To Meddle Or Not In Iranian Elections?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Elections, Iran, Obama, Video
The debate has been fast and furious recently, and Obama has struck what I think is the most appropriate tone given the circumstances.
Does part of me wish he would throw caution to the wind, back Mousavi and call the election a fraud? Sure. But that part of me would be ignoring evidence that Ahmadinejad may have won and that there’s a good chance he’ll have to deal with the current regime. So condemning the election as a fraud now would be a VERY bad move if we want to engage Iran in any sort of meaningful diplomacy down the road.
Talking Points Memo collects other opinions on the issue from yesterday…
Note that Republicans Joe Scarborough and Dick Lugar think Obama is saying exactly what a President should in this situation.
Also note Karl Rove talking about election fraud.
The irony is not lost on this blogger.
This entry was posted on Wednesday, June 17th, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Elections, Iran, Obama, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:01 am
It would be insanity for Obama to bigfoot this. We would be wrapping the arms of the Great Satan around the kids in the streets. McCain is, as usual, a hothead.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:02 am
I’d agree there’s a limit to how hard Obama should “bigfoot” this, but that would be related to actual interventionary moves. Condemning the reported brutality of the regime’s actions is hardly bigfooting. Threatening to attack or invade is bigfooting — and stupid. And they’re already heavily sanctioned, so what else is there? Promises to lower sanction levels, rewards for bad behavior?
So condemning the election as a fraud now would be a VERY bad move if we want to engage Iran in any sort of meaningful diplomacy down the road.
There is no “meaningful diplomacy” to be had with the current Iranian regime short of power plays, any more than there is with North Korea. And they’re not incompetent at power plays, having fewer boundaries than we do. We also don’t KNOW that the election results were a fraud (though they are suspicious) or even if they were fraudulent that a true recount would actually change the results. We do know that a change in the Iranian presidency would be just a surface change in the mask the regime wears to the world as the president of Iran is little but a figurehead, with the real power lying elsewhere.
Condemning the open brutality of the regime’s response to the protests is proper, and called for. Circumspect noting of the suspicious results is not at all out of bounds. Openly calling the elections fraudulent from the White House podium is really pushing the envelope without a lot more evidence, and is at best an exerise in futility given that a change in presidency would have little practical result, other than possibly to leave the Iranian populace more comfortable with the regime.
Circumspect does not mean being a weenie. Some small amount of spine would be nice.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:45 am
Tully:
Our “spine” is irrelevant. Enough spine to look like spine hurts the demonstrators. Spine is entirely for domestic US consumption. This is not about making ourselves feel good.
Say, “we’re watching, we don’t think it’s okay to beat up peaceful protestors, we’re concerned.” That’s in effect what Obama has said. Dick Lugar for one thinks that’s just right. The thing to avoid is giving Khamenei any pretext for making this about us. There are many moving parts to this and anything from us has the potential to paint a target on one of the players.
The kids in the streets of Tehran should thank Allah we don’t have McCain in the White House. He’s acting the fool.
June 17th, 2009 at 10:48 am
It would be wise to proceed with caution in this instance.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Too much passive language from Obama–comes from his lawyering days. What would he have said about Tienanmen Square?
June 17th, 2009 at 11:54 am
Exiled:
It’s not about us. We can’t make it about us. Posturing and making ourselves feel righteous is not the point. There are actual lives on the line, and the future is up for grabs. Americans sticking their noses in will only help the bad guys.
Which of course is why neo-cons and McCain are doing it. They want the students to lose because they want a villainous Iran. But if you back the students you understand how damaging US posturing could be.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:58 am
One other point: this will very likely come down to the Iranian Army. The guys in the tanks usually decide these things. So far they appear to be remaining neutral. There are some very slight indications that they may be in opposition to the Revolutionary Guard.
Does anyone in their right mind think McCain’s loud mouth will move the Iranian Army to take the side of the students?
Right now there are Iranian mullahs and generals making decisions on which way to go. How in God’s name would more noise from the Great Satan be helpful?
June 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
What would he have said about Tienanmen Square?
That he’d like to comment on the situation but didn’t want to be seen as “meddling.”
Spine is entirely for domestic US consumption.
