Iran and the Clerics

Again, I am not even close to being an expert on Iranian politics or its socio-political structure. However, what little I do know, I cannot agree with this.

First, I almost always - perhaps more than 99% of the time - agree with Josh Marshall. So when I read his post above, I was really surprised. The clerics in Iran depend absolutely on confrontation with the United States so long as that confrontation does not turn deadly. Since it is very unlikely that the Obama administration would accept any type of military strike against Iran unless Iran attacked US interests or allies first (also very unlikely), then the clerics have an interest in maintaining the current government in power. They cannot afford an opening with the West, much less the US, which would set in motion the gradual erosion of their power. The fact that Obama is not Bush is a great problem for them. They are not used to dealing with rational grown-ups from the US.

Frankly, it costs them nothing and may diffuse a great deal to order an investigation of the election results and process. Time will cool the street and also permit some back room maneuvering to prevent Ahmadinejad from taking his victory too far.

I am inclined to believe that the initial protests against what is now clearly a fixed election worried the clerics enough to accede to the demands for the investigation. Additionally, keep in mind that Mirhossein Mousavi is part of the ruling elite. He is not an outsider by any means, is not the "reformer" the US and EU are looking for - he would just change the tone. Maybe part of the problem is that he is not even Persian - he is an Azeri, although I really have no idea if that figures into the Iranian equation. Nevertheless, it is entirely reasonable that the investigation would be launched based on his request alone - not to mention the other candidates who joined in the request.

So, I can't agree with Josh Marshall. As much as the elimination of clerical rule would be welcome, that is highly unlikely. It would be like asking Israel to cease being a Jewish State or the hope that the ever-shrinking shrill group of right wing Christians in the US would disavow their positions.

The review will, by and large, be the end of it. How the clerics keep a hold on Ahmadinejad is entirely another matter.

Iran Election

Although I have a number of Iranian friends from my time in Central Asia and Ukraine, they are mostly "liberal" in the sense that they are opposed to the clerical rule in Iran. Indeed, they call themselves Persian. So, I have no great knowledge of the socio-political structure of the country as a whole. However, reading the reports on the election and the aftermath, particularly the arrest of over 100 opposition leaders yesterday, one can't help but conclude that the margin of victory was fraudulent, if not the election itself.

One point that appears to repeat itself is that the rural vote put Ahmadinejad over the top. The huge margin seems to make this improbable as it would require a major shift in the urban vote as well.

Juan Cole has the best analysis at this time about the election results. As the weeks pass more information will appear. In the meantime, it seems that Israel will likely take this as an opportunity to push its aggressive stance against Iran - although attacking Iran is off the table as it would require US consent. I suspect as well that US policy will remain unchanged since Ahmadinejad has been president for the past four years and will be there for the next four. That's the fact on the ground that is not going to change, so US and EU policy should remain in place.

Whether the damaged credibility of the Iranian government if the belief that the election was stolen weakens its ability to deal with the outside world, including Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, not to mention the EU and the US, will be interesting to watch. President Ahmadinejad may need to dial down his rhetoric - which would be welcome in and of itself.