On Sun, 14 Jun 2009, Michael Smith wrote:
> In any case, it seems clear that this kind of Realpolitik doesn't depend
> on having a "moderate" interlocutor on the other side.
Juan Cole makes exactly that point in this Salon article, that given its interests, the policy of the US and its allies should remain exactly the same no matter who is Iran's president:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/13/iran/
Less was at stake in these elections than many outsiders assumed,
however, since the Iranian presidency is weak and most important policy
is set by Iran's supreme leader, Ali Khamenei (his title is the
giveaway). The election was mostly about style, rather than substance.
Mir-Hossein Moussavi complained that Ahmadinejad's bizarre downplaying
of the Holocaust had made Iran a laughingstock, and that the incumbent
had dictatorial tendencies. But he expressed support for the
Palestinians. He objected to the cost of ramping up Iran's civilian
nuclear energy research program, though he said he was committed to
continuing it at a slower pace. He offered to negotiate with American
President Barack Obama if the latter was found to be acting in good
faith. But most of his differences with Ahmadinejad were on domestic
policy, including his advocacy of more personal liberties, more rights
for women, and a freer media environment, including private television
channels.
The outcome of the election therefore changes little for the Obama
administration. The outstanding issues between Iran and the U.S. mainly
have to do with Iran's support for the Palestinians against Israel and
with Iran's nuclear enrichment program, which Washington fears could
ultimately be put to dual use and eventuate in a nuclear warhead. Those
two outstanding issues would have remained no matter who won the
presidency. Obama is determined to deal with them by undercutting Iran
on the Palestine issue by making strides toward a Palestinian state, by
avoiding military confrontation, and by direct talks over better
safeguards that Iran's nuclear program remains purely civilian in
character. These policies are the most promising ones for achieving
U.S. and NATO goals with regard to Iran, and should be pursued
regardless of who holds the weak and ineffectual office of president in
Tehran.
<end excerpt>
If Ahmedinejad were voted out, it would make it easier to sell this "imperialism with a human face" agenda domestically in the US, esp. the part where the US recognizes the legitimacy of Iran's right to process nuclear fuel for power.
Apropos, an amusing blast from the past:
http://www.iranian.com/Pictory/2006/May/guess.html
Michael