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.

The Netanyahu Speech

Given the reaction from the EU and President Obama, Netanyahu squirmed out of a difficult corner in which he had to concede something following the demands put on him recently. The concession was his abandonment - nuance aside - of his and his supporter's opposition to the two-state solution. When President Obama referred to this as a "good first step", I disagree with Josh Marshall where he feels that this is "doubly naive":

Most reactions in the US press are treating this as a major move by Netanyahu, endorsing the idea of a Palestinian state. But that seems doubly naive a) since that's been the premise of US policy for almost 20 years as well as a goal accepted by several Israeli governments and b) because Netanyahu's conditions amounted to deal breakers.

Yes, it has been the premise of US foreign policy for 20 years and yes again - Netanyahu's conditions are deal breakers. However, the position taken by the Netanyahu government is a major change for him. To that extent, the acceptance of a two-state solution is a good first step. I have serious doubts that the two state solution would work, but this is the policy that is being pushed, and pushed hard.

I think it is important to remember that President Obama has changed the game vis a vis Israel with his demand for an end to settlements - something Netanyahu has yet to address adequately. Netanyahu is in a terrible political position at home if he wants to retain power. He cannot ignore the US without blowing apart his coalition. If President Obama keeps the pressure on Netanyahu obtaining a stream of concessions (like dismantling of ad-hoc settlements illegal under Israeli law and by force if necessary)then there is a chance that a Netanyahu government will reach a deal with the Palestinians where a Labor government simply could not. This is a "Nixon goes to China" scenario and probably the only one that has a chance of working.

The Palestinian reaction was predictable and they have many points in their favor. The conditionalities put forward in the speach are clearly unacceptable. They strip away rights that define a "state". The Netanyahu government needs to walk those conditions back. Having said that, the Palestinians need to accept reality: 1) recognize Israel and 2) accept a compromise on repatriation. This is really not too much to ask. Without either, no deal and no peace.