Turmoil in Tehran (Erin)

Middle East politics is complicated, and iran's is worse than most. Paul Lang likes to note that we constantly screw up because we never quite understand the history and relationships. That said, I would not see this as particularly dismaying. I think it to be expected.

The clerics hold ultimate power, but they work through the political apparatus. Ahmadinejad is a populist. the poor, uneducated and very religious rural people believe that he speaks for them as he has campaigned against the corruption of prior administrations. However, he has been incompetent at actually running the country, especially on economic matters. He has mixed reviews on his foreign policy stances.

The educated and better off parts of the population are very unhappy with his performance. Many of them, especially the youth, are fairly pro-Western. Given this dynamic, I expect that Iran will swing back and forth between populist/conservatives like Ahmadinejad and moderate/progressives like Mousavi. The clerics want to remain in power, so they will generally accede to popular sentiment once it is overwhelming, though leaning towards the conservative POV, IMHO. This particular vote also hinges, at least according to some reports, on personal animosity between Khameini and some of the reformists.

Steve

The people will change the government once things get bad enough. Another revolution in Iran, while destabilizing, is inevitable, though not necessarily close at hand. It really must get bad, very bad, before people will take their lives in their hands and end the theocracy. Until then, it will be what it is, since the clerics will not ascede to a moderate position.

This is what happens when you repost from the Captcha "your comments are not lost." The actual post with all the quoted sections is reposted here:

---

The inability to sort fact from fiction rears its head in this conservative blog.

The surprising landslide victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his challengers--and some questions about the vote totals--has led to increasing unrest in Iran:

Try this as an honest lede: "The fraudulent victory of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over his challengers..."

Andrew Sullivan puts it bluntly:

Yes, the president of Iran's own election monitoring commission has declared the result invalid and called for a do-over. That is huge news: when a regime's own electoral monitors beak ranks, what chance does the regime have of persuading anyone in the world or Iran that it has democratic legitimacy?

Saying that the victory was surprising, like Truman defeating Dewey, is to suggest that it was legitimate. The impression it leaves is that somehow this election should be as respected as the election in the United States in 2000.

The post-election turmoil in Iran is dismaying.

That would be Ahmadinejad's precise position. How disheartening to see an alleged conservative mouthing the regime's lies.

Oh, believe me, Chris, I wanted to start the post that way. I had the words "unexpected" and "unbelievable" in that first sentence before I went for "surprising."

Why not leave the more loaded words, or start the way you did? Because, like it or not, the international community is likely to accept this election as legitimate, and as someone who is neither a citizen of Iran nor an expert in Iranian politics and elections I lack the standing and ability necessary to advance that opinion and then back it up with stats and history.

Which is why I went for "surprising," knowing that among this blog's readers there probably *are* people who are extremely well-versed in the history of the region and can outline the reasons why this happened--and why, perhaps, given the political realities, the whole thing isn't even as "surprising" as we might think. Steve and AnotherBeliever have begun that conversation.

As for the turmoil being dismaying--well, it is, because of what a destabilized Iraq might mean to the Middle East. Also, a lot of saber-rattling was going on during the Bush administration involving Iran, and while I think Obama's eye has been more on Pakistan there's no telling what might happen if Ahmadinejad uses his supposed "landslide" as a mandate for the kind of change that involves aggression toward Israel.

Voices in Israel are already saying that this election raises the danger of a nuclear Iran, for example. So while "dismaying" could have used some explanation, that's pretty much what I meant by it.

It certainly looks like a prelude to a revolution at this point - BBC coverage says they are bringing tanks into the streets now - but still the protestors are out there.

I think the legitimacy of the government - if it survives this - will be doubtful and that surely will weaken their position. Funny how CNN and the US media are sort of downplaying it while BBC has great coverage.