brought it to a tragic end.
History repeated itself with the Prague Spring of 1968. Again, the Soviets cracked down on the peaceful reformists with military force.
Yet - it was not without consequences. Communism in Hungary and Czechoslovkia was effectively dead - a zombie, waiting for indications that the Soviets would allow them their own fate and not intervene. When that sign came, the Iron Curtain came crashing down at a speed few had anticipated.
That, in turn sparked another 'moderate' revolt, as the reform-minded Gorbachev was put under house arrest by hard-liners. The people, supporting Gorbachev, revolted. The Soviet Union came to an end in the exact kind of revolt they'd murdered to suppress.
We've seen quite a few bloodless democratic revolutions since, most of which fall into the same kind of category.
Why Neocon hard-line attitudes are wrong
So, what role did our own hard-liners play in that? The answer is: None. Republicans will continue to pretend that Reagan somehow ended the Cold War. He did not. Hard-liners did nothing to end it. Few staunch anti-communist hardliners supported Nagy or Dubček or even Gorbachev - they were Communists.
If you asked them a few weeks ago, few Neocons spoke supportively of Mousavi, whose "Islamic Republic credentials" are first-rate. Which is why he was permitted to run for office in the first place. They even tried to give Ahmadinejad a boost by trying to put a vote on sanctions immediately before the Iranian election.
Any Neocon will tell you: Compromise is bad. The only chance for internal regime change is to support the biggest hard-liners on the other side, hoping things will get bad enough, extreme enough, to warrant a full-scale revolution. A nice, pure revolution, untainted by any members of the former regime. And one which simply appears relatively unlikely to happen. House Republicans even tried to give Ahmadinejad a boost by trying to put a vote on sanctions immediately before the Iranian election.
This isn't to say that ordinary revolutions don't happen. They do; in countries with an extreme regime. A 'moderate' revolution is not going to happen in North Korea, for instance. There simply aren't any moderates - or discourse even. The system is utterly totalitarian. The people may revolt or the system may collapse from within. But reform or attempts at it is simply not on the table.
But in countries where people are relatively well off, and longing for change, where the regime is not democratic, but not completely without some flexibility and discourse. Where there's still a certain Rule of Law, there's a certain - if small- ability to work 'within the system', then there's a good chance of this kind of 'moderate' revolution.
By taking their hard-line approach, Republicans and Neoconservatives only contribute to strengthening the hard-liners abroad, and undermine that possibility - often the best possibility - for change. They did it against the Soviets. They did it against Iran. They continue to do it against Cuba, among others.