The untold and more important part of the Iranian election is this: millions of Iranians do support a terrorist theocracy, and an immoral anti-Western fascism. Regardless of vote-rigging and corruption, upwards of some 15-25 million Iranians out of a voting population of 35 millions, actually do support the fascistic-insanity of Ahmadinejad and the blighted theocratic-fascist ignorance of Khomenei. In this regard the Iranian elections clarify one essential point – Iran is not a 'moderate' Islamic state, but just another example of a failed Islamic state in which millions willingly divorce themselves from modernity, rights and morality.

The best case for 'moderates' and reformers within Iran is probably a split in the vote of 50-50 with the Islamic theocracy and gangsters in power. Given the grave internal conditions in Iran including a lack of food, gasoline, consumer items, female education, freedom of speech, freedom of movement, freedom of association, and its increasing autarchy and rabid fundamentalism, this seems amazing. Iran is a failed Islamic state in which women are denied basic rights; in which the economy has long ago ceased to function as a ward of the Islamic state; in which regional neighbors and Jews are constantly threatened; and in which hope has vanished for any not inside the ruling clique of fascists and gangsters. This is the real story. Many in Iran don't want Western liberalism.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians have been either killed, tortured or beaten for a variety of crimes contrary to Islamic fundamentalism, since the Khomeini takeover in 1979. And yet this regime still enjoys widespread support. Perhaps the widespread support is driven by many factors. The rabid fundamentalists who really do covet Sharia and Koranic law. Perhaps millions of others vote for the regime out of fear. Others might be entirely ignorant about the blessings and demands of freedom and representative democracy, and blithely prefer the devil they know, to the one they don't.

The reasons for regime support are probably mixed and opaque much as they were with the general populace which supported German and Russian fascism. But the important fact is that the regime of Ahmadinejad does enjoy some level of widespread support. If it didn't it would not still be in power.

What is remarkable about this current show of dissatisfaction is not that it occurred. What is remarkable is the fact that it is not 80% of Iranians who are demanding the destruction of the current regime, but perhaps only 20-40 % who want such change. Indeed the regime is able to host some impressive demonstrations of its own in recent days, constituting hundreds of thousands of supporters. It is hard to believe that all of these people were forced to attend. Not even the fascist Iranian regime is going to enforce compliance with a public show of solidarity. If that was the case, the regime would have ended long ago.

Here then is another lesson which can be derived from this election. Moral relativity and passivity by Western powers does not work. If the West wants peace in the Middle East it will have to replace this Mullah regime with something approaching what the Iraqis are constructing – a Westernized and Western allied, representative Muslim state. But to grovel, apologise and state as the Prophet Obamed has done so often, that 'Iran's elections are the concerns of the Iranian people', is insidious.

Iran is an unstable Muslim fascist state which directly threatens Western and Middle Eastern interests, including the entire liberal state of Israel. Sorry Prophet, but Iran affects everyone – including Western apologists for Islam and people like Bill Clinton who remarked two years ago that Iran had a thriving and vibrant democracy. Like the Prophet, Clinton is deluded about the actual state of affairs within a theocratic fascism. There has to be widespread support for the fascist program or the state simply collapses into anarchy.

One primary lesson from Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia is that for a fascist regime to survive it has to appeal to as many 'classes' as possible. The Nazis were extremely popular with students, women, intellectuals and even the Church leadership for example – all very different groups with varied points of self-interest. The Soviets likewise appealed to many disparate power bases and waged war on those – like the agricultural owning rich class – which didn't support it. The same is true in Iran. The Iranian regime has a lot of support from different classes and interest groups and it will wage war on those who are outside the orbit of state-theocratic power.

Iran's only great hope for a regime change is a stiff and uncompromising edict emanating from the West, that the Ahmadinejad regime is a fraud, that new elections under international auspices must be held, and that the West will aid with money and other covert support, the reformist groups who desire the overthrow of a failed Muslim fascist-ocracy. If those statements were made then we might have some chance at seeing a new regime in Iran and the first tentative steps towards some form of normalcy. But given the widespread support which exists for Ahmadinejad and Khomenei even these actions, while required, will not be enough.

In any event such statements of will and purpose and morality will of course will never be uttered. Just more nuanced and 'complicated' gibberish, respecting the 'rights of Iranians' to submit themselves to yet another failed and fascist Islamic governance. And such 'leaders' chatter about human rights and freedom ?