BS. It’s a crucial and required component of foreign policy. Let’s make the crucial distinction between calling the elections fraudulent on indeterminative evidence (bad idea), over-reacting with excessive bellicosity and threats (bad idea), and simply calling the Iranian government’s response to the demonstrations barbaric and oppressive, which it is. They know it, we know it, the rest of the world knows it, and the Iranians being beaten and shot and killed in Iran know it.
Compare and contrast. We don’t have the same tools available in this case, but what we do have available is the bully pulpit. Playing weenie from the bully pulpit isn’t circumspection, it’s weeniehood.
The thing to avoid is giving Khamenei any pretext for making this about us.
Too late. Not that they never needed any external excuse to frame this as about us, and nothing would have stopped them from doing so. Obama’s non-response certainly didn’t.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:57 pm
I dunno Mike, your spin on McCain and other folks lacks parsimony for me. McCain may be a lot of things,. He has many faults. But I have watched him for over 2 decades and feel comfortable that usually he just calls bastards bastards. I seriously doubt there’s a cagey strategem at work.
And that’s always the luxury of the minority anyways. They get to just call bastards bastards and blame the majority for political gamesmanship and privileging expediency over morality. Democrats did this for 8 years.
And hey let’s face it. those bastards are BASTARDS. No one is saying that isn’t true. The closest thing we have is some people saying there might be reasons not to speak such obvious truths. that leaves me seeing no good side to pick in any pissing contest about what our alleged ideal response should.
We’re stuck being spectators whether we like it or not. So I’m just hoping and praying that somehow the violent oppression ends as soon as possible and the end result is an incremental move towards a more legitimate semblance of democracy.
June 17th, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Tully:
And how exactly does calling the Iranian government barbaric and oppressive advance the cause? How does it help, in the real world?
It’s noise for the sake of making noise.
Our objective should be clear: we’d like the protesters to succeed in bringing down both Ahmadinejad and Khamenei. There may be covert things we can do — for example blocking Iranian government efforts to shut down communications. But we should do it sub rosa.
The Mossadeq thing is still huge in the Iranian imagination. Being seen to pull publicly for the protesters enables the government and gets in the way of our objective. This is not a time for the usual American solipsism. It’s not about us.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
First, let me say that I think it’s beside the point of the issue to turn the discussion inot whether or not Barack Obama is getting it just right today. It’s not about Barack Obama, it’s about something bigger. It’s about freedom and Iran democracy and muslims. And in the end, decisions about those issues will be up to them, not us. As it should and must be.
But, to your previous statement, Mike…I disagree.. It’s a teaching moment. Whatever our many demerits, whatever our occasional failures to practice as we preach, America has talked a pretty consistent party line about the merits of freedom and democracy.
And the mileage of the audience we’ve been preaching to over the years has varied. It has come and gone, gone up and gone down.
What better time than now for us to simply say “this is not how to run a government for the people.” What better time to persuade many Iranians of the fundamental legitimacy of the merits of democracy? What better time to make a few simple and obvious statements to plant a seed in the heads of Iranians and Muslims across the middle east that just maybe the Great Satan has a good point here.
Speaking of which, where’s Hillary? Ten bucks on her making pointed statements soon. I also expect Obama to continue his pattern of initially being circumspect and becoming more pointed as he has time to mull things over and establish the facts.
BTW, this is just MILES from being the worst approach to serious matters. Awhile back, a reporter asked Obama why he hadn’t spoken immediately to some issue that the media was busy losing their minds about. I forget the issue. But I do recall a peeved Obama saying that he hadn’t spoken to it before because he likes to know what he’s talking about before opening his mouth.
Standing O from me on that one.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Tully: “There is no “meaningful diplomacy†to be had with the current Iranian regime short of power plays, any more than there is with North Korea. ”
Yes but there IS meaningful diplomacy with the people of Iran. These are the people to force any change in Iran. To me it’s apparent that this is his target audience.
I have yet to see this man take action without deep consideration and calculation.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
Michael, hi, I think that like Kennedy and Reagan (yeah, I invoked BOTH of them), there is significant benefit in letting oppressed peoples who hunger for self-determination (or something closer to it) know that they have an ally in the United States. It’s not about us, it’s about letting the world know where we stand, what we stand for, and who we will stand with.
