# Only Bush could go to Iran **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 14, 2006, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371 "2006-11-14T13:03:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Subway\_Prophet](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecb155/32.png) [@Subway\_Prophet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Subway_Prophet)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/1 "2006-11-14T13:03:40Z")
President Bush has made it a point to denigrate Iran at every occasion. He really seems to enjoy bashing the people. He’s identified the country as one of the three nations in the Axis of Evil. He’s heavily criticized their government. He’s championed all kinds of sanctions against their economy. He’s happily maintained a long-standing rule that the U.S. have no diplomatic ties with Iran. And so on. So what do we have? A money-sucking war in the country next door, with very little support from the neighbors. Iran could certainly make winning there an impossibility. Britain is already making serious gestures towards Iran, because they seem to recognize that we won’t win in Iraq without their help. The U.S. administration, on the other hand, seems to be content to maintain a cold war with someone who appears intent on achieving a military and technological parity with the U.S. If we continue down that path, I’m afraid we’ll end up in a shooting war in Iran, as well. And this could very well be the Bushites’ plan. But I’d rather not - wars are expensive and so forth. Bush would do well to learn from the other president who was notorious for stealing elections. President Nixon’s visit to China generated an enormous amount of good will and released tensions between China and the U.S. Until it happened, the consensus was that it could never happen. After it happened, it almost seemed inevitable. Nixon had to make a lot of political compromises. China was then, as it is today, a totalarian state, a military juggernaut, and a very real threat looming over the horizon. I’m sure Nixon lost a lot of backing from this move. But in the end, it will be remembered largely for what it was - an overture of peace and cultural exchange which turned down the pressure in a cold war. It didn’t lower the Americans down to the Communists; it raised both nations. Bush could do this with Iran. He could swallow his pride, forget some speeches he’s made, and just go and visit. He should visit with President Ahmadinejad, take tours of the cultural centers, acknoweldge and distance himself from President Eisenhower’s involvement in the 1953 overthrow of Iran’s democratically-elected government, and start some seriously enormous trade talks. Let him count his friends when he gets back. I think the reaction would surprise everyone. With the U.S. and Iran shaking hands, and with Israel still in one piece, the U.S. could once again be recognized as a global peacemaker. I think it could work, and it would seriously restore what little faith I had in the man before he became president. Sure, it’s a 180-degree about-face for our foreign policy. As a lame duck president, he doesn’t stand to lose much by going. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/2 "2006-11-14T15:07:15Z")
[QUOTE=Subway Prophet] Bush could do this with Iran. He could swallow his pride, forget some speeches he’s made, and just go and visit. [/QUOTE] [ISOLATE IRAN: Bush & Israel Want Sanctions](http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142006/news/worldnews/isolate_iran_worldnews_uri_dan.htm) > [@](#): > > President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert called yesterday for the worldwide isolation of Iran until it “gives up its nuclear ambitions.” > > "It’s very important for the world to unite to say to the Iranians, ‘If you choose to continue to move forward, you will be isolated,’ " the president said after meeting with Olmert for an hour. At this point, no one can imagine Condoleezza making the [secret trip to Iran](http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB66/) that’d be necessary to start a thaw. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/3 "2006-11-14T15:28:48Z")
What’s in it for Iran? OK, we go to Iran begging them to help us keep the lid on in Iraq. And they’re going to tell us to stuff it. The Iranian government gets nothing from a reproachemnt with the US. ---
**Author:** ![Canadjun](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/76d3ee/32.png) [@Canadjun](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Canadjun)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/4 "2006-11-14T16:46:07Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] What’s in it for Iran? OK, we go to Iran begging them to help us keep the lid on in Iraq. And they’re going to tell us to stuff it. The Iranian government gets nothing from a reproachemnt with the US. [/QUOTE] No, you guys going begging to Iran at this stage would obviously not work. That doesn’t mean you can’t back off on the sanctions and rhetoric so that you don’t **encourage** Iran to oppose any US-backed peace in the region (assuming “US-backed peace” is even possible). ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/5 "2006-11-14T16:49:10Z")
Saddam tried diplomacy and compromise with Bush, and lost his country. I don’t think the Iranians are stupid enough to expect America to behave like an honorable country, which means they won’t make any deals. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/6 "2006-11-14T16:58:33Z")
Very different. Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and represented no real threat and had no ties to terrorism. Iran has, does, and does. So, of course, we attacked Iraq. OK, _you_ make sense out of it! Damned if I can. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/7 "2006-11-14T17:17:34Z")
