Jamie

Weinstein

Read Jamie's bio and previous columns

June 16, 2009

It’s Probably Just as Well Ahmadinejad ‘Won’ Iran’s Sham ‘Election’

“Eighty percent of the Iranian people did not enthusiastically turn out in order to re-elect someone who has ruined this country both economically and culturally,” a disgruntled Iranian voter posted in the comment section of the popular blog FiveThirtyEight.com (which was reposted later on the New York Times The Lede blog). “How could it have been possible for (Mir Hossein) Mousavi to lose Tabriz when he is from Iranian Azerbaijan and (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad has abysmal approval ratings amongst Turkic speaking Iranians?”

Iran’s election a fraud? You don’t say.

The charge that Friday’s Iranian presidential election was fixed should not be so surprising. There were serious allegations that the 2005 presidential election, which first brought Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to power, was also rigged. But most in the media gloss over that and pretend that Iran practices some legitimate form of democracy.

It doesn’t.

Even without vote rigging, Iranian democracy is a farce. Supreme Leader Ali Khameni, along with the 12-member Guardian Council, determine who is permitted to run for election and who is not. If you think the 12-member Guardian Council sounds like a sufficient check on the Supreme Leader, think again. The Supreme Leader appoints six members of the Guardian Council directly while the head of the Iranian judiciary nominates the other six. Who appoints the head of Iran’s judiciary? You guessed it. The Supreme Leader. 

People who long for reform in Iran are upset that it appears that the presidential election Friday was stolen from the supposed reformer Mousavi. But the truth of the matter is it is probably good that incumbent Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was “elected” over Mousavi. Had Mousavi won, there would have been the impression that Iran had made an important change for the better and relations with the West would be just spiffy now the Holocaust-denying Ahmadinejad was no longer the Iranian president.

Such an impression would have likely have been a mirage. Mousavi may have sincerely sought change (though his record is not all that exemplary), but he would have had only limited power to bring it about. It is Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni who is the power center in Iran. The Supreme Leader wields the power to determine the direction of Iranian foreign and domestic policies. The Supreme Leader is the man with the ultimate power to determine whether Iran continues with its nuclear program or whether it suspends it. In terms of Iran’s nuclear program, it really doesn’t matter too much whether Ahmadinejad is the president or whether Mousavi is the president.

Sure, Mousavi probably wouldn’t gallivant around the world, like Ahmadinejad, spouting inflammatory rhetoric and vocally threatening to wipe a sovereign country off the map. But as a practical matter, is there any indication that a change in president would have caused the Iranian regime to reconsider moving forward with its suspected nuclear weapons program? There is little indication that Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khameni is excited to shut the shop down. 

So the reason it is good that Ahmadinejad “won” is because, as I mentioned several weeks ago in a column, his inflammatory rhetoric will make it harder for the West to become complacent with regard to the Iranian nuclear threat. Without Ahmadinejad’s continual stream of hostile noise, Western leaders may get lured along by insincere, unproductive and interminable negotiations that only bring the Islamic Republic closer to its ultimate goal of developing a nuclear weapon.

Ahmadinejad is the Iranian Joe Biden in terms of not being able to shut his mouth. As the face of the Iranian regime to the world, he shocks people awake through his outrageous orations and thus makes the prospect of an Islamic Republic with nuclear weapons capability appear as dangerous as it ought to.

One final note: Iran is a country that is demographically very young – around two-thirds of the population is reported to be under 25. Those protesting in the streets, being beaten by state thugs, are demanding change and more freedom. Revolutions sometimes move faster than policy makers or experts can foresee. The Iranian leadership will probably have no qualms about ordering its thugs, as it already has, to crack down hard on the protesters. But if the foment is great enough, the anger strong enough, and Iranians are fearless enough, the whole Iranian regime could possibly be threatened. Revolutions sometimes come in the cover of the night when we least expect them.

Change may not come about tomorrow or the next day, but what happened in Iran on Friday may have been the last straw that possibly unleashed an energy for change that cannot be put back in the box. There have been reports that some of those protesting are calling out for support from President Obama. So far, the president has made some cautious comments on the matter. But the president needs to speak out strongly in their favor. He needs to stand behind those championing freedom.  He must act like the leader of the free world

© 2009 North Star Writers Group. May not be republished without permission.

Click here to talk to our writers and editors about this column and others in our discussion forum.

To e-mail feedback about this column, click here. If you enjoy this writer's work, please contact your local newspapers editors and ask them to carry it.

This is column # JW074. Request permission to publish here.