Monday, February 09, 2009
Mohammed Khatami steps up
Iran's last president, Mohammed Khatami, has announced he will run again Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran's presidential election in June. There have been rumblings that this might happen going back at least to 2006. The Bush administration probably granted Khatami a visa for his visit to the United States that September to bolster his prestige with domestic constituencies that worry about Iran's isolation under Crazy Mahmoud.
For those of you watching at home, Khatami is every Western dove's great hope for reforming Iran from within. This is not because Khatami is particularly liberal himself -- Iranian Hezbollah and the regime's support for terrorism continued unabated during his first presidency -- but he is sufficiently "reformist" that he irritates the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council. His election the first time, back in 1997, surprised everybody, including the mullahs, and the Clinton administration seized on it as an opportunity to strengthen reformists within Iran. Kenneth Pollack, who was on Clinton's National Security Council staff, argues that we did not retaliate for the 1996 attack on Khobar Towers because, by the time we developed sufficient proof that Iran was behind those particular murders, Khatami had been elected and we did not want to undermine him. That decision led to the famous nine gestures designed to open up relations with Iran, culminating in Secretary Albright's famous "apology" in the spring of 2000. They failed. To this day, experts disagree over whether Khatami lacked the power, or the inclination, to respond to Clinton's many overtures.
There is some evidence that Khatami does not have the strength of character to confront the hard-liners at crunch time. In 1999, two years into Khatami's first term, the reformists in Iran took to the streets hoping that their president would take up their banner, as he had implied, and challenge the mullahs for real control of the country. Unfortunately, Khatami sat on his hands and did not act. When Albright finally "apologized" the following March, Khatami's moment had already passed and his domestic power was ebbing.
All of that said, he has been taking shots at Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for several years and now has declared that he will run again for the presidency. The question is whether the Guardian Council's acquiescence is grudging or welcoming. If the former, it means that the mullahs know that keeping Khatami off the ballot would seriously damage their credibility with important domestic audiences. It also would mean that they remain concerned that he could still lead a reform movement. If, however, the mullahs welcome Khatami's candidacy, it suggests that they have decided that Khatami is a relatively non-threatening antidote to Ahmadinejad, who has mismanaged the Iranian economy and embarrassed Iran internationally. Then, finally, there is the derivative question: What does the Obama national security team believe to be the attitude of the mullahs, and will they see it as a reason to make more concessions to Iran?
7 Comments:
By 
Escort81, at
Mon Feb 09, 12:15:00 PM:
What makes your derivative question so interesting, TH, is that Sec. Gates is part of the Obama national security team, and his views on Iranian "moderates" are well known (money quote in third graf).
President Obama actually has ample political freedom to be as aggressive with Iran as he wants to be -- it's not as if the base of his party will turn on him if he lights up Iran's sole refinery in retaliation for some wild action the Mullahs take. Maybe he will have that kind of Nixon to China moment (in reverse, sort of). Perhaps more likely, the Obama Administration will seek to frame the perception here in the U.S. and in Europe that it is trying to do everything possible to negotiate with Iran so that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, and also that the anti-Israeli rhetoric coming out of Tehran is minimized (though stopping support for Hezbollah and Hamas might be too much to ask). As if no other administration has tried that over the last three decades! Hey, but sometimes, timing is everything. This time, maybe it's different. We have President Obama and Sec. Clinton and George Mitchell in the arena. I genuinely wish them luck as they enter the bazaar.
By 
, at
Mon Feb 09, 12:54:00 PM:
The money paragraph is considerably further down the page, but to save you effort I'll excerpt it:
“Each administration since then has reached out [to the Iranians] in one way or another, and all have failed,” Gates said. “But the reality is the Iranian leadership has been consistently unyielding over a long period of time in response to repeated overtures from the United States about having a different and better kind of relationship.”
In other words: This is a fools errand, seeking "moderates" amongst the powerful Iranian ruling class. With a nuclear weapon and the technology to deliver it over long distances it seems they aren't about to unclench the fist anytime soon, either.
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Feb 09, 03:22:00 PM:
It is my opinion that Ahmadenijad will not be re-elected. His outspoken confrontationalism hasn't worked out for Iran. (but then, people said the same thing about President Bush in 2004)
However, that doesn't mean that a liberal reformist is going to swoop in from the wings, either. Iran is fundamentally a conservative nation, and other conservative candidates will likely be running in the election. This guy for instance.
By , at
Mon Feb 09, 04:11:00 PM:
Here's Smokin' Joe Biden on the Iranian issue, from Munich:
"“We’ll strive to act preventively, not pre-emptively, to avoid whenever possible and wherever possible, the choice of last resort between the risk of war and the dangers of inaction."
I have no idea what that means, but I will bet it doesn't mean the Iranians need to dial back the crazy factor anytime soon.
By , at
Mon Feb 09, 06:54:00 PM:
Joe Biden.
From Munich.
How appropriate. Next up, "Peace in our time!"
-David
By Dawnfire82, at
Mon Feb 09, 08:57:00 PM:
That actually means that the US would strike sooner rather than later; attack a presumed enemy power before they have greater means to harm us. I wonder if that's really what he meant? It seems too aggressive, and sounds like a diplo-speak endorsement of President Bush's militant foreign policy.
Israel's attack on Egypt in 1967 was a pre-emptive war, because the Egyptians (and Syrians, and Jordanians) were preparing to invade them.
Our invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a preventative war, intended to topple Saddam before he obtained greater means of harm.
Almost nobody understands the difference or really uses the term correctly. Like 'reactionary.' For some reason most people, including those who know politics, will say 'radically conservative' rather than 'reactionary,' the proper term.
Oh, and caution on that article I linked. It's factually correct, but seems to have been written by a squishy, 'make-believe international law is sacred' perspective. FYI.
By , at
Mon Feb 09, 09:33:00 PM:
> This is not because Khatami is
> particularly liberal himself --
> Iranian Hezbollah and the regime's
> support for terrorism continued
> unabated during his first presidency
And this is the key phrase in this post. But you forgot the biggest part. The clandestine nuclear program continued unabated under his reformist and "opening" leadership.
A while ago I knew an Iranian guy, and he said that Khatami was simply a nice face on a horrific regime.
I tend to agree with him.
Vilmos Soti