June 17th, 2009 at 5:41 pm
And how exactly does calling the Iranian government barbaric and oppressive advance the cause?
Funny how “speaking truth to power” becomes so unpopular once your favored are in power, isn’t it? How principle goes out the window, to be replaced by the equivocations demanded of expediency. How those firm strong stands become squishy salt marsh, just waiting for the next tide.
It is indeed a teaching moment, and someone is teaching the wrong lesson. Sad that our president cannot manage to clearly and unequivocally condemn the brutal repression of the protesters, but must instead (YOUR interpretation, Michael) obfuscate and delay and equivocate in order to seek some advantage outside the clear principles laid down by such as JFK and RR, among a long history of others. Why, those who disagree must just not be able to appreciate the brilliant nuance that is Teh Obama!
WISHY WASHY WEENIE. No spine. This one’s not even a question. The brutal repression of civilians is a slam-dunk regardless of who’s doing it, and condemnation for it should be automatic. You’d almost think Obama was ashamed or afraid to condemn it, was embarrassed to display clear principles in public. Sure, they sound pretty in campaign speeches, but when the rubber meets the road and some clear leadership is called for, they’re just SO inconvenient.
“Those ideals still light the world, and we will not give them up for expedience’s sake.” –BHO 1/20/09
Unless it’s expedient, of course.
June 17th, 2009 at 7:04 pm
At least European leaders like Sarkozy & Angela Merkel are starting to sound like Reagan did during the Soviet crackdown on the solidarity movement.
Someone tell those world leaders that they are making a VERY bad move.
Who would have thought that the President of the United States would sound more limp-wristed than the French or the Germans during a geopolitical crisis.
June 17th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Exiled writes
It’s not about us, it’s about letting the world know where we stand, what we stand for, and who we will stand with.
So for the last eight years you had no issue with fraudulent elections, trashing the Constitution of your country, running roughshod over the opposition in your own country and having no respect for any other countries views, starting a preemptive war based on misleading/lying to your own countrymen and finally committing war crimes and not being held accountable (because you have the right to ignore any verdict of the world community that you want to ignore) as the “stand” you would be willing to support then?
That would really show them how different we are.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Tully:
Summarizing: you have no answer. You can’t give us any reason to think that more noise from us advances our goals.
The goal is the point. The objective. And our objective is not to express your emotions or mine.
June 17th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
It’s not about us, it’s about letting the world know where we stand, what we stand for, and who we will stand with.
No one alive on planet earth has any shred of doubt where we stand. No one.
So it’s about a need to blow off steam, to make ourselves feel good.
As for “who we will stand with” what does that mean in this context? Let me tell you what we’re going to do: nothing. Because in the real world there’s not a hell of a lot we can do. We aren’t going to war with Iran. So let’s not pull another Kurd switcheroo and pretend we’re going to do something, encourage people to stick their necks out for a false promise.
It’s not about us. It’s about them. It’s up to them. Everyone knows what we want and whose side we are on and all we can do by butting in his hurt the good guys.
Of course that is exactly what many on the right want.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:30 am
BS again, Michael. Did you swallow a Howard Dean? That you rhetorically dismiss the obvious (and stated) reasons for Obama not being a total weenie in taking a public stand on the brutal repression of protesters in Iran (or anyplace else — this will count for consistency in future events) is hardly a counter-argument. Compare and contrast with previous admin’s responses to Tianenmen and Myanmar, among others. (And yes, the words “brutal” and “egregious human rights violations” played starring roles in those.)
No one alive on planet earth has any shred of doubt where we stand. No one.
Absolute and total BS. Obama is being closely watched for his response. Has he even forwarded his “deep concern” to the worthless black hole of the UN for face-saving multi-national “deep concern?” So far his response has best been summed up by Iowahawk:
He’s stalling with minimal movement and mealy-mouthed platitudes and hoping the “situation” resolves itself before he’s compelled to pull his thumb out of his tuchis. He can’t even develop the cojones for a symbolic response in favor of human rights and democracy. We both know that the real battle is being waged among the mullahs, in the Expediency Discernment Council and the Council of Guardians, that it is they who will consider world opinion in guiding the government response. We both know that a change of Iranian President will make kittle to no real difference in Iranian foreign policy. We both know that if they decide to go full-bore against the protesters that they will blame the Great Satan (and already have) as the cause of their problems, regardless of what we do…or don’t do. And we both know the signal Obama is sending them is “Whatever.”
