Iran Politics: It's the foreign policy, stupid.
Contrary to standard western myths about Iran, citizens of Iran are quite capable of debating the question of ties to America. Indeed, the issue is shaping up to be a "hot," if not the hottest, issue in Iran's upcoming Presidential elections.
First, the who: Iran's "Council of Guardians" recently issued its less-than-transparent ruling -- approving just four candidates to run for President: 1. incumbent Mahmud Ahmadinejad; 2. former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Musavi; 3. former parliament speaker Mehdi Karrubi; and 4. former Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps head Mohsen Rezai.
As Iran does not yet permit a party system, four hundred, seventy or so other individuals who had applied to run were turned away. Never mind that most of these rejected candidates were not serious, Mohammad Seifzadeh, of Iran's Committee for Free and Fair Elections, contends that the current screening process reduces the election to a "race between government candidates, not people."
Among the four candidates now running, there's no surprises; the Guardians merely permitted the four leading, best known candidates into the contest. Yet there are significant differences among the candidates; much is at stake.
For starters, I refer readers to the solid IPS overview of the race, prepared earlier this month by Farideh Farhi.
I sense she's still correct, that the outcome is still too close to predict -- with the two reformist leaning candidates (Karrubi and especially Musavi) presenting serious challenges to Ahmadinejad. The first round Presidential poll occurs on June 12th. If no candidate gets 50% of the votes cast, as is likely, then the top two vote recipients square off in a second round held on June 20th.
One observation near the end of Farhi's essay needs updating:
So far, one key player, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, has hewed to his past practice of refraining from publicly endorsing any candidate. But this year he has taken the unusual step of publicly pointing out that his support for Ahmadinejad as president should not be confused with support for him as candidate, effectively fueling speculation about his "real" preference.
Yet the Los Angeles Times reports that Khamenei last Monday had come down off the fence in favor of Ahmadinejad. The presumed reason: ties to America.
From a speech given recently in an Iranian Kurdish area, Khamenei was quoted to say, "Those who submit to the enemies and bring shame on the nation should not come to power by the people's vote" nor should "those who, through paying lip service to the Western countries and arrogant governments want to secure a position for themselves."
I checked the US government's Open Source Center translation of the speech, and the above passage comes after a none-too-subtle reference to those who at the outset of the revolution, "openly announced that they didn't believe in this revolution. There were those who openly said that they were afraid of America."
Yet Khamenei's presumed warnings have hardly stopped the barrage of intense criticisms of the current President's foreign policy, by all three of his opponents (including Rezai). Well before the current political season, Ahamdinjad has been sharply criticized by prominent Iranian figures for being needlessly confrontational towards the US, even towards Israel, that his rhetoric had harmed Iran's interests and turned away potential friends into adversaries.
Even Ahmadinejad's questioning of the extent of the holocaust has been rebuked by his rivals. As Karrubi put in back in April, "Ahmadinejad's comments on the Holocaust were a great service to Israel.... What has happened that we now have to support Hitler?" he asked. "This is none of our business."
It's the foreign policy, stupid
Former US President Bill Clinton made famous the "It's the economy, stupid" mantra in US politics back in the 1990's, that economics trumped everything else. America's 2008 Presidential election suggested otherwise, that citizens can be motivated to vote according to perceptions of foreign policy problems. Same pattern in Iran; perhaps more so.
On Tuesday, presidential candidate Musavi made the link between Iran's present economic difficulties and its foreign policy:
"An effective foreign policy agenda that enhances the county's world image is undoubtedly in the best interests of the people.... When the country has a good image on the international scale, there would be positive interaction with other countries, the people will be more at peace, the economy will move forward and the country will be awash with security and stability."
Ahmadinejad yesterday in his first major campaign address, via state radio, lashed back against such criticisms, focusing much of his speech on defending his foreign policy "achievements": (OSC translation)
"Let us think of where we were four years ago. The ill-wishers of the Iranian nation, those who are enemies of mankind, imposed humiliation, inability, and weakness on the Iranian nation.... They wanted to remove the Iranian nation from the map.... (sic) They entered Afghanistan and Iraq. Later, they announced that Afghanistan was the first step, Iraq the second step, and Iran will be the third step. They insulted the Iranian nation. They described the Iranian nation - a nation that is the builder of civilization and culture - as the axis of evil.
In a nutshell, through its "dictation" and demands, including on the nuclear issue, Ahmadinjad argues that the world, that America (e.g. "arrogance") did not "respect" Iran.
"For me it was very obvious that the great Iranian nation would not accept such conditions imposed on it. The lofty status of the Iranian nation cannot accept such historic humiliation."
Ahmadinejad then credits his leadership for "not accepting such conditions," such "humiliation." As a result of his standing up to the world, he claims the threats of "arrogance... have been removed forever." And referencing Obama, "Those who until yesterday wanted to force Iran into submission with a stick, today find themselves in need of Iran. Their rhetoric and tone has changed."
The President's populist appeal here should not be underestimated, even as it is being challenged. This could be a very interesting Iranian Presidential race to watch closely.
It will also be profoundly unwise, and likely counterproductive, for the US to comment officially on Iran's internal politics. When George Bush pontificated about the imperfections of Iran's last elections, such comments were broadcast widely inside Iran -- and mobilized support precisely for Ahmadinejad.
