Many people have asked me, in the wake of my recent trip to Iran, “do last week’s elections really matter?” Today, as the results pour in, they’ve begun asking “how are the results considered a setback for Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmedinejad?” They’re both good questions, questions more Americans should be asking.
Last week Iranians voted in municipal, or city, elections, much like we vote for mayor and city council. Iranians also voted for a more obscure but powerful body known as the Assembly of Experts. Municipal elections in Iran, as in other countries, are seen as a first step towards great political office, Tehran being a particularly juicy prize—as Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was mayor there before he became president of Iran. The current elections saw a coalition of reformists and old-line conservatives take on Ahmedinejad’s hardline faction, campaigning on the most basic of all political issues: the economy, jobs and traffic. (The traffic in Tehran makes Los Angeles traffic look like a desert highway in Arizona at midnight.)
The elections for the Assembly of Experts, albeit a bit more obscure an assembly in an already largely opaque political system, are even more significant, for it is the AoE that chooses the successor to Iran’s Supreme Leader, whose word is law in Iran. And the current Supreme Leader of Iran, the Ayatollah Khamanei, is very ill and I have heard he's dying of cancer. Thus, adding urgency to elections that usually are not seen as critical.
In virtually every venue the results of the elections saw unusually high voter turnout as Ahmedinejad’s hardline faction failed to gain many seats at all. In the municipal elections his faction witnessed defeat in a host of cities, including Kerman, Sari, Zanjan, Ahvaz (in the oil rich province of Khuzestan) and Bandar Abbas. As a sign of how poorly Ahmedinejad and his faction did in Tehran, considered a stronghold of his, Parvin Ahmedinejad, his sister, failed in her bid for the municipal council of Tehran. Moreoever, the current Tehrani mayor Mohammad Baqer Qalibaf will retain his seat, continue agitating against Ahmedinejad and increase the pressure on his anti-corruption drive.
It is in the Assembly of Experts, however, that Ahmedinejad’s faction took a drubbing. Even though Ahmedinejad’s mentor, the Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi, did manage to gain a seat on the Assembly of Experts Iranians of all stripes clearly showed they don’t trust Ahmedinejad and his faction to determine the next Supreme Leader. 65 of the 86 seats up for vote in the Assembly of Experts went to the Reformist-Conservative faction, which opposes Ahmedinejad’s new hardliners. The real winner here is former Iranian president Rafsanjani, who has called for an opening with the US and is largely seen as a pragmatist, although former president Khatami and the reformist movement he symbolizes has shown it still has the power to capture the youth’s imagination.
What does all this mean? It may not mean much in the short-term, as Ahmedinejad is widely seen in Iran as a Bush-like figure: hot tempered, arrogant, arbitrary and inexperienced in the realm of international affairs. But long term, especially when the next Supreme Leader is chosen in Iran, this election will reverberate.
In the long-term the news is good, but we might not make it that far: as it seems the United States is in danger of making another rash decision. While the White House is busy silencing critics again, an alarming buildup of naval forces in and around the Persian Gulf continues “in response to what the US considers ‘increasingly provocative acts.’” Some experts believe that an attack on Iran by an enfeebled, increasingly isolated and irrelevant president Bush is more than just a 50/50 proposition. If so our situation in Iraq will go from bad to horrific overnight and the recent elections in Iran won’t matter at all.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 40
There are signs of improvement in the Mid East if only we had the leadership to recognize those opportunities.
Actually, this is what one of the long term goals of the "neocons" was - neutralizing Iran. I really believe that going into Iraq along with our presence in Afghanistan was intended to squeeze Iran to undergo regime change from within.
Makes sense, we have a smart and educated populace in Iran who see the strides being made in Iraq and Afghanistan for democracy. They see themselves as losing out and now they want a change.
Trust me Dale, I am all up for debating the issue. I just want to know what proof your are going to bring to the debate, because I was in Iran last month and I asked the question. I asked pro-US student activists in Iran. And believe me, their answer didn't track with your assumptions real well, at all.
So, again, have you been to Iran and met with this 'smart and educated populace,' as I have?
I think you trying to have a conversation with Dale is tantamount to trying to knock down the Empire Sate Building with a toothpick. He just wants to rant and rave, it's all that's within him.
