Iran’s Electoral Choice: Stalin or Gorbachev
The ability of the supreme leader and his loyalists to engage in enough fraud to manipulate the outcome further renders such predictions pointless. An abundant amount of evidence exists to suggest that elements of the regime rigged the polls in 2005 in Ahmadinejad’s favor, as the other candidates in that contest including Karoubi asserted. As Ayatollah Khamenei has come just shy of an open endorsement of Ahmadinejad, telling voters not to vote for candidates who would bow to the West, it is reasonable to assume that similar manipulations with a similar outcome will happen this time.
Khamenei and his operatives now have a choice to make, one that will shape relations with the West for the next four years and could decide the fate of their own power. The option Khamenei appears on the surface to have taken is to keep Ahmadinejad in power, hoping to keep Iran in a state of hostility with the West in an attempt to use nationalism to put juice in the regime’s dying batteries. This approach would also require the further curbing of freedom and a more violent approach to the protests and fomenters of instability throughout the country, who are becoming louder every day and almost certainly will overthrow the regime absent Tiananmen Square-like measures. The mullahs will have to gamble that such measures will squash the determination of the opposition for the time being without provoking an even worse popular backlash that causes the government’s institutions to collapse.
The other option is to allow a candidate like Mousavi to come to power that can introduce reforms that impress the West and appease the population. The hope would be that this candidate could act as a modern-day Gorbachev, only without the whole collapse of the Soviet Union thing. The Iranians, with a more articulate and pleasant-sounding leader, could fracture any coalition seeking to place pressure on the regime and may even be able to convince the West to relax sanctions and provide them with the investment needed for their survival. The infusion of money would allow the regime to recover its lost wealth, and with economic conditions improving, the mullahs would hope that the population’s resistance would reduce to a level that doesn’t threaten the stability of the country.
This, too, is a gamble, as any increased interaction and business with the West by the population could further motivate and even empower the opposition, and such a change in foreign policy could spark sharp divisions in the government. Liberal political reforms are also risky, as they may give the opposition a louder voice, more freedom to organize, and a feeling of victory and hope that could energize the movement in extraordinary ways. The regime must hope that their increased power is not outpaced by the opposition.
Should Mousavi become Iran’s next president, it will be an admission by Khamenei that his regime needs the West to save it. They shouldn’t and support for the opposition has a place in whichever policy towards Iran the U.S. enacts in reaction to the election results, whether that is engagement and reward or isolation and punishment. Regardless of the outcome, the regime’s mechanisms of oppression, terrorism sponsorship, and extremism promotion will remain. The Revolutionary Guards, the Basiji militia, the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, the Guardian Council, and Supreme Leader Khamenei will continue to operate. Whether the mullahs decide to go the way of Stalin or Gorbachev, today’s evil empire will remain an evil empire.
Why do you people hate Iran? How threat is Iran to the world? Israel has committed alot of atrocities nobody, I mean nobody comment, you just they have the write defend themselves, How about Palestinians? they have the right to be killed. This world is for everybody, Israel has nukes so has india, North Korea. What you want is to monopolise the technology so that you should be called civilised western wolrd and we shoul remain uncivilised muslim world. To hell with this islamophobea to hell with bushes and blairs
Nothing in Iran is what it seems.
Remember that Mohammad Khatami, the wonderful liberal reformer, progressive, moderate, etc. etc. was president of Iran for eight (8) years and nothing changed. Not domestic policy, not freedom of the press, not executions of adulterers by stoning, not the nuclear program, not anti-American and anti-Israeli public holidays, not government supported anti-American Friday sermons, not the supreme leader’s control of the judiciary, not the show trials of Jews, Baha’is and dual nationals on trumped up espionage charges, not anti-semitic international conferences, not support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Nothing.
Is there really any reason to believe that no, if only Mousavi or Karoubi are elected, things will really be different this time?
Remember also that the evil, terrible, horrible, “Stalin” Ahmadi-Nejad was not elected in 2005 on an extremist platform. His campaign then was populist and even moderate on social issues and barely mentioned foreign policy at all. At the time, he and Karoubi were seen to be similar candidates competing for the same demographic.
