On the principle of “the worse the better” for our enemies–and, make no mistake, Iran is our enemy–it is possible to take some small degree of satisfaction from the outcome of Iran’s elections.
If the mullahs were really canny, they would have let Mousavi win. He would have presented a more reasonable face to the world without changing the grim underlying realities of Iran’s regime–the oppression, the support for terrorism, the nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. He is the kind of “moderate” with whom the Obama administration could happily engage in endless negotiations which probably would not accomplish anything except to buy time for Iran to weaponize its fissile material.
But instead it appears that the mullahocracy was determined to anoint Ahmadinejad the winner–and by a margin which no one can take seriously as a true representation of Iranian popular will. Ahmadinejad is about the worst spokesman possible to make Iran’s case to the West–a president who denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel’s eradication, claims there are no homosexuals in Iran, and generally comes off like a denizen of an alternative universe. Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.
That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t try–but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by embargoing Iranian refined-petroleum imports or by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.
So in an odd sort of way a win for Ahmadinejad is also a win for those of us who are seriously alarmed about Iranian capabilities and intentions. With crazy Mahmoud in office–and his patron, Ayatollah Khameini, looming in the background–it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime.
»Back to Contentions »Back to Commentary del.icio.us Google Facebook
50 Responses to “The Bright Side of Ahamdinejad’s “Win””
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
1 Peter Shalen Says: June 14th, 2009 at 1:08 PM
I think Mr. Boot is exactly on target here.
2 Noah Seton Says: June 14th, 2009 at 1:18 PM
This might be a bit too much of a conspiracy theory, but as I’ve been considering that a Mousavi win would likely only change the face of the regime and not its policies, I’ve started to wonder whether the best outcome for the Mullahs be to have Mousavi take power in a way that fools the world into thinking that the balance of power has shifted away from them and to the Iranian people. Can a regime “fake” a peaceful revolution? Can it fake its own people into producing one? Well, for years, despotic regimes have run fraudulent elections in an attempt to build up their own credibility in the eyes of the civilized world. (It’s ironic that these despots pay such respect to democracy - and what democracy implies about the legitimacy of a government - even while they trample on it.) Why not run such an obviously fraudulent election that it provokes the people into actually protesting the results? And then, like Br’er Rabbit into the Briar Patch, the Mullahs accept Mousavi as President.
After all, today, after the Velvet, Rose & Cedar Revolutions, wouldn’t it be an even greater boon to the Mullahs to have the world think that the people have taken control of policy in Iran, repudiated A’jad and those behind him, revealed the fraud behind the “election” and installed their rightfully elected representative. And while the world celebrates “people power” in Iran, it forgets that Mousavi was pre-screened by the Mullahs as an acceptable candidate. Then, when it’s time to go to the negotiating table, the West is confronted with a legitimate democratic leader - not some crazy like A’jad - and the Mullahs’ position is all the stronger when that legitimate democratic leader … still wants an Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, still seeks the right to nuclear fuel, still supports Hezbollah and Hamas, and still opposes Israel.
3 Michael J. Totten Says: June 14th, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Yes. And there is also the possibility that the regime just killed itself. It might not even exist a few weeks from now. Maybe it will massacre people in the streets like the Chinese did, but it’s also possible that what happened to Slobo in Belgrade is about to happen in Tehran.
4 Sully Says: June 14th, 2009 at 1:21 PM
“That doesn't mean that Obama won't try"“but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program”
No question that Achmedinejad’s election is a good thing in the long term; but I think you’re dreaming when you suppose Obama may act.
For one thing he’ll create a tremendous political problem if he does. The left is quiet about Iraq for the time being because he inherited it; and it’s quiet about Afghanistan because supposed neglect of that war was long their stalking horse re Iraq and W. But if he takes on a new war they will explode the way they did at Johnson.
And, he’s just really not that into Israel.
The one possibility is that the Saudis will recognize the core reality of any Chicago politician, and in fact most politicians over all. They’ve got a long history of buying what they need from our pols, and Obama grew up relatively poor; so he’d be cheap, like Bill Clinton. I’m sure W and his dad cost a lot.
5 Colette Says: June 14th, 2009 at 1:44 PM
That is exactly what I have been thinking, Noah Seton. And it’s entirely in keeping with the way the mullahs have behaved over the last three decades. They become more and more restrictive, then when the students, etc. revolt, they clamp down hard, then allow in a pseudo reformer and ease up in superficial ways. Then the cycle begins again. It’s been highly effective and I wouldn’t put it past them that they are pulling it off again.
6 J.E. Dyer Says: June 14th, 2009 at 1:59 PM
I wouldn’t count on Khamanei and the boys going the way of Slobo. We’d have to be bombing the snot out of parts of Iran for the same conditions to apply.
There is, in fact, a limit to what America can do about this election. No one outside Iran can strong-arm the mullahs into choosing a different path — not without military intimidation that there is no one in a position to undertake. I don’t attribute Obama’s silence on this to wisdom, by any means, but making threats or categorical pronouncements that he has no way to back up would be very UNwise.
