Meddlesome Mullahs

The last few days have had a lot of news about Iran's recent presidential election (if such a term can be used) as well as some pretty interesting revelations about the man the Iranian mullahs (and maybe a few of their people) have chosen to elect president. First and most inarguably, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a hardliner. Even among the conservative candidates for president, he was considered the most conservative. Yet he seems to be a conservative with a populist bent, one who has been generally well-regarded in his time as mayor of Tehran. Further, his support is drawn largely from those who have benefited least from Iran’s entry to the modern world, namely the poor. In a campaign marked largely by its modern appeal, fueled by youth participation and a decidedly Western flair, Ahmadinejad’s electoral victory seems like a reaction from what might be Iran’s most conservative demographic.

Yet another question exists. Was this a victory at all? Did the people speak, or did the mullahs decree? Certainly, the mullahs had every reason for plausibly interfering. Though Ahmadinejad’s opponent in the runoff election, former president ‘Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani was no moderate by anyone else’s standards, he was not as conservative as the eventual victor; further, in ensuring the triumph of one of their own, the mullahs secured the only major power center that had remained outside of their control. Ahmadinejad also had the proper revolutionary pedigree to be president, including a hand in the Hostage Crisis (which he denies, though I’m far more inclined to believe the hostages themselves), active service in the bloody Iran-Iraq war, and a variety of administrative posts over the last twenty years.

Evidence of tampering is also quite obvious – MEMRI reports, for example, that a conservative newspaper released the results far before they were officially reported. Also, Ahmadinejad garnered an additional 11 million votes more in the runoff than in the first round; that figure is almost equal to the total number of votes cast for all conservative candidates in the first round. I’ll say, then, that it looks like this vote was rigged. Administration officials have said the same thing. Yet perhaps the illegitimacy of this whole operation is a blessing in disguise as it increases our leverage against European attempts to turn a blind eye to troubles in Iran. Yet neither can we allow our desire to see a legitimate (and ideally pro-western) regime blind us from the necessity that we must deal with this current regime in an effort to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

Asia is now host to three militaristic, aggressive, and illiberal regimes that have shown an unwillingness to act fairly with America. Whether or not this new Authoritarian Axis coalesces into a real threat or just continues to make angry but empty noises and gestures remains to be seen. Whatever the end result, however, the United States must turn its eyes to Asia. A new Great Game is being waged across Central Asia again, and we must lay out both our objectives and our interests clearly, and secure local allies, before we find ourselves unwelcome.