Disillusioned

The Arab News tackles Iran in an eye-opening way today. The author of "The End of Illusions in Iran", Amir Taheri, takes a more realistic look at Iran than you are likely to find from Germany, France, or Michael Moore's portion of America.

The Iranian election experience puts an end to several illusions.

The first of these is that the mere holding of elections is a sign of democratization. Now, however, we know that although there can be no democracy without elections, it is possible to have elections without democracy.

The Iranian electoral recipe is simple and efficient. It starts by making sure that all the candidates are handpicked for their total loyalty to the leader. Next it makes sure that there is no real election campaign. The candidates are not allowed to criticize the leadership. Nor can they offer programs that differ with the essential options of the leadership.

After cataloging the ways that the reformists failed, the system is broken, and the most of the West misread the situation, Taheri sums it up nicely.

The death of illusions in Iran also means the death of the European policy of “constructive dialogue”, first proposed by the Germans in the 1980s and now most actively pursued by the British. That policy was based on the assumption that the regime can reform itself, peacefully and speedily.

It is now clear that it cannot.

Thus the Europeans face a stark choice.

They can decide to, holding their noses, continue dealing with the Iranian regime because they need its cooperation on a number of issues, notably nuclear non-proliferation, Iraq and Afghanistan. Or they can orchestrate a set of new diplomatic, economic and even military pressures on the regime as a means of encouraging the emergence of a genuinely democratic internal opposition.

The Bush administration for its part needs to develop a coherent analysis of the Iranian situation. It must decide whether or not Iran is, in the words of the State Department’s number-two Richard Armitage, a “sort of democracy”, or a despotic regime.

Short-term “realpolitik” may counsel an accommodation with the present regime in Tehran, much as it has determined Washington’s China policy. But that kind of “realpolitik” would mean the premature death of plan for “a new Middle East”.

Considering that the entire war on terror hinges on real political changes in the Middle East, the splintered opposition to Iran's establishment is an important tool. The questions raised, though are difficult. Even given an opportunity at reform, would the opposition parties be cohesive enough to enact change? While the US is engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, and absent a reason for direct intervention, a military solution is not desirable; what other methods might bring about change?

The extensive opposition in Iran, even if it hasn't gelled into one single movement, speaks of a real desire for liberal change. That's the good news. Finding a way to get from where they are to where they want to be, though, is the trick. The United States, as much as some like to think that we are reviled around the world, is at a peak of diplomatic power.

There are few militaries that are even in the realm of competing with our own, there are few countries whose economies can send such ripples through the world, and there are few leaders as willing to take action than our own. This puts us in a wonderful position to apply pressure for change that will benefit us (and any part of the world that doesn't want to live under the threat of Islamic extremists). It doesn't, however, make our nation omnipotent.

Like every other nation, we have to pick and choose our battles. In choosing, we have to decide whether we can succeed, how much an effort will take away from our ability to act in other areas, how best to exert pressure to achieve our end and maintain our ability to act elsewhere, and whether the cause is just. Liberalizing Iran is, of course, a good cause. The fact that so many Iranians desire change and America's new clout in the region makes me think that success is possible.

What is left to decide, though, is how best to go forward without harming our abilities to continue to act throughout the region, both militarily and politically.

Read "The End of Illusions in Iran.

Posted by zombyboy at February 18, 2004 09:43 AM | TrackBack