[QUOTE=elucidator] Very different. Iraq had no nuclear weapons program and represented no real threat and had no ties to terrorism. Iran has, does, and does. So, of course, we attacked Iraq. OK, _you_ make sense out of it! Damned if I can. [/QUOTE] Easy. Iran is more dangerous; Bush is a bully and a sadist, so he went after the easy victim. Bush doesn’t _care_ about the welfare of America or the world, so he doesn’t actually care if Iran gets nukes, or even if they use them. ---
**Author:** ![Giles](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/giles/32/60_2.png) [@Giles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Giles)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 5:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/8 "2006-11-14T17:47:28Z")
I don’t see that Nixon and Bush have much in common apart from being conservative Republican presidents of the US. Nixon (for all his faults) was a very competent politician, and had a good understanding of how the world works. So he could see that both China and the US would benefit from improved relationships, and was prepared to go against the China-haters in his party. I think the Iran-US relationship is no longer at a point where Bush can improve things. It will have to be another president who improves the relationship. But, if Bush really wanted to do a Nixon, he could fix the Cuba-US relationship – or at least improve it significantly, so that when Castro dies, the relationship could be normalised. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/9 "2006-11-14T18:02:42Z")
[QUOTE=Der Trihs] Easy. Iran is more dangerous; Bush is a bully and a sadist, so he went after the easy victim. Bush doesn’t _care_ about the welfare of America or the world, so he doesn’t actually care if Iran gets nukes, or even if they use them. [/QUOTE] Wait, so a brave and ethical president would attack the harder victim? You have one thing right. We attacked Iraq because Iraq was a much easier target. Iraq was isolated interationally with no allies. It had no friends. All of its neighbor countries hated it. It was an odious dictatorship, with no internal support other than fear. It had no ideological support. We had been in a low grade war with Iraq since the first Gulf War and never stopped completely. We had the de facto independent region of Kurdistan to work out of. We could start our invasion from Saudi and Kuwait. Saddam really did use chemical weapons both against Iran and internally, so the notion that he had kept chemical weapons facilities in reserve certainly wasn’t implausible. And the American public was prepared for a war against Saddam’s Iraq, we had walked over his military 10 years ago and it was pretty certain we could do so again without much trouble. But none of those apply to Iran. Despite being a theocratic dictatorship, Iran’s regime has internal ideological support. It isn’t isolated. Its military is much stronger than Iraq’s. Its terrain is much more difficult…mountains and hills rather than plains. It is much larger and has more people. And so on. So anyone with a lick of sense, sociopath or no, would chose to attack Iraq over Iran, assuming you had to attack one or the other. That attacking Iraq was a mistake is easy to see, but attacking Iran instead would have been an even worse mistake. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/10 "2006-11-14T18:24:51Z")
[QUOTE=Lemur866] Wait, so a brave and ethical president would attack the harder victim? [/quote] If the goal is to prevent them from getting nukes, you obviously attack the one closer to getting them, and not the one that’s nowhere near. [QUOTE=Lemur866] Saddam really did use chemical weapons both against Iran and internally, so the notion that he had kept chemical weapons facilities in reserve certainly wasn’t implausible. [/quote] Yes it was. As was pointed out at the time, in the event that he had a few here and there, they would have decayed to uselessness. [QUOTE=Lemur866] So anyone with a lick of sense, sociopath or no, would chose to attack Iraq over Iran, assuming you had to attack one or the other. That attacking Iraq was a mistake is easy to see, but attacking Iran instead would have been an even worse mistake. [/QUOTE] Except if the goal is to prevent the evil Moslems from getting nukes ( a little late, considering Pakistan ), it makes sense to attack the target that is actually close to doing so, hard or not. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2006, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/11 "2006-11-14T20:39:57Z")
There were good reasons for us to go to China. First, it was obviously going to be a major player in the world. Second, it helped drive a further wedge between them and the Soviets. There were good reasons for them to accept the overture. UN membership was very important to them, as was access to the West’s technology. Nixon and Kissinger were both masters of Realpolitik, and Nixon didn’t owe that much to the extreme right of his party. Bush by himself would never do it. I’m sure he fancies himself a great diplomat, but he’d get whupped playing Diplomacy against ten year olds. He’s also a prisoner of his ideology. I can conceive of overtures, but that would mean Bush I has effectively done a coup (not that there’s anything wrong with that.) But what would Iran get out of it? Help us in Iraq? The most likely outcome now is a state that is close to a Shiite theocracy - why would they want to stop that? Slow down their nuclear program? They have enough oil so that trade sanctions are unlikely to be very effective for long. We’d have to give them a lot more than I suspect we’d be willing to, and I doubt we’d get much in return. ---
