Blogs and Stories
Hillary's Tricky Iran Game
Reuters
As evidence mounts that Ahmadinejad stole Iran's election, Hillary Clinton has notably avoided condemning the results. The Daily Beast's Leslie H. Gelb on why the Obama administration isn't closing any doors.
Plus, read more insight on Iran's election from other Daily Beast writers.
Odds are that the Iranian clerics and their friends stole the presidential elections. Odds are that Supreme Leader Khamenei and President Ahmadinejad won’t ignore the protests they heard and will bend toward talks with the West—contrary to expert predictions of a vast internal crackdown. And odds are that the Obama administration will keep reaching for the Iranian hand, though right wingers will swear this is selling out democracy.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton did not condemn. She implicitly cast aspersions on the results, but did nothing to close any doors to talks.
Here’s why it’s fair to conclude the elections were fraudulent. The official claim that Ahmadenijad won with two-thirds of the vote is totally contrary to almost all polls showing a close outcome between the president and his chief rival Mir Hossein Mousavi, a former prime minister. In fact, some polls predicted that neither would reach the required 50 percent, and that there’d be a runoff. Also, every Iranian observer said beforehand that the larger the turnout, the more likely Mousavi would do well, if not even win. The voters flocked to the polls, and the polls were kept open long beyond required hours. Finally, the great majority of Iranians are under 30, their turnout was high, and most were reckoned to be most dissatisfied with Iran’s economic decline and international isolation.
If anyone still has any doubt about the fraud, consider this precise announcement 12 hours after the polls closed: Mr. Ahmadinejad received “62.3 percent” of the popular vote. This precision from a highly rural and largely developing country, where many of the votes obviously weren’t even counted. That is, they almost certainly had to be “counted” before they were cast. And like dictators everywhere, they didn’t skimp on their margin of victory. They didn’t offer close results for credibility's sake; they stole big to demonstrate they were still the bosses.
Gazing upon this brazen thievery, many Western experts on Iran now predict a thorough-going crackdown against those who spoke ill of the powers-that-be, the guardians of Islam and of Persian honor. Indeed, the supreme leader warned the losers to accept the outcome and not try to tear the nation apart. Indeed, Mousavi already challenged this by saying that he would “never surrender to this dangerous charade.” Indeed, thousands of the unhappy have already taken to the streets.
A crackdown can’t be dismissed, but I’d bet otherwise. Ayatollah Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are quite cunning. Like practiced dictators, they know they have to prove they are still in charge. And they are not dumb. They must have felt hammered by the brazen and bold critiques they have heard these last weeks from the mouths of their people. Candidates and people openly called them liars and thieves (though not the supreme leader). They are unlikely to ignore this powerful message. They are too shrewd to test whether all the police and all the armed forces will back them if hundreds of thousands of unhappy Iranians pour into the streets.
The Right Dumps Carrie
Jacob Bernstein is a senior reporter at The Daily Beast. Previously, he was a features writer at WWD and W Magazine. He has also written for New York magazine, Paper, and The Huffington Post.
What's Joe's Problem?
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Geithner's Stock Plummeting
Jeff Madrick is a contributor to the New York Review of Books and a former economics columnist for the New York Times. He is editor of Challenge Magazine, visiting professor of humanities at Cooper Union, and senior fellow at the New School's Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. He is the author of Taking America, The End of Affluence (Random House) and The Case for Big Government.
McChrystal's Fuzzy Math
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
Stalled Out All Over the World
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
At Last, An Afghan Plan
Leslie H. Gelb, a former New York Times columnist and senior government official, is author of Power Rules: How Common Sense Can Rescue American Foreign Policy (HarperCollins 2009), a book that shows how to think about and use power in the 21st century. He is president emeritus of the Council on Foreign Relations.
A lot of wishful thinking. Obama has been trying to throw Israel under the bus by making the trade to be material progress with Iran in return for the demand that Israel abandon all settlements. It was clever when there was any prospect whatsoever that the U.S. could dribble out a little progress with Iran by year's end. And as long as the U.S. could depend on Israel not yielding quickly on the settlements.
But the game has changed. Rather the calendar has changed. It is the middle of June -- 5 1/2 months from the mythical end of the year. No one in their right mind can believe that the disputes over this election will even be rationally discussed for 2 or 3 more months leaving almost no time for progress with Iran. In the mean time, pressure is off Israel on the settlement issue because the US will be unable to deliver even the illusion of progress with Iran while Iran (and the world) are occupied with their version of Florida 2000.
It may well be that the ultimate outcome for Iran will be concessions to the opposition. But lawyers, lawmakers and diplomats being what they are, today's election assures that any steps toward progress with Iran are off the table until much later this year. First we argue -- and then we come together. Too late for us to represent that we are holding up our end of Obama's deal to calm the mideast.
