Iran

Ahmadinejad does fascism. Literally.

As the streets of Tehran begin to look like a Paris suburb on your average Saturday night (lots of screaming, youths throwing bricks at police, burning cars, etc.), the real question is not the one being asked by the world press. Here is how the WaPo phrases it:

NO ONE outside the inner precincts of Iran's power structure knows who won that country's presidential election Friday. It's possible that a majority voted to reelect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, as he claims. It's also possible, as much of his opposition fervently believes, that the election was stolen. What we can say for certain is that the election was neither free nor fair.

I can't disagree with any of that. Iran is not a democracy. It has a popularly elected legislature and President, but neither of these enjoys any real power. The security forces are controlled by the clerics. Moreover, the Ayatollahs get to decide who gets to run for President. I think it entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that more Iranians voted for the clown prince Ahmadinejad than for his rival Mir Hossein Mousavi. As the WaPo points out, under the rules of this game it is impossible to tell.

But here is what I want to know: how can a controlled election result in riots? If Mousavi represented a real opposition party, organized independently of the regime, this would be easy enough to game. You need only ask how strong the popular support for the opposition really is. Then you weigh that against the resources the regime has for crushing opposition. Hint: the party that controls the army usually wins.

But since Ahmadinejad and Mousavi are both establishment figures (or else they wouldn't be on the ballot), don't the riots mean that the regime is coming unglued? Two hand-picked candidates succeed not in consolidating control but in dividing the Persian street.

Michael J. Totten has the best thing I have seen on this. His post is a model of what great internet journalism can be: passages from serious political journalism followed by lots of informative quotes and punctuated by video clips. Totten quotes Andrew Sullivan, who offers a paragraph translated from Farsi:

Grand Ayatollah Sanei in Iran has declared Ahmadinejad's presidency illegitimate and cooperating with his government against Islam. There are strong rumors that his house and office are surrounded by the police and his website is filtered. He had previously issued a fatwa, against rigging of the elections in any form or shape, calling it a mortal sin.

If that's genuine, it's every Ayatollah for himself. I am not optimistic that this will result in real democracy. I suspect the black robes will get their act together and lay down the law. But it is very interesting that the regime that is the greatest threat to Middle East stability is itself, just now, unstable.

Wouldn't it be charming if the power of the Ayatollahs did fail and give way to genuine democracy just at the moment that another democracy is emerging next door?

Comments

[Braden]

Good coverage of the elections in Iran.

While the clerics may win this battle, I think its their first step in losing the war. A whole generation of young people now views the clerics as illegitimate rulers of Iran. Revolution might not come immediately, but it is definately coming.

We should quit remaining neutral in this crisis and through our support behind Mousavi already. For one, he's not nuts and should be easier to negotiate with. Plus, the younger generations of Iran will remember than the United States sided with them against tyranny.

In a year or two, we could have a more democratic Iran that abandons pursuit of nuclear weapons and has recognized Isreal. And to think, we didn't have to "bomb bomb Iran" to get it.

[A.I.]

I doubt all your hopes for Iran will materialize so rapidly Braden, but I do agree we need not "bomb, bomb Iran" for them to become reality. I also hope you are right and I am wrong.

As for Mousavi, he seems a big step above Ahmadinejad, but he's still part of the current power structure. While it is certainly appropriate for the U.S. to call for fair and honest elections, open support of Mousavi may be counterproductive for both he and us as we do not enjoy a completely untarnished reputation in Iran.

[Miranda]

I was watching the protest on CNN earlier today and I noticed that for some reason, the police in the footage had signs that read, "police". In English. Do you have any idea why? It reminded me of the "baby milk factory" incident.

[KB]

I am sympathetic to Braden's view we should not remain neutral on the issue of the Iranian election, and to A.I.'s suggestion that it might not be best to openly support Mousavi. For one thing, we can't be sure Mousavi is the real winner. For another, the explicit support of an outside power (especially the U.S.) would not necessarily help Mousavi. But we should not be neutral as regards fair elections.

A.I. is quick to vote against "bomb, bomb." I am not sure we have reached the stage where military action is indicated, and I am doubtful that the Obama Administration is likely to take such a step even if it was. Only Iran's nuclear weapons program would justify such an action at this time. Of course, the U.S. is not the only power interested in this issue. The Israelis may act for us. Meanwhile, is it such a good idea to keep saying we aren't going to "bomb, bomb Iran." Maybe it would make negotiations easier if they thought we were prepared to do just that.

