When it comes to understanding last Friday’s presidential
election in Iran, one should not do as many Western media have
done, which is to take it at face value. Many interpretations are
available and we may never know which one is correct. What we do
know for certain is that it was a sham.
Like the Wizard of Oz, the mullahs who control the levers in
Iran set out to create an illusion: an illusion of moderation,
fairness, modernity, and the idea that the votes of the people
counted for something. As in The Wizard of Oz, however,
the mullahs are saying “Don’t pay any attention to that man behind
the curtain.” Ah, but we must, for he and his allies are
manipulating the process and creating these illusions in order to
dull Western — especially American — interest in helping Iran’s
democratic movement and the desire to curb Iran’s efforts to
produce nuclear weapons.
From the beginning, campaign polling, controlled by the
government, gave the lead to former President Ali Akbar Hashemi
Rafsanjani. As wily a politician as has ever walked the planet,
Rafsanjani has consorted with the mullahs before and will again.
Meanwhile, in his campaign he emphasized the need for better
relations with the United States, realizing that most of the 70
percent of Iran’s population under 30 years of age likes
America.
The polls had in second place Mostafa Moin, a “reform” candidate
associated with outgoing President Mohammed Khatami. The democratic
student movement supported Khatami and his allies in 1997 and 2001,
but they proved ineffectual as reformers and the students no longer
support them.
By election day, the Wizard of Oz effect was in full view.
Rafsanjani led, with 21 percent. Former Tehran Mayor Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, a hard-line one-time student radical whose name hardly
figured in the polls, came in second with 19.48 percent. Third was
former speaker of parliament Mahdi Karroubi, with 19.3 percent.
Moin was in fifth place. Because no candidate received 50 percent
of the vote, there will be a runoff between Rafsanjani and
Ahmadinejad.
Karroubi immediately cried “foul.” He said that the hard-liners
had rigged the election and demanded a full investigation or he
would call for street demonstrations. This sets up the good cop-bad
cop situation. Ahmadinejad has no sympathy with reformers, let
alone democrats, and he hates the U.S. Rafsanjani, with his
soft-soap oratory, will seem to be the “moderate” alternative.
Was it rigged? Ahmadinejad announced publicly that he would be
in the runoff hours before the Ministry of the Interior, which runs
elections, had announced the results.
The mullahs’ Guardian Council, which has the last word in all
matters, will probably initiate an “investigation” that will find
that there was nothing amiss, thus positioning Rafasanjani for the
runoff outcome the mullahs wanted all along.
Voter turnout was important, too. The Interior Ministry said it
was 55 percent. This was later amended to 62 percent. When the
Guardian Council weighed in, the total was 72 percent. In reality,
it was probably no more than 50 percent. The Guardian Council
wanted as high a figure as possible to “prove” that the election
was “popular.”
Why these two finalists? The new Iranian president will lead the
country’s delegation in upcoming negotiations with the European
nations and the U.S. over the nuclear issue. The mullahs do not
want to risk having a “reformer” or moderate in that position.
With, say, Rafsanjani as president, and Ahmadinejad a close second,
and thus influential, they can be sure Iran’s government will stick
to the script they prepare. They may, for example, appear to have
it give ground on nuclear development (actually just a
postponement) in exchange for tacit U.S. agreement to stop
supporting the democracy movement in Iran. The purpose would be to
wait out the Bush presidency. This is a pattern they have used
before, and it has worked for them.
Where in this election were the famous international monitors
such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
(OSCE) and former President Jimmy Carter? They weren’t invited.
Nevertheless, the mullahs, for whom a seemingly-legitimate election
is all important, put on a good show: campaigns by several
candidates, a dark horse photo-finish, charges of rigging, an
investigation, a runoff.
There is much at stake. The mullahs and their military allies
(especially the Revolutionary Guard) have, since the 1979
revolution, enriched themselves and enjoyed the fruits of power.
They do not want to lose it. Using ruse and illusion costs almost
nothing as a means of maintaining the status quo. The Wizard of Oz
would have been proud of their performance.
