Why is this - or is it - not as simple as wanting to open Iran up to capitalist exploitation?

In April Mousavi said he would talk to Pres. Obama if elected. So what if a deal was made, US and its puppets support the "revolution" (not) and in return Mousavi opens Iran up?
Is this so obvious that no one has written about it, cuz I can't find anything.

thanks,
ellenr

...especially if reports of U.S. dropping $400K on their election are accurate. We don't make those kinds of investments in genuinely populist movements; we do spend that much (and more) for sock-puppets. As for what the quid pro quo is, only the principles know for sure...

Obama Moves to Fund Iranian Dissidents
Despite Claims of Not Meddling, US to Send $20 Million to Opposition

Jason Ditz, June 26, 2009

Despite President Barack Obama’s persistent claims that the United States is not meddling in the post-election furore in Iran, the administration is moving forward with plans to subsidize Iranian dissident groups to the tune of $20 million in the form of USAID grants.

The program is not new, and the solicitation for the grant applications actually came under the Bush Administration. But with the deadline for submissions just four days away, the administration has a convenient excuse to subsidize opposition and dissident groups under the guise of promoting “the rule of law” in Iran.

The White House and the State Department both defended the program, insisting it did not run counter to the administration’s pretense of neutrality. The administration declined to provide details of exactly which opposition figures it had been funding, however, citing “security concerns.”

There is considerable criticism for this program, not just from the perspective of getting the US involved in the internal affairs of Iran, but also for the taint it places on various opposition groups and NGOs, whether they received any of the grant money or not. (end of article)

http://www.myantiwar.org/view/182416.html