And unfortunately, there is a real deadline out there somewhere. Even if we don't know what it is. And that is the moment that Iran effectively becomes a nuclear military power -- the moment they possess enough weapons grade nuclear material to make a bomb. Maybe Christmas. Maybe Easter. Who knows? But that moment will alter the discussion forever. And concessions will then become hard to come by.
In any negotiation the guy that controls the clock controls the outcome. And at least for a while we have lost control of the clock.
Iran has been "a year away from developing nuclear weapons" for over a decade. It's a lie perpetrated by neo-cons as part of a fear-campaign that has managed to survive well beyond any reason.
I think the writer here has some good points, if not a bit optimistic. I say for now we can do nothing but observe. Any statements from the US condemning this fraud will only be seen as trying to meddle in their affairs. We have to let them work things out on their own as a sovereign nation.
Either way, Democracy has reared it's ugly head to the establishment. There's little that can be done now other than accept it without simply stoking the fires of another revolution.
Fair enough. And maybe it won't be next year and maybe it won't matter. And maybe and maybe and maybe. But it appears that most of the civilized world is convinced that Iran is seeking its own nuclear weapons -- whatever that means. And when (or if) it happens it will be the biggest game changer in the last 30 years.
I would agree that there is nothing we can do -- certainly condemning the fraud will serve no useful purpose. We can hope that the forces of freedom will prevail, but that hope has to be tempered with the realization that the "winner" today appears to be willing and able to perpetrate a fraud of truly gargantuan proportions. That doesn't happen without a huge amount of support -- if not in numbers then at least in raw power. Iran's current leader and Hitler both seem to have realized that, in the beginning, raw power can trump numbers. It is naive in the extreme to believe that Democracy has reared its ugly head yet. So far it appears that tyranny has reared its ugly head -- a fraudulent election (if it was indeed a fraud) is not an election at all. And there is little to comfort us that an uprising would result in anything other than tyranny in another set of clothes. The last uprising against the establishment in Iran was not Democratic and did little to improve life in Iran. And whatever the opposition promised in this election it absolutely did not suggest that Iran should or would compromise its nuclear objectives. And even if it is a Democracy, many have made the argument that the government in Gaza is Democratic. And it may be, but it is not solving anybody's problems yet.
The heart of my concerns is that our administration sort of "defined" the nuclear calendar in its premises for future discussions with Iran and Israel. And the outcome of this election will, in the best of worlds, reset the starting clock and eat up at least half of the time we defined as appropriate for resolving the most important issues in the region.
It would be nice to believe that today's winners will see the need to ameliorate the huge injustice they have apparently inflicted on the losers and take some conciliatory steps with the West to reduce economic problems in Iraq. Considering America's experience in 2000, however, it is not reasonable to believe that a fraudulent winner could buy any goodwill whatsoever by adopting some of the loser's political positions. The losers, at least until some considerable acceptance time elapses, are going to be satisfied with nothing less than butts in the seats of power. That will not happen. Anyone who has the power to brazenly steal an election likely has the power to hold out for a very long time. In fact history has few examples of tyrants who have stolen power and given it up at all -- at least peacefully.
The Dems rolled over and sucked hind teat (Bush's nutsack, to be specific) in 2000. The mullahs will waste a few kids, a la Kent State or Tiananmen, and the protesters, most of whom are there to get laid, will go back to school or whatever. When the nukes are a fait accompli, then Iran can loosen up a bit.
Misterdon,
I disagree that the administration has thrown Israel "under the bus". Israel has been standing in the middle of the street for decades. We have given Israel support even when we should not.
There should be NO settlements in the West Bank. Why? Would Israel allow Palestinian settlements in Israel? Aaaaah, no...
By saying nothing about the stolen election, Obama is undermining the opposition and signaling to Ahmadenijad that the US doesn't care about democracy in Iran. The Mullahs now know they have a free hand to begin violent political repression against the opposition. The police beatings and arrests of opposition youth in Tehran will continue because Obama has shown he is too wimpy to even speak up to help the reformers in Iran.
You are correct. Unfortunately, it is difficult to find a position somewhere between the failed neocon position and totally ignoring the atrocities which rogue regimes around the world are undertaking. Other than taking on Israel for its behavior in the middle east and possibly what we are doing in Afpak it is hard to find any other places in the world where the administration's realpolitik foreign policy is actively engaging (and I do not mean by war) issues of freedom and human rights. It appears in Korea, Iran, China, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, Lebanon and a host of other places that we have decided that we have concerns which are more important than human rights. So be it, at least our policy is taking on some clarity.
