Posted by
Andrews on Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:47:58 AM
I am of two minds about Iran and the recent struggle there between Mousavi supporters and Ahmadinejhad loyalists. My first thought is that it is a sign of how easy it would have been to spark an uprising in Iran had the Bush administration simply funded dissidents. I said it before, but I think Bush really missed an opportunity in not using covert support to overthrow the current government. Of course the opposition in congress, had they known of such activities, would doubtless have leaked the news and the press would have maligned Bush for trying to overthrow a "legitimate foreign government", but it would have still been worth the price. Bush was maligned anyway, and if he had worked to undermine Iran at least he would have gained some real advantage for the US while being maligned.
On the other hand, I don't think this current disturbance will really change anything. Mousavi is "the opposition", but not really. He is still a candidate accepted by the mullahs, so odds are good whether he or Ahmadinejhad end up in power, the mullahs will still rule everything. Whatever the outcome, nothing of substance will change. In fact, if Mousavi wins it is likely to make things worse both inside and outside. Outside, because the world will think "a reformer" won and Iran is "changing", causing them to ignore Iran's quest for nuclear weapons and regional hegemony. However there is no reason to think Mousavi will be any different than Ahmadinejhad in that respect. After all, as prime minister, he inaugurated the nuclear program. At the same time, within Iran one of two outcomes are possible. Maybe Mousavi will try to keep up the appearance of "reform", making superficial changes and trying to conduct the regime's more oppressive activities more quietly. In that case it is possible that real reform will be delayed, as Iranians believe reform is taking place, while in reality they are getting little but window dressing. I doubt it will last long, as that sort of superficial reform is seen through pretty quickly, but, for a time, it would delay any real change. Worse would be if Mousavi admits he is not really a reformer. If he takes power and then becomes nothing but another rubber stamp for the mullahs, it is likely to discourage those seeking reform more than an Ahmadinejhad victory. In that case, it is possible that any movement toward reforming the government would be delayed even more than in the first scenario. Either way, reform in Iran may be helped more by an Ahmadinejhad victory than a Mousavi.
But, it is still early. Things can often take unexpected turns when civil disorder begins. That is often a good argument against violent change, but, when dealing with a situation as bad as in Iran, perhaps unexpected changes are not much worse than the status quo. So we will have to wait and see. It is quite possible something completely unpredictable will happen.
Only time will tell.
POSTSCRIPT
Some of my ideas were similar to those posted Friday on the
WSJ's Best of the Web. As I always mention when they seem to mirror my thoughts, I thought I should admit when I mirror theirs.