**Author:** ![Hodge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Hodge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hodge)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/12 "2006-11-15T01:59:11Z")
What’s so infuriating about the current situation is that the Bush admin arrogantly brushed aside an offer of direct talks and concessions from the Khatami gov’t in Iran shortly after the Iraq invasion. Check out this [fascinating interview](http://www.cfr.org/publication/10326/) with former Intelligence officer, Flynt L. Leverett. In early 2003, just after the successful invasion and before the insurgency had started in earnest, the US had a small window where it could have negotiated from a position of power and possibly effected some real, positive changes in the region, but they turned the opportunity down flat. Now that time is long past and the descent of Iraq into chaos along with Hezbollah’s fierce resistance to Israel’s onslaught have greatly tarnished Bush’s and Olmert’s credibility and enhanced Iran’s own power and influence in the region. Iran is benefiting greatly from the current situation and I don’t think that there’s a damn thing anybody can do about it. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/13 "2006-11-15T03:46:38Z")
You know, in the past there have been several periods – long periods, including some after the Islamic conversion – when Persia included Mesopotamia. We might have mostly forgotten that, but I’m sure the Iranians haven’t. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/14 "2006-11-15T03:57:10Z")
We blew our chance for reconciliation with Iran while Khatami was president. You ask me, our posturing is half the reason what-his-name\* won the last election. Iran was in ferment, ready to make a change, ready to move in a new direction, and our government couldn’t let go of a 25 year old grudge. \*No disrespect intended, but I’m damned if I can spell his name. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 1:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/15 "2006-11-15T13:56:55Z")
[QUOTE=Frank] We blew our chance for reconciliation with Iran while Khatami was president. You ask me, our posturing is half the reason what-his-name\* won the last election. Iran was in ferment, ready to make a change, ready to move in a new direction, and our government couldn’t let go of a 25 year old grudge. \*No disrespect intended, but I’m damned if I can spell his name. [/QUOTE] That isn’t even remotely true. The reason Ahmadinejad won the last election is because Iran’s Guardian Council, the real power base within Iran banned thousands of candidates across the country who were reformers. The Ayatollah or Supreme Leader is virtually unnoticed in the world today but he is the true power and kingmaker within Iran. He opposed the reformist Khatami Presidency and he is the reason the reformers lost across the country in Iran, you can’t win an election when you are legally banned by the Council of Guardians from standing for election. The ayatollah personally appoints six of the Council’s members, the other six are appointed by Iran’s judicial branch (a branch whose leaders are also appointed by the ayatollah.) Basically the GC is extremely devoted to the ayatollah who is a religious extremist and is opposed to the sort of reforms that Khatami favored. Ahmadinejad, likewise, is a much more powerful President than Khatami was because he has the support of the ayatollah (he kissed the hand of the ayatollah when he became President, something no other Iranian president has done.) Once the ayatollah decided he was done letting the reformers try and reform the country they were done. The idea that we should have had some sort of support for a government which legally banned thousands of politicians from running for office is ludicrous, I find it almost insulting to even refer to the political process as an “election” in Iran. As for the OP, Iran and China have absolutely nothing in common. Closer relations with China made sense geopolitically because it would serve as a significant check on Soviet power, closer relations with Iran would serve almost no purpose I can imagine. I think people vastly overestimate the power of Iran (which, can try as hard as it wants it will never be our military or technological equal) and I can see virtually no benefit to be gained from closer relations with Iran. I can see some benefit with some sort of dialog with Iran, but only if Iran demonstrates it is actually willing to have a meaningful dialog with the western world, something I have not seen any evidence of whatsoever. The decision of Bush to be unfriendly towards Iran should be one that is applauded by anyone that values ideas like freedom and democracy, as well as anyone who values rational behavior in the central Asia region. We are talking about a country whose current political leader denies the holocaust happened and questions the right of Israel to exist. That is not the type of person we can have meaningful dialog with. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/16 "2006-11-15T15:00:07Z")
