- Image via Wikipedia
Iran recently held its presidential election and, not surprisingly, Ahmadinejad is the official winner. However, not everyone has accepted the legitimacy of the results. In fact, supporters of the other candidate, Moussavi, have been protesting the results and alleging fraud.
One point of concern is that Ahmadinejad received 62% of the vote. To some, this seems like too much of a victory given the apparent support enjoyed by his opponent. Of course, it should be noted that the impression of how people would vote might be biased. After all, the media focused its attention on Tehran and other urban areas rather than in the rural areas and smaller towns. Ahmadinejad is well known to enjoy overwhelming support in these areas. Given that 75% of the voters live in these regions, getting 62% of the vote does seem like a real possibility. However, it is hardly unreasonable to be suspicious of the result.
A second concern is that the election results were tallied with amazing speed. While this does not mean that the results were pre-set or rigged, the speed has raised some concerns. Naturally enough, this fact could be explained away. However, it does provide grounds for concern.
A third concern is the fact that people in Iran have presented some evidence that fraud took place. Whether these claims will pan out or not remains to be seen. The Supreme Leader has promised that all such accusations will be properly addressed.
While folks in the West (and Iran) might be disappointed by the (apparent) re-election of Ahmadinejad, it seemed almost inevitable. While Iran has voting and is technically a democracy, politics is rather controlled in the state. In some ways, it is comparable to the United States. After all, we have two parties who run the main show and anyone outside of their ranks has virtually no chance of getting elected to any substantial office.
What might be most important about the Iranian election is not who won (this was, as just noted, probably set in advance). Rather, it is the fact that there seems to be a lively and growing opposition movement in Iran. What was rather amazing was what was absent this time-the chanting of “Death to America” seems to have gone out of vogue. This, of course, might be a short lived phenomena, but perhaps we are seeing the foundation of meaningful change in Iran.
Iran has a rather large youth population and a large number of women who are of voting age. These youth seem to be interested in having Iran join the community of nations in a peaceful and productive manner. Many of these young voters also seem to be genuinely opposed to the way Ahmadinejad acted and presented Iran to the world. This is not to say that they love the West in general or America in particular. However, they do seem to desire to step away from confrontation and to be interested in improving relations with the United States.
Obama has been condemned by some for not speaking out against the alleged election fraud. However, Obama obviously sees that this is a delicate situation. If he comes out for the opposition, that would (ironically) harm them. After all, an endorsement from America is not going to win many hearts and minds in Iran.While a strong opposition would probably be good for America, if we support them we run the risk of “tainting” them in the eyes of the Iranians (and the rest of the Middle East). Ironically, by trying to help them, we could end up destroying them. So, paradoxically, the best aid we can render them is to not get directly involved. If they can grow in power and get influence in the state, then they can reach out to us-of their own free choice. That would make a significant difference.
Also, Obama has to deal with Ahmadinejad (assuming the election results stand) and antagonizing Iran is not going to help our relations. Further, if we started getting self-righteous with Iran, they would no doubt raise the spectre of our 2000 Presidential election. From a pragmatic standpoint, it might be best to just stay out of the dispute and simply state our support for legitimate elections and democracy. Naturally, we should support any international efforts to assist Iran in verifying their results.
Overall, the fact that Iran is experiencing internal dissent and opposition is good for the United States. If this opposition can help moderate Iran from the inside, then we will find it that much easier to establish diplomatic relations and work with the country.
It bears repeating that we could really screw things up. Iranians remember who it was that propped up the Shah’s police state and who used to meddle in Iranian politics. If we are seen as playing those old games, this will not go over well at all and will actually hurt the opposition. So, we have to be very careful.
