Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS.
I'm not going to lie: any regional expertise I might have picked up over the years stops at the Shatt al-Arab and only begins again once you hit Herat. Readers, list your favorite Iran blogs and news sources in the comments thread.
Wow, what an outcome. Iran claims 70-80% turnout with Ahmadinejad getting over 60% of the vote (http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/06/13/iran.election/index.html).
Will the world accept this result as legitimate? Here's some instant analysis from an array of Iran experts and others: http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/idUSTRE55C0W620090613
What does this mean for US foreign policy towards Iran?
My colleague at the University of South Florida, Professor Mohsen Milani, is one of the nation's leading experts on Iranian foreign policy. Though much has been written about U.S. policy toward Iran, it is rare to find thoughtful analysis - at least in English - of Iran's foreign policy toward the U.S. In this just-released article from Foreign Affairs, Milani provides an insightful and lucid explanation of Iran's strategic logic, and describes the assumptions that guide their rhetoric, actions and world view. He offers a perspicacious look behind the sensationalistic Western media portrayal of an irrational and undeterrable nation to see the view from the other side. -RB (http://globalcrim.blogspot.com)
Tehran's Take
Mohsen M. Milani
from Foreign Affairs (foreignaffairs.com)
Iran’s foreign policy is often portrayed in sensationalistic terms, but in reality it is a rational strategy meant to ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic against what Tehran thinks is an existential threat posed by the United States. Read @ foreignaffairs.com
Putting aside the caricature of Iran as irrational and undetterable, what would a grand bargain look like? Iran's strategy could be very rational but still contrary to the interests of the United States. Putting this into super-geeky political science terms, sometimes you have an information-driven problem, where due to asymmetries of information and miscommunication, you end up with conflict. However, sometimes you have an interests problem, where people see the same information but come to different conclusions about what it means for how they should pursue their interests, leading to conflict.
Which is it with Iran?
I wonder how this might affect things on the ground in Afghanistan and Iraq and our efforts to get cooperation from Iran in stabilizing those borders and helping curb the drug and arms trafficking? It does seem to me that the goal of allowing them peaceful/transparent nuclear power in exchange for assurances against weaponization is now probably off the table (the direction that it seems to me Obama was going to be taking). I just can’t see how now Israel or others in the region would be able to trust the transparency of that process, it was going to be hard enough to get some trust with a reformist president and the repudiation of Ahmadinejad. I don’t see how now things won’t continue to escalate…
On Wedman's comment: I think you bring up a good point, and it seems to me very much an interests problem. I think it's a major mistake to label Iranian leaders as irrational. I think the problem though is detterance in that there is little current Western support for a long term commitment for military action. From looking at it from Iranian perspective, I think they see that although there might be some limited strikes, there is no support for a longterm engagement or regime change. This would then allow them to escalate (and say they had been attacked first), then back off without continued escalation or a full commitment to regime change and thus win, as Hezbolah did in '06. If there are no strikes then I think they will continue to push as far as the can to get the weapons as insurance, or at least the capability to quickly weaponize. I don't think they are an existential threat to Isreal (like many want to say), but I think they do want as much influence in the region and think that any potential for limited engagement is worth that and that because of lack of western committment they could actually win a limited engagement. I think I have simplified the choices some, but it seems to me to be the strategy they are purusing.
No expert, but I thought this entire election was a wash either way, the mullahs win and hold power regardless.
The fact that they may have been scared enough of their own people to go to the trouble to rig it for Ahmadinejad may indicate that the rulers do fear their people, and some form of more reasonable govt might be possible. If the people could take power, and keep it from the hands of radicals of whatever stripe.
More than likely the cycle of demos kratia, chaos, strongman and tryanny would simply continue.
http://niacblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/13/election-liveblogging-saturday/
I wonder, as a layman, if the Obama administration isn't a bit more concerned about how this news is received in Tel Aviv than in Tehran.
The one thing that the US government needs to do right this second (at least for a second) is BUTT OUT, and it's ain't happenin': "US rejects victory claim by Iran's Ahmadinejad".
Meanwhile... In Tehran...
If only Americans had that much spunk!
Hmmmn, I seem to remember once upon a time, we did... Must be the fluorides in the water.
Why does at least one photo of Iranian riot police show their riot shields with the word "Police" in *English?*
ADTS
Count me convinced that these elections were stolen:
http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2009/06/time-to-help-the-people-of-iran-ov...
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2009/06/laura-secor-irans...
History might show that steeling these elections was the biggest blunder of the Iranian theocracy ever.
They avoided a reformer and my gut tells me they will reap a revolution (just like Eastern Germany in the 1980s - after the SED evidently falsified some votes, the regime lost most of the respect it had enjoyed before ... ). I dont' dare to imagine a secular Iran along Turkish lines yet, but the possibility (albeit small) seems to be there. The consequences would be enormous ...
you have absolutely nothing to say about it? it's interesting that most "expert" bloggers have very little to say about the iranian presidential elections. it's been one big silence for most bloggers that cover issues in the middle east.
How widespread are these disturbances, and does DC or Starbuckin it in Arlington have any kind of plan for a downfall of the mullahocracy? Cuz it won't be pretty if it happens.
BTW I do believe last time this happened was 2003 when the students revolted, it was put down in part by Lebanonese Hizb thugs .
They are reportedly the muscle of resort for the regime, their Black and Tans.
Michael Totten's blog is on fire. Er, sorry, you know what I mean, lots of links, youtube, twitter feeds.
(On a purely new media note, this feels like Mumbai, where the information is coming out in bits and pieces, lots of good, bad, iffy and everything else in between 'data points', on the new media sites.)
Add your comment