Playing Into Their Hands
Overall, it’s clear that Iran As The Enemy is a narrative that many in the West are loath to abandon. Ahmadinejad has allies, indeed. ~Aziz Poonawalla
Of course, it is the broad, bipartisan consensus embracing the “coup” interpretation of the election that is doing far more to preserve and entrench the “Iran As The Enemy narrative” than anything anti-Iranian hawks have done recently. When Ezra Klein of all people is pushing the “Iranian government is irrational and unpredictable” meme, the only beneficiaries are those who have been demanding more hard-line, confrontational policies. Ahmadinejad does have allies of a sort in the West. Perversely, they are the people who are shouting the loudest on behalf of his opponent and changing the color schemes of their blogs. After all, as an authoritarian populist Ahmadinejad is much more likely to gain strength from foreign vilification, especially if it turns out that a majority of Iranian voters actually did vote for him. As an Iranian national security hawk, Ahmadinejad stands to gain domestically from any dynamic in which the outside world is condemning and criticizing the Iranian government. Nationalists thrive in an atmosphere in which they can portray themselves as defending and standing up for the nation against the rest of the world.
Having pilloried Mousavi as an agent of corrupt clerics, whom he may have effectively scapegoated for Iran’s economic problems, Ahmadinejad could probably use the widespread foreign criticism of the election to his advantage in a similar way to distract attention from his own actions and failures. Our own politicians rail against anti-American leaders and anti-American sentiment around the world for much the same reason, and they will exaggerate the hostility and the danger from other states to keep the public from paying close attention to their own mismanagement of national affairs. It seems clear that Ballen and Doherty are right to warn that “[a]llegations of fraud and electoral manipulation will serve to further isolate Iran and are likely to increase its belligerence and intransigence against the outside world.” The advocates of the “coup” view might respond by saying, “Well, we don’t want that to happen, but we can’t ignore the fraud,” but this assumes not only that there was large-scale fraud, which is likely, but also that it was necessary to Ahmadinejad’s victory, which is much less so.
When neoconservatives complained about the Iranian government in recent years and urged military action against its nuclear program, most people, including the former President, had the good sense to stop listening. Some neoconservatives are now glad to have Ahmadinejad to kick around for at least four more years, because he seems to make it easier for them to demonize Iran, and other hawks take for granted that Ahmadinejad must be the legitimate winner because the contempt they have for him extends to the majority of Iranians. That doesn’t necessarily invalidate other, independent arguments that the election was not stolen. Bizarrely, it is the people who are disgusted with this neocon satisfaction with the “clarity” Ahmadinejad’s victory provides who are doing so much to help make neoconservative support for confrontation with Iran more viable.
Oddly, George Packer breaks his own rule and makes a point of crafting his response to the election in such a way so as not to sound like the neocons he criticizes. Indeed, I suspect that there is something of a knee-jerk reaction among chastened former supporters of the war in Iraq against whatever they perceive to be the hard-line neoconservative/hawkish position. If Pipes and Boot are satisfied with an Ahmadinejad victory for whatever reason, the reasoning seems to be, it simply must not be true that he would have won the election regardless of any fraud. Maddeningly, this reaction ends up aiding the hawks here at home just as Western condemnations of the election results seem more likely to shore up Ahmadinejad’s domestic support than to undermine it.
Saying ‘If there had been a fair election, the same guy would have won’, is no substitute for having a fair election.
All right, that’s true. So it was an unfair election in which the practical outcome is no different from what it would have been had it been fair. Putin and Medvedev have boosted their numbers with all sorts of formal and informal methods of tampering and rigging over the years, which is how they manage to get to 70% instead of a mere 60 or 65%. No one would say that Russian presidential elections are fair, but it is undeniable that a vast majority of Russians voted for Putin and Medvedev. What is more, they would probably do the same thing again tomorrow even under genuinely fair conditions.
Three things:
-Does anyone in Russia actually expect a fair election? Cynicism about their methods are irrelevant with regards to whether or not we’re cynical about it in Iran as well- the people there expected one, and they have every right to whip bottles at the establishment windows if they didn’t get it, especially if they believe a different person would have won.
