Iran’s Election: None of America’s Business
So far, we're staying out of it – but for how much longer?
Monday, June 15, 2009
By Justin Raimondo
Antiwar.com
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
|
Was it Daniel Pipes’ endorsement
of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that put the Holocaust-denying hard-liner over
the top in Iran’s recent presidential “election”? Or was it the massive
– and fairly
obvious – fraud committed by the Ahmadinejad camp?
Joking aside, at least for the moment, one has to wonder: what else did anybody
expect? Iranian elections have hardly been models of democratic governance in
the past. The supreme leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, prefigured the probable upshot
of all this when he announced
that a victory for leading opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi would amount
to a repudiation of him personally – and the crackdown
we are witnessing could only have come about as a direct result of Khamenei’s
order.
The U.S. government – or, at least, one branch of it – didn’t help matters
much. Their fast-tracking
of draconian new sanctions on Iran right before Iranians went to the polls
could only have helped Ahmadinejad. How’s that for timing?
In any case, the Mousavi challenge was a frontal assault on the legitimacy
of the current regime, and they have responded just as tyrannical elites have
always responded, with deadly
force and brazen
fraud.
Ahmadinejad has led his country into an economic dead end, with record
unemployment, gas
shortages, and a high
inflation rate. That, combined with U.S. President Barack Obama’s remarkable
outreach to the Iranians – a video
message of friendship, an offer to negotiate with Iranian leaders without
preconditions, and an unprecedented acknowledgment
of the U.S. government’s role in overthrowing
Mohammed Mossadegh’s democratically elected government in 1953 – would have
sounded the death knell of the current gang if the election had been allowed
to proceed unobstructed. As it was, the hard-liners sealed
off Iran from the rest of the world as Mousavi’s overwhelming victory became
apparent, placed the candidate under house arrest (or so
it seems from numerous unconfirmed news reports), shut down the Internet,
and unleashed their
“Revolutionary Guards” on student-led protest demonstrations.
The swiftness of the hard-liner response, however, can be deceiving. Apparently,
there was confusion in the Ahmadinejad camp as Mousavi’s victory loomed large.
We are getting reports
that the authorities informed Mousavi of his impending election victory before
the polls had even closed, and he was advised to "moderate" his victory
speech for fear of provoking a violent response from Ahmadinejad’s supporters,
many of whom are members of the "revolutionary" militias. The reformist
newspapers, too, were told they were not allowed to use the word "victory"
in reference to Mousavi when reporting election results – but at least they
were allowed to report it. Or so they thought.
Shortly
afterward, however, these same newspapers were taken over by armed assailants,
Mousavi’s election headquarters were surrounded by military forces under the
hard-liners’ command, and the regime’s thugs were called out into the streets
– where they met Mousavi’s mostly youthful supporters in bloody clashes throughout
the country.
Like Juan
Cole, I will readily admit that I may be wrong about the veracity of the
hard-liner coup narrative, and I may very well have fallen for what some are
calling the “North Tehran Fallacy” – the idea that Western reporters
were lured into believing that Mousavi was the winner because they are all based
in a relatively affluent and Westernized part of the Iranian capital. (Cole,
by the way, denies
the validity of the North Tehran thesis, though it seems plausible to me.)
Yet that really has no relevance to the main point of this column, which is
this: America has no business intervening in Iran’s internal affairs, including
its presidential election. Period.
To do so would play right into the hands of Iran’s hard-liners – and their
neoconservative cheerleaders (both overt
and covert)
in this country. Whatever support the kooky Ahmadinejad had managed to garner
– according to leaked and unconfirmed reports, about 30 percent of the total
– was due almost entirely to external factors, principally the U.S.-led campaign
to strangle
the Iranian economy and rile
up ethnic
and religious
minorities. This, in turn, has redounded to the hard-liners’ benefit, as anti-Americanism
– long a staple of Iranian politics – has reached record levels throughout the
region.
So far, the Obama administration has kept its collective mouth shut pretty
tight – except, of course, for Joe
Biden – and that’s a good thing. What isn’t so good is that the White House
will almost surely be forced to pronounce some sort of verdict or judgment on
the apparently fraudulent election results. Criticism, however mild, coming
from Washington, will surely be used by Ahmadinejad & Co. as a pretext to
declare a state of "emergency" and engineer a total crackdown. And
the possibility of a dramatic showdown between the two Iranian camps is increasing
by the moment: Mousavi is reportedly
calling for his followers to take to the streets in protest – although there
is some fear
that this may be a trap set by the regime – and what follows may very well turn
out to be an Iranian replay of what happened in China’s Tiananmen Square, at
least as far as the rest of the world sees it.
What this means, in terms of U.S. foreign policy, and the building "crisis"
around U.S.-Iranian relations, is that the prospects for a negotiated settlement
of the outstanding issues between the two countries have darkened considerably.
Yes, I know Obama has declared
his intention to soldier on in the "outreach" effort, but this will
become increasingly untenable – and make it fairly easy for him to backtrack
– as the authority and legitimacy of the Iranian government continues to deteriorate,
as it will.
And we should not forget that, in spite of public assurances from the U.S.
president that the administration wants peace, is prepared to negotiate, and
that it’s time for "a new beginning," the Americans continue their
covert
action operations directed at Tehran – as recent
bombings and other disturbances in the eastern non-Persian provinces have
shown. Is the U.S. involved in the current street fighting in Tehran and other
major cities? I wouldn’t be at all surprised to have this suspicion confirmed
in coming days. After all, in 2007 Congress appropriated $400 million to destabilize
the Iranian regime, and who’s to say this program isn’t bearing fruit?
U.S. military leaders are vehemently
opposed to launching yet another war in the Middle East, and their stubborn
resistance to the idea – floated
by Bush’s neocon camarilla in the latter days of the Decider’s reign – scotched
the War Party’s attempts to make sure Obama inherited a Middle East aflame.
Yet their efforts will have reached beyond the previous administration’s grave
– and succeeded in dragging Obama down with them into hell – if events in Iran
provoke an ill-considered response from the U.S.
Whenever there are election “irregularities” anywhere outside the
U.S., American government officials have a bad habit of getting up on their
high horses and lecturing the rest of the world on how best to conduct their
own internal affairs. Never mind that the U.S. itself has only two officially
recognized political parties, both of which are subsidized with tax dollars,
and that any potential rivals must jump through a
number of hoops to even get on the ballot. We’re a legend in our own minds
– the world’s greatest “democracy” – and anyone who questions this
dubious claim is immediately charged with "anti-Americanism."
Yet even if that were not the case – even if our democratic procedures were
flawless – that still wouldn’t give the U.S. government any standing to pass
judgment, because how Iran conducts its presidential elections is not a legitimate
concern of the U.S. government. The idea that the occupant of the Oval Office
must pass moral judgment on all events, including other countries’ elections,
is a byproduct of America’s imperial
pretensions and delusions of “world leadership.”
The Israel lobby, which has been pushing for a U.S. confrontation with Iran,
is revving up its engines
even now to push harder for increased sanctions and other provocative moves
by the U.S. Obama, I fear, will prove unable to resist all that pressure, though
I’d love to be proven wrong.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, any copyrighted material herein is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For further information please refer to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
