I-ran for Office

With the presidential race in Iran a year off, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unable to succeed himself, the parliamentary elections (in Iran, for the Majlis) on March 2nd should have some relevance for tea leaf readers in the West, but we are on very tricky ground. Believe it or not, the educated middle class in Iran is wildly pro-American, but they most certainly wouldn’t be allowed to express that fact without severe sanctions. This class has suffered most under the severely repressive theocracy of thugs – the Iranian government. While they are cheering about the Best Foreign Film Oscar for their local “A Separation” as vocally as is prudent, they are also voting in an election where the heavily pre-screened candidates represent only the approved theocratic party line, allowing leeway only for local issues that do not upset underlying regime. Much of the permitted discontent has focused on economic issues, facing a double slam from the recession and the global sanctions imposed on the regime, but none of that fervor is permitted to be directed at disassembling Iran’s “peaceful” nuclear program.

There has been a schism of late, between the religious leaders and Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards. The latter are trying to wrest power from the Ayatollahs at the top, but as this election has proven beyond any doubt, the Ayatollahs retain more than enough “God-sanctioned” power to make sure that the next fleet of candidates will not including any real challengers to the system. So, without surprise, the candidates backed by the religious leaders won in droves, restoring a very conservative, Islamically “pure,” Majlis.

What’s even more interesting is that the Ayatollah Khamenei (supreme leader) is actually thinking that the “presidency” may be more trouble than it is worth: “The ayatollah will seek ‘to eliminate the post of president,’ said Aliakbar Mousavi Khoeini, a former reformist member of the Parliament now living in exile in the United States… ‘If they can get that, they will not hold the next presidential election; instead, Parliament will chose a prime minister,’ he said. ‘Then Khamenei will essentially have everything he does approved and pushed through Parliament by his allies.’” New York Times, March 4^th.

The big issue in this election, however, was whether or not voters would show up at all, since in 2009, the elections were marked with storms of protests all across the country. A low voter turnout would be seen as a victory for the dissent. “With opposition leaders under house arrest and their followers calling for a boycott of the first election since Iran’s disputed presidential vote in 2009, state-run news sources flooded the Internet with reports on enthusiastic, ink-stained voters and a record turnout, just as they had predicted.” New York Times, March 2^nd.

They reported a 64% turnout, and Iranian leaders are touting the elections as a big success and making sure the world interprets the results as a loud vote against any kowtowing to Western demands, particularly from demon America, to curtail their “peaceful” nuclear program, which the government claims is not targeting a nuclear weapons programs, despite the fact their nuclear refining capacities far exceed normal requirements for nuclear-generated power. The above Iranian political cartoon probably says it better than words.

Whether that level turnout really occurred is somewhat suspect, however: “Press TV, state-run English language television, reported more than 31 million ballots had been cast… Those results seemed at odds with the short lines and relatively empty voting booths reported by a number of Iranians in the capital and a few other major cities over the course of the day… Iran’s leaders had encouraged participation, urging Iranians to prove by their numbers that an alleged vast Western conspiracy to undermine the vote by the United States and other so-called ‘arrogant’ powers had failed.” NY Times.

Does this purportedly large turnout and resulting conservative surge augur badly for the U.S. and its allies in their quest for nuclear containment? False figures or not, it will most certainly be used as justification for Iranian intransigence on the issue, but remember that the government has never admitted the existence of a weapons program to its people. In addition to our questions about the veracity of the turnout figures, we have reason to believe that many actual voters were also often intimidated by their bosses and local government officials to go to the polls, but dissent in a heavily censored Internet world (they are literally an intranet that does not reach beyond Iran’s borders) is still very much alive and well in Iran. Tweets and Web-circumvention have provided ample evidence of the simmering discontent.

Strangely, an Israeli or Western attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities might actually drive currently pro-Western sentiments towards the theocratic incumbents, as a nation circles the wagons to repel attack by foreigners. But then, a nuclear-armed Iran, with the ability to spread those weapons to its friends (and hence the enemies of the West), is equally intolerable. There are no good options on the table, but many of our military choices would send gasoline prices far beyond current unbearable levels, threatening our economic recovery in a very big way and seriously hurting our deficit reduction goals.

I’m Peter Dekom, and that which appears to be usually is… if you really look closely enough.