Election November 2010

For the record, I see not a revolution of ideas in the election results, nor a mandate for the Conservatives nor a need for the President to change direction. One might conclude, reasonably, that "fear itself" is the basis of the election result. If the Democrat Party, from today, moves aggressively to assuage "fear itself" it will gain the support of the majority. On the other hand, should the Republicans be successful in continuing to feed "fear itself" to a receptive public they may call success in 2012 a mandate though that authorization would be for what is now undefined policy. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) was quoted today as saying that the Republican objective now is to insure President Obama's defeat in 2012. The objective of their Party over the last two years in Congress was to insure that nothing of substance was done for the American people to the end of success in this past election. Again, their objective will be to negate and block rather than build consensus and compromise. They want a single party oligarchy protective of a plutocracy.

Iranian Elections

Ayatollah Khamenei spoke (C-Span translation) at Tehran University about the Iranian election and the aftermath of demonstrations. He praised the 85% turnout of some 40 million citizens as proof of the Iranian people’s belief in and trust of the Iranian Revolutionary government. He argued that if the Iranian people were not supporters of the existing revolution they would not have voted. The people had shown their trust in the democratic process of the Revolution. This thesis was central to a presentation for national and international impact. The Ayatollah described each of the principal presidential candidates as long time members, in good standing, of the Revolutionary establishment, a point he argued further spoke to the legitimacy and strength of the existing form of government. Demonstrations were counter-revolutionary and should cease, in large measure, because there are existing legal avenues for challenging “specific” aspects of the voting. Demonstrations might also, he warned, have the unintended consequences of violence and death for which political leaders would be held accountable. Khamenei repeatedly warned about the overt and covert counter-revolutionary actions of the evil nations of the United States and England.

Khamenei spoke as a leader concerned about the increasing commitment to and successes of the United States in Iraq, Afghanistan and in cooperation with Pakistan. Iran is certainly concerned about the strength and intentions of Israel and the Sunni kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Khamenei and the ruling council were not about to alter the ruling paradigm at a time when any change might well be considered by its “enemies” as a weakening of the Islamic/Shia control. The results of the election, accordingly, were always predetermined though pretense of the debates, speeches and rhetoric gave hope to the Iranian people and the World of democratic change. Khamenei explicitly gave his blessing to Ahmadinejad’s policies including the nuclear issues.

Each of the candidates were in fact chosen and blessed by Khamenei and his ruling council prior to the elections. An honest election might have created a circumstance supporting our hope to change the rhetoric and alter the stated objectives of Ahmadinejad. I doubt it. I am merely a reader of current events with no particular experience or book learning about the Middle East but it appears to me that the forces at work across the Middle East from Gaza to India are too volatile and premised on ethnic and national phobias for any government to drift away from the existing fortress each occupies. Enlightened policy by the United States, foremost in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, over an extended period of time is the only basis of hope.