Iran's Elections

In all this hullabaloo about Iran's role in Iraq and the pros and cons of engaging the Islamic Republic, something slipped everyone's attention. Iran held some very significant elections on Friday, and the results surprised a lot of people. All the attention was focused on Ahmadinejad (who has not, by the way, sent an RSVP to the Erratum Terrium Hanukkah party. Mahmoud, if you're reading this, we're still saving a seat for you next to the latkes.) Apparently no one asked the people of Iran if they supported his extremist posturings -- and apparently they don't. Ahmadinejad and his mentor/Supreme Leader-aspirant Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi did not fare well. The old-school conservatives, led by Rafsanjani, seemed to be the big winners. Rafsanjani , the former President who lost in the 2005 presidential election, was in first place at last count in the election for a seat on the powerful Assembly of Experts. Mesbah Yazdi was in sixth place at last count, enough votes to stay in the Assembly but not the result which would catapult him into a position to become the Supreme Leader upon the passing of the elderly Ayatollah Khamenei. The conservatives were able to re-establish control over Iranian political trends which had been swinging towards the Ahmadinejad/Mezbah Yazdi fundamentalist camp ever since the 2005 Presidential elections where Ahmadinejad won a surprising victory based largely on populist appeal and connections to hard-line militias.

There were two bodies being elected Friday, one being the very important Assembly of Experts, and the other the an election for local council seats. The Assembly of Experts is a group of high clerics who select (and can remove) the Supreme Leader and have strong control over the legislative and appointment process. The other top clerical group, the Council of Guardians, has control over who is able to run in these elections. The Council of Guardians removed many of the fundamentalist candidates (as well as the reformist candidates) before the election. Nonetheless, the success of Rafsanjani and the low finishing of Mezbah Yazdi are genuinely representative of the Iranian's preference for the former over the latter. The local councils are relatively unimportant (at least in terms of foreign policy), but the elections are fairly democratic and therefore serve as a political barometer. Mezbah Yazdi's list also did poorly in these elections in many places, although it seems his group still retains popularity in some of the more rural provinces.

One can make a comparison between this Friday's elections in Iran and the November elections in the US. There is also a striking and surprising similarity between the leaders. Both Ahmadinejad and Bush have conducted provocative foreign policies (to say the least) bringing international rebuke and have failed to reduce threats to the national security of their respective countries. They have done so while promising reforms to bring economic growth. Growth in both countries has been modest at best, and many of the lower classes they promised to help have only sunk deeper into poverty. Both have worked hard to increase the power of the executive at the expense of all other political bodies. Both have significantly furthered the agendas of the religious fundamentalists in their respective countries. Both also were elected with the aid of populist appeal, portraying themselves as "men of the people" running against political insiders: Ahmadinejad as the poor son of a blacksmith, Bush as the "regular guy" from Texas.

It must also be noted with irony that Iran appears now to be one of the most democratic countries in the region. This is not to say that Iran is a paragon of liberal democracy, but unlike most countries in the Middle East and the world they have a functioning mechanism for peaceful political competition and for the voters to regularly choose between a limited number of those competing groups. And personally I find it a little embarrassing that while it took the American people six years to turn against Bush, it only took the Iranian people a year and a half to catch onto Ahmadinejad.

A little more Iranophilia: How cool is it that the candidates for the Assembly of Experts have to pass rigorous tests just to qualify for the election? I would love to make candidates for the US Congress pass the Foreign Service test. I think I'm salivating a little just thinking about it.

My point in all this about democracy in Iran is that this country is not our enemy. This is a country with a beautiful culture and a rich history that they are rightfully very proud of. When Bush goes out of his way to call them "evil", they take it personally. Anyone would. Especially when, despite the US-backed overthrow of the democratically elected Mossadegh government in 1953, our continued support for the repressive Shah, and our supply of arms (including chemical weapons) to Iraq during their eight-year war, the Iranian people have continued to express goodwill towards the US. After 9/11 they did not dance in the streets, they held a solemn candlelight vigil. Read the accounts of numerous American and Western journalist who have traveled through the country.

I am not saying we should simply not attack Iran and try to engage them "constructively" on Iraq. I am saying we should go out of our way to make Iran our newest friend. And not just so they'll bring over some delicious Iranian cuisine. There are three main reasons why forging close links with Iran is good for the US strategically. One, we need to make it clear that we are not against Islam and that we support the coexistence of Islam and democracy. We cannot continue to insist that the only good democracy is one which doesn't produce Islamist governments. Our continued vociferous opposition to Islamists of all types only adds fuel to the anti-US/anti-Israel radicals' fire. Good relations with Iran would not only set a good example of our openness to Islamism, but it would help with relations with their clients in Iraq, Lebanon, Western Afghanistan, Palestine, and possibly Somalia (at least according the recent UN report). Second, good relations with Iran will help us economically, relating mostly to their enormous stores of oil and natural gas. Lower (but relatively stable) energy prices brought on the introduction of Iranian supplies into the regular (non-sanctioned) market would be very helpful for our economy and would also act against attempts by Russia to corner the Eurasian energy supply market. Third, a stable and responsible Iran on the world stage could be very helpful for solving regional problems and act as a counterweight against other aggressive powers. Again, Iran has its finger in the pot of almost every country in the vicinity. It certainly can't be in our interests to antagonize them any further, especially considering the results of this election.

One last diatribe: Why isn't the Iranian election mentioned more often in the news? I've barely heard or seen anything about it. What, the media, lazy? Can't be. I guess the recent issue of TIME has put them all in a self-indulgent tizzy.



Peace (if everything else fails)