International Political Will

Watching, reading, listening, and even trying to actually decipher the media’s coverage of Iran’s elections is becoming an exercise in blissful ignorance, simplistic dichotomies, and pure unadulterated stupidity.

One might be led to believe that Ahmedinejad is a long-entrenched, all-powerful dictator with a history of rigging elections, in the mold of Mugabe or Mubarak (oops, Mubarak isn’t a dictator…he’s a “moderate” and an ally).

Except that Ahmedinejad was only elected four years ago, and Iran’s presidents have never been more than a public face that does the clerical leadership’s bidding. Real power in Iran rests in the hands of the clerics – it always has. The clerics could care less who gets elected (of course, they choose all the candidates to begin with). Whether a reformer, moderate, or even liberal, the president doesn’t so much as spit without permission.

A consumer of western media could also rightfully assume that the challenger – Mir Hossein Mousavi – would radically “reform” Iran’s nuclear policy, opening up a new era of peace and subservience to American nuclear hegemony.

But that ignores Mousavi himself, when he explicitly and publicly states that he would continue nuclear development and that Iran will “not abandon our right to nuclear technology.” More to the point, we haven’t actually heard anything about what Mousavi stands for – only what his opponent, Ahmedinejad, stands against. (If Ahmedinejad = bad, then by virtue of simplistic dichotomy, Mousavi = good.)

The media repeatedly refers to Mousavi as a “reformer,” but analysts who have actually spent more than 10 days in Iran (which was the length of visas given to foreign correspondents covering the elections), say Mousavi is simply a “moderate.” “Moderate,” in the parlance of Washington D.C. politicians and lobbyists, means “free market” (read: will open up Iran’s oil to private, foreign investment).

The allegations of voter fraud and rigging, along with extraordinary coverage of public protests, might suggest to CNN viewers that Ahmedinejad could not have won by the 2-1 margin he claims.

But the only evidence put forward by critics is that “the results came out so quickly.” Not exactly indisputable proof. Even less is said about the fact that Mousavi’s primary supporters are the middle/upper class and students, which probably – at best – makes up about 30% of the country. That would help explain the 2-1 margin.

There are even those in the mainstream media (albeit, mostly on the right) who are trying to recreate history according to their distorted worldview. Steve Hayes of The Weekly Standard said on FOX News Sunday: “Years ago, [Ahmedinejad] was part of the axis of evil.”

Except that in 2002 when Bush made his famous “axis of evil” quote, Ahmedinejad was not president (he wasn’t even a known political figure). The president of Iran in 2002 was Mohammad Khatami (a “reformer”).

Which brings me to my last point. Why does western media refuse to delve into the issue of why Ahmedinejad was elected in the first place? He wasn’t put there by the clerical leadership, he didn’t seize power in a coup – he was put there by the Iranian people.

Immediately after Sept. 11, 2001, Iran expressed their solidarity with America. The Ayatollah of Iran declared a “Jihad against this evil phenomenon” of terrorism, a soccer stadium of 60,000 Iranians observed a moment of silence, and thousands in Tehran held a candlelight vigil to honor the victims at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.

At the time, Iran had a “reformer” president, and the U.S. had been moving toward a policy of engagement. Sounds like a recipe for reconciliation.

But then Bush lumped Iran together with Iraq and North Korea and declared global war.

And then one year later, Bush and Cheney lied their asses off and initiated the illegal invasion of Iraq. Of course, we already had troops in Afghanistan (and in Kuwait, and Qatar, and floating in the Persian Gulf, etc., etc., etc.).

So now a country that had expressed their solidarity with the U.S. after 9/11 was: 1) labeled as part of an axis of evil, 2) surrounded by hostile military forces, and 3) watched one part of that axis be invaded and torn apart.

In response, Iranians elected a hardliner that was willing to take a stand against the imperialism that was creeping into their midst. Someone who would push back before they became Part 2 of the Neo-cons’ plan to subdue the oil-rich Middle East.

Assuming that the election results this week were valid (not saying they were – but for hypothetical sake, let’s assume), why was Ahmedinejad re-elected?

In 2004, many people asked the same question about the U.S. How could Americans – having seen the mess that Bush and Co. had made – give Dubya another four years?

Perhaps not all Americans were ready to believe that the world could be different. Maybe we needed a little more time and evidence to prove that aggression wasn’t the only option.

Similarly, Iranians might be in the same boat. Perhaps they need a little more time to truly believe Obama when he says a new era is upon us. Maybe not enough Iranians are convinced yet that things will change.

So give them another four years. It’s possible the Iranian elections of 2009 were just the beginning of a larger movement, and Mousavi, like John Kerry in 2004, just wasn’t a strong enough candidate to convince his people that the world can be different.

Ahmedinejad is not a dictator. He’s not even a particularly powerful leader. And Mousavi is not some second-coming of the Shah who is going to return Iran to the orbit of American influence. Power in Iran resides with the clerics, not the president.

In the end, Iran not only needs a leader that can convince the people that a new world is possible, but someone who can also convince the clerics.

That won’t happen in one election, so we can stop acting like this is the revolution we (and some Iranians) have been waiting for.

But it might be the tipping point.

UPDATE: NBC Nightly News on Wednesday evening had a one of its reporters (a dual British-Iranian citizen) on the phone as he interviewed a pro-Mousavi protester.  The young man asked the journalist to “translate” the banner he was holding up because it was in English and he didn’t know what it said…

…Gee, I wonder which intelligence agency with a history of meddling in foreign countries could have been passing out English signs to Iranian students in order to create the appearance of a revolution…

Tags: moderate, War of Misinformation, war, media, Ayatollah

Trackback URI | Comments RSS