Still Confused About The Iranian Election

By Steve Hynd

Everyone is still confused about the Iranian election today, except those who have always been heavily invested in their own ideology to the point of only seeing the facts they want to. There have beenriots and rallys by Mousavi's supporters, along with an attendant security clampdown - but there have been rallys by Ahmadinejad's people too, although those are far more likely to be underplayed by Western media. There have been reports via Facebook and Twitter of Mousavi and up to 100 senior reformists being arrested - but that same Twitter feed now says Mousavi has called a meeting of his senior aides this afternoon. It's even still in doubt whether Ahmadinejad really did steal the election, or perhaps just exaggerated his victory a bit. Brian Ulrich at American Footprints is doing an outstanding job of keeping up with snippets of news and analysis.

Which means we've no real idea what the election might mean for Iran's domestic politics yet. It might mean that Ahmadinejad has consolidated power, it might mean the beginnings of a new grassroots revolution, it might mean there will be a power struggle between competing elites...or it might just be a blip which will smooth out quickly as people get on with their lives.

For America, and the usual attempt to inflict domestic political gamesmanship on foreigners under the label "foreign policy", the possibilities are far more predictable. Those heavily invested in hardline conservative ideology will declaim that Ahmadinejad proved he was the dictator they always said he was by stealing an election and that, nevertheless, it's Obama's fault for being weak. Their end-point, as it ever has been, is to have bombs falling. On the other hand, Democrat analysts are already saying that Amadinejad rigged the election because he was so afraid of Obama's outreach to Moslems. Guys, it's not always about America.

But Gregory Gause gets it right on what America's response should be.

I think that the diplomatic outreach should continue as it started. It would be great if there were real democracy in Iran and the United States did not have to deal with the execrable incumbent president. But American interests here are not about Iranian domestic politics. They are about Iran's role in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Gulf, the Arab-Israeli arena, and the nuclear program.

I acknowledge that it would be much easier to come to some understanding on these issues with a different, more representative Iranian government. But it looks like we might not get that. So the United States might as well try to engage the incumbents in order to see if it can get some kind of deal on at least some of these issues that will help avoid a confrontation down the road.

America deals with all sorts of governments whose domestic arrangements are, to put it mildly, less than compatible with American ideals. (The Saudis are Exhibit A.) I think that's how to deal with Iran.