Naturally, if the allegations of fraud turn out to be true, we should condemn such fraud. If violence is being used against the opposition, we should condemn that as well. But, we need to avoid being seen as the Great Satan again. Rather, we want to be seen as a possible friend. While this might seem naive, we do have considerable common ground with Iran. Iran is, as odd as this might seem, a democracy (a theocratic one, to be sure, but the democratic elements are real). Iran has a well educated population and a vested interest in order, stability and economic growth. Even now, Iranians come to the United States to be educated. Of course, we also have much that puts as at odds and these concerns should not be underplayed. Iran has strong theocratic elements, is tied to various terrorists groups, and has done much to work against us in Iraq. Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust, made it clear that he wants to bomb, and has expressed a desire to wipe out Israel. But, Iran need not be our everlasting enemy and we have an excellent opportunity to make progress. Working out our difficulties peacefully seems preferable-especially if we envision radioactive wastelands where Israel and Iran used to be.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i0.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
This is a fundamentalist Islamic regime we are dealing with. They have their own reasons for hating us and it almost doesn’t matter what we do.
I actually think Obama is handling it right. It is a choice between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and I see no reason to actively interfere. Just some vague verbiage about supporting the democratic process is sufficient.
The ruling clerics are fundamentalists (but not really radicals), true. But, a significant percentage of the population seems to be far less fundamentalist and interested in change and reform. Things could get very ugly.
Interesting perspective.
Robert Kagan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/16/AR2009061601753.html
The idea was that the United States could hardly expect the Iranian regime to negotiate on core issues of national security, such as its nuclear program, so long as Washington gave any encouragement to the government’s opponents. Obama had to make a choice, and he made it. This was widely applauded as a “realist” departure from the Bush administration’s quixotic and counterproductive idealism.
It would be surprising if Obama departed from this realist strategy now, and he hasn’t. His extremely guarded response to the outburst of popular anger at the regime has been widely misinterpreted as reflecting concern that too overt an American embrace of the opposition will hurt it, or that he wants to avoid American “moralizing.” (Obama himself claimed yesterday that he didn’t want the United States to appear to be “meddling.”)
But Obama’s calculations are quite different. Whatever his personal sympathies may be, if he is intent on sticking to his original strategy, then he can have no interest in helping the opposition. His strategy toward Iran places him objectively on the side of the government’s efforts to return to normalcy as quickly as possible, not in league with the opposition’s efforts to prolong the crisis.
Yet another perspective.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/opinion/17pletka.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
JUST after Iran’s rigged elections last week, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, it looked as if a new revolution was in the offing. Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Meanwhile, the real revolution has gone unnoticed: the guard has effected a silent coup d’état.
The seeds of this coup were planted four years ago with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while he has since disappointed his public, failing to deliver on promised economic and political reforms, his allies now control the country. In the most dramatic turnabout since the 1979 revolution, Iran has evolved from theocratic state to military dictatorship.
Priceless.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124523854750623001.html#mod=whats_news_free?mod=igoogle_wsj_gadgv1
Iran accused the United States of meddling in its internal affairs, alleging for the first time that Washington has fueled a bitter post-election dispute.
A state television channel in Iran said the government summoned the Swiss ambassador, who represents U.S. interests in Iran, to complain about American interference. The two countries broke off diplomatic relations after the 1979 Islamic Revolution. An English-language state-run channel quoted the government as calling Western interference “intolerable.”
TJ Babson is exactly right on the fact that what we do is secondary to fundamentalist Islam’s need to hate everything that isn’t itself.
There is no good choice between the two. The Ayatollahs rule either way.
The people of Iran should be so lucky that we meddle…
I don’t think that hate is any more essential to fundamentalist Islam than it is to Christianity. I would also add that the folks in Iran who dislike America probably do so mainly on the basis of our past actions rather than on purely religious grounds.
If we assume that fundamentalist Islam necessitates hate, then this would lead us to regard it as an eternal enemy…which could well be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Meddling would be a bad idea-it would just fuel the fire of anti-Americanism and have little (if any) positive results. We would be wise to take a less direct course and do what we can to use the situation to our advantage-by finding subtle ways to encourage democracy and dissent.
