Many on the Left and Right alike in the United States await the defeat of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Iranian presidential election which occurred Friday. So far, both sides have claimed victory, but the record turnout might favor a former prime minister there, Mir-Hossein Mousavi, the main challenger. The last refomer to hold the Iranian presidency, Mohammad Khatami, benefitted from a higher-than-expected voter turnout. Despite what some have claimed, the principal issue in the election campaign seems to have been the state of the economy in the Islamic republic.
In ways perhaps eerily familiar to Americans at the present time, the actions of the civilian leaders in Iran have possibly worsened the position of Iran and the Iranian economy in the world. Yet, as the current President of the United States has demonstrated, promises of change should be taken with a grain of salt. The current spat involving the U.S., British, and Chinese governments can be cited as evidence of that. Certainly, the apparently chronic bigoted statements of President Obama’s former pastor provide another unfortunate similarity between the current U.S. administration, and that of Mr. Ahmadinejad, who made his career in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and regularly extolls the virtues of Islamic rule and hatred of Israel there.
Nonetheless, a change in relations with Iran would be good, but essentially require a Mousavi victory. Even as a possible reformer, however, Mousavi may be limited in his ability to bring change. Whereas American leaders are free to choose policy changes, the theocratic Guardian Council in Iran can effectively render Iranian presidents useless. If changes are to come in the relationship between the United States and Iran, notions of democratic idealism sweeping the latter country must be abandoned for pragmatism. Much as the elder President Bush worked with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev following the end of the cold war, so too must the present U.S. administration act with care in its potential new relationship with Tehran. But, given how the Obama administration has dealt with friendly governments thus far, hopes for a reduction in tensions between the United States and Iran may at best be short-sighted.
Last 5 posts by James Kane
- In Defense of Michael Steele - July 9th, 2010
- McDonald and Kagan - July 2nd, 2010
- The Petraeus Dilemma. - June 23rd, 2010
- On Paul and Blumenthal - May 22nd, 2010
- Lessons from Arizona - May 12th, 2010
I don’t understand your conclusion. Are you saying that tensions between Iran and the USA won’t be reduced because Obama is screwing up or because Iran is run by crazy people?
Well, frankly, John, it’s a bit of both, but particularly because the President is screwing up. Very careful movement may allow for more independence in presidential leadership there, but not if the president of Iran is sympathetic to the hardline Ayatollahs. Iran may be set for improvements if Mousavi indeed does win, but this can be wasted away by poor leadership in Washington.