Iran’s domestic firestorm

Iran’s domestic firestorm

Dallas Morning News: By all appearances, the re-election of hard-line conservative President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Iran marks another disastrous turn in the deteriorating state of relations between Tehran and the West. All hopes were on Iranian voters to oust Ahmadinejad and put a stop to his reckless pursuit of nuclear arms, unfathomable denial of the Holocaust and bellicose talk of annihilating Israel.

For all we know, most Iranian voters voted against him, but Iran’s Shiite Muslim religious leadership had a different agenda. So Ahmadinejad was imposed as the “victor” in a dubious result that emerged unusually soon after polling places closed. If the vote were legitimate, then why did the government shut down text-messaging services and Internet chat rooms as soon as it was announced? Why did security forces block opposition candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi from holding a press conference?

But there is a bright spot to this outcome. Try as the mullahs might to make Iran appear a cohesive nation, united under the Islamic revolutionary banner, it’s obvious that Iranian society is deeply divided. The rioting and open defiance of police mean that many Iranians are no longer willing to accept the harsh dictates of theocratic rule.

Living two lives

Before, millions of young Iranians were content to lead two lives — one in which they appear devout and pious in public while, behind closed doors, they experiment freely with sex, drugs and alcohol.

This week’s rioting suggests the pact of silence has disintegrated. History is replete with examples of how other dictatorships succumbed under such circumstances. The election shenanigans in the Ukraine in 2002-2004 inspired the “orange revolution” protests that swept Victor Yuschenko into the presidency in 2005. Ferdinand Marcos’ Philippines dictatorship crumbled after the assassination of his top political rival, Benigno Aquino, in 1983, which spawned “people power” protests leading to the election of Aquino’s wife, Corazon, in 1986.

For the Obama administration, another four-year term for Ahmadinejad cannot bode well for efforts to de-escalate tensions and nudge Iran toward scrapping its nuclear program. But Iranians, moderates as well as conservatives, bristle at any hint of outside interference, particularly from Washington. Obama would be smart to remain quiet publicly about Iran’s internal strife, while doing all he can behind the scenes to encourage the opposition movement.