Politics being what it is, Obama has committed to engaging the people who are actually in power, however odious they may be. There is little doubt in my mind that the administration was wishing, then hoping and finally expecting a regime change in Iran. Certainly the timing of his letter to Iran and especially his Cairo speech would have stood his policy of engagement as "already" moving Iran in our direction. And it certainly appeared that the media coverage was moving for a setup in that direction. Unfortunately, events did not unfold that way.
So now Obama is faced with engaging a character who has become even more odious by blatantly stealing an election in a country which will likely move even farther in the near term from our so-called ideals regarding human rights. However brilliant he may be, he cannot expect to advance a human rights agenda and his agenda to engage Iran on the nuclear proliferation at the same time. So, for now we throw the reformers under the bus.
I hope that we don't have any expectations that they will be any more predisposed to do our bidding "after the revolution" than the scores of other "revolutionaries" we have abandoned over the years.
Obama is a chess player. (A masterful one at that...) Iran is not just another typical dictatorship. The article is a good example of this. Obama has very limited real influence on the ground in Iran. Ahmadenijad will do exactly what he wants to/can get away with regardless of what Obama says.
This has nothing to do with Obama being wimpy.
Blah, blah, blah.........conditions have changed! We've always said to nip terror in the bud you need the hearts and minds of the young......Well??? Here it is! You have an Iran filled with betrayed youth that very much wants to be respected and recognized by the west......End of story......If they continue this revolution and show resolve, we help them........I'm an Obama supporter...and this IS 3 am! .......These kids have unclinched their fists, let's shake there hand IF they ask for help!
We can send in troops, I suppose, which is what Bush wanted all along. Remember the 60's and the anti-globalization protests in the late 90's early 2000s, remember Tiananmen Square - youth protests don't mean shit to Totalitarians, especially when large portions of the population are hostile, apathetic, or distractable.
I don't think Tiananmen and the CCP is perfectly comparable to the stolen election and the Iranian executive branch.
More then 60 percent of the Iranian population is under 30 years old, change is coming regardless. In 20 years the generation in control will be them. They grew up in the digital age with the desire to be westernized. (to some extent)
Plantagenet,
Ever hear the line: "Measure twice, cut once"........rest assured Obama and staff are workin this right now as we are playing keyboard warrior..........He's thinking it through, as he should......
Just hope Leslie Gelb is right and Obama, true to type, doesn't decide to go cowboy and send in troops or more likely slip the leash from Bibi Netanyahu. The Arabs hate Iran, but still.
I hope he decides to do the right thing! That would throw the Shiite in Iraq for a loop! LOL Put Hezbollah and Hamas on notice and Syria on edge. I like it more and more!!!
I enjoy American politics because Obama admitted after 50 years that we overthrew the leader of Iran, and the right-wingers went nuts.
I don't know what else to say besides that. There are two Americas. One is taking place in 2009... the other is broadcasting from 1950 on twitter.
P.S. I hope someone murders Glenn Beck. Grow some balls liberals. The other side loves to make death threats.
Ouch...
The world is ruled by the oil clique.
They fix elections in America and Iran and any country they want.
They use religion, or fear, or hate, or whatever to maintain their power and control.
We are all oil slaves and the oil masters puppet every aspect of modern life.
Only those that can produce their own energy are free from the oil tyranny. And even that is no guarantee that you won't be swept away in one of their oil wars.
If that is true leftygoleft and the world is run by the oil clique, then BHO and the Dem.'s are in bed with them. By buying 70 percent of our oil from the middle east we prop them up and keep them in business. If we drilled for oil and gas here, the middle east would have to cut production to raise prices. They would not have money to fund the unrest they are spreading throughout the world. We on the other hand would keep our money in the USA.
It is certainly true that Obama and the Democrats are hurting the US and helping its enemies by refusing to allow access to the easily available oil offshore and in Alaska. It remains a mystery whether this is out of ideological blindness or whether they are all on the payroll of the oil cartels.
Not true. Everything you typed was a lie.
According to T. Boone Pickens, if the USA was to drill in Alaska, drill in the lower 48, drill off shore to exploit every possible oil reserve have, it would amount to between one and one half a million barrels a day...The world currently uses eighty-eight million barrels a day...Since all the oil produced here goes on the international market, a fact the "drill now" advocates never mention, even if the US goes into full tilt production, folks here won't get much of a lower oil price, that's just how it is...As far as oil production goes in the 21st century, "keeping our money in the USA" is a fantasy.
Good point blinky!
Worth remembering, too, is the fact that the whole current economic situation had $4.00 per gallon of gas as the catalyst for the fall of the dominoes.