AS for the "police" sign, I have no clue. Could it be that the whole thing is staged for our benefit?

[Erik]

KB,
As usual, some thoughtful analysis. Any talk of a more agressive policy towards Iran must be tempered with the knowledge that we and the British engineered a coup against the *secular* democraticalle elected Mossadegh (sp?) regime in '53. In large part, the Iranian Revolution was a revolt against the Anglo-American installed Shah. So, given that track record of intervention in Iran, why do you think that more intervention is helpful?

[KB]

Erik:

I don't think that a policy failure in the past means that we shouldn't make policy with regard to Iran today. Maybe we can do nothing to move Iran toward a republic. What we can do we should do.

[A.I.]

Numerous protest signs also are in English. In that case at least, it would appear people are trying to get their message out to the world through free-press, western media which is dominated by English-speaking countries.

The "bomb, bomb" thing is a double-edged sword. Sure, it can be the stick in 'carrot and stick' diplomacy. But, it also is the outside threat totalitarians like the Iranian regime use to hold onto power.

It is amazing to me that many on the Right advocate threatening foreign countries as a means of diminishing the power of their regimes or deposing them. The same saber-rattlers decry our indebtedness to China fomenting fear that China will soon be able to dictate to us. Yet, they fail to see that our threats breed similar fears in the people of lands we threaten with military action and cause them to rally around leaders they otherwise despise.

What is happening in Iran right now is evidence a large and determined segment of the population wants change. That could mean deposing their dictators from within--and with that, reduced bellicosity toward the West in general and America and Israel in particular. It would be more than a shame to see that movement undermined by a threat from without.

[KB]

A.I.:

Thanks as always for your thought provoking comments. It is easy to understand why the protesters have signs in English. We know who they are trying to reach. It is not so easy to say why the police have signs in English. Miranda was referring to the incident where George the First bombed a factory in Libya that we believed was manufacturing chemical weapons. The Libyans claimed it was a baby food factory. The released pictures of it in operation, and sure enough there was a man walking in it with a sign on his chest that said "baby food factory." I could read it because it was in English. In that case the con was transparent. It might be that the Regime wants foreign journalist to know who the police are, but that weak offering is all I have.

As for threatening other nations, us Conservatives believe that when you want another government to do something it is not presently inclined to do, you need leverage. That means either offering them something they want or threatening them with something they don't want, or both. What do you Liberals believe? That negotiations really about trade-offs, but about sharing the love? I had supposed that was a caricature of the Left. But what is left?

Tehran is going to use American influence as a boogy man no matter what we do. Indeed, they are already doing so despite President Obama's studied silence. I just think that to the degree that the regime thinks we are prepared to do something they really don't want us to do, they have more incentive to negotiate. I am simple minded that way.

[A.I.]

KB, what this liberal pragmatist believes is use of force, rewards or neither must be done on a case by case basis. By that I mean, the actual situation we are dealing with in a given country at a given time, not a blanket policy toward a given nation all the time even if the internal dynamics of that country have changed significantly.

Perhaps the most important concept implanted while I was in college came from a semantics class, that being: "The same man never crosses the same river twice". That concept applies to nations as well as individuals. Iran obviously is not the same nation today as it was before the (s)election.

A week ago, Iran was a theocracy ruled by an entrenched Ayatollah who conveyed hard-line policies against the West and Israel through a puppet president. Today, millions of Iranians are challenging that Ayatollah's authority and they are receiving some support from other Ayatollahs within the ruling hierarchy. There is a real chance that more moderate forces will gain greater power within the current political system, or even overthrow it.

So, in the case of Iran today, we should do exactly what Obama is doing. A Republican whose foreign policy expertise I think we both might respect agrees: As per the A.P., Indiana Sen. Richard Lugar told CBS' "Early Show" It would be unwise for the United States to get any more involved than it is. He says the Iranians need to be allowed to work things out, because "when popular revolutions occur, they come right from the people."

Yes, the Iranian regime is using the U.S. as a foil anyway. Some will believe their lies, but as long as the protest continue, our best hope is that enough won't. One thing is certain, if we overplay our hand, their lies become the truth and the "popular revolution" is definitely undermined.

Further, if we engage the current regime in any way, we give it credibility as a vital governing authority rather than a wounded autocracy that very well may be devolving into irrelevance. Personally, I really am enjoying watching them twist in the wind and certainly don't want to do anything to disturb that scenario. Now really, does that sound like "sharing the love" or does it sound like schadenfreude.