I would like to hear others' views on this question. Please share your understandings with us.
Max, what "something new" would you suggest?
Yes, Max, I agree with you to a degree. I think we can put in it in less inflamatory terms: "Moderate" in the above formulation means "more or less prepared to live with the status quo," while "radical" means wishing to go back to the roots, to the Arab Islamic Empire, the Caliphate, and Muslim dominance.
If we take Saudi Arabia as an example, it is unclear to me whether they bend to our will, or we bend to theirs, or, more likely, we embrace in mutual stupidity. The Saudi case is an interest one, actually: The rulers are faux moderates, supporting a stealth Islamism; the population is restless, but wants more, not less, of the same. So S.A. does not fall neatly into either category.
Some would argue that Iran does: The elite are obviously religious fanatics, with a huge lust for secular power as well. The populace is deeply fed up with the clergy; so much so, that some have stopped saying "Salam alecum" and "Khuda hafez" and replaced them with the pre-Islamic "Darood" and "Bedrood." However that, and the Zoroastrian temple that expatriots have built in California, may be, the people despise the clergy and would love to see their backs. Among the people, there are lots and lots of youngsters, who "just want to have fun," Western style. They are not throwing bombs, yet, but many, many have dropped out and turned on. You can try to make your case, but dynamics in Iran do not fall very neatly into colonialism, imperialism categories.