On Iran's election

Mon, 06/15/2009 - 10:48am

I wasn't able to do any posting over the past few days, but I did want to add my two cents to the commentary on the almost-certainly fraudulent election in Iran. The entire business suggests to me that the ruling elite in Iran is increasingly out-of-touch with broader segments of Iranian society. It's not just that Iran's current leaders oppose the liberal reforms sought by many ordinary Iranians; it is rather that they don't seem to be as tuned in to these forces or particularly adept at manipulating them.  

First, the ruling forces (including Ahmadinejad) appear to have been taken by surprise by the outpouring of popular enthusiasm for reformist candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi in the weeks before the election. Even if Ahmadinejad would have won fair-and-square, it looks to me like the clerics, the military, and the current President all panicked. The disconnect between regime and population isn't all that surprising: about 70 percent of Iran's population is under thirty, which means they were born after the 1979 revolution and have little memory of the Iran-Iraq war. At this point, a middle-aged former revolutionary like Ahmadinejad doesn't have much in common with those younger Iranians who have embraced many aspects of modern global culture (music, the internet, Facebook etc.). Indeed, he's beginning to remind me of a middle-aged parent who can't stand the music his kids are listening to, has no idea why they spend so much time online, and couldn't do a simple file-share without asking for help. Ahmadinejad may be a skilled populist rabble-rouser in some ways, but hip he ain't. And that means he and the clerics are in fact in charge of a society that they increasingly do not understand.

Second, the way the election results were manipulated was crude and unconvincing. As Juan Cole has convincingly argued, the pattern of election results, as well as the speed with they were announced by some officials, was simply not credible. A clever and well-executed strategy to steal the election would have had given Mousavi a large enough share to convince his followers they had been heard, but not large enough to force a runoff or to make them think that some sort of recount was necessary. Again, this speaks of a government machine that was worried, heavy-handed, and anything but subtle. The outpouring of popular protest and the forceful government response to it (which has included efforts to shut down communication with the outside world) also reveals a government that is in fact increasingly isolated from large segments of Iranian society. 

So what does it all mean? The election and the subsequent protests do not mean that another Iranian revolution is imminent, although this morning's reports of protest activity and Ayatollah Khamenei's flip-flopping does make me wonder. See the rapid-fire, too-many-to-link-to reports on Andrew Sullivan's blog here. Remember: Ahmadinejad does have a substantial body of genuine supporters, authoritarian regimes have many tools they can use to retain power, and revolutionary collapses are inherently hard to predict. 

But overall, this entire episode is a setback for the clerical regime. The claim to some degree of democratic legitimacy (however truncated) has been one of Iran’s main public relations assets in recent years (especially when compared with many of its neighbors); that claim has now been badly tarnished if not utterly demolished. As with Ahmadinejad's various diplomatic gaffes, the "election" will make it easier for the United States to round up diplomatic support for its positions (though not in Russia or China, for whom electoral proprieties are hardly a major concern). But no government can be happy to see so many citizens -- and especially younger citizens -- so obviously disaffected.  

For its part, the Obama administration should stay pretty much on course for now. Many Iranians clearly want a more normal relationship with the outside world -- including the United States -- and Obama's approach makes it harder for the regime to use the American bogeyman to stimulate Iranian nationalism and thereby bolster its position. Moreover, a U.S. attempt to exploit popular discontent  is likely to backfire, because it will reinforce long-standing (and I am sorry to say, amply justified) Iranian suspicions that the United States simply cannot resist interfering in Iran’s domestic politics.  

In the end, what really matters is the content of any subsequent U.S.-Iranian rapprochement, not the precise nature of the Iranian regime.  If diplomatic engagement led to a good deal, then it wouldn't matter much who was running Iran. By the same logic, we shouldn't accept a bad deal even if we were happier with the outcome of this election. And there’s no reason to think that Mousavi would have been substantially more forthcoming on the nuclear issue than Ahmadinejad has been. So while I'm as disappointed as anyone in the outcome thus far, I want to wait and see how the two sides respond once the dust has settled.