Question on the buildup... A U.S. buildup in the gulf would be a staging point for a move against Iran but is it also an attempt to intimidate other countries (even the Saudis) with the idea that we "might" do something even if we have no concrete plans at this time?
I noticed when Cheney went to speak to the Saudis that the naval buildup began in earnest and now we are in fact clogging the gulf with boats. You think we "asked politely for permission" or just told them "here's what we're doing, like it or not."
That aside, I look at geo-politics and know that Iran has to be neutralized as a threat to both the region, Israel and to the US. How one goes about doing that depends on the circumstances at the moment. I do not have any "inside" knowledge of what the president and his advisors have in mind. But the idea that a possible regime change happening in Iran with the potential for civil war leads me to applaud the move of our carriers into the gulf. If we do not put ourselves into a position to act decisively, a chance to acheive a very important goal could be lost.
Of course, this comes from the point of view that America needs to promote its national interests. I look at it as a given that America's interests are far more in line with what's right for the world rather than the forces of darkness that cloud the Middle East right now.
I just hope that I didn't rant and rave too much in this post. I'm still learning the ropes around here.
Here's the deal: the Iran threat is manageable. We talked with the Soviets, right? Nixon talked with the Chinese? Right? Why can't we talk with the Iranians? As I have said before: I've been there. The people are pragmatic and their government has in the best held out olive branches to us, which Bush and Cheney have thrust aside.
Iran is not about regime change. Iran is about finding a modus vivendi, because if we attack Iran our supply lines to Iraq are doomed. And as they say, amateurs play at strategy, professionals worry about logistics.
Second, you write this: I'm the one here who has advocated diplomacy. But let's be clear about something: Iran has tried to talk with us and Bush had rebuked them every time.
Lastly, why do we need to be "prepared to kick some ass if need be." Why is that? We contained the Soviets, right? We did it for 70 years. You don't think we could contain little old Iran, who spends $6billion a year on defense versus our $400billion?
And if we do have to 'kick ass' as you say, what's the purpose? Why? What's the goal? The strategic rationale?
Beats me, but I doubt it is for offensive reasons toward Iran. I would have to tie that to an across the board build-up of all forces....? I'm not sure we have any more to build-up?
You can spin the Iranian students response with as much post-modern Bush-projection logic as you like, but the fact is that when I was in Iran every Iranian I met said they liked Americans. They fed me, invited me into their homes, the hospitality was immense. But all of them said they hope Bush does not attack them because if so, it would destroy the democratic dynamic that is emerging in Iran.
Basically what you are saying here Jason is that Dale made an argument in which it cannot be disproved. And that the facts, the evidence that I have seen with my own eyes and heard with my own ears is not good enough. This is the upside down, black is white mumbo-jumbo political world we live in. Evidence means nothing in the face of belief--as long as you believe hard enough it will be real.
Well, guess what: Iraq is a disaster because of the same policy of belief versus evidence. Do you want to do the same thing again with Iran? Or maybe listen to people who know what they are actually talking about?
Your approach here has been impeccable, and I think even Jason can see you are playing this on the up and up.
Jason,
Your last comment struck me as reasonable for the most part, and I especially like the way you employed your faith in God in a way, and spoke to the underlying Christian yearning for peace and brotherhood. And I thank you for your service in the Gulf war, you guys did a helluva good job.
I like the article as far as it went, except the last paragraph. it is full of maybes what ifs and language meant to scare, in fact this is reminiscent of the Democrats saying to Seniors "the Evil republicans", were going to steal Social Security from old people..." Do not degrade what is a good article by stooping to intentional polarizing comments.
(A personal and I think American cultural note here: Out of respect for our dear country all United States Presidents even President Clinton who I personally despise, are called, President with a capital "P", you shame yourself and your country when you use small "p" to bash a President you happen to dislike. In fact it is a bit silly considering anyone who has read your articles knows you do not like him already.)
For example in your last paragraph you wrote:
"In the long-term the news is good, but we might not make it that far: as it seems the United States is in danger of making another rash decision. While the White House is busy silencing critics again, an alarming buildup of naval forces in and around the Persian Gulf continues "in response to what the US considers 'increasingly provocative acts.'" Some experts believe that an attack on Iran by an enfeebled, increasingly isolated and irrelevant president Bush is more than just a 50/50 proposition. If so our situation in Iraq will go from bad to horrific overnight and the recent elections in Iran won't matter at all."
