The Persian Puzzle
It would be naive to say, as some hard core non-interventionists have, that the United States has no interest in what is taking place in Iran. Even though a victory by the so-called reformers would not end Iran’s nuclear program and would not stop the country’s rivalry with the United States in the Persian Gulf region, a government that would tone down the level of confrontation would be very welcome. It is amazing to watch how the neocons, who were prepared to incinerate Iran two weeks ago, have suddenly found that there exist millions of good democrats who have to be supported with blood and treasure. Someone else’s blood and treasure, to be sure.
It should be taken as a given that no one among the Sunday morning pundits really understands what is going on in Iran, so perhaps they as a group should step back from the fray and stop giving advice. Which wisdom I will immediately ignore: leave Iran alone. Everyone knows that the US would like to see the reformers triumph, so how does it help to say so? Saying so only gives the conservatives the moral edge, being able to claim that the reform movement is some kind of western conspiracy. Acts of Congress, with only Ron Paul dissenting, pledging support for the reformers will have only negative consequences. Pastel revolutions don’t work. Real change only takes place when internal forces in the country demand it, otherwise it is the wrong kind of change, empowering one group of rascals over another. It is also just possible that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad won in a reasonably fair poll, largely because of fear of the United States and its allies.
Nota bene, Iran held an election and the clerics clearly understand that their legitimacy rests on a popular mandate. Some day they will be gone, but it might not be tomorrow. Meanwhile, the United States has no horse in this race. Washington has to talk to whomever is in power in Tehran and it is in our national interest to make those talks as effective as possible by avoiding posturing beforehand. I might add that after the dust settles on the election it would also be in our interest to stop efforts to overthrow the Iranian regime using dissident Kurds, Baluchis, and Arabs as surrogates. It doesn’t help and, in the long run, will only make the inevitable and necessary accomodation between Washington and Tehran harder to achieve.
As always, I value The Conservative for the ability to focus not only on true American interests, but to clearly state that meddling in the affairs of others, especially elections, is not enhancing US respect in the world.
I would just like to add that much of the nuance has been lost in the reporting in the West. That is scary. To think that the folks that run our Congress and the media know so little. The most obvious thing that needed to be clear is the effect that the four year rule of Ahmedinejad had on the long-lasting corrupt layer of mid-level mullahs that in collusion with the merchants, bled the country ever since the “revolution”. In fact, the reforms that population was waiting for, never materialized. Khamenei can be credited with bringing up a new generation of leaders, quite uncorruptible. Ahmedinejad is one, but not the only one, from that generation. The “half-way-house” that Iran was, was an unfinished business of the revolution. Most of the previous presidents after Khomeini — Khatami and Rafsanjani — did everything to preserve the complex corruption with the newly minted mid-level mullahs as beneficiary. Rafsanjani himself is a billionaire, owning not only a large swath of financial sector, but also in agriculture and foreign trade. He owns University with over 300 branches. Ahmedinejad managed to oust his Minister of Oil after three tries in the Parliament. But the fact that Ahmedinejad was making inroads on the corruption, and that he and his family were targets, was the real cause of the “popular” revolution. The willing sheep in all these were the rich northern Teheran, the so-called “Gucci crowd”, and their offspring. The easy life may well be threatened for many, as the thousands of bleeders of corruption may be soon plugged. Some of them may actually be brought to justice, unless the Persian model prevails, and the loosers accept their limited role, and are satisfied with that. This is not dissimilar to the manner that Putin used to bring oligarchs to their knees. He rewarded those that were loyal to the country. He tolerated some, and the most beligerant of them all, Khodorovski, ended up in jail for tax fraud. Khodorovsky’s crimes go far and wide, including murder of his opponents, but the tax fraud was by far the easiest to prosecute. I am curious to see how will things proceed in Iran. Who will be saved, and who will not. But the power of corrupt mullahs has been definitely erroded. In all this, Saudi Arabia has exposed itself way too much, and this will hinder the efforts of US to assert mature and balanced leadership. It is likely that Khomenei will allow more steam to be let out of the hard core middle class protesters. But it is safe to say that Iranian intelligence has been prepared for this, and that they will back up their rethoric against Brittain, Saudi Arabia or others, in some concrete way in the near future.