Majid/Getty Images

Stephen M. Walt | Permalink | | Comments? Login or register
( filed under: )


Advertisement

 

What about the poll?

by MoonofA on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 11:07am

Prof. Walt - what about the only independent poll available which saw Ahmadinejad winning 2:1.

Iran: New 2009 Survey before Elections (pdf)

One can not simply ignore that.

In this case Cole's argument are rather of facts in my view.

I saw the same polls before

by Stephen M. Walt on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 12:10pm
I saw the same polls before the election, and did not in fact think Moussavi would actually win, although pre-election polls in Iran have been unreliable in the past. But I was immediately suspicious when Iranian officials were proclaiming Ahmadinejad's victory within a couple of hours of the polls closing. But to be clear: I would not have been surprised in Ahmadinejad had ended up winning a totally fair election, or if he had won a strong plurality (leading to a runoff which he subsequently won). My point is that the manner by which he "won" suggests a ruling elite that is increasingly out of touch with large segments of Iranian society, increasingly worried about its position, and relying on assorted acts of chicanery and intimidation to keep itself in power.

It was Mousavi that

by MoonofA on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 1:59pm

It was Mousavi that prematurely announced his victory. The officals reacted to that by announcing trends when they had some 20% of the local results.

Fox News: Clashes Erupt in Iran After Ahmadinejad Declared Winner of Presidential Election

Even before the vote counting began, Mousavi declared himself "definitely the winner" based on "all indications from all over Iran." He accused the government of "manipulating the people's vote" to keep Ahmadinejad in power and suggested the reformist camp would stand up to challenge the results.

So it was Mousavi who proclaimed first and without factual base to be the winner.

Only hours AFTER THAT did the election counters announced the results they had at that time.

BTW: the first preliminary results published on just 20% of electoral districts had Ahmadinejad at 69%. The final result has him as 62%.

Which is reasonable considering the poll and the attack on the quite hated (corrupt) Mousavi backer Rafsanjani Ahmadinejad made during the TV duels.

huge undecided #

by Slaney Black on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 1:29pm

Winning 2-to-1 and having 34% among decided voters are not the same thing. You got 34% as an incumbent, you're not heading for a landslide.

Major concern seems to have been getting Ahmadi's vote total above Khatami's record. He might even have won AND stole it.

It makes no difference whatsoever how the Iranians choose to

by Kenneth Sorensen on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 1:20pm

-conduct their elections. After all, their country is still considered in 'the West' as being an authocratic dictatorship, a theocracy, governed by 'Mad mullahs' and until recently it was a prominent member of the 'Axis of Evil' - the disastrous phrase invented by the Jewish-Canadian David Frum, and presented to George W. Bush to read aloud from his teleprompter at the State of the Union Address on January 29, 2002. So why anybody suddenly should think that Iran was able to live up to democratic, 'western' norms is beyond me. Indeed 'the West' have done Iran so much wrong over the years, so it is better to leave it to sort out its own affairs.

The ISRAEL LOBBY has for years been punishing Iran

by Kenneth Sorensen on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 1:36pm

Take a look at how this individual at the Treasury Department, Stuart Levey in the very heart of the American Capital and just a stone-throw away from The White House, are leading the foul sanction policy against the sovereign and proud country of Iran with more than 70 million citizens. I have to admit one cannot accuse them of hiding; it is out in the open (sort of). It is quite clever: The tactics is to align Israels ( a country consisting of 5 million Jews) strategy with that of The United States, the worlds only superpower with more than 300 million citizens. What we are witnessing is historic: A superpower being hi-jacked right in its own capital! For something that is not in its national interest, Goddamit!!!!

BBC NEWS, 8 September 2006:
US blacklists major Iranian bank

The Bush administration has blacklisted one of Iran's biggest banks, alleging that it is used to transfer money to terrorist organisations.
The Treasury Department said it had cut state-owned Bank Saderat off from the US financial system entirely.

The bank, although unable to deal directly in the US, was previously able to make transactions via a bank in another country.

The US is calling for UN sanctions on Iran over its nuclear programme.

There has been no official reaction to the news from either Bank Saderat or Iran.