I don’t foresee Obama having any less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Moussavi. Less ecstatic lionizing of Ahmadinejad than there would have been with Moussavi, sure. But patience? That’s a function of our own approach, not which face the other guy is putting on his.
I do note that if it becomes a matter of the Guardian Council having to use the IRGC to pacify the country internally, that would probably be something of a reprieve for the various nations of the region being targeted by the mullahs. Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Israel top that list.
7 Magnolia Says: June 14th, 2009 at 2:02 PM
What is this about if things do not work out that we will allow Israel to attack Iran and not try to stop it.?The USA must lead the way and attack Iran for our own sake.Do you think that Iran will stop with with Israel and will be happy to live us and everything will be rosy.People who think this way are living on another Planet.
8 lester Says: June 14th, 2009 at 2:18 PM
“Iran is our enemy”
speak for yourself.
“it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime”
lol.
“The USA must lead the way and attack Iran for our own sake”
roflmao
9 CK MacLeod Says: June 14th, 2009 at 2:27 PM
And there is also the possibility that the regime just killed itself. It might not even exist a few weeks from now. Maybe it will massacre people in the streets like the Chinese did, but it's also possible that what happened to Slobo in Belgrade is about to happen in Tehran.
Based on what? A few urban riots, including a twitter riot? Seriously - where’s the evidence of an objective threat to the regime’s ability to govern and of an alternative force in a position to replace it?
I’d be as happy as anyone if the mullahs fell, and for that same reason I’ll remain skeptical of superficial appearances of anti-regime sentiment as harbingers of revolution. I agree with JED, however, that turmoil and de-stabilization in Iran - presuming no “wounded animal” syndrome - would be good news for those in the region rightly or wrong fearing Iranian hegemony. But it’s a bit early to be making plans on the presumption that the animal has been seriously wounded or is even likely to be heavily pre-occupied.
10 lester Says: June 14th, 2009 at 2:29 PM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2009/06/11/090611001051__women526.jpg
the guy won fair and square. stop cheering on imaginary revolutions and other nonsense. iran is the same country is was a week ago
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
Leave a Reply
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
Advertisement
FREE SAMPLE ISSUE
the complete archive hundreds of authors thousands of articles American historysince 1945
ENTER THE ARCHIVE
a,a:visited {font-color:#0066CC; color:#0066CC}
ADVERTISER LINKS
Car Finance Bad Car Credit Bad Credit Loans Loan Modification Cash Advance Marriage Records Divorce Records calling cards Cash Loans
Advertisement
On the principle of “the worse the better” for our enemies–and, make no mistake, Iran is our enemy–it is possible to take some small degree of satisfaction from the outcome of Iran’s elections.
If the mullahs were really canny, they would have let Mousavi win. He would have presented a more reasonable face to the world without changing the grim underlying realities of Iran’s regime–the oppression, the support for terrorism, the nuclear weapons and ballistic missile programs. He is the kind of “moderate” with whom the Obama administration could happily engage in endless negotiations which probably would not accomplish anything except to buy time for Iran to weaponize its fissile material.
But instead it appears that the mullahocracy was determined to anoint Ahmadinejad the winner–and by a margin which no one can take seriously as a true representation of Iranian popular will. Ahmadinejad is about the worst spokesman possible to make Iran’s case to the West–a president who denies the Holocaust, calls for Israel’s eradication, claims there are no homosexuals in Iran, and generally comes off like a denizen of an alternative universe. Even the Obama administration will be hard put to enter into serious negotiations with Ahmadinejad, especially when his scant credibility has been undermined by these utterly fraudulent elections and the resulting street protests.
That doesn’t mean that Obama won’t try–but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program–whether by embargoing Iranian refined-petroleum imports or by tacitly giving the go-ahead to Israel to attack its nuclear installations.
So in an odd sort of way a win for Ahmadinejad is also a win for those of us who are seriously alarmed about Iranian capabilities and intentions. With crazy Mahmoud in office–and his patron, Ayatollah Khameini, looming in the background–it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
I think Mr. Boot is exactly on target here.
This might be a bit too much of a conspiracy theory, but as I’ve been considering that a Mousavi win would likely only change the face of the regime and not its policies, I’ve started to wonder whether the best outcome for the Mullahs be to have Mousavi take power in a way that fools the world into thinking that the balance of power has shifted away from them and to the Iranian people. Can a regime “fake” a peaceful revolution? Can it fake its own people into producing one? Well, for years, despotic regimes have run fraudulent elections in an attempt to build up their own credibility in the eyes of the civilized world. (It’s ironic that these despots pay such respect to democracy - and what democracy implies about the legitimacy of a government - even while they trample on it.) Why not run such an obviously fraudulent election that it provokes the people into actually protesting the results? And then, like Br’er Rabbit into the Briar Patch, the Mullahs accept Mousavi as President.
