Why it's best that Ahmadinejad won
In an article written on Friday during the elections, Daniel Pipes explains why it was best that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad be the winner: The rahbar controls key institutions (foreign policy, the military, law enforcement, the justice system) of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In contrast, the president primarily concerns himself with the softer domains such as economics and education. (A contrast I discussed in 2003 at "The Iranian President's Power.")I could not agree more.
With two important exceptions, the rahbar equals the president-for-life (such as Egypt's Husni Mubarak) or king-for-life (such as Jordan's Abdullah II), while the Iranian president equals their flunky prime ministers. The exceptions explains why the Iranian president is much better known than his functional equivalents: he is directly elected and the rahbar, in keeping with his religious character, stays aloof from overt politics. Together, these two factors account for the anomaly of the Iranian president serving as the public face for a regime he does not control.
This means that whoever is elected president, whether Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his main opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi, will have limited impact on the issue that most concerns the outside world – Iran's drive to build nuclear weapons, which Khamene'i will presumably continue apace, as he has in prior decades.
Therefore, while my heart goes out to the many Iranians who desperately want the vile Ahmadinejad out of power, my head tells me it's best that he remain in office. When Mohammed Khatami was president, his sweet words lulled many people into complacency, even as the nuclear weapons program developed on his watch. If the patterns remain unchanged, better to have a bellicose, apocalyptic, in-your-face Ahmadinejad who scares the world than a sweet-talking Mousavi who again lulls it to sleep, even as thousands of centrifuges whir away.
But perhaps an even better result - that Pipes did not mention - is what actually happened: Ahmadinejad stole the election.
Heh.
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:24 AM
7 Comments:
A-Jad's fraud should not be forgotten. Where's Obama in all this? Wheres his statement?
Agreed. Where is a strong statement from the US that we support free and fair elections. Obama says he's sorry to the Iranian people for the CIA's actions in the 1950's in Iran, but he should speak LOUDLY AND FORCEFULLY about this obvious corruption.
1. Where the hell is Mosavi? He has not been heard from since he declared victory.
2. Obama should speak out in support of the Iranian students. He should ask and request that the Iranian regime stop killing and beating the North Tehran population.
3. Obama should also refuse any dialogue with "a unrepresentative regime" in sympathy with the reformists.
Note, this is not some pie-in-the-sky agenda of mine for Obama to speak on these issues. US support could embolden the students and reformists. Obama's silence only emboldens the mullahs. Where is Obama where the draconian Mullah regime cracks skulls in North Tehran? I pity the students in Iran; no wonder their heroin usages is off the scale. There country is being strangled by insane Mullahs and we, the US, say nothing. Even Hillary sounded more sincere on this issue than Obama. I'm not too impressed with the republicans here either. What's needed is a clear and moral voice of the disgrace occurring within Iran.
Obama's silence here is worse than his Cairo speech. Who the f%$k is he pandering to with being silent on Iran?
So the glass is half full. Heh. Now if I could only find the glass.
The rahbar is really a theocratic version of the Shah. In Iran, dynastic absolutism remains intact; its only obscured by the formal republican trappings adopted after the Islamic Revolution. Iran's President is really a figurehead and he too is dispensable if the Supreme Jurist and the clerics around him decide he might be a threat to their power. Ahmeinejad is the public face on a radical regime.
Biorabbi,
I wasn't aware of the heroin usage until I saw this video last night:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d3b_1244915178
I debated embedding it in the blog, but decided it was too far off topic. But I recommend it to all of you who want to know what's really going on in Iran. It's scary stuff.
Carl, it is interesting and scary. On the one hand, you have the most hateful, evil, theocratic regime perhaps in history.( What was the first law in the Mullah's paradise? Answer: lowering the marriage age to 9 I think.)
From my talks with countless Iranian ex-pats, there is a highly secular non-religious minority. You would never dream for example there is a vibrant movie industry. Because of the corruption of the regime, lack of jobs, many youth succumb to heroin. The young do not buy the "Death to America, Death to Israel" chants.
Does any of this 'matter' in terms of Israel and the arab neighbors? Probably not, because the secular are surely not deciding military matters... or any thing else for that matter!
Still, it is one of the few middle-eastern countries outside of Israel with a vibrant culture of fashion, music and movies. Lebanon is the other. Lebanon because of the strong historical Christian influence, and Iran because of the strong Persian culture, mindset that predates Islam... by thousands of years.
I think, sadly, that Obama could have(and should be)strongly praising the democracy movement and the opposition party.
I've been thinking that if this election turns into civil war in Iran, it might be the best result possible for the sane western world.
Mark
Post a Comment
<< Home