Obama’s also being watched and assessed and his non-response slotted into the game plans of other nations for both current and future events. So far, the signal he is sending to the world is “You’re on your own.” Not exactly a beacon of courage and democracy.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:41 am
Compare and contrast with previous admin’s responses to Tianenmen and Myanmar, among others. (And yes, the words “brutal†and “egregious human rights violations†played starring roles in those.)
Which accomplished what precisely? Which moved us effectively toward what goal?
The rest of your response is phony macho posturing and bluster.
We have a goal. Now why don’t you make yet another attempt to explain to me how more posturing and louder bluster will get us to that goal.
I think the problem here is that you and I have very different goals. I want to see the protests succeed. You want a club to beat Obama.
It’s funny, Tully, because I’ve read hundreds of tweets from Iran, watched dozens of video clips and you know what I haven’t seen yet? Iranian students demanding more noise from the American government.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:56 am
Let’s invade Iran!
This economy needs (another) good war to pull it out of it’s recession
June 18th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I think the problem here is that you and I have very different goals. I want to see the protests succeed. You want a club to beat Obama.
Bullshit again, Michael. More obfuscation and straw men and irrelevant dismissals. I want Obama to be a competent leader simply because he’s our president. He’s failing on this foreign-policy issue, one that should be a slam-dunk for a clear statement of general human-rights principles. He is not demonstrating any leadership whatsoever to the international community here, which international opinions you deemed so overwhelmingly important over the last several years. He’s being a waffle-wrapped weenie in the International House of Pancakes. And yes, that is being noted by other nations. For good or ill, his non-response is an example and a communications signal to the rest of the world.
And yes, the sanctions against both China and Myanmar had some effect. In the case of China in particular it helped lead them into increased foreign trade and greater openness, for example. And sucked them into the beginnings of restricted capitalism, which has over time boosted their own standard of living enormously and entwined them into the world economy. Not to mention financing our own national spending. The international sanctions against Myanmar resulted in the release of thousands of political prisoners, and lessened blocking of international aid response in natural disasters.
We have a goal.
Which is what, exactly? To let the dust settle on the protester’s corpses before resuming the hopeless ass-kissing game with the mullahs? Less yodeling? I ask again, has Obama (or Clinton at State) even taken the very minimal symbolic step of forwarding those “deep concerns” to the UN in any form whatsoever? Where international considerations might help shape the mullahs’ thinking?
Do please acknowledge that I have stated repeatedly above that I am talking about one thing — condemning the brutal repression of the protesters — and not about the election fraud allegations or anything else. As you seem intent on conflating that specific-response thing into a general condemnation response that I have most specifically not advocated. Tsk tsk.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Word, hi. A little OT, but just a word of caution. At some point, the “well Bush was worse!!” card is going to get fully played out, and the more you play it the faster that will happen. At that point, our current president will have no choice but to be judged on his own merits. And based on arguments like yours, that seems like something Obamapologists are quite afraid of. I mean, seriously, you’ve GOT to have some better excuse for a fumbled foreign policy play than “Bush was worse.” Right?
June 18th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
This discussion has an air of unreality about it, and I suspect that this is because it’s all about commenters wanting to knock Obama or cover for him.
Certainly, caution is essential for the US in this situation. There is no question that it will do no one in Iran any good to offer the regime highly visible US Presidential pronouncements to point to and say, “See, it’s the Americans and Mousavi is their stooge.”
But that does not mean the US must be silent or that silence will keep the regime from blaming The Great Satan or that the US has no options or that it must accept the outcome, whatever it may be, and sally forth to engage the regime as if nothing happened and nothing changed.
Obama promised more diplomacy — but “tough diplomacy” and you aren’t being “tough” if you’re passive.
