More reasons not to expect "regime change" in Iran

74% of Mousavi supporters feel the US abuses its greater power to make the Iranian government do what it wants.

65% of all Iranians, including Ahmedinejad supporters, favor a deal whereby sanctions are lifted in exchange for full access to international inspectors of its Nuclear facilities.

-BUT-

51% of Mousavi supporters oppose the lifting of sanctions if its conditioned on ceasing enrichment.

It's sounding more and more like most of us Americans dreamt up a story that we'd like to believe, but isn't substantiated by realities on the ground.

Go figure.

So I guess you are arguing that our only choice for regime change is to bomb them? :)

How about this. Iran puts in place even the rudiments of a power distribution system that could distribute nuclear energy from a nulear power plant so it could even be remotely plausible that they could be developing nuclear technology for anything other than a bomb.

Professor Walt, is it too much to ask for a little intellectual honesty from you?

As you surely know, the pollsters who compiled the polls that you are talking about have themselves raised questions about the legitimacy of the findings. It's not that they believe the poll is useless; but even they recognize the statistical challenges associated with merging data from a variety of polls. They themselves have said that their summary may or may not represent an accurate rendition of the feelings of the Iranian public.

Secondly not one of the polls collected data after early September, 2009. Alot has changed in Iran since September, 2009 including the Ashura demonstrations, the Jerusalem Day demonstrations, the death of Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri and the hanging just two days ago of two Iranian demonstrators. Your assumption that none of this could be relevant to how Iranians might feel today is, of course, unsophisticated.

Moreover, as you probably know, the pollsters participated in a seminar this afternoon hosted by the New America Foundation. They were forced to admit that 50 percent of the respondents on average (the number was different for each poll in the data set) refused to participate. While this number is not high by American standards, the pollsters had to admit that their data was somewhat tainted by this refusal rate which probably suggested that opponents of the regime were afraid to participate and answer honestly.

Finally, Hooman Maid, the author of "The Ayatollah Begs to Differ," an Iranian himself who takes a very moderate and nuanced position on what is happening in Iran, specifically said that all the polls sponsored by the University of Tehran should be omitted from the data set because interference by the Iranian regime could be assumed. Several of the polls were from the University of Tehran and they tended to be the ones most favorable to the regime.

Of course, Professor, I am not telling you anything you don't already know; but instead you made the choice to spread disinformation to your readers and make unwarranted assumptions about how the polls should be interpreted. I understand that this is a blog. not an academic journal, but aren't your readers entitled to a little bit more honesty about what these polls might and might not suggest?

I am not saying that the polls are useless; they may in fact provide some accurate evidence about what Iranians are thinking. But suggesting that these polls prove your point that the regime isn't going to fall anytime soon is simple-minded. The reality is that no one knows when and if the regime will fall; the debate in the United States is about whether American interests and our sense of morality should or should not inspire American policy makers to support efforts to topple the regime. Reasonable people can differ about this.

The most egregious comment in your post is this one,

"But it ought to give those who think the Iranian people are panting for U.S.-led "liberation" a moment of pause (though I doubt it will lead the hawks to revise their views).”

Has it occurred to you Professor, that rather than "panting" for a U.S. led liberation movement, those who disagree with you about Iran are seeking to interpret alot of conflicting data and form the best judgment they can about the most efficacious way for the U.S. to deal with that nation?

For a person who complains loudly and frequently that his views are caricatured, you are awfully willing to caricature the views of those that you disagree with,

If you find the data from the polls in question dispositive, I can't help but wonder what that says about the rest of your academic research.

Iran has accepted today, a Uranium swap deal according to western demands. The 5+1 countries, want Iran to show good faith, by informing the Atomic commission of this acceptance, and move on to impliment it. So what happens then, if Iran shows such good faith?. Are the 5+1+ Israek going to be pleased?.

Sure, it would be nice if we tried your suggestion Dr. Walt. The problem is that this would amount to a complete reversal in Washington's Iran policy; something that President Obama would probably avoid. Cmon, imagine what Republicans would say if Obama and the U.N. allowed the Iranians to continue enriching uranium. They would shout "appeasement" on the rooftops, but as Iranian citizens are shouting "death to the dictator" on their own homes.