Thank you for the good article, Mr. Gelb.
history as "street protests" repeats itself: "While British intelligence backed away from the debacle, the CIA continued its covert operations in Iran. Working with pro-Shah forces and, most importantly, the Iranian military, the CIA cajoled, threatened, and bribed its way into influence and helped to organize another coup attempt against Mossadeq. On August 19, 1953, the military, backed by street protests organized and financed by the CIA, overthrew Mossadeq. The Shah quickly returned to take power and, as thanks for the American help, signed over 40 percent of Iran's oil fields to U.S. companies."
With the help of CIA propagandists like Gelb in the Belly of the Beast
Yes, of course it's all a CIA plot. Iranians could not possibly want free and fair elections, a decent economy, freedom from the repressive governance of the crazy mullahs and corrupt Revolutionary Guard, peace with the west and their Arab neighbors.
This is a very complex situation. I am so glad that Obama is in charge and not some trigger happy wanna-be cowboy. And to have the benefit of Hillary's skill and intellect working for us give me some bit of comfort. Thoughtful decision making is a hallmark of the Obama administration and it is required in any dealings with Iran.
Excellent as usual and I agree completely. Yesterday there was an article in Haaretz newspaper, an Israeli liberal paper, that actually argued the opposite: A-jad will emerge stronger and bolder as a result of this election. I responded to the article using your logic--given the severe fissures in Iranian society exposed by this election and the degree and intensity of the protests, A-jad will be weakened, not strengthened. Already there is international questioning of his legitimacy--Joe Biden stated this morning that he doubts elections in Iran were free and fair. This is a President who presents himself to the world as illegitimate and a thug; a significant portion of his population and of Iranian leadership, no matter how many he puts in prison or under house arrest, are against him. It will be far easier now to isolate and pressure him. As you so well say, if he wants to survive without constant sabotage from within and without his government, he will have no alternative other than to engage with the West.
The USA should stay out of the elections in other countries until it fixes it's own election process. Bush Gore was a pretty good example of an illegal election. That would be a start if it wants to look at dodgy elections. The election og judges in the USA would be another area. The special interest groups in elections would be yet one more area. From where I sit the election process in the USA stinks pretty bad.
Yes, this was a good example of a corrupt court trying to rig an election. The
Florida Supreme Court blatantly tried to give the state to Gore, with a poorly disguised rigging of the recount by restricting it to Democratic counties.
The FL justices should be in jail.
Whose brother was the Governor of that state? Hmm... things that make you go... Hmm...
I love reading Leslie Gelb. I remember reading him in the Times Magazine in the 70s and 80s during the Iran Hostage Crisis, when I was in junior high. I wish his brand of lucid, statesmanlike, big-picture journalism was still popular at the mag...but love seeing him here. Great, levelheaded overview here today. Thanks!
Here, Here! If journalism isn't blatantly promoting ideology, it is so even-handed it ends up saying nothing at all. Gelb's style frames enough information and pragmatic opinion to allow the reader to feel like they are making a real assessment, whether its an agreeable one or not.
Too bad he distorts the facts and jumps to conclusions. He sure is a fine writer.
A long time coming but a change will come. The US must sit tight and let it come naturally without our interference.
"and we are not saved..."
Leslie Gelb apparently knows jack diddly about the economic situation in Iran. Net exports are way up over a few years ago, and climbing, while imports are only modestly increasing. How about this one? Iran's "Real GDP Gross Fixed Capital Formation" is up over 60% since 2000.
Yet, Leslie Gelb, a supposed expert (he is a supremely confident prig when he talks, and surely that is impressive!) says "In particular, they'll have to do something on the economy[.]"
Other figures to embarass Mr. Gelb? Sure! The GDP of Iran is growing nearly monotonically.
How about this one, which should put to bed even the Mr. Gelb's most ardent admirers last bit of skepticism. Iran's published unemployment figures, which are quite delayed, report a high of 11% in June, 2006, and a most recent published rate of 10%.
I'm sure Mr. Gelb got paid a lot more to write his nonsense than I did to correct it.
You Yanks are such sore losers!
After a network of American "advisors" failed to fix the referendum of Hugo Chavez, the loathsome oligarchs who were their pupils/employees wanted to go to phase 3 and riot in the streets claiming the elections were fixed.
Their dispirited handlers told them "You can't fart against thunder. 66% is just too much of a margin. We can't dispute it."
Then along came Obama to say "Yes, we can."
Change indeed.
Then along came
Redspruce:
Your reprise of the overthrow of Mossadegh was not inappropriate but why go all historical on us?
There have been enough leaks from the Orange Revolution, the Venezuelan coup, and current Iranian operations themselves.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.