As Iran does not yet permit a party system, four hundred, seventy or so other individuals who had applied to run were turned away. Never mind that most of these rejected candidates were not serious, Mohammad Seifzadeh, of Iran's Committee for Free and Fair Elections, contends that the current screening process reduces the election to a "race between government candidates, not people."
Sounds like the USA where the duopoly appoints two candidates for president and the MSM makes sure that other candidacies are not covered or negatively reported. Our elections in the USA are also "races between government candidates, not people."
Former US President Bill Clinton made famous the "It's the economy, stupid" mantra in US politics back in the 1990's, that economics trumped everything else. America's 2008 Presidential election suggested otherwise, that citizens can be motivated to vote according to perceptions of foreign policy problems.
The question then is did the citizens see through Obama's fake "change" mantra and consciously vote for a continuation of Bush XLIII's policies? or are the citizens in truth unconcerned with actual policy and only concerned with "perceptions of foreign policy problems"?
ah, fair points John Francis -- I wasn't going there this time, but understood. (e.g., US 2 party system, such as it is, and then the bizarre super primary system, functions much as a Guardian Council, blocking all but a few from having a chance.... or so it is often critiqued)
As for the "fake change," the recent pull-backs on military tribunals, and most especially the "preventive detention" argument have my doubts up again....
Back to my main point, I realize my title is a stretch, -- and yet provocative. (esp. to American ears that remember B.C.) Yet let's see if I can list objections to the gist of what I was suggesting: (some of which I'm getting in private notes)
1. Even if foreign policy plays a role this time, it's still not likely to be determinative... As one friend puts it, "Ahmadinejad doesn't have to too worried about the criticism of his foreign policy by his main opponents." (That is, he can play the "chicken in every pot" line.... and do well there).
Ok, if so, then why did he give the subject such prominent attention in his opening (state broadcast) campaign speech? (or so it seems)
2. the foreign policy positions of the President really don't matter. That is, the final address for setting foreign policy is Leader Khamene'i -- not the President.
Indeed. Tell that to those who focus on A/N as "Hitler." On the other hand, see my post on Iranian decision-making and the ending references to Khamenei as "leading from the rear."
3. At their core, all the running candidates agree on foreign policy basics -- e.g., support for nuclear enrichment, suspicion of Israel, support for Shia in the region, etc. All have also expressed guarded interest in Obama's recent speeches.
True -- but then again, why are the opposition candidates making so much of A/N's perceived "maladroit" foreign policy?
Other objections out there, chime in please. (even as we can keep watching for evidence or lack thereof)
Does anyone really think that if Iran toned down its anti-Israel rhetoric, Israel would be appeased? Granted, it should tone down its rhetoric just because it would be the right thing to do, but there should be no illusions that Israel would back off.
Fair question, even Ahmadinejad's comments on Israel & Palestine on the ABC program This Week recently were startling (coming from him -- though quite in line with Iran's stated positions going back nearly 2 decades -- e.g., that "iran won't be more palestinian than the palestinians) And yes, A/N's comments were flatly ignored by ABC even right after they broadcast them.
Read the transcript here:
http://www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=7421719
Time Magazine on-line did take note of the A/N comments on Israel on ABC (even as it mischaracterized them)
Time also noted yesterday the foreign policy zingers in A/N's press conference (e.g., his swipes at Khatami over the nuclear issue).
But notice how blistering Musavi's campaign comments are about A/N:
"You are doing things that defame Iranians throughout the world. The nation has not given you that right. ... You've undermined the might of the nation through your uncalculated actions and have taken us to a point where the value of our passports is equal to that of a country like Somalia...."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1900722,00.html
More evidence that foreign policy is shaping up as an unusually "hot" issue in Iran's presidential race.... Will it be determinative? hmmmm... stay tuned.
I was reading that Iran blocked access to Facebook in advance of the elections. Not sure what these airheads have to fear from facebook, maybe the web is mightier than the islamic sword after all.
In any case I predict no change in Iran's makeup, same characters, same poison, same beligerant and retrograd stance.
and your source about the facebook "ban" was? I recall such rumors back in late 2007....
So all the intense debate inside Iran is all a show? Who would benefit from that? Sounds like a view/line from those who would have us not look more closely....
(as it sure messes up the propaganda pitch)
I now do recall this recent NYTimes article on the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/01/technology/01filter.html
note the yin & yang of it all.... gov't attempts to filter; citizen efforts to evade -- ingenious.
Note that in most 'democracies' the people have no say on policies. The assumption in this sort of governemnt system is the representatives WIL represent the people who voted for them, and not those with money...but as we know.
Also most people dont consider a candidates foreign policies. Just the 'economic' outlook.
Do many voters know that their govt is busy undermining democracies elsewhere?
'Democracy in america:
'Khalilzad later worked at the Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank which brings together CEOs, scholars, and government and military officials in discussion groups to formulate policy to reflect the interests of the corporations and hereditary capitalist families that provide its funding and furnish its directors. CFR policy papers are then submitted to the US State Department, to be turned into policy by the former CFR personnel who are routinely placed in senior State Department positions'
http://gowans.wordpress.com/2009/05/21/an-acceptable-dictator-for-afghanistan/
Where are 'the people' in all of this??
epppie:
'Does anyone really think that if Iran toned down its anti-Israel rhetoric, Israel would be appeased?'
tell Israel to tone down its bombing of palestinians! Andtell it to stop sending in teams of assasins and spies to places like Lebanon and Iraq.