Thursday, January 18, 2007
Ahmadinejad: Going overboard?
Lest you think Iran is holding all the cards, consider the troubles of its president.
Last week I briefly noted the increasingly public domestic opposition to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the rhetorically ambitious president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This week, he is in trouble for any number of screwups, including tripping the light fantastic with Hugo Chavez. The Guardian is all over it:
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has suffered a potentially fatal blow to his authority after the country's supreme leader gave an apparent green light for MPs to attack his economic policies.
In an unprecedented rebuke, 150 parliamentarians signed a letter blaming Mr Ahmadinejad for raging inflation and high unemployment and criticising his government's failure to deliver the budget on time. They also condemned him for embarking on a tour of Latin America - from which he returns tomorrow - at a time of mounting crisis.
The signatories included a majority of the president's former fundamentalist allies, now apparently seeking to distance themselves as his prestige wanes.
MPs also criticised Mr Ahmadinejad's role in the UN security council dispute over Iran's nuclear programme amid growing evidence that the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has ordered him to stay silent on the issue.
The supreme leader, who was hitherto loyal to the president, is said to blame Mr Ahmadinejad for last month's UN resolution imposing sanctions over Iran's refusal to suspend its uranium enrichment.
Read the whole thing, and then consider three observations.
First, Khamani himself may be dead, or at least pulling a Castro. Speculation Alert: If the top turban is in fact on the ropes, what is really going on here? There may be a big shake-up in the offing, and perhaps the conservatives have formed an alliance with the few remaining "reformists" purely for the purpose of clearing Ahmadinejad out of the way so that the real maneuvering can begin.
Second, Ayatollah Khamani's objection (if it is indeed his objection) seems to be that Ahmadinejad is a bone-headed statesman. Ahmadinejad's "reformist" predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was a pain in the neck for the mullahs but at least he managed to keep the nuclear program going without triggering UNSC sanctions. Ahmadinejad, on the other hand, has managed to do the impossible: Get the United States of George W. Bush, the Continental Europeans, the Russians and the Chinese all on more or less the same page.
Third, the deeper problem is that the Islamic Republic needs a scapegoat for its plunging economy. As in the United States, the president is the obvious candidate, especially because he has a clerical boss who is going to throw him overboard before going down himself. Apart from too much statism and corruption, Iran's real problem is that the Saudis can pump them into poverty. Iran needs foreign direct investment to dig itself out, but even the French and the Russians are not yet ready to trade openly with a country that flaunts its craziness by denying the Holocaust. The sanctions just make a bad situation worse.
So, what does this mean for America's various confrontations with Iran, including particularly over Iraq? Perhaps it depends on who tires first: America's voters, who are tired of a foreign war with a vague objective, or Iran's elites, who are just plain tired.
4 Comments:
By 
allen, at
Thu Jan 18, 07:29:00 PM:
I found this article interesting, as well. There are enough references to range far and wide.
Ahmadinejad Under Fire, But Will He Burn?
With references to The Economist, Radio Free Europe, and a special H/T to Gateway Pundit.
By Georg Felis, at
Thu Jan 18, 07:37:00 PM:
The irony is hip deep when the Iranian President gets more flack for visiting Hugo Chavez than the US Senator Chris Dodd gets. After all, they are both overbearing egomaniacs who want to control everything they see.
Um, thats Ahmadinejad and Chavez. Dodd is... well... just a Senator, and that goes with the territory.
By 
, at
Thu Jan 18, 07:59:00 PM:
Why shouldn't we let them get pumped into poverty? Replacing Ahmadinejad is a change of face, not policy. If sanctions are lifted Iran will have even more money with which to sow terror worldwide, with no internal dissent to moderate anything.
By Dawnfire82, at
Sat Jan 20, 12:00:00 PM:
I think that breaking the Iranian bank is a fine idea. Most of the problems that they cause us can be traced back to their bank accounts, and if their economy collapses domestically they'll either have to crack (change their policies) or do something wildly stupid like invade Iraq. Both results would be, in the end, good for us.