I like this analysis by Simon Jenkins. [Why stop the Great Satan when he is driving himself to Hell](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1948057,00.html) > [@](#): > > For axis of evil, read axis of hope. The frantic scrabbling for an exit strategy from Iraq now consuming Washington and London has passed all bounds of irony. Help from Syria and Iran? Surely these were the monsters that George Bush and Tony Blair were going to crush, back in 2003? Surely the purpose of the Iraq adventure was to topple these terrorism-sponsoring, women-suppressing, militia-funding fundamentalists in favour of stability, prosperity and western democracy? Can the exit from Iraq really be through Tehran and Damascus? Was that in the plan? > [@](#): > > As we approach the beginning of the end in Iraq there will be much throat-clearing and breast-beating before reality replaces denial. For the moment, denial still rules. In America last week I was shocked at how unaware even anti-war Americans are (like many Britons) of the depth of the predicament in Iraq. They compare it with Vietnam or the Balkans - but it is not the same. It is total anarchy. All sentences beginning, "What we should now do in Iraq … " are devoid of meaning. We are in no position to do anything. We have no potency; that is the definition of anarchy. > [@](#): > > The Iraqi army, such as it is, cannot be deployed outside its local area and is therefore useless for counter-insurgency. There is no central police force. There is no public administration. The Maliki government barely rules the Green Zone in which it is entombed. American troops guard it as they might an outpost of the French Legion in the Sahara. There is no point in patrolling a landscape one cannot control. It merely alienates the population and turns soldiers into targets. > > To talk of a collapse into civil war if “we leave” Iraq is to completely misread the chaos into which that country has descended under our rule. > [@](#): > > Next month’s Baker/Hamilton inquiry - surely the strangest way an army has ever negotiated its own retreat - will call for a hastening of such “redeployment” away from centres of population to giant bases in the desert. They can stay there to save face as Iraq’s factions and provinces reorder themselves messily in the towns and cities. Units can then slip quietly away to Qatar by the month. > > It would clearly help Bush and Blair were such a redeployment to be covered by some international conference. But the idea that Ba’athist, Sunni Damascus and clerical, Shia Tehran would jointly guarantee the safety of a power-sharing regime in Baghdad is beyond credence. > [@](#): > > Bush and Blair are men in a hurry, and such men lose wars. If there is a game plan in Tehran it will be to play Iraq long. Why stop the Great Satan when he is driving himself to hell in a handcart? If London and Washington really want help in this part of the world they must start from diplomatic ground zero. They will have to stop the holier-than-thou name-calling and the pretence that they hold any cards. They will have to realise that this war has lost them all leverage in the region. They can insult and sanction and threaten. But there is nothing left for them to “do” but leave. They are no longer the subject of that mighty verb, only its painful object. Why indeed. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/17 "2006-11-15T15:06:27Z")
I think some people need to be careful of the old doctrine “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” Just because someone opposes Bush doesn’t mean they are the type of person you necessarily want to get in bed with. ---
**Author:** ![ralph124c](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/8797f3/32.png) [@ralph124c](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ralph124c)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/18 "2006-11-15T15:19:47Z")
One point: Iran is NOT eager to get involved in iraq-the reason is, Iran is a trans-ethnic state (just like Iraq). They have arbas in the south, Kurds in the west, Afghans in the east-all of them eager to escape the suffocating grip of the Persian /mullah domination. If Iraq breaks up, look for outbreaks among the ethnic minorities in Iran. the mullahs are NOT stupid-they do not want any challenge to their rule. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/19 "2006-11-15T15:53:29Z")
> [@Martin Hyde](#): > > The reason Ahmadinejad won the last election is because Iran’s Guardian Council, the real power base within Iran banned thousands of candidates across the country who were reformers. The Ayatollah or Supreme Leader is virtually unnoticed in the world today but he is the true power and kingmaker within Iran. He opposed the reformist Khatami Presidency and he is the reason the reformers lost across the country in Iran, you can’t win an election when you are legally banned by the Council of Guardians from standing for election. The explanation I’ve heard from (pro-reform) Iranian colleagues was somewhat different. Apparently the key to the Ahmedinejad victory was not so much that all candidates except for the six selected by the Guardian Council were banned, but that the moderate-conservative and reformist candidates among those six split the pro-reform vote. And the pro-reform turnout overall was smaller than hoped, due to widespread disillusionment with the effectiveness of the Khatami government in achieving reform. There was even a pro-reform movement to boycott the election. If the hundreds of other candidates had been allowed to compete in the election, ISTM that they would probably have simply split the pro-reform vote still further. Ahmedinejad’s advantage was that he managed to attract a huge chunk of the anti-reform, hard-line conservative vote to himself. (Even so, he certainly didn’t get any landslide; the 2005 presidential election was the first in IRI to go to a runoff.) I didn’t get the impression from my colleagues that any of the reformists among the banned candidates would have been equally successful in consolidating the pro-reform vote. A handy summary of the outcome is provided in [this informative article](http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/journal_of_democracy/v016/16.4nasr.html) on the Iranian conservative backlash that has produced the current hard-line government: > [@](#): > > [A]fter the first round, the