Anyone Surprised?

 

    At about 3:30 this morning Eastern Daylight Time, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni addressed a crowd at Tehran University.  In his televised speech -- which took place during Friday prayers -- Khameni praised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as a "definite victory," and sloughed off any and all charges of vote-rigging.  While he called on those who don't believe the results to use "proper legal avenues," such as requesting the recounting of ballots in their presence, he did not issue a call for a new vote.
 
   Anyone surprised?

   Khameni roundly criticized the street protests and proclaimed that "those who cause violence during demonstrations will be held accountable."  Speaking of Ahmadinejad's 11-million vote victory over his primary rival, Mir Hossein Moussavi, the Supreme Leader lectured, "Eleven million votes difference?  Sometimes there's a margin of 100,000 or 200,000, or 1 million maximum.  Then one can doubt maybe there has been some rigging or manipulation or irregularities . . . . But there's a difference of 11 million votes.  How can vote rigging happen?"

   "How can vote rigging happen?"  Let us not insult anyone's intelligence by presuming to answer the question.  Unbelievably, what Khameni posits -- and expects people to swallow -- is that the larger the criminal haul, the less likely a felony has taken place!  In its own way, it's reminiscent of the old Tammany tyrant George Washington "Boss" Plunkett, who famously proclaimed that "In politics, there are two kinds of graft: honest graft and dishonest graft." 

   Ignoring for the nonce the hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets of Tehran in support of Moussavi, the Supreme Leader proclaimed the election, "A great show in which people indicated their responsibility towards the destiny of the country . . . . It depicted very well people's solidarity with their establishment."

   Oh really?  What about the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of folks downtown, all dressed in black and green?  With precisely which "establishment" were they expressing "solidarity?" 

   It should be noted that one of the unsung heroes of what is quickly becoming known as the "Twitter Revolution" is a State Department official named Jared Cohen. Cohen, who at 27 is the youngest member of the State Department's policy planning staff, convinced the heads of Twitter to delay a scheduled maintenance of its global network (which would have cut off service) while Iranians were using the service to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran.  As a result of Cohen's urging, Twitter remained operative, and outsiders could read such tweets as:

• " . . . don't listen to what iran govt says u can or can't do!  You can report the pics/vids coming from Twitter!" and
  
• "We need ppl around world helping to raise the issues put pressure on Iranian gvmt."
  

    After warning all those protesters that they continue gathering at their own peril, Kahmeni then criticized the international media for having the "temerity" to report  that the election pitted "people who support the government against those who oppose it." He then proclaimed that all four presidential candidates -- Achmadinejad, Moussavi, Mohsen Rezaie and Mehdi Karrubi -- all support the Islamic revolution.  Predictably, he also took a swipe at the United States, Great Britain and Israel, labeling them "Zionist ill-wishers."

   Anyone surprised?

   There is no telling where all this will lead.  Some in the West see the massive protests as the opening salvo in what may be the downfall of the Islamic Republic.  Then too, there are others who warn -- and fear -- that the millions who support reform will wind up being bowled over; an Iranian Tienanmen Square. 

   And then there is the American reaction.  President Obama has been, shall we say, intentionally "measured" in his reaction and response.  Predictably, suspects both usual and surprising have attacked the president for not being far more forceful, far more vocal, in his support for democracy and freedom in Iran.  What they are saying is that the president should be exercising far more belligerency -- something like "Ayatollah Kahmeni, tear down this revolution!" -- and far less diplomacy.  The president's initial response was the soul of diplomacy.  First, he said that he was "deeply troubled by the violence," and then went on to say that since no international observers were allowed to monitor the fairness of the election,

    "I can't state definitely one way or another what happened with respect to the election.  But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of the people who were so helpful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.  And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views."

   Anyone surprised? And here I don't mean to ask if anyone's surprised that the president is being attacked by Republicans for being "squishy soft" and "not standing up for freedom and democracy like President Reagan."  Rather, I am asking if anyone's surprised at how many people seem to be misunderstanding precisely what the president's game plan is vis-à-vis Iran.

   Many of the president's most starry-eyed partisans have suggested that the current ferment in Iran is due -- at least in part -- to his appeals to Iranians and Muslims.  According to Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, the president "Never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets."  Rather, Kagan opines, the president's diplomatic strategy calls for dealing directly with the Iranian government -- especially over the issue of nuclear weapons -- regardless of who that government may be.

   I for one do not agree with Kagan.  I believe the president's response to the unfolding events in Iran has been measured for a different reason: that he doesn't want to make this a clash between America and the Imams.  He has correctly concluded that if any reform or "liberalization" is to take place, it must be as a result of the clash of ideas -- between the Iranian people themselves.

   As I write this, word has gone out that the House of Representatives has just  voted overwhelmingly (405-1) to condemn Kahmeni's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communication.  (Libertarian Ron Paul cast the lone dissenting vote.) In the eyes of  House Republicans -- who initiated the measure -- its passage is meant to serve as a not-so-veiled criticism of President Obama.  To House Democrats, it is one of those measures for which one votes "Yay" while firmly holding one's nose.  According to House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Howard Berman, "It is not up to us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election."  Up to this point, Berman is solidly echoing President Obama.  What comes next is, as they say, "the rub": "But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation."

   Whether Iranian protests lead to greater reform or repression remains to be seen. But regardless of what happens in the short-run, the genie is out of the bottle.  And once out, genies, like spilled water, are next to impossible to put back.

   Anyone surprised?

 

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Comments

[Mike]

Ron Paul. Ron Paul? Now that's a strange bedfellow!

[Alan Weiss]

What an election!

[Stanley]

President Obama is in a no-win situation. Khamenei stupidly included the UK in his condemnation. I like the fact that they immediately summoned the Iranian ambassador to protest. Might nor be a terrible idea for us to do the same. Maybe even send him home.