The US is still the big guy on the block in the sense that it is the only actor in the world that Iran needs to be seriously concerned about. The six days (and counting) of loud protests have already undermined Ahmadinejad’s legitimacy as President, should he continue in that role, and are beginning to target the Supreme Leader. Put these two fac together and you can see good reason why a stronger expression of US concern — at the right moment and made in the right way — is a highly relevant part of whatever calculations Khamenei, Ahmadinejad, Mousavi and others in Iran’s leadership will be making.
There are many ways to do this; a statement by Obama is only one. Lesser officials can ratchet up the tone. Anonymous “high officials” can tell the WaPo that the US may not be so eager to engage with Ahmadinejad, if he emerges with the Presidency only over more dead bodies and repression. Messages also can be sent covertly to any or all the players in Iran. Messages can be delivered also in the form of actions in potentially linked areas (e.g., Obama calls Netanyehu with whom there has been some friction lately to “discuss Iran” and let’s the story out, as if to say indirectly to Iran, “You know, all that stuff about the US leaning on Israel may or may not happen”).
The notion that the US has no cards to play is fundamentally wrong. We may not want to try to change any more regimes by force or arms or by engineering coups, but there is all that “smart power,” is there not?
It is hugely in America’s (and the region’s) interest to weaken the hold of the Iranian regime internally. That would enhance our negotiating position in engagement. And there are plenty of tools available to the President to coax that along. Caution, yes. Smart diplomacy, yes. Passivity, no.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Exiled-
Sorry that wasn’t my point at all.
I think Obama is handling this correctly. Especially with our history of removing governments in Iran. The voices I’ve heard from Iran have agreed.
My point is that people like you have no leg to stand on when you talk about setting a good example for the world. You have zero credibility. I think your judgment was flawed then and now and just find it almost ridiculous that you can even get the words out of your mouth that we should do what will show the world what “we stand for”.
Obama has already made it quite clear that we don’t stand for what you stood for. The whole world has embraced that. My issues with him are that he hasn’t gone far enough to distance himself from W. If he makes a clean break with those policies, he will have done more than enough to succeed. Anything more will be icing on the cake.
btw, your side has been kicking Carter around for 30 years so I think the GOP might not be the ones to say let bygones be bygones.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:58 pm
John B
Just a few reactions.
You mention covertly doing things. I think it is doubtful that some of those things might not be happening now. They likely always are being done. Since they aren’t overt, we likely may not know for decades if they are already doing things you want. Bottom line is that they are a religiously militant country now and will most likely be after whatever happens happens. The people have to decide they are tired of this kind of government.
Our history in the region makes it unlikely that our insertion would do more than snap the rubberband back in the opposite direction. They have already said that Obama’s statements have made many want better relations with us. IMO, Pulling a Machiavelli now would likely screw us there for another 50 years or longer. We would likely have more options almost anywhere but here. They have to demand a new future for it to happen.
June 18th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Apology accepted, Word, although your view of the political spectrum seems stunningly narrow. But hey, I get it. In your world, we’re either Obamaphiles or Bushites, and there’s really no other views on American government. Personally, I think there is room for people with “conservative” views who were really infuriated with the decisions Bush made, as I would think that there are “liberals” who aren’t thrilled with Obama. There are probably even odd individuals out there that have a view of politics that doesn’t fit neatly into an “us” and “them” mentality.
I think the sooner we get beyond this kind of thinking, though, the sooner we (those who want to) can engage in an honest exchange of ideas. I said long ago that the proponents of a candidate should also be their harshest critics–it takes extra mental effort to put aside a personal bias and attempt to look at political decisions that a president makes objectively. But what I’ve seen for the past six months is an almost Herculean effort by Obama supporters to justify literally everything the man does. I appreciate the passion, but that passion has eradicated most objective thought. So, in a sense, this is exactly the thing that Democrats hated about the blind Bush followers. Remember how aggravating that was?
As far as Carter goes, I don’t think that there are many folks out there blaming him for what’s going on in the world today, with perhaps the exception of his legitimizing Hamas.
And, just curious (cuz I think the answer would be amusing), what do you think I stand for? Actually, wouldn’t that be a cool feature on the old Donklephant? A little political profile page where posters can keep a persistent description of their world views and perspective on politics. Hmmm…
June 18th, 2009 at 10:08 pm
Tully, the color of fake patriotism is yellow. You could easily be mistaken for Colonel Mustard.