main focus of debate quickly shifted to issues involving the socioeconomic grievances of the lower classes and those living in disadvantaged provinces. The impact of privatization and private-sector growth in Iran had largely been absent both from domestic political discourse and from outside observers’ political analyses. But the election made clear that in Iran, as had been the case in Eastern Europe and Latin America, privatization had led to economic disparities, which at the polls translated into support for populist platforms. Thus it was that in 2005 the demand for reform was upstaged by a lower-class revolt at the ballot box. […] > > The hard-line candidates adopted a populist platform directed at the urban poor and those living in disadvantaged regions. More importantly, they relied on the organizational muscle of their supporters and on the regime’s network of security, economic, and religious institutions. During the campaign, however, the hard-liners were no more vocal than the other candidates, and neither was their populist rhetoric a dominant feature in public debates. Indeed, they even did poorly in opinion polls, and were not expected to score big on election day. […] > > The reformists, for their part, promised to pick up where Khatami had left off, promoting political openness, cultural freedom, a vibrant civil society, and an improved situation for women. But the reformist candidates were unable to overcome the intense disillusionment that many in prodemocracy ranks had come to feel, and which had allowed calls for a boycott to fall on ready ears. […] > > The camp of reform had fractured since 1997, and 2005 would see it break up even more. Whereas in 1997 all reformists had rallied around Khatami, 2005 saw a divided proreform field: The more liberal reformists supported Mehralizadeh and Mo’in, while the proreform elements of the establishment sided with Karrubi. […] > > In the event, the reformists and their platform were ill equipped to succeed in a changed political landscape that was no longer dominated by a head-to-head contest between hard-line conservatives and prodemocracy forces. An array of new voices emerged, defining reform in different terms and proposing populist or pragmatic alternatives rather than a direct confrontation with the conservative power structure. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2006, 4:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371/20 "2006-11-15T16:26:16Z")
[QUOTE=Kimstu] The explanation I’ve heard from (pro-reform) Iranian colleagues was somewhat different. Apparently the key to the Ahmedinejad victory was not so much that all candidates except for the six selected by the Guardian Council were banned, but that the moderate-conservative and reformist candidates among those six split the pro-reform vote. And the pro-reform turnout overall was smaller than hoped, due to widespread disillusionment with the effectiveness of the Khatami government in achieving reform. There was even a pro-reform movement to boycott the election. If the hundreds of other candidates had been allowed to compete in the election, ISTM that they would probably have simply split the pro-reform vote still further. Ahmedinejad’s advantage was that he managed to attract a huge chunk of the anti-reform, hard-line conservative vote to himself. (Even so, he certainly didn’t get any landslide; the 2005 presidential election was the first in IRI to go to a runoff.) I didn’t get the impression from my colleagues that any of the reformists among the banned candidates would have been equally successful in consolidating the pro-reform vote. [/quote] This goes beyond just the election of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad’s presidential election came one year after the Guardian Council had more or less stolen the parliamentary election from reformers. They _banned_ the major reformist party which was lead by Khatami’s brother and they banned virtually all of its important leaders from seeking office. In many districts the reformists could not even provide candidates which were viable because of so many of their politicians being banned from elections. Two reformist newspapers were also banned the day before the election. This was a blatant, undemocratic power grab by the Guardian Council and in the environment it created it made it all but certain a conservative was going to win the 2005 presidential election. It’s hard to win election to the Presidency when your faction’s major political party has just recently been banned by the government and your prominent newspapers have been shut down. There’s also strong evidence that the Ayatollah had a personal involvement in election fraud in the Presidential election. The first round of voting favored Akbar Rafsanjani who is a moderate politician (former President) that has varying degrees of loyalty to both conservative and reformist politics. Ahmadinejad came in second followed in third by a true reformer, Mehdi Karroubi. It can be argued that Karroubi split the vote with other reformist candidates, but if that was the case you would not expect the large 60% majority that Ahmadinejad attained in the runoff election. Despite some boycotting of the elections you would still expect those who voted for reformist candidates would have voted for Rafsanjani in an effort to keep the hardliners out of power. There’s also some evidence that despite the fractured voting Mehdi Karroubi was leading the election early on in the first round but the Ayatollah’s son mobilized military forces to get voters to vote for Ahmadinejad, and there’s further evidence this was continued in the runoff election. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/only-bush-could-go-to-iran/380371.md?page=2)