'Funds moved'

Stuart Levey, the Treasury's under-secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, announced the action against Saderat during a speech to the American Enterprise Institute.

He said the bank had been blacklisted because "this bank, which has approximately 3,400 branch offices, is used by the government of Iran to transfer money to terrorist organisations."

"We will no longer allow a bank like Saderat to do business in the American financial system, even indirectly," he added.

According to Mr. Levey, the bank had facilitated the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to the Lebanese militant group, Hezbollah, and what he called other terrorist organisations, every year.

Correspondents say the bank has played a major role connecting Iranian businesses with the outside world over the last few years.

And what about this:

BBC NEWS, 13 June 2007:
America's financial war on Iran

The United States is waging an undeclared financial war on Iran as part of efforts to persuade the Tehran government to abandon alleged plans to acquire nuclear weapons.

It is being run from an ornate, grey building located close to the White House in Washington - the headquarters of America's finance ministry, the Treasury Department.

"What we're trying to do is make it difficult for Iran to use the global financial system to pursue illicit conduct," explains Stuart Levey.

In case you are wondering

by Kenneth Sorensen on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 1:35pm

In case you are wondering what Mr. Levey is doing today. A quick Google search on his name will tell you that he is still under-secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence at the Treasury. So representatives for 5 million people are continuing to punish a country with 70 million people!!! Haven't they made enough havoc in the containment years during the 90'ties, where reportedly 400.000 Iraqie and Iranian children died due to the sanctions? O, world - wake up and punish this little clique that have hi-jacked America and with it the whole World!

What color is black?

by ChristopherX on Mon, 06/15/2009 - 4:26pm

These protests in Iran smell like the fruit of $400 Million worth of covert funding allocated by the Congress last April for "regime change" games in Iran.

http://www.counterpunch.org/andrew05022008.html

Secret Bush "Finding" Widens War on Iran
May 2nd, 2008

Six weeks ago, President Bush signed a secret finding authorizing a covert offensive against the Iranian regime that, according to those familiar with its contents, "unprecedented in its scope."

Bush’s secret directive covers actions across a huge geographic area – from Lebanon to Afghanistan – but is also far more sweeping in the type of actions permitted under its guidelines – up to and including the assassination of targeted officials. This widened scope clears the way, for example, for full support for the military arm of Mujahedin-e Khalq, the cultish Iranian opposition group, despite its enduring position on the State Department's list of terrorist groups.

Similarly, covert funds can now flow without restriction to Jundullah, or "army of god," the militant Sunni group in Iranian Baluchistan – just across the Afghan border -- whose leader was featured not long ago on Dan Rather Reports cutting his brother in law's throat.

Other elements that will benefit from U.S. largesse and advice include Iranian Kurdish nationalists, as well the Ahwazi arabs of south west Iran. Further afield, operations against Iran's Hezbollah allies in Lebanon will be stepped up, along with efforts to destabilize the Syrian regime.

All this costs money, which in turn must be authorized by Congress, or at least a by few witting members of the intelligence committees. That has not proved a problem. An initial outlay of $300 million to finance implementation of the finding has been swiftly approved with bipartisan support, apparently regardless of the unpopularity of the current war and the perilous condition of the U.S. economy.

Of course I'm sure none of those hundreds of millions of dollars are in any way influencing what we are currently seeing.

The Empire has its sight set on Iran, the Congress allocates $400 Million to destabilize Iran, and due to an amazing coincidence, there are protests and signs of destabilization during Iran's next election.

Surely it is all just a big coincidence, and American NGOs like the National Endowment for Democracy have ZERO to do with these goings on. Can we call it the Green Revolution?

Professor Walt, Your

by Dariush on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 11:31am

Professor Walt,

Your "commentary on the almost-certainly fraudulent election in Iran" is off the charts.

First, the contest in Iran is not between "the clerics, the military, and the current President" and the non-clerics, the civilians,and the former Prime Minister. Nor is it between the "regime and [the] population ...". There are two powerful clerical groups in the Iranian regime, with Khamenei performing a balancing act between the two. One group is headed by Rafsanjani, Nateq-e Nouri, and Khatamei. A second group is headed by Mahdawe-e Kannei, Mesbah-Yazdi, etc. The regime organs (e.g,Assembly of Experts, Expediency Council, Guardian Council, Parliament, Military) are mostly peopled with the followers of one or the other clerical groups. And, of course, the two clerical groups have followers in the general public (i.e., civilians). The group headed by Rafsanjani is more pragmatic, but they also have the reputation of being financial corrupt. The one headed by Mesbah-e Yazdi is more puritanical, and do not have the reputation of being financially corrupt. In the recent election, Mossavi represented the first and Ahmadinejad the second clerical groups. Ahmadinejad appeals to the poor and rural population. Mossavi appealed to the middle class and educated that are into text-messaging,European vacations, etc. Mossavi's constituency do not mind a little financial corruption if they are allowed to enjoy greater social freedom. There is also a third group of voters in Iran. This third group does not like the Islamic regime, they vote for the (clerical)group which appears to be the underdog, demonstrate for whatever side which is challenging the regime, always hoping to push the regime over the cliff. Based on these groupings of voters,and the Mossavi-Ahmadinejad debate prior to the election, I find the announced election results to be highly credible. Note that the two clerical groupings have agents and followers throughout the regime (i.e., the Guardian Council, the Interior Ministry, the security forces, etc.). If they had witnessed an overt, substantial fraud they would have reported to the disadvantaged side. That is also why the Mosavi found it necessary to declare that he had won even before the polls were closed, and that now he is rooting for a re-run rather than recount.

Second, unlike you, I do not find Juan Cole's piece convincing. Cole finds it incredible that 57% of voters in Tabriz -- prvincial capital of East Azerbayejan -- cast their ballots for Ahmadinejad rather than Mossavi-- an Azeri. Professor Cole underestimates the extent that Azaris are integrated with the non-Azeries in Iran, that at least 25% of Tehrani's have Azeri roots, that Khamanei is Azari, that Ahmedinejad speaks fluent Azari, that Khomeini disgraced Grand Ayetollah Shariatmadari when Mossavi, Ardebili, Khalkhali (all Azeris) were part of his regime. And, there were no demonstrations in favor of Shariatmadari in Azerbayjan. Professor Cole's other reasonings are also flawed. For instance, he argues that Karoubi is a "Lur" and should have gotten more votes in Lurestan and Kurdistan, and al least as much vote as in 2005 election. Well, Karoubi is not a "Lur". He was born in the villege of Akhtekan -- between Golpayegan and Aligodarz. After his religious studies, he went to preach in Aligodarz (a city on fringes of Lurestan). But even if he was a "Lur", why would the "Lurs" and "Kurds" vote for him, knowing full well that he is going to lose. Why would voters who voted in the first round in 2005 vote for him in 2009?!

Cole finds it incredible that

by J Thomas on Tue, 06/16/2009 - 3:16pm

Cole finds it incredible that 57% of voters in Tabriz -- prvincial capital of East Azerbayejan -- cast their ballots for Ahmadinejad rather than Mossavi-- an Azeri.

Similarly, in 2000 how could Gore -- from tennessee -- lose tennessee by nearly 4%? Gore was a southerner and he lost the whole south. Incredible! It must have been election fraud!

Oh wait....

Traitor as Always

by AllanGreen on Wed, 06/17/2009 - 4:59am

As always, we can count on Obamoid to betray us, and Walt to "amen" it by suggesting he "stay" the course.

There is no staying the course on Iran.

Either we kick it into high-gear and help the opposition out, or the Islamist terrorists running the country will smother them out in a week.

The world needs to unite on this. Read Laura Rozen's post on this site, to see what Obama failed to do.

In the new power vacuum that Obama has left us, initiative is up to Sarkozy. Let's wait and see.

Just imagine if McCain had been president - boy, Ahmenidejad would be hanging by a rope by now.

No evidence of election fraud

by hass on Mon, 07/13/2009 - 4:25pm

Actually, none of the points raised by Juan Cole as evidence of fraud in the Iranian elections withstands scrutiny. See IranAffairs.com for their debunking.