-People who are claiming the Iranian government is nuts, without fear of repercussion, etc., are saying that about the current government, with Ahmadinejad in power. You may be right that such rhetoric helps wingnut hawks, but only if Ahmadinejad remains in power with the same level of strength he had before the election (which is questionable, since the Assembly of Experts is going to meet, which really could have no purpose other than to question whether or not Khameini should retain his role as Supreme Leader, and anything that hits him will rain down on to Ahmadinejad as well). If he’s seriously weakened or ousted, the equation changes and what’s been said about him now is basically meaningless. And if he stays in full power, the wingnuts would get a major boost from that regardless of what anyone says about this event.
-The only way that a nationalist can use foreign commentary against his actions as a boost to his power is if the people by and large agree with him and get angry at the foreigners talking about, and presumably trying to influence, their country. They have to focus on us; thus, they need something to focus on, even if it’s just one or two strong comments from important people.
But right now, we’re completely peripheral to the whole thing. It’s not even like the active demonstrators are agreeing with us; we’re agreeing with them. The power in this is coming from those inside Iran, and no army of bloggers from the outside world is likely to make it seem any differently. What is Ahmadinejad going to say? “All the Americans with their keyboards are damning our country! I say damn them instead! And I will take away the Internet until they stop saying bad things about us!” Unless you think The Pirate Bay is going to start holding sway in world politics- it’s possible, the Swedish Pirate Party won a seat in the EU parliament!- the effects of the internet’s denizens on this will be about as noteworthy as the light of a candle in a hurricane.
Now, if major politicians or a huge swath of TV or print media were to actively campaign on behalf of the demonstrators, there might be a problem. But given that Obama is keeping mostly mum on the issue, and most rational beings are in agreement that everyone needs to let Iranians figure this out themselves, that’s probably not going to happen. Ahmadinejad might try to use outside forces as a scapegoat, but I’ll expect to see it at about the same time his fate to be cast down as President is sealed.
Oh, hey! Hey, listen; some stuff about Iran. Elections and protests. Thanks for reading my blog!
Nationalists thrive in an atmosphere in which they can portray themselves as defending and standing up for the nation against the rest of the world.
Well, and the really odd thing is that many of the people expressing solidarity via green type on their blogs are themselves nationalists of this sort. Which again goes to how this emotional attachment to the Iraq election clouds out rationality.
One measure of your argument’s quality is the caliber of who it attracts in critique. So I am quite pleased to see your link this morning, Daniel. I do take some exception to being lumped in with the green blog colors crowd – it should be noted that those tend to be the chest-thumpers who demand that Obama Do Something, whereas I agreed with your position (and actually beat you to the punch) that in this case, less is more.
Also, while I recognize Moussavi is not the seceond coming of Jefferson, and anyone cleared to run for President by the Guardian Couuncil surely has some blood on their hands, the actual positions and policies that he stood for in the election were clearly intended to challenge the Khamenei doctrine of increasing political control. Given that Moussavi’s patron is Rafsanjani, with all that implies, there’s a real power struggle going on. Lumping Moussavi in with Ahmadinejad strikes me as akin to the “Gore = Bush” thinking from the pious Naderites. Consider that it took a consumate insider like Gorbachev to bring real change – and nails for the coffin – to the USSR.
At any rate I had been drafting a post on these issues anyway and am delighted to engage you in dialogue. I hope to have my post up soon.
Thanks for the comment, Aziz. I appreciate that you are not one of the green bloggers, and I should have been more careful making distinctions in this post. That said, I thought it was likewise unfair to lump in NAF analysts with the “the worse, the better” hawkish crowd, as it seemed that both you and Packer were doing. I’ll be pleased to see your response and continue the discussion.
Consider that it took a consumate insider like Gorbachev to bring real change – and nails for the coffin – to the USSR.
But how much power does the president of Iran have to effect “real change”? I hope this will be addressed as well.