You could have said:
"In the long term this is Election news is good, but short term I am concerned about the Navel Buildup in the Persian Gulf. As you all well know I personally do not trust President Bush and so this Alarms me greatly that he may act in a way that in my opinion will wipe out these recent Electoral gains. Some Experts (In this sentence, Mr. Kelly it would be nice for you to name the experts here as anonymous experts they could be Big Bird or Donald Trump) believe the use of Force by the US is more than a 50/50 proposition. (This next sentence is your own and it stands well on its own) If so our situation in Iraq will go from bad to horrific overnight and the recent elections in Iran won't matter at all."
You see Mr. Kelly, in my opinion this gets the relevant information presented, (your links could still be used) without stooping to hyperbole or nay saying about President Bush (all opinion I might add) which seem to burden the facts with too much political detritus.
And in ending my comment let me say thank you for submitting the Article to "The New Persian Empire 2006" Group I will now be featuring it.
God Bless and Merry Christmas,
M. Emmett Townsend
Thank you for your suggestions. I understand your position completely. Your note on the capitalization of president when it directly precedes the name of a president is well taken. I claim a simple typo in my defense. Usually I am careful about such things and yet this time I was not.
The remainder of your criticisms I understand but reject for a number of reasons. First, as to the subject of experts: the great beauty of the internet is the hyperlink. It's that wonderful little thingy that allows us to click and immediately find ourselves at the referenced material, as opposed to the old days when we had to go all the way to the back of the book, find the bibliographical information and then head to the library. Not so anymore. All you had to do to find out whether I was quoting an expert--and I was--is click on the link to Col. Patrick Lang's website, which says in part: That's an expert by any objective measure.
As to the stylistic criticisms, well, let's just leave it at this, as my father has always said, "son, there is no accounting for taste." ;-)
My sincere thanks for the featuring of the article in your excellent group, The New Persian Empire 2006, it speaks well of you that you'll countenance an opinion that doesn't track well with your own. Would that there were more like you.
Best Wishes,
Sean-Paul Kelley
Great insight into Iranian goings-on.
Very much appreciate your adventurous journalism.
Rich / Bamberg
Very interesting article. I have a few comments...
"But it has been reported and this president has made clear he wants to take the Iranian regime out."
Bush has made clear, as many other people have, that he's in favor of regime change. My assumption from reading your article is that you are as well. Now of course we all would prefer that a moderate government was in control there. However after waiting for over 25 years I'm not sure any of us should hold our breath. The Iranian leaders have proven that they will not give up power. And though their municipal elections may be democratic their national elections certainly are not...
"A U.S. buildup in the gulf would be a staging point for a move against Iran but is it also an attempt to intimidate other countries (even the Saudis) "
cris p.
Fyi-The Saudis (Sunni) view Iran (Shia's) as a major problem and a threat to the region.
"But when asked to chose between him and the US bombing to impose our own regime on Iran they all say, all of them that is, we'd rather have our own government."
Sean Paul- I don't think there is any doubt that most people would not liked to be bombed. I think the chances of that happening to only foster regime change are very low. The chances are greater when it comes to us trying to stop them from attaining nuclear weapons. Given the fact that the Iraninians declared a prozy war on us years ago, and it's continuing to this day in Iraq, I think our Governments position is understandable. Iran is a major threat to us, and to the vast majority of the countries in the region.
" You know what the real irony here is: we're talking about attacking a country that just had elections that will have an impact domestically in the country. Meanwhile we went to war in Iraq to establish a democracy there. Anyone see the irony in that except me?"
Sean-Paul. I agree that the outcome of the recent municipal elections ws a cause for hope. However Iran is not a democracy when it comes to National elections. As I am sure you are aware a group of unelected clerics decide who can run and who cannot. I believe in the last election over 100 different parties were denied the right to run...
When did the Iranians declare a proxy war on us? Maybe after we successfully encouraged Saddam to invade Iran?
So you think bombing Iran is the right thing to do, then?