After all, today, after the Velvet, Rose & Cedar Revolutions, wouldn’t it be an even greater boon to the Mullahs to have the world think that the people have taken control of policy in Iran, repudiated A’jad and those behind him, revealed the fraud behind the “election” and installed their rightfully elected representative. And while the world celebrates “people power” in Iran, it forgets that Mousavi was pre-screened by the Mullahs as an acceptable candidate. Then, when it’s time to go to the negotiating table, the West is confronted with a legitimate democratic leader - not some crazy like A’jad - and the Mullahs’ position is all the stronger when that legitimate democratic leader … still wants an Iranian influence in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank, still seeks the right to nuclear fuel, still supports Hezbollah and Hamas, and still opposes Israel.
Yes. And there is also the possibility that the regime just killed itself. It might not even exist a few weeks from now. Maybe it will massacre people in the streets like the Chinese did, but it’s also possible that what happened to Slobo in Belgrade is about to happen in Tehran.
“That doesn't mean that Obama won't try"“but he will have a lot less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Mousavi. And that in turn means there is a greater probability that eventually Obama may do something serious to stop the Iranian nuclear program”
No question that Achmedinejad’s election is a good thing in the long term; but I think you’re dreaming when you suppose Obama may act.
For one thing he’ll create a tremendous political problem if he does. The left is quiet about Iraq for the time being because he inherited it; and it’s quiet about Afghanistan because supposed neglect of that war was long their stalking horse re Iraq and W. But if he takes on a new war they will explode the way they did at Johnson.
And, he’s just really not that into Israel.
The one possibility is that the Saudis will recognize the core reality of any Chicago politician, and in fact most politicians over all. They’ve got a long history of buying what they need from our pols, and Obama grew up relatively poor; so he’d be cheap, like Bill Clinton. I’m sure W and his dad cost a lot.
That is exactly what I have been thinking, Noah Seton. And it’s entirely in keeping with the way the mullahs have behaved over the last three decades. They become more and more restrictive, then when the students, etc. revolt, they clamp down hard, then allow in a pseudo reformer and ease up in superficial ways. Then the cycle begins again. It’s been highly effective and I wouldn’t put it past them that they are pulling it off again.
I wouldn’t count on Khamanei and the boys going the way of Slobo. We’d have to be bombing the snot out of parts of Iran for the same conditions to apply.
There is, in fact, a limit to what America can do about this election. No one outside Iran can strong-arm the mullahs into choosing a different path — not without military intimidation that there is no one in a position to undertake. I don’t attribute Obama’s silence on this to wisdom, by any means, but making threats or categorical pronouncements that he has no way to back up would be very UNwise.
I don’t foresee Obama having any less patience with Ahmadinejad than he would have had with Moussavi. Less ecstatic lionizing of Ahmadinejad than there would have been with Moussavi, sure. But patience? That’s a function of our own approach, not which face the other guy is putting on his.
I do note that if it becomes a matter of the Guardian Council having to use the IRGC to pacify the country internally, that would probably be something of a reprieve for the various nations of the region being targeted by the mullahs. Iraq, Bahrain, Lebanon, and Israel top that list.
What is this about if things do not work out that we will allow Israel to attack Iran and not try to stop it.?The USA must lead the way and attack Iran for our own sake.Do you think that Iran will stop with with Israel and will be happy to live us and everything will be rosy.People who think this way are living on another Planet.
“Iran is our enemy”
speak for yourself.
“it will be harder for Iranian apologists to deny the reality of this terrorist regime”
lol.
“The USA must lead the way and attack Iran for our own sake”
roflmao
And there is also the possibility that the regime just killed itself. It might not even exist a few weeks from now. Maybe it will massacre people in the streets like the Chinese did, but it's also possible that what happened to Slobo in Belgrade is about to happen in Tehran.
Based on what? A few urban riots, including a twitter riot? Seriously - where’s the evidence of an objective threat to the regime’s ability to govern and of an alternative force in a position to replace it?
I’d be as happy as anyone if the mullahs fell, and for that same reason I’ll remain skeptical of superficial appearances of anti-regime sentiment as harbingers of revolution. I agree with JED, however, that turmoil and de-stabilization in Iran - presuming no “wounded animal” syndrome - would be good news for those in the region rightly or wrong fearing Iranian hegemony. But it’s a bit early to be making plans on the presumption that the animal has been seriously wounded or is even likely to be heavily pre-occupied.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/assets/images/2009/06/11/090611001051__women526.jpg
the guy won fair and square. stop cheering on imaginary revolutions and other nonsense. iran is the same country is was a week ago
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 »
Name (required)
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Website
XHTML: You can use these tags:
Advertisement
FREE SAMPLE ISSUE
ENTER THE ARCHIVE
ADVERTISER LINKS
Car Finance Bad Car Credit Bad Credit Loans Loan Modification Cash Advance Marriage Records Divorce Records calling cards Cash Loans
Advertisement
A little something about you, the author. Nothing lengthy, just an overview.
Advertisement
Commentary is proudly powered by WordPress Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
Home | Subscribe | About Us | Donate | Advertise | Contact Us | Legal Notices | RSS
Copyright © 1997-2009 Commentary Magazine All Rights Reserved
Read Full Article »