The Iranian crisis

It has become clear that despite the bravery and sacrifice of many young Iranians, the current conflict in Iran is actually an internal dispute within the Islamic Revolutionary party. In other words, the young people rioting in Tehran may want democracy, but that is not the real goal of the leaders of the anti-Ahmedinejad campaign. The absence of Ahmedinejad from the spotlight and the forceful statements of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei makes it clear that this is an internal split, and Ahmedinejad is the puppet of Khamenei and the extremists. What is the basis of this split?
It seems that Mousavi and his supporters, including Rafsanjani, Hatami and others, who have previously been labeled as "moderates" within the Iranian system, have concluded that the Khamenei-Ahmedinejad ruling clique represents a threat to the continuation of the revolutionary Islamic regime, because of their repressive approach to the large youth population, their tendency to fix votes, their proclivity to bring out the basij (the "storm-troopers of the regime who are known for their butality) and most notably for antagonizing the rest of the world by publicizing their nuclear program. These so-called moderates feel that these extreme policies are threatening the viability of the Revolutionary party in Iran. It is likely that they too would develop nuclear weapons, but they would not make such a fuss about it, baiting the rest of the world, and deliberately denying the Holocaust. They see Ahmedinejad and Khamenei behind him as deliberately putting Iran in a precarious position.
Now that they have made their split from the ruling clique clear, it remains to be seen whether or not they can control the genie they have, so to speak, let out of the lamp. They have the support of a large segment of the population, and the situation in Iran can never be the same again. The dictatorship of the Ayatollahs has been given a severe and perhaps fatal blow, but they still control all the levers of power, the basij, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, the Army and the Parliament, that is due to ratify the election of Ahmedinejad this week.
I agree with Pres. Obama that he must be cautious not to be seen as the leader of the countries that have criticized the Iranian regime for their actions against the demonstrators. The strategy of the regime is to blame outside forces for the "uprising," and that includes the US, Britain and Israel. Since Obama has been very circumspect, it is not plausible for that charge to stick against the US, and Israel is hardly a factor in Iran, so they have selected Britain, the "middle Satan" as the fall guy. Iran expelled two British diplomats, so the next day Britain expelled two Iranian diplomats. That's the way the game is played.
Noone is fooled by this stratagem, everyone knows this is an internal Iranian split, that is both good and bad for the world. It may be bad if the extremists win and destroy the opposition in the process, although that may make the external struggle with Iran clearer. It may be good if the split leads to a more moderate Iranian dictatorship, or that may be bad if they continue to develop nuclear weapons but with less fanfare. It would be best if the regime were to fall and be replaced by one that supports democracy in Iran and stops nuclear development, but that is wishful thinking.