President Obama would also have to encounter a wave of criticism within his own party if such a grand-bargain was signed. Just take a look at the general mood in the U.S. Congress today. All Republicans and most Democrats are supportive of unilateral American sanctions towards the Islamic Republic. Most are sick and tired of the engagement process. And they have a right to be...nothing substantial has resulted from the year-long carrots approach. So given this current sentiment, allowing the Iranians to keep their enrichment program- however peaceful it may be in reality- is not conducive to today's environment in Washington.

http://www.depetris.wordpress.com

I suppose if the swap deal has been a 5+1 demand for some time now, they are bound to care about how it is supposed to be implimented.
khairi janbek.paris/france

SMCI60652 above, that " Ahmedinejad's backers fixed an election they were going to win anyway... and got caught."

I've aso seen reports in the press that the majority of Iranians, including young people dissatisfied with the current regime, take pride in iran's nuclear technology and won't accept dictation from anyone.

My guess (and i think everyone is guessing) is that it would take many years to forcefully dislodge the regime, leaving plenty of time for compromises and evolution. Those who got excited over the recent demonstrations maybe should remember Tienamen Square. The "People's Army" quite effectively crushed the student movement, and I doubt the Iranian opposition is dumb enough to want a direct confrontation with the revolutionary Guards. Erosion, not explosion, I think most likely.

Meanwhile, working to achieve breakthrough capability is a rational policy for any Iranian government -- as long as Israel has nuclear weapons and there's a foreign army parked net door and foreign warships patrol the Persian Gulf.

Here, I got a poll for you.

Polls conducted by Prof. Walt shows that, 99.9% of the Americans, expect sunrise in the morning, and sunset in the evening".

This is yet another one of those shallow and poorly written "bedtme stories" by this professor - just to fullfil his weekly obligation with this venerable magazine.

Off course Mossawi will NOT say thing against the regime after which surely will result in his death sentences.

If you have noticed, Prof. Walt's source is a second hand information, written by someone else - not his own. Nonetheless, if you want to hear the truth from the horses (Mir Mussawi) own mouth, I suggest to go to this site, where well informed Iranian exiles write on their blog. There you will read EXACTLY what Mossawi says.

http://www.iranvajahan.net/cgi-bin/news.pl?l=en&y=2010&m=02&d=01&a=4

Perhaps what Americans, those that are actually interested in geo-political events in Iran should do, is to analyze what one is looking at. Though the demographic in Iran has been changing to a predominately urban one from the countryside over the years, pictures and twitters from the urban student class, social/academic elites, and those that might blame Ahmadinejad for long lines at the gas pump may not have been representative of the country as a whole.

Most early polls (for what they are worth) did show Ahmadinejad had the lead, but there seemed to be excitement generated toward Mousavi that may have alarmed the clerics to the point they tampered with what would have otherwise been a clear, but not as decisive victory they wanted for Ahmadinejad.

In addition, make no mistake about it, had Mousavi been elected, there would have been no change in Tehran's direction toward Washington nor Iran's nuclear program. He is no friend to America.

I have learned over the years, everytime we think we have Iran figured out, we find out we don't - less so, since our operatives were rolled-up after the takeover of our Embassy in 1979, and the wiping-out of our best ME intelligence experts as a result of the bombing of our Embassy in Beirut in 1983.

All of you have posed very good arguments, I am extremely sceptical of the main article itself. But I also agree that we will not see the regime collapse within the year. But since June the base of the Green movement has expanded. There were riots in Shiraz the week before the Ashura events where govt. workers were demanding "Where is my pay!" according to the BBC. There was also a prevention of an execution by an angry mob in that same city, although the prisoners were caught and executed later in the week. These are hardly signs of a govt which is completely in control. I can't say how it will end. But if it ends in regime change, it's going to be a process of erosion and not regime change. I am also just as sceptical of the statements put out by many exile groups as I am of those put out by the Islamic Republic.

Hi, Stephen et al:

Underlying present Persian protests are more than mere vote fraud perceptions. However, massive vote fraud was the rallying cry and tipping point against the scheme of the regime in Iran.

For a mocking editorial cartoon contrasting Persians’ actions after questionable 2009 presidential elections in Iran with Americans’ inactions after questionable 2000, 2004, and 2008 presidential elections in the USA, see www.mattbors.com/strips/530.gif.

In May, narrowly reported, internal, pre-election polling by the Iranian regime showed that Persian voters had turned against Khamenei-backed Ahmadinejad and favored Rafsanjani-backed Mousavi by a margin of at least two to one. See "Secret Poll Shows Voters Turn Against Ahmadinejad"
by Mazier Bahari at www.Newsweek.com/id/200960 (6-Jun-09).