Finally, remember that no incumbent has ever lost an election under the Iranian system that is in place since the revolution, where presidents are limited to two consecutive four-year terms. People like to recall Khatami’s “upstart” victory in 1997, but this was for an open seat, following Rafsanjani’s second term.
Ahmadi-Nejad will almost certainly be president for two terms as well. This is not because he is especially popular. The other presidents were not especially popular either. It is because the government controls the television and radio in Iran and heavily censors the newspapers and internet. And it is because there is no party system in Iran. Individuals can run against the incumbent, but they rely only on their friends and relatives to finance and staff their campaigns. There is no opposition party machine to back any single opposition party nominee. Imagine the 2004 US election with no Democratic party or Democratic nominee, but just the incumbent George Bush running against John Kerry, John Edwards, and Howard Dean all running as independents.
@ Bill K #1 comment
Q: Why do you people hate Iran?
A: We don’t hate the Iranian people. The problem is Iran’s leaders and their expansionist islamofascism.
Q: How threat is Iran to the world?
A: Exporting weapons and technology to terrorists and sponsoring terrorism through proxies Hezbollah and Hamas and others
Q: Israel has committed alot of atrocities nobody, I mean nobody comment, you just they have the write defend themselves, How about Palestinians? they have the right to be killed.
A: In almost all instances, alleged Israeli atrocities end up to be fabrications, 1/2 truths and Palistenian propaganda.
When attacked, Israel has the right to defend itself.
Hey Bill K….. I have an idea.. why don’t the Palestinians stop attacking Israel, negotiate an end to hostilities, settle down and live peacefully?
Q: This world is for everybody, Israel has nukes so has india, North Korea. What you want is to monopolise the technology so that you should be called civilised western wolrd and we shoul remain uncivilised muslim world.
A: Simply not true. The west’s (world’s) intentions are to keep nukes out of the hands of terrorist and rogue regimes that can threaten and blackmail their neighbors. If we were against ‘uncivilized muslim world’ having nukes, why then is Pakistan nuclear?
Q:To hell with this islamophobea to hell with bushes and blairs.
A: To hell with islamofascist expansionism!
btw.. Bush & Blair are no longer in office. I’m sorry English is not your first language and that your press and mindset seem to be controlled.
I hope one day you are free to think for yourself, instead of being a parrot and victim of your culture.
If we didn’t want their oil and chewing gum we wouldn’t even have to talk to them. They would still be a couple of millenia behind us.
We should just kick their a$$ and take their gas.
To Bill K:
You just had a very shallow reasoning, and that’s typical of a muslim belief, and I wonder where did you get your western name.
For anyone interested in the original topic, here’s an interesting article from ynet suggesting that many Iranian Jews support the reelection of Ahmadi-Nejad:
David Mutai, Spokesman of the Central Organization of Iranian Immigrants in Israel told Ynet “This is a vote for the lesser evil. In the past four years the president has mainly inflamed the internal public and infuriated the nations of the world. They feel that they know him and know what he is made of, the fear is of the unknown Mousavi, and the concern is that, instead of talk, he may take action.”
Hardly Stalin vs. Gorbachev.
Ahmadinejad is again counting on uneducated population vote by bringing his speech in U.N., and the bright helo encircled him! He still wants them to believe he is the special messenger of the twelth Imam! I believe Ayatollah Khameneie is a little fed up with little Mahmooood!
Whoever wins, Ayatollahs will drive the same radical policies.
When the Arabs terrorists groups, and Iranian backed terrorists Hezbollah stop attacking Israel, there will be peace in the Middle East.
Once Hamas changes its doctrine to throw every Jew in the sea, and live in peace with its neighbors, I mean Arab neighbors, of course there will be peace.
What has happended to all the land Israel has given back to the Palestinians? They turn it into a wasteland, then use it to send missles into schools and hospitals in Israel.
Where is your evidence that the Mad Dog Mullahs (hereafter MDM) are on their way out? Sounds more like wishful thinking to me.
Seen thru the prism of Western Democracy, you might have an argument.
The MDM are NOT ‘western’ and Iran is NOT a democracy, no matter how often they vote. The Main MDM will die eventually and the lasser dogs will replace him with one of their own. And the beat goes on. Theocracy is a very stable form of government. Look at how long the Papacy has been around.