Bianca, you sound like a pro.
Some questions:
What’s your take on whether this election was indeed really stolen in favor of Ahmedinejad? That seems to be what everyone here believes now, but didn’t he win in a landslide essentially? And isn’t it true he likely is pretty damn popular amongst that part of the population (the non-young hipsters who don’t live in the capital) that isn’t likely to go and demonstrate?
And what difference do you think it would make (if any)—generally, as well of course as to the U.S.—if the other guy got into power? What’s his stance on Iran and nuke power and nuke arms?
You almost make it sound like Ahmadinejad is the good guy here (coming from an “uncorruptible” generation you say), which of course is quite contrary to what most people seem to believe, but then you say that he basically left as “unfinished business” getting rid of the corruption of the “mid-level mullahs” and merchants. So what’s the story there?
A little primer would be nice
Cheers,
“Bianca” is clearly a Khamenei supporter.
“Khamenei can be credited with bringing up a new generation of leaders, quite uncorruptible.”
Yeah, right.
I too would like to hear more from Bianca – this is a totally different take than anything we’ve been hearing and it sounds very plausible. I know she is correct about the extreme corruption of the first generation after the revolution and I also know that Ahmadinejad is regarded as not personally corrupt. If it is all pretty much as she has laid it out, it is a real eye opener.
Bianca, do you have a blog? Is it perhaps time to get one?
Philip
Daniel Larison (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2009/06/15/silence-is-golden/) referred to an article by Ambassador Bhadrakumar in the Asia Times where some of the points raised by Bianca are discussed:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF16Ak05.html
Bhadrakumar has followed up with a couple of more articles on this topic:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF18Ak02.html
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/KF23Ak02.html
They all offer a different take than what you read and hear from many of the western analysts, and are more in common with Bianca’s take, especially the corruption and power struggle between the various factions. I would like to hear your thoughts on these, especially the last of the articles referred to above where Bhadrakumar brings in the Israeli and Saudi angle. Eg.,
“If any doubt lingers, that also is dispelled by the fury in the state-controlled Saudi Arabian media’s unprecedented, vicious personal attack on both Khamenei and President Mahmud Ahmadinejad – of a kind alien to the culture of ta’arof (politesse) or even taqiyah (dissimulation) in that part of the world. Riyadh’s fond hopes of witnessing the Iranian regime debilitated by a protracted crisis have been dashed. Its principal interlocutor, former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, has vanished from the chessboard. Riyadh seems bracing for Tehran’s wrath.”
RK, I am embarassed to say that I missed the excellent article by my colleage Daniel Larison. I have read all of the pieces by Ambassador Bhadrakumar that you linked to and find both the information and analysis extremely convincing. It would appear that he is the source for at least some of Bianca’s information. The Saudi and Israeli roles in this drama are very, very interesting. It really is a narrative changer, isn’t it? The bad guys become the not so bad guys and the good guys aren’t what they seem. The Saudis and Israelis have figured it out but US punditry seems to be locked into some kind of democracy mindset. If there is a bottom line, I guess, it is that for the US to stay out of it is unquestionably the right policy.
As Phil says all those pieces by the Ambassador are a narrative changer, but what relieved me is that Obama doesn’t seem to have succumbed to the shallow popular one seeing what’s going on as some sort of “color revolution” redux. And then there’s the fact that Obama’s also deft enough to both say that, and keep us from looking like we’re playing sides over there:
“The difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we are going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States.”
On the other hand the bad news is that all the demonization of Ahmadinejad is still going to pay dividends for the demonizers, who are now going to add to the refrain by saying how supposedly illegitimate he is.
By my reading then the danger is that people start believing in that too strongly, to the point of thinking that the Iranian people will just positively welcome us blockading, sanctioning and/or bombing them.
Cheers,
This will not not advance our understanding but I must say I miss the days when the media had real foreign correspondents. We are left with a crowd of talking heads, many with their own agendas, pitching their own version of Iranian reality.
As always, the urge to “do something” in reaction to painful images on the boob tube drives policy. Or rather mere reaction, policy is to grand a name for what we do.