America is coming off the whole “superpower” bit. Deal with it. 20th Century is over, along with the Cold War.
I would wager that America’s involvement in Iran is, currently, a whole lot bigger than most folks would expect. The difference is, these people aren’t media whores who’ll be popping up on Faux News anytime soon, for folks like Tully and Simon to slobber over.
Agnostick
agnostick@excite.com
June 19th, 2009 at 6:29 am
Exiled-
Don’t remember apologizing but that’s ok ☺ I have made numerous calls where I think Obama is wrong. I haven’t heard any “I think he’s doing the right thing here” calls by you and the generally consistent “Whatever it is I’m against it” crowd.
I would like to see more dialogue and I think we all likely misunderstand the position and beliefs of others. I kind of like the idea of profiles too. My guess is that the way we are seen by others is likely not how we see ourselves (correctly or incorrectly)
I really don’t see the blank OK by the left that you say is happening now or which occurred on the Right with Bush. Even now, Bush has 26% or so thinking he did a good job. On what rational planet is that even possible???
The people who have had the most issue with Obama are 1) The Right-which predictably is 100% against everything he has said and done which makes their complaints much easier to dismiss since they (as I tried to point out in the previous post) are often completely inconsistent with the stance they had when their guy was in office. and 2) People like me who don’t see him standing for things on principles that used to be a no brainer for this country. Standing for the rule of law, Not going after torture, war crimes etc. Not having all options on the table when looking at health care reform. Allowing discrimination to continue for one second longer than it should have. So, I do see some balance in my view. I don’t think he’s perfect. You’re right that I think he is a major improvement on Bush. I think almost anyone would have been since he was easily the worst President in my life.
I think the Obamapologist thing you keep trotting out is far less accurate than the constant “everything he does is wrong view†that I keep hearing from the other side. If I have missed a post where you said you were impressed or that he has done something well, for that I do apologize ☺
June 20th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
I think Obama is handling this correctly.
Obama’s previous say-nothing statements are no longer operative, and he has FINALLY joined all but one member of Congress in openly condemning the current human rights abuses in Iran. Without, I note, stepping into the question of the validity of the elections.
Gee, whoever would have thought that such a clear and narrowly focused statement might be called for? Days ago, even? I wonder.
June 20th, 2009 at 9:20 pm
Tully-
Perhaps we can agree on this. We would both like to see a regime change in Iran and a better situation for the people there.
What I believe hurts your position is that actual experts seem to side with the approach he is taking and those screaming against it are the same people who got nothing right for over a decade.
Even Pat Buchanan says he is taking the right approach. Buchanan put it this way(or close to it). Of course the GOP is trying to go after him but I think he’s going about it just right. There are things you can do as a Congressman or a Senator that are not appropriate as the leader of the country.
He also said this- When your adversary is making a fool of himself, get out of the way.
June 20th, 2009 at 10:39 pm
Gee, whoever would have thought that such a clear and narrowly focused statement might be called for? Days ago, even? I wonder.
Days ago Khamenei had not spoken, genius. Days ago the level of repression had not been ramped up. Days ago Moussavi had not committed to defying Khamenei. In other words, Obama’s timing is about right — although I thought his remarks to CBS were premature — and yours was wrong.
As you know perfectly well, however much you have to ignore it in order to score narrow political points, timing is everything.
I am always disappointed when intelligent people play stupid for political purposes. You know better, Tully. Or should.
June 21st, 2009 at 7:16 am
It’s none of our business to meddle in Iranian politics. Sure theocracies are inherently evil, there were probably many election irregularities, the people are angry about the results, and the leaders are angry with the people – but it’s none of our business to get involved.
The Iranian government is already a pariah internationally – and no matter what the result they are still pariahs. Did any other country meddle in US politics when the right leaning Supreme Court selected Bush in 2000 – despite clear evidence of election irregularities? The track record for the US regarding electoral accuracy, human rights abuses, and altruistic politics is laughable these past ten years. We have absolutely no firm ground from which to comment on Iranian politics – none.
There are clearly major changes afoot in Iran, unlike the changes that took 15 to 20 years to materialize while the Shah was in power – and I expect the ridiculous theocracy in power is on it’s way out – but it will take another decade.