Wow, I said basically the same thing as TJ Babson, but elicited a different response.
Apparently there are a lot of Christians around here blowing up old ladies in vegetable stands and cutting off baby heads. How Christianity even entered this conversation, I’m not sure.
Wouldn’t subtle ways of encouraging democracy and dissent still be meddling? Why did you assume I meant dropping bombs on someone?
The folks in Iran who dislike America do so based on past deeds? Were they even alive during the 70s?
Oddly enough, the youth in Iran are alleged to be fairly pro-American. Also, a person need not be alive in a time to bear a grudge about that time. After all, once they learn the history (or alleged history) then a person might have a great deal of dislike based on past wrongs (or alleged wrongs).
Well, there are folks who claim to be Christian who engage in murder. For example, the fellow that killed the doctor claims a religious motivation.
All the major faiths seem to have their share of killers. This includes atheism, too.
I doubt there are as many people who hate the US in Iran for trying to bring them Democracy as you think. They dislike the US because of:
1) Mob Rule. When there are hundreds or thousands of people burning the American President’s image in effigy, and chanting “Death to America!”, the pschological effects of the mob quickly dominate. Suddenly you have a family if you do what everyone else is doing. And all of this is caused by the Mullahs, who start these demonstrations and fertilize their growth.
2) Apocalyptic Theocracy. The mullahs maintain power by propagating fear and by sowing lies. The world must end and it must end the way their prophecies say. Nuclear fire would be just fine, thank you.
Many of the mobs in the street now seem to be opposed to the government of Iran and not interested in bringing death to America.
For allegedly devotees of apocalyptic theocracy, they seem quite interested in life in the here and now. They seem to behave like politicians and don’t seem to act in ways consistent with wanting to end the world. Of course, people with apocalyptic views also live in the United States. Perhaps we could find a way to ship all the folks who share that view to someplace suitable (like Antarctica) and they could bring about their own end of days with each other. I’d chip in to buy them clubs and wood chippers.
Actually, my impression is that ordinary Iranians like the United States. Moreover, many Persians regard Islam as a form of Arab imperialism. The incandescent hatred flows from the theocrats, and they have it because they take their religion seriously…
I personally regard it as a badge of honor that we are hated by fundamentalist Islam. I wouldn’t have it any other way.
Mike, since you seem fairly comfortable with fundamentalist Islam, can you explain why the Taliban destroyed the the Buddhas of Bamyan?
Isn’t Magus exactly on target here, when he claims that fundamentalist Islam hates everything that is not itself?
I’m not comfortable with fundamentalist Islam beyond being willing to try to assess it fairly and objectively. Of course, there is no more a monolithic fundamentalist Islam than there is a monolithic Christian fundamentalism.
In general, I disagree with many of the views held by fundamentalists. For example, it is common for fundamentalist views to have problematic metaphysical systems and, of course, they tend to have rather medieval views of how women should be treated.
The Taliban destroyed the Buddhas to get attention. Also, they claimed they were motivated by religious reasons. The Taliban are a form of fundamentalism-but not the only form. It is wise to be careful with labels.
Interesting question. I have heard people argue that all forms of monotheistic fundamentalism hate everything that is not of their kind-by definition. Much hinges on what we mean by fundamentalism and how we sort things out.
It could be that there was not fraud. There could be a great number of people that had fear and voted to make the majority also. This culture and what is actually happening there is pretty foreign to us. We also voted for a guy that is driving this country down the tubes with very little experience. Go figure.
Yes, the election could be legit. While thousands are said to be protesting, those numbers are consistent with the results. Of course, there are some good reasons to suspect fraud. Unfortunately, the folks in charge of assessing the election results hardly seem to be an objective, independent body. If the Supreme Leader pre-set the election results, the people he picked for the Guardian body would most likely say what he wants him to say.