This secret pre-election regime poll is opposite of regime-reported June 12 election results. One inference is that the regime elaborately rigged the election -- what many if not most in Iran allege. The regime later arrested reporter Maziar Bahari, who had access to the regime’s secret, pre-election polling reports and wrote a narrowly-reported story about this otherwise-secret pro-Mousavi poll for Newsweek.

On June 15, Western media began using flawed, misleading, or fraudulent U.S. pre-election phone poll results to cast doubt on alleged election fraud by the regime and to reinforce regime-reported results that Ahmadinejad had won the questionable June 12th election. The advisory board of a U.S. group sponsoring the flawed phone poll consisted of current and former U.S. officials. Both the flawed U.S. pre-election phone poll of frightened Persian voters and questionable regime-reported results showed outcomes opposite to the Iranian regime’s own secret pre-election pro-Mousavi poll.

In addition, what most others & you miss, Stephen, is that Jimmy Carter & Carter/Obama advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski (with most in G7+) helped to depose the Shah of Iran and to the install the current Muslim Brotherhood regime in Iran in 1979.

Kissinger then convinced Carter to allow the deposed Shah to enter U.S. for medical treatment, thus precipitating the predicted "hostage crisis" (which Carter-Obama advisor Brzezinski, Bush-Obama-Brzezinski advisor Bob Gates [now SecDef] & Iranian Foreign Minister Yazdi explicitly discussed in Algiers before the "hostage crisis"). A perfect cover for US coup involvement.

ALL subsequent US presidents have directly or indirectly supported the regime (if only by insidiously-savvy ineptitude). This longstanding covert US policy is part of the UK/US "Green Belt Strategy" -- to encircle & bedevil Russia & China with populist Muslim regimes (including a nuclear-armed Iran) and to turn China against Russia (eventually) due to China's oil & energy needs. See, e.g., "The Great Siberian War" (a Hudson Institute 2007 study done for DoD Office of Net Assessment). China & Russia know this.

Even before the questionable June 12th election in Iran, Obama favored negotiations with the current regime in Iran and had removed even the thin veneer of promoting democracy for Iran. Before the June 12th vote, Obama had already eliminated the farcically-squandered, pro-democracy, Bush-era, U.S. budget for inept promotion of Persian democracy. In one year, Obama reduced the pro-democracy budget from $66 million to zero U.S. dollars.

In an exemplary indication of the nature and extent of the G8-Iran charade and the symbiotic working relationship between the regime in Iran and continuing UK-US-G8 geopolitical intentions, see “Think Tank Backs Direct US Talks with 'Any Iran Government'” (www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=99297&sectionid=3510203), a report by Iran’s semi-official PressTV, indicating agreement by the regime with the Council on Foreign Relations.

Which is worse: The flawed, inept, anti-Muslim support of Neo-Cons for "regime change" OR flawed, inept, quasi-pro-regime opposition of the anti-Neo-Cons (essentially opposing Persian self-determination) OR the flawed, inept reliance on diplomacy & sanctions to curb the ambiions of the UK-US-installed-&-mainained regime in Iran? Regardless, this tripartite polarization worked well to support the status quo until the time is right for 'A New Persia' -- which may be sooner than most may know. October?

Hi, Kevin, Stephen, Richard et al:
.

Two (2) good books regarding Iran are “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians” (2005) by Dr. Jerome Corsi and “Hostage to Khomeini” (1981) by Robert Dreyfuss (out of print but available as an internet PDF).
.

What Jerry misses is that the Iranian regime may not only have bought or neutralized many Dems but also many Repugs. What Bob says about the Shiite branch of the Muslim Brotherhood in Iran and the process to effect & cover UK/US/G7+ facilitation of the 1979 Islamic revolution is confirmed by most if not all Persian intellectuals (inside & outside Iran). However, few Americans know this info.
.

For a few more details, see the “Alternatives Enable Win-Win Iran Results for All” comment (8-Feb-10) to Steve’s response to CFR Prez Haass’ Newsweek endorsement of Iran regime change. Unfortunately, despite initial disbeliefs about UK/US involvement details in overthrow of the Shah & installation of Khomeini et al, most primary & secondary sources confirm such assertions (not only Persian). Incredible, yes; but true.
.

Yes, you are quite correct about Sheikh Hassan al-Banna(h)’s pivotal role in Muslim Brotherhood animation in early 1900s et seq. However, what’s less well known is that Brits co-opted leaders of the anti-Brit Muslim Brotherhood. for UK goals. Many sources documenting a UK role in perverting the Muslim Brotherhood are now off-net; but they do exist (on-net & off).
.

Your knowledge of period history is good but incomplete – skewed by others' culling of contrary sources (e.g., in Google). Victors write history. Losers don’t. TV & our media repeat the popular myths. However, a surprisingly good analysis of the symbiotic relationship between UK/US/G8+ leaders & Muslim Brotherhood leaders is “The Power of Nightmares” (a 3-part BBC documentary – still online).
.

FYI, Iranian-Shiite-funded Hamas (primarily Sunni) won elections in Gaza in great part because Hamas was less corrupt than Fatah and because Hamas was much better at community service than was Fatah. Iran’s Mousavi (Shiite) helped to initially fund Hezbollah (primarily Sunni) when Mousavi was Iran’s P.M. Regardless, Ahmadinejad & Khamenei imported Hezbollah &/or Hamas fighters into Iran to kill & maim primarily nonviolent Mousavi supporters after Iran’s June 12th elections.
.

Scary Muslim leaders empower G8+ leaders & vice versa. Ahmadinejad & Khamenei are the best enemies that money can buy (“1984”-style). So were Osama & Saddam. Most of us prefer not to think that our leaders & oligarchs quasi-counterintuitively use terrorist-related events to attain & maintain geo-political & geo-economic power in USA, UK & elsewhere. Think again.
.
.

RUSSIA & CHINA?
.

Few in Russia & China are still duped by the initially-counterintuitive UK/US Green Belt Strategy. Yes, Russia & China have shielded Iran in UN. But Hillary & Obama are now semi-successfully trying to divide Russia & China on UN-Iran sanctions issues.
.

Although Russia assists Iran in its nuke program, Russian techs also sabotaged the speed of Iranian nuke development. Although Russia agreed to supply Iran with sophisticated S-300-based missile defense systems, Russia has not yet delivered. In Iran, Russia too wants to neuter nuke nuts.
.

China & BRIC nations handed Obama his head on globally-cooled silver platter in Copenhagen. Obama’s quasi-counterproductive response was to greenlight $6 Billion in Taiwan arms sales. Given Chinese reprisals against U.S. firms supplying Taiwan, Taiwan’s $6 Billion to U.S. defense firms may lose Americans $12++ Billion from China in other areas. No matter. Divide & Conquer continues.
.

Many Chinese generals believe that a big Siberian war with Russia (and with UK/US et al involvement) is coming sooner than most may know. See, e.g., "The Great Siberian War" (a 2007 Hudson Institute study done for the DoD Office of Net Assessment).
.

An indication that Russia takes the Green Belt Strategy seriously is the play that Russia Today TV has given to those discussing the Green Belt Strategy (e.g., to Webster Tarpley of www.Tarpley.net). Tarpley can say in public what Russians cannot or will not. Except in Copenhagen, China is still acting similar to a turf-protecting sleeping tiger.
.
.

TIME TO END GAMES?
.

The endgame may be at hand on our geopolitical & geoeconomic grand chessboard sooner than most may dream. Mixing metaphors & myths, whom & what will be sacrificed to cook the game? What’s for dinner? We are. Wake up.
.

Persians invented chess. Russians mastered it. Now, the awakening Chinese tiger may dream an end of games.
.

I'm confused about the poll. Iran already allows "intrusive international inspections to preclude weaponization" -- it is called the IAEA. That's the WHOLE REASON why the IAEA's inspections process exists in the first place. And the IAEA has already inspected Iran -- intrusively (*more so than any other country with an enrichment program including Brazil or Argentina) -- and the IAEA repeatedly states that it has no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.

The IAEA would like Iran to formally adopt the Additional Protocol which would allow more intrusive inspections. Other countries such as Brazil, Argentina, S. Korea and Egypt have refused to do so. Iran has agreed to do so, and in fact temporarily allowed the more instrusive inspections for 2 years -- and there was still no evidence of any nuclear weapons. Iran has offered to permanently sign onto the